III

THEORY AND METHODS FOR EVALUATION OF ELASTIC CRITICAL BUCKLING LOAD

3.1 Introduction
The codes of practice tackle the stability of steel structures by determining the effective buckling length of the structural members. Therefore, the problem of stability is very important. Underestimation of this effect may lead to disastrous results or unjustified factors of safety. Consequently, the Steel Construction Institute (SCI) suggested the previous approach for estimating the effective length factor presented BS 449: part 2: (1969) should be modified by recommending three methods for evaluating this factor. The first, termed extended simple design, also described in the previous chapter, starts by evaluating the relative stiffness coefficients of the surrounding columns and beams of the column under consideration. Then, using these stiffnesses, the effective length factor can be estimated from charts based on the study carried out by Wood (1974a). The second method, termed the amplified sway method, states that the bending moments due to horizontal loading should be amplified by a factor, as discussed in chapter 2. The third, a more accurate method, is to determine the elastic critical load factor f from cr

Theory and Methods for Evaluation of Elastic Critical Buckling Load

73

which the effective length ratios of individual members may be determined. The critical load factor f is defined as the ratio by which each of the factored loads would have to cr be proportionally increased to cause elastic instability. If this parameter is known, the axial load in every compression member Pi at instability is known as well. Then, the value of i =

Pi ( 2 EI i L2 ) can be computed where I i and Li are the second i

moment of area and length of a column under consideration respectively. Consequently, the effective length ratio is evaluated as Leff Li = 1 i

i , see SCI (1988).

Several attempts were suggested in order to overcome some shortcomings of the design chart procedure. Several methods, among them Hashemi (1993), Lokkas (1996), MacLeod and Zalka (1996) and Lokkas and Croll (1998), were suggested for the modification of the design procedure recommended by the British code of practice, but this may lead to a design procedure which is not accepted by a practising engineer. As well as the British code of practice, the American code of practice also suffers from the difficulty of evaluating the effective buckling length accurately enough. This is indicated in the studies by Duan and Chen (1988, 1989), Chen and Lui (1991), Kishi et al. (1997), White and Clarke (1997) and Essa (1997) who proposed modifications to the alignment charts recommended by the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). Virtually all methods of analysis that have been developed to improve the limit strength of structures are based upon a geometrically linear model of the structural response. In these methods, the stability concept, addressed in the following section, is used. The available methods of calculating the elastic critical load factor are subsequently described in chronological order in the section on historical background.

Theory and Methods for Evaluation of Elastic Critical Buckling Load

74

3.2 Stability concept

The question of the stability of various forms of equilibrium of a compressed bar can be investigated by using the same theory as used in investigating the stability of equilibrium configurations of rigid-body systems (Timoshenko and Gere, 1963). Consider three cases of equilibrium of the ball shown in Figure 3.1. It can be concluded that the ball on the concave spherical surface (a) is in a state of stable equilibrium, while the ball on the horizontal plane (b) is in indifferent or neutral equilibrium. The ball on the convex spherical surface (c) is said to be in unstable equilibrium.

(a) Stable equilibrium

(b) Neutral equilibrium

(c) Unstable equilibrium

Figure 3.1. States of equilibrium

The compressed bar shown in Figure 3.2 can be similarly considered. In the state of stable equilibrium, if the column is given any small displacement by some external influence, which is then removed, it will return back to the undeflected shape. Here, the value of the applied load P is smaller than the value of the critical load Pcr. By definition, the state of neutral equilibrium is the one at which the limit of elastic stability is reached. In this state, if the column is given any small displacement by some external influence, which is then removed, it will maintain that deflected shape. Otherwise, the column is in a the state of unstable equilibrium.

Theory and Methods for Evaluation of Elastic Critical Buckling Load

75

P < Pcr

P = Pcr

P > Pcr

P (a) Stable equilibrium

P (b) Neutral equilibrium

P (c) Unstable equilibrium

Figure 3.2. Different cases of equilibrium for compressed bar

3.3 The concept of buckling in idealised framework models

The majority of building structures have been designed by the elastic theory by simply choosing allowable stress values for the materials and by imposing limiting ratios such as serviceability requirements. All structures deflect under loading, but in general, the effect of this upon the overall geometry can be ignored. In the case of high-rise building, the lateral deflections may be such as to add a significant additional moment. This is know as P effect. Therefore, the governing equilibrium equations of a structure must be written with respect to the deformed geometry; the analysis is referred to as secondorder analysis. On the other hand, when the lateral deflections can be ignored and the equilibrium equations are written with respect to the undeformed geometry, the analysis is referred to the first order analysis. The load deflection behaviours of a structure analysed by first and second order elastic methods are illustrated in Figure 3.3. This is discussed by many authors among them Galambos (1968), Allen and Bulson (1980) and Chen et al. (1996). From this figure, it can be understood that the critical buckling load, needed for the evaluation of the effective length of members, may be determined by the

Theory and Methods for Evaluation of Elastic Critical Buckling Load

76

use of either the eigenvalue analysis or the second order elastic analysis. Unlike a first order analysis in which solutions can be obtained in a rather simple and direct manner, a second order analysis often entails an iterative type procedure to obtain solutions. Thus, the use of eigenvalue analysis to obtain the critical buckling load is the simplest way.

Load (Pi)
C (b) First order elastic analysis (a) Elastic critical load Eigenvalue Analysis (c) Second order elastic analysis (d) First order rigid-plastic analysis Mechanism load (e) First order elastic-plastic analysis B

Pcr

(f) Second order elastic-plastic analysis (g) Second-order plastic zone

Displacement () Figure 3.3. Load displacement curve (Chen et al., 1996)

In order to study the buckling response on several possible idealised models, restricted or not against sidesway, let us consider the two structures in Figures 3.4 and 3.5. The framework, shown in Figure 3.4, is prevented from sidesway whereas in the framework given in Figure 3.5 there is a possibility of sidesway. Both frameworks have initially geometrically perfect members, which are subjected to a set of point loads Pi at

Theory and Methods for Evaluation of Elastic Critical Buckling Load

77

their joints. If the members remain elastic as loads are increased, there will be no flexural deformation until a particular level of loading is achieved. This load is known as elastic critical load, corresponding to which a bifurcation of equilibrium is possible (see Hashemi, 1993, Mahfouz, 1993 and Lokkas, 1996).

Pi

Pi

Pi

Figure 3.4. Deformed shape of braced frame

Pi

Pi

Pi

Figure 3.5. Deformed shape of unbraced frame

Theory and Methods for Evaluation of Elastic Critical Buckling Load

78

3.4 Historical background

In this section the historical background of the stability problem and methods of stability analysis is presented. Timoshenko and Gere (1963) gave the following description of early research in this important field of structural mechanics. The first experiments with buckling of centrally compressed prismatic bars were made by Musschenbroek (1729). As a result of his tests, he concluded that the buckling load was inversely proportional to the square of the length of the column, a result which was obtained by Euler 30 years later from mathematical analysis. Euler (1759) investigated the elastic stability of a centrally loaded isolated strut. He assumed that a column which is originally straight (perfect column), remains straight from the onset of loading and in order to produce a small deflection of the column, the load should reach a critical value, below this critical value the column would suffer no deflection. Although the more recent developments have been based on Eulers formula, it was widely criticised when it was established. At first engineers did not accept the results of Musschenbroeks experiments and Eulers theory. Almost 90 years later, Lamarle (1846) was the first to give a satisfactory explanation of the discrepancy between theoretical and experimental results. He showed that Eulers theory is in agreement with experiments provided the fundamental assumptions of the theory regarding perfect elasticity of the material and ideal conditions at the ends were fulfilled. He clarified the fact that when an ideal strut bends, the most stressed fibres in the strut may immediately pass the elastic limit of the material. This condition determined the value of the slenderness ratio, below

Theory and Methods for Evaluation of Elastic Critical Buckling Load

79

which Eulers formula is inapplicable, and up to this value of slenderness ratio the strut fails, is due to direct compression rather than to instability. From that time, the elastic stability problems of braced and unbraced structural frameworks have been addressed by many researchers and a great wealth of literature exists in this field. A considerable amount of the literature is directed towards stability of plane frames within the plane of the frame. The elastic critical load can be evaluated for any symmetrical single-bay multi-storey rigid frame using the relaxation method with no-shear stability function as proposed by Smith and Merchant (1956). The analysis was extended to take account of axial deformation. Bowles and Merchant (1956) applied a more accurate method based on the same technique to the stability analysis of a five-storey two-bay steel frame. The results obtained were in good agreement with those previously obtained using a simpler version of the method. Subsequently, Bowles and Merchant (1958) proposed the conversion of a multi-storey multi-bay rigid plane frame, to an equivalent single bay frame so that it could be analysed by the method proposed earlier. Timoshenko and Gere (1963) treated the buckling behaviour and the buckling load of single-bay single-storey hinged base rectangular frame as well as closed frames. Waters (1964a, 1964b) presented, in two parts, direct approximate methods, involving no trial and error, for the elastic critical load parameter of plane rigid-jointed rectangular and triangulated frameworks. Two approaches were considered: equal rotations and the substitute frame, according to Bolton (1955), Bowles and Merchant (1956) and McMinn (1961). Goldberg (1968) was the first one to tackle the problem of lateral buckling load of braced frames. He did not consider the stability of the frame as a whole but he obtained the elastic critical load equations for a typical intermediate column in a multi-storey frame. He considered the effect of girder stiffness at the top and bottom of that column as well as the average

Theory and Methods for Evaluation of Elastic Critical Buckling Load

80

bracing stiffness of that storey. In the same year, Salem (1968) studied the problem of lateral buckling of rectangular multi-storey frames. These frames are loaded at intermediate floor levels and the column sections vary according to an arithmetic series. An investigation on the sway critical load factor of symmetrical and unsymmetrical frames, loaded with unequal and equal axial loads was carried out by Salem (1973), considering the effect of axial deformation variation in columns. Wood (1974a, 1974b, 1974c) adapted an approximate manual technique to be applied in conjunction with effective length and critical load factor charts. The method, which accounts for column continuity, is similar to moment distribution, and called stiffness distribution, involving no-shear stability functions. The elastic critical load factor for a particular storey can be estimated. The same procedure is followed for the rest of the stories and the lowest critical load is the elastic critical load of the original frame. This technique was recommended in BS 5950: Part 1 to be used in the design procedure. Horne (1975) recommended that a horizontal point load equal to 1% of the vertical load at that storey should be added at each storey level, and a linear elastic stability analysis be performed. Bolton (1976) proposed a single horizontal unit point load to be applied at the top of the frame, and the deflection at each storey to be calculated using an elastic analysis. Then, this deflection was multiplied by the total vertical applied load at that storey level, which was finally divided by the height of the storey, to yield the storey critical load factor. The lowest of all load factors corresponds to the critical load factor of the frame. Al-Sarraf (1979) adopted a computing method for predicting the lowest elastic critical load factor of sway and non-sway frames applying modified slope deflection equations based on no-shear stability functions. Anderson (1980) derived formulae, from slopedeflection equations which were used for yielding the storey sways based on sub-frames, assuming the point of contraflexure at the mid span of the elements. Then, sway angles

Theory and Methods for Evaluation of Elastic Critical Buckling Load

81

were computed from the storey sway, and the expression for the critical load factor by Horne (1975) was used. A direct calculation of elastic critical loads based upon the structural system concept involving no stability functions was also presented by Awadalla (1983). The computer aspect of this method was discussed and it was shown that the efficiency of the numerical solution can be improved by considering each column as a substructure. The results from this method consistently exceed those produced by the solution obtained by using the stability functions. Carr (1985) developed a computer program for the stability problem. The program also calculates the critical load factor of individual struts of varying cross-section, by defining a node at each change of cross-section. The effective length of each element is also computed while the actual critical load of frame is estimated. An elastic stability analysis was carried out by Simitses and Vlahinos (1986) for single-bay multi-storey frames with support of some rotational stiffness. The computer code implementing the analysis was applied to a two-storey single-bay in a parametric study, to investigate the effect of: (a) increasing number of stories, (b) proportional load, (c) the length and stiffness of beam variation, (d) the support rotational stiffness, and (e) the variation of the column stiffness of the second floor. Goto and Chen (1987) proposed a second-order elastic analysis that can be applied to any shape of structural frame. It takes into account the effect of axial deformation of a structural element. Since the stiffness matrices used were non-linear, iteration was necessary to arrive at the correct solution. Williams and Sharp (1990) used a substitute frame technique to obtain the critical load of multi-storey rigid jointed sway frames. Duan and Chen (1988) started their study by proposing a simple modification of the alignment charts in order to take into account the effect of the boundary conditions at the far ends of columns above and below the column being investigated in braced

Theory and Methods for Evaluation of Elastic Critical Buckling Load

82

frames. As reported by these authors, these far end conditions have a significant effect on the K-factor of the column under consideration. As an extension to their research on braced frames, Duan and Chen (1989) and Chen and Lui (1991) suggested another modification to the alignment charts to include the effect of far-end conditions of columns in unbraced frames. Essa (1997) derived expressions for the elastic effective length factors for columns in unbraced multi-storey frames. The model takes into account the effects of boundary conditions at the far ends of the columns above and below the column under consideration. He concluded that using the alignment charts to estimate the effective length factor for columns may be either overly conservative, or even unconservative, depending on the boundary conditions and the relative stiffness ratio of columns. Hashemi (1993) proposed a design methodology for beam-column. The methodology is based upon the following steps. First, an elastic critical load analysis is performed on an idealised model, this takes into account the stiffness interaction with the surrounding frame. Second, a total equivalent imperfection parameter is defined which accounts for the effects of both adopted geometric tolerances and all the loading based imperfections. Third, the non-linear elastic response is used to define the loads at which plastic failure is initiated. Lokkas (1996) extended the work done by Hashemi to circumstances where more than one mode contributed to the nonlinear elastic behaviour and consequently elastic-plastic failure. In 1998, the author continued the study by experimental work to investigate the simultaneous action between the sway and non-sway modes of rigid jointed frames. The experiments show the importance of taking care of the sway and non-sway critical modes exhibiting simultaneous or nearly simultaneous critical loads.

Theory and Methods for Evaluation of Elastic Critical Buckling Load

83

3.5 Methods for evaluation of elastic critical load

Many methods can be used to determine the elastic critical load of structural frameworks, and these can be summarised in the following sections.

3.5.1 Differential equation method

The basic equations for analysis of beam-columns can be derived by considering the beam in Figure 3.6. The beam is subjected to an axial load P. The expression for curvature can be obtained from the following second order differential equation (3.1).
2 y x2

EI

= M X .

(3.1)

The quantity EI represents the flexural rigidity of the beam in the plane of bending, that is, in the X-Y plane, which is assumed to be a plane of symmetry. The general solution of equation (3.1) is
y = A sin ( x ) + B cos( x ) + C x + D

(3.2)

where =

P EI

y P x
Figure 3.6. Compressed bar

Theory and Methods for Evaluation of Elastic Critical Buckling Load

84

The constants A, B, C, D as well as the elastic critical load Pcr can be evaluated from applying the end boundary conditions of the member. Similarly, the elastic critical load can be obtained using the fourth order differential equation
4 y x 4 2 y x2

EI

+P

= 0.

(3.3)

The use of either the second order differential equation (3.1) or the fourth order differential equation (3.3) is not a simple task when dealing with the problem of elastic stability of either two or three-dimensional structural frameworks. That is due to the large number of boundary and compatibility conditions inherent in structural frameworks.

3.5.2 Energy method

The energy method can also be used to obtain the elastic critical load of a structural system assuming a small lateral deflection of a system such as that shown in Figure 3.7.

P P Figure 3.7. Structural system

Theory and Methods for Evaluation of Elastic Critical Buckling Load

85

This deflection leads to an increase in the strain energy, known as U, of the system. At the same time, the applied load will move through a small distance L and does work equal to T. The system becomes stable in its undeflected form if

U > T
and unstable if

(3.4)

U < T
where U = 0.5 (L)2, T = 0.5 PL 2 and denotes the spring constant.

(3.5)

The critical load Pcr is obtained from equating the strain energy of the structural system due to a virtual lateral deflection with the work done by the loading pattern on that system. This can be expressed by

U =T.

(3.6)

The theoretical basis of the energy approach is described by Timoshenko and Gere (1963). At loads lower than the elastic critical load, the gain of strain energy in the elements is less than the potential energy of the loads. A condition of instability is defined, as the stage when the change of the above two energies is zero, that is, the stiffness of the structure is zero. Then the structure will not resist any random disturbance. Appeltauer and Barta (1964) applied an approximate energy method to obtain direct formulae for the elastic critical load depending on all the parameters of the problem. The point of contraflexure was assumed to be at the centre of all elements of the frame, so that an approximation to the deflected shape at neutral equilibrium could be obtained. It has been observed from the previous discussion that it is too difficult to use this method when dealing with the problem of elastic stability of a structural framework. The reason for this difficulty is as the number of framework elements

Theory and Methods for Evaluation of Elastic Critical Buckling Load

86

increases, the complications in formulae of the strain energy and work done increase too.

3.5.3 Modified slope deflection method

It has been stated by Galambos (1968) that the deformation effects in the equilibrium equations of any structural framework have been included in the first order elastic analysis (slope deflection method) to obtain the modified slope deflection method for the second order elastic analysis. The modified slope method is based on two assumptions, the first is a relatively small axial force in the beams whilst the second is nearly identical forces in the columns. Accordingly, the geometrical changes due to axial shortening can be neglected. This method can be summarised as follows:

constructing the bending moments at each member end including the stability functions (see Galambos, 1968),

constructing the joint and shear equilibrium conditions from which the equilibrium equations are obtained, and

eliminating the unknowns from the equilibrium equations and obtaining the determinantal form of the critical load pattern and finally solving the determinantal form by a trial and error method. In order to explain the difficulty of using this method, Mahfouz (1993) studied the

framework shown in Figure 3.8 using two methods of analysis. One of them is the modified slope deflection method where the framework is subjected to the loading pattern given in Figure 3.8. It was also assumed that the distorted configuration of the framework is anti-symmetric as shown in Figure 3.8.

Theory and Methods for Evaluation of Elastic Critical Buckling Load

87

P MBC MCB C

P
B

MBA

MCD

A MAB RA

HA

D MDC RD

HD

Figure 3.8. Single-bay single-storey framework: loading pattern and deflected shape

In this example, ten preliminary equations must be formulated. These equations are for MAB, MBA, MCD, MDC, MBC, MBC, RA, RD, HA and HD. These equations are then substituted into the three basic equilibrium equations to obtain their new form. It can be concluded that as the number of bays and stories increases, the number of preliminary equations increases too. This technique therefore cannot be used when dealing with more highly indeterminate frameworks such as multi-bay or multi-storey frameworks. In addition to, the technique mainly depends on the trial and error method which makes it difficult to link with optimization techniques.

3.5.4 Direct method

This method is based on two main steps, see Salem (1968). The first step is the ready prepared operations of rotations and the sway of axially compressed members which are based on the decomposition of the general state of sway into the states of no-shear sway and pure-shear sway. The second step is the pre-study of the possible buckling modes of the given framework. Then the operations of sway and rotations for every member of this framework are builtup separately corresponding to its distorted configuration. Since

Theory and Methods for Evaluation of Elastic Critical Buckling Load

88

at the critical load, there are no external moments or forces at the framework joints to keep it in its distorted configuration, the sum of moments at each joint of that framework should be equal to zero. This procedure will give many equations which are equal to the number of the framework joints. In rectangular frameworks other than symmetrical ones, another set of equations has to be obtained by equating the relative displacements of the framework columns. Finally, by eliminating the unknowns from these equations, a determinantal equation is obtained for the elastic critical load. This determinantal equation has a number of solutions from which the least is called the first buckling load. The solution of such determinantal form can only be done by the method of trial-and-error using a computer program. Figure 3.9 shows the basic simple operations of rotation and sway of an axially compressed isolated member for both cases of fixed and pin-ended bases. The principle of supperposition of any number of states of sway and rotation of an isolated axially compressed member is applicable so long as the axial compression is kept constant through all these states. Furthermore, the principle of resolution of any state of an isolated axially compressed member into any number of states of sway or rotation is also applied under the same condition. The no-shear stability functions m, n and O were introduced by Merchant (1955) to deal with the case of a member with fixed ends while Salem (1968) treated the hinged end case by introducing the stability function n for the no-shear sway for such members. Salem also decomposed the general state of sway into two components, which are the states of pure-shear sway and no-shear sway. These two states of sway are shown in Figure 3.10 for members with fixed and pin-ended bases. The non-dimensional stability functions S, C, S, m, n, O, and n (Appendix A) indicated in Figures 3.9 and 3.10 are all functions of the ratio of the axial load to

Theory and Methods for Evaluation of Elastic Critical Buckling Load

89

2 EI L2 . These stability functions are tabulated by Livesley and Chandler (1956).

A FORTRAN program is developed for the stability analysis of steel frame structures. The program is based on the direct method. The program evaluates the value of i of each column of the investigated framework at the critical buckling load, then the effective length factor of each column are computed. Figure 3.11 illustrates the developed program.

Theory and Methods for Evaluation of Elastic Critical Buckling Load

M = SK P P H M = SK

90

a) Rotation

H = S (1 + C )

K L

H = S

K L

M = CSK P

P M= L P P H H n L

M=

m 2

HL = S (1 + C ) K

HL

= SK

b) Pure-shear sway

H M= P m 2 HL

H P

M= nK

M= nK P

c) No-shear sway

L = m 2

L = 1 n

M = -OK P P

Figure 3.9. Basic simple operation of rotation and sway

Theory and Methods for Evaluation of Elastic Critical Buckling Load

91

' " M1 = M1 + M1

' M 1 = m

HL 2

" M 1 = nK 1

P H

'

P H

"

1
L = ' L H P M2 + " = L H P
' M 2 = m

1
mHL " + L m 2

' L

2 S (1 + C ) K

= M '2 + M " 2

HL 2

" M 2 = OK

M1 = M1 + M1 P H

'

"

' M1 =

HL n

" M1 =

2 K
n

'

"

1
L ' L " = L ' L HL " S nK

1
" L

n 1

H P

H P P

' " M1 = M1 + M1

' M 1 = m

HL 2 H

M 1 = nK1 -OK2
"

P H

'

"

2
L = ' L + " = L ' L = mHL 2 S (1 + C )K +

2
" L = m 2 (1+2 )

1
H P
' " M2 = M2 + M2

1
H P
' M 2 = m

HL 2

M 2 = nK2 -OK1
"

State of sway

State of pure-shear sway

State of no-shear sway

Figure 3.10. Decomposition of the general state of sway

Theory and Methods for Evaluation of Elastic Critical Buckling Load

92

Start

Input: Structural geometry, etc

Choose the starting value of = 0.0001

Calculate stability functions for each member

Substitute the stability functions into the determinantal form

Calculate the determinant value Increase Does the determinant change its sign?

No

Yes Stop

Figure 3.11. Flowchart for computer program based on the direct method

3.5.5 Finite element method

The finite element method can be applied to the evaluation of the elastic critical load for structural frameworks (see Allen and Bulson, 1980). The finite element method is based upon the use of local functions (i.e. these defined over sub-regions or finite elements of the structural system). The other methods, such as the modified slope-deflection

Theory and Methods for Evaluation of Elastic Critical Buckling Load

93

method, are usually thought of as being based upon overall functions (i.e. those defined over the entire region of the structural system). In the finite element method, each member of the structure is subdivided into a series of fairly short elements. The deformation over each element may be defined by a simple polynomial function. The coefficients of these polynomial functions may be determined if the displacements of each node are known. As a result, the individual displacements of the entire structure may be calculated and consequently the behaviour of the structure may be fully described in terms of the displacements of the nodes. For equilibrium the increment in total potential energy must be stationary with respect to these nodal displacements. This leads to a set of linear homogeneous equations, where the dependent variables of these equations are the nodal displacements , i.e. the following eigenvalue problem:

f [K CG ] { } = [K CE ] { }

(3.7)

where f is the load factor, K CE is the global elastic stiffness matrix corresponding to the connecting joints (nodes), K CG is the geometric stiffness matrix. The first eigenvalue, i.e. the smallest value of f at which the structure becomes unstable is termed the critical load factor f . cr This classical eigenvalue approach discussed by many authors among them Prezemieniecki (1968), Allen and Bulson (1980), Graves Smith (1983), Brebbia and Ferrante (1986), Coates and Kong, (1988), Galambos (1988) and Bathe (1996). The eigenvalues and eigenvectors can be obtained by applying several techniques, among them vector iteration methods i.e inverse iteration, forward iteration and Rayleigh quotient iteration, transformation methods such as Jacobi method and generalised Jacobi

Theory and Methods for Evaluation of Elastic Critical Buckling Load

94

method, and the subspace iteration method. Subroutines, written in FORTRAN 77, are available in Bathe (1996).

3.6 Verification of the developed code for stability analysis

The developed program based on the direct method has been developed for the elastic critical buckling analysis of 2-D frameworks, Section 3.5.4. In order to verify the developed program, the established theoretical results presented by Timoshenko and Gere (1963), Chajes (1974) and Renton (1967) are used. Here, various framework models have been analysed. The first example used is the fixed base framework ABCD shown in Figure 3.12a. The framework is prevented from sidesway. It is subjected to two equal vertical loads P at corners B and C. When the vertical loads P reach their critical value Pcr , the distorted configuration of the framework will be as shown in Figure 3.12b. The operations of rotations are built up for every member of the framework separately as given in Figure 3.12c. Since at the critical load, there are no external moments set-up at corners B and C to keep the framework in its distorted configuration, thus: M B = M BA + M BC = 0 ,
4K b

M C = M CB + M CD = 0 ,
K2 K1 4K b

K1

K1

1 S 2

2K b

K1

K1

S1 +

2K b

2 = 0 , and

(3.8)

2 = 0 .

(3.9)

Theory and Methods for Evaluation of Elastic Critical Buckling Load

95

Eliminating the unknowns ( 1 and 2 ) from (3.8) and (3.9), the elastic critical load

equation becomes:

P Ib B Ib Kb = L K1= I1 L K2= C

P Ib Ib Kb = L I2 L I1 K1= I1 L K2= I2 L

I1

I2 L

L a) Loading pattern
4 K b 1 -2 K b 2 2 K b 1 -4 K b 2 -S2K22

S1 K1 1

C1S1K11

b) Distorted configuration

c) Operation of rotation

Figure 3.12. Single storey single-bay fixed base framework prevented from sway

K1

K1

K1


S2

2K b

K2

4K b

det

K1

K1

S1 +


4K b

2K b

 

= 0.

(3.10)

I2

Rigid bracing

- C2S2K22

Theory and Methods for Evaluation of Elastic Critical Buckling Load

96

Following the same previous procedure, the elastic critical load equation (3.11) of a single-bay single-storey fixed base framework permitted to sway (Figures 3.13), is obtained:


where the third equation is obtained by equating the sidesways at joints B and C. In this equation, the unknowns are 1 , 2 and HL K1 . For a single-bay single-storey hinged base framework permitted to sway (Figures 3.14), the elastic critical load equation is
 # # 

In order to verify the developed program, the previous described framework models have been analysed and the results obtained are compared with established theoretical results are given in Table 3.1.

"

"

n1
"

n2

n1

n2 K 2

" S1

S "2

1
! !

K1

"

K1
# "

K1 1

K1

n2
"

det
 

n" 2

2K b
!

K2

4K b

K1
"

"

K1

n1 1

" n1 +
# ! "

4K b

2K b

=0.

m1


m2

m2 K1 + 2 S1 (1 + C1 ) 2 S 2 (1 + C 2 ) K 2

m1

K1


K1

K1


det

n2

2K b

K2

4K b

K1

K1

2 m2

n1 +
 

4K b

2K b

m1

= 0 (3.11)

(3.12)

Theory and Methods for Evaluation of Elastic Critical Buckling Load

97

P Kb

4 K b 1 2 K b 2 n1 K 1 1 + m1 2 HL

2 K b 1 4 K b 2 n2 K 2 2 m2 HL 2 -O2K22 m2 HL 2

1
K2

K1

L -O1K11 m1 + HL 2

H L

(a) Loading pattern and distorted configuration

(b) Operation of rotation

Figure 3.13. Single-storey single-bay fixed base framework permitted to sway

4 K b 1 2 K b 2 n1 K1 1 1 + HL n1
"

2 K b 1 4 K b 2 n 2 K 2 2 1 HL n2
"

Kb K2

K1

H L

(a) Loading pattern and distorted configuration

(b) Operation of rotation

Figure 3.14.Single-storey single-bay hinged base framework permitted to sway

Theory and Methods for Evaluation of Elastic Critical Buckling Load

98

Table 3.1. Comparison of the theoretical and developed code in plane buckling loads. Model
P P

Theoretical Results Chajes (1974) and Renton (1967)

Obtained results

I I I L

Pcr = 25.2

EI L2

=
L

Pcr

2 EI
L2

= 2.55329

= 2.554

Chajes (1974) and Renton (1967)

Pcr = 7.34
I
L

EI L2

Pcr

2 EI
L2

= 0.7437

= 0.7475

L P P

Timoshenko and Gere (1963)

I I I L

Pcr = 1.82

EI L2

Pcr

2 EI
L2

= 0.1844

= 0.1843

L P P

Timoshenko and Gere (1963)

I b= 0 I I L

Pcr =

2 EI
4L2 = 0.25

=
L

Pcr

= 0.2499

2 EI
L2

Theory and Methods for Evaluation of Elastic Critical Buckling Load

99

3.7 Concluding remarks

In this chapter, the stability concept of idealised framework model has been presented. The methods of evaluating the elastic critical load as well as literature on the stability analysis are also reviewed. Finally, verification of the developed program for the stability analysis of frameworks has been carried out. In Section 3.5 it has been concluded that the methods of analysis based on trial and error are difficult to use in the design optimization process. Consequently, the eigenvalue approach is more suitable for the design optimization process.