© All Rights Reserved

Просмотров: 376

© All Rights Reserved

- Buckling of Bars, Plates and Shells (Robert m. Jones)
- Static and Dynamic Buckling of Thin-Walled Plate Structures
- Buckling of Laminated Composite Plates and Shell Panels - Leissa a.W
- Fundamentals of Structural Stability
- Damage and Failure of Composite Materials
- Finite Element Modelling Techniques in MSC NASTRAN and LS DYNA
- Handbook of Thin Plate Buckling and Postbuckling
- Buckling
- Mechanics of Laminated Composite Plates and Shells
- Design of Steel Beams to AISC- LRFD
- Energy Principles and Variational Methods in Applied Mechanics-Reddy
- Riks Method
- Bukling Lab Report
- Syllabus AP Research
- Stress Analysis of Fiber Reinforced Composite Materials by Hyer
- Composites Design Manual 3 Ed
- 82-77.pdf
- Vaslov_Thin-Walled Elastic Beams
- Finite Element Analysis of Composite Laminates 0792311256
- Mechanics of Composite Materials RM JONES

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 629

Experimental Methods in

Buckling of Thin-Walled

Structures

Basic Concepts, Columns, Beams

and Plates Volume 1

Buckling Experiments: Experimental Methods in Buckling of Thin-Walled Structures: Basic Concepts, Columns, Beams and

Plates Volume 1. J. Singer, J. Arbocz and T. Weller Copyright 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Buckling Experiments:

Experimental Methods in

Buckling of Thin-Walled

Structures

Basic Concepts, Columns, Beams

and Plates Volume 1

J. Singer

Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Israel

J. Arbocz

Technical University Delft, The Netherlands

T. Weller

Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Israel

1

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Copyright 1998 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. All rights reserved.

Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Published simultaneously in Canada.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form

or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise, except as

permitted under Sections 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior

written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy

fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750-8400,

fax (978) 750-4744. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions

Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158-0012, (212) 850-6011,

fax (212) 850-6008, E-Mail: PERMREQ@WILEY.COM.

This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter

covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services.

If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person

should be sought.

Singer, J.

Buckling experiments: experimental methods in buckling of thin

-walled structures/J. Singer, J. Arbocz, T. Weller.

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

Contents: v. 1. Basic concepts, columns, beams, and plates.

ISBN 0-471-95661-9 (v. 1 : cloth)

1. Buckling (Mechanics) Experiments. I. Arbocz, Johann.

II. Weller, T. III. Title.

TA410.S57 1997

624.10 76 dc21

96-52326

Printed in the United States of America.

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Contents

Preface

xv

Additional Topics

xi

Introduction

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

References

11

15

2.1

Physical Concepts

Their Meaning

2.1.1

2.1.2

2.1.3

2.1.4

2.1.5

2.1.6

2.1.7

2.1.8

2.1.9

2.1.10

2.1.11

Instability of Columns

Instability of Plates

Instability of Columns with Compound Cross-Sections

Effect of Modal Coupling

Buckling of Frames

Lateral Buckling of Beams

Instability due to Patch Loading

Buckling of Beam-Columns

Buckling of Rings and Arches

Buckling of Shallow Arches

Buckling of Circular Cylindrical Shells

a. Axial Compression

b. Combined External Pressure and Axial Compression

c. Combined Torsion and Axial Compression

d. Combined Bending and Axial Compression

15

16

18

21

25

28

32

36

39

41

45

50

53

57

59

63

vi

Contents

2.1.12 Buckling of Shells of Revolution

a. Externally Pressurized Shallow Spherical Caps

b. Toroidal Shell Segments under External Pressure

p D pe

c. Toroidal Segments under Axial Tension

d. Domed (torispherical) End-Closures under Internal

Pressure

2.1.13 Inuence of Nonlinear Effects

a. Axially Compressed Cylindrical Shells

b. Bending of Cylinders Ovalization of the Cross-Section

c. Plastic Buckling

2.2

2.2.1

2.2.2

2.2.3

Approximate Solutions of Bifurcation Problems

a. The Rayleigh Ritz Method

b. Galerkins Method

Computational Tools for Bifurcation Problems

a. The BOSOR-4 Branched Complex Shell of

Revolution Code

b. Finite Element Formulation of Bifurcation Problems

72

77

78

80

81

84

88

94

95

101

102

106

110

111

121

References

124

131

3.1

Introduction

131

134

3.2.1

3.2.2

3.2.3

3.2.4

Initial Postbuckling Behavior of Plates

Initial Postbuckling Behavior of Shells

Experimental Verication

136

139

143

148

154

3.3.1

3.3.2

3.3.3

154

156

160

161

166

167

167

170

175

3.2

3.3

3.3.4

3.3.5

Plastic Postbuckling Behavior of Columns

Postbuckling Behavior of Plates

a. Perfect Plates

b. Imperfect Plates

Postbuckling Behavior of Circular Cylindrical Shells

a. Perfect Shells

b. Imperfect Shells

Concluding Remarks

References

66

69

Axial Compression

4.1

177

a Column Under

181

181

4.2

ans

Von Karm

Experiments

182

4.3

185

Contents

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

Demonstration Experiments

187

4.4.1

4.4.2

187

189

Mechanical Models

Southwells Method

194

4.5.1

4.5.2

194

195

ans

Columns

Columns and Frames

197

4.6.1

4.6.2

4.6.3

4.6.4

197

198

203

206

Lundquist Plot

Donnells Applications of the Southwell Plot

Applications to Frames and Lateral Buckling of Beams

Southwells Method as a Nondestructive Test Method

References

Modeling

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.8

vii

207

213

217

217

Dimensional Analysis

218

5.2.1

5.2.2

218

219

The Buckingham Pi Theorem

Similarity

220

5.3.1

5.3.2

220

221

Model Laws

223

5.4.1

5.4.2

223

226

Prescribed Loads

Displacements and Strains

228

Buckling Experiments

229

5.6.1

5.6.2

5.6.3

5.6.4

229

230

232

234

Choice of Materials for Buckling Experiments

Elasto-Plastic Buckling

Goodier and Thomsons Experiments on Shear Panels

237

5.7.1

5.7.2

5.7.3

5.7.4

5.7.5

238

238

241

251

254

Free Vibrations

Impact of a Rigid Body on a Structure

Scale Model Testing for Impact Loading

Plates Subjected to Impulsive Normal Loading

Response of Structures to Blast Loading

259

5.8.1

5.8.2

5.8.3

259

260

5.8.4

5.8.5

Scaling Rules for Laminated Beams and Plates

Scaling for Strength and Large Deections of

Composites

Scaling of Composite Plates

Scaling of Composite Cylindrical Shells

260

268

270

viii

Contents

5.9

272

5.9.1

5.9.2

5.9.3

272

273

5.9.4

5.9.5

Model Analysis in Vibration Studies

Buckling Experiments on Models of a Composite Ship

Hull Structure

Design of Thames Barrier Gates

Photoelastic Models

275

279

281

5.10 Analogies

282

References

283

289

6.1

289

6.1.1

6.1.2

6.1.3

6.1.4

6.1.5

6.2

6.4

6.5

6.6

289

294

297

299

299

299

299

300

302

303

303

304

Crippling Strength

309

6.2.1

6.2.2

309

6.2.3

6.2.4

6.2.5

6.3

Experiments

Column Testing

Test Procedures

a. Preparation of Specimens

b. Initial Dimensions

c. Aligning the Column Specimen

d. Instrumentation

e. Testing

f. Presentation of Test Data

g. Evaluation of Test Results

Columns in Offshore Structures

End-Fitting Effects in Column Tests

Crippling Failure

Gerards Method for Calculation of Crippling

Stresses

Crippling Strength Tests

Crinkly Collapse

Thin-Walled Cold-Formed and Welded Columns

310

311

314

315

320

6.3.1

6.3.2

6.3.3

320

320

326

Torsional Buckling

Torsional-Flexural Buckling Tests

Distortional Buckling

328

6.4.1

6.4.2

6.4.3

6.4.4

328

329

330

333

Prandtls Lateral Buckling Experiments

Other Early Lateral Buckling Tests

Recent Lateral Buckling Investigations

344

6.5.1

6.5.2

344

345

Interactive Buckling Experiments

Beam-Columns

356

6.6.1

6.6.2

356

357

Recent Experiments on Tubular Beam-Columns

Contents

6.7

Buckling of Frameworks

367

6.7.1

6.7.2

6.7.3

6.7.4

6.7.5

367

369

371

377

392

Frame instability

Tests on Model Frames

Behavior of Connections

Seismic Loads on Multi-Story Frames

Space Structures

References

397

409

7.1

Background

409

Shallow Arches

410

7.2.1

410

420

422

427

434

7.2

7.2.2

7.2.3

7.3

7.4

ix

a. Circular Arch

b. Sinusoidal Arch

Arches Under Uniform Pressure Loading

Additional Empirical Investigations

434

7.3.1

7.3.2

434

439

High Rise Arches

440

7.4.1

7.4.2

440

443

Theoretical Background

Experimental Studies

References

450

Plate Buckling

453

8.1

453

8.1.1

8.1.2

8.1.3

8.1.4

8.1.5

453

455

459

464

465

8.2

Historical Background

Effective Width

Postbuckling Behavior and Secondary Buckling

Inuence of Geometric Imperfections

Inuence of Residual Stresses

470

8.2.1

8.2.2

470

Needle and Roller Bearings and Knife Edges for

Simple Supports

8.2.3

The ETH Zurich and US Navy DTMB Plate Buckling Tests

8.2.4

The Cambridge University Finger Supports

8.2.5

Other Examples of Simple and Clamped Supports

8.2.6

Loading Systems

8.2.7

Large Test Rigs

8.2.8

Special Loading Systems for Annular Plates

8.2.9

Deection Measurement

8.2.10 Controlled (Deliberate) Initial Deections

8.3

473

479

484

491

498

503

505

508

512

in Plates

516

8.3.1

8.3.2

516

520

Southwells Method in Plates

Contents

8.3.3

8.3.4

8.3.5

8.4

8.5

8.6

8.7

More Recent Applications of Southwell Plots and

Recommendations

Summary of Direct Methods for Determination of Buckling

Loads in Plates

528

531

533

538

8.4.1

8.4.2

8.4.3

8.4.4

8.4.5

538

542

546

552

558

Experiments on Plates Subjected to Shear Picture Frames

Strength Tests on Plate Girders Under Shear

Technion Repeated Buckling Tests on Shear Panels

Aerospace Industrial Test Setups

Web Crippling

561

8.5.1

8.5.2

561

564

Web Crippling Tests

Biaxial Loading

570

8.6.1

8.6.2

570

570

Biaxial In-Plane Compression Tests

577

8.7.1

8.7.2

8.7.3

577

582

588

Noteworthy Details in Some Modern Plate Tests

Imperial College London High Stiffness Test Machine

References

591

603

611

Abbreviated Table of

Contents - Vol. 2

Preface

9.1

9.2

9.3

9.4

9.5

9.6

9.7

9.8

9.9

9.10

9.11

9.12

10

Introduction

Buckling and Postbuckling Behaviour of Axially

Compressed Cylindrical Shells

Model Fabrication for Isotropic Shells

Test Setups for Cylindrical Shells Under Axial Compression

Recording of Buckling and Postbuckling Behaviour

Southwells Method for Shells

Cylindrical

Shells Under External Pressure, Bending or Torsion

Combined Loading

Conical Shells

Spherical Shells

Toroidal Shells, Torispherical Shells, Buckling Under

Internal Pressure

Shells Subjected to Transverse Shear Loads

Initial Imperfections

10.1

10.2

10.3

10.4

10.5

10.6

10.7

10.8

Introduction

Early Incomplete Imperfection Surveys

Early Complete Imperfection Surveys

The Awakening of Imperfection Measurement Awareness

Complete Imperfection Surveys on Large or Full Scale

Cylindrical Shells

Imperfection Surveys on Large Shells of Revolution

Recent Laboratory Scale Imperfection Measurement

Systems

Evaluation of Imperfection Data

xii

10.9

10.10

10.11

10.12

10.13

Imperfection Data Banks

Probabilistic Design Methods

Residual Stresses

Imperfection Measurements and Data Banks in Columns

and Plates

10.14 Concluding Remarks

11

11.1

11.2

11.3

11.4

12

Stiffened Plates

12.1

12.2

12.3

12.4

13

13.4

13.5

13.6

13.7

Model Fabrication for Stiffened Shells

Experiments on Stiffened Cylindrical Shells Subject to

Axial Compression

Experiments on Stiffened Cylindrical Shells Under

External Pressure, Bending and Torsion

Stiffened Conical and Spherical Shells

Experiments on Stiffened Curved Panels

Special Stiffened Shells

Composite Structures

14.1

14.2

14.3

14.4

15

Buckling and Postbuckling Strength of Stiffened Plates

Experiments

on Stiffened Plates Subjected to Axial Compression

Sandwich Plates

Stiffened Shells

13.1

13.2

13.3

14

Boundary Conditions in Plate Buckling

Boundary

Conditions in Buckling of Circular Cylindrical Shells

Concluding Remarks

Background

Flat Panels

Wing Box Structures

Curved Panels and Shells

15.1

15.2

15.3

Vibration Correlation Techniques (VCT)

Static Nondestructive Methods

16

16.1

16.2

16.3

16.4

16.5

17

17.1

17.2

17.3

17.4

18

Impact Induced Buckling Experiments

Propagating Buckles

19.1

19.2

19.3

19.4

20

Experiments on Plates with Holes and Cutouts

Experiments on Shells with Holes and Cutouts

Stability and Strength of Damaged or Dented Shells

18.1

18.2

18.3

19

Plastic Buckling Experiments

Combined Loading Tests in Plastic Buckling

Southwells Method in the Plastic Range

Some General Remarks on Plastic Buckling

Introduction

High Temperature Testing

Thermal Buckling

Creep Buckling

20.1

20.2

20.3

20.4

20.5

20.6

20.7

Introduction

Strain

Displacement Sensors

Optical Methods

Data Acqusition Systems

Additional Sensing Devices

Summary

Subject Index (for Vol. 1 and Vol. 2)

xiii

Preface

The motivation to write this book was the realization that in the vast literature

on buckling of thin-walled structures, and in particular in the many textbooks

that have appeared during the last few decades, the experiments have usually been

relegated to the background and to the secondary task of verication of theory. The

authors felt therefore, that a book written from the viewpoint of the experimenter,

emphasizing the strong interdependence of experiment and theory, giving a detailed

and critical review of the many important buckling experiments carried out all over

the world, in short a handbook assessing the state-of-the-art was direly needed.

The book does not provide cookbook recipes, but rather presents selected

typical experiments, which are often described in great detail, with some comments

focusing on questions raised during the tests, the methods employed and the actual

test atmosphere. The choice of adopting or rejecting a certain technique is then

left to the judgment of the reader. In some cases minute details of an experiment

were presented, since we felt that the accumulated experience would be useful to

the less experienced experimenter.

The wise experimenter should approach his tests with a fairly sound theoretical

background. We felt therefore that a certain amount of theory is essential also in

this book. Hence a brief review of buckling and postbuckling theory and numerical

analysis is presented in Chapters 2 and 3, and additional brief introductions to

specic topics precede other chapters. The aim of these reviews is to remind

the reader of the theoretical basis, with emphasis on the buckling phenomena and

behavior, and of the computational tools available, and also to provide the essential

information for simple calculations.

Most of the fundamental theoretical ideas presented in Chapters 2, 3 and 5 are

based on many earlier texts referred to at the end of each chapter. As appropriate

to a book devoted to experimental methods, the theoretical derivations are rather

concise, but are up-to-date and include some novel approaches.

In a state-of-the-art handbook one cannot expect all readers to follow the text in

an orderly fashion, more probably they will often try to obtain specic information

for their problem by perusal of just the specic chapter of interest. We have also

tried to accommodate these readers, though they will nd it helpful to refer back

to other chapters, as indicated in the chapter of their main interest. As the book

xvi

Preface

is primarily concerned with test setups and procedures, there is a slight overlap

between the chapters that are ordered according to the type of structural element

tested. For example, some of the test rigs in Chapter 8 have also been employed

for stiffened plates, primarily covered by Chapter 12. Or some of them have been

built for metal and composite plates, mainly referred to in Chapter 14. Similarly,

some of the test rigs and procedures of Chapter 9 cover stiffened or composite

shells as well, pertaining to Chapters 13 and 14, respectively. We have, however,

made an effort to avoid actual duplications, and instead have referred the reader

where appropriate to the discussion in the relevant chapter.

One of the guide lines (or Leitmotivs) throughout the book has been to

emphasize the potential interaction between the disciplines. For instance, the civil

engineering tests and aerospace experiments have been intentionally intermingled,

to point out the similarity in problems and phenomena.

On initial compilation of the book, the authors considered the advisability of

discussing some of the older experiments, in view of the rapid development of

instrumentation and data acquisition and reduction system, that makes the earlier

equipment obsolete. However, as the work progressed it became clear that the

classic experiments of Fairbairn, von Karman, Prandtl and some other outstanding

investigators of the rst half of the twentieth century, certainly deserve serious

discussion on account of the questions they asked which have proved sustainable

and are still fully applicable today. Furthermore, the very extensive stiffened shell

experiments of the sixties and seventies, primarily motivated by the golden age

of space launcher development, outshine most more recent tests. They therefore

justify detailed consideration, as they are still the main source of experience (or

data bank) to which a young experimenter should turn to.

Though fairly extensive, the lists of references (well over 2000) are by no means

all inclusive. Most of the signicant experiments have been quoted, but certainly

not all. For example, due to limited accessibility, the references from the former

Eastern Block are rather sparse. However, in their choice of references the authors

have endeavored to emphasize how there important research activities transcend

national boundaries and specic disciplines. They expose buckling experimentalists

to the vistas of benets to be gained from the experience accumulated throughout

the many laboratories all over the world, as well as clarifying the disadvantages

of restricting themselves only to their immediate eld of application.

Due to the special nature of the book, the authors requested information from

many colleagues at universities, research institutes and industry all over the world,

to amplify the data available in the literature. Gratitude is expressed to the hundreds

of colleagues who kindly provided the valuable information, photographs and

sketches on their experimental investigations, that assisted in the accurate, complete

and up-to-date presentation of their work. Obviously all this information is appropriately acknowledged throughout the book. In some sections, it was felt tting to

quote verbatim from some papers, reports and correspondence, and this is shown

in the text by bracketing with double quotation marks.

The senior author (J. Singer) would like to express his appreciation to the late

Professor Charles (Chuck) D. Babcock of the California Institute of Technology,

Preface

xvii

with whom he shared the initial stages of conception of the idea of the book in

the early eighties.

The senior author thanks in particular, Professors P.C. Birkemoe, (University

of Toronto), S.R. Bodner (Technion), C.R. Calladine (Cambridge University),

G.A.O. Davies (Imperial College London), D. Durban (Technion), G.D. Galletly

(University of Liverpool), S. Kyriakides (University of Texas), A. Libai

(RWTH

Aachen), K.A. Stevens (Imperial College London), who were so kind to read

portions of the manuscript and whose comments contributed to the relevant

discussions.

The authors would also like to thank Mrs. B. Hirsch of Technion, Mrs. A. van

Lienden-Datema of TU Delft, Ms. S. Bryant of Caltech and Ms. Kirsten

Maclellan of UCLA for their devoted typing of the manuscript; Mrs. R.

Pavlik and Mrs. D. Rosen of Technion, Mrs. P.E.C. Zwagemaker of TU Delft

and Mrs. B. Wood of Caltech for preparation of drawings, and the librarians

Mrs. S. Stern, Ms. A. Szmuk and Ms. S. Greenberg of Technion, Mrs. J. Anderson

and Mrs. P. Gladson of Caltech, and Mr. W. Spee of TU Delft for their kind

assistance. Thanks also to Mr. A. Grunwald, chief technician of the Technion

Aerospace Structures Laboratory for his many-faceted assistance.

The authors would also like to extend their thanks to the Lena and Ben Fohrman

Aerospace Structures Research Fund, the Jordan and Irene Tark Aerospace Structures Research Fund and the Caltech Sherman Fairchild Distinguished Scholars

Fund for their generous support.

Thanks are also due to the editors and staff of John Wiley & Sons for their

continuous cooperation.

Last but not least, a word of praise to our wives Shoshana Singer, Margot Arbocz

and Ruth Weller. It is no exaggeration to say that without their encouragement and

patient understanding we could not have completed this book.

Josef Singer

Johaum Arbocz

Tanchum Weller

1

Introduction

1.1

Mechanics

Stress analysis, structural analysis, or structural mechanics is the engineering discipline, the purpose of which is the determination and improvement of the strength

and stiffness of structures and machines. There are two approaches towards this

goal: theoretical mechanics, focusing in recent years increasingly on numerical

mechanics, and experimental mechanics, with a mushrooming capacity of data

acquisition and reduction. The two approaches are intrinsically complementary,

though this is sometimes forgotten. In 1950 Hetenyi [1.1] presents the close relation

between theory and experiment as: Experimental stress analysis strives to achieve

these aims (of determination and improvement of strength) by experimental means.

In doing so it does not remain, however, a mere counterpart of theoretical methods

of stress analysis but encompasses those, utilizing all the conclusions reached by

theoretical considerations, and goes far beyond them in maintaining direct contact

with the true physical characteristics of the problems under considerations.

A decade or so later Drucker [1.2], [1.3] pointed out, however, that all too

often, experimental work in applied mechanics is thought of only as a check on

existing theory or as a convenient substitute for analysis. This is a valid but a rather

inferior function of experiment. The greater and essential contribution is to guide

the development of theory by providing the fundamental basis for an understanding

of the real world. He then concluded that a researcher who remained in any

eld would have to participate in both theory and experiment in order to remain

productive.

Drucker concluded his 1962 General Lecture [1.2] with a warning that there is a

strong steady drift of far too large a fraction of the best students to theory only, and

that . . . Unless appreciable numbers of the most qualied students aim at combined

experimental and theoretical research, the storehouse of physical information will

be depleted by the tremendous emphasis on analysis and theory, and the theorist

will be reduced to playing useless games. Experiment is essential, it is vital, and it

is creative. Over the years, experiment alone provides the basis for the renement

and extension of existing theory and the development of new theory.

Buckling Experiments: Experimental Methods in Buckling of Thin-Walled Structures: Basic Concepts, Columns, Beams and

Plates Volume 1. J. Singer, J. Arbocz and T. Weller Copyright 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Introduction

useless games was presented by Koiter, in his 1985 Prandtl Lecture [1.4], where

he discussed the physical signicance of instability due to non-conservative, purely

conguration-dependent, external loads. Koiter reminds the reader that . . . In the past

decades much attention has been paid to stability problems of elastic structures under

the action of non-conservative purely conguration-dependent loads, e.g. so-called

follower forces whose directions follow deections of the structure . . .. In evaluating

the physical signicance or rather insignicance of such follower forces, Koiter

quotes remarks by Herrmann in the latters 1967 review article [1.5]: It is a peculiar

feature of stability problems of elastic systems subjected to (non-conservative)

follower forces that their analysis arose not out of a desire or need to consider a

system which presented itself in engineering practice or in the research laboratory,

but rather because the ctitiously applied follower forces acting on a given system

were arbitrarily prescribed to depend in a certain manner on the deformation. The

motivation of much if not most of the work mentioned in this survey appears to

have been sheer curiosity in determining the sometimes unexpected behavior of an

imagined system, rather than an explanation of observed phenomena.

Koiter then emphasizes that: The italicized emphasis of ctitiously applied

follower forces and imagined system is the present writers. Engineers are

indeed rightly concerned about the complete lack of a physical justication of the

concept of follower forces in the analysis of stability problems by many authors.

Not a single experimental verication of this concept is to be found in the extensive literature. The invalid example by Willems [1.6] was soon exposed [1.7], and

one wonders at the optimism expressed by some authors, e.g. [1.8], that Becks

result (for follower forces) can probably be experimentally veried. Koiter then

continues that: The domain of the theory of elastic stability is conventionally

restricted to the stability of equilibrium of elastic structures under the action of

static, purely conguration-dependent external loads and concludes that: Since

no physical example of non-conservative, follower type of purely congurationdependent external loads is available, we are entitled to restrict our attention to the

stability of elastic equilibrium under the action of static conservative loads. One

may reect, that if emphasis would have been placed on accompanying experimental research, the large volume of rather academic studies might have perhaps

been directed into more fruitful avenues.

In his 1967 Murrey Lecture [1.3], Drucker struck a more optimistic note than in

1962, and pointed out that experimental work was beginning again to take a more

important place in solid and structural mechanics research. Unfortunately this trend

was reversed again in the last decade, and Druckers 1962 warning [1.2], which

was quoted earlier, is today once more very appropriate.

Drucker then emphasized again the essentially complementary nature of experiment and theory, stating: Theory awaits experiment and experiment awaits theory in

a wide variety of elds. Often the two must go hand in hand if any signicant progress

is to be made. Then he emphasizes the basic similarity between a good experiment

and a good theory and states that: The most important thought process that goes

into the planning of an experiment is exactly the same as in the development of a

theory. Success in either requires identication of the essential variables and parameters along with an appropriate limitation of the objective of theory or experiment.

. . . The choice of environment for static or dynamic problems of elastic response,

of ow, or of fracture in all but the best-known examples, involves all the elements

of thought which enter into the development of a theory. For example, questions

like how does the response of a part under examination affect the environment or

boundary conditions? require both precise theory and careful experiments.

Hence theoretical and experimental mechanics have to progress hand in hand.

And as the rapid advances in computational methods and tools have enormously

broadened the horizons of theory, so have the triumphs of microelectronics and

ever more efcient computers brought about a virtual revolution in instrumentation,

introducing so-called intelligent instruments, which have multiplied our measurement capabilities and accuracies (see for example [1.9] or [1.10]). However, as in

theory so in experiment, it is the basic thought process that precedes the actual

study, which guides and harnesses these capabilities.

1.2

Structural stability research in the 19th century was primarily experimental, or more

precisely, empirical. Near the turn of the century theoretical studies took the lead

and continued to do so in the 20th century, unfortunately in many cases without

correlation with experiments. Koiter painted this state of affairs in the Opening

Lecture of the 1974 IUTAM Symposium on Buckling of Structures [1.11]: To put

it mildly, buckling theory and experiments have not always co-existed in harmony.

One should remember that though judiciously chosen mathematical models may

predict the expected physical behavior, it is up to careful experiments to verify this

predicted behavior and validate the calculations. Furthermore, the experiments may

bring out elements of behavior of real structures, which have not been considered

in our, by necessity, simplied models. This second role of experimentation is

often overlooked.

The pattern of research in structural stability for many years has been one of

extensive theoretical studies combined at the most with corroborating experiments.

As pointed out by Chilver [1.12], this has been very useful in the study of essentially neutral equilibrium problems of elastic stability. But in cases of extreme

instability, theory has only been a guide to practical behavior, and much of our

present useful design knowledge is based on careful experiments. The important

problems of stability, and in particular, postbuckling behavior, are not always

amenable to complete analysis, and accurate analyses may be rather difcult and

the computations very cumbersome. For example, Zandonini, in a 1983 review of

the stability of steel compression members [1.13], states that since the problem

of determining the ultimate strength of a column (in the presence of geometrical

imperfections and residual stresses) can only be solved analytically in a very limited

number of cases, the experimental approach and inelastic second order numerical

analysis have become fundamental tools. Note that if this is the state-of-the-art

Introduction

in the case of columns, the importance of experimental studies for other more

complex structures becomes evident.

And indeed, more prominence has been given in recent years to experimental

studies in buckling research and their interaction with theory, as is apparent, for

example, in reviews of the state-of-the-art of shell stability (like [1.14] [1.18]).

The trend in structural stability has been towards more awareness of the potential

of experimental studies and a beginning of more cooperation between theoretical

and experimental research. An interesting example of this awakening awareness

is the acknowledgement by two eminent theoreticians, Budiansky and Hutchinson,

in their 1979 survey of buckling [1.19], that with respect to practical design optimization problems dominated by buckling behavior theory lags experiment. They

pointed out that a remarkable series of tests conducted in the mid-forties at NACA

Langley ([1.20] and [1.21]) provided an experimental optimization, or minimum

weight designs, for stiffened at panels. In these tests over 150 2024-ST aluminum

alloy zee- and hat-stiffened panels, having systematically varied congurations,

were tested for ultimate compressive strength m Figure 1.1 (from [1.21]) shows

50

z-stiffened panels

40

m, ksi

Hat-stiffened panels

30

20

ts

tw

10

ts

.2

.4

Pi

L/ C

.6

, ksi

Figure 1.1 Experimental optimization, or minimum weight designs, for stiffened at panels.

Ultimate compressive strength tests of over 150 2024-ST aluminum alloy zeeand hat-stiffened panels, carried out at NACA Langley in the mid-forties, yielded

envelope curves for the two types of stiffeners (from [1.21])

of

p

minimum weight designs for the two types of stiffeners, where Pi L/ C is the

appropriate structural index, with Pi the load-per-unit-width of panel, L the panel

length and C an end-xity coefcient. The most striking feature of these 50-yearold experimental results is that they show (at least for equal sheet and stiffener

thicknesses) a superior structural efciency of zee- over hat- stiffeners. These

experimental results automatically incorporate the effects of certain representative

initial imperfections, not to mention plasticity, discrete rivet attachments, nite

corner radii and they stand as a challenge to theoreticians to conrm or refute

them, and deduce analogous results for other congurations and materials.

However, it is important to remember that, just as it is unwise to regard experiments as only a check on existing theory, it is as imprudent to be too practical

and base ones design on empirical data only, especially if this data was obtained

under conditions which differ signicantly from that of the actual structure. In

structural stability the proper marriage of theory and experiment is essential, as

Sechler emphasized again in 1980 in relation to shell research ([1.22]), and only

when they go hand-in-hand is there rapid progress.

1.3

With the rapid development in computers in the last decades the question of why

continue to do experiments? has often been asked in many elds of applied

mechanics. As the computational tools improved and expanded, the idea that

computer simulations can replace the experiments has been voiced occasionally.

For example, in the early sixties computer simulated experiments became popular

and, in the excitement about their advantages and potential, their limitations were

forgotten. For instance Johnston in 1961 [1.23] claimed: There are many advantages in simulated tests, carried out with the aid of a computer, in comparison

with real tests in an actual testing machine. No machining is involved, no materials need be acquired, and there is no scatter in the test results! Moreover, the

precision of results, although based on a simulated and idealized material, permits

a study of details of behavior that is not possible in ordinary laboratory tests. It

would be impossible to completely duplicate the observations that may be made

on the basis of the simulated tests reported in this paper. It was forgotten that the

simulation was so successful because the physical phenomena in this case were

well known and had been extensively explored by very many real experiments.

New phenomena have still to be found and properly understood in physical tests,

before even the powerful computers of today can give a reliable simulation and

then extend the range of parameters.

In a similar vein was the false 1975 prediction for aerodynamics that Wind

tunnels in 10 years will be used only to store computer print out.

Hence it is worth the while to reect in more detail on the purpose of experiments

in the computer era. The question was examined for shell buckling in two reviews

Introduction

in the eighties ([1.17] and [1.24]); it will now be re-examined in the broader

context of buckling and postbuckling behavior of structures. One can enumerate

eight primary motives:

(A)

(B)

(C)

(D)

factors affecting it. In addition to the buckling loads, careful experiments

in which the parameters are varied one at a time yield the behavior of

the structure just before, at and after buckling, and accentuate the main

parameters affecting this behavior. Such a philosophy of research type

experimental programs has been strongly advocated for shells by Sechler

[1.22] for many years, and has been implemented in some test programs, for

example in [1.25]. Based on these observed parameters numerical schemes

can be developed, veried, and can also be employed for experiments on

the computer to extend the range of the parameters tested. One should

remember that computer methods, like for example nite element analysis,

can converge to non-realistic behavior, unless the physical phenomena are

well understood, or at least well described by appropriate experimentation,

to permit reliable modeling.

To nd new phenomena. This reason is a direct extension of the rst one

and has been stressed by Drucker ([1.2] and [1.3]), Sechler [1.22] and many

others. In buckling and postbuckling experiments, the new phenomena are

likely to be unexpected behavior patterns or mode interactions.

To obtain better inputs for computations. The mathematical models employed

in modern large multi-purpose computer programs can simulate real

structures fairly closely for buckling, but the simulation depends very much

on the input of correct boundary conditions, in particular joints or bonds,

on material properties, imperfections, residual stresses and load applications.

This has been emphasized by recent experience and denitely applies also

to postbuckling. Better inputs can be provided by subsidiary tests like stubcolumn tests for properties of columns or stiffeners, or multiaxial material

tests for more complicated structures or loading conditions. Often improved

inputs can be obtained from appropriate nondestructive tests: for example,

boundary conditions by vibration correlation techniques, imperfection shapes

and amplitudes by imperfection scans, load transfer and eccentricities by

strain measurements and vibration correlation techniques, residual stresses

by X-ray techniques etc. Fully automated recording in experiments has

just begun and much closer interaction between test and computation

is developing.

To obtain correlation factors between analysis and test and for material

effects. Even when large powerful programs are employed, test results may

still differ considerably from predictions. These differences are partly due to

inaccuracies of inputs and partly to variations in buckling and postbuckling

behavior of the mathematical model and the structures tested. They can all be

lumped for design purposes in a correlation factor. The advantage of such a

correlation factor is the overall correlation it provides for the designer, but its

(E)

(F)

(G)

(H)

weakness is that it is completely reliable only for the structures tested. One

can statistically evaluate a large number of tests to obtain overall lower bound

correlation factors, a method employed extensively for shells, where they

are called knock-down factors, but this results in very conservative design.

Other statistical evaluations are extensively employed for columns and plates,

especially for civil and marine engineering design codes, and these too tend

to be conservative. Hence correlation factors should be more specialized.

Since many experiments are on laboratory scale structures, extensive studies

comparing the results of laboratory scale and large scale tests are needed

to reassure the experimenter and to guide the designer, in particular for

dynamic loading. Correlation type experiments will therefore continue to be

a major task of research and industrial laboratories for quite some time to

come, as they provide the designer with essential correction factors which

include the effects of new materials and manufacturing techniques and, to

some extent, bridge the gap between the buckling and postbuckling behavior

of the computation model and the realistic structures.

To build condence in multipurpose computer programs. Extensive experimental verication is an essential element for condence in a large computer

program. This is therefore a primary motive for buckling and postbuckling experiments, which becomes more important, as the programs become

more sophisticated and ambitious. Though some developers of programs have

promoted and applied extensive experimental conrmation, more correlations of the results obtained from computer programs with test results are

required, as pointed out for example for shells in [1.26]. An example of extensive experimental verication, as well as careful examination of boundary

conditions by combined experimental and numerical studies, is the effort of

Bushnell in building condence in his BOSOR4 and 5 shell programs ([1.27]

and many others).

To test novel ideas of construction or very complicated elements of a

structure. Exploratory tests of new concepts have been used extensively by

aeronautical, civil, mechanical and ocean engineers, and will continue to be

an important tool. Furthermore, if the structure is elaborate and has many

openings with complicated stiffening and load diffusion elements, model

testing may sometimes be less expensive and faster than computation with a

large multipurpose program, even in the detail design state.

For buckling under dynamic loading and in uid-structures interaction

problems. These are areas where computation is cumbersome, expensive,

and difcult to interpret reliably. Experiments may therefore be preferable at

this stage, though they too present many difculties. Theory and numerical

computations should follow these experiments closely, to reinforce and

broaden the partial understanding of the phenomena that the experiments

will provide.

For certication tests of full scale structures. This is the typical industrial

task (see for example Figure 1.2), which will continue till model experiments

Introduction

Figure 1.2 A modern full scale aircraft certication test. The Boeing 757 airliner lower forward

fuselage during a test, which illustrates combined compression and shear dominated

buckling (typical of semi-monocoque construction). The photo was taken at 100

percent design limit load (courtesy of the Boeing Commercial Airplane Company)

necessity for them. Here computerization of data acquisition and reduction has made great strides, and has signicantly advanced the accuracy

of measurement and interpretation.

Examination of these motives, originally proposed for shells at a Euromech

Colloquium in 1980 [1.24], and recent experience reinforces the conclusion that the

computer does not replace the experiments. It may change their purpose somewhat,

it modies the techniques, it broadens the capability to acquire results and it can

use the experimental results to improve the computations. The presence of the

computer in the experimental scene enhances and develops new techniques and

capabilties. As pointed out by Birkemoe of the University of Toronto in 1994 (see

[8.162]): High speed and high quality data acquisition, combined with on-line use

of the data for control of the loading and/or the response of a boundary condition,

present a framework for improved experimental demonstration of stability limits in

structures. Furthermore, Improvements in user software for the test environment

continue to make . . . computer control easier. The experiment remains an essential

link in the analysis also in the computer era, and its scope and usefulness are even

greater today.

It appears therefore that experiments are indeed essential tools in structural

stability research. Why do many investigators still shy away from them? One reason

may be the initial difculties facing the inexperienced researcher. To quote, for

example, from a 1967 predominantly theoretical doctoral thesis in civil engineering

Postbuckling Behavior of Tee Shaped Aluminum Columns by R. Hariri [1.28]:

The author experienced a great deal of difculties and some experiments in the

early stages yielded surprising and unexpected results. He then concludes this

paragraph: However, the experiences gained and the guidance obtained cannot

be overlooked. One purpose of this book is to reduce the difculties in the early

stages and open up the wide horizons of experimental research, and the potential

guidance to the physical phenomena it can provide, to more of the younger, as yet

inexperienced, investigators.

1.4

As the reader may have noted, the authors of this book hold the view that experiment and theory are complementary and that real progress is contingent upon

experiment and theory proceeding hand-in-hand. Hence, though the book is devoted

to experimental methods, the next two chapters present a discussion and summary

of physical and theoretical concepts as well as analytical and computational tools.

In addition to bridging the gap between the theoretician and the experimentalist,

we also attempt to bridge the gap between the different engineering disciplines

which have to deal with buckling problems. As did the medieval guilds from which

they originated, the various engineering professions tended to keep to themselves,

to their institutions and societies, and develop their own traditions and methods.

Technology transfer between the different disciplines has really only started in

recent decades, and structural stability has been one of the more active elds of

this transfer of knowledge and techniques.

As an example of the difference in approach of civil and aerospace engineers,

one may consider H-section columns. The aeronautical engineers of the late thirties

were interested in the strength of aluminum-alloy extruded H-section columns,

and extensive tests were carried out at the U.S. National Bureau of Standards and

the Aluminum Company of America, under the sponsorship of NACA [1.29], to

provide column curves. These test columns were slender but did not have very thin

webs. Thin-web cross-sections were also widely used as stiffeners in the aircraft

industry, but these were usually made from bent sheet. The local failure modes

(buckling of outstanding anges as plates), that occurred in these thin-web columns

were also studied extensively in the thirties.

The civil engineers rst considered rolled H-section columns, which also did

not have thin webs. Then heavy welded H-sections were studied and used in practice. The civil engineers studied columns made of structural steel, since this was

the material employed in civil engineering structures. Already the rolling process

introduced some residual stresses, but in welded columns these increased signicantly, and the effect of residual stresses on the buckling strength became a major

concern. However, little attention was paid to thin-web columns until the early

eighties, when their use increased in manufactured metal building, and a detailed

10

Introduction

experimental study on buckling of thin-web welded H-columns was carried out (see

for example [1.30]). Again the major concern of the civil engineering researchers

was the inuence of residual stresses, and they utilized the experience accumulated

by their colleagues. There has, however, been only very little, if any, use by civil

engineers of the aeronautical research and experience, maybe because in this case it

dates back primarily to the thirties and forties, or perhaps because the aeronautical

engineers did not seriously consider this effect of residual stresses. But there could

be more mutual enrichment, or technology transfer, as occurred for example in the

case of stiffened shells in offshore structures, where the aeronautical experience

has been absorbed by the marine and civil engineers (see for example [1.31]).

The civil engineers have been and still are preoccupied with design codes, whose

purpose is to ensure safe structures even when designed by independent engineers

who do not have large staff and extensive computing facilities at their disposal,

and to serve as tools for the proof engineers and licensing ofcials in their certication tasks.

Other engineering disciplines have their design codes too, but rely more on

extensive computational and experimental proof of sufcient strength for safety

and certication. An aerospace engineer, for example, will therefore be surprised

at the continuous correlation and comparison with different design codes in most

experimental and theoretical studies reported in civil engineering publications. His

civil engineering colleague on the other hand will similarly be astonished both

at the numerous different loading cases computed and at the extent of full-scale

limit load, ultimate load and fatigue testing required in aerospace practice, as

well as at the very limited employment of design codes. These different approaches

and practices should, however, not deter researchers and engineers of different

disciplines to use each others investigations, and in particular experimental studies.

By referring to examples from different disciplines and pointing out the similarities

we will try to guide the reader in this direction.

It is of interest to note that civil engineers themselves have in recent years

been clamouring for conning their codes, which had become far too detailed,

to principles of design, identifying structural requirements which must be satised for different classes of structures [1.32]. These more basic codes would be

supplemented by cross references to data sheets which give design procedures

satisfying these principles, but leave the designer the choice of method best suited

to his requirements. The data sheets or data banks would replace voluminous

codes crammed with complex formulae. This trend, which also facilitates international agreement, will bring civil engineering practice closer to the approach of

other engineering disciplines, like aerospace or mechanical.

Professor Dowling of Imperial College, London who made this appeal in 1981,

also pointed out in 1982 a somewhat absurd situation that had arisen in the design

codes for the strength of webs of plate girders [1.33]. He stressed that there would

be large differences in the designs for the same loading produced to the relevant

Swiss, German, British or U.S. codes, and indicated that disparities exist between

the new and draft codes in many countries. Dowling then pleaded for involvement

of the appropriate international bodies to coordinate efforts towards unied research

References

11

and codes for plates and concluded optimistically that If it was possible to produce

the European Column Strength Curves through international cooperation, surely it

is possible to produce European, or indeed World Plate Strength Curves. Then a

welded steel plate might not know it has changed strength as it crossed the border

between Austria and Germany! The gap between countries and disciplines appears

indeed to be narrowing.

Another gap that requires some bridging is a kind of generation gap. When

searching the literature for previous studies, the young researcher or test engineer will usually focus his attention on recent publications, as he will assume

that only experiments carried out with modern instrumentation and techniques can

be of any relevance to his present-day problem. Furthermore, since his search

will nearly always be carried out with a computerized literature search, which

practically excludes any publications earlier than 25 years prior to the date of

search, many important earlier studies will have escaped his notice. A danger of

rediscovering America with more modern means is then imminent. Hence the

authors wish to stress that one should also look to earlier experimental studies,

which, though carried out with less sophisticated instruments, often excelled in the

planning and logic of the experiments and in pin-pointing essential primary and

secondary effects. This is not surprising, since the tests were often carried out by

some of the outstanding scientists and engineers of the time. We will even show

some examples of important experiments, performed more than 90 years ago, but

whose logic and results are still applicable today. The authors hope the reader will

develop respect for the ancients also in experimental mechanics.

References

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

Hetenyi, M., Handbook of Experimental Stress Analysis, 1st ed., John Wiley & Sons,

New York, 1950, Preface.

Drucker, D.C., On the Role of Experiment in the Development of Theory, General

Lecture, Proc. 4th US National Congress of Applied Mechanics, ASME, 1962, 15 33.

Drucker, D.C., Thoughts on the Present and Future Interrelation of Theoretical

and Experimental Mechanics, William M. Murrey Lecture 1967, Experimental

Mechanics, 8, (3), 1968, 97 106.

Koiter, W.T., Elastic Stability, 28th Ludwig Prandtl Memorial Lecture, Zeitschrift

fur Flugwissenschaften und Weltraumforschung, 9, (4), 1985, 205 210.

Herrmann, G., Stability of Equilibrium of Elastic Systems Subjected to Nonconservative Forces, Applied Mechanics Reviews, 20, 1967, 103 108.

Willems, N., Experimental Verication of the Dynamic Stability of a Tangentially

Loaded Cantilever Column, Journal of Applied Mechanics, 33, 1966, 460 461.

Huang, N.C., Nachbar, W. and Nemat-Nasser, S., On Willems Experimental Verication of the Critical Load in Becks Problem, Journal of Applied Mechanics, 34,

1967, 243 245.

Kolkka, R.W., On the Non-Linear Becks Problem with External Damping, International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics, 14, 1984, 497 505, (in particular paragraph

2 of the introduction).

12

1.9

1.10

1.11

1.12

1.13

1.14

1.15

1.16

1.17

1.18

1.19

1.20

1.21

1.22

1.23

1.24

1.25

1.26

Introduction

Pindera, J.-T., Patterns and Trends of Advanced Experimental Mechanics, Proceedings of the 11th Canadian Congress of Applied Mechanics, University of Alberta,

Edmonton, Canada, May 31 June 4, 1987, A206 A207.

Hirschfeld, T., Instrumentation in the Next Decade, Science, 230, 1985, 486 491.

Koiter, W.T., Current Trends in the Theory of Buckling, in Buckling of Structures,

Proceedings of IUTAM Symposium on Buckling of Structures, Harvard University,

Cambridge, USA, June 17 21, 1974, B. Budiansky, ed., Springer-Verlag, Berlin,

1976, 1 16.

Chilver, A.H., The Role of Experimentation in the Study of Elastic Stability of

Structures, in: Stability, Solid Mechanics Division, SM Study No. 6, University of

Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 1972, 63 84.

Zandonini, R., Recent Developments in the Field of Stability of Steel Compression Members, in Stability of Metal Structures, Proceedings, 3rd SSRC International

Colloquium, George Winter Memorial Session, Toronto, Canada, Structural Stability

Research Council, 1983, 1 19.

Arbocz, J., Past, Present and Future of Shell Stability Analysis, Zeitschrift fur Flugwissenschaften und Weltraumforschung, 5, (6), 1981, 335 348.

Tennyson, R.C., Interaction of Cylindrical Shell Buckling Experiments with Theory,

in: Theory of Shells, W.T. Koiter. and G.K. Mikhailov, eds., North-Holland Publishing Co., 1980, 65 116.

Valsgard, S., and Foss, G., Buckling Research in Det norske Veritas, in: Buckling

of Shells in Offshore Structures, J.E. Harding, P.J. Dowling, and N. Agelidis, eds.,

Granada, London, 1982, 491 548.

Singer, J., The Status of Experimental Buckling Investigation of Shells, in: Buckling

of Shells, E. Ramm, ed., Proceedings of the State-of-the-Art Colloquium, Stuttgart,

Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1982, 501 533.

Babcock, C.D., Shell Stability, Journal of Applied Mechanics, 50, 1983, 935 940.

Budiansky, B., and Hutchinson, J.W., Buckling: Progress and Challenge, in: Trends

in Solid Mechanics, J.F. Besseling and A.M.A. van der Heyden, eds., Delft University Press, 1979, 93 116.

Schuette, E.H., Charts for the Minimum-Weight Design of 24S-T Aluminum-Alloy

Flat Compression Panels with Longitudinal Z-Section Stiffeners, NACA Report

No. 827, 1945.

Hickman, W.A., and Dow, N.F., Compressive Strength of 24S-T Aluminum-Alloy

Flat Panels with Longitudinal Formed Hat-Section Stiffeners Having a Ratio of

Stiffener Thickness to Skin Thickness Equal to 1.00, NACA TN 1439, 1947.

Sechler, E.E., The Role of Experimentation in Shell Research, in: Mechanics Today,

5, S. Nemat-Nasser, ed., Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1980, 439 449.

Johnston, B.G., Buckling Behavior Above the Tangent Modulus Load, Journal of

the Engineering Mechanics Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, 87, EM6,

Paper 3019, Dec. 1961, 79 99.

Singer, J., Buckling Experiments on Shells a Review of Recent Developments, Solid

Mechanics Archives, 7, 1982, 213 313.

Singer, J., Arbocz, J., and Babcock, C.D., Buckling of Imperfect Stiffened Cylindrical Shells under Axial Compression, AIAA Journal, 9, (1), 1971, 68 75.

Buchert, K.P., Practical Application of Shell Research, in: Buckling of Shells in

Offshore Structures, J.E. Harding, P.J. Dowling, and N. Agelidis, eds., Granada,

London, 1982, 257 283.

References

1.27

1.28

1.29

1.30

1.31

1.32

1.33

13

Revolution Including Large Deections and Creep, Computers and Structures, 16,

1976, 221 239.

Hariri, R., Post Buckling Behavior of Tee Shaped Aluminum Columns, Doctoral

Thesis, University of Michigan, 1967, University Microlms International, Ann

Arbor, Michigan.

Osgood, W.R., and Holt, M., The Column Strength of Two Extruded AluminumAlloy H-Sections, NACA Report No. 656, 1939.

Avent, R.R., and Wells, S., Experimental Study of Thin-Web Welded H-Columns,

Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 108, (ST7), 1982, 1464 1480.

Singer, J., Buckling, Vibrations and Postbuckling of Stiffened Metal Cylindrical

Shells, Proceedings of BOSS 1976 (1st International Conference on Behavior of OffShore Structures), Norwegian Institute of Technology, Trondheim, Norway, August

1976, 765 786.

Dowling, P.J., Editorial, The Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 1, (3), 1981,

1 2.

Dowling, P.J., Editorial, The Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2, (3), 1982, 1.

2

The Concepts of

Elastic Stability

Before one can carry out meaningful experiments on buckling of structures one

has to understand the basic phenomena of structural instability and recognize

the different type of buckling behavior that may occur. Though this book deals

primarily with experimental methods and test results, and it is assumed that the

reader is somewhat familiar with the analysis of buckling, the theoretical concepts

of the basic instability phenomena and the numerical methods used to arrive at

numerical solutions are reviewed in this and the following chapter. This summary

will be brief and the reader may wish to consult some of the well known texts,

like [2.1] [2.8], for a broader introduction and more detailed treatment.

2.1

Physical Concepts

and Their Meaning

All structural designers know that their structure must satisfy two basic criteria,

namely:

1. the strength criterion, which states that under the specied (foreseeable)

loading conditions the maximum stresses may not exceed the allowable stresses

anywhere in the structure;

2. the stiffness criterion, which species the maximum allowable deections

under the different loading conditions in order not to hinder proper operation

or to avoid undesirable and potentially dangerous behavior such as utter or

mechanical vibrations.

What often is overlooked is that by carrying out the usual stress and deformation

analysis with the many easily available nite element codes one obtains no information as to the stability behavior of the structure. It is by now well known that

thin-walled slender structures, or structures which contain slender members subject

to compressive stresses, may initially fail in one of the many possible instability

Buckling Experiments: Experimental Methods in Buckling of Thin-Walled Structures: Basic Concepts, Columns, Beams and

Plates Volume 1. J. Singer, J. Arbocz and T. Weller Copyright 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

16

modes, which in turn may signicantly affect the strength or stiffness behavior of

the whole structure. This is especially true for the current trends in design where

with the use of structural optimization techniques one is often producing highly

stressed structures of very slender proportions.

With the sudden and often unexpected occurrence of partial or total structural

failure due to different forms of (at least initially) elastic instabilities, one has

come to rely on so-called buckling tests to provide the data for the development of

safe and reliable design recommendations, as pointed out in Chapter 1. However,

before one can carry out meaningful experiments on buckling of structures, one

has to understand the basic phenomenon of structural instability and recognize the

different types of buckling behavior that may occur during the loading process of

an experiment. In the following, the occurrence of different types of instabilities

will be discussed on hand of relatively simple examples.

2.1.1

Instability of Columns

in vertically at the base and free at the upper end (see Figure 2.1a) has been rst

solved by Leonard Euler in 1744 [2.9]. He found as the smallest critical load

Pc D

2 EI

4 L2

2.1

the corresponding buckling mode is shown in Figure 2.1b. Euler has assumed in

his work that the cross-section of the column does not distort during buckling and

failure and that the wavelength of the buckling mode is of the order of the column

length.

The buckling load for other boundary conditions can be found easily by direct

solution of the corresponding eigenvalue problem. Thus for simply supported

boundary conditions one must solve (see, for example, [2.1] or [2.2])

wiv C k 2 w00 D 0

00

wDw D0

for 0 x L

at x D 0, L

2.2

Physical Concepts

17

Pn D n2 2

EI

;

L2

wn D Cn sin kn x;

kn D

Pn /EI.

2.3

The smallest or critical buckling load occurs for n D 1. Notice that the higher

order buckling loads can be attained only by using very slender columns and

by applying external constraints at the points of inection to prevent the lateral

deection associated with the lower order modes.

The perfect column assumption is unrealistic. Using an initial imperfection of

the form

x

2.4

w0 x D W01 sin

L

and a large deection theory Rivello [2.10] has obtained the results shown in

Figure 2.2. From this gure one can draw the conclusion that the straight position

is the only equilibrium conguration for a column with vanishingly small imperfections until P D Pc . Close to and at P D Pc the deections of a column with

vanishingly small imperfections grow very fast and are approximately given by

Eq. (14.56) of [2.10] until on the concave side the stresses in the extreme ber

exceed the proportional limit. As can be seen from Figure 2.2 also columns with

measurable imperfections do not bend appreciably until P is very nearly equal

to Pc . Due to these rapidly increasing bending deformations the stresses on the

concave side soon exceed the yield stress and in practical applications collapse of

slender columns occurs at P slightly below but close to Pc .

The dotted curves in Figure 2.2 representing the yield stress limits were also

obtained by Rivello [2.10] for a column with homogeneous cross-section using

an idealized linearly elastic and perfectly plastic material behavior. The dotted

Figure 2.2

18

alloy, whereby it was assumed that the web has negligible resistance in bending

and extension but is rigid in shear. It has been shown in [2.4] that if one considers

eccentrically applied axial loading in place of geometric initial imperfections, one

obtains curves similar to the ones shown in Figure 2.2. The instability theory of

Euler accurately describes the buckling behavior of slender columns with solid

or thick-walled cross sections. To obtain a direct measure of slenderness it is

customary to rewrite Eulers formula (Eq. 2.3) as

c D

Pc

E

D 2

A

L/2

2.5

p

where = radius of gyration of the cross-section (D I/A). Experimental evidence

indicates that for values of the slenderness ratio L/ > 80 Eulers formula predicts

the buckling load of columns quite accurately. For values of the slenderness ratio

20 < L/ < 80 one can get reasonably accurate predictions by using Shanleys

tangent modulus theory [2.11], which essentially consists of replacing in Eq. (2.5)

the modulus of elasticity E by the tangent modulus Et . Finally, for values of the

slenderness ratio L/ < 20 failure occurs mainly by plastic crushing of the crosssection and c is equal to the compressive strength of the material. For metals one

usually uses c D cy , where cy is the compressive yield strength of the material.

For thin-walled columns Eulers assumptions that the cross-section does not

distort during buckling and that the wavelength of the buckle is of the order of

the column length must be reexamined. Such columns can be thought of as an

assemblage of thin plates. Thus before addressing the local instability and failure

analysis of thin-walled columns, rst the stability analysis of thin plates loaded by

in-plane forces shall be considered.

2.1.2

Instability of Plates

The buckling load of a simply supported rectangular thin at plate of width b and

length a, subjected to a uniform compressive force per unit length N D h on the

edges x D 0 and x D a while the boundaries y D 0 and y D b are unrestrained

against in-plane motion (see Figure 2.3) has rst been derived by G.H. Bryan in

1891 [2.12]. Using the deection mode shape

mx

ny

w D Wmn sin

sin

where m, n D 1, 2, . . .

2.6

a

b

Figure 2.3

Physical Concepts

2 E

c D kc

121 2

2

h

b

2

mb

2 a

kmn D

Cn

a

mb

19

2.7

2.8

obtained for a given plate aspect ratio a/b by proper selection of the integers m

and n. From Eq. (2.8) it is obvious that the minimum value of kmn occurs when

n D 1. To minimize Eq. (2.8) with respect to m, one plots kc as a function of a/b

for different values of m, as shown in Figure 2.4. The minimum value of kc , which

is then used in Eq. (2.7) is given by the lower envelope of the curves, indicated

in Figure 2.4 by the solid line. Considering the case of a long plate (say, a/b 3)

then kc 4.0 and for D 0.3 Eq. (2.7) becomes

2

h

c D 3.615E

.

2.9

b

For a short plate (say, a/b < 1) one can see from Figure 2.4 that m D 1. Hence

Eq. (2.8) becomes kc D b/a2 [1 C a/b2 ]2 . If a/b 1 then kc D b/a2 and

Eq. (2.7) becomes

2

2 E

h

.

2.10

c D

2

121 a

Notice that if we consider

the plate to behave as a simply supported column with

p

L D a and D h/ 12 then Eq. (2.5) yields c D 2 E/12 h/a2 . A comparison

of the two expressions indicates that if one replaces in the column equation E

by E/1 2 one obtains Eq. (2.10), the so-called wide column formula. This

difference is due to support that the strips, which make up the wide column, give

Figure 2.4

20

to each other. Or in other words, the restraint against anticlastic bending in the

plate causes biaxial stresses which result in the 1 2 term.

The buckling loads of uniform rectangular plates under constant normal edge

forces have been determined for various boundary conditions either by solving the

appropriate differential equations or by using the Rayleigh Ritz method. In these

simple cases the in-plane stress resultant forces equal the applied edge forces and

the buckling stress can be calculated from Eq. (2.7). However, the value of the

buckling coefcient kc depends upon the type of loading and the edge restraints.

Results from Figure 14 of [2.13] are shown in Figure 2.5 and give the values of kc

as a function of a/b for unaxial compression with various combinations of simply

supported, clamped and free edges.

Notice that kc is essentially independent of the restraint at the loaded edges

when a/b > 3. However, in these cases kc depends strongly upon the restraint of

the unloaded edges. The buckling coefcient kc is nearly constant for long plates

a/b > 3, and as can be seen from Eq. (2.9) c does not depend on a and is

inversely proportional to b2 . This is contrary to the behavior of the column or the

wide column (when a/b2 1) where as can be seen from Eqs. (2.5) and (2.10)

the length rather than the width is the critical dimension and the important restraint

conditions are at the loaded rather than at the unloaded edges.

It is naturally unrealistic to assume that the plate is perfectly at. Using a large

deection theory and an initial imperfection of the form

x

y

2.11

w0 x, y D W11 sin sin .

a

b

Figure 2.5 Compressive buckling coefcients for rectangular plates with various boundary

conditions (from [2.13])

Physical Concepts

21

Figure 2.6 Postbuckling stress distributions for plates with uniformly displaced loaded edges

(from [2.14])

Coan [2.14] obtained solutions for the buckling and the postbuckling behavior of

rectangular plates with uniformly displaced loaded edges and either undistorted or

stress-free unloaded edges. As can be seen from Figure 2.6a in the postbuckling

region the axial compressive stress x is no longer uniformly distributed over the

loaded edges as it is before buckling occurs. Instead it has a maximum value at the

simply supported unloaded edges that are held straight. Of considerable importance

are the in-plane stresses y that arise in the postbuckling region. Notice that in the

central region of the plate the y stresses are tensile in character and thus they

stiffen the plate considerably against further lateral deection. These membrane

stresses together with the fact that the unloaded edges are restrained against outof-plane deection explain why the plate, unlike the column (where there are no

such middle surface forces), can carry axial loads that are much higher than the

buckling load. Notice further that there are no resultant forces in the y-direction

thus the unloaded edges are free to move uniformly, that is v D constant. On the

other hand, as can be seen from Figure 2.6b if the unloaded edges of a plate

are stress free then a contraction occurs at the central region. The absence of

membrane forces in the y-direction accounts for the fact that such a plate carries

smaller postbuckling loads than those of a plate with straight unloaded edges.

The bending (out-of-plane) deformation at the center of perfect and imperfect square plates subjected to uniform end-shortening are shown in Figure 2.7.

Comparing these curves with the corresponding column curves of Figure 2.2 one

sees that, unlike for columns, for plates sizeable postbuckling stresses are possible.

Notice that following buckling, the stiffness of the plate decreases; however, failure

occurs only when the axial stress at the unloaded edges reaches the yield stress of

the material used. The buckling and postbuckling behavior of plates subjected to

shear loading is discussed in Chapter 8, Sub-section 8.4.1.

2.1.3

The different failure modes that can occur with a thin-walled column of varying

length can best be illustrated by considering the lipped channel section shown

22

Figure 2.7

Figure 2.8

in Figure 2.8. Assuming that the lateral deection of the cross-section from the

line of action of the compressive load varies sinusoidally along the length of the

column, then sufciently long columns will buckle in global or overall modes,

where the half wavelength of the sinusoidal buckle is equal to the length of a

simply-supported column.

Considering Figure. 2.9 one sees that, depending on the value of the slenderness

parameter /b global buckling can take the form of a exural mode (Euler mode,

/b 50), in which the cross-section translates but does not rotate, or the form

of a torsional mode (/b D 10), in which the cross-section rotates but does not

translate. There is also a third global mode, called the torsional-exural mode, in

which the section, as shown in Figure 2.10, both rotates and translates.

In most applications of thin-walled open sections, there exists at least one

axis of symmetry, as illustrated in Figure 2.8. For torsional-exural instability

of such cases, for example in [2.2], the following characteristic equation has been

derived

P Pz fI0 /AP Py P P P2 y02 g D 0

2.12

Physical Concepts

23

where

2 EIy

;

Py D

L2

2 EIz

Pz D

;

L2

P D A/I0

2 E

C GJ

L2

2.13

and

I0 D Iy C Iz C Ay02 C z02

D Wagner Torsion-Bending Constant

J D Torsional Constant

y0 , z0 D coordinates of the Shear Center S.C.

If Pz is the smallest of the three roots of Eq. (2.12), the column will buckle in

pure bending. Otherwise, the buckling will be combined bending and twisting.

If the cross-section has two axes of symmetry, y0 D z0 D 0 and Eq. (2.12)

simplies to the form

P Pz P Py P P D 0.

2.14

In this case the three roots are Py , Pz and P and the column will buckle in pure

bending or pure twisting, depending on which of the three roots is the smallest.

24

Figure 2.10

(from Ref. 16.157, Volume 2)

Also illustrated in Figure 2.9 are cases of local instability in which the crosssection distorts without translation or rotation. Thus, when the slenderness ratio

/b D 0.75 one gets a local buckling mode, where all the junctions between the

plate elements remain straight while the centers of the plates deect out-of-plane

as shown. Interestingly enough, when the slenderness ratio /b D 4.0 one gets

another form of local buckling, where only some of the junctions between the

plate elements remain straight. This type of buckling is called ange buckling or

distortional buckling.

Test on short, thin-walled columns show that often, after local buckling has

occurred, the columns still have the ability to carry a greater load before general

failure takes place. Further, it appears that in cases where local buckling occurs

at relatively low stress levels, the stresses at general failure (or crippling) will be

Physical Concepts

Figure 2.11

25

noticeably higher. On the other hand, if local buckling takes place at relatively high

mean stress levels (say, at 0.7 cy ) then the buckling and the crippling stresses are

practically the same. Figure 2.11 displays the stress distribution on a thin-walled

cross-section after local buckling has occurred but prior to crippling or failure.

Bending deections become large after the anges buckle, and crippling occurs

when the stresses at the supported (essentially straight) edges of the anges reach

the compressive yield stress cy .

The nonlinear behavior associated with large displacements and plasticity has

prevented the development of a satisfactory analytical solution for the crippling

stress crip of arbitrary thin-walled cross-sections. Hence semi-empirical formulas

are used which are discussed in Chapter 6.

2.1.4

use of thin-walled compression members in modern vehicle design like aircraft,

ships, railway, trucks and other applications such as off-shore structures etc. The

initial idea that optimum design requires the equality of the local buckling load

P and the Euler buckling load PE has turned out to be incorrect. Several authors

(for example [2.17] and [2.18]) have shown that when simultaneous or nearly

simultaneous buckling modes do exist nonlinear coupling phenomena can result

in a compound mode of failure whereby explosive like collapse of thin-walled

columns may occur.

To illustrate the importance of modal coupling Van der Neuts analysis [2.17]

of an idealized thin-walled compression member will be used. As can be seen

from Figure 2.12 the idealized built-up column consists of two axial load carrying

anges of width b and thickness h. The anges are held a distance 2c apart by

webs, which are rigid in shear and laterally (normal to mid-plane of ange) but

have no stiffness in the axial direction. The ange plates are assumed to be simply

26

Figure 2.12

supported along their longitudinal axes by the webs. The length of the column is

L, where h b L and both ends are assumed to be pin-jointed.

Obviously, there exist two important critical loads for this built-up column. If

the ange plates remain unbuckled, the column will become unstable at the overall

Euler buckling load

EI

PE D 2 2 .

2.15

L

Conversely, if the column axis remains straight, the simply-supported ange plates

become unstable at the local buckling load

P D 2kc

2

D,

b

2.16

where for simply supported edges kc D 4 and D D Eh3 /121 2 is the bending

stiffness of the ange plate.

Van der Neut assumed that the column has failed once its centroidal axis rst

bends at P D Pb , the bending buckling load. This appears to be a reasonable

assumption because although an Euler column exhibits a stable symmetric bifurcation point its postbuckling strength is very limited. One can actually distinguish

three separate cases.

If PE < P , the column fails by simple Euler buckling at Pb D PE .

Alternatively,

If P < PE , the simply supported anges will buckle at P D P . This stable

symmetric buckling does not, however, exhaust the load carrying capacity of the

anges (modelled as simply supported plates), which can carry an appreciable

axial load in the initial postbuckling region with an effective (reduced) Youngs

modulus of

E where

1/2.45 [2.17]. Ultimately the column fails in overall

Euler buckling at Pb D

PE . Of course, this approach assumes that the effective

stiffness

E is smeared out over the whole length of the column.

Finally,

We have the domain of compound failure at Pb D PE D P , where overall buckling and local buckling occur simultaneously.

These three separate domains of buckling behavior are shown in Figure 2.13.

Van der Neut has shown by an Engesser Karman double modulus analysis [2.11]

that the column is in neutral equilibrium when

P D 2

2

EI

.

1 C

L02

2.17

Physical Concepts

Figure 2.13

27

whereas for L0 < L < L1 the equilibrium at P is unstable and collapse will occur

explosively. Notice that by equating

Pb D

PE LDL2 D P LDL0 D PE LDL1

one can derive the following expressions for L2 and L0 :

2

1/2

L0 D

L1 D 0.761L1 ; L2 D

1/2 L1 D 0.639L1 .

1C

2.18

2.19

results of Figure 2.13 in the form shown in Figure 2.14. Notice that in the range

1 < PE /P < 1.725, a range that is used frequently in aerospace applications, the

perfect column collapses explosively.

Assuming that the two anges have the same initial imperfection in the form of

the buckling mode pertaining to the lowest local buckling load,

Figure 2.14

28

x

y

w D h sin cos

2.20

b

b

where is the ange waviness parameter, Van der Neut obtained the relation

between the axial load in the imperfect plate strip and the corresponding endshortening via a Rayleigh Ritz type approximate solution of the nonlinear plate

equations. Since the two anges have identical imperfections, the column axis will

remain straight under the load P until the overall bending load Pb is reached.

Using PE as a measure of the column length, Van der Neut [2.17] obtained the

buckling curves of columns with imperfect anges shown in Figure 2.15. The

broken line for D 0 is the limit of the smooth curves > 0. Notice that initial

waviness of the anges reduces the column failure load Pb considerably when

the ratio PE /P is close to 1.0. This severe imperfection sensitivity is due to the

modal interaction between the two buckling modes corresponding to PE and P ,

respectively. Notice that the magnitude of the imperfection sensitivity decays as the

ratio PE /P changes from unity. It is interesting that all imperfection curves pass

through a single point PE /P D 2.0. It appears that Pb < P when PE /P < 2.0.

For PE /P > 2 the initial waviness appears to be benecial.

This example illustrates very well the fact that in general unconstrained structural optimization, whereby here the Euler buckling load of the compound column

and the local buckling load of the anges occur simultaneously, may lead to

increasingly severe instabilities with pronounced imperfection sensitivity due to the

nonlinear coupling action of the failure modes involved. Mode interaction effects

in columns and plates will be further discussed in Chapters 6 and 4, Volume 2.

2.1.5

Buckling of Frames

in the plane of the frame) and spatial, are structural members that are frequently

Figure 2.15

Physical Concepts

29

their structural behavior has been studied widely, especially in civil engineering.

Recently, the increasing slenderness resulting from improved design procedures

has emphasized the stability problems of frames that may arise.

Considering a simple framework, if the joints are pinned the frame will become

unstable when the Euler load is rst attained in one of the members, which will

then be the only one to exhibit signicant distortion. If, however, the members are

rigidly connected at the loaded joint, then the load necessary to cause instability

in one member is enhanced by the other member(s) which restrain the rotation at

the joint, and therefore affect the stiffness of the compressed member.

Thus each member of a frame with rigid joints can be thought of as a bar with

elastically restrained ends. Hence it is often possible to analyze the stability of a

given framework based on the solution of the following model problem. Consider

the column of length L with a constant stiffness EI and spring supported at both

ends shown in Figure 2.16.

The critical value of the axial compressive load P can be obtained by solving the

following 2-point boundary value problem

wiv C k 2 w00 D 0

EIw000 C Pw0 D k1 w

for 0 L

2.22

at x D 0

2.23a

at x D L

2.23b

EIw00 D 1 w0

EIw000 C Pw0 D k2 w

EIw00 D 2 w0

where 0 D d/dx, k 2 D P/EI, k1 and k2 are linear spring constants, while 1 and

2 are torsional spring constants.

It has been shown in [2.2] and [2.4], for example, that the characteristic equation

of this problem can be written as

1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 C 1 1 2 4 C 2 1 2 4 sin

C 2 C 1 2 C 2 2 1 1 4 1 2 4 2 1 4 2 2 4 cos 2 D 0

2.24

where

EI

EI

EI

EI

P

, 2 D

D kL, k D

, 1 D

, 2 D

, 1 D

3

EI

1 L

2 L

k1 L

k2 I3

Figure 2.16

30

restraints and 1 and 2 the lateral ones.

To illustrate the use of this equation the stability behavior of the portal frame

shown in Figure 2.17 will be investigated. In this case one is interested in nding

the smallest possible load Pc which will cause the frame to buckle. To accomplish

this, one must consider all possible modes of buckling, compute for each mode the

corresponding buckling load and nd through comparison the critical buckling load

Pc . The different buckling modes are shown in Figure 2.18. Notice that there is no

possibility of a sway buckling mode when the horizontal bar buckles symmetrically.

At rst, the rotational elastic restraint provided to the vertical bars by the horizontal bar must be calculated. This can be done by considering a simply supported

beam subjected to end couples M2 .

Figure 2.17

Figure 2.18

Physical Concepts

31

symmetric case:

2 D

M2 Lh

2EIh

hence 2 D

M2

2EIh

D

2

Lh

1 L

EI

2 D

.

2 EI h L v

Similarly for the

antisymmetric case: 2 D

M 2 Lh

6EIh

hence 2 D

M2

6EIh

D

2

Lh

1 L

EI

2 D

.

6 EI h L v

Notice that if EI/Lh D EI/Lv then for the

symmetric case

2 D

antisymmetric case

2 D

1

2

1

6

2.25a

2.25b

If side motion is suppressed (no sway buckling) then one must solve the buckling

problem shown in Figure 2.19.

The characteristic equation (Eq. (2.24)) becomes then for the

symmetric case

F D sin C 4 C 2 cos 4 D 0

antisymmetric case F D 5 sin C 12 C 2 cos 12 D 0.

2.26a

2.26b

The lowest roots of these transcendental equations can easily be found numerically

via Newtons Method, yielding for the

PL

2 EI

EI

D 5.0182; P D 25.1822 2 D 2.5515 2

EI

L

L

PL

2 EI

EI

antisymmetric case D

D 5.5272; P D 30.5498 2 D 3.0953 2 .

El

L

L

symmetric case

D

Figure 2.19

32

Figure 2.20

To obtain the characteristic equation for the sway buckling case shown in

Figure 2.18c one must solve the buckling problem displayed in Figure 2.20. In

this case Eq. (2.24) reduces to

F D 6 sin C cos D 0.

2.27

When deriving this equation one must divide Eq. (2.24) by 2 and then take the

limit as 2 ! 1. The lowest root of Eq. (2.27) is

D

PL

D 2,7165;

EI

P D 7.3792

2 EI

EI

D

0.7477

.

L2

L2

Comparison of the three buckling loads computed indicates that the characteristic

equation for the critical load of the clamped portal frame is given by Eq. (2.27).

Therefore, as the load P is increased slowly from zero, the frame will sway buckle

when P reaches the value of the lowest root that satises Eq. (2.27).

For other worked out examples of frame buckling the interested reader should

consult [2.1], [2.2] and [2.4].

2.1.6

which act perpendicular to their longitudinal axis by bending, are called beams.

Often, by proper design one can ensure that the applied loading acts through the

shear center of the beam cross-section, thereby eliminating any twisting action.

Moreover, in many applications the structure is so arranged that the resulting

bending may be regarded as taking place effectively in the plane of symmetry of the

beam. In such cases major axis bending can be considered as the principal design

variable. Due to this fact the type of cross-section selected is usually relatively

weak in both minor axis bending and twisting. These slender beams loaded in a

plane of symmetry may buckle laterally as shown in Figure. 2.21.

An approximate analysis of lateral instability in terms of a thin-walled elastic

beam theory has been presented in [2.1] and [2.2] (as well as in many other texts).

Physical Concepts

Figure 2.21

33

Consider the beam with two planes of symmetry shown in Figure 2.22. This beam

is loaded only in the xz-plane. That is, it is subjected to transverse forces acting

in the z-direction and to bending couples M0 . Notice that the transverse forces

cause additional bending moment My and when the beam is displaced laterally

the transverse loading also causes a relatively small twisting moment Mx . As

long as the load on the beam remains below the critical value, the beam will

be stable. However, as the load is increased a critical value is reached when a

slightly deected and twisted form of equilibrium becomes possible. The initial

plane conguration of the beam is now unstable, and the lowest load at which this

deected condition occurs is called the critical load of the beam. The deection of

the beam is described by the displacement components v and w of the centroid of

the cross-section and by the angle of rotation of the cross-section. The axes ,

34

Figure 2.22

v0 and w0 and the angle of twist are assumed to be small. The sign conventions

for positive moments acting at section AB on the portion of the beam to the left

of the section are shown in Figure 2.22.

The equations of bending and twisting of the buckled beam have been derived,

for example in [2.2], as

EIz v00 D M

2.28a

EIy w00 D M

2.28b

2.28c

where 0 D d/dx and it is assumed that is sufciently small so that the curvatures

and exural rigidities in the

and planes may be replaced by their values in

the yx and zx planes.

In these equations Iy and Iz are the principal moments of inertia of the crosssection about the y and z axes, respectively. Similarly, the quantities M

and M

represent the bending moments about

and the axes. Further, GJ is the torsional

rigidity and E is the warping rigidity. Notice that for small angles of rotation and

a small angle of twist, the bending and twisting moments acting on a deformed

cross-section parallel to the deformed axes ,

, can be expressed in terms of

Mx and My , the twisting and bending moment acting on the same cross-section

parallel to the undeformed axes x and y. If one neglects products of small angles

and small twisting moments then these expressions are (see also Figure 2.22),

M D Mx C My v0

2.29a

M

D M y

2.29b

M D My .

2.29c

the case of the simply supported I-beam of Figure 2.22 subjected to the end couples

M0 only. The moments Mx and My acting on section AB on the portion of the

Physical Concepts

35

Mx D 0;

My D M0 .

D M0 , M D M0 and then the

governing Eq. (2.28) can be written as

EIz v00 M0 D 0

00

Ely w D M0

E000 GJ0 M0 v0 D 0.

2.30a

2.30b

2.30c

Notice that Eqs. 2.30a and 2.30c must be solved simultaneously. By differentiating

the last equation once, one can then eliminate the v00 term with the help of the rst

equation yielding

M2

2.31

Eiv GJ00 0 D 0.

EIz

The general solution of this constant coefcient differential equation may be written

(see [2.2])

D C1 ex C C2 ex C C3 cos x C C4 sin x

2.32

where

1/2 1/2

2

GJ

2

M

GJ

D

C

C 2 0

2E

2E

E Iz

1/2 1/2

GJ

M20

GJ 2

D

C 2

C

2E

2E

E Iz

2.33a

2.33b

For a simply supported beam where the ends are free to warp, x D 0 at x D 0, L.

It has been shown in [2.2] that this implies at 00 D 0 at x D 0, L. If, in addition, the

ends are prevented from rotating about the longitudinal axis, then D 0 at the ends.

Thus the boundary conditions for the simply supported I-beam of Figure 2.22 are

D 00 D 0

at x D 0, L.

2.34

sinh L sin L2 C 2 2 D 0.

2.35

But , and sinh L are nonzero quantities. Thus the characteristic equation

reduces to

sin L D 0

2.36

with eigenvalues L D m, where m is a positive integer. Substitution and

regrouping yields

1/2

m 2

GJ

M20

GJ 2

D

C 2

.

2.37

C

L

2E

2E

E Iz

36

It can be seen by inspection that the critical (the smallest) value of M0 occurs

when m D 1. Hence the critical value of M0 is

1/2

4 EIz E 2 EIz GJ

Mc D

C

2.38

L4

L2

with the corresponding buckling mode (see also [2.2])

x

D C4 sin .

L

2.39

Notice that the maximum angle of twist occurs at the midspan. Also the magnitude

of the critical moment given by Eq. (2.38) does not depend on the exural rigidity

EIy of the beam in the vertical plane. This is due to the fact that Eq. (2.28b) is

uncoupled from the other two equations. The assumption that the deections in the

vertical plane are small is justiable when the exural rigidity EIy in the vertical

plane is very much greater than the lateral rigidity EIz .

The interested reader may consult [2.1] [2.3] of [2.19] for an extensive list

of worked out examples and an exhaustive discussion of the different problems

associated with the phenomena of lateral buckling of beam-like structures.

2.1.7

Another type of initially localized lateral instability may occur if the introduction of

the transverse loading into the thin-walled web of a beam is not properly designed.

Consider the thin-walled structural member shown in Figure 2.23 subjected to

a partial in-plane compressive edge loading. The roller supports could be adjusted

so as to ensure that the load was applied to both webs. This test set-up can be

considered representative of a steel ooring system. In a test program carried out by

K.C. Rockey and his co-workers [2.20] it was found that if the depth-to-thickness

ratio of the web is sufciently high, then the web will buckle before it fails, where

failure of the test panels was dened by the deformation of a localized yield curve

under the patch load. This program represents an excellent example of the use

of a combination of numerical and experimental methods to arrive at a relatively

simple semi-empirical design formula for a pressing technical problem.

Figure 2.23

Physical Concepts

37

Using the nite element method Rockey and Bagchi [2.21] derived the following

formula for the critical value of the compressive patch load Pc which will cause

buckling of a rectangular plate

Pc

2 D

DK 2

bh

d h

2.40

where D D Eh3 /121 2 is the exural rigidity of the plate. The nondimensional

buckling coefcient K is shown in Figure 2.24 for the case where the patch load

on one longitudinal edge is supported by shear forces on the two transverse edges.

In [2.20] and [2.21] interaction curves are also presented for the cases where an inplane bending moment or an in-plane shear stress acts in addition to the stress eld

set up by the patch loading. Loads were applied to the test specimens in small increments in the elastic range, and in even smaller increments after yielding has begun.

The lateral deection of the web was recorded using a specially designed recording

device consisting of seven movable linear-displacement transducers, which could

be adjusted to any position desired. Figure 2.25 displays the variation of the lateral

Figure 2.24

Figure 2.25 Lateral displacements at central section under various loads (from [2.20])

38

deection across the central section of the panel for a typical test. Notice that the

largest deformations are located in the upper half of the panel adjacent to the patch

load. In the inelastic range, all plastic ow was allowed to take place at each load

increment before any lateral deection readings were taken.

In all tests, failure occurred by the formation of a local yield curve as shown

in Figure 2.26. Notice that the yield curve corresponds closely to a segment of a

circle with a width equal to that of the patch load.

The primary purpose of the test program was to determine the ultimate load

carrying capacity of the webs of a sheet steel ooring system. Rockey et al. [2.20]

Figure 2.26 Panel after failure showing yield curve (from [2.20])

Physical Concepts

39

found that for d/h 250 there exists a linear relationship between the ultimate

failure load Pu and the theoretical buckling load Pc given by Eq. (2.40). By curve

tting the experimental results shown in Figure 2.27 they obtained the following

semi-empirical formula

Pu

c d

D 103 4.5 C 6.4

.

2.41

Pc

b h

Notice that for d/h > 250 the relationship between the ultimate failure load Pu

and the theoretical buckling load Pc becomes nonlinear.

2.1.8

Buckling of Beam-Columns

Slender beams subjected to both axial compression and bending are called beamcolumns. As an example of beam column analysis let us consider the case of

a simply supported beam with a doubly symmetrical cross-section subjected to

compressive loads P and end moments M0 as shown in Figure 2.28. The loads P

are applied at the centroid of the cross-section and Iy Iz . Thus the member can

bend in the xz-plane or bend and twist out of that same plane.

The analysis follows closely the one described earlier in section 2.1.6 for the

lateral buckling of beams. Using the symbols and the sign convention dened in

Figure 2.22, the equations of bending and twisting of the buckled beam-column

have been given earlier by Eqs. 2.28. Differentiating the last equation with respect

to x yields

EIz v00 D M

00

2.42a

EIy w D M

2.42b

2.42c

, M are the twisting and bending moments acting

at section AB on the portion of the beam to the left of the section and parallel

to the deformed axes ,

, . The additional bending moments due to the axial

load P acting at the deformed cross section are M

D Pw and M D Pv. The

rate of change of the twisting moment for a doubly symmetrical cross-section

(where y0 D z0 D 0) has been shown in [2.2] to be M0 D I0 /AP00 , where I0 is

the polar moment of inertia. From Eqs. 2.29 the corresponding quantities due to

the end moments M0 are M0 D M0 v00 , M

D M0 and M D M0 . Introducing

40

these quantities into Eq. (4.42) one obtains after some regrouping the following

governing equations for the beam-column,

EIz v00 C Pv M0 D 0

(2.43a)

EIy w00 C Pw D M0

(2.43b)

Eiv GJ00 C

I0 00

P M0 v00 D 0.

A

(2.43c)

Notice that the second equation is uncoupled from the other two equations. It

governs the bending in the xz-planes and because of the presence of the term Pw

the bending is nonlinear. The general solution of Eq. (2.43b) is

w D C1 sin kx C C2 cos kx C

M0

P

2.44

where k 2 D P/EIy and the constants C1 and C2 can be evaluated from the specied

boundary conditions. For simply supported ends w D 0 at x D 0, L and the solution

becomes

M0

fsin kL sin kx sin kL xg.

2.45

wD

P sin kL

Notice that as the load P approaches the value Py D 2 EIy /L 2 , the eigenvalue

for loss of stability by bending in the xz-plane, the factor sin kL in Eq. (2.45)

approaches zero and the magnitude of the displacement w approaches innity.

For values of P smaller than Py , the allowable values of P and M0 are limited

by the strength of the beam-column material.

To investigate the lateral-torsional instability of the beam-column Eqs. (2.43a)

and (2.43c) must be solved simultaneously. For simply supported boundary conditions at x D 0, L

D 00 D 0 and v D v00 D 0

2.46

solutions of the form

x

D A1 sin ;

L

v D A2 sin

x

L

2.47

satisfy the specied boundary conditions identically, and upon substitution into

Eqs. (2.43a) and (2.43c) for nontrivial solution yield the following characteristic

equation

2.48

I0 /AP PPz P M20 D 0

where P and Pz are dened by Eq. (2.13).

For given values of M0 (or for a beam-column subjected to eccentric compressive

loads P which cause end moments M0 D Pe), the critical load Pc is the smaller of

the two roots of Eq. (2.48).

Conversely, for given values of P, the critical end moment Mc is

Mc D fP PPz PI0 /Ag1/2 .

2.49

Physical Concepts

41

different lateral loads the interested reader may consult [2.1], [2.3] or [2.22].

2.1.9

The stability behavior of thin rings and arches exhibit several features that are not

encountered when one is dealing with straight columns and at plates. Thus, for

instance, the perfect thin ring under lateral loading undergoes a nonzero lateral

displacement w prior to loss of stability, whereas for perfect columns and plates

w D 0 for the unbuckled state.

For a complete historical sketch of investigations dealing with the buckling of

thin circular rings the interested reader should consult [2.1]. The following analysis

based on a small strain, moderate rotation theory is due to Brush and Almroth [2].

They based their ring-bending theory on the simplifying assumption that normals to

the undeformed centroidal surface remain straight, normal and inextensional during

deformation. Thus the extensional strain of a circumferential line element located

at a distance z from the centroidal surface (see Figure 2.29) can be expressed in

terms of centroidal-surface relations as follows;

N
D C z

2.50

where

D

1 0

1

v C w C 2 ;

R

2

1

v w0 ;

R

D

1 0

2.51

and 0 D d/d
.

It has been shown by Bodner [2.23] that a ring subjected to a uniform external

pressure is a conservative system. Thus the governing equilibrium equations can

be conveniently derived by the stationary potential energy criterion, which states

that a conservative system is in equilibrium if its potential energy is stationary

(see for example [2.24] or [2.25]). Further, for a conservative system the change

in potential energy of the applied loads as the structure deforms is the negative

of the work done by the loads during the deformation. This yields the following

Figure 2.29

42

variational problem

D Um C Ub C p D

where

2

F , v, v0 , w, w0 , w00 R d D 0

2.52

EA 2 2

R d

2 0

EI 2 2

R d

Ub D bending energy D

2 0

p D potential of the applied load.

Um D membrane energy D

2.53

2.54

2.55

uid pressure loading and centrally directed pressure loading. In the rst case the

pressure at each point on the ring surface remains normal to the surface as the

ring deforms (the so-called live load). In the second case the pressure remains

centrally directed at each point on the ring surface (the so-called dead load). As

a consequence of these assumptions the potential energy of the applied load differs

considerably for these two cases, yielding for

2

1 2

0

0

2

Fluid pressure loading: p D q

wC

v vw C v w C w R d

2R

0

2.55a

2

1 2

Centrally directed pressure loading: p D q

wC

v R d .

2.55b

2R

0

The condition that D 0 implies that the integrand in Eq. (2.52) must satisfy the

corresponding Euler equations of the calculus of variation. The Euler equations for

an integrand of the form as indicated in Eq. (2.52) are

d F

F

D0

(2.56a)

v

d v0

d2 F

d F

F

C

D 0.

(2.56b)

w d w0 d 2 w00

Calculating the required partial derivatives for uid pressure loading, substitution

and regrouping yields

0

v0 C w

v0 C w 1 v w 0 2

1

1 v w0 2

v w0 00

C

C

C

R

2

R

AR2

R

R

2

R

v w0

qR v w0

D0

2.57a

R

EA

R

0

v w0 000

v0 C w 1 v w 0 2

v C w 1 v w0 2

1

C

C

AR2

R

R

2

R

R

2

R

0

v w0

qR v0 C w

qR

D

.

2.57b

R

EA

R

EA

Physical Concepts

43

for all values of the applied load q < qc . The critical load qc is the smallest load

for which the ring may be maintained in equilibrium in an adjacent noncircular

conguration.

To investigate the possible existence of adjacent equilibrium position one gives

small increments to the displacement variables

v D v0 C vO

w D w0 C wO

2.58

where v0 , w0 are the circular prebuckling solutions and vO , wO are small noncircular

perturbations at buckling. Direct substitution into Eqs. (2.57a) and (2.57b) and

deletion of squares and higher order products of the perturbation quantities yields

a set of nonlinear governing equations for the prebuckling quantities v0 , w0 and

O

a set of linearized stability equations governing the perturbation quantities vO , w.

Notice that the nonlinear equations governing the prebuckling state variables v0 ,

w0 are identical to Eq. (2.57).

Recalling that for a circular prebuckling state v0 and all derivatives of v0 and w0

are identically zero, Eq. (2.57a) is identically satised and Eq. (2.57b) reduces to

w0

w0

qR

1C

D 0.

2.59

C

R

EA

R

For thin rings w0 /R 1, thus w0 D qR2 /EA. Notice that for the prebuckling

solution

qR2

2.60

v0 D 0, w0 D

EA

the linearized stability equations become

EAR2 Ov0 C w

O 0 C EIOv wO 0 00 D 0

(2.61a)

O D0

EAR2 Ov0 C w

(2.61b)

a set of homogeneous linear equations in vO and w.

conditions simply require that vO , wO and their derivatives be periodic in . Thus a

solution of the form

vO D B cos n

2.62

wO D C sin n

where B, C are constants and n is a positive integer, satises the periodicity

condition and reduces the solution of the set of differential equations to a simple

matrix eigenvalue problem. The roots of the characteristic equation can be put into

the form

n2 1

qn D

n D 1, 2, 3, . . . .

2.63

1 C I/AR2

For n D 1 the eigenvalue is q1 D 0. However, the corresponding eigenvector

vO D B cos

wO D B sin

44

represents a rigid body translation and not a noncircular buckling mode. The ring

is thought to be constrained against such translation and one considers only buckling modes for which n is greater than unity. The smallest eigenvalue is seen to

correspond to n D 2 (ovalization of the ring) and since for thin rings I/AR2 1

its value is

EI

2.64

qc D 3 3 .

R

This result, obtained by Bresse in 1866 [2.26] and independently in 1884 by

Levy [2.27] is considered to be the classical solution for a ring subjected to external

uid pressure.

It may be of some interest to mention here that besides the uid pressure loading,

which best represents the real load case of external pressure, and the centrally

directed pressure loading with a lowest eigenvalue of qc D 4.5EI/R3 [2.28], the

case of a thin ring loaded by external pressure, where the load remains parallel to

its original direction has also been solved. Though it is difcult to conceive of a

practical application for this last case, Singer and Babcock [2.29] have shown that

such a thin ring is unstable as a rigid body and will rotate under arbitrarily small

pressure that remains parallel to its original direction.

Equations (2.61) can also be used to investigate the buckling behavior of the

high circular arch under normal pressure loading shown in Figure 2.30. Notice that

in this case it is assumed that initially the arch is uniformly contracted so that a

fundamental state exists, which is identical to that of the complete ring. Then at

the instant of buckling the supports become immovable and the arch buckles in an

antisymmetric mode as shown in Figure 2.30. If the arch is simply supported at

both ends, then the boundary conditions at
D are

wO D 0;

O D

M

Figure 2.30

EI 0

Ov wO 00 D 0;

R2

O D

N

EA 0

Ov C wO 00 D 0.

R

2.65

Physical Concepts

45

n

n

wO D C sin

vO D B cos

2.66

where B, C are constants and n is a positive integer satises the above simply

supported boundary conditions identically and reduces the solution of the set of

differential equations (2.61) to a simple matrix eigenvalue problem. For this case

the roots of the characteristic equation can be put in the form

qn D

[n/2 1] EI

1 C I/AR2 R3

n D 1, 2, 3, . . . .

2.67

The critical condition corresponds to n D 1. Thus for thin arches, where I/AR2 1

2

EI

1 3.

2.68

qc D

R

This solution was obtained by Hurlbrink in 1908 [2.30] and independently by

Timoshenko in 1910 [2.31].

Notice that when D one obtains a complete ring and from Eq. (2.68) qc D 0.

As has been pointed out in [2.4], this unrealistic result is due to the fact that for

D one has a complete ring with a hinge, which is free to rotate as a rigid body

about this hinge for arbitrarily small pressure. That the continuous complete ring

corresponds to D /2 can be deduced also from the fact that then Eq. (2.68)

reduces to Eq. (2.64). Solutions for other boundary conditions and for arches of

other forms can be found in [2.1], [2.4] and [2.8].

Finally, it must be mentioned that the above results derived by assuming the

buckling modes given by Eq. (2.62) or Eq. (2.66) are not applicable to shallow

arches. The low arch problem will be treated in the next section.

2.1.10

elements. Their stability behavior differs from those of the preceding examples in

that the fundamental path is not identied with w D 0 (zero lateral displacement)

prior to loss of stability. On the contrary, the fundamental path is highly nonlinear

and depending on the value of the dimensionless rise parameter K it exhibits limit

point and bifurcation points in the load versus lateral displacement plane.

To illustrate these points the stability behavior of the clamped shallow arch under

dead pressure loading shown in Figure 2.31 will be investigated. The analysis is

based on the work by Schreyer and Masur [2.32] and of Kerr and Soifer [2.33]. To

derive the equilibrium equations the stationary potential energy criterion, described

in the previous section, will be used. For shallow arches (for arches where the

46

Figure 2.31

arch rise H is small compared to the arch span 2b) one assumes that the rotation

behaves very much like that of a straight beam, thus

D

1 0

w

R

2.69

Further, following Koiters work (see [2.34], it will be assumed that the potential

energy of the applied pressure may be represented by

2

p D q

wR d
.

2.70

0

With the help of Eqs. 2.51 2.54 the Euler equations of the variational problem

can then be written as

N0 D 0

(2.71a)

(2.71b)

where 0 D d/d
and use has been made of the constitutive equations

N D EA;

M D EI.

2.72

N D constant D N0 .

2.73

This result, that the in-plane force N is constant is very useful, for it can be used

to obtain an exact, closed form solution for the complete nonlinear buckling and

post-buckling problem of shallow arches. Notice that Eq. (2.71b) can be put into

the form

2.74

wiv C 2 w00 D 2 R[1 qO K/2 ]

where 2 D N0 R2 /EI, qO D qR2 h/EI and the dimensionless rise parameter K D

2 R/h. The general solution of this linear ordinary differential equation with

Physical Concepts

47

constant coefcients is

w D A1 C A2
C A3 sin
C A4 cos
C R/2[1 qO K/2 ]
2 .

2.75

w D w0 D 0;

vD0

2.76

then one can attempt to evaluate the four constants A1 , A2 , A3 , A4 from the rst

two conditions. It is found that whereas A1 and A4 can be determined uniquely,

nonzero values of A2 and A3 are possible only if the characteristic equation

tan D

2.77

is satised.

Considering, at rst, the case when the characteristic equation is not satised (that is, tan 6D ) then A2 D A3 D 0, and Eq. (2.75), the general solution,

becomes

2

cos
cos 1

2

1

.

2.78

w D hK[1 qO K/ ]

sin

2

2

Notice that this expression is even in
, thus it represents the solution for the

symmetrical deformations. Further it should be noted that in this equation is as

yet an unknown parameter, which by denition is related to the constant in-plane

force N0 . Its value can be determined from Eq. (2.73) and the remaining boundary

conditions v D 0 at
D .

To achieve this one rewrites Eq. (2.73) with the help of Eqs. (2.51) and (2.69)

and then integrates the resulting equation from to C yielding

C

C

N0 R

0

0 2

v d
D

2.79

w w d
.

EA

Notice that the left-hand side vanishes identically because of the boundary

conditions v D 0 at
D . Substitution for w and w0 from Eq. (2.78) and then

performing the integrals one obtains

K2

5

2

2

2

qO

4 3 cot cot

4

3

2K

2

2

2

qO

2 cot cot

2

1

1 4

2

2

2

C

C cot cot D 0. 2.80

3

3 K2

Equations (2.78) and (2.80) represent the exact solution for the symmetrical deformations. For a given value of the nondimensional rise parameter K one can obtain

a numerical solution as follows. Initially, for a pre-selected set of -values one

48

solves for the corresponding values of qO using Eq. (2.80). Next, for each pair of

and qO values one calculates the corresponding radial displacement w0/h

from Eq. (2.78). The results for the rst buckling mode using K D 10 are shown

in Figure 2.32. Notice that two limit points are obtained, an upper limit point at

qO u D 2.2681

2.81

qO L D 0.4808.

2.82

Let us now consider the case when A2 and A3 are not identically equal to

zero. Earlier it was found that for such nonsymmetric deformation to occur the

characteristic equation tan D must be satised. Its roots are

D 4.4934, 7.7253, . . . .

Notice that

D constant D 4.4934 D

N0 R2

EI

2.83

2.84

implies that N0 is constant not only throughout the arch but it remains constant

throughout the nonsymmetrical deformations shown in Figure 2.32. N0 is equal

to its value at the bifurcation point and is denoted by N0 . Thus the bifurcation

pressure is obtained by substituting the characteristic equation tan D into

Eq. (2.80) of the symmetrical equilibrium branch. This results in the following

Figure 2.32

Physical Concepts

equation for qO b

which yields

2

4

2

6

qO b2 qO b

1C

D0

C

5 K

5K2

K2

2

5

32 1

.

qO b D

5K

4 K2

49

2.85

2.86

From the discriminant of this equation it follows that for bifurcation to take place

p

5

2.87

K>

.

2

Since the lowest value of is 4.4934, it follows from Eq. (2.87) that when

K 5.024 the shallow arch deforms only symmetrically. Instability will then occur

at the upper limit point in what is known as snap-through buckling or oil-canning.

In the present case for K D 10 and D 4.4934 one obtains from Eq. (2.86)

the following bifurcation pressures;

qO b D 1.9098 and qO b D 0.51131.

2.88

0.5131 corresponds to the bifurcation point B in Figure 2.32.

It can easily be shown that when the characteristic equation tan D is

satised then

A2 D A3 cos .

2.89

The corresponding radial displacement becomes

w D ws A3 [ cos sin ]

2.90

unknown constant A3 is determined from the boundary conditions v D 0 at D

rewritten in the form given by Eq. (2.79). Substituting for w and w0 from Eq. (2.90)

and carrying out the integrals yields

1/2

2

hK

2K

1

2

1

25 K

A3 D 2

Oq

qO 2

1C

.

cos

3 4

3

K2

2.91

Equations (2.90) and (2.91) constitute the exact solution for the nonsymmetrical

deformations.

Notice that for
D 0, K D 10 and D 4.4934 Eq. (2.90) reduces to the

equation of a straight line, it becomes

w0

D 7.7775 3.8509Oq.

h

2.92

50

Schreyer and Masur [2.32] have carried out an extensive investigation as to the

character of the buckling behavior of shallow arches under dead pressure loading as

a function of the dimensionless rise parameter K. Their results can be summarized

as follows:

0

5.02 < K < 5.74

5.74 < K

symmetric limit point (or snap), buckling occurs at qO D qO u

(see Figure 2.32)

asymmetric bifurcation point occurs after the limit point

asymmetric bifurcation occurs at point A (see Figure 2.32)

before the limit point

For further results the interested reader may consult [2.1], [2.4] and [2.5].

2.1.11

Thin-walled shells are frequently used structural elements in such diverse applications as cooling towers, legs of offshore bore islands, aircraft fuselages or as the

main load carrying elements of aerospace launch vehicles. The popularity of shells

is due to the fact that they are very efcient load carrying structures. However,

unfortunately, often they are prone to catastrophic elastic instabilities. Thus a

thorough understanding of the stability behavior of thin-walled shells is a must

for all those who employ them. This was realized already in the last century, as

pointed out in the historical introduction to Chapter 9, Volume 2.

Circular cylindrical shells will be treated separately because their stability

equations are much simpler than those of shells of general shape, and thus can

be used very conveniently to illustrate the different types of instabilities that may

occur. In the present analysis the relatively simple Donnell type shell theory

will be employed. These equations give accurate results for cylindrical shells

whose displacement components in the deformed conguration are rapidly varying

functions of the circumferential coordinate. For the sign convention used see

Figure 2.33.

In the age of computerized shell stability analysis the interest in using the

Donnell type shell equations has practically disappeared. However, their relative

simplicity makes them ideally suited for rapid approximate analytical developments and hence also for the following introductory analytical examination of

shell stability.

The Donnell equations are based on the following middle-surface kinematic

relations

x D u,x C 12 x2

w

y D u,y C C 12 y2

R

xy D u,y C v,x C x y

x D w,x

x D x,x

y D w,y

y D y,y

xy D 21 x,y C y,x

2.93

Physical Concepts

Figure 2.33

51

Comparing the circumferential rotation y with the one used for the ring problem

in Eq. (2.51) one sees that according to Donnells approximation the circumferential displacement component v is neglected relative to the gradient of the normal

displacement component in the circumferential direction w,y .

Employing the stationary potential energy criterion, the following set of

nonlinear governing equations are derived in [2.2] for isotropic circular cylindrical

shells.

Nx,x C Nxy,y D 0

(2.94a)

Nxy,x C Ny,y D 0

(2.94b)

1

Ny C Nx w,xx

R

D p.

C 2Nxy w,xy C Ny w,yy

(2.94c)

introduction of the isotropic constitutive equations

Nx D Cx C y

Mx D Dx C y

Ny D Cy C x

My D Dy C x

2.95

1

Mxy C Myx

Nxy D C

xy

D D1 xy

2

2

and the kinematic relations from Eq. (2.93) into Eq. (2.94). The extensional

and the bending stiffness parameters are, respectively, C D Eh/1 2 and

D D Eh3 /121 2 .

A simpler set of two equations in two variables w and f can be derived as

follows. Notice that if one denes an Airy stress function f such that

Nx D f,yy ,

Ny D f,xx ,

Nxy D f,xy

2.96

52

then the in-plane equilibrium equations (2.94a) and (2.94b) are identically satised. The remaining out-of-plane equilibrium equation (2.94c) and the compatibility

equation

1

2.97

x,yy C y,xx xy,xy D w,2xy w,xx w,yy C w,xx

R

yield upon substitution and regrouping

1

f,xx f,yy w,xx 2f,xy w,xy C f,xx w,yy D p

R

1

r4 f Ehw,2xy w,xx w,yy C w,xx D 0

R

Dr4 w C

(2.98a)

(2.98b)

where

r4 D ,xxxx C 2 ,xxyy C ,yyyy .

2.98c

These equations were rst presented by Donnell as three equations in 1933 [2.35].

When talking about buckling of thin-walled shells one must distinguish between

collapse at the maximum point of a load-deection curve and bifurcation buckling,

the same types of behavior as encountered earlier by shallow arches. Thus if

one employs the general nonlinear analysis governed by Eqs. (2.98), the axially

compressed perfect isotropic shell initially deforms axisymmetrically along the

path OA (see Figure 2.34) until a maximum (or limit) load A is reached at point

A. However, in this case there exist many bifurcation points along the fundamental

path between O and A. Hence, once the lowest bifurcation load c is reached, the

initial failure of the perfect structure will be characterized by a rapidly growing

asymmetric deformation along the path BD with a decreasing axial load . Notice

that in this case, the (axisymmetric) collapse load of the perfect structure A is of

no engineering signicance.

The linearized stability equations for the determination of the critical load c at

the bifurcation point can be derived by the application of the adjacent equilibrium

criterion. To investigate the existence of adjacent equilibrium congurations one

Figure 2.34

Physical Concepts

53

w D w0 C w,

O

O

f D f0 C f

2.99

where w0 , f0 represent the prebuckling solutions along the fundamental path and w,

O

O

f represent small perturbations at buckling. Direct substitution of these expressions

into Eqs. (2.98a) and (2.98b) and deletion of squares and products of the perturbation qualities, yields a set of nonlinear governing equations for the prebuckling

quantities w0 , f0 which are identical in form to Eq. (2.98), and a set of linearized

O

stability equations governing the perturbation quantities w,

O f

1O

O D0

f,xx LNL f0 , w

O LNL w0 , f

R

O Eh wO ,xx C Eh LNL w0 , w

r4 f

O D0

R

Dr4 wO C

(2.100a)

(2.100b)

where

LNL S, T D S,yy T,xx 2S,xy T,xy C S,xx T,yy .

2.101

a. Axial Compression

First consider the stability of a cylindrical shell that is simply supported at its

ends and subjected to a uniformly distributed axial compressive load P. Under

this loading the prebuckling deformation of the shell is axisymmetric as shown in

Figure 2.35a. The critical load Pc is the lowest axial load at which the axisymmetric

equilibrium state ceases to be stable.

Assuming that the shell is sufciently long so that the effect of bending of the

shell wall close to the ends can be neglected, then the prebuckling state can be

approximated by the following membrane state

Nx0 D

P

Eh2

D

,

2R

cR

Ny0 D Nxy0 D 0,

w0 D constant

2.102

where D Nx /Nc and Nc D Eh2 /cR. See also below an alternate denition given

for by Eqs. (2.110) and (2.111).

Figure 2.35

54

Figure 2.35b. Notice that this membrane state satises the nonlinear governing

equations of the prebuckling path, Eq. (2.98), identically and reduces the linearized

stability equations, Eq. (2.100) to the following set of constant coefcient equations

Dr4 wO C

1O

Eh2

f,xx C

wO ,xx D 0

R

cR

O Eh wO ,xx D 0.

r4 f

R

2.103a

2.103b

wO ,xx D 0 at x D 0, L, then these equations admit separable solutions of the form

wO D A sin m

x

y

cos n ,

L

R

O D B sin m x cos n y

f

L

R

1 2m C n2 2

2m

c,mn D

C 2

2

2m

m C n2 2

2.104

2.105

O D h sin m

W

x

y

cos n ,

L

R

3

x

2m

y

O D Eh

sin m cos n

f

2c 2m C n2 2

L

R

2.106

where

2m

Dm

2 Rh

2c

2

n2

2

1

Dn

;

2c R

2 Rh

cD

31 2 .

2.107

Notice that the eigenvalues c,mn depend not only on the geometric parameters

but also on the axial and circumferential wave numbers m and n.

For cylinders of intermediate length, a close estimate of the smallest eigenvalue

may be obtained directly by analytical minimization of c,mn with respect to the

quantity mn D 2m C n2 2 /2m in Eq. (2.105). Differentiation leads to the result

that c,mm is a minimum for

mn D

2m C n2 2

D 1.

2m

2.108

Thus all mode shapes which satisfy Eq. (2.108) have the same (lowest) eigenvalue

of c D 1. Regrouping Eq. (2.108) one gets the well known Koiter circle [2.36]

2m C n2 m D 0

2.109

c D

c

D 1.

c

2.110

Physical Concepts

55

c D

Eh

E

h

D

cR

31 2 R

2.111

the critical buckling stress for axially compressed circular cylindrical shells, derived

shortly after the turn of the century independently from each other by Lorenz [2.37]

and [9.44], Timoshenko [9.45] and Southwell [9.29], Volume 2. See also the historical review of shell buckling in Chapter 9, Volume 2.

For short cylinders, because m and n are integers the analytical minimization to

arrive at Eq. (2.108) is inadmissible. In such cases Eq. (2.105) must be evaluated

repeatedly for different values of m and n in a trial-and-error procedure to determine

the critical load. If the cylinder is so short that

R 2

R

2.112

> 2c

L

h

then during buckling only a half-wave in the axial direction will be formed and

the smallest value of Eq. (2.105) is obtained for n D 0. Thus

c

1 Rh 2

1

D c,m0 D

C

.

2.113

c D

Rh 2

c

2

2c L

2c L

By taking the length of the cylinder shorter and shorter, the second term in

Eq. (2.113) becomes smaller and smaller in comparison with the rst term. Thus,

by neglecting it one obtains

c

Rh 2

c D

D

2.114

cl

4c L

or

2

2 E

h

c D

2.115

2

121 L

which is Eulers formula for a wide column, i.e. a at plate that is simply

supported at the loaded edges and free along the unloaded edges.

A very long cylinder can buckle as an Euler column with undeformed crosssection (m D n D 1). The Donnell formulation used does not yield the correct

result for this case as can be seen from Figure 2.36a. Comparing these results with

the values displayed in Figure 2.36b, which are based on Loves theory (Eq. (i) on

p. 464 of [2.1]), one sees that Donnells approach also yields somewhat inaccurate

results for moderately long cylinders. The differences between the predictions of

the two theories can be seen more precisely in Figure 2.37. Notice that the results

of Loves theory show the proper limiting behavior for very long shells.

The Euler buckling load of very long thin-walled cylinders can be obtained by

setting I D R3 h and A D 2Rh in the appropriate column Eq. (2.3) yielding

Pc

EI

E R 2

.

2.116

c D

D 2 2 D 2

A

AL

2 L

56

Figure 2.36a

Figure 2.36b

Buckling diagram for axial compression based on Donnells theory, R/h D 1000

Buckling diagram for axial compression based on Loves theory, R/h D 1000

Physical Concepts

Figure 2.37

57

Comparison of buckling load predictions based on Donnell and Love type theories

Additional results dealing with orthotropic and anisotropic shells can be found, for

example, in [2.38], [2.39], [2.40] and [2.41].

b. Combined External Pressure and Axial Compression

If the shell is simply supported at its ends then under the simultaneous action of

uniform lateral pressure and axial compression the prebuckling deformation of the

shell is axisymmetric as shown in Figure 2.38a. The critical pressure pc is dened

as the lowest pressure at which the axisymmetric form loses its stability.

Again it is assumed, for simplicity, that the shell is sufciently long so that the

prebuckling state can be approximated by the following membrane state;

Nx0 D

Eh2

;

cR

Eh2

;

cR

w0 D constant .

2.117

Notice that thus, in effect, the axisymmetric form in Figure 2.38a is replaced by

that in Figure 2.38b. It can easily be veried that this membrane state satises

the nonlinear governing equations of the prebuckling path, Eq. (2.98), identically

(whereby p D pe ) and reduces the linearized stability equations, Eqs. 2.100, to

the following set of constant coefcient equations;

Dr4 wO C

Figure 2.38

Nxy0 D 0;

1O

Eh2

Eh2

f,xx C pN e

wO ,yy C

wO ,xx D 0

R

cR

cR

(2.118a)

58

Eh

(2.118b)

wO ,xx D 0.

R

The boundary conditions and the separable solutions are the same as for the

preceding example. The use of Eqs. (2.104) leads to a standard eigenvalue problem

with eigenvalues

1 2m C n2 2

2m

n2

D

C

p

N

.

2.119

e

2

2m

2m C n2 2

2m

O

r4 f

D RO pN e

2.120

on the lateral surface, whereas if RO D 1/2 then the pressure contributes also to axial

compression through the end plates, forming the so-called hydrostatic pressure case.

With the help of this expression the eigenvalues can be written as

2

2m

m

2m C n2 2

pN c,mn D

C 2

.

2.121

O 2m C n2

2m

m C n2 2

2R

The eigenfunctions are the same as for the preceding example (see Eqs. (2.106)).

Considering Eq. (2.121), a distinct eigenvalue corresponds to each pair of values

m and n and it is seen that the smallest eigenvalue corresponds in every case to

m D 1. For particular values of L/R and R/h, the n corresponding to the smallest

eigenvalue may be determined by trial-and-error.

Numerical results based on Eq. (2.121) are shown in Figure 2.39. From these

curves, calculated for different R/h ratios, it is seen that for shorter tubes the

critical external pressure pc increases rapidly as the ratio L/R decreases. On the

other hand for long tubes, for L/R > 50 say, the critical external pressure does not

depend on the length. Its value can also be deduced from Eq. (2.64), the critical

pressure for a ring subjected to external uid pressure, as follows. Recalling that

the compressive force per unit length Ny acting on the elemental ring of unit width

is equal to pc R, then from Eq. (2.64)

Nyc D pc R D 3

EI

.

R2

2.122

If one now replaces E by E/1 2 and sets I D h3 /12, then Eq. (2.122) yields

3

E

h

pc D

2.123

2

41 R

the critical buckling pressure for long tubes subjected to uniform external pressure.

It also becomes apparent from the results displayed in Figure 2.39 that for n D 4

or less there is a noticeable difference between the predictions of Eq. (2.121), which

is based on Donnells theory, and the results of the Love theory of [2.1] (Eq. (d) on

p. 496). For n D 2, as well known, the Donnell values are about 33 percent too high.

Physical Concepts

59

the rst investigations of the stability of externally pressurized tubes were made

by Southwell [9.26] and [9.29], Volume 2) and von Mises [9.27] and [9.31],

Volume 2). For results dealing with orthotropic and anisotropic shells the reader

may consult [2.42], [2.43] and [2.44].

c. Combined Torsion and Axial Compression

Assuming, for simplicity, that the shell is sufciently long, then the prebuckling

solution under the simultaneous action of axial compression and torsion can be

approximated by the following membrane state;

Nx0 D

Eh2

;

cR

Ny0 D 0;

Nxy0 D

Mt

Eh2

N

D

;

2R2

cR

w0 D constant 2.124

60

Direct substitution shows that this membrane state satises the nonlinear

governing equations of the prebuckling path, Eqs. (2.98) identically and that the

linearized stability equations, Eqs. (2.100), are reduced to the following set of

constant coefcient equations;

Dr4 wO C

1O

Eh2

Eh2

f,xx 2N

wO ,xy C

wO ,xx D 0

R

cR

cR

O Eh wO ,xx D 0.

r4 f

R

(2.125a)

(2.125b)

Notice that these equations differ markedly from the previously derived stability

equations (see Eqs. (2.103) and (2.118)) in that in the out-of-plane equilibrium

equation one encounters both odd and even derivatives of wO with respect to the

same independent variable. This indicates that one can no longer satisfy the stability

equations by using separable solutions in the form of simple products of sines and

cosines. Physically this means that there are no generators which remain straight

during buckling and which form a system of straight nodal lines for a buckled

surface.

Under torsional loading the buckling deformation of a cylindrical shell consists

of a number of circumferential waves that spiral around the cylinder from one end

to the other. If one now assumes that the buckling mode is represented by

N

N

x

y

x

y

wO D h

Cmn sin m

sin n C h

Dmn sin m

cos n

2.126

L

R

L

R

mD1

mD1

an expression that satises simply supported boundary conditions wO D wO ,xx D 0 at

x D 0, L, then an approximate solution of the linearized stability equations can be

obtained as follows.

First, the compatibility equation (2.125b) is solved exactly for the stress function

O in terms of the assumed radial displacement w.

f

O Since it is assumed that the shell

is sufciently long so that the effect of bending of the shell wall close to the

ends can be neglected, only a particular solution of equation (2.125b) needs to be

considered. Secondly, the equation of equilibrium (2.125a) is solved approximately

O and wO and then applying Galerkins procedure. Carrying

by substituting therein f

out the steps yields for a given number of circumferential full waves n the following

homogeneous system of two simultaneous algebraic equations;

1

Mm Cmn C Nmj Djn D 0

N

m D 1, 2, 3, . . . , N

1

Nmj Cjn C Mm Dmn D 0

N

where

Mm D m Nc,mn

4

2.127

Physical Concepts

Nmj Djn

N

jm

D

jm Djn ;

m 2 j2

jD1

Nmj Cjn

61

N

jm

D

jm Cjn

m 2 j2

jD1

xy

Nxy

D

(2.128)

hc

cl

2

2m C n2

1

3m

m

C

Nc,mn D

2

4

m n

2 n

n 2m C n2

jm D 1 if j m D odd integer

D 0 otherwise.

Using matrix notation Eqs. (2.127) can be put into the form of a standard eigenvalue problem

[[A] N [B]]X D 0

2.129

which can be solved routinely on a digital computer. Since the structure buckles

at the lowest stress at which instability can occur, for a given shell N is minimized

with respect to the circumferential wave number n. This is done by truncating the

determinant of the coefcients of Eq. (2.129) and nding the lowest eigenvalue

by matrix iteration. The size of the determinant is increased until the eigenvalue

converges to the desired accuracy (say, ve signicant gures).

Results for R/h D 1000 and different L/R ratios are displayed in Figure 2.40.

As can be seen, for shorter shells the critical normalized torque parameter Nc

increases rapidly as the ratio L/R decreases. Notice also, that by taking the radius

of the cylinder larger and larger, while keeping its length constant, the lower bound

festoon curve for Nc approaches the critical shear load of an innitely long strip

with simply supported edges obtained by Southwell and Skan [2.45]

N D

c D 5.35

2 D

L2 h

2.130

Limiting results for large values of L/R, when the shell will buckle with two full

waves in the circumferential direction, have been derived, for example, in [2.2]

using Donnells theory yielding

3/2

E

h

c D 0.272

2.131

2

3/4

1

R

and in [2.1] using a Love type theory yielding

E

c D 0.236

1 2 3/4

3/2

h

.

R

2.132

Also shown in Figure 2.40 are solutions based on the following buckling mode

x

y

wO D hCmn sin m n

2.133

L

R

62

where Cmn is a constant and m, n are integers. Equation (2.133) satises the

requirement of periodicity in the circumferential coordinate, but does not satisfy

any of the commonly used boundary conditions at the cylinder ends. Consequently,

this simple expression may only be used for sufciently long cylinders, whose end

conditions have little inuence on the magnitude of the critical load.

Using the Donnell type theory and proceeding as outlined earlier one obtains a

particularly simple solution of the linearized stability equations (2.125) with the

following expression for the eigenvalues

1 2m C n2 2

3m

m

C

2.134

Nc,mn D

2

2

2

4

m n

n m C n

2 n

where Nc,mn D xy /c . Notice that the eigenvalues Nc,mn depend not only on the

geometric parameters and the specied axial load D /c , but also on the axial

and circumferential wave numbers m and n.

Timoshenko used expressions similar to the one given by Eq. (2.133) to solve

Love type stability equations in [2.1]. His solution curve agrees well for n 4 full

waves in the circumferential direction with the one based on Donnells stability

equations. However, for large values of L/R when the shells buckle with two full

Physical Concepts

63

waves in the circumferential direction, one can observe the well known fact that

Donnells equations yield about 10 per cent higher values than solutions based on

the more accurate Love type theory.

The rst investigation of buckling of cylindrical shells under torsion is due

to E. Schwerin [2.46]. Buckling under torsion is further discussed in Chapter 9,

Volume 2. For a complete review of the torsion problem the interested reader may

consult Yamakis book [2.47].

d. Combined Bending and Axial Compression

If a cylindrical shell is relatively short and the shell edges are held circular, then

the circumferential attening of the cylinder cross section caused by the bending

moment can be neglected. In this case the prebuckling state under an external load

consisting of combined bending and axial compression can be approximated quite

accurately by the following membrane state;

Nx0 D

Eh2

y

RO a C RO b cos

,

cR

R

Ny0 D Nxy0 D 0,

w0 D constant

2.135

where

RO a D

N0

;

Nc

RO b D

Nc D

Nb

;

Nc

Eh2

;

cR

N0 D

cD

P

;

2R

Nb D

M0

;

R2

31 2 .

Notice that this membrane state does not satisfy rigorously the nonlinear

equations governing the prebuckling state, Eqs. 2.98. However, because of its

simplicity it has been widely used in the literature (see [2.40], [2.48] and [2.49]) to

obtain approximate solutions. The linearized stability equations (2.100) then reduce

to the following set of variable coefcient equations

1O

Eh2

y

O

O

R

C

C

R

cos

wO ,xx D 0

(2.136a)

Dr4 wO C f

,xx

a

b

R

cR

R

O Eh wO ,xx D 0.

r4 f

(2.136b)

R

If one now assumes that the buckling mode is represented by

N

x

y

wO D h sin m

Cmn cos n

L nD1

r

2.137

x D 0, L, then an approximate solution of the linearized stability equations can be

obtained as follows.

First the compatibility equation (2.136b) is solved exactly for the stress function

O

f in terms of the assumed radial displacement w.

O Here it is assumed that the

64

effect of bending of the shell wall close to the ends can be neglected. Thus only

a particular solution of equation (2.136b) needs to be considered. Secondly, the

equation of equilibrium (2.136a) is solved approximately by substituting therein

O and wO and then applying Galerkins procedure. Carrying out the steps yields

f

for a given number of axial half waves m the following homogeneous system of

algebraic equations;

c,mn RO a Cmn 21 RO b [1 C 1n 0N Cm,n1 C 1 0n Cm,nC1 ]

n D 1, 2, 3, . . . , N

where

c,mn

2m D m2

1

D

2

Rh 2

2c

2m C n2

2m

2

2

C 2 m 2

m C n

2

1

2

2 Rh

n D n

,

2c R

cD

2.138

2.139

31 2

Using matrix notation Eq. (2.138) can be put into the following form;

c,m0 RO a

RO

b

12 RO b

c,m1 RO a

1 RO b

2

21 RO b

c,m2 RO a

...

21 RO b

...

21 RO b

...

c,mN1 RO a

21 RO b

Cm0

Cm1

Cm2

D0

...

21 RO b . . .

CmN

c,mN RO a

(2.140)

This tridiagonal matrix eigenvalue problem can be solved very conveniently by a

recursive Gaussian elimination scheme originally derived by Potter [2.50] and used

later extensively by the Harvard group under Budiansky [2.51]. Either the normalized axial load parameter RO a D or the normalized bending moment parameter

RO b can be chosen as the eigenvalue, whereby in each case the other load parameter has a specied xed value. Since the shell buckles at the lowest stress at

which instability can occur, the eigenvalue chosen is minimized with respect to

the axial half-wave number m. This is done by truncating the size of the matrix

in Eq. (2.140) for a given value of m and nding the lowest eigenvalue by matrix

iteration. The size of the determinant is increased until the eigenvalue converges

to the desired accuracy (say, ve signicant gures).

Numerical results for R/h D 100 and different L/R ratios are displayed in

Figure 2.41 for pure bending (RO a D 0). Notice that for shorter shells the normalized

bending stress ratio RO b increases rapidly as the ratio L/R decreases. Further,

whereas for shorter shells (L/R < 0.5, say) for certain L/R ratios RO b may vary

noticeably, for longer shells (L/R > 1.0, say) the critical normalized bending stress

ratio RO b can be set equal to the lower bound of the festoon curves of about 1.014.

Physical Concepts

Figure 2.41

65

Thus for pure bending the maximum critical bending stress is only slightly higher

than the critical stress for axial compression only.

Here it must be mentioned that the statement made in [2.1] on p. 483 about the

maximum critical stress for bending alone is 1.3 times the critical stress for pure

compression does not hold in general. It is only true for the particular set of geometric

and material properties used by Flugge [2.48] for his habilitation paper.

Finally to check whether it is safe to neglect the effect of ovalization of the

circular cross-section caused by the applied bending moment one can use the

results of [2.52] here reproduced in part in Figure 2.42. The authors of this paper

Figure 2.42

results (from [2.52])

66

used the two-dimensional nite difference code STAGS [2.53] to calculate the

collapse bending moment while taking the effects of boundary conditions and

geometric nonlinearities in the prebuckling state into account. As can be seen from

Figure (2.42) for shells of moderate length (L/R < 3, say) the results obtained with

Eq. (2.140) are quite accurate.

2.1.12

consist of general shells of revolution, the middle surface of which is obtained by

rotating a plane curve about an axis in the plane of the curve (see Figures 2.43

and 2.44). The lines of principal curvature on a shell of revolution are called the

parallels and the meridians. The parallels are formed by the intersection of planes

normal to the axis of revolution with the shell surface, whereas the meridians are

the intersections with the shell surface of planes that contain the axis of revolution.

Points on the middle surface are referred to coordinates and , where denotes

the angle between the axis of revolution and a normal to the surface, whereas

is the circumferential coordinate. The principal radii of curvature of the surface in

the - and direction are R and R , respectively. It is convenient to introduce an

additional variable r dened as

r D R sin .

Figure 2.43

2.141

Physical Concepts

67

ds D R d;

ds D r d .

2.142

dr D ds cos

2.143

Combining the last two equations one obtains the additional relationship

dr

D R cos .

d

2.144

Notice that for a shell of revolution the geometric quantities are independent of

the circumferential coordinate
.

In this section the relatively simple Donnell Mushtari Vlasov type quasishallow equations will be used, which are based on the following middle-surface

kinematic relations

1

1

D

,

2.145

D C 2

2

R

1

D
C
2

2

D
C

1

cos

D
,
C

r

r

1 r 1

1

D

C ,
.

2 R r

r

,

For quasi-shallow shells the terms containing u and v are omitted from the rotation

expressions, thus

D

1

w,

R

2.146

1

D w,

r

and

D

1

u, C w

R

1

v,
C u cos C w sin

r

r v

1

D

C u,
.

R r , r

D

2.147

Employing the stationary potential energy criterion, the following set of nonlinear

equations are derived in [2.2] for isotropic shells of revolution;

rN , C R N
,
R cos N
D rR p

2.148a

2.148b

68

1

1

rM ,

C R M
,
C cos M
, C M
C M
,

R

r

,

,

N

cos

N

C 2 R

rR

C

M

r

R

R

,

The variables R , R and r characterize the shape of the middle surface of the

undeformed shell, and are functions of alone. Three equations in the three variables u, v, w, which denote middle surface displacement components in the ,

and normal directions, respectively, can be derived by introducing the isotropic

constitutive equations

N D C C

M D D C

N D C C

M D C

2.149

1

M
C M

D D1

2

2

and the kinematic relations from Eq. (2.145) into Eq. (2.148).

The linearized stability equations for the determination of the critical load at the

bifurcation point may be obtained from the nonlinear equilibrium Eqs. (2.148) by

application of the adjacent equilibrium criterion. To investigate the existence of

adjacent equilibrium congurations one assumes that

N
D C

u D u0 C uO ,

v D v0 C vO ,

w D w0 C wO

2.150

(u, v, w) is an adjacent equilibrium conguration at the same value of applied load

as the conguration (u0 , v0 , w0 ) and (Ou, vO w)

O is an arbitrarily small incremental

displacement. Direct substitution of these expressions into Eqs. (2.148) and deletion

of squares and products of the perturbation quantities, yields a set of nonlinear

governing equations for the prebuckling quantities (u0 , v0 , w0 ) which are identical

in form to Eqs. (2.148), and a set of linearized stability equations governing the

perturbation quantities (Ou, vO w).

O

If the applied load is axisymmetric, then the deformation prior to the loss of

stability is also axisymmetric. If, further, one assumes that the prebuckling rotations

are zero then the axisymmetric equations governing the prebuckling state become

1

rM0 ,

R

(2.151a)

(2.151b)

,

O , C R N

O , R cos N

O D 0

r N

(2.152a)

O
,
C R cos N

O
D 0

O
, C R N

r N

(2.152b)

Physical Concepts

1

O ,

r M

R

C

,

69

R

O
, C M

O
C M

O
,

O
,
cos M

M

r

R

O C R sin N

O
fN0 r O , C N
0 r O
,

O
,
r N

cos M

r

C N
0 R O ,
C N
0 R O
,
g D 0

(2.152c)

C2

where

O D CO C O

N

O D DO C O

M

O
D CO
C O

N

O
D DO
C O

M

O
D C

N

2.153

O
C M

O

M

D D1 O

2

1

O

2

and

O D

1

uO , C w

O

R

1

O
D Ov,
C uO cos C wO sin

r

r vO

1

C uO ,

O
D

R r , r

1

O
D wO ,

R

2.154

1

O D wO ,

r

with

O D

1 O

,

R

2.155

1

cos O

O
D O
,
C

r

r

1 r 1O

1O

O
D

C ,
.

2 R r

r

,

In the following these stability equations will be used to solve buckling problems

of common structural congurations other than cylindrical shells which can be

represented by symmetrically loaded shells of revolution.

a. Externally Pressurized Shallow Spherical Caps

shown in Figure 2.45. To satisfy the shallowness criterion the rise H of the shell

must be much smaller that the base radius a. The position of a point on the middlesurface is described by polar coordinates r, . Notice that R D R, a constant and

sin D r/R. Furthermore, approximately, cos D 1 and dr D R d. Thus

1

, D ,r .

R

2.156

70

Figure 2.45

state (Eqs. 2.152) become with p D p D 0 and p D pe

rNr0 ,r N 0 D 0

(2.157)

rNr
0 ,r C Nr
0 D 0

1

1

1

rMr0 ,rr M
0,r Nr0 C N
0 D pe

r

r

R

and the linearized stability equations reduce to

O r
,
N

O
D 0

O r ,r C N

r N

(2.158a)

O r
,r C N

O
,
C N

O r
D 0

r N

(2.158b)

1

2

r

O r ,rr C M

O
,
M

O r
,
N

Or CN

O
,r C M

O r
C M

O
r ,r
C M

O

r M

r

r

R

frNr0 O r ,r C rNr
0 O
,r C Nr
0 O r,
C N
0 O
,
g D 0.

(2.158c)

Assuming that prior to buckling the perfect spherical shell is in a uniform membrane

state of stress then

2.159

Nr0 D N
0 D 12 pe R, Nr
0 D 0

with an associated uniform inward radial displacement of

w0 D pe

1 R2

.

2 Eh

2.160

Notice that this uniform membrane state of stress satises the axisymmetric

equations governing the prebuckling state identically and that this prebuckling

state is rotation free. Substitution into the linearized stability equations yields

O r ,r C N

O r
,
N

O
D 0

r N

(2.161a)

O
,
C N

O r
D 0

O r
,r C N

r N

(2.161b)

Physical Concepts

71

1

2

O r ,rr C M

O
,r C M

O r
C M

O
r ,r
C M

O
,
M

O r
,

r M

r

r

r

1

O
C pN e Rfr O r ,r C O
,
g D 0.

Or CN

N

(2.161c)

R

2

Introduction of the appropriate incremental constitutive and kinematic relations for

the stress and moment resultants leads after some regrouping to a coupled set of

three homogeneous equations in uO , vO , w.

O As has been shown, for instance in [2.2],

a simpler set of two equations in two unknowns can be derived as follows. If one

O such that

denes an Airy stress function f

1O

1 O

1O

1 O

O ,rr ; N

O
D f

O r
D f

N

2.162

Nr D f

,r C 2 f,
:

,r
C 2 f,

r

r

r

r

then the in-plane equilibrium equations (Eqs. (2.161a) and (2.161b)) are identically

satised and, with the help of the appropriate constitutive and kinematic relations

O
and M

O r
the out-of-plane equilibrium equation (Eq. 2.161c) can be

O r, M

for M

reduced to

1

1 O

C pe Rr2 wO D 0

DrwO C r2 f

2.163

R

2

where

1

1

2.164

r2 D ,rr C ,r C 2 ,

r

r

r4 D r2 r2 .

2.165

A second equation in terms of f

been shown in [2.2] can be written as

1

1 4O

2.166

r f r2 wO D 0.

Eh

R

The homogeneous Eqs. (2.163) and (2.166) have nontrivial solutions only for

discrete values of the external pressure pe . The smallest such value is the critical

pressure pe .

A particularly simple solution was presented by Hutchinson in [2.54]. Using the

coordinate transformation

x D r cos ,

y D r sin

2.167

1

1

2.168

r2 D ,rr C ,r C 2 , D ,xx C ,yy

r

r

Applying this transformation it is seen that Eqs. (2.163) and (2.166) admit separable

solutions of the form

x

y

wO D A cos x cos y

2.169

R

R

O D B cos x x cos y y

f

R

R

72

pN D

p

1

D 2x C 2y C 2

h/Rc

x C 2y

2.170

where

2x

2

1

;

2c R

Rh

2x

2y

2

1

;

2c R

Rh

2y

c D

Eh

;

cR

cD

31 2

Notice that a close estimate of the smallest eigenvalue may be obtained

directly by analytical minimization of pN with respect to the quantity D 2x C 2y

Eq. (2.170). Differentiation leads to the result that pN is a minimum for

D 2x C y2 D 1.

2.171

Thus all mode shapes which satisfy Eq. (2.171) have the same (lowest) eigenvalue

of pN D 2. Thus the critical pressure for externally pressurized (shallow) caps is

2

h

2E

h

.

2.172

pc D 2 c D

R

31 2 R

This is the same result that was obtained for a complete spherical shell using

Legendre functions pn cos by Flugge ([2.55], p. 477) and by Timoshenko and

Gere ([2.1], p. 517).

It is interesting, that if one calculates the corresponding critical stress from

Eq. (2.159) then

2

1

2E

h

R

Nr0 D N
0 D c h D

2

31 2 R

c D

h

31 2 R

the same magnitude as the critical stress for an axially compressed cylindrical shell

of radius R and wall-thickness h (see Eq. (2.111)). Finally, it must be remembered

that the assumed functions in Eq. (2.169) of the separable solution do not satisfy

the boundary conditions at the edges of the spherical cap. Thus the validity of

the present simplied analysis is limited to cases where the wavelengths of the

buckling pattern are small compared to the radius of the shell or what is the

same if the wave numbers x and y are both large compared to unity.

b. Toroidal Shell Segments under External Pressure p D pe

by rotation of a plane curve about an axis in the plane of the curve. If the plane

Physical Concepts

Figure 2.46

73

torus. As can be seen from Figure 2.46 for the middle surface of the segment of a

toroidal shell

R D b, R D a and r D a b1 sin .

2.173

Further, for a sufciently shallow L/R 1 segment in the region of the equator

of the torus, the angle is approximately equal to /2. Then cos D 0, sin D 1

and r D a. The governing equations can further be simplied if one introduces

x and y as axial and circumferential coordinates, as indicated in Figure 2.46.

Notice that

2.174

dx D Rx d D b d and dy D Ry d D a d .

The equations governing the membrane prebuckling state (Eqs. (2.151)) become

Nx0,x D 0

2.175a

Nxy0,x D 0

2.175b

Nx0 Ny0

C

D0

b

a

2.175c

O xy,y D 0

O x,x C N

N

O xy,x C N

O y,y D 0

N

Ox

Oy

N

N

O x,xx C M

O xy C M

O yx ,xy C M

O y,y

M

C

b

a

[Nx0 O x C Nxy0 O y ,x C Ny0 O y C Nxy0 O x ,y ] D 0

(2.176a)

(2.176b)

(2.176c)

where

O x D COx C Oy

N

O x D DO x C O y

M

O y D COy C Ox

N

O y D DO x C O y

M

O xy D C

N

1

O xy

2

O xy C M

O yx

M

D D1 Oxy

2

2.177

74

and

O x D uO ,x

O x D wO ,x

O x D O x,x

O y D vO ,y

O y D wO ,y

O y D O y,y

2.178

O xy D 21 O x,y C O y,x .

O xy D uO ,y C vO ,x

Stability analysis of both bowed-out and bowed-in shallow toroidal shell segments

under three different loading conditions have been presented by Stein and McElman

in [2.56] and Hutchinson in [2.57].

O such that

Introducing an Airy stress function f

O ,yy ,

Ox Df

N

O ,xx ,

Oy D f

N

O ,xy

O xy D f

N

2.179

then the in-plane linearized stability equations (Eqs. (2.176a) and (2.176b)) are

identically satised and the out-of-plane stability equation (Eq. (2.176c)) can be

written as

1O

1O

Dr4 wO C f

O ,xx C 2Nxy0 wO ,xy C Ny0 wO ,yy D 0.

,yy D f,xx Nx0 w

b

a

2.180

A second equation involving wO and f

condition, which can be derived by eliminating the in-plane displacements uO , vO in

the strain displacement relations of Eqs. (2.178). This yields

1

1

1 4O

r f wO ,yy wO ,xx D 0.

Eh

b

a

2.181

Assuming that the prebuckling state is torsion free, that is Nxy0 D 0, and using the

simply supported conditions

O Df

O ,xx D 0

wO D wO ,xx D f

at x D 0, L

2.182

then together with Eqs. (2.180) and (2.181) one has a linear eigenvalue problem

for determining the critical buckling load. Using the eigenfunction

x

y

wO D h sin m sin n

2.183

L

a

3

2

2

O D Eh m C n a/b sin m x sin n y

f

2c 2m C n2 2

L

a

1

2m C n2 a/b2 Eh2

2

2 2

m C n C

C Nx0 2m C Ny0 n2 D 0

2

2m C n2 2

ca

where

2m D m2

ah 2

,

2c L

n2 D n2

ah

2c

2

1

,

a

cD

31 2 .

2.184

2.185

Physical Concepts

75

Assuming now that the perfect shallow toroidal segment is loaded by uniform

external lateral pressure only, then the corresponding membrane stress state

Nx0 D 0,

Ny0 D pe a,

Nxy0 D 0

2.186

satises the equations governing the prebuckling state (Eqs. (2.175)) identically

and from the characteristic Eq. (2.184) one obtains the following expression for

the eigenvalue;

2

2

2

1

C

a/b

pN c,mn D 2 2m C n2 2 C m 2 n 2 2

2.187

2n

m C n

where pN c,mn D pe /Eh2 /ca2 . The critical buckling pressure pN c corresponds to the

minimum value of pN c,mn among all possible integer values of m and n. It is easily

shown that for the two loading conditions considered in this section the minimum

value of pN c,mn always occurs for m D 1 if n is treated as a continuous variable.

This is valid if n is sufciently large, which must be checked a posteriori. Notice

that the restriction to n > 4, say, is necessary in any case since Donnell type

equations are used.

Considering the predicted critical buckling pressures plotted in Figure 2.47, one

must notice the signicant difference between the predicted buckling strengths

of the bowed-out Ry /Rx > 0 and Ry /Rx > 0 the bowed-in shells which have

otherwise essentially the same dimensions.

Considering now the hydrostatic pressure case there is a prebuckling axial

compressive stress in addition to the circumferential stress. Notice that the

Figure 2.47

Buckling diagrams for toroidal shell segments under external lateral pressure

76

Nx0 D 21 pe a,

Nxy0 D 0

2.188

satises the equations governing the prebuckling state (Eqs. (2.175)) identically

and that the characteristic Eq. (2.184) yields now the following expression for the

eigenvalue

2

2

2

1

C

a/b

2

m

C n2 2 C m 2 n 2 2

2.189

pN c,mn D 2

m C 2 a/bn2

m C n

where pN c,mn D pe /Eh2 /ca2 . Once again the critical buckling pressure pN c corresponds to the minimum value of pN c,mn for m D 1 and treating n as a continuous

variable. From the plots of the predicted critical buckling pressures shown in

Figure 2.48 one must conclude that the trends are similar to those of the lateral pressure case, that is, there is signicant discrepancy between the buckling pressures

of the bowed-out Ry /Rx > 0 and the bowed-in Ry /Rx < 0 shells.

Notice that when Ry /Rx D 1 the shell is locally spherical at each point on its

surface and the prebuckling stresses are exactly those corresponding to a complete

spherical shell of similar radius and thickness, namely Nx0 D Ny0 D 21 pe a. As

can be seen from Figure 2.48 the critical buckling pressure of the Ry /Rx D 1.0

case for Z 3 is also that for a complete spherical shell

pc D 2.0

Eh2

2E

D

2

ca

31 2

2

h

.

a

2.190

Figure 2.48 Buckling diagrams for toroidal shell segments under hydrostatic pressure

Physical Concepts

77

uniformly distributed tensile axial force N0 at its edges is

Nx0 D N0 ,

Nxy0 D 0

2.191

as can easily be derived from the equations governing the prebuckling state

(Eqs. (2.175)). Notice that buckling is due to the compressive circumferential stress

Ny0 , which will be induced only if Ry /Rx > 0. In other words, buckling under a

tensile force occurs only for the bowed-out shells. The characteristic Eq. (2.184)

yields in this case the following expression for the eigenvalue

1

2m C n2 a/b2

T

2

2 2

m C n C

2.192

c,mn D

2n2 a/b 2m

2m C n2 2

T

where c,mn

D N0 /Eh2 /ca. The critical normalized axial tensile force T

c correT

sponds to the minimum value of c,mn for m D 1 and treating n as a continuous

variable. Results of such buckling load calculations are shown in Figure 2.49,

whereas a typical buckling mode is displayed in Figure 2.50. In all cases the

buckled shape is similar to that of a cylinder which buckled under radial pressure,

with one half-wave in the axial direction and many small waves in the circumferential direction.

Figure 2.49 Buckling diagrams for bowed-out toroidal shell segments under axial tension

78

Figure 2.50

segment under axial tension

have torispherical domes as end-closures. As in the case of shallow toroidal shell

segments under axial tension buckling is caused by the occurrence of compressive

circumferential stresses, which are induced by the internal pressure over parts of

the end-closure (see also Figure 2.51).

The possibility of nonaxisymmetric buckling of internally pressurized torispherical end-closures was rst predicted by Galletly in [2.58]. Applying the membrane

equations of an axisymmetric shell of revolution with no torque acting to the torispherical end-closure shown in Figure 2.52 (a torispherical shell is a toroidal shell

jointed to a spherical cap) one gets

d

rN R N cos D 0

d

(2.193a)

N

N

C

D p.

R

R

(2.193b)

Solving the second equation for N
and substituting it into the rst equation, one

obtains after multiplying the resulting equation by sin and some regrouping

d

r sin N D R R
p sin cos

d

an expression that can be integrated directly yielding

1

N D

R R
p sin cos d

r sin 0

2.194

2.195

Ways to evaluate the constant of integration involved are discussed in great detail

by Flugge in [2.55] (see pp. 23 48). Recalling that and that r D R
sin and that

dr D R cos d (see Eqs. (2.142) and (2.143)) then

r

p

r dr

2.196

N D

R
sin2 0

an integral that can be evaluated independently of the shape of the meridian yielding

N D 12 pR
.

2.197

Physical Concepts

Figure 2.51

79

G.D. Galletly)

80

The hoop stress resultant N
can then be found from Eq.(2.193b) yielding

1

R

N
D pR
2

.

2.198

2

R

Considering the torispherical end-closure depicted in Figure 2.52 both radii of

curvature are positive, therefore for internal pressure p > 0 the meridional stress

resultant N will always be positive (tensile). Notice that the hoop resultant N

can be positive or negative, depending on the ratio R
/R . From Eq. (2.198) it is

evident that if

R

>2

R

then N
will be negative (compressive). The existence of compressive hoop stresses

due to internal pressure indicates that buckling with an asymmetric buckling mode

may occur.

To calculate the critical buckling pressure one must solve the linearized stability

Eqs. (2.153), whereby with no external torque applied N
0 D 0. The other two

prebuckling stress resultants N0 and N
0 are given by Eqs. (2.197) and (2.198),

respectively. Furthermore, as can be seen from Figure 2.52, the prebuckling stress

resultants N0 and N
0 are not constant but vary with . As a matter of fact, the

presence of a stress-discontinuity in N
0 at the point B indicates that for a rigorous

solution one must use the bending theory to patch up the membrane solutions

for the torus and the spherical cap. Since, however, the bending solutions have a

boundary layer type behavior one may use, as a rst approximation, the membrane

solution.

To solve the resulting variable coefcient linearized stability equations for the

rather complex meridional geometry of the torispherical shells one must rely on

numerical methods. Galletly and his coworkers have performed extensive experimental and numerical studies using the BOSOR-4 and BOSOR-5 shell of revolution

codes (see [2.59] [2.63]) to provide buckling and collapse data for the design of

internally pressurized dished ends.

2.1.13

In the preceding chapters the linearized stability equations are used to obtain the

buckling loads of the structures considered. Although buckling is a nonlinear

phenomena for many applications the use of the linearized stability equations,

which are amenable to analytical treatment, yields results that are suitable for design

purposes. As has been pointed out in [2.2], there are three situations, however, in

which a nonlinear analysis is needed.

1. In the applications considered up to now, it is assumed that the prebuckling

deformation is rotation free and the primary equilibrium paths are governed

by membrane stress states. If, however, one wants to satisfy the boundary

conditions from the outset, then the prebuckling deformation of cylindrical and

Physical Concepts

81

general shells contains rotation from the beginning of the loading process. In

these cases the linearized stability equations have variable coefcients which

must be solved for from the nonlinear equilibrium equations governing the

prebuckling state.

2. Up to now the determination of the buckling load consisted of solving

the linearized stability equations for the critical load, at which the primary

equilibrium path in the load-displacement plane is intersected by a secondary

equilibrium path. It has been shown in advanced texts on stability (see, for

instance, [2.6] and [2.36]) that equilibrium on the primary path becomes

unstable at such point and that structural behavior beyond the bifurcation point

is governed by conditions on the secondary path. There are cases where the

behavior of the structure can only be explained if the shape of the secondary

path is known. Such a knowledge is needed to explain why a at plate develops

considerable postbuckling strength, for example, but a cylindrical shell under

axial compression buckles abruptly and even explosively.

In the following chapter Koiters linearized theory for initial postbuckling

behavior is presented. In Koiters work the shape of the secondary equilibrium

path near bifurcation (see Figure 2.34) plays a central role in determining

the inuence of initial geometric imperfections. If the initial portion of the

secondary path has a positive slope (like for plates), then the structure can

develop considerable postbuckling strength and loss of stability of the primary

path does not result in structural collapse. However, when the initial portion

of the secondary path has a negative slope (like for cylindrical shells) then

in most cases buckling will occur violently and the magnitude of the critical

load is subject to the degrading inuence of initial geometric imperfections.

Unfortunately, the information given by Koiters theory is limited to the immediate neighborhood of the bifurcation point. Thus a nonlinear solution must be

carried out if the shape of the secondary equilibrium path in the more advanced

postbuckling region is needed.

3. Finally, in the most general case, when both geometric and/or material nonlinearities are included in the analysis, loss of stability occurs at a limit point

rather than at a bifurcation point. In such cases the critical load must be

determined through solution of the nonlinear equations of equilibrium.

In the following, examples illustrating the effects of nonlinear behavior are

considered.

a. Axially Compressed Cylindrical Shells

To solve for the axisymmetric prebuckling deformation shown in Figure 2.35a, one

must specialize the nonlinear equilibrium Eqs. (2.98) for axial symmetry. Assuming

w D hW C hw0 x

1

Eh2

y 2 C R2 f0 x

fD

cR

2

2.199

82

where

W D /c is the uniform increase in radius due to the Poissons effect and

c D 31 2 , then substitution into Eqs. (2.98a) and (2.98b) yields for axial

compression only p D 0

where 0 D R

(2.200a)

fi0v cw000 D 0

(2.200b)

d

. Equation (2.200b) can be integrated twice yielding

dx

Q 1x C C

Q2

f000 D cw0 C C

2.201

Q1 D C

where C

example, [2.64]). Substituting this expression into Eq. (2.200a) one gets

w0iv C 4cR/hw000 C 4c2 R2 /h2 w0 D 0

2.202

where it is assumed that the axial coordinate x is zero at the midpoint of the shell.

If at both edges identical boundary conditions are specied then the prebuckling

displacement must be symmetric about x D 0 and therefore only even functions

are included in the solution of Eq. (2.302) and the boundary conditions need only

to be enforced at x D L/2. Consequently the solution is

w0 x D C1 sinh x sin x C C2 cosh x cos x

where

p

D 1

c

;

Rh

p

D 1C

c

.

Rh

2.203

2.204

For simply supported boundary conditions (w0 D W , w000 D 0 at x D L/2) the

constants of integration become

a1

a2

C1 D ; C2 D

L

L

L

L

2

2.205

a1 D W 2c/Rh cosh cos C 1 sinh sin

2

2

2

2

L

L

L

L

2

1 cosh cos sinh sin

a2 D W 2c/Rh

2

2

2

2

L

L

D 1 2 2c/Rh cosh2 sin2

.

2

2

This solution was rst obtained by Foppl in 1926 [2.65]. As can be seen in

Figure 2.53 the disturbance due to the restraint at the cylinder edge spreads over

a large part of the cylinder as the axial load increases. When D 1, the displacement pattern becomes purely sinusoidal ( D 0) and the lateral displacements grow

without bound.

Notice that thus the axisymmetric collapse load is identical with the critical

buckling load obtained from a bifurcation analysis with membrane prebuckling

Physical Concepts

Figure 2.53

83

(Eq. 2.110). However, the use of the rigorous prebuckling solution (Eq. 2.203)

may result in a lower eigenvalue. That is bifurcation buckling into asymmetric

modes may occur before the axisymmetric collapse load is reached. The possible

asymmetric buckling modes consists of deformation patterns in which the

lateral displacement varies harmonically in the circumferential direction. Thus if

84

one assumes

O D hWx

O

W

cos n

y

R

2.206

2

y

O D ERh Fx

O

cos n

f

c

R

then upon substitution into the linearized stability equations separation with respect

to the circumferential space variable y is possible. The condition of continuity in

the circumferential direction will be satised if n, the number of circumferential

waves, is an integer. Upon substitution of Eqs. (2.203) and (2.206) into Eqs. (2.100)

one obtains

O 00 C n4 W

O C 4c

O iv 2n2 W

W

R2 00

R

O C 4c W

O

O 00 C n2 w000 F

F

2

h

h

R

O D0

C 4c2 n2 w0 W

h

h

O iv 2n2 F

O 00 C n4 F

O cW

O 00 c n2 w000 W

O D0

F

R

(2.207a)

(2.207b)

where 0 D Rd/dx . These are linear differential equations with variable coefO DF

O D 0, solutions which

cients. For a given n besides the trivial solution W

satisfy specied boundary conditions exist for particular values of . The lowest

of these values represents the critical load of the cylinder.

All the known solutions of this variable coefcients eigenvalue problem were

obtained by numerical methods. Stein in [2.66] obtained solutions for simply

Ox D N

O xy D W

O DW

O 00 D 0 using an energy-based

supported boundary conditions N

nite difference approach. Independently Fischer in [2.67] presented similar soluO x D vO D W

O DW

O 00 D 0. Almroth

tions for slightly different boundary conditions N

in [2.68] published an extension of Stein and Fischers work using nite difference approximations to solve the stability Eqs. (2.207) for eight different sets

of boundary conditions. As can be seen from Table 2.1, which also includes

results from [2.69] where Hoff and Soong rigorously satised the same boundary

conditions for the linearized stability equations but used a membrane prebuckling

solution, the use of rigorous (nonlinear) prebuckling solution may in some cases

result in a signicant decrease of the critical buckling load. Notice, however, that

the very low critical buckling loads for the SS1 and SS2 cases are caused not by

the use of the rigorous (nonlinear) prebuckling analysis, but rather by the weak

O xy D 0 .

boundary support in the circumferential direction N

b. Bending of Cylinders

When the stability of circular cylindrical shells under combined bending and axial

compression is discussed in Sub-section 2.1.11, it is explicitly stated there that

the solution is only valid for relatively short shells were the shell edges are held

circular. It is well known that bending of long thin-walled shells induces ovalization

Physical Concepts

Table 2.1

on the axial buckling load (isotropic shell, R/h D 1000,

L/R D 1.0)

Boundary conditions

SS1:

SS2:

SS3:

SS4:

C1:

C2:

C3:

C4:

85

Nx D Nxy D w D w,xx D 0

u D Nxy D w D w,xx D 0

Nx D v D w D w,xx D 0

u D v D w D w,xx D 0

Nx D Nxy D w D w,x D 0

u D Nxy D w D w,x D 0

Nx D v D w D w,x D 0

u D v D w D w,x D 0

Membrane

Rigorous

(Ref. 2.69)

(Ref. 2.68)

c

c

n

0.5

0.5

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

0.502

0.503

0.844

0.867

0.908

0.926

0.910

0.926

2

2

26

27

26

27

26

27

of the cross-section, the so-called Brazier effect [2.70]. In such cases the prebuckling deformation is obviously not rotation free and thus a bifurcation analysis based

on membrane prebuckling is not a rigorous solution.

To take the effect of ovalization into account when discussing stability consider

a long cylindrical shell subjected to a bending moment which causes the curvature

shown in Figure 2.54. Notice that due to this curvature the longitudinal tensile and

compressive stresses will have components directed towards the midplane of the

curved shell. The effect of these components is to atten the cross-section of the

shell and this attening results in a decrease of the resistance to the applied bending

moment. Thus, as shown in Figure 2.55, a plot showing the applied bending

moment M versus curvature 0 must have a decreasing slope. This leads to a

maximum (a limit point) and collapse of the shell results.

To calculate the value of the maximum bending moment at the limit point Brazier

considered the shell deformation to occur in two steps. First a long shell is thought

of bent into a circle with large radius b forming a toroidal shell, whereby it is

assumed that the deformation that occurs during this process is described by St.

Venants theory of bending. Next the cross-section is allowed to assume additional

displacements vO , wO so directed that the applied forces do no work. Thus these

additional displacements can be calculated from the condition that the strain energy

on the deformed body must be a minimum.

Considering a cross-section of the toroidal shell with a moving coordinate system

as shown in Figure 2.54 (notice that here w is positive inward) and assuming that

the displacement of the centerline of the cylinder is equal to zero, then St. Venants

(linear) solution of the bending problem yields the following displacements

v0 D 21 0 a2 sin

2.208

w0 D 21 0 a2 cos
.

For a thin-walled shell the work due to shell-wall bending in the axial direction

may be omitted in comparison with the membrane strain energy. Hence the total

86

Figure 2.54

Physical Concepts

Eah

UD

2

2

0

2x d

Da

C

2

0

2

2 d

87

2.209

where

x D 0 [a w cos
v sin
]

D

2.210

1

v,
C w,
.

a2

2.211

v D v0 C vO

2.212

w D w0 C wO

and that the incremental eld is inextensional

1

O D0

2.213

D Ov, w

a

one can express both x and as a function of v only. If, in addition, one uses

Braziers assumption that vO , wO a then the total strain energy per unit length of

the toroid (Eq. (2.209)) becomes

Eah 2

UD

02 [a2 2av, C 0 a2 cos ] cos2 av sin 2

2 0

2.214

2

h2

1

C

v, C v,

d .

121 2 a2

The variational equation U D 0 yields the following Euler equation

vvi C 2viv C v00 D N sin 2

2.215

where 0,
and N D 18 02 a5 1 v2 /h2 . The general solution of this linear,

inhomogeneous ordinary differential equation can readily be found. The constants

of integration are evaluated by symmetry and continuity considerations in the

circumferential direction and by discarding of rigid body displacements. The nal

solution is

N

vD

sin 2

2.216a

36

N

2.216b

cos 2
C 0 a2 cos
.

wD

18

Notice that the term containing is very small. If contains St. Venants displacements (Eq. (2.208)) plus a rigid body motion which is immaterial. Substituting

these expressions into Eq. (2.214) and carrying out the integrals one obtains

3

3 2 a4

2 Ea h

2

U D 0

1 0 2 1

2.217

2

4 h

88

toroid is

U

3 3 a4

3

2

MD

D Ea h 0 0 2 1 .

2.218

0

2 h

The maximum value of M occurs when M/0 D 0, that is when

02 D c2 D

2 h2 1

.

9 a4 1 2

p

2 2 Eh2 a

p

Mc D

9

1 2

2.219

2.220

1

a sin 2

9

#

2

9h

w D a cos 2 C p

cos .

9

1 2 2 a

vD

2.221a

2.221b

In recent years, thanks to considerable research effort sponsored mainly by the

off-shore industry, much has been learned about the elastic-plastic response and

the various instabilities which govern the behavior of circular shells under bending.

Some of this is discussed in Chapters 9 and 16, Volume 2 and more information

can be found in recent papers by Kyriakides and his co-workers ([2.71] and [2.72]).

c. Plastic Buckling

Up to now in all cases discussed it is assumed that instability occurs before any of

the bers in the structure reaches the yield stress of the material. This assumption

Figure 2.56

Physical Concepts

89

is valid for sufciently slender structural elements, where at least one dimension is

relatively small in comparison with the others. For thicker components instability

may occur at load levels where at least in parts of the structure stresses do exceed

the proportional limit. In such cases the stability analysis must be based on the

nonlinear material behavior depicted in the stress-strain diagram of Figure 2.57.

One feature that causes a lot of difculties is the fact that the unloading of the

material follows a different path than the loading. Thus, as seen in Figure 2.57,

if the material is stressed to a value of 0 and a positive (loading) increment of

strain is imposed, the resulting increment in stress is

D Et

where Et is the slope of the tangent to the stress-strain curve at the point under

consideration. For a negative (unloading) increment of strain the increment in

stress is

D E

where E is Youngs modulus, the slope of the unloading curve (which is identical

to the slope of the linear elastic portion of the loading curve).

The inelastic buckling of columns under axial compression has been the subject

of extensive theoretical and experimental investigations for over a century. Thus

it can be used conveniently to illustrate the steps involved in the determination of

inelastic (or plastic) buckling loads.

One model of buckling is based on the assumption that the equilibrium of a

straight column becomes unstable when under the same axial load there are adjacent equilibrium positions innitesimally close to the straight equilibrium position.

Then as the column undergoes a small lateral displacement w, the stresses on the

concave side increase according to the constitutive law of the compressive stressstrain diagram (see Figure 2.57), whereas the stresses on the convex side decrease

according to Hookes law. If one assumes that after bending the cross-sections

remain plane and normal to the center line of the column, then one obtains the

stress distribution shown in Figure 2.58b. Notice that at every cross-section there

is a straight line, the axis of average stress, along which the stress 0 remains

unchanged.

Figure 2.57

90

Figure 2.58

After buckling, at any cross-section the moment of the stresses about the

centroidal axis of the cross-section must equal the moment of the applied load about

the same axis. Since the moment of the average stresses 0 about the centroidal

axis is zero, one can express this condition as (see [2.1], [2.7] and [2.73])

E 0 z dA C

Et 0 z dA D Pw

2.222

A1

A2

where A1 and A2 are the parts of the cross-sectional area on the two sides of the

axis of average stress, which are subjected to a decrease and an increase of the

average compressive stress 0 , respectively. It is easy to show (see, for instance,

[2.1], p. 164) that

d2 w

0 D z 2 .

2.223

dx

Thus upon substitution and regrouping Eq. (2.222) can be written as

Er I

d2 w

C Pw D 0

dx 2

2.224

where

Er D EI1 C Et I2 /I

and

2.225

z2 dA;

I1 D

A1

z2 dA.

I2 D

2.226

A2

The last two integrals are the moments of inertia of A1 and A2 with respect to

the axis of average stress. In order to evaluate I1 and I2 it is necessary to locate

Physical Concepts

91

the axis of average stress. This can be done by recalling that at any cross-section

the resultant of the stress distribution must be equal to the applied load. Since, by

denition, the average stress 0 D P/A, therefore this condition implies that

E 0 dA C

Et 0 dA D 0.

2.227

A1

A2

E

z dA C Et

z dA D 0.

2.228

A1

A2

But these integrals are, respectively, the negative of the rst moment of A1 and

the rst moment of A2 with respect to the axis of average stress. Denoting these

quantities by S1 and S2 , respectively, Eq. (2.228) becomes

ES1 D Et S2 .

2.229

This expression can be used to locate the axis of average stress for a given average

stress 0 at which the tangent modulus is Et . Once this is done, the values of I1

and I2 can be computed from Eq. (2.226) and from Eq. (2.225) one can evaluate

the reduced modulus Er as a function of E and Et . Notice that Er is not only

a function of the average stress 0 (because of Et ) but also of the shape of the

cross-section. See [2.1] and [2.73] for sample calculations.

The solution of Eq. (2.224) gives the critical inelastic buckling load for a simply

supported column as

I

Pc D 2 Er 2 .

2.230

L

An expression that is similar to the Euler buckling load (compare with Eq. (2.3))

with the reduced modulus Er replacing the modulus of elasticity E.

The reduced modulus or double-modulus theory is often called the

Consid`ere Engesser von Karman theory after the scientists who around the turn

of the century had rst proposed and developed it (see [2.74] [2.76]).

A second possible model of buckling is based on the assumption that the bending

of an initially straight column will begin as soon as the tangent modulus load is

exceeded. Assuming further, that at least initially, the straight column will start

to deect laterally under increasing loading, Shanley in 1947 [2.11]) by way of a

simple model and careful experimentation claried the signicance of Engessers

tangent modulus load [2.75] and the role of the reduced modulus load of von

Karman. It is now accepted that the tangent modulus load

Pc D 2 Et

I

L2

2.231

is the lowest possible bifurcation load at which the straight conguration loses its

uniqueness but not its stability.

Experimental determination of the inelastic buckling load shows that the

maximum column load will lie somewhere between the loads predicted by the

92

tangent modulus and the reduced modulus formulations. These two values can

thus be considered as the lower and the upper bounds of the critical inelastic

buckling load for axially compressed columns.

The uniaxial elastic-strain hardening plastic behavior of most structural materials

used in aerospace and off-shore applications is adequately described by the simple

three parameter strain-stress relationship proposed by Ramberg and Osgood [2.77];

n

D C

2.232

E

E

where the parameters E, and n are material constants which must be obtained

by tests. Notice that for D 0, Eq. (2.232) yields d/d D E. This slope is equal

to the modulus of elasticity at the origin and it can be obtained from the experimental curve in the usual manner. The remaining two parameters are determined

by requiring the empirical curve, given by Eq. (2.232), to coincide with the experimental curve at secant moduli of 0.7 E and 0.85 E. Notice that above the proportional limit the secant modulus is dened as the ratio stress divided by strain.

Recalling that when the stress is equal to 0.7 the strain is equal to 0.7 /E, and

when the stress is equal to 0.85 the strain is equal to 0.85 /E, then by substituting

in turn the coordinates of these points into Eq. (2.232) one obtains

3

E n1

D

2.233

7 0.7

and

nD1C

ln17/7

ln0.7 /0.85

2.234

respectively. Finally, one can calculate the tangent modulus Et from Eq. (2.232)

yielding

d

E

.

2.235

Et D

3n

d

n1

1C

0.7 /0.85

7

The three parameters of the Ramberg Osgood method E, 0.7 , n are tabulated

for a wide variety of materials in [78].

As a further possible mode of buckling let us consider the rigid-perfectly plastic

behavior of the column with rectangular cross-section b h (b > h) depicted in

Figure 2.59. Under axial load a plastic hinge forms at the central cross-section. The

assumed stress distribution shown in Figure 2.60 can be interpreted as follows, the

central portion of width h, carries the axial load P while the outer portions provide

the reduced plastic moment MIP . Thus

P D y bh1

1

M0p D y bh2 h12

4

Eliminating h1 between these equations one obtains

M0p D Mp 1 P2 /Pp2

2.236

2.237

2.238

Physical Concepts

93

Figure 2.60

where

Mp D 41 y bh2

Pp D y bh

2.239b

M0p D Pwc .

Eliminating M0p between Eqs. (2.238) and (2.240) one obtains

2wc 2 2wc

P D Pp

1C

.

h

h

2.240

2.241

This equation gives the load carrying capacity of an axially compressed column

once a plastic hinge has formed. It is plotted in Figure 2.61 together with the elastic

94

Figure 2.61

hN1 . In addition the gure displays the actual response of the real column, which

begins to depart from the elastic curve at point B, when the rst ber reaches the

yield stress. The real column attains its maximum load carrying capacity at a limit

point, after which it decreases and approaches the theoretical rigid-plastic curve

asymptotically.

When using the rigid-perfectly plastic approximation it is assumed that there is

no strain hardening, since only in this case are the plastic hinges concentrated in a

very short length of the column. If strain hardening is of major concern then one

must rely on Hills bifurcation criterion for elastic-plastic solids (see [2.79] and

[2.80]). For an extensive review on plastic buckling the interested reader should

consult [2.81] by Sewell.

2.2

The applications presented so far serve a dual purpose. First, the reader is introduced by means of relatively simple examples to the concept of structural stability.

Secondly, he acquires basic skills to solve those buckling problems that occur

frequently in practice.

When investigating the stability behavior of a structure under a given load one

is really concerned whether the corresponding equilibrium conguration is stable

or unstable. Thus at rst, the analyst must solve for the equilibrium conguration

and then investigate whether the equilibrium state found is stable or unstable.

Referring to the load-displacement curves shown in Figure 2.34 each point on

a path represents an equilibrium position of the structure. From the form of the

curves it is obvious that the governing equilibrium equations are nonlinear. At

parts of the load-displacement curves the equilibrium is stable, at other parts

it is unstable. The critical load is dened as the smallest load at which the

95

from zero.

The critical load may occur at the limit point of the fundamental equilibrium path,

that is, at the point where the load is a relative maximum. Another possibility for

reaching the critical load occurs when the primary (or fundamental) path emanating

from the origin is intersected by a secondary equilibrium path. At the point of

intersection, the so-called bifurcation point the equilibrium equations have multiple

solutions, one corresponding to each branch.

Thus the structural analyst must, in principle, always deal with two sets of

equations, one which governs equilibrium and the second which yields information

about the stability behavior. The equilibrium equations are often nonlinear, whereas

in most cases the stability equations used are linearized.

The fact that for stability investigations one must rely on nonlinear equilibrium

equations is due to the concept of instability used, namely that at the critical load

more than one equilibrium position exists. Since for linear theory of elasticity there

is a uniqueness proof (that is, for a given load there is one and only one solution),

obviously one cannot base the derivation of stability analysis on it.

In general, the nonlinear equilibrium equations can be derived either by establishing the equilibrium of forces and moments on a slightly deformed element, or

by using the stationary potential energy criterion (see, for example, [2.1] and [2.2]).

On the other hand, the linearized stability equations can be obtained either by the

method of adjacent equilibrium, or by the minimum potential energy criterion. In

the following the different approaches shall be illustrated by examples.

2.2.1

The energy criteria of equilibrium and stability, which state that a conservative

system is in equilibrium if its total potential energy is stationary, and the equilibrium is stable if its total potential energy is a minimum, is applied in the following

to nding the critical load of the prismatic column subjected to compressive end

loads P shown in Figure 2.1. Its total potential energy may be written (see, for

instance, [2.2])

2.242

D U m C U b C p

where

EA L 2

Um D extensional energy D

dx

2 0 x

EI L 2

Ub D bending energy D

dx

2 0 x

L

u,x dx

DP

0

2.243a

2.243b

2.243c

96

and

2

x D extensional strain of the centroidal axis D u,x C 21 w,x

2.244a

2.244b

The requirement that if the column is in equilibrium its total potential energy

must assume a stationary value yields the following variational problem:

L

D Um C Ub C p D

Fx, u, u,x , w, w,x , w,xx dx D 0.

2.245

0

Eq. (2.245) must satisfy the corresponding Euler equations of the calculus of

variation, which in this case are

F

d F

D0

u

dx u,x

2.246a

d2 F

d F

F

C 2

D 0.

w dx w,x

dx w,xx

2.246b

d

d

EAx D N D 0

dx

dx

2.247a

d

d2

EIw,xx Nw,x D 0.

dx 2

dx

2.247b

The rst of these equations can be integrated yielding N D constant D P. The

second equation becomes then for EI D constant

Elw,xxxx C Pw,xx D 0.

2.248

column. For any w that satises this equation and the specied boundary conditions

at x D 0 and x D L, the total potential energy is stationary. Whether is also

a relative minimum (that is > 0) will next be investigated.

The character of the total potential energy for a given equilibrium conguration may be determined by examination of the change in total potential energy

corresponding to an arbitrary innitesimal virtual displacement of the structure from the given equilibrium position. In terms of a Taylor series expansion the

change in the total potential energy is

D C

1 2

1

C 3 C

2!

3!

2.249

where the terms on the right are linear, quadratic, etc., respectively, in the innitesimal virtual displacements. Recalling that the rst-order term vanishes identically

for equilibrium congurations, hence the sign of is governed by the sign of

97

the second variation. For sufciently small values of the applied load, it can be

shown that the second variation is positive denite. The critical load is dened as

the smallest load for which the second variation no longer is positive denite.

To obtain the expression for 2 one assumes in Eqs. (2.242) (2.244) that

u D u0 C uO ;

w D w0 C wO

2.250

wO are innitesimally small increments. Substituting into Eq. (2.242) and regrouping

yields the following expression for the second variation

1 2

1 L

3 2 2

2

2

2

D

EA uO ,x C u0,x wO ,x C 2w0,x uO ,x wO ,x C w0,x wO ,x C EIw,

O xx dx

2

2 0

2

2.251

Recalling that for the undeected form of the column

u0 D

P

x;

EA

w0 D 0

2.252

2 D

0

2

2

2

fEAOu,x

C EIwO ,xx

PwO ,x

g dx.

2.253

This quadratic form is seen to be positive denite for sufciently small values

of the applied load P. The critical value of P is the smallest load for which the

denite integral ceases to be positive denite.

The criterion for the limit of positive-deniteness for a continuous system is

attributed to Trefftz [2.82]. Considering Eq. (2.253), for a small value of P, 2 >

0 for all nonzero variations uO , w.

O For large values of P, 2 < 0 for some variations

uO , w.

O As P is increased from zero, a value is reached (say, P D Pc ) at which 2

is for the rst time zero for at least one variation uO , w.

O It is still positive for all

other variations uO , w.

O Thus for P D Pc , 2 assumes a stationary value for the

particular set of variations uO , w.

O Then

2 D 0.

2.254

Hence, on the basis of Trefftz criterion, the stability equations for the critical

load are given by the Euler equations for the functional in the second-variation

expression. For a functional of the form of the integrand in Eq. (2.253) the Euler

equations are given by Eq. (2.246), where

2

2

2

F D EAOu,x

C EIwO ,xx

PwO ,x

.

2.255

uO ,xx D 0

(2.256a)

(2.256b)

98

These are the uncoupled stability equations of the axially compressed column.

The variational approach yields also the natural boundary conditions that must be

satised in order for 2 D 0 to hold. Thus at x D 0, L

O D EAOu,x D 0 or

either N

Ou D 0

2.257a

O D EIwO ,xx D 0 or wO ,x D 0

either M

2.257b

2.257a

wO D C1 sin kx C C2 cos kx C C3 x C C4

2.258

where k 2 D P/EI. This solution must satisfy for the clamped-free column of

Figure 2.1 the following boundary conditions

at x D 0 :

wO D wO ,x D 0

at x D L :

wO ,xx D 0;

2.259a

wO ,xxx C k 2 wO ,x D 0.

2.259b

constants C1 , . . ., C4 . For a nontrivial solution to exist (that is, all four constants

are not identically equal to zero) the determinant of the coefcients of the Ci0 s must

vanish. Expansion of the determinant yields the following characteristic equation

4 EI

n D 1, 2, . . . .

4 L2

The smallest buckling load occurs for n D 1. Thus

cos kL D 0 ! Pn D 2n 12

2.260

2 EI

2.261

4 L2

the value found by Euler in 1744. The buckling mode is

x

wO D C2 cos

1 .

2.262

2L

The fact that for the column buckling both the equilibrium Eq. (2.248) and the

stability Eq. (2.256b) are identical is an exception. These equations are usually

different. Notice also that the form of the stability equations depends on the

prebuckling (undeected) solution used. This point will be discussed further in

Section 2.2.4b.

Turning now to the problem depicted in Figure 2.62, where the compressive load

P at the free end does not remain xed in its direction but follows the deformation

of the body in some manner, then the work done by the end load P in reaching

the nal position is path dependent and one is dealing with a nonconservative

force. That in such cases a stability based on the energy criteria may fail to yield

the correct answer can easily be demonstrated for the present case. The boundary

conditions at the free end now are

Pc D

at x D L :

wO ,xx D wO ,xxx D 0.

2.263

99

Applying the boundary conditions specied by Eqs. (2.259a) and (2.263) to the

general solution for wO given by Eq. (2.258) yields the following system of linear

equations

sin kL

cos kL

C1

D 0.

2.264

cos kL sin kL

C2

But here the determinant of the coefcient matrix is not equal to zero since

sin2 kL C cos2 kL D 1.

2.265

C4 D 0. This would imply that in this case the column does not buckle. This is

obviously incorrect.

For nonconservative problems one must always use the kinetic approach, where

one starts with the equations governing small free vibrations of the elastic structure

at some level of the external loading (treated as a xed quantity) and then tries to

nd at what level of the external loading the free vibrations cease to be bounded

in the small.

If denotes the mass per unit volume then the equation of motion of the column

depicted in Figure 2.62 under a constant axial load P is

N ,tt

w,xxxx C k 2 w,xx D w

where

K2 D

p

;

EI

N D

PA

.

EI

2.266

2.267

Wx, t D Wx eit

2.268

N 2W D 0

W,xxxx C k 2 W,xx

2.269

one obtains

an ordinary differential equation with constant coefcients, whose solution can be

written as

Wx D C1 sin x C C2 cos x C C3 sinh x C C4 cosh x

2.270

100

where

$

%

%

N 2

4

k &

1C 1C 4

D p

k

2

$

%

%

N 2

k &

4

D p

1 C 1 C 4 .

k

2

2.271a

2.271b

Applying the boundary conditions specied by Eqs. (2.259a) and (2.263) one

obtains the following characteristic equation

4 C 4 22 2 cos L C cosh L C 2 2 sin L sinh L D 0

2.272

But now from Eqs. (2.271a) and (2.271b)

N 2

4 C 4 D k 4 C 2

2 2 D 2 N

2.273

2 2 D k 2

Substituting into Eq. (2.272) and regrouping yields

2 C sin L sinh L C 22 1 C cos L cosh L D 0

2.274

where

D

P

;

PE

PE D 2

EI

;

L2

2 D 2 N

$

%

# %

2

&

L D

1C 1C4

2

$

%

# %

2

&

L D

1 C 1 C 4

.

2

L4

4

2.275

The transcendental Eq. (2.274) can be solved repeatedly for the frequencies 1

and 2 by assigning different positive values to , starting from zero. From the

results plotted in Figure 2.63 one sees that the unloaded natural frequencies (and

the corresponding eigenfunctions) of the column change with increasing loading

. It is also clear that as long as < 2.0316 (the load at which the two frequencies

1 and 2 coalesce) the motion is oscillatory and hence stable. For > 2.0316 the

frequencies become a complex conjugate pair. From Eq. (2.268) it is evident that

the negative imaginary part results in unbounded oscillation and is hence unstable.

Thus the critical value for the follower force P shown in Figure 2.62, also

called Becks problem who was rst to obtain the correct solution (see [2.83]), is

D P/PE D 2.0316, or

EI

2.276

Pc D 2.03162 2 .

L

Figure 2.63

101

A comparison with Eulers solution for a xed load given by Eq. (2.1) indicates

that the same column can carry about an eight times larger follower load. For

more information about the stability of nonconservative structural congurations

the interested reader should consult [2.84] and [2.85].

2.2.2

In most of the cases considered up to now the nding of the critical buckling load

has been reduced to the solution of a linearized eigenvalue problem. In general the

differential equations involved can be written as

Lw Mw D 0

2.277

2q respectively, with p > q. Any solution w must satisfy Eq. 2.277 at every point

of the region R. Associated with the differential equation there are p boundary

conditions that the function w must satisfy at every point of the boundary C of the

region R. The boundary conditions are of the type

Bi w D 0

i D 1, 2, . . . , p

2.278

normal to the boundary and along the boundary through order 2p 1.

The eigenvalue problem consists of nding the values of the parameter , for

which there are nonvanishing functions w which satisfy the differential Eq. (2.277)

and the boundary conditions specied by Eq. (2.278). Such parameters are called

eigenvalues (say, buckling loads) and the corresponding functions are called eigenfunctions (say, buckling modes).

Unfortunately, in general, the solution of the eigenvalue problem for continuous

systems is not a straightforward matter. Exact solutions have been found only for

uniform systems with relatively simple boundary conditions. In other cases one

must rely on approximate solutions.

102

Before turning to the presentation of the different methods that are available to

obtain approximate solutions, one may want to summarize those denitions that

are frequently used in the literature dealing with eigenvalue problems.

When speaking of trial functions one often distinguishes the following classes

(see [2.86]).

1. Admissible functions: These are arbitrary functions which satisfy all the

geometric boundary conditions of the eigenvalue problem and are 2p times

differentiable over the region R.

2. Comparison functions: These are arbitrary functions which satisfy all boundary

conditions (geometric and natural) and are 2p times differentiable over the

region R.

3. Eigenfunctions: These are the solutions one is trying to obtain which, of course,

satisfy all boundary conditions (geometric and natural) and the differential

equation of the eigenvalue problem.

The eigenvalue problem dened by Eqs. (2.277) and (2.278) is said to be selfadjoint if, for any two arbitrary admissible or comparison functions w1 and w2 , the

statements

w1 Lw2 dR D

w2 Lw1 dR

2.279a

R

w1 Mw2 dR D

R

w2 Mw1 dR

2.279b

means of integration by parts.

Further, if for any such comparison function w

wLw dR 0

2.280

R

if the integral is zero only if w is identically zero. There is a similar denition with

respect to the operator M. If both L and M are positive denite, the eigenvalue

problem is said to be positive denite, in which case all eigenvalues i are positive.

For further details about the nature of the different types of eigenvalue problems

the interested reader may consult [2.24] and [2.86].

a. The Rayleigh Ritz Method

One of the approaches that can be used to obtain an approximation for the critical

buckling load of a structure without having to derive and solve the linearized

stability equations is the Rayleigh Ritz method. Its use is based on the Trefftz

103

criterion, which denes the critical load as the smallest load for which the second

variation of the potential energy assumes a stationary value.

To apply this method one assumes a solution in the form of a linear combination

of trial functions wi , which satisfy at least all the geometric boundary conditions

of the problem. Hence

n

wn D

ai wi

2.281

iD1

where the wi are known, linearly independent functions of the spatial coordinates

over the region R and the ai are unknown coefcients to be determined. This

assumed form wn is substituted into the second variation of the potential energy

2 of the problem. After carrying out the integrals involved, the coefcients ai are

determined so as to render the expression for the second variation of the potential

energy 2 stationary. The necessary condition for this to occur is that

2 D

2

2

2

a1 C

a2 C C

an D 0.

a1

a2

an

2.282

is satised if and only if

2

D 0 i D 1, 2, . . . , n

ai

2.283

these equations constitutes a matrix eigenvalue problem which can be solved easily

by standard methods.

As an illustration of the application of the Rayleigh Ritz method to buckling

load calculations, consider the problem depicted in Figure 2.64 involving the effect

of non-uniform in-plane compressive loading on the stability of a simply supported

rectangular thin at plate of width b and length a where

y'

y'

Nx0 D N0 C N1 N0 sin

D N1 C 1 sin

2.284

b

b

and D N0 /N1 . Notice that D 1 implies uniform loading.

Such non-uniform in-plane loading is typical of ight vehicles exposed to thermal

heating. Thermal stresses, induced by non-uniform temperature elds acting on the

Figure 2.64

104

Figure 2.65

structure, are self-equilibrating since they are not the result of externally applied

loads. Therefore the stress distribution over a cross-section of the structure must

have compressive as well as tensile stresses. Notice that for D 1.75 Eq. 2.284

yields the in-plane stress distribution shown in Figure 2.65, which closely approximates the distribution of thermal stresses over the width of a panel considered

in [2.87].

For this case the second variation of the total potential energy is found to be

(see, for instance, p. 93 of [2.2])

1 2

C

1

2

2

2

u,

O x C vO,y C 2u,

O x vO,y C

D

u,

O y C vO,x dx dy

2

2

2

RO

1

2

2

2

fNx0 wO ,x

C Ny0 wO ,y

C 2Nxy0 wO ,x wO ,y g dx dy

RO

D

2

2

2

2

fwO ,xx

C wO ,yy

C 2wO ,xx wO ,yy C 21 wO ,xy

g dx dy 2.285

RO

Since in this case the in-plane and the out-of-plane stability equations are uncoupled, and guided by the results for the buckling of a rectangular plate under uniform

axial loading (see Eq. (2.6)) one can obtain a solution by assuming the following

displacement functions (see [2.87])

uO D vO D 0

2.286

y

y

x

x

wO D C11 sin i sin C C13 sin i sin 3

a

b

a

b

which satisfy the displacement boundary conditions of the problem

wO D wO ,xx D 0

at x D 0, a

wO D wO ,yy D 0

at y D 0, b

2.287

Substituting these functions into the second variation of the total potential energy,

Eq. (2.285), which includes the prebuckling resultants (Nx0 from Eq. (2.284) and

Ny0 D Nxy0 D 0), one obtains after carrying out the integrals involved and some

105

2

2

2

2

2

2

ab

i

i

3

2 D D

C211

C

C C213

C

4

a

b

a

b

'

ab i 2

ab i 2 2

2

N0

C11 C C13 C N1 N0

4

a

4

a

8

1

2

9

3

15

35

2.288

By Trefftzs criterion instability occurs whenever 2 D 0 . Assuming that

i D a/b and minimization with respect to the free parameters C11 and C13 yields

the following set of algebraic equations

8

8

2

4D

N1 C

(2.289a)

1 C11 C

1 C13 D 0

b

3

15

2

72

8

N1 C

N1 1 C11 C 100D

1 C13 D 0 (2.289b)

15

b

15

where D N0 /N1 . These homogeneous equations constitute a standard eigenvalue

problem. Notice that for a single mode solution (if C13 D 0) the eigenvalue is

2

N1 D k c D

2.290a

b

where

4

kc D

.

2.290b

8

C

1

3

For the two mode solution expansion of the stability determinant yields the

following characteristic equation

2

4

N1 C cD2

D0

2.291

aN21 C bD

b

b

where

8

72

8 2

aD C

1 C

1

1 2 2.292a

3

15

15

8

72

1 C 4 C

1

2.292b

b D 100 C

3

15

c D 400.

The critical buckling load is the smaller of the two roots. Hence

2

N1 D k c D

b

2.292c

2.293a

106

Figure 2.66

where

b2 4ac

.

2.293b

2a

Either Eqs. (2.290b) or (2.293b) can be used to calculate the buckling coefcient kc

for a simply supported rectangular plate loaded by a non-uniform in-plane compressive loading. As can be seen from Figure 2.66 little improvement is obtained by

using the second term in the assumed solution for w.

O Both equations yield kc D 4 for

D 1, which agrees with the previously obtained result for a long simply supported

plate under uniform in-plane compression (see Eq. (2.7) and Figure 2.4).

To obtain the value for for which the resultant compressive load acting on

the plate is zero, one integrates the value of Nx0 given by Eq. (2.284) from y D 0

to y D b and sets the resulting force equal to zero. This yields the value of D

2 2 , which gives a buckling coefcient of kc D 6.8496 if one uses the

single mode solution, and a buckling coefcient of kc D 6.6519 if the two mode

solution is employed.

kc D

b

b. Galerkins Method

Galerkins method, so named after the Russian naval engineer who rst proposed

it in 1915 (see [2.88]). In this method one attempts to nd an approximate solution

of the governing differential equation directly. This is done by assuming a solution

in the form of a series of comparison functions

wn D

n

ai w i

2.294

iD1

where the wi are known, linearly independent functions which satisfy all the

boundary conditions and are 2p times differentiable, whereas the ai are unknown

107

coefcients to be determined. In general the series solution will not satisfy the

differential equation dening the eigenvalue problem unless, by some coincidence,

the assumed series solution is composed of the eigenfunctions of the problem. Thus

upon substitution of the assumed solution in the differential equation

Lw Mw D 0

2.295

n D Lwn ^n Mwn

2.296

where ^n is the corresponding estimate of the eigenvalue . At this point one

requires that the weighted error n integrated over the region R be zero. As

weighting functions one uses the n comparison functions wi . These conditions can

be written as follows

n

wn dR D 0 j D 1, 2, . . . , n.

2.297

aj

R

Consider now

n

n

wn Lwn dR D

ai

wj Lwi dR D

kij ai

aj

iD1

iD1

R

j D 1, 2, . . . , n

2.298

kij D kji D

wj Lwi dR

2.299

and are symmetric if the operator L is self-adjoint. Similarly one can write

n

n

wn Mwn dR D

ai

wj Mwi dR D

mij ai j D 1, 2, . . . , n

aj

iD1

iD1

R

2.300

mij D mji D

wj Mwi dR

2.301

With Eqs. (2.297) through (2.301) one can reduce the solution of the original

continuous eigenvalue problem specied by (Eq. 2.295) to the following system

of n simultaneous equations

N

iD1

j D 1, 2, . . . , n

2.302

108

problem for an n-degree-of-freedom system which can be solved easily by standard

techniques.

To illustrate the use of Galerkins method for buckling load calculations consider

the case of an axially compressed imperfect cylindrical shell. If w is positive

outward and

x

2.303

wN D hN1 cos i

L

where i is an integer, then the nonlinear Eqs. (2.98) become (see [2.2])

1

f,xx ff,yy w,xx C wN ,xx 2f,xy w,xy C f,xx w,yy g D p

R

1

4

2

r f Eh w,xy w,xx C wN ,xx w,xy C w,xx D 0.

R

Dr4 w C

(2.304a)

(2.304b)

1O

O D0

O LNL w0 C w,

N f

2.305a

f,xx LNL f0 , w

R

O Eh wO ,xx C EhLNL w0 C w,

r4 f

N w

O D 0.

2.305b

R

Since the loading, the boundary conditions and the initial imperfection (see

Eq. (2.303)) are axisymmetric, therefore the prebuckling solution will also be

axisymmetric, namely

v

w0 D h C w x

2.306a

c

Dr4 wO C

Eh2 1 2

2.306b

y C f x

cR 2

where the term /c represents the Poissons expansion and is needed to satisfy

the circumferential periodicity condition (see [2.64]). A substitution of Eq. (2.306)

into Eq. (2.304) and regrouping yields for p D 0

f0 D

1

Eh2

Eh3 2 N

2.307a

f,xx C

w,xx D

1 cos i x

R

cR

cR i

Eh

f,xxxx

2.307b

w D0

R ,xx

where i D i/L. If one neglects the effect of the boundary conditions on the

prebuckling solution (as is usually done for this type of analysis) then one must nd

only a particular solution of Eq. (2.307). The use of the method of undetermined

coefcients yields easily

N

W x D h

2.308a

1 cos i x

ci

Dw,xxxx

C

f x D

Eh3 1

N

1 cos i x

2

2c i ci

2.308b

1

1

2

ci D

i C 2

2

i

where

109

2.309

Specializing the linearized stability Eqs. (2.306) to the axisymmetric imperfection Eq. (2.303) and the axisymmetric prebuckling state Eq. (2.308) yields

1O

Eh2

Eh2 N1

f,xx C

wO ,xx C

cos i x wO ,yy

R

cR

R ci

2c

N1 ci

O ,yy D 0

C 2i

cos i x f

R ci

N

O Eh wO ,xx 2c Eh 2i i ci cos i x wO ,yy D 0

r4 f

R

R ci

Dr4 wO C

(2.310a)

(2.310b)

If one assumes that the buckling mode is represented by

wO D Cm sin m

x

y

cos n

L

R

2.311

wO D wO ,xx D 0

at x D 0, L,

2.312

then the linearized stability equations can be solved as follows. First an exact particO p of the compatibility Eq. (2.310b) is solved for by the method of

ular integral f

undetermined coefcients. This guarantees that a kinematically admissible displacement eld is associated with an approximate solution of the other equation. An

approximate solution of the equilibrium Eq. (2.310a) by Galerkins method is then

equivalent to an approximate minimization of the second variation of the potential energy by the Rayleigh Ritz method. This guarantees that the eigenvalue so

obtained is an upper bound to the actual buckling load. Straightforward calculation

yields the following characteristic equation

ci 2 c,mn C ci C1 ci C C2 N1 iD2m

C C3 C4 im 2ci N12 D 0

2.313

where the axisymmetric buckling load ci is given by Eq. (2.309) and the asymmetric buckling load c,mn by Eq. (2.105). The coefcients are

c 2i n2

2i m

c n2

2m

C1 D

C

;

C

D

2

2 2m

2m C n2 2 2im C n2 2

2 2m

c2 4i n4

1

c2 4i n4

1

1

C3 D

C

;

C

D

4

2

2

2

2

2

2 m

2 m im C n2 2

iCm C n2 2 im C n2 2

2.314

110

Figure 2.67

where

cylinders

Rh 2

Rh 2

; 2im D i m2

;

2c L

2c L

Rh 1 2

; c D 31 2

n2 D n2

2c R

2iCm D i C m2

and

iD2m D generalized Kronecker delta D 1 if i D 2m

D 0 otherwise.

The solution of this problem was rst carried out by Koiter [2.89]. Using an imperfection in the form of the classic axisymmetric buckling mode

#

x

L 2c

N

wN D h1 cos icl where icl D

2.315

L

Rh

he found that the minimum buckling load occurred when i D 2m for some value

of n. To obtain the results shown in Figure 2.67 one must nd the smallest value

of which for a given axisymmetric imperfection N1 amplitude satises Eq. 2.313.

The reduced circumferential wave number n is a free parameter in this equation,

with the restriction that the actual wave number n must be an integer.

2.2.3

The majority of stability problems that arise at present in practical structural applications cannot be solved analytically. It might be possible, that after a number of

simplifying assumptions have been introduced one is able to obtain an approximate

solution via the Rayleigh Ritz or the Galerkin methods discussed earlier. However,

111

computational effort before an approximate solution can be obtained.

Thus the point is soon reached where one looks towards the supposedly easier

approach offered by todays general purpose computer codes. A word of caution

is appropriate here. One should not expect that complicated structural stability

problems involving thin-walled plate and shell components, where nonlinear effects

play an important role, can be solved routinely without much effort and thought by

any of the many codes that are currently available. A thorough understanding of

the shell and stability theory involved supplemented by a good working knowledge

of the computational algorithms used are the prerequisites the analyst must possess

in order to be able to arrive at the appropriate solutions. Otherwise the chances are

high that incorrect or unreliable solutions will be obtained.

A comprehensive review of the currently available computer codes with buckling

analysis capabilities is beyond the scope of this book. Interested readers should

consult [2.90] and [2.91]. The state-of-the-art of buckling load calculations for

shells of revolution with very general wall construction loaded by a general axisymmetric load system will be described in the following section using one of the more

popular nite difference codes available.

a. The BOSOR-4 Branched Complex Shell of Revolution Code

Although the BOSOR-4 program [2.92] represents the codication of three distinct

analyses, namely:

1. a linear stress analysis for axisymmetric and nonsymmetric behavior of axisymmetric shell systems submitted to axisymmetric and nonsymmetric loads;

2. a nonlinear stress analysis for axisymmetric behavior of axisymmetric shell

systems;

3. an eigenvalue analysis in which the eigenvalues represent buckling loads or

vibration frequencies of axisymmetric shell systems submitted to axisymmetric

loads.

In the following only the nonsymmetric bifurcation problem from a nonlinear

axisymmetric prebuckling state will be discussed.

The independent variables of the analysis are the meridional arc length s,

measured along the shell reference surface and the circumferential coordinate
.

For the cases considered it is possible to eliminate the circumferential coordinate

because:

1. in the nonlinear prebuckling analysis of axisymmetric behavior of axisymmetric shell systems
is not present;

2. in the bifurcation (eigenvalue) analysis the buckling modes (eigenvalues) vary

harmonically around the circumference.

The advantages of being able to eliminate one of the independent variables is very

signicant. The number of calculations performed by the computer for a given mesh

112

point spacing along the arc-length s is greatly reduced, leading to great savings

in computer time. The disadvantage is, of course, the restriction to axisymmetric

structures, though in [2.92] and [2.93] methods are described by which BOSOR 4

can be used to analyze nonsymmetric structures of prismatic form.

The analysis is based on energy minimization with constraint conditions. The

total potential energy of the system involves:

1.

2.

3.

4.

strain energy of the discrete rings Ur ;

potential energy of the applied line loads and pressures p ;

energy of constraint of the constraint conditions Uc .

The components of energy and the constraint conditions are initially in integrodifferential forms. They are then expressed in terms of the shell reference surface

displacement components ui , vi , wi at the nite difference mesh points and the

Lagrange multipliers i . The integration is performed numerically by the trapezoidal rule.

In the nonlinear prebuckling analysis the energy expression has terms linear,

quadratic, cubic and quartic in the dependent variables. The cubic and quartic terms

arise from the rotation squared terms which appear in the constraint conditions

and in the kinematic expressions for the reference surface strains 1 , 2 and 12 . To

satisfy the equilibrium condition the energy, now in an algebraic form, is minimized

with respect to the discrete dependent variables. The resulting set of nonlinear

algebraic equations are solved for the displacement components at the mesh points

by the Newton Rhapson method. Stress and moment resultants are calculated in a

straightforward manner from the constitutive equations and the strain-displacement

relations.

The results from the nonlinear axisymmetric prebuckling analysis are then used

in the eigenvalue analysis for buckling. The prebuckling meridional and circumferential stress resultants N10 and N20 and the meridional rotation 0 appear as

known variable coefcients in the second variation of the total potential energy

expression which governs buckling. This expression is a homogeneous quadratic

form. The values of the variable load, which render the quadratic form stationary

with respect to innitesimal variations of the dependent variables, represent buckling loads. These eigenvalues are calculated from a set of linear homogeneous

equations.

Shell strain energy

Consider the typical shell segment shown in Figure 2.68.

The strain energy in the shell wall can be written in the form [2.94]

1

Us D 2

bc[C]fg C 2bNT cfg r d
ds

2.316

where

dCe D

bNT c D bNT1 , NT2 , 0, MT1 , MT2 , 0c

thermal stress and moment resultants

113

Figure 2.68 Typical shell segment notation and sign convention (from [2.94])

u0 C w/R1 C 21 2 C 2

1

vP /r C ur 0 /r C w/R2 C 12 2 C 2

2

uP /r C rv/r0 C

f"g D 12 D

1

0

P

2

/r C r 0 /r

212

2/r

P C r 0 /r C v0 /R2

D w0 u/R1 ;

D w/r

P v/R2 ;

2.317b

respect to s. Positive values of u, v, w, and are shown in Figure 2.86. The quantities R1 and R2 are the meridional and circumferential principal radii of curvature.

For a similar expression of the strain energy of a discrete ring see [2.94].

Potential energy of mechanical loads

analysis:

2. line loads and moments V, S, H and M, which act at ring centroids and at

shell segment boundaries.

These loads are shown in Figures 2.68 and 2.69.

The potential energy associated with the surface tractions is for live loads [2.94]

1

1

1

p1 D

p 1 u C p 2 v C p3 w p 3

C

w2

2

R1 R2

1

C p3

2

u2

v2

C

R1 R2

C p03 uw r d ds

2.318

whereas the potential energy associated with line loads at a given ring station can

be written as

2.319

p2 D Vuc C Svc C Hwc C Mrc d
.

114

Figure 2.69

Since all energy expressions must be expressed in terms of the same dependent

variables, therefore it is necessary to replace the ring displacements uc , vc , wc by

equivalent expressions in terms of the shell reference surface displacements u, v,

w. These variable transformations and expressions for energy of constraint Vc

are given in [2.94].

The total energy of the system is obtained by summing over all shell segments,

discrete ring stiffeners and junctures.

When one attempts to solve the bifurcaFormulation of the stability problem

tion buckling problem of a complex, branched, ring-stiffened shell structure under

various systems of loads it is convenient to consider some of these to be known

and constant (or xed) whereas the remaining ones are assumed to be unknown

eigenvalue parameters (or variable).

The notion of xed and variable systems of loads helps in the formulation

of a sequence of simple classical eigenvalue problems for the solution of problems

governed by nonclassical eigenvalue problems. To illustrate the different types

of instability behavior consider the shallow spherical cap under external pressure

shown in Figure 2.70.

Deep spherical caps fail by bifurcation buckling where nonlinear prebuckling

effects are not important. On the other hand very shallow caps fail by nonlinear

axisymmetric collapse or snap-through buckling at pn , not by bifurcation buckling at pb or pnb . Finally, there is an intermediate range of cap geometries that

Figure 2.70

115

buckle by bifurcation buckling where the critical pressures are affected by nonlinear

prebuckling behavior. The analysis of this intermediate class of spherical caps is

simplied by the concept of xed and variable pressure. Figure 2.70 shows

the load-deection curve of a shallow spherical cap in this intermediate range. To

calculate the nonlinear bifurcation pressure pnb it is useful to consider it composed

of two parts

pnb D pf C pv

2.320

where

pf D a known or xed quantity;

pv D an undetermined or variable quantity.

The xed portion pf is an initial guess or the result of a previous iteration. The

variable portion pv is the remainder, which can be determined from a reasonably

simple eigenvalue problem. It is clear from Figure 2.70 that if pf is fairly close

to pnb , then the behavior in the range p D pf C pv is reasonably linear. Thus

the eigenvalue pnb can be calculated by means of a sequence of linear eigenvalue

problems. This procedure results in nding ever smaller pv values which are added

to the pf results from the previous iterations.

To illustrate the reduction of the bifurcation stability analysis to the solution

of a matrix eigenvalue problem consider the shell strain energy and the potential

energy of the surface tractions given by Eqs (2.316) and (2.318). This total potential

energy, denoted by , is quadratic in the shell reference surface displacement

components u, v, w and can be written in the form

D 21

bc[C]fg C 2bNT cfg C bdc[P]fdgr d
ds

2.321

where

[P] D

p/R1

0

p0

0

p/R2

0

p0

0

p1/R1 C 1/R2

bdc D bu v wc

2.322a

2.322b

All expressions are referred to the undeformed surface of the shell. Next the

energy is expanded in a Taylor series about some equilibrium position by letting

u D u0f C u0v C uO

v D v0f C v0v C vO

2.323

w D w0f C w0v C wO

where uO , vO , wO are innitesimal variations from the equilibrium state given by

u0f C u0v , vf0 C vv0 , w0f C w0v . Substituting Eq. (2.323) into the total potential energy

116

D 0 D C 12 2 C

where contains all rst order terms in the variations and 2 contains all the

second order terms. Because the system is in equilibrium the rst variation is

zero. The stability behavior is then governed by the second variation 2 , which

after some regrouping can be put into the following form

b1 c[C]f1 g C 2b2 c[C]f0 g C fNT g C bc[P]fgr ds d 2.324

2 D

where

b0 c, b1 c, b2 c D zero, rst and second order terms in the variations uO , vO , wO

O

bc D bOu vO wc

and

1 2 C 2

u00 C w0 /R1

0

2 0

1

0

2

vP 0 /r C u0 r 0 /r C w0 /R2

2 0 C 0

uP 0 /r C rv0 /r

C 0 0

00

P 0 /r C 0 r 0 /r

0

0

0

2P 0 /r C 0 r /r C v0 /R2

0

2.325b

uO 0 C w/R

O 1 C 0 O C 0 O

0

.

O 2 C 0 O C 0 O

vO /r C uO r /r C w/R

.

0

uO /r C rOv/r C 0 O C 0 O

f"1 g D

O 0

O . /r C r

O 0 /r

.

0

0

O

2O /r C r /r C vO /R2

f"2 g D

2.325c

1

O 2 C O 2

2

1 O2

C O 2

2

O O

0

0

0

2.325d

Next the prebuckling strain vectors f"01 g and f"02 g are divided into xed and

variable parts

f

v

g C f"01

g;

f"01 g D f"01

vv

f"02 g D f"ff02 g C f"f02v g C f"02

g

2.326

where

f"ff02 g D

1

f 2

f 2

2 [0 C 0 ]

1

f 2

f 2

2 [ 0 C 0 ]

f f

0 0

0

0

0

2.327a

f v

f v

0 0 C 0 0

0f 0v C 0v 0f

f"f02v g D

0

0

117

vv

f"02

gD

1

v 2

v 2

2 [0 C 0 ]

1

v 2

v 2

2 [ 0 C 0 ]

0v 0v

.

0

0

0

2.327b

The linear innitesimal strain vector f"1 g can be divided into three components

where

2.328

uO 0 C w/R

O 1

O 2

vO . /r C uO r 0 /r C w/R

uO . /r C rOv/r0

f"11 g D

0

O

O . /r C r

O 0 /r

2O . /r C O r 0 /r C vO 0 /R2

2.329a

0f O C 0f O

f O C f O

0

0

f O C O f

f

0

f"1 g D 0

0

0

0v O C 0v O

v

vO

0 C 0 O

v

v

0 O C O 0 .

f"1v g D

0

0

2.329b

Finally, the pressure-rotation matrix [P], Eq. (2.322a), and the thermal load

vector bNT c, Eq. (2.322b), can also be considered split into xed and variable

parts

2.330

[P] D [Pf ] C [Pv ]; bNT c D bNTf c C bNTv c.

With these denitions one can rewrite part of the integrand of Eq. (2.324) as

follows

2b"2 c[C]f"0 g C fNT g C 2["2 ]fN0f g C fN0v g C fN0vv g

2.331

where

fN0f g D [C]f"f01 g C f"ff02 g C fNTf g

2.332a

118

fN0vv g

2.332b

[C]f"vv

02 g

2.332c

Notice that the expressions given by Eq. (2.331) actually represent a quadratic

form. To indicate this explicitly the following change in notation is introduced.

2b"2 cfN0f g C fN0v g C fN0vv g D bc[N0f ] C [N0v ] C [N0vv ]fg

2.333

where

O

bc D bO O c

Nf1

f

[Nf0 ] D N12

0

[N0vv ]

Nvv

1

Nvv

12

0

2.334a

f

N12

Nf2

0

vv

N12

N2vv

v

0

N1

[N0v ] D Nv

0

12

0

N1f C N2f

v

N12

N2v

0

0

N1v C N2v

2.334b

0

.

0

vv

vv

N1 C N2

Assuming now that the variable parts are proportional to a scalar quantity ,

then upon substitution and regrouping the second variation 2 from Eq. (2.324)

can be written

2 D

A1 C A2 C 2 A3 r ds d

2.335

where

A1 D b11 C f1 c[C]f11 C f1 g C bc[Pf ]fg C bc[N0f ]fg

2.336a

2.336b

0 ]fg.

2.336c

In this expression the dependent variables uO , vO , wO are functions of the arc length s

and the circumferential coordinate
. Additional details describing the contributions

of discrete rings and constraint conditions to 2 are given in [2.62]. The
dependence can be eliminated from the analysis by the following Fourier series

uO s,
D uO n s sin n

vO s,
D vO n s cos n

2.337

ws,

O
D wO n s sin n
.

Upon substitution into Eq. (2.335) and carrying out the
-integration will result in

an expression where the circumferential wave number n appears as a parameter and

where the corresponding expressions A1n , A2n , A3n are now functions of s only.

Figure 2.71

119

To eliminate the s-dependence and to reduce the second variation of the total

potential energy 2 to an algebraic form the nite-difference discretization shown

in Figure 2.71 is used. Notice that the Ou and Ov points are located halfway

between adjacent w

O points. The energy contains up to rst derivatives in uO and

vO and up to second derivatives in w.

O Hence, the shell energy density evaluated at

the center of the length (the point labeled E) involves the following seven points

bqi c D bwO i1 , uO i , vO i , wO i , uO iC1 , vO iC1 , wO iC1 c.

2.338

The energy per unit circumferential length is simply the energy per unit area

multiplied by the length of the nite-difference element i , which is the arc length

of the reference surface between the adjacent uO or vO points. Thus

Ei D bqi c[B]T [C][B]fqi gi

2.339

where the matrices [B] and [C] represent the kinematic relation and the constitutive

law, respectively. In [2.95] it is shown that this formulation yields a (7 7) stiffness

matrix corresponding to a constant-strain, constant-curvature-change nite element

that is incompatible in normal displacement and rotation at its boundaries but that

in general yields very rapidly converging results with increasing density of nodal

points. Notice that two of the w-points

O

lie outside of the element.

Summing over all the nite-difference elements of length i the second variation

of the total potential energy 2 can be written as

2 D bqc[K1 ] C [K2 ] C 2 [K3 ]fqg.

2.340

Eq. (2.340) with respect to the dependent variables uO i , vO i , wO i and the Lagrange

multipliers results in the following eigenvalue problem

[K1 ] C [K2 ] C 2 [K3 ]fqg D 0.

2.341

the method of inverse power iterations with spectral shifts. For details the interested

reader should consult [2.62].

120

illustrate the need for using rigorous nonlinear prebuckling analysis the stability

behavior of the very thin cylinder under axial compression from [2.92] is considered. Using the dimensions of this shell (radius R D 500 in., thickness h D 1 in.,

length L D 2000 in., Youngs modulus E D 107 psi and Poissons ratio v D 0.3)

one obtains from Eq. (2.111) its classical buckling load as

Nc D c h D 12104 lb/in.

In Figure 2.72 the discrete model of the same shell used for the BOSOR-4 runs is

shown. Notice that the cylinder is treated as being symmetric about the midlength,

and the 1000 in. half cylinder is divided into two segments: a 200 in.-long edge

zone segment with 83 mesh points, and an 800 in.-long interior segment with

99 mesh points. Simple support conditions are applied at the edge, and symmetry

conditions at the midlength. The sequence of wave number and load search, carried

out automatically by BOSOR-4 and described with some detail in [2.92], nally

yielded a critical buckling load of 10274 lb/in. and a buckling pattern consisting of

n D 18 full waves in the circumferential direction. The prebuckling displacement

at the predicted critical load and the axial dependence of the buckling mode are

shown in Figure 2.72.

Notice that the use of a rigorous prebuckling and buckling analysis resulted

in a 17.8 percent decrease of the predicted buckling load when compared with

the classical result of Eq. (2.111), which is based on a membrane prebuckling

analysis. It may be of interest to point out that the edge-buckling type behavior

here encountered might be missed if one does not use a ne enough mesh.

Figure 2.72

121

be incomplete without mentioning the very popular nite element method. In the

following the energy criteria of equilibrium and stability will be discussed in the

form proposed by Zienkiewicz [2.96].

If a conservative system is described by n generalized coordinates qi , i D

1, 2, . . . , n, then to total potential energy of the system can be written

D q1 , q2 , . . . , qn .

2.342

D 0

2.343

Equilibrium is satised if

which implies the following set of n nonlinear algebraic equations;

D0

qi

i D 1, 2, . . . , n.

2.344

minimum, i.e.

2 D

2

qi qj > 0 i, j D 1, 2, . . . , n

qi qj

2.345

where repeated indices indicate summation. Notice that in this case the associated

positive denite matrix Vij D 2 /qi qj has all positive eigenvalues r . If the

matrix Vij evaluated at an equilibrium point has any negative eigenvalues then

the total potential energy function attains local maxima in the directions of the

corresponding eigenvectors and the system is in a state of unstable equilibrium.

The transition from stable to unstable equilibrium occurs when at least one

eigenvalue, say 1 , becomes zero. The matrix Vij is then singular and the corresponding point on an equilibrium path is called a singular (or critical) point.

Singular points indicate either that there is a bifurcation of the equilibrium path

into other, stable or unstable branches or that a limit point has been reached. It

is therefore important to detect and calculate singular points in addition to stable

points on an equilibrium path.

Turning now to the nite element formulation, let the displacements at any point

within an elastic body be dened as a column vector fug, then

fug D [H]fqg

2.346

where the components of [H], the shape functions, are so chosen as to give the

appropriate nodal displacements when the coordinates of the corresponding nodes

are inserted and fqg contains all the nodal displacements. Notice that this and the

following expressions are to be interpreted as applying to the whole structure under

consideration.

With the displacements at all points within the body known one can proceed to

calculate the generalized strains (extensional strains and curvatures), which can be

122

f"g D [B]fqg

D [B0 ] C [BL ]fqg

2.347

where [B0 ] is the matrix obtained from the linear innitesimal strain analysis and

[BL ] contains the contributions of the nonlinear strain components. Notice that [B0 ]

is independent of fqg whereas [BL ] is usually a linear function of fqg (see [2.96],

p. 414).

Next, assuming general linear elastic behavior, the relationship between stresses

and strains will be of the form

[] D [C]fg

2.348

where [C] is the elasticity matrix containing the appropriate material properties.

Finally, following [2.96] the variational form of the overall equilibrium condition

can be written as

D fgT fg dv fqgT fP g D 0

2.349

v

where the column vector fP g contains all the external nodal forces due to the

imposed loads and the integral is carried out over all the elements of the structure

under consideration. It is easily seen that the rst term of this equation represents

the variation of the strain energy U of the structure while the second term is

the variation of the potential of the applied loads p . Using Eq. (2.347) one can

rewrite Eq. (2.349) as

T

D fqg

[B]fg

dV fP g D 0

2.350

v

The stability criterion involves the second variation of the total potential energy.

Computing it one gets

2

T

T

T

D D fqg

[B] fg dV C [B] fg dV

2.351

v

N D 0.

Notice since fPg

With the help of Eqs. (2.347) and (2.348) it is straight forward to rewrite

Eq. (2.351) as

T fg dV C [B]

T [C][B]fqg

2 D fqgT

[B]

dV .

2.352

v

The rst term of this equation can generally be written as (see [2.96] and [2.97]

for details)

T fg dV D [K ]fqg

[B]

2.353

v

where [K ] is a symmetric matrix which depends on the stress level and is called

from Eq. (2.347)

the initial stress or geometric matrix. Finally, substituting for [B]

123

and regrouping, the second variation of the total potential energy can be written in

the following quadratic form

2 D fqgT [KT ]fqg > 0

where [KT ] D [K ] C [K0 ] C [KL ] is the tangent stiffness matrix and

[K0 ] D [B0 ]T [C][B0 ] dV

v

2.354

2.355

[KL ] D

2.356

Notice that [K0 ] represents the usual small displacements stiffness matrix, whereas

the matrix [KL ] is due to the large displacements and is variously known as the

initial displacement or large displacement matrix.

Thus, when the nite element discretization is employed, Eq. (2.354) represents

the stability criterion of an equilibrium conguration. From the theory of quadratic

forms one knows that a stable equilibrium conguration is ensured if the tangent

stiffness matrix

2.357

[KT ] D [K ] C [K0 ] C [KL ]

has no negative eigenvalues. A critical point is reached when [KT ] has at least

one zero eigenvalue. Thus the stability of an equilibrium conguration can be

determined by solving the eigenvalue problem

[KT ]fXr g D r fXr g

2.358

at the current equilibrium state, where r is the rth eigenvalue and fXr g is the

corresponding eigenvector.

Notice that the computation of the critical point must be done in two steps. First,

the equilibrium conguration associated with a given load level P is computed.

Next, the stability of this conguration is examined by calculating the eigenvalues

of [KT P], the tangent stiffness matrix evaluated at the load P.

This method of determining the stability of a conservative system is very accurate, however it can be computationally expensive because it involves the solution

of a quadratic eigenvalue problem for the critical load (see also Eq. (2.341)).

Cheaper methods of estimating the critical load are available. These methods are

usually referred to as linearized buckling analyses, where the critical load is calculated based on a linear extrapolation of the behavior of the structure at a small

load level.

Considering Eqs. (2.355), (2.356) and (2.357) one observes that only the matrices

[K ] and [KL ] depend on the load level P. As a rst approximation these matrices

can be assumed to be only linearly proportional to the applied load. Then the

tangent stiffness matrix at some level P can be approximated as

[KT P] D [K0 ] C

P

[K P] C [KL P]

P

2.359

124

where the initial stress matrix [K ] and the large displacement matrix [KL ] are

both evaluated at a small load level P. If one assumes further that the critical

load can be approximated by P, then the condition for a singular point (i.e.,

a singular tangent stiffness matrix) becomes a standard matrix eigenvalue problem.

Once the lowest eigenvalue 1 is found, the critical buckling load is equal to

1 P and the buckling mode is given by the eigenvector fX1 g.

An additional simplication is frequently used. It is based on the argument that

at the low load level P the displacements fug are so small that one can neglect

the contribution of the large displacement matrix [KL ]. This leads to the classical

initial stability problem

[K0 ] C r [K P]fXr g D 0

2.360

plates and shells.

One must realize here that strictly speaking this approach can only give physically signicant answers if the elastic solution based on the small displacement

stiffness matrix [K0 ] yields such deformations that the large displacement matrix

[KL ] is identically zero. Zienkiewicz warns explicitly in [2.96] and [2.97] that this

only happens in a very limited number of practical situations (such as a perfectly

straight column under axial load). Thus in real engineering applications the stability

problem should ultimately always be investigated by using the full tangent stiffness matrix. That is, the step-by-step formulation given by Eq. (2.358) should be

employed.

There are many commercially available nite element codes with buckling

analysis capabilities such as NASTRAN [2.98], ADINA [2.99], MARC [2.100],

ANSYS [2.101], and ABAQUS [2.102], just to name a few. A comprehensive

review of these and other codes is obviously beyond the scope of this book. Interested readers should consult [2.90] and [2.91] for further information.

References

2.1 Timoshenko, S.P. and Gere, J.M., Theory of Elastic Stability, McGraw-Hill, New

York, 1961.

2.2 Brush, D. O. and Almroth, B. O., Buckling of Bars, Plates and Shells, McGraw-Hill

Book Company, New York, 1975.

2.3 Allen, H.G. and Bulson, P.S., Background to Buckling, McGraw-Hill, New York,

1980.

2.4 Simitses, G.J., An Introduction to the Elastic Stability of Structures, Prentice-Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1976.

2.5 Dym, C.L., Stability Theory and Its Applications to Structural Mechanics, Noordhoff Int. Publishing, Leyden, 1974.

2.6 Thompson, J.M.T. and Hunt, G.W., A General Theory of Elastic Stability, John

Wiley & Sons, London, 1973.

2.7 Gerard, G., Introduction to Structural Stability Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York,

1962.

References

125

2.8 Puger, A., Stabilitatsprobleme der Elastostatik, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1975.

2.9 Euler, L., De curvis elasticis, Leonhard Eulers Elastic Curves, translated and annotated by W.A. Oldfather, C.A. Ellis, and D.M. Brown, reprinted from Isis, 20, (58),

1933, The St. Catherine Press, Bruges, Belgium.

2.10 Rivello, R.M., Theory and Analysis of Flight Structures, McGraw-Hill, New York,

1969.

2.11 Shanley, F.R., Inelastic Column Theory, Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences, 14,

(5), May 1947, 261 268.

2.12 Bryan, G.H., On the Stability of a Plane Plate under Thrusts in its Own Plane with

Applications to the Buckling of the Sides of a Ship, Proc. London Math. Soc., 22,

1891, 54 67.

2.13 Gerard, G. and Becker, H., Handbook of Structural Stability, Part 1: Buckling of

Flat Plates, NACA TN 3781, 1957.

2.14 Coan, J.M., Large-Deection Theory for Plates with Small Initial Curvatures Loaded

in Edge Compression, ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics, 18, (2), June 1951,

143 151.

2.15 Hu, P.C., Lundquist, E.E. and Batdorf, S.B., Effect of Small Deviations from Flatness on Effective Width and Buckling of Plates in Compression, NACA TN 1124,

1946.

2.16 Notenboom, R.P., Finite Strip Elements in Thin Plate Buckling Analysis, Report

LR-642, Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Delft,

September 1990.

2.17 van der Neut, A., The Interaction of Local Buckling and Column Failure of ThinWalled Compression Members, in: Proceedings 12th IUTAM Congress in Stanford,

California, 1968, M. Hetenyi and W.G. Vincenti, eds., Springer Verlag, BerlinHeidelberg-New York, 1969, 389 399.

2.18 Koiter, W.T. and Kuiken, G.D.C., The Interaction between Local Buckling and

Overall Buckling on the Behaviour of Built-Up Columns, Report WTHD-23, Delft

University of Technology, Delft, 1971.

2.19 Nethercot, D.A., Elastic Lateral Buckling of Beams, in Beams and Beam Columns,

R. Narayanan, ed., Applied Science Publishers, London and New York, 1983, 1 34.

2.20 Rockey, K.C., El-Gaaly, M.A. and Bagchi, D.K., Failure of Thin-Walled Members

under Patch Loading, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE Proceedings, 98,

(ST12) Dec. 1972.

2.21 Rockey, K.C. and Bagchi, D.K., Buckling of Plate Girder Webs under Partial Edge

Loadings, International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 12, (1), 1970, 61 76.

2.22 Chen, W.F. and Atsuto, T., Theory of Beam Columns, McGraw-Hill, N.Y., 1977.

2.23 Bodner, S.R., On the Conservativeness of Various Distributed Force Systems,

Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences., 25, (2), February 1958, 132 133.

2.24 Langhaar, H.L., Energy Methods in Applied Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons, New

York, 1962.

2.25 Washizu, K., Variational Methods in Elasticity and Plasticity, 2nd ed., Pergamon

Press, Oxford, 1975.

2.26 Bresse, M., Cours de Mechanique Appliquee, 2nd ed., 1866, 333 334.

2.27 Levy, M., Memoir Sur un Nouveau Cas Integrable du Probleme de LElastique

et

lUne de ses Applications, Journal des Mathematiques Pure et Appliquees, Ser. 3,

10, 1884, 5 42.

2.28 Boresi, A.P., A Renement of the Theory of Buckling of Rings under Uniform

Pressure, ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics, 22, (1), March 1955, 95 103.

126

2.29 Singer, J. and Babcock, C.D. Jr., On the Buckling of Rings Under Constant Directional and Centrally Directed Pressure, ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics, 37,

(1), March 1970, 215 218.

2.30 Hurlbrink, E., Festigkeits-Berechnung von rohrenartigen Korpern, die unter

a usserem Druck stehen, Schiffbau, 9, (14), 1908, 517.

2.31 Timoshenko, S.P., Buckling of a Uniformly Compressed Circular Arch, Bull. Polytech. Inst., Kiev, 1910.

2.32 Schreyer, H.L. and Masur, E.F., Buckling of Shallow Arches, Journal of the

Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE Proceedings, 92, (EM4), August 1966,

1 19.

2.33 Kerr, A.D. and Soiter, M.T., The Linearization of the Prebuckling State and its

Effect on the Determined Instability Loads, ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics,

36, December 1969, 775 783.

2.34 Koiter, W.T., General Equations of Elastic Stability for Thin Shells, Proceedings

of the Symposium on the Theory of Shells to Honor Hamilton Donnell, University

of Houston, Houston, Texas, 1967, 187 228.

2.35 Donnell, L.H., Stability of Thin-Walled Tubes under Torsion, NACA Report

No. 479, 1933.

2.36 Koiter, W.T., On the Stability of Elastic Equilibrium, Ph.D. Thesis (in Dutch), THDelft, H.T. Paris, Amsterdam, 1945. English translation issued as NASA TT F-10,

1967.

2.37 Lorenz, R., Achsensymmetrische Verzerrungen in dunnwandigen Hohlzylinder,

Zeitschrift des Vereines Deutscher Ingenieure, 52, 1908, 1706 1713.

2.38 Thielemann, W., Schnell, W. and Fischer, G., Beul und Nachbeulverhalten

Orthotroper Kreiszylinderschalen unter Axial und Innendruck, Zeitschrift fur

Flugwissenschaften, 8, (10/11), 1960, 284 293.

2.39 Becker, H. and Gerard, G., Elastic Stability of Orthotropic Shells, Journal of the

Aerospace Sciences, 29, (5), 1962, 505 512.

2.40 Hedgepeth, J.M. and Hall, D.B., Stability of Stiffened Cylinders, AIAA Journal, 3,

(12), December 1965, 2275 2286.

2.41 Singer, J., Baruch, M. and Harari, O., On the Stability of Eccentrically Stiffened

Cylindrical Shells under Axial Compression, International Journal of Solids and

Structures, 3, 1967, 445 470.

2.42 Tasi, J., Effect of Heterogeneity on the Stability of Composite Cylindrical Shells

under Axial Compression, AIAA Journal, 4, (6), June 1966, 1058 1062.

2.43 Meck, H.R., A Survey of Methods of Stability Analysis of Ring Stiffened Cylinders

Under Hydrostatic Pressure, Transactions of ASME, Journal of Engineering for

Industry, 87B (3), 1965, 385 390.

2.44 Cheng, S. and Ho, B.P.C., Stability of Heterogeneous Aelotropic Cylindrical Shells

under Combined Loading, AIAA Journal, 1, (4), April 1963, 892 898.

2.45 Southwell, R.V. and Skan, S.W., On the Stability under Shearing Forces of a Flat

Elastic Strip, Proc. Roy. Soc. London, Ser. A, 105, 1924, 582 607.

2.46 Schwerin, E., Die Torsions-Stabilitat des dunnwandigen Rohres, Z. Angew. Math.

Mech. (ZAMM), 5, 1925, 235 243.

2.47 Yamaki, N., Elastic Stability of Circular Cylindrical Shells, North-Holland Series

in Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, Amsterdam, 1985.

2.48 Flugge, W., Die Stabilitat der Kreiszylinderschale, Ingenieur Archiv, 3, 1932,

463 506.

References

127

2.49 Seide, P. and Weingarten, V.I., On the Buckling of Circular Cylindrical Shells

under Pure Bending, ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics, 28, (1), March 1961,

112 116.

2.50 Potters, M.L., A Matrix Method for the Solution of a Linear Second Order Difference Equation in Two Variables, Report M.R. 19, Mathematisch Zentrum, Amsterdam, 1955.

2.51 Budiansky, B. and Radkowski, P.P., Numerical Analysis of Unsymmetrical Bending

of Shells of Revolution, AIAA Journal, 1, (8), August 1963, 1833 1842.

2.52 Stephens, W.B., Starnes, J.H. and Almroth, B.O., Collapse of Long Cylindrical

Shells under Combined Bending and Pressure Loads, AIAA Journal, 13, (1), January

1975, 20 25.

2.53 Almroth, B.O., Brogan, F.A., Miller, E., Zele, F. and Peterson, H.T., Collapse

Analysis for Shells of General Shape: Users Manual for the STAGS-A Computer

Code, Report AFFDL-TR-71-8, Air Force Flight Dynamics Lab, Wright-Patterson

AFB, 1973.

2.54 Hutchinson, J.W., Imperfection Sensitivity of Externally Pressurized Spherical

Shells, ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics, 34, (1), March 1967, 49 55.

2.55 Flugge, W., Stresses in Shells, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1962.

2.56 Stein, M. and McElman, J.A., Buckling of Segments of Toroidal Shells, AIAA

Journal, 3, (9), September 1965, 1704 1709.

2.57 Hutchinson, J.W., Initial Post-Buckling Behavior of Toroidal Shell Segments, International Journal of Solids and Structures, 3, 1967, 97 115.

2.58 Galletly, G.D., Torispherical shells A Caution to Designers, ASME Journal of

Engineering Industry, 81, (1), February 1959, 51 66.

2.59 Galletly, G.D. and Radhamohan, S.K., Elastic-Plastic Buckling of Internally Pressurized Thin Torispherical Shells, ASME Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology,

101, 1979, 216 225.

2.60 Galletly, G.D. and Blachut, J., Torispherical Shells under Internal Pressure Failure due to Asymmetric Plastic Buckling or Axisymmetric Yielding, Proceedings

Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 199 (C3), 1985, 225 238.

2.61 Galletly, G.D., Design Equations for Preventing Buckling in Fabricated Torispherical Shells Subjected to Internal Pressure, Proceedings Institution of Mechanical

Engineers, 200, (A2), 1986, 127 139.

2.62 Bushnell, D., Stress, Stability and Vibration of Complex Branched Shells of

Revolution Analysis and Users Manual for BOSOR 4, NASA CR-2116, 1972.

2.63 Bushnell, D., BOSOR5 Program for Buckling of Elastic-Plastic Complex Shells

of Revolution Including Large Deections and Creep, Computers and Structures,

6, 1976, 221 239.

2.64 Arbocz, J. and Hol, J.M.A.M., Koiters Stability Theory in a Computer Aided Engineering (CAE) Environment, International Journal of Solids and Structures, 26,

(9/10), 1990, 945 973.

2.65 Foppl, L., Achsensymmetrisches Ausknicken zylindrischer Schalen, S.-B. Bayr.

Akad. Wiss., 1926, 27 40.

2.66 Stein, M., The Inuence of Prebuckling Deformations and Stresses on the Buckling

of Perfect Cylinders, NASA TR R-190, 1964.

den Einuss der gelenkigen Lagerung auf die Stabilitat

dunnwandiger Kreiszylinderschalen unter Axiallast und Innendruck, Zeitschrift fur

Flugwissenschaften, 11, (3), 1963, 111 119.

128

Compressed Cylindrical Shells, NASA CR-161, February 1965.

2.69 Hoff, N.J. and Soong, T.C., Buckling of Circular Cylindrical Shells in Axial Compression, International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 7, 1965, 489 520.

2.70 Brazier, L.G., On the Flexure of Thin Cylindrical Shells and Other Thin Sections,

Proc. Royal Society, Series A, 116, 1926, 104 114.

2.71 Kyriakides, S. and Ju, G.T., Bifurcation and Localization Instabilities in Cylindrical

Shells under Bending I. Experiments, International Journal of Solids and

Structures, 29, (9), 1992, 1117 1142.

2.72 Ju, G.T. and Kyriakides, S., Bifurcation and Localization Instabilities in Cylindrical

Shells under Bending II. Predictions, International Journal of Solids and

Structures, 29, (9), 1992, 1143 1171.

2.73 Ostgood, W.R., The Double-Modulus Theory of Column Action, Civil Engineering,

5, (3), March 1935, 172 175.

2.74 Consid`ere, A., Resistance des pieces comprimees, Congr`es Int. des Procedes de

Construction, 3, Annexe, Librairie Polytechnique, Paris, 1891, 371 378.

Knickfragen, Schweizerische Bauzeitung, 26, (4), July 1895,

24 30.

2.76 von Karman, Th., Die Knickfestigkeit gerader Stabe, Physikalische Zeitschrift, 9

(4) 1908, 136 140..

2.77 Ramberg, W. and Osgood, W.R., Description of Stress-Strain Curves by Three

Parameters, NACA TN 902, July, 1943.

2.78 Bruhn, E.F., Analysis and Design of Flight Vehicle Structures, Tri-State Offset Co.,

Cincinnati, Ohio, 1965.

2.79 Hill, R., A General Theory of Uniqueness and Stability in ElasticnPlastic Solids,

J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 6, 1958, 236 249.

2.80 Hill, R., Bifurcation and Uniqueness in Nonlinear Mechanics of Continua,

(Muskhelishvili Volume) Soc. Indust. Appl. Math., Philadelphia, 1961, 153 164.

2.81 Sewell, M.J., A Survey of Plastic Buckling, in Stability, H. Leipholz, ed.,

Chapter 5, 1972, 85 197.

2.82 Trefftz, E., Zur Theorie der Stabilitat des elastischen Gleichgewichts, ZAMM, 13,

1933, 160 165.

2.83 Beck, M., Die Knicklast des einseitig eingespannten, tangential gedruckten Stabes,

ZAMP, 3, 1952, 225 228.

2.84 Ziegler, H., Principles of Structural Stability, Blaisdell Publishing Co., Waltham,

Massachusetts, 1968.

2.85 Bolotin, V.V., Nonconservative Problems of the Theory of Elastic Stability, A Pergamon Press Book, The MacMillan Co., New York, 1963.

2.86 Meirovitch, L., Analytical Methods in Vibrations, The MacMillan Co., London,

1967.

2.87 Van der Neut, A., Buckling Caused by Thermal Stresses, in High Temperature

Effects in Aircraft Structures, N.J. Hoff, ed., Pergamon Press, New York, 1958,

215 246.

2.88 Galerkin, B.G., Beams and Plates, (in Russian), Vestnik Inzhenerov, 1, (19), 1915,

897 908.

2.89 Koiter, W.T., The Effect of Axisymmetric Imperfections on the Buckling of Cylindrical Shells under Axial Compression, Koninkl. Ned. Akad. Wetenschap. Proc. B66,

1963, 265 279.

References

129

2.90 Pilkey, W., Saczalski, K. and Schaeffer, H. eds., Structural Mechanics Computer

Programs, Surveys, Assessments and Availability, University of Virginia Press,

Charlottesville, VA., 1974.

2.91 Noor, A.K., Belytschko, T. and Simo, J.C. eds., Analytical and Computational

Models of Shells, CED ASME, 3, 1989.

2.92 Bushnell, D., Stress, Stability and Vibration of Complex Branched Shells of Revolution, Computers and Structures, 4, Pergamon Press, 1974, 399 435.

2.93 Bushnell, D., Stress, Buckling and Vibration of Prismatic Shells, AIAA Journal, 9,

(10), October 1971, 2004 2013.

2.94 Bushnell, D., Analysis of Ring-Stiffened Shells of Revolution under Combined

Thermal and Mechanical Loading, AIAA Journal, 9, (3), March 1971, 401 410.

2.95 Bushnell, D., Finite-Difference Energy Models versus Finite-Element Models: Two

Variational Approaches in One Computer Program, Proceedings ONR International

Symposium for Numerical and Computer Methods in Structural Mechanics, Urbana,

Illinois, September 1971.

2.96 Zienkiewicz, O.C., The Finite Element Method in Engineering Science, 2nd Edition,

McGraw-Hill, London, 1971.

2.97 Zienkiewicz, O.C., The Finite Element Method, 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill Book

Co. (UK), London, 1977.

2.98 NASTRAN, The MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation, 815 Colorado Blvd, Los

Angeles, California, 90041, U.S.A.

2.99 ADINA, ADINA R&D, Inc., 71 Elton Ave., Watertown, Massachusetts, 02172,

U.S.A.

2.100 MARC, MARC Analysis Research Corporation, 260 Sheridan Ave., Palo Alto,

California, 94306, U.S.A.

2.101 ANSYS, Swanson Analysis Systems, Inc., P.O. Box 65, Johnson Road, Houston,

Pennsylvania, 15342, U.S.A.

2.102 ABAQUS, Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc., 100 Medway Str., Providence,

Rhodes Island, 02906, U.S.A.

3

Postbuckling Behavior of

Structures

3.1

Introduction

The chances for a successful correlation between the test data and the applicable theoretical results will be greatly enhanced if one tries to take into account

already at the planning stage all those factors that may affect the outcome of the

experiments.

In the last 50 years or so extensive experimental and theoretical research

programs have been carried out in the aerospace, (sub) marine, pressure vessel

and off-shore industries trying to establish a reliable design basis for buckling

sensitive applications. It has been found that, in these cases, great care must be

taken in dening the boundary conditions adequately, one has to check whether

inelastic effects will occur, and one has to investigate whether the buckling load is

sensitive to the unavoidable initial imperfections always present in real structures.

Depending on the application, initial imperfections could have different meanings. Unwanted load eccentricities by columns, slight deviations from atness by

plate assemblies or minute waviness along the generator of a cylindrical shell are all

examples of initial (geometric) imperfections. Theoretical and experimental investigations have shown that the degree to which the presence of initial imperfections

will affect the occurrence of the bifurcation buckling load depends on the particular combination of external load and the type of structure under consideration. In

some cases the buckling load at a bifurcation point is not necessarily equal to the

maximum load the structure can support. In other cases, the predicted bifurcation

buckling load of the structure can never be reached in experiments.

As a general result one can state that in order to characterize the buckling

behavior of a slender, thin-walled structure one must investigate both its (bifurcation) buckling and its postbuckling behavior under the specied external loading.

In the following, typical characteristic postbuckling behaviors will be illustrated

using different structural elements.

The exact solution of the postbuckling behavior of a perfect column is known. As

pointed out in [2.2] and as can be seen in Figure 2.2 the postbuckling curve of an

Plates Volume 1. J. Singer, J. Arbocz and T. Weller Copyright 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

132

axially compressed perfectly straight column is tangent to the horizontal line at the

bifurcation point P/Pc D 1.0, where the lateral deection is zero. Notice that the

solution curves for columns with small initial imperfections closely approximate

the perfect curve. Thus one can expect a good agreement between the theoretical

predictions and the experimental results. However, it must be remembered that the

postbuckling curves shown in Figure 2.2 are only valid up to the proportional limit

of the material.

From the equilibrium paths for initially perfectly at and for slightly imperfect

plates shown in Figure 2.7 it is evident, that plates subjected to in-plane compression will carry additional load after buckling if the unloaded edges are supported.

Further it can be seen, that the buckling of imperfect plates appears to be so

gradual that it becomes difcult to decide at precisely what load the buckling may

be said to occur. Notice that also in this case the solution curves for small initial

imperfections follow closely the theoretical curve for the perfect plate both in the

prebuckling and in the postbuckling regions. Thus once again one can expect a

close agreement between test results and theoretical predictions.

Quite another type of behavior appears to predominate when one considers the

correlation between theoretical and experimental results for axially compressed

cylindrical shells as attempted by Flugge [2.48], Lundquist ([9.53], Volume 2),

Donnell ([9.54], Volume 2) and others. As can be seen in Figure 3.1 (from [9.103],

Volume 2) the tests reveal a wide scatter in the experimental results, with experimental buckling loads for very thin shells (R/h > 1000) as low as 20 percent

of the theoretical values. The reason for this behavior becomes evident if one

considers the postbuckling equilibrium paths for axially compressed cylinders

calculated by von Karman and Tsien [3.1] using a nonlinear theory. As can be

seen in Figure 3.2, their results show that the postbuckling equilibrium path drops

sharply downward from the bifurcation point. Although von Karman and Tsien

did not analyze initially imperfect shells, their results suggest that equilibrium

Figure 3.1 Test data for isotropic cylinder under axial compression (from [9.103], Volume 2)

Introduction

Figure 3.2

133

paths for shells with initial imperfections might have the form as indicated by

the dashed curve in Figure 3.2. This conjecture was conrmed by the well known

analysis of initially imperfect cylindrical shells presented by Donnell and Wan in

1950 [3.2].

Rigorous conrmation of the inuence of initial imperfections was given by

Koiter. Thanks to his pioneering work [2.36], rst published in 1945, and the

efforts of many investigators since then, the theory of imperfection sensitivity

of elastic and inelastic structures is well developed, and today one has a thorough

understanding of the principal factors that must be considered for a reliable prediction of the buckling load. What often is missing, however, are the experimental

data (read information about the initial imperfections present in the structure and

precise denition of the boundary conditions) needed for a successful prediction.

See Chapters 10 and 11, Volume 2 for further details.

In Koiters theory the initial postbuckling behavior plays a central role. When

the initial portion of the secondary path emanating from the bifurcation point

has a positive slope, considerable postbuckling strength can be developed by the

structure, and loss of stability on the primary path does not result in structural

collapse. On the other hand, when the initial portion of the secondary (postbuckling)

path has a negative slope, the buckling is sudden, explosion-like and the magnitude

of the critical collapse load is subject to the inuence of initial imperfections.

Koiters theory is exact in the asymptotic sense, that is, it is exact at the bifurcation

point itself and a close approximation for postbuckling congurations near the

bifurcation point.

Summarizing, in order to obtain an estimate of the critical load levels of imperfect structures one can rely either on the predictions of an asymptotic analysis

or one can choose to consider the results of a general nonlinear analysis. In the

following both approaches will be described in more detail.

134

3.2

about the lowest (critical) eigenvalue of the structure. That is, one is interested

in the variation of with in the vicinity of the bifurcation point D c of the

perfect structure, where is the loading parameter and is the suitably normalized

amplitude of the buckling mode. If the structure possesses a unique buckling mode

associated with the lowest buckling load, then its buckling and initial postbuckling

behavior can be represented by

D 1 C a C b 2 C

c

3.1

where a and b are the rst and the second postbuckling coefcients, respectively.

Figure 3.3 illustrates the case when a < 0 and b > 0, whereas Figure 3.4a and 3.4b

show the cases when a D 0, and b > 0 or b < 0, respectively. Notice that in all

the gures initially, along the prebuckling branch the buckling displacement of

the perfect structure is identically zero for increasing load until the bifurcation

load c is reached. Also the name bifurcation buckling gives a tting description

of the transition of the state of the structure from the fundamental equilibrium path

to the buckled path (in either direction) at D c .

To answer the question, what shall be the behavior of the structure when it

is subjected to a load that is increased slowly from zero, one has to introduce

Figure 3.4

135

a suitably chosen initial imperfection into the mathematical model. Thus, if one

assumes a small, stress free, initial imperfection of amplitude N then one can

describe the variation of with in the vicinity of D c by the following

expression [3.3].

c D ac 2 C bc 3 C c N c N C

3.2

where and are the so-called rst and second imperfection form factors. Notice

that, as can be seen from Figure 3.4, this expression is chosen so as to have the

correct limiting behavior, namely

lim lim D c and lim D 0 if N 6D 0.

3.3

!0

N

!0

!0

If the initial imperfection is assumed to have the shape of the critical buckling

mode and one uses a membrane prebuckling analysis then D D 1 and Eq. (3.2)

reduces to

3.4

1

C a 2 C b 3 C D N

c

c

the form originally proposed by Koiter [2.36].

As can be seen from Figures 3.3 and 3.4 the shape of the secondary equilibrium

path plays a central role in determining the inuence of the initial imperfections.

When the initial portion of the secondary path slopes upward then the structure

can develop considerable postbuckling strength, and the loss of stability of the

primary (fundamental) path does not result in structural collapse. However, when

the initial portion of the secondary path slopes downward, then in most cases

buckling will occur violently and the magnitude of the critical load c of the

real (imperfect) structure is lower than the bifurcation buckling load c of the

corresponding idealized (perfect) structure.

Notice also that in the case of asymmetric equilibrium paths the sign of the

initial imperfection plays an important role. In Figure 3.3 a positive N produces

an imperfect sensitive conguration, with the buckling load of the real (imperfect)

structure s less than c , the bifurcation buckling load of the perfect structure. On

the other hand, a negative N has no degrading effects so far as elastic buckling is

concerned.

For the cases with symmetric equilibrium paths, as can be seen from Figure 3.4

the sign of the initial imperfection is immaterial. Whether the buckling load of the

structure is imperfection sensitive or not is governed by the sign of the second postbuckling coefcient b. Notice that in these cases the rst post-buckling coefcient

a is identically equal to zero.

What makes the use of asymptotic methods so attractive is that the postbuckling

coefcients a and b are properties of the perfect structure. Hence their computation

does not involve the shape and the size of the expected initial imperfections. With

the knowledge of the postbuckling coefcients one can make qualitative predictions

about the nature of the experimental results.

Thus, if the postbuckling path of the loaded structure has a limit point, then the

buckling load s is sensitive to initial imperfections. In this case the experimentalist

136

must expect that the test results will be in general lower than the predictions based

on the stability analysis of the perfect structure. Furthermore, the results of repeated

buckling tests are probably going to exhibit noticeable scatter.

On the contrary, if the postbuckling path of the loaded structure is monotonically

increasing, then initial elastic buckling will not result in a collapse of the structure.

It can be loaded further and one says that the structure has additional postbuckling

strength. In this case the test results will, in general, agree quite well with the

theoretical predictions of the stability analysis of the perfect structure. Also the

scatter of the results of carefully executed repeated buckling tests should be slight.

3.2.1

supported, slender column one must rst develop an asymptotic expression for the

total potential energy valid in the neighborhood of the critical load. It has been

shown that the small parameter involved can be taken as the amplitude of the

buckling mode (see [3.4]). Recalling from Chapter 2, Subsection 2.2.1

L

EI L 2

EA L 2

x dx C

x dx C P

u,x dx

2.242

D

2 0

2 0

0

where

x D u,x C 12 w,2x .

2.44a

It has been shown by Dym ([2.5], pp. 71 72) that if the column is assumed to

be incompressible during its bending from the straight line conguration, then the

deformed length of a line element dx D dx, the undeformed length of the same

line element. Thus one must require

1 C u,x 2 C w,2x D 1

or

1

1

u,x D w,2x w,4x

2

8

w,xx

1 2 3 4

x D

D w,xx 1 C w,x C w,x C .

2

8

1 w,2x

3.5a

3.5b

3.5c

slender column can be written

1 L

1 L

P 4

2

2

2

2

D

EIw,xx Pw,x dx C

EIw,xx w,x wx dx C

3.6

2 0

2 0

4

To determine the characteristic form of for a particular equilibrium conguration

w D w0 one examines the change in the total potential energy corresponding

to an arbitrary virtual displacement w1 of the structure. Thus let

w D w0 C w1 .

3.7

137

D 0 D C 12 2 C

1 3

3!

1 4

4!

3.8

D 0

1

1 2

D

2

2

equilibrium condition

L

0

2

2

EIw1,xx

Pw1,x

dx

1 3

D0

3!

1 L

P 4

1 4

2

2

EIw1,xx

w1,x

w1,x

dx

D

4!

2 0

4

....

3.9a

3.9b

3.9c

3.9d

The stability equation for the determination of the classical buckling load may

now be obtained from the second variation expression 2 by Trefftz criterion

2 D 0

3.10

Eulers problem (see Eq. (2.2)). The lowest eigenvalue is given by

Pc D

2

EI

L2

3.11a

w1 D wO D C sin

x

.

L

3.11b

from the expression for by application of the stationary potential energy criterion. However, the resulting differential equation will be nonlinear in the nite,

incremental displacement component w1 .

On the other hand, for points on the postbuckling equilibrium path sufciently

close to the bifurcation point the incremental displacement component w1 is of the

form of the classical buckling mode w.

O Thus, by limiting the range of validity of

the postbuckling analysis to a sufciently small neighborhood of the bifurcation

point, one can assume that the small nite displacement component w1 is of the

form of the buckling mode. Thus using Eq. (3.11b) an approximate expression

for the total potential increment can be obtained by evaluating the integrals

indicated. Thus

L

4

2

2

2

2

x

2

2

x

EIC

sin

cos

dx

PC

D

L

L

L

L

0

2

L

2

EI

P C2

3.12

D

2 L

L

138

6

x P 4

4

x

cos2

C

EIC4

sin2

cos4

dx

L

L

L

4

L

L

0

2

3L

4

4EI

3P C4

3.13

D

8 L

L

4 D 12

Hence

D

1 2

1

1

4

C 3 C 4 C D

Pc L1 2 C Pc L

2

3!

4!

4

64

P

43

4 C

3.14

Pc

/L2 and D C/L close to the bifurcation point is a

small quantity. Notice that here c D 1 and hence because of Eq. (3.1) close to the

bifurcation point the following expression holds

P

D

D 1 C a C b 2 C .

Pc

c

3.15

D

4

Pc L1 2 C Pc L 4 C O 5 .

4

64

3.16

D

Hence for 6D 0

D

D 0.

2

1 C 2

8

2

Pc L D 0

2

3.17

3.18

1C

2 2

D0

8

3.19

2

D 1 C 2 .

c

8

3.20

Comparing this expression with Eq. (3.1) one concludes that the axially compressed

simply supported slender column has a stable, symmetrical postbuckling behavior

with

2

a D 0 and b D

D 1.2337 > 0.

8

Figure 3.5

139

As can be seen in Figure 3.5 the asymptotic solution based on Eq. (3.20) compares

favorably with the rigorous postbuckling solution of the elastica of [2.5] for values

of < 0.3.

3.2.2

In the following a formal procedure for obtaining the equations governing the

buckling and postbuckling states is presented. This procedure was developed by

Budiansky and Hutchinson [3.5] based on the original work by Koiter [2.36]. For

simplicity the derivation will be presented for the case of isotropic elastic plates

under in-plane edge loads (see Figure 2.3 for the sign convention used).

Using an Airy stress function such that Nx D f,yy , Ny D f,xx and Nxy D f,xy

the nonlinear von Karman Donnell type governing equations are

Dr4 w f,yy w,xx 2f,xy w,xy C f,xx w,yy D 0

r f

4

2

Ehw,xy

w,xx w,yy D 0.

3.21a

3.21b

For the sign convention shown in Figure 2.3 one has the following straindisplacement relations

x D u,x C 12 w,2x

x D w,xx

y D v,y C 12 w,2y

y D w,yy

xy D 2w,xy .

Nx D Cx C y

Mx D Dx C y

3.22

140

Ny D Cy C
x

Nxy D C

My D Dy C x

1

xy

2

where

CD

Mxy D D

3.23

1

xy

2

Eh

Eh3

and

D

D

1
2

121
2

3.24

Assuming that the eigenvalue problem for the buckling load Nc will yield a

unique buckling mode w1 with the associated stress function F1 , a solution

valid in the initial postbuckling region is sought in the form of the following

asymptotic expansions

D 1 C a C b 2 C

c

3.25a

3.25b

3.25c

where W1 will be normalized with respect the plate thickness h and W2 is

orthogonal to W1 in some appropriate sense.

A formal substitution of this expansion into the governing equations and

regrouping by powers of the small parameter generates a sequence of equations

for the functions appearing in the expansions.

Notice that by assuming that the unloaded edges are free to expand, the following

membrane prebuckling state

0

N0

x D F,yy D N0

0

Nxy

D Ny0 D 0

u0 D x0 x

v0 D y0 y

3.26a

w0 D 0

3.26b

where

x0 D

N0

hE

y0 D

N0

hE

3.27

satises the governing equations of the zero order state identically. Further, the

equations governing the rst order state are reduced to the following set of

linearized stability equations

1

Dr4 W1 C N0 W,xx

D0

3.28a

r4 F1 D 0.

3.28b

solutions of the form

x

y

W1 D Wmn sin m

sin n

3.29a

a

b

F1 D 0.

3.29b

141

Notice that the expression assumed for W1 satises simply supported boundary

conditions at all edges. Substitution into Eq. (3.28a) yields the characteristic

equation with the eigenvalues

N0,mn D D

where

kmn D

2

kmn

b2

mb

a

C n2

a

mb

3.30

2

3.31

Notice that the critical buckling load Nc is obtained when for a given plate

aspect ratio a/b the plate buckling coefcient kmn assumes its minimum value. As

discussed in Chapter 2 the minimum value of kmn occurs for n D 1 and different

integer values of m, which depend on the specied plate aspect ratio a/b. See

Figure 2.4 for further details.

P

as

Introducing the classical plate buckling load Nc

2

4

2 E

h

p

p

Nc D c h D

h

3.32

2

121
b

then in Eq. (3.25a)

D

N0

Nc

p and c D

p

Nc

Nc

3.33

Notice that in this case, for sufciently long (say a/b > 1) simply supported plates

c D 1.

The equations governing the postbuckling or second order elds are

2

D0

Dr4 W2 C Nc W,xx

Eh 2

1

1

1

r4 F2 D EhW,xy

W,xy

W,xx

W,1

W

yy D

2 mn

y

x

cos 2m

C cos 2n

.

a

b

3.34a

m

2 n

2

a

b

3.34b

W2 D 0

F2

where

x

y

D A1 cos 2m

C A2 cos 2n

a

b

Eh n a 2 2

Wmn

32 m b

Eh m b 2 2

Wmn .

A2 D

32 n a

A1 D

3.35a

3.35b

3.36a

3.36b

142

General expressions for the postbuckling coefcients a and b have been derived

by Budiansky and Hutchinson [3.5]. Alternative derivations of a and b are

presented, among others, in [3.3], [3.4] and [3.6]. For the case under consideration

these expressions reduce to

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

aD

F,xx W,y W,y 2F,xy W,x W,y CF,yy W,x W,x

dS

O

2

S

3.37

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

2

2

F,xx

W,1

3.38

bD

y W,y 2F,xy W,x W,y CW,y W,x

O

S

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

dS C

F,2

C F,yy W,x W,x

xx W,y W,y 2F,xy W,x W,y

2

1

C F,yy

W,1

x W,x

where

O D

dS

0

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

P xx

P

P

F,

W,1

W,

2

F,

W,

W,

C

F,

W,

W,

dS

y

y

xy

x

y

yy

x

x

3.39

P D

.

3.40

Notice that for the membrane prebuckling state specied by Eq. (3.26a)

P 0

P 0

F,

xx D F,xy D 0;

p

0

P yy

F,

D Nc .

3.41

2 ab

p

O D Nc

W2mn m

a

4

3.42

Since by Eq. (3.29b) F1 D 0 and by Eq. (3.35a) W2 D 0, the evaluation of the

postbuckling coefcients is greatly simplied. In this case Eqs. 3.37 and 3.38 yield

aD0

bD

1 Eh

2 2

W

p

Nc 16 b2 mn

mb

a

2

C n4

a 2

mb

3.43

3.44

Assuming that the buckling mode given by Eq. (3.29a) is normalized to one by

p

the wall-thickness h, then Wmn D h. Substituting for Nc from Eq. (3.32) one gets

a 2

3

mb 2

2

4

b D 1

Cn

.

3.45

16

a

mb

Thus a simply supported isotropic elastic plate under in-plane edge load has

a stable, symmetrical behavior. For a square plate a/b D 1 and the initial

Figure 3.6

143

D 1 C b 2

c

3.46

3

3.47

1
2 D 0.34125 > 0.

8

As can be seen in Figure 3.6 for < 1.0 (say) the asymptotic solution based on

Eq. (3.46) agrees closely with the solution of the geometrically nonlinear theory

of plates of [2.14].

bD

3.2.3

combined axial compression, external (or internal) pressure and torsion can also be

investigated within the context of Koiters theory. Figure 3.7 displays the notation

and sign convention used. Notice that the out-of-plane displacement w is taken to

be positive outward.

The nonlinear Donnell type equations appropriate for eccentrically stiffened

cylindrical shells have been derived by different authors (see, for instance, [3.7],

[3.8] and [3.9]). Written in terms of w and f (an Airy stress function) these

equations are

1

1

3.48a

LH f LQ w D w,xx LNL w, w

R

2

1

3.48b

LD w C LQ f D F,xx C LNL f, w C p

R

144

Figure 3.7

LD D Dxx ,xxxx C Dxy ,xxyy C Dyy ,yyyy

LH D Hxx ,xxxx C Hxy ,xxyy C Hyy ,yyyy

3.49

and the nonlinear differential operator is

LNL S, T D S,xx T,yy 2S,xy T,xy C S,yy T,xx .

3.50

applicable to ring- and stringer stiffened shells if the stiffener properties are

smeared out to arrive at effective bending, stretching and eccentricity coupling

stiffnesses for the skin-stiffener combination. The parameters Dxx , H,xx , Q,xx , . . .,

etc. are listed in [3.10].

To calculate the postbuckling coefcients a and b for the case where a unique

buckling mode W1 and F1 corresponds to the critical (lowest) buckling load c ,

one begins by assuming a solution valid in the initial postbuckling regime in the

form of the asymptotic expansions given by Eq. (3.25). A formal substitution of

this expansion into Eq. (3.48) and regrouping by powers of generates a sequence

of linear equations for the functions appearing in the expansion.

If one neglects the effect of the prebuckling edge constraints, then the following

membrane prebuckling solution

W0 D hW C Wp C Wt

Eh

1 2 1

0

2

y pN e x N xy

F D

cR

2

2

3.51a

3.51b

satises the governing equations of the zero order state identically. The quantities W
, Wp and Wt are evaluated by enforcing the periodicity condition (see

[3.6] for details). Furthermore, is the nondimensional axial load parameter D

cR/Eh2 N0 , pN e is the nondimensional external pressure pN e D cR2 /Eh2 pe and

N is the nondimensional torque parameter N D cR/Eh2 Nxy , positive counterclockwise.

145

The set of equations for W1 and F1 yields the following classic eigenvalue

problem

LH F1 LQ W1 D

1 1

W,

R xx

3.52a

1

Eh2

1

1

1

W,

2N

W,

C

p

N

W,

3.52b

LD W1 C LQ F1 D F,1

e

xx

xy

yy

R xx

cR

In Eq. (3.52b) the user can select the eigenvalue c to be the critical value of

either the normalized axial load , or the normalized external pressure pN e or the

normalized torque N . The remaining two load parameters are then held xed.

Approximate solutions of this standard eigenvalue problem have been presented

by many authors. See, for instance, Hutchinson and Amazigo [3.7], Seggelke and

Geier [3.11], Block et al. [3.12] and Khot and Venkayya [3.13], just to name a

few.

From the next higher-order terms in the expansion one gets the governing

equations for W2 and F2

LH F2 LQ W2

1 2

1

1

1

1

W,xy

W,xx

W,yy

W, D W,xy

R xx

LQ F2 C LD W2 C

1 2 Eh2

2

2

2

2N W,xy

CpN e W,yy

F, C

W,xx

R xx

cR

3.53a

3.53b

above when solving the classic eigenvalue problem.

The same general expressions for the postbuckling coefcients a and b, quoted

earlier as Eqs. (3.37) and (3.38), are also valid for this case. It is easily veried that

the rst postbuckling coefcient a is identically zero for an asymmetric buckling

mode. Therefore, it is necessary to solve for W2 and F2 in order to calculate

the second postbuckling coefcient b. It is shown in [3.7] that Eqs. (3.53a) and

(3.53b) admit separable solutions of the form

1

1

x

x

y

W2 D h

Aj sin j

C cos 2n

Bj sin j

3.54

L

R jD1

L

jD1

1

1

3

Eh

x

x

y

F2 D

Cj sin j

C cos 2n

Dj sin j

3.55

2c

L

R

L

jD1

jD1

where c D 31
2 . The coefcients are determined by the Galerkin procedure.

Notice that each individual term in the series in Eqs. (3.54) and (3.55) satises

2

simply supported boundary conditions W2 D W,2

D F,2

xx D F

xx D 0 at x D

0, L. Finally, the postbuckling coefcient b is calculated by evaluating the integrals

indicated in Eq. (3.38) to obtain

146

1

1

Q

c

1

j

N j C Dj C 2

N j C Cj

bD

2FB

2FA

3.56

c jD1,3,...

j

4m2 j2

jD1,3,...

where the value of

Thus for axial compression (c D , both pN e and N xed)

2 2

Q D 2m C p n .

2m C 2p

3.57

Notice that for a specied internal pressure pN e D pN i the eigenvalue must be

replaced by O c D c 21 pN i . Further for external lateral pressure (c D pN e , both

and N xed)

Q D m C p 2

3.58

Q D

2m C p 2 n2

.

1 2

2

2

2 m C p C 2n

3.59

where

2

Q D m C p n

m p

3.60

n 2 Rh

2m D m C K

L

R

2c

Rh

n

2p D m K

L

R

2c

n 2 Rh

.

n2 D

R 2c

3.61

Notice that in these expressions m, n are integers denoting the number of half waves

and the number of full waves in the axial and in the circumferential directions,

respectively, whereas K is a real number called Khots skewedness parameter

[3.13] denoting the inclination of the nodal lines of the buckling pattern with

respect to the axis of the shell.

The series in Eq. (3.56) can be evaluated numerically to any degree of accuracy

desired. This solution was rst obtained by Hutchinson and Amazigo in 1967 (see

[3.7]) using an asymmetric imperfection in the form of the critical buckling mode

N D hN2 sin m

x

n

cos y K x

L

R

3.62

Dj are listed in [3.14].

147

Knowing b one can use Eq. (3.4) and the condition for the occurrence of a limit

point

d

D0

d

3.63

to obtain a relation between the limit load s of the imperfect structure and the

bifurcation load c of the perfect structure. Notice that for a D 0 straightforward

calculations yield the formula

s 3/2 3 p

s

1

D

3bjN2 j

c

2

c

for b < 0

3.64

if the second postbuckling coefcient b is negative, the equilibrium load decreases

following buckling and the buckling load of the real (imperfect) structure s is

expected to be imperfection sensitive.

Since the sixties many papers have been published dealing with the imperfection

sensitivity of different shells of revolution loaded by various types of external loads.

Following the standard set by the Harvard group under Budiansky and Hutchinson

it has become a widely accepted practice to display the results of such investigations

in the form shown in Figure 3.8. By plotting the normalized buckling load c and

the corresponding second

postbuckling coefcient b versus Batdorfs Z-parameter,

p

2

where Z D L /Rh 1 2 , it is possible to display both the critical buckling

load and a measure of its imperfection sensitivity for a wide range of possible

shell congurations in a single gure.

When trying to assess the imperfection sensitivity of the critical buckling load

one must remember, that this form of the so-called b-factor method can only be

applied in cases of symmetric bifurcation and when just a single non-axisymmetric

buckling mode is associated with the critical buckling load. To estimate the degree

of imperfection sensitivity as a function of the magnitude of the postbuckling

coefcient b, one can use the curves shown in Figure 3.9. For the sake of calibration

a curve taken from Koiter [2.36], showing the effect of axisymmetric imperfections

on the buckling load of axially compressed isotropic cylinders, is also included in

Figure 3.9. For authoritative reviews and for more detailed results the interested

reader should consult [3.15] and [3.16].

Recent investigations [3.17] and [3.18], have shown that the trends predicted

by a Koiter type asymptotic imperfection-sensitivity analysis are reliable, if in the

calculation of the eld functions needed to evaluate the postbuckling coefcients

one employs rigorous nonlinear prebuckling analysis and satises the appropriate

boundary conditions exactly. Furthermore, it can be stated that with the availability

of computer codes like DISDECO [3.18], SRA [3.19] and FASOR [3.20] and with

the current generation of high-speed desk-top workstations, it has become feasible

for all structural engineers to use Koiters Imperfection Sensitivity Theory in every

day design practice (see also Sub-section 3.3.5 on this topic).

148

Figure 3.8 Classical buckling load and imperfections sensitivity of simply supported, stringer

stiffened cylinders under axial compression (As /ds h D 0.506, Els /Dds D 2.69,

es /h D 1.71, GJs /Dds D 3/40)

3.2.4

Experimental Verication

imperfection sensitivity theory is due to Roorda [3.21]. He tested the two-bar frame

shown in Figure 3.10. Since a real structure is never totally free of imperfections

the vertical leg tended to bend to the right or to the left as soon as the load

was applied. Roorda found that by placing the load at a distance q0 D 0.0013L

Figure 3.9

149

to the right of the centerline of the vertical leg he could practically eliminate this

tendency. Provisions were then made to apply the load at any distance q to the

right or the left of the centerline of the vertical leg. In the test program the frame

loaded by a slightly eccentric load applied at q 6D q0 represented an equivalent

slightly imperfect frame, where the load eccentricity q q0 played the role of

N

the initial imperfection L.

In the tests the rotation A of joint A was measured optically and it was used

as the displacement parameter in plots of the equilibrium paths (thus D A ). In

Figure 3.11 results of two of the tests for the smallest eccentricity jq q0 j that

could be achieved are displayed where D P/Pc and

Pc D 1.406

2

Figure 3.10

EI

L2

3.65

150

Figure 3.11

is the classical buckling load of the two-bar frame shown in Figure 3.10. Negative

values of A represent counter-clockwise rotations of joint A. For small values of A

one can see the excellent agreement between the experimental points and the asymmetric equilibrium paths predicted by the asymptotic theory. For counter-clockwise

rotations the equilibrium path exhibits a limit point at about s D 0.99. Experimental limit loads s for values of q < q0 , which produces a counter-clockwise

initial rotation, were obtained by applying the load at other locations. Figure 3.12

displays a comparison between the experimental limit loads s plotted as a function

of the load eccentricity ratio q/L with the locus of the limit point predicted by the

asymptotic theory

N sD0

3.66

1 s C 4aN

where N is an equivalent imperfection form factor. From the theoretical solution

of [2.2] one obtains

Figure 3.12 Comparison of theoretical and experimental limit point loci (from [3.21])

151

3.67

Using these numerical values in Eq. (3.66) to obtain the solid line in Figure 3.12

one sees that once again the agreement is excellent. The curve is seen to have

the characteristic parabolic form with a vertical tangent at N D q q0 /L D 0.

Thus in this gure the ratio N D q q0 /L represents an equivalent imperfection

parameter.

Turning now to more complicated structures it soon becomes evident that there

are less results available and that due to the mathematical complexities of the

asymptotic theory extrapolation of the published results to more general structural

congurations requires considerable theoretical and practical insight and experience.

Considering again the postbuckling equilibrium paths in Figure 3.2 for an axially

compressed initially perfect cylindrical shell and one of the possible curves for a

slightly imperfect shell, one can conclude the following

1. The bifurcation buckling load of the perfect structure represents the ultimate

load carrying capability of the structure.

2. The collapse load of the imperfect structure may be considerably lower than

the bifurcation buckling load of the perfect structure.

3. The collapse loads of nominally identical structures may vary widely due to

the random nature of the initial deviations (imperfections) from the perfect

shape.

That the scatter in buckling loads for nominally identical cylindrical shells is

caused by the small unintentional differences in the initial shape can also be

deduced from the results displayed in Figure 3.13. The upper part contains the

results of a large number of buckling experiments under hydrostatic pressure

marked by circles and a solid line depicting the theoretical buckling pressure for

perfect cylinder. Notice that for Z-values between 10 and 100 there are larger

deviations between the experimental results and the theoretical predictions than

for higher Z-values. This trend is also predicted by the second postbuckling coefcient b, plotted in the lower part, since for decreasing values of Z the value of b

becomes more negative thus indicating increasing imperfection sensitivity. In the

upper part of Figure 3.13 the following normalized external pressure is used

pN D

L2R

pe

2 D

where D D

Eh3

.

121
2

3.68

The degree of imperfection sensitivity depends not only on the shell geometry

and on the boundary conditions used but also on the external load applied to the

shell. In the upper part of Figure 3.14 the results of a large number of buckling

experiments under torsion are shown marked by circles. Also included is a solid

line depicting the theoretical buckling coefcient for perfect cylinders. Notice that

the second postbuckling coefcient b, plotted in the lower part, predicts that for all

values of Z larger than, say ve, the buckling loads are sensitive to initial imperfections. These predictions are for the most part conrmed by the test results of the

152

Figure 3.13

subjected to hydrostatic pressure

upper part. Unfortunately there is little experimental data available for shell geometries with Z-values between 10 and 50 where maximum imperfection sensitivity

is predicted. In the upper part of Figure 3.14 the following normalized torsional

buckling coefcient is used

L2 h

Kt D 2 c

3.69

D

where c D Nxy /h.

Figure 3.14

153

subjected to torsion

Considering the results of the correlation studies presented, one sees that for

those structures that are insensitive (or not very sensitive) to initial imperfections

there is a good agreement between the predictions of the asymptotic theory and

the available experimental results. Even for imperfection sensitive structures like

thin-walled shells the asymptotic theory appears to predict the trend correctly. Thus

a question comes automatically to ones mind: Why is the asymptotic imperfection sensitivity theory not used more often in practical applications? Partially

the answer may lie in the fact that whereas in many cases the predictions of the

154

be accurate up to imperfection amplitudes of the order of one shell wall thickness, there are also examples where the range of validity of the asymptotic theory

is too small to be of any practical value as has been shown for oval cylinders

[3.22] and elliptical cones [3.23] under axial compression. Another reason why

the asymptotic imperfection sensitivity theory is not used more often is because

very little is known about the deviations from the nominal shape of real life structures such as aircraft fuselages, launch vehicle shells, submarine hulls, silos, large

containment vessels, off-shore shells etc. It is encouraging to see that the need for

detailed initial imperfection surveys on large scale and full scale structures and the

establishment of Initial Imperfection Data Banks is being recognized by a growing

number of investigators. It is the authors opinion that the existence of extensive

data on characteristic initial imperfection distributions classied according to fabrication processes is one of the prerequisites for better and more reliable buckling

load prediction. This point is discussed in more detail in Chapter 10, Volume 2.

3.3

As has been pointed out earlier, in many cases one can use Koiters theory to

make a fairly accurate estimate of the initial postbuckling behavior of real (read

imperfect) structures. Unfortunately, the validity of the information provided by

the asymptotic approach is strictly speaking restricted to the immediate neighborhood of the corresponding bifurcation point. Thus, in order to establish the range

of validity of the asymptotic analysis, or whenever the shape of the (secondary)

equilibrium path in the more advanced postbuckling region is needed, one must

solve the nonlinear stability problem. Such will be the case, for instance, if both

geometric and material nonlinearities are included in the analysis.

3.3.1

can best be derived by using the stationary potential energy criterion. For slender

columns one can assume that the column is incompressible during its bending from

the initial straight line conguration. Thus its potential energy may be written

D U b C p

3.70

where Ub and p are the bending energy and the potential of the applied load

(see Eqs. (2.243b) and (2.243c)), respectively. As can be seen from Figure 3.15

and as has been described in detail in [2.5] on pp. 71 72, in view of the condition

of incompressibility

u,x D cos 1.

3.71

Figure 3.15

155

x D

1

d

D .

R

dx

3.72

EI

D

2

L

0

d

dx

2

dx C P

cos 1 dx.

3.73

D 0

yields the following two-point boundary value problem

d2

C P sin D 0

dx 2

d

M D EI D 0

dx

EI

for 0 x L

3.74a

at x D 0, L.

3.74b

The solution of this equation is rather involved because of the nonlinearity inherent

in the term sin . Solutions in terms of complete elliptic integrals of the rst kind

Kq have been presented in [2.1] and [2.5]. For a simply supported column one

gets

2

/2

P

d

2

D

3.75

D Kq

PE

1 q2 sin2

where

q D sin

156

q sin D sin

2

3.76

2

L2

and is the unknown slope at the column ends. One can also calculate the

maximum deection in terms of P/PE yielding

w 2 wx D L/2 2 2 2 P

max

D

D

q2 .

3.77

L

L

PE

PE D EI

For details of the solution the interested reader should consult [2.5].

Equations [3.75] and [3.77] can be used to plot the curve labelled exact solution

in Figure 3.5.

Considering this solution curve, notice that it is tangent to the horizontal line

at /c D 1, where the deection is zero D 0. Thus an increase in the axial

compression P (or ) corresponding to a small increment in the buckling deection

w1 (or ) is a small quantity of second order. This explains why when one uses

the linearized stability equations (Eqs. (2.2) or (2.256b)) to calculate the critical

buckling load Pc , the buckling deection w1 D wO is found to be indenite. Notice

that, as indicated also in Figure 2.2, the solution curve represented by Eq. (3.77)

can only be used up to the proportional limit of the material. Beyond this limit

the resistance of the column to bending diminishes and in order to obtain the

proper postbuckling solution curve the inelastic behavior of the material must be

accounted for.

3.3.2

In Chapter 2 the plastic buckling case of an axially compressed column has been

formulated as a bifurcation problem leading to the well-known reduced modulus

buckling formula of Considere Engesser von Karman (see Eq. (2.230)). To investigate the postbuckling behavior of the column, the problem must be reformulated

as a response problem. This will be done at some length following basically von

Karmans approach [2.76]. It serves as a lucid account of how one can combine the

results of carefully done experiments with physical insight to arrive at an useful

engineering solution of a pressing problem.

Using the sign convention shown in Figure 3.15 one sees that if the applied

compressive force has a slight eccentricity e, one has bending and axial compression acting simultaneously. Assuming in the plastic analysis that plane sections

remain plane also during plastic deformation results in a linear distribution of the

normal strain. Thus the strain at any point is

z

3.78

D 0 C

R

where 0 is the strain caused by the centrally applied axial load P. Furthermore,

in the plastic analysis the normal stress distribution is given by the stress-strain

curve of the material used, shown here in Figure 3.16.

157

Notice that the position of the neutral axis does not necessarily coincide with

the centroidal axis. Its position is determined by the values of 1 and 2 , the

elongation and contraction of the extreme bers and the value of 0 . By using the

static equilibrium equations

dA D P

3.79

z dA D M D P0

3.80

one can calculate the position of the neutral axis and the radius of curvature R.

Introducing the notation

h 1 h2

h

C

D

3.81

R

R

R

and recalling from Eq. (3.78) that dz D Rd one can rewrite Eq. (3.79) as

h1

1

h 1

P D b

dz D bR

d D b

d.

3.82

2

h2

2

D 1 2 D

Dividing by the cross-sectional area bh one obtains the average compressive stress

c as

P

1 1

d.

3.83

c D

D

bh

2

Notice that the integral in this expression represents the shaded area under the

stress-strain curve in Figure 3.16. Equation (3.83) can be used to calculate the value

of 2 corresponding to any assumed value of 1 provided the axial load P is known;

or one can assume both 1 and 2 and calculate the corresponding value of P.

Using the same notation one can rewrite also Eq. (3.80) as

h1

1

12 1

I

2

MDb

z dz D bR

0 d D

0 d

3.84

3

2

R

h2

2

where for a rectangular cross-section I D bh3 /12. As can be seen, the integral

in this expression represents the rst moment of the shaded area for the given

158

stress-strain diagram with respect to the vertical axis A-A in Figure 3.16. Since

the ordinates in the gure represent stresses and the abscissas represent strains the

integral has the same dimensions as the modulus E. Thus Eq. (3.84) can be put in

the form

I

M D EQ

3.85

R

where

Q D

E

12

3

0 d.

3.86

The magnitude of E

1 and 2 in such a manner that c calculated from Eq. (3.83) remains constant,

one obtains EQ as a function of for any given value of c . The resulting relations

were calculated by Timoshenko and Gere for a given structural steel (see [2.1],

p. 170) and are presented here in Figure 3.17. Using these curves with Eq. (3.85)

one can calculate the bending moment M as a function of D 1 2 D h/R for

any given value of c . The resulting curves are displayed in Figure 3.18.

Next, using the curves of Figure 3.18 the shape of the deection curve for an

eccentrically loaded column can be obtained from Eq. (3.83) by numerical integration. The details of this method are discussed at some length in von Karmans

paper of 1910 (see [2.76]) and shall not be repeated here. The calculations are best

carried out in terms of dimensionless ratios. Thus nally one obtains for specied

Figure 3.17

Equivalent plastic modulus E

Figure 3.18

159

values of c and eccentricity ratio e/h, the deection wmax /h as a function of the

normalized length L/h of the columns. Several curves of this type, calculated by

von Karman [2.76] for steel having a yield stress of about 45 000 psi using various

values of c and e/h D 0.005, are shown in Figure 3.19. Notice that instead of

values of L/h, values of the slenderness ratio L/ are used as ordinates in this

gure. From the points of intersection of horizontal lines and the curves, designated as points M, N and Q, one obtains a relation between the direct compressive

stress c and the deection wmax for a given slenderness ratio L/ and an assumed

load eccentricity e.

Cross-plotting these values von Karman obtained the curves shown in

Figure 3.20 using different values of load eccentricity and a slenderness ratio

Figure 3.19

[2.76])

160

Figure 3.20

(from [2.76])

of L/ D 75. Notice that in this gure for any eccentricity the load initially

increases with increasing deection. However, contrary to the elastic case, where

the curves with different load eccentricities approach the same critical buckling

load asymptotically (see also Figure 2.2), in the plastic buckling case the maximum

load carrying capacity of the column is noticeably decreased even for small values

of load eccentricity. Thus the critical buckling load of an axially compressed

column becomes imperfection sensitive if buckling occurs at stress levels higher

than the yield point of the material, whereby the load eccentricity e is the initial

imperfection. Notice further, that beyond the limit load a column can carry for a

given slenderness ratio and assumed load eccentricity, increase in deection will

proceed with a diminishing of the load.

3.3.3

Thin-walled plates are widely used in all branches of engineering technology. Their

popularity arises from the fact that a slender compressed plate is able to support

loads greater than that which causes the plate to buckle. The postbuckling strength

exhibited by thin-walled panels often leads to the use of structural elements with

compound cross-sections which operate within the postbuckling range under certain

loading conditions. In order to be able to exploit these characteristics of plate

structures optimally the designer must be aware of their postbuckling behavior.

To get an initial indication, one can use the results of the initial postbuckling

theories based on Koiters work. However, to verify the predictions of the asymptotic theory and to investigate the load carrying capacity of plates in the deep

postbuckling range one must solve the nonlinear equations directly.

161

a. Perfect Plates

plate under edge compression are (see, for instance, [2.2], p. 87)

Nx,x C Nxy,y D 0

3.87a

Nxy,x C Ny,y D 0

3.87b

3.87c

By introducing the constitutive and kinematic relations (Eqs. (3.22) and (3.23)),

the in-plane equilibrium equations can be written in terms of the displacements u

and v as

1

1 C

1

u,yy C

w,x w,yy

v,xy D w,x w,xx

u,xx C

2

2

2

1 C

w,y w,xy

3.88a

2

1 C

1

1

u,xy D w,y w,yy

w,y w,xx

v,xx C v,yy C

2

2

2

1 C

w,x w,xy

3.88b

2

For a square plate a D b the out-of-plane displacement w is given by

x

y

w D W11 sin

sin

3.89

a

a

an expression that satises simply supported boundary conditions at all edges. After

substituting for w on the right hand side of Eqs. (3.88a) and (3.88b) one can use

the method of undetermined coefcients to obtain the following particular integrals

(see Figure 2.3 and [2.5])

x

x

y

3.90

u D 0 x C u20 sin 2

C u22 sin 2

cos 2

a

a

a

y

y

x

3.91

v D v0 y C v02 sin 2

C v22 cos 2

sin 2

a

a

a

where

W11 2

3.92a

u20 D v02 D 1
a

16

a

W11 2

.

3.92b

u22 D v22 D

a

16

a

The terms 0 x and v0 y have been added in Eqs. (3.90) and (3.91) in order to allow

for constant in-plane displacements at the shell edges. Notice that 0 is the applied

end-normal-strain at x D a. The total potential energy of the system can be written

(see, for instance, [2.2], p. 84)

D Um C Ub C p

3.93

162

where

1
2

2

2

xy dx dy

x C y C
x y C

2

0 0

1 2 2

1 2

1 2

C a a

u,x C w,x C
u,x C w,x u,y C w,y

D

2 0 0

2

2

2

1

C

u,y C v,x C w,x w,y u,y C v,x C w,x w,y dx dy 3.94a

2

D a a 2

1
2

2

x C y C
x y C

Ub D

xy dx dy

2 0 0

2

D a a

D

w,xx C w,yy 2 dx dy

3.94b

2 0 0

C

Um D

2

a

and C and D are the extensional and bending stiffnesses, respectively (see

Eq. (3.24)). Notice that use has been made of the fact that if w D 0 at all four

edges of the plate the contribution of the Gaussian curvature term to the bending

strain energy is zero. Furthermore the potential of the external load is

a a

D aN0 [ua u0] D N0

u,x dx dy.

3.94c

0

Substituting for u, v and w from Eqs. (3.89) (3.91), carrying out the integration

and regrouping, one obtains

1 Ea2 h

2

W11 2

2

2

D

0 2
0 v0 C v0 C 1 C
v0 0

2 1
2

4

a

4 h 2 W11 2

4

W11 4

C

C [4 1
2 ]

N0 a2 0 3.95

12 a

a

64

a

For equilibrium the total potential energy must be stationary; that is, its rst variation must equal zero. Thus, remembering that the edge displacement jux D ajD

0 a is prescribed, it follows that

D

v0 C

W11 D 0

v0

W11

D

D 0. This yields the following equations

v0

W11

2

W11 2

v0 D
0

1 C

8

a

2

2

2

2

W11

W11

h

0

D 0.

a

4

a

31
2 a

3.96

implying that

3.97

3.98

W11

D0

a

or

2

4

W11

a

2

2

0

31
2

2

h

D 0.

a

163

3.99

3.100

Notice that this last equation implies that real solutions can exist only if the

prescribed end-normal-strain 0 > c , where

2

2

h

.

3.101

c D

2

31
a

Thus one can distinguish three regimes. Initially, when the applied normal strain

0 < c

there is no normal deection only shortening of the plate. This is the prebuckling

state where

W11

D 0.

a

W11

Buckling occurs, that is

6D 0, whenever 0 D c . Finally, in the postbucka

ling region, whenever

0 > c

the normal deection is given by

2p

W11

D

0 c .

a

3.102

Calculating the corresponding stress elds one obtains for the prebuckling state

N0

x D Eh0 ;

0

Ny0 D Nxy

D 0.

At buckling, when 0 D c

N1

x

4

2 E

D Nc D Ehc D

121
2

2

h

p

h D Nc .

a

Eh

0

y

0

Nx D x h D

c 2 C

1 1 cos 2

.

2

c

c

a

3.103

3.104

3.105

h a

Eh

Nx ave D hx ave D

x dy D 0 C c .

3.106

a 0

2

164

Plotting from this equation x jave vs 0 in Figure 3.21 one sees that the plane

continues to carry increased loading beyond buckling at one-half of the rate prior

to buckling. Thus at buckling the plate has lost only a part of its load carrying capability. This implies that a redistribution of the normal stress takes place. Looking

at Figure 3.22, where using Eq. (3.105) the distribution of the axial stress x as a

function of y is plotted for different values of end-shortening ratios 0 /c one sees

that after buckling the additional loading is carried by parts of the plate near the

edges. It is interesting that the center of the plate carries only the critical stress c

at which buckling occurs, even as the plate is being further compressed.

For efcient design the postbuckling strength of plates must be taken into

account. This has led to the concept of effective width beff , which denotes that

portion of the plate width b that is actively carrying the applied load. If one identies that ratio beff /b with the ratio of the average stress after buckling for a given

value of 0 , to that of the stress carried by the unbuckled plate at the same value

0 , then one obtains a convenient expression to calculate beff .

Figure 3.21

Figure 3.22

x jave

x0

1

E

beff

0 C c D

E0

2

b

therefore

beff

b

c

D

1C

.

2

0

165

3.107

3.108

Thus, for the square plate at buckling where 0 /c D 1, beff D a; that is, the whole

plate is carrying the uniformly distributed applied load. On the other hand, in the

deep postbuckling region, say at 0 /c D 10, beff D 0.55a; that is, only a fraction

of the whole plate is actively carrying the applied load.

For design purposes it is convenient to express the results of the postbuckling

analysis in terms of an effective width beff over which the stress is considered to

be uniform, as shown in Figure 3.23b. Hence

Px D hbeff max

3.109

where max is the maximum stress at the plate edges y D 0, b. A widely used

approximate expression for beff is ([3.24], Eq. 7)

c 1/2

beff D b

3.110

max

where c is the classical critical stress for the given boundary condition. Using

the square plate considered above, and assuming that at the plate edges max /c D

0 /c D 10, Eq. (3.110) yields

beff D 0.316a.

Figure 3.23

166

detailed description and a historical review of the concept of effective width is

presented in Chapter 8.

b. Imperfect Plates

To account for the effect of a small initial curvature (read, imperfection) one can

use the von Karman-Donnell type imperfect plate equations

Dr4 w ff,xx w,yy C wN ,yy 2f,xy w,xy C wN ,xy

r4 f D

3.111

Eh

fw,xx w,yy C 2wN ,yy 2w,xy w,xy C 2wN ,xy

2

C w,yy w,xx C 2wN ,xx g

3.112

x

y

N mn sin m

sin n

wx,

N y D W

a

b

3.113

expression

x

y

3.114

wx, y D Wmn sin m

sin n

a

b

then upon substituting and regrouping the compatibility equation (3.112) becomes

Eh m

2 n

2

x

y

N mn cos 2m

C cos 2n

Wmn Wmn C 2W

.

r4 f D

2

a

b

a

b

3.115

This equation admits a particular solution of the form

x

y

1

fx, y D N0 y 2 C A1 cos 2m

C A2 cos 2n

2

a

b

where

Eh na 2

N mn

Wmn Wmn C 2W

32 mb

Eh mb 2

N mn

Wmn Wmn C 2W

A2 D

32 na

A1 D

3.116

3.117a

3.117b

Substituting the above expressions for w,

N w and f in the out-of-plane equilibrium

Eq. (3.111) yields the residue x, y; Wmn , which is then minimized by Galerkins

procedure. Evaluation of the integral involved

a b

y

x

3.118

x, y; Wmn sin m

sin n

dx dy D 0

a

b

0 0

167

m

2

m

2 n

2 2

N mn

C

Wmn N0

Wmn C W

D

a

b

a

Eh m

2 n

2

m b 2 n a 2

N mn

C

C

Wmn Wmn C W

16 a

b

na

mb

N mn D 0.

Wmn C 2W

3.119

p

N0 D c h

where

p

c D

N mn D hN

W

4

2 E

121
2

Wmn D h

2

h

b

3.120

3.121

2

a 2

3

mb

N C 2

N D N

pc,mn C 1 2

C n4

C

16

a

mb

3.122

where

2

1

1 mb

p

2 a

c,mn D kmn D

.

3.123

Cn

4

4 a

mb

For a square plate Eq. (3.122) is then used to plot the curves for N > 0 shown

in Figure 3.6. More accurate solutions using a truncated double Fourier series

representation for w,

N w and f have been obtained by Levy [3.28], Hu et al. [2.15]

and Coan [2.14].

3.3.4

when it comes to weight critical applications, since these thin-walled structures

exhibit very favorable strength over weight ratios. Unfortunately, they are also

prone to buckling instabilities.

In the following ways to obtain the equilibrium paths for initially perfect

and imperfect circular cylindrical shells subjected to axial compression will be

discussed.

a. Perfect Shells

In order to arrive at their pioneering results depicted in Figure 3.2, describing the

postbuckling behavior of axially compressed perfect isotropic cylindrical shells,

168

von Karman and Tsien [3.1] had to solve the nonlinear governing equations of the

problem. They employed the stationary potential energy criterion to derive a set

of three nonlinear algebraic equations in terms of the unknown amplitudes f0 , f1

and f2 of the out-of-plane displacement w. To obtain a plausible form for w von

Karman and Tsien relied heavily on the known experimental results. They based

their analysis on the following assumed displacement function

1

1

x

w

y

1

x

1

y

D f0 C f1 C f1 cos m cos n C cos 2m C cos 2n

R

4

2

R

R 4

R 4

R

y

1

x

C f2 cos 2m C cos 2n

.

3.124

4

R

R

Notice that the term f0 C 1/4f1 allows for the shell to expand radially. Further,

by letting f0 D f2 D 0, f1 D 1, Eq. 3.124 reduces to

w

x

1 1

y

1

x

1

y

cos m cos n C cos 2m C cos 2n

D C

R

4 2

R

R 4

R 4

R

mx C ny

mx ny

cos2

3.125

2R

2R

which is the well-known diamond shaped pattern observed at large values of the

wave amplitude in the stable postbuckling region.

Notice further, that by setting

D cos2

f0 C 14 f1 D 0;

1

4 f1

C 21 f2 D 0 and 21 f1 D 1.

x

y

w

D cos m cos n

3.126

R

R

R

which corresponds to the well known checkerboard type buckling pattern obtained

at the bifurcation point of the classical linearized stability theory valid, strictly

speaking, for innitesimal values of the wave amplitude. With other values of the

parameters f0 , f1 and f2 , wave patterns intermediate between these two limits can

be obtained. Notice that the wavelengths in the axial and circumferential direction

are 2

R/m and 2

R/n, respectively.

It is important to remember that with the appearance of high-speed photography

it was possible to show that indeed this latter incipient buckling mode plays an

important role at the beginning of the buckling process ([9.73], Volume 2).

Von Karman and Tsien dened failure as the transition from the stable prebuckling to the stable postbuckling conguration. Such a transition would occur at the

lowest bifurcation point along the prebuckling path or earlier, if through external

disturbances enough energy was imparted to the system to overcome the energy

barrier represented by the unstable portion of the postbuckling path. Since it is

difcult to determine the magnitudes of these disturbances in advance, it has been

suggested to use the minimum of the postbuckling curve as a safe design value in

practical engineering, thus lending theoretical support to the Lower Bound Design

Philosophy.

169

Von Karman and Tsiens work [3.1] on the postbuckling behavior of perfect

cylindrical shells has been followed by renements and extensions by many investigators ([3.29] [3.32] and [9.189], Volume 2). In general all investigators used

the same method for nding equilibrium congurations in the postbuckling range.

That is, initially the potential energy of the system was expressed in terms of

nite displacements and then the equations governing the equilibrium congurations were found by the application of the principle of stationary potential energy. It

was felt that by using a sufciently rened expression for the out-of-plane displacement w, the nite displacement analysis would yield an accurate prediction of the

postbuckling minimum load LB (see Figure 3.2). Thus using

1 1

w

y

ajk cos j cos k

D

R

y

x

j,kD0

where

x D

L

,

m

y D

3.127

R

and j C k D even

n

terms have been added successively to the displacement function until no signicant

change occurred in the magnitude of the minimum postbuckling load. The system

of simultaneous nonlinear equations obtained by minimizing the total potential

energy with respect to the generalized coordinates x , y and the aij of the shell

were solved by the Newton Raphson iterative method. In Figure 3.24 the result

of Kempner [3.31], who kept the three coefcients a20 , a11 and a02 , is shown as

case I with LB D 0.301. Almroths result [3.32], who kept the nine coefcients

a20 , a11 , a02 , a40 , a31 , a22 , a13 , a60 and a33 , is shown as case II with LB D 0.108.

In a 1966 paper Hoff et al. [3.33] have suggested that if the number of terms in

the expression for the radial displacement w (Eq. (3.127)) approaches innity, then

the minimum of the postbuckling equilibrium curve approaches zero, whereas at

the same time also h/R ! 0. This mathematical limit is naturally of little use in

engineering applications.

Figure 3.24

170

Figure 3.25

Experimental results published by Esslinger and Geier [3.34] have shown conclusively that axially compressed, thin-walled, nite length cylinders possess a low

but nonzero minimum postbuckling load-carrying capacity (see Figure 3.25). It has

been argued to use this value as a possible design load on the grounds that the

cylinder would always support at least this much load, and that even the presence of

initial imperfections would not reduce the critical buckling load below this value.

However, because of the often very low postbuckling minima, for weight sensitive

applications this approach will denitively result in technically unacceptable solutions. Also for other applications the practical use of this idea is questionable, since

up to now there are no universally accepted postbuckling lower-bound buckling

loads for axially compressed cylindrical shells. Nevertheless, in the past few years

there have been new attempts, [3.35] and [3.36], to revitalize the lower-bound

design approach as a possible value for residual strength after damage. However,

it remains to be seen whether signicant advances will be achieved.

b. Imperfect Shells

In order to account for the effect of small, stress free deviations of the shell midsurface from the circular cylindrical shape, for orthotropic shells under combined

axial compression, lateral pressure and torsion one must solve the following

Donnell Mushtari Vlasov type imperfect shell equations

1

1

N

w,xx LNL w, w C 2w

R

2

1

N Cp

LQ f LD w D f,xx C LNL f, w C w

R

LH f LQ w D

3.128a

3.128b

where both the initial geometric imperfection wN and the out-of-plane displacement

w are taken to be positive outward. The linear and nonlinear operators have been

dened earlier (see Eqs. 3.49 3.50).

171

wN D hN1 cos i

x

x

n

C hN2 sin m

cos y K x

L

L

R

3.129

then any equilibrium state of the circular cylindrical shell under combined axial

compression , lateral pressure pN and torsion N can be represented by

x

x

n

w D hW
C Wp C Wt C h1 cos i

C h2 sin m

cos y K x 2.130a

L

L

R

1 2 1

Eh

O

O pN e x 2 N xy C f

y

3.130b

fD

cR

2

2

where the quantities W
, Wp and Wt are (as mentioned earlier) evaluated by

enforcing the periodicity condition and

O D RO p.

N

3.131

Notice that because of the sign convention used (w and wN are positive outward)

for internal pressure pN D pN i , whereas for external pressure pN D pN e . Recall further

that is the nondimensional axial load parameter D cR/Eh2 N0 , pN e is the

nondimensional external pressure pN e D cR2 /Eh2 pe , pN i is the nondimensional

internal pressure pN i D cR2 /Eh2 pi and N is the nondimensional torque parameter

N D cR/Eh2 Nxy , positive counter-clockwise. Thus it can easily be shown that

for an axially compressed pressurized cylindrical shell the nondimensional axial

load parameter is

3.132

O D 12 pN i

In the absence of torsional loading (if N D 0) Khots skewedness parameter K , a

real number which was introduced to denote the inclination of the nodal lines of

the buckling pattern with respect to the axis of the shell [3.13], is identically equal

to zero.

An approximate solution of the nonlinear governing equations is obtained as

follows. First, the compatibility equation (3.128a) is solved exactly for the stress

O in terms of the assumed radial displacement w and the specied initial

function f

imperfection w.

N In this solution, only the effect of initial imperfections on the buckling load is of interest. Hence only a particular solution of Eq. (3.128a) needs to

be considered. Second, the equation of equilibrium, Eq. (3.128b) is solved approximately by substituting therein for f, w and w,

N and then applying Galerkins

procedure. This procedure yields the following set of nonlinear algebraic equations

in terms of the unknown amplitudes 1 and 2

ci ^1 C D1 1 C D2 2 C D3 1 2 C D4 22 C D5 1 22 D ^N1

3.133

D ^ C K^ N2

3.134

172

where K^ is dened below. The coefcients D1 through D12 are listed in [3.37].

These equations describe the prebuckling, buckling and postbuckling behavior

of perfect N 1 D N2 D 0 and imperfect shells N 1 6D 0, N2 6D 0 under combined

loading. Solutions are obtained by Riks path following technique [3.38] whereby

one of the three load parameters O or pN e or N is selected as the variable load ^.

The remaining two load parameters are assigned xed values. Further, ci is the

axisymmetric buckling load

2N

2

1

1

C

Q

xx

i

N xx C

2i D

3.135

ci D

N xx

2

2i H

and ^c is the asymmetric buckling load for the specied values of m, n and K .

For ^ D , both pN c and N xed

2

2

TN 4,p,n

TN 3,m,n

1

1

^c D 2

TN 1,m,n C TN 2,p,n C

C

2pN e n2

m C 2p 2

TN 5,m,n TN 6,p,n

K^ D

2N m p n

3.136

1

2

2

p

N

C

2N

e

m

p

n

n

2m C 2p

3.137

1

^c D 2

2n

K^ D

2

2

TN 4,p,n

TN 3,m,n

1

O 2m C 2p

TN 1,m,n C TN 2,p,n C

C

NT5,m,n TN 6,p,n

2

2N m p n

3.138

1 2

O m C 2p C 2N m p n

2n2

3.139

2

2

TN 4,p,n

TN 3,m,n

1

1

^c D

TN 1,m,n C TN 2,p,n C

C

2m p n 2

TN 5,m,n TN 6,p,n

2

2

2

O m C p 2pN e n

3.140

K^ D

1

O 2m C 2p C 2pN e n2 g.

f

2m p n

3.141

173

The 2-modes solution was rst employed by Hutchinson in 1965 for isotropic

shells [3.39] and was extended by Arbocz in 1973 to orthotropic shells [3.10]. It

is available as one of the computational modules in DISDECO [3.18]. Hutchinson

has restricted his imperfections to the form of the classic buckling modes. In the

present analysis the imperfections are quite general. However, as has been shown

in [3.39] and [3.10] in order to activate the nonlinear interaction between the

axisymmetric and the asymmetric modes the condition i D 2m must be satised.

The form of the 2-modes simplied imperfection model of Eq. (3.129) is dictated

by the results of a 1976 paper by Arbocz and Sechler [3.40], in which the effect

of different boundary conditions was investigated.

Figure 3.26 displays traces of the response curve in the load () vs amplitude

of the asymmetric displacement (2 ) plane for the axially compressed stringer

stiffened shell AS-2 of [1.25]. Notice that initially both the perfect shell and the

shells with axisymmetric imperfection have zero asymmetric deection until the

bifurcation point is reached. Following bifurcation the axial load initially decreases

with increasing asymmetric deection 2 .

On the other hand, as can be seen from Figures 3.27 and 3.28, the buckling

behavior of a shell with asymmetric imperfection only or with both axisymmetric and asymmetric imperfections is characterized by the occurrence of a limit

point.

Figure 3.26

174

Figure 3.27

Figure 3.28

175

Koiter type analysis with the results obtained by the 2-modes solution of the

nonlinear governing equations reveals excellent agreement for axisymmetric imperfections only (see Figure 3.29), and good agreement for asymmetric imperfections

only (see Figure 3.30). The explanation for the increasing differences between

the two approaches in the case of increasing asymmetric imperfections shown in

Figure 3.30 is given by the fact that the perturbation approach used for the b-factor

N whereas the 2-modes solution keeps terms up

method neglects terms of order ( )

to and including order ( N 2 ).

Finally in Figure 3.31 the effect of both axisymmetric and asymmetric imperfections on the buckling load of unpressurized cylinders is displayed.

3.3.5

Concluding Remarks

The reader may have asked himself how it is that the authors of a book on buckling

experiments spend so much space on covering the stability theory of thin-walled

Figure 3.29

by axibif and twomod are practically identical)

176

Figure 3.30

structures. This has to do with the conviction of the authors that theory and

experiments must go hand-in-hand if the sometimes very complicated structural

stability problems of everyday practice are to be solved successfully. Before doing

experiments it is especially important to carry out the initial stability analysis of

the perfect structure with great care and accuracy. In addition, if one nally has

found the lowest (critical) buckling load and the corresponding buckling mode (or

modes) it is necessary to investigate whether it has a stable or unstable postbuckling behavior. With the advanced computational software and hardware currently

available a nal accurate check using a full nonlinear calculation based on the

measured initial imperfections (see Chapter 10, Volume 2 for further details) and

employing careful modeling of the experimental boundary conditions (see also

Chapter 11, Volume 2) must become a standard practice. Only then can one assert

with reasonable accuracy what will be the expected behavior of the real (hence

imperfect) structure under the sometimes manifold loading conditions it may be

exposed to during its functional life time.

References

Figure 3.31

177

6 0)

References

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

von Karman, Th. and Tsien, H.S., The Buckling of Thin Cylindrical Shells Under

Axial Compression, Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences, 8, 1941, 303 312.

Donnell, L.H. and Wan, C.C., Effect of Imperfections on Buckling of Thin Cylinders

and Columns under Axial Compression, ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics, 17,

(1), March 1950, 73 83.

Cohen, G.A., Effect of a Nonlinear Prebuckling State on the Postbuckling Behavior

and Imperfection Sensitivity of Elastic Structures, AIAA Journal, 6, (8), August 1968,

1616 1619.

Fitch, J.R., The Buckling and Post-Buckling Behavior of Spherical Caps under

Concentrated Load, International Journal of Solids and Structures, 4, 1968, 421 446.

Budiansky, B. and Hutchinson, J.W., Dynamic Buckling of Imperfection Sensitive

Structures, in: Proceedings 11th IUTAM Congress in Munich, 1964, H. Gortler ed.,

Springer Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1964, 636 651.

178

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

3.10

3.11

3.12

3.13

3.14

3.15

3.16

3.17

3.18

3.19

3.20

3.21

3.22

3.23

3.24

3.25

Arbocz, J. and Hol, J.M.A.M., ANILISA Computational Module for Koiters Imperfection Sensitivity Theory, Report LR-582, Delft University of Technology, Faculty

of Aerospace Engineering, Delft, The Netherlands, January 1989.

Hutchinson, J.W. and Amazigo, J.C., Imperfection-Sensitivity of Eccentrically Stiffened Cylindrical Shells, AIAA Journal, 5, (3), March 1967, 392 401.

Geier, B., Das Beulverhalten versteifter Zylinderschalen. Teil 1: Differentialgleichungen, Zeitschrift fur Flugwissenschaften, 14, July 1966, 306 323.

Singer, J., Personal Communication, 1969.

Arbocz, J., The Effect of Initial Imperfections on Shell Stability, in: Thin-Shell Structures, Theory, Experiment and Design Y.C. Fung and E.E. Sechler eds., Prentice

Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1974, 205 245.

Seggelke, P. and Geier, B., Das Beulverhalten versteifter Zylinderschalen. Teil 2:

Beullasten, Zeitschrift fur Flugwissenschaften, 15, December 1967, 477 490.

Block, D.L., Card, M.F. and Mikulas, M.M. Jr., Buckling of Eccentrically Stiffened

Orthotropic Cylinders, NASA TN D-2960, 1965.

Khot, N.S. and Venkayya, V.B., Effect of Fiber Orientation on Initial Postbuckling

Behavior and Imperfection Sensitivity of Composite Shells, Report AFFDL-TR-70125, Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.

Arbocz, J., The Effect of Initial Imperfections on Shell Stability An Updated Review,

Report LR-695, Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering,

Delft, The Netherlands, September 1992.

Koiter, W.T., Elastic Stability and Postbuckling Behavior, Proceedings Symposium

on Nonlinear Problems, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 1963, 257 275.

Hutchinson, J.W. and Koiter, W.T., Postbuckling Theory, Applied Mech. Rev., 23,

1970, 1353 1366.

Arbocz, J., Comparison of Level-1 and Level-2 Buckling and Postbuckling Solutions,

Report LR-700, Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering,

Delft, The Netherlands, November 1992.

Arbocz, J. and Hol, J.M.A.M., Shell Stability Analysis in a Computer Aided

Engineering (CAE) Environment, in: Proceedings 34th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC

Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, April 19 22, La Jolla,

California, 1993, 300 314.

Cohen, G.A., User Document for Computer Programs for Ring-Stiffened Shells of

Revolution, NASA CR-2086, March 1973.

Cohen, G.A., FASOR A Second Generation Shell of Revolution Code, Computers

& Structures, 10, 1979, 301 309.

Roorda, J., Stability of Structures with Small Imperfections, Journal Eng. Mech.

Div., ASCE, 91, (EM1), 1965, 87 106.

Kempner, J. and Chen, Y.N., Buckling and Postbuckling of an Axially Compressed

Oval Cylindrical Shell, Proceedings 70th Anniversary Symposium on the Theory of

Shells to Honor Lloyd Hamilton Donnell, University of Houston, Houston, Texas,

1967, 141 183.

Almroth, B.O., Brogan, F.A. and Marlowe, M.B., Collapse Analysis for Elliptic

Cones, AIAA Journal, 9, (1), January 1971, 32 37.

van der Neut, A., Postbuckling Behavior of Structures, NATO AGARD Report 60,

1956.

Koiter, W.T., The Effective Width at Loads far in Excess of the Critical Load for

Various Boundary Conditions, (in Dutch), NLL Report S287, Amsterdam, 1943.

References

3.26

3.27

3.28

3.29

3.30

3.31

3.32

3.33

3.34

3.35

3.36

3.37

3.38

3.39

3.40

179

Cox, H.L., The Buckling of a Flat Plate under Axial Compression and its Behavior

after Buckling, Aeronautical Research Council, R. & M. 20201, 1945.

Vilnay, O. and Rodney, K.C., A Generalized Effective Width Method for Plates

Loaded in Compression, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 1, (3), May 1981,

3 12.

Levy, S., Bending of Rectangular Plates with Large Deections, NACA TN 846,

May 1942. (Also available as NACA TR 737, 1942.)

Legget, D.M.A. and Jones, R.P.N., The Behavior of a Cylindrical Shell under Axial

Compression when the Buckling Load has been Exceeded, ARC R. & M. 2190, 1942.

Michielsen, H.F., The Behavior of Thin Cylindrical Shells after Buckling under

Axial Compression, Journal Aeronautical Sciences, 15, 1948, 738 744.

Kempner, J., Postbuckling Behavior of Axially Compressed Cylindrical Shells,

Journal Aeronautical Sciences, 21, 1954, 329 342.

Almroth, B.O., Postbuckling Behavior of Axially Compressed Circular Cylinders,

AIAA Journal, 1, (3), March 1963, 630 633.

Hoff, N.J., Madsen, W.A. and Mayers, J., Postbuckling Equilibrium of Axially

Compressed Circular Cylindrical Shells, AIAA Journal, 4, (1), January 1966,

126 133.

Esslinger, M. and Geier, B., Buckling and Postbuckling Behavior of Thin-Walled

Circular Cylinders, Deutsche Luft- und Raumfahrt FB 69 99, 1966.

Croll, J.G.A., Towards Simple Estimates of Shell Buckling Loads, Der Stahlbau, 44,

1975, 243 248 and 283 285.

Wittek, U. and Kratzig, W.B., Ein Masstab fur die Beurteilung der Imperfektionsunempndlichkeit allgemeiner Schalen, Schalenbeultagung Meersburg, 1976, Sonderheft der DFVLR, 1976, 170 182.

Arbocz, J., Potier-Ferry, M., Singer, J. and Tvergaard, V., Buckling and PostBuckling, Lecture Notes in Physics No. 288, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg,

1987, 83 142.

Riks, E., The Application of Newtons Method to the Problem of Elastic Stability,

ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics, 39, 1972, 1060 1066.

Hutchinson, J.W., Axial Buckling of Pressurized Imperfect Cylindrical Shells, AIAA

Journal, 3, (8), August 1965, 1461 1466.

Arbocz, J. and Sechler, E.E., On the Buckling of Stiffened Imperfect Shells, AIAA

Journal, 14, (11), November 1976, 1611 1617.

4

Elements of A Simple

Buckling Test A Column

under Axial Compression

4.1

In order to appreciate the nature of the experimental approach, let us rst consider

a simple buckling test a column under axial compression. The column is not

only the earliest and classic example of elastic instability and postbuckling studies,

dating back to Eulers work in 1744 ([2.9] and [4.1]), but is also the element that

has been the subject of the most extensive experimental and theoretical studies

since the experimental investigations of Petrus van Musschenbroek in 1729 [4.2].

Musschenbroek had discovered by experiment that the buckling load was inversely

proportional to the square of the length of the column, a result later deduced

theoretically by Euler. Salmons 1920 treatise [4.3] summarizes most of the column

studies till 1920, lists nearly 400 references, and shows how experiment and theory

advanced hand in hand.

If one studies the experimental work on buckling of columns carried out at the

turn of the century, one is amazed at its high quality. Maybe one should not be

surprised, since it was performed by some of the giants of mechanics, like von

Karman ([4.4] and [2.76]) and Prandtl [4.5], who in their doctoral dissertations

combined outstanding analysis with outstanding experiments.

It is certainly illuminating to review such a classic set of tests, for example von

Karmans 1907 10 experiments [4.4]. In the introduction, the main purpose of

the work is stated to be the experimental proof of the formulae for the buckling

strength of shorter columns, which buckle inelastically. Von Karman points out,

however, that the experiments presented an opportunity to investigate the inuence

of exact centering of the columns, as well as the postbuckling behavior after the

peak load has been exceeded.

Plates Volume 1. J. Singer, J. Arbocz and T. Weller Copyright 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

182

the columns, to the inuence of imperfections in columns, of which eccentricity of

loading is only one. These imperfections can be divided according to their effect

into three groups, more or less along the lines suggested by Salmon [4.3]:

1. Eccentricity of Loading:

2. Initial Curvature:

3. Reduction in Strength of Material:

Variations in the modulus of elasticity.

Inequality of areas and shape of

cross-sections.

Nonhomogeneity of material.

Initial curvature.

Variations in the modulus of elasticity.

Residual stresses.

Nonhomogeneity of material.

Flaws and local defects, like voids and

delaminations in composites.

of the investigators in the 19th century and in the beginning of the 20th. Both

methods of estimation and determination from experiment were extensively tried,

and besides the non-central application of the load, the variations in modulus

were considered to be of primary importance. Based on their experiments and the

accumulated experience, many investigators proposed likely values for eccentricity

of loading 2 D L/70 to L/150, where L is the length of the column.

The inuence of initial curvature was seriously considered only at the turn of

the century. To assess this inuence, Salmon collected experimentally observed

initial curvatures and deduced from his nearly randomly chosen points (Figure 42

of [4.3]) an empirical probable initial deection 1 D L/750. The effects of initial

curvature are similar to those of eccentricity of loading and hence the two effects

can be combined into an equivalent initial deection, D 1 C 2 .

The third imperfection, reduction in strength of the material, was of concern

already to investigators at the beginning of this century, but the great inuence of

residual stresses on the strength of columns and plates in compression has only

been elucidated in recent decades (see [4.6] or [4.7]). The effects of aws and local

defects, and in particular those of voids and delaminations in composites, are still

the subject of intensive studies.

4.2

ans

Von Karm

Experiments

load eccentricity, by comparing the load-deection curves of his rather precisely

centered columns with those of Tetmajer [4.8] and those of Kirsch [4.9] as can be

seen in Figure 4.1 (reproduced from [4.4]). It can be clearly seen in the gures

that the very careful centering of von Karmans columns, yielded load-deection

ans

Von Karm

Experiments

183

Figure 4.1 Load-deection curves of von Karmans columns compared with those of Tetmajer

and of Kirsch (from [4.4])

curves that closely approximate those of an ideally perfect column; whereas the

load-deection curve of a typical Kirsch column, with noticeable load eccentricity,

differs signicantly in behavior, and even the careful tests of Tetmajer exhibit some

eccentricity of loading effects, appearing as deections already at the lower loads.

The gure also indicates why columns with appreciable load-eccentricity will yield

collapse loads that are signicantly below the Euler load the buckling load of an

ideal centrally loaded column.

Von Karmans tests at the University of Gottingen were carried out in a 150ton hydraulic compression testing machine with a 1000 mm long working section,

permitting slender specimens with a convenient cross section of the order of 20

30 mm2 . In the tests, the testing machine was not loaded beyond 20 percent of its

capacity. This ensured a relative rigidity of the test setup, and eliminated possible

eccentricity of loading resulting from bending of the two pillars of the machine.

Careful compression tests on very short specimens to evaluate the compressive

material properties, preceded the buckling tests. This was not the usual procedure at

the time and only became standard, as a stub-column test procedure, in the sixties.

Von Karman designed special end xtures (Figure 4.2) which facilitated accurate

placing of the centerline of the column on the loading line. This xture permitted

readjusting of the position of the column under load, that led to more accurate

centering. In describing these very neat xtures, he gave credit to Consid`ere [2.74]

for rst using readjustable end xtures and to Prandtl [4.5] for the achievement of

a near theoretical behavior, of negligible deection before the buckling load is

approached, by extremely careful centering of his test columns.

Von Karman pointed out two sources of error connected with the attachment of

the test specimens. The rst error is inclusion of the practically rigid end xtures

184

Figure 4.2 Von Karmans end xtures for column tests (from

[4.4])

in the effective length of the tested columns. This error may be assessed by an

approximate evaluation of the equivalent length of an entirely elastic column. Von

Karman calculated the necessary length correction and showed it to be small, less

than 0.3 percent even for rigid ends extending over 10 percent of the total length.

The calculation was for elastic buckling. For inelastic buckling the correction is

even smaller, since then the deection curve deviates from the elastic sine curve

by limiting its curvature to the middle position of the columns and the ends remain

nearly straight, coinciding with the tangential rigid ends.

The second error can be due to the friction of the knife edges in their bases,

which would increase the measured buckling load and perhaps make them exceed

the theoretical Euler load, which is an upper bound. From his results in the elastic

range, which generally deviated from the Euler load by less than 1 1.5 percent,

von Karman concluded that this error also was not signicant.

These apparently minor details are pointed out here, since they signify some

elements of the methodology of careful buckling experiments: readjustment of

specimen positions in end xtures under load, assessment and compensation for end

xture rigidity and consideration of secondary effects like friction and justication

of their neglect by comparison with well established earlier results.

Von Karman continued many of his tests well into the postbuckling region (see

Figure 4.3), since he realized that the postbuckling behavior is of importance for the

understanding of the buckling behavior. The results (see Figure 4.3) show that for

the long columns, the theoretically predicted elastic behavior of constant load with

185

Figure 4.3 Postbuckling load-deection curves for von Karmans long and short columns

(from [4.4])

no. 1). For short columns, however, the behavior differs and the load decreases

very signicantly with increasing deection, due to inelastic effects (for example

in column no. 6). These inelastic effects were the prime interest in von Karmans

thesis, and indeed have since been the main topic of experimental studies of the

buckling of columns.

4.3

column. One should remember, that a simple column, a perfectly straight, uniform

column, loaded centrally through frictionless pin-ends, is an idealized compression

member, and though it is the basic theoretical element for the study of buckling

and postbuckling of structures, it is not found in real structures! As has been stated

by many investigators (for example, [2.7], [4.7], [4.10] or [4.11]), the strength of

practical columns depends on the initial geometric imperfections (usually called

initial out-of-straightness in columns), eccentricities of load, transverse loads, the

boundary conditions, local buckling (if the column is thin-walled or built-up), the

homogeneity of the material and residual stresses. Many tests on columns did not

isolate these various effects and hence fairly wide scatter bands resulted for column

curves. The modern test procedures and a discussion of these effects are presented

in Chapter 6.

Having studied the classic column tests of von Karman and briey looked at the

different imperfections that affect a column test, one can discuss and summarize

the basic elements of a buckling test. The rst question one has to address is what

is the aim of the buckling experiment? Is the aim to explore the physical behavior

186

near, at and after buckling, or is the aim only verication of the theory derived for

a perfect structure, a perfect column in our simple buckling test? Is it verication

of an exact theory for the perfect structure or an approximate one, that predicts the

behavior of a simplied model; or is the aim to verify a theory for an imperfect

structure, closer to the real one?

One has to remember that, as was discussed in Chapter 2, classical

buckling bifurcation buckling occurs only in ideal perfect structures. Real

imperfect structures begin to deform from the initiation of loading, and buckling in

an engineering sense occurs when the lateral (escaping) deformations grow at an

increasing rate. This difference between the theoretical bifurcation behavior of an

ideal column and the behavior of real columns is very clearly shown in Figure 4.1,

especially for the Kirsch column. But even von Karmans carefully made, centered

and tested columns show to some extent the behavior of real columns, though they

approach that of the theoretical model very closely.

Hence, if the aim of the experiments is to verify the theory for a perfect structure, methods are needed that correlate the test results on real structures with

the predictions for an idealized structure. The most widely used method is that

proposed by R.V. Southwell in 1932 for simply supported columns [4.12], often

called the Southwell Plot. In this method, the deection w is plotted versus w/P

and the slope of the resulting straight line yields the buckling load of the corresponding perfect column. Details of the Southwell method, its limitations and its

extensions will be discussed later. One should remember that the main value of

methods like the Southwell plot is to provide a correlation between experiments on

real imperfect structures and theoretical predictions, i.e. to facilitate the verication

of theory.

But experiments aim not only to verify theories, they explore the physical

behavior near buckling, at buckling and in the postbuckling range and they also

yield empirical data upon which design guidelines can be based.

The design of a proper experiment is determined by its main purpose. If it aims

at verication of theory, the experiment should be carried out under as perfect

conditions as possible, with specimens made as accurately and measured as carefully as possible, and from a material whose composition can be conveniently

controlled and measured, and with boundary conditions that can be determined

as accurately as possible and simulated adequately in the theory. If the physical

behavior is to be explored, and primarily in the postbuckling range, specimens

made of materials that behave elastically much beyond the buckling loads (for

example, polyesters like Mylar, Melinex or Diafoil), may be preferable though

their behavior signicantly differs from that of structural materials used in practice. On the other hand, if the data obtained in the experiment is to be employed

for design guidelines, the specimens should simulate the real structure, as well

as boundary conditions and environment. The effects of scaling have to be well

understood in all the cases to ensure correct interpretation of the results.

Hence, how does one plan a simple buckling experiment, say, one for simple

columns, to be used for verication of the inelastic column theory? This is exactly

the experimental task faced by von Karman in his classical 1907 10 tests, discussed

Demonstration Experiments

187

earlier in this chapter and can be used as an example. Von Karman indicated how he

planned his experiments. He indeed carried out his experiments under as perfect

conditions as possible. The steel specimens were machined and measured as accurately as the then prevalent techniques permitted, the chemical composition of

the steel was ascertained and the measurements of mechanical properties were

extended to include compression tests on very short specimens cut from the same

bars as the buckling specimens. The specimens varied from long ones, serving as

reference tests for elastic buckling, to shorter ones in the range relevant to the

inelastic theory to be veried. Boundary conditions were controlled by the special

end xtures (Figure 4.2) permitting centering under load, and the relative rigidity

of the test setup was assured by designing the specimens to require always less

than 20 percent of the load capacity of the testing machine. Measurement instruments were 1910 state of the art, but their accuracy was invoked only where the

experimenter felt the measurement was essential (though he checked his predicted

unimportant displacements). The experiments were designed for verication of

a theory, though as was mentioned earlier, von Karman intentionally extended

his aim beyond that, to better understanding of the inuence of eccentricity and

the postbuckling behavior of his columns. The effects of residual stresses, were,

however, not considered; they dominate modern column analysis and experiments,

and will be discussed in Chapter 6. There also the column curves which guide the

designer are discussed and evaluated.

4.4

Demonstration Experiments

There are other types of experiments which can be called demonstration experiments. These are experiments specially designed to bring out certain phenomena

or effects, this being achieved by exaggeration of certain properties or geometries,

much beyond their magnitude in real structures, or by replacing the structure by

a mechanical model which simulates the essential behavior of the structure under

load. Such experiments have been employed extensively for the study of equilibrium paths and initial postbuckling behavior of imperfect structures, primarily

frames, trusses and arches, as well as for teaching demonstrations and for study of

postbuckling behavior of shells, which will be discussed in Chapter 9, Volume 2.

4.4.1

Chilver at the Department of Civil and Municipal Engineering, University College

London, to verify theories developed there for the initial postbuckling behavior

of imperfect structures, which are essentially of the demonstration type ([3.21],

[4.13] [4.15]). As an example, one of these experiments from Roordas thesis a

simple strut loaded eccentrically at one end ([4.14] or [3.21]) is described in

detail. Figure 4.4a shows the loading arrangement schematically. The strut is a

188

(a)

(b)

Figure 4.4 Roordas experiment on a simple strut loaded eccentrically at one end (from [4.14]):

(a) loading setup schematic, (b) screw arrangement for offset loading

high strength steel strip of a nominal rectangular 1 inch 1/16 inch cross section

and length L D 23 inches. The point of application of the load at the top of the strut

has a small variable eccentricity d, introduced with a screw arrangement shown

in Figure 4.4b (taken from a second similar experiment in [4.14], on a strut with

offset loading at both ends). The lower end here remains in a xed position and is

simply a knife-edge led on the end of the strut resting in a V-groove. The load

W on the strut, consists of lead shot 2W applied through a rigid load beam. Due

to the eccentricity d, there is a small external moment Wd applied at the upper

end of the strut, in addition to the axial force W. In the limit, when d vanishes,

the strut is a centrally loaded column. The rotation at the top end represents the

displacement parameter and is measured optically, as the load is gradually varied.

It was found that in order to obtain a centrally loaded column, a small negative

eccentricity had to be introduced to overcome the initial curvature of the strut and

come near a point of bifurcation. The natural experimental equilibrium path for

the centrally loaded column, I in Figure 4.5, was traced simply by adding lead

shot to the loading pan, the path being stable throughout. To obtain the complementary path, II in Figure 4.5, the direction of the buckling wave was changed

manually, while the load was kept constant at a point slightly above the ideal

critical load, W/Wcr D 1 in Figure 4.5. The system remained in a stable position

on the complementary path. To obtain further points on this path the load was gradually decreased, until the point of minimum load B was reached, whereupon the

strut jumped back to the stable position in the natural buckling shape direction I.

Interpolation of the two branches of the load W-rotation plot yielded the ideal

experimental critical load Wcrexp at A (which was then used to non-dimensionalize

the plot in Figure 4.5).

The experimental critical load (W ) versus eccentricity (d) behavior was obtained

in another experiment in which d was varied (see Figure 4.6). At each value of d,

the point of minimum load on the complementary equilibrium path (B in Figure 4.5)

was found by gradually decreasing the load along this path (as before in the case

of central loading), until snap-through to the opposite direction of buckle occurred.

Demonstration Experiments

189

The resulting plot is shown in Figure 4.6. The offset d0 /L of the experimental

curve from the load axis, is the amount of eccentricity necessary to just balance the

effect of other unknown imperfections, such as the initial curvature of the column,

as mentioned earlier for the case of the centrally loaded column. The photographs

in Figure 4.7, taken from another demonstration model, show how the column may

buckle.

4.4.2

Mechanical Models

As an example of a different type of demonstration experiment, one on the mechanical models of Walker, Croll and Wilson [4.16] is discussed. These mechanical

models consist essentially of two rigid links connected at a pin joint B (see

Figure 4.8a). The other ends of the links are also pinned, one being xed spatially

at A and the other to C free to move in the longitudinal direction. Lateral loading

W at joint B may be applied independently of the longitudinal loading P at joint

C. Rigidity of the models is achieved by attaching various combinations of linear

coil springs to joints B and C and a torsion spring at joint B. The frame which

190

[4.14] and [3.21])

houses the models is shown in Figure 4.9, with a typical two-link model (3) in

position. It consists of a base (1) with two long outrigger arms (2) used for lateral

loading and restraint, their length ensuring practically normal lateral loading and

restraint over the expected deformation range of the model. The moving end of the

model (3) is mounted on the frame by means of a cross-member (4), connected

through linear bearings in housings (5) to run on rigidly aligned parallel hardened

circular surfaces (6). This assures a precise axial movement. Sprung buffers (7)

are clamped on these runners (6) as a safety measure to prevent damage to the

bearings of the model when violent dynamic action occurs. The pinned joints of

the model are, of course, provided with ball bearings (8); the central joint has two

ball bearings and a trunnion (9), to which the loading wires may be connected.

Longitudinal loading P is provided by wires (10) connected to the linear bearing

housings at one end, passing around ball bearing pulleys (11) and pinned to a distribution bar (12) at the other end. A loading pan is hooked on to this distribution bar.

Longitudinal restraint when required is provided by springs (13), or wires, which

Demonstration Experiments

191

Figure 4.7 Unbuckled and stable, buckled forms of a strut in another of Roordas demonstration experiments (from [4.14])

Figure 4.8 Mechanical demonstration model for bifurcation behavior (from [4.16]): (a) schematic presentation of model, (b) the model for stable symmetric bifurcation

are hooked to a ring on the underside of the cross-member (4). A screw arrangement (14) is provided to accommodate varying lengths of springs, or to control

the displacement of the cross-member. The rods on the adjustment screws (15) all

have ats milled on one side to eliminate rotation when an adjustment is made,

and thrust ball races (16) are provided to further ease these adjustments.

Lateral loading W is applied by connecting a wire to the central trunnion (9),

passing it over a ball bearing pulley and hooking on a loading pan. Lateral restraint,

192

(from [4.16])

test setup

when needed, is provided by springs (18) attached to the other side of the trunnion

by means of a short wire. A second adjustment screw (19) is also provided to

accommodate varying lengths of spring and, in addition, to impose prescribed

geometrical imperfections into the model.

An optical method is used to measure the angular displacement of the links (3).

A narrow beam of light from a projector is passed through a collimating lens

and reected from a mirror on to a large circular screen. The mirror (28), shown

in Figure 4.10 is arranged so that the reecting surface is over the center of the

pivot (8).

The torsional spring, when required, as in the case of symmetric bifurcation to be

discussed (Figure 4.8b), is mounted on the model coaxially with the central bearing

as shown in Figure 4.10. This consists of a coil spring (31) clamped between two

arms (32), which when rotated relative to one another set up a torsional restraint

to the deformation.

Many details of the test setup have been described to indicate the design considerations and various capabilities of such a demonstration test rig. Tests on one of the

models, Model III (of [4.16]) for stable symmetric bifurcation, are now discussed.

The model, outlined in Figure 4.8b, demonstrates bifurcation at a critical load, Pcr ,

from a primary path to a stable secondary path, a behavior which characterizes the

buckling of perfect slender columns and perfect thin plates subjected to in-plane

Demonstration Experiments

193

Figure 4.10

test setup for stable symmetric bifurcation (from [4.16])

detail of

Figure 4.11

Mechanical model for stable symmetric bifurcation the inuence of small initial

imperfections 0 on the load versus angular displacement behavior (from [4.16])

edge loading. The load paths of the model, with increasing small initial deection 0 (at zero load), are shown in Figure 4.11, and illustrate the inuence of

small imperfections on its non-linear behavior. The initial imperfections 0 may be

obtained by attaching a small weight W which applies a constant lateral load, as

P increases. Alternatively, the torsion spring B can be adjusted to give the model

194

a small geometric imperfection at zero load with no lateral load. The two types

of imperfections are analogous to small lateral loadings which may be present in

real columns or plates, and to out-of-straightness or out-of-atness occurring in

practical columns and plates. Comparisons of the effects of these two types of

imperfections on the model (for example, Figure 16 of [4.16]) showed them to be

very similar, as is the case in columns and plates. Hence the model demonstrates

the behavior of imperfect columns and plates very well. Many other types of nonlinear stability behavior are clearly demonstrated by other models in [4.16], which

makes the test rig a very useful demonstration tool.

4.5

4.5.1

Southwells Method

Derivation of Southwell Plot for a Column

Southwell [4.12] searched for a method that would enable one to obtain the theoretical buckling stress of a perfect column from experiments on real imperfect

columns. He pointed out that the load-deection curves (P versus w) may be

approximated by rectangular hyperbolas, having as asymptotes the axis of zero

deection and the horizontal line P D PE . This hyperbolic relationship had been

known many decades earlier, as for example in Ayrton and Perrys papers [4.17],

but Southwell recognized that by a suitable change of coordinates, any such hyperbola may be transformed into a straight line, of which the slope is the measure

of PE .

Let us briey rederive the Southwell plot for a simply supported column,

following essentially Southwells derivation, except that we use the more

appropriate 4th order equilibrium equation, as used in the derivations for imperfect

columns in textbooks (like [2.4], pp. 64 68, [4.18], pp. 230 242 or [4.19],

pp. 12 15) or in recent discussions of the application of the method (for example

[4.20]). The equilibrium equation of an imperfect (initially crooked) column is

wiv C 2 w00 D 2 w000

(4.1)

w0 x D the initial deection (imperfection)

2 D P/EI

(4.2)

w0 D w00 0 D wL D w00 L D 0.

4.3

wD

1

nD1

Wn sin

nx

4.4

Southwells Method

195

w0 x D

1

W0n sin

nx

nD1

1

1

n2 2 EI

n2 PE

Wn D W0n

1

D W0n

1

PL 2

P

and hence to

wx

1

1

nx

n2 PE

D

W

1

sin

0n

P

L

4.5

4.6

4.7

nD1

where PE D 2 EI/L 2 , the Euler Load. The maximum deection W D wL/2 is

therefore

4.8

W D W1 W3 C W5

where Wn is given by Eq. (4.6). When the buckling load is approached, or as

Southwell noted if P is a fairly considerable fraction of PE

1

PE

W1 D W01

1

4.9

WD

P

and the fundamental mode predominates. Hence as P ! PE , the imperfection

component that represents the buckling mode is the one that is primarily magnied.

We can therefore write

W01

4.10

W0 D

and the expression for W can be rearranged as

W D PE

W

W0 .

P

4.11

The inverse slope of the plot of W/P versus W, the Southwell plot (Figure 4.14a),

yields the buckling load of the corresponding perfect column.

4.5.2

ans

Columns

Southwell applied his method to the columns tested by von Karman [4.4] and

Figure 4.12 (from [4.12]) shows the Southwell plots for the eight slender columns

of the von Karman tests, whose slenderness ratio (L/) (where is the minimum

radius of gyration of the cross section) is greater than 90. Note that only at the

higher values of W (or in the gure) the relation is linear and the procedure

justied. As a matter of fact, Southwell rejected all points for P < 0.8Pc , on

grounds that when both load and deections are small their ratio / will not be

196

Figure 4.12

Von Karmans data on compressed columns plotted in the linear form by Southwell (from [4.12])

determinable with any accuracy, and only then applied the method of least squares

to the remaining points. The results of Figure 4.12 were excellent in no case did

the critical load derived from the Southwell plot differ by more than 2.2 percent

from the classic Euler load.

For the medium L/ D 45 90 and thick L/ < 45 groups of von

Karmans struts the method failed (to predict the Euler load), since practically

all measured deections were already in the inelastic range.

Southwell concluded that it appeared that the method has given good results

in every case where these could be expected, but that only trial can show whether

in any instance sufcient observations can be taken of deections which on the

one hand are large enough to give reasonable certainty of /P, and on the other

hand are not so large that the material has ceased to be elastic. This is a valid

assessment of the method even today, if one expects the method to yield the elastic

buckling load of the corresponding perfect structure, the Euler load in the case of

the column. The Southwell method can, however, be extended to plastic buckling as

will be shown in Chapter 16, Volume 2, but then it predicts the plastic bifurcation

load of the corresponding perfect structure, the reduced modulus load according to

the Karman Engesser theory in the case of a column, instead of the elastic one.

In passing, it is of interest that among the many papers reporting tests on columns

up to 1932, Southwell could nd only two papers that recorded related data of load

and central deection for centrally loaded struts, von Karmans 1910 paper [4.4]

and Robertsons 1925 paper [4.21]. He recommended that future experimenters

should publish such complete tables, and indeed the usefulness of the Southwell

plot has since motivated more complete data recording. With modern data acquisition systems, large amounts of simultaneous data of loads and displacements

197

are usually recorded in buckling experiments, but are not always reported. When

publishing his data, the experimenter should give some thought to the future investigators, who may want to use his data for comparison with new theories and

experiments. Some recent proposals for standardization of presentation of imperfection measurements are discussed in Chapter 10, Volume 2.

4.6

Beam Columns and Frames

Southwells method has been widely used. Already in 1932 it was applied successfully to experiments on the stability under shearing forces of a at elastic strip

[4.22]. Then in the second half of the thirties the method was extended and applied

to other structures and theoretically justied in some cases, [4.23], [4.24] and

[4.26]. Southwell [4.12] stated that the main interest of the method lies in its

generality, a challenge that was taken up by stability researchers in the decades

that followed.

Fisher [4.23] extended Southwells method to the case of a spar under combined

axial and transverse loading, a typical loading for an aeroplane spar in test or

ight. The theory was broadened to the general beam column and veried by

good agreement with experiments on eccentrically and transversely loaded solid

rectangular spars. Ramberg, McPherson and Levy [4.24] applied the method to

experiments on axially loaded sheet-stringer panels, and obtained good results for

the stringers attached to sheets, irrespective of failure being in a twisting or bending

mode, or a twisting-bending mode. They could not apply the Southwell method to

the sheet between stringers, due to lack of the bending strain below buckling (and

not because the method was not applicable to plates, as will be discussed in detail

in Chapter 8).

4.6.1

Lundquist Plot

One of the difculties in the application of the Southwell method is that it requires

the initial deection reading to be taken at zero load, where deection measurements are often questionable. A zero-point correction may therefore be necessary.

One way to apply a zero-point correction was suggested by Southwell: replacing

of versus /P by 0 versus 0 /P, where 0 represents the zero-point

correction, which is chosen from some trial values as the one giving the straightest

line in the upper portion of the plot.

Another method to reduce low-load irregularities was given by Lundquists

generalization of the Southwell plot [4.25], for the incremental deections of a

simply supported column due to incremental loads above initial values Pi and i .

Equation (4.11) then becomes

W i PE Pi

W i

a1

P Pi

4.12

198

where

a1 D

W0

1 Pi /PE

4.12A

W0 . The Lundquist

Note that a1 approximates i , and when Pi is very small a1 D

Plot (Figure 4.14c) is therefore similar to the Southwell plot and consists of a

plot of W i /P Pi , versus W i , whose inverse slope yields PE Pi ,

and whose horizontal intercept is a1 .

4.6.2

In 1938 Donnell [4.26] reviewed the applicability of the Southwell method and

extended it considerably, discussing the justication for various cases. First he

considered a hinged strut with continuous elastic support. From the vanishing of

the total energy change due to a virtual displacement dWn , he obtained

Wn

L2

n2 2 EI

Wn

PD

C 2 2 D

Pn

4.13

W0n C Wn

L2

n

W0n C Wn

where Pn is the critical load for the nth type of displacement for the strut without

any initial curvature, and is the spring constant per unit length (with dimension

force divided by length squared), usually called the modulus of foundation. When

W0n D 0, Eq. (4.13) reduces to the classical formula for a simply supported column

on an elastic foundation originally derived by Engesser in 1884 ([4.27], or see for

example [2.1], p. 98), and in turn to Eulers formula when D 0. As for the simple

column, Eq. (4.13) can be rewritten as

Wn

Wn D Pn

W0n

4.14

P

which is similar to Eq. (4.11) and represents the Southwell method for a column

on an elastic foundation.

This application of Southwells method has not been veried experimentally,

but the case of a column with a single mid-point elastic support has been analyzed

and experimentally veried by Hayashi and Kihira [4.28] for a range of spring

constants (see Figure 4.13).

Donnell suggested an alternative manner of plotting the results. If Eq. (4.13) is

solved for Pn , one writes

P

.

4.15

Pn D P C W0n

Wn

Differentiating Eq. (4.15), remembering that W0n and Pn are constant with respect

to Wn and Pn , one obtains

P

0 D dP C W0n d

Wn

Figure 4.13

199

Southwell plot for a column with a single mid-point elastic support of different

spring constants k (from [4.28])

and hence

W0n D

dP

.

dP/Wn

4.16

If one plots, therefore, experimental values of P and P/Wn against each other

(Figure 4.14d), a straight line is obtained whose intercept on the P axis is Pn and

whose negative slope is W0n . This may be a little more convenient for determination of the critical load Pn , since the slope has not to be measured. Furthermore

since measurements are usually taken at equal increments of load, the points are

more evenly spaced. Donnells proposal has not been widely accepted, except

as a basis for the force/stiffness method [4.29], which is essentially the Donnell

plot with abscissa and ordinate interchanged, and which will be further discussed

in Chapter 8 in this Volume and Chapter 15, Volume 2. Most investigators have

continued to use the original Southwell plot.

Before discussing the extension of Southwells method to plates (which will

be considered in Chapter 8), Donnell singled out one plate problem, which is

in a class by itself, the at panel hinged on three sides and free on the fourth

(Figure 4.15). This is so, because a good approximation can be obtained by

assuming the deformed shape to be a developable surface, so that the extensional

stresses can be neglected in the strain energy. The initial deection and additional

200

Figure 4.14

Different forms of Southwell plots: (a) the original Southwell plot [4.12],

(b) Southwell plot for nth critical load, (c) the Southwell Lundquist plot

[4.25], (d) Donnells alternative manner of presenting the Southwell plot [4.26],

(e) Southwell plot expressed in strains, bending strain b and average axial

strain c

s

nx

n W0n sin

b

L

and

nx

s

wD

n Wn sin

b

L

w0 D

4.17

Figure 4.15

201

the fourth, subjected to unidirectional in-plane

compression

where L is the length and b the width of the at panel, x the axial and s the lateral

coordinate. Again from energy considerations he obtained

Wn

Et3 b

n2 2 61 v

Wn

PD

C

D

Pn

W0n C Wn 121 v2

L2

b2

W0n C Wn

4.18

where t is the thickness of the panel and Pn is the critical axial load for the nth

type of displacement, with no initial curvature. Equation (4.18) is essentially the

same as that for a column and hence application of the Southwell plot is justied.

One may note that, following Donnell, the Southwell method was formulated here,

and in Figures 4.14b and 4.14d, for the nth critical load, instead of the lowest one

as usual, to show that it can be employed also for higher critical loads. This has

been discussed by Donnell [4.26], who suggested that harmonic analysis should be

used in conjunction with Southwells method, and by Tuckerman [4.30], who also,

with the aid of McPherson and Levy, demonstrated experimentally the application

to the second and third critical load of a column. Figure 4.16 shows a typical

Lundquist Southwell plot for the rst and second modes of an eccentrically loaded

column formulated in strains instead of displacements.

Strains are often employed instead of displacements in the Southwell method

(see also Figure 4.14e) since strains can be conveniently measured with strain

202

Figure 4.16

Southwell Lundquist plots for the rst and second modes of an eccentrically

loaded column (from [4.30])

gages. One can readily show that the use of bending strains b instead of the

lateral deection W, is permissible. For from elementary bending theory, the axial

strain

D zw,xx

4.19

and the bending strain b is the difference between x at the extreme bers, z D

h/2 and z D h/2, and is proportional to x z D h/2 and thus to w,xx . Hence if

Eq. (4.11) is differentiated twice with respect to x it becomes

w,xx x D L/2

w0,xx x D L/2

P

as W D wx D L/2, etc. One can therefore write

w,xx x D L/2 PE

x x D L/2 PE

x x D L/2

w0,xx x D L/2

P

or

4.20

4.21

b

4.22.

W0,xx .

P

Sometimes the load P is replaced by the average axial strain c , which is proportional to it, and then the Southwell plot is b /c versus b (see Figure 4.14e).

The at panel of Figure 4.15 is also of considerable practical signicance, as it

represents the equal legged angle, a widely used structural element. Bridget, Jerome

and Vosseller [4.31] carried out at Caltech in 1933 a series of tests on compressed

duralminum angle columns, under the guidance of Donnell, and showed the applicability of the Southwell method irrespective of failure in the column or plate

mode. They used the Southwell method for better presentation of their results,

since it eliminated most of the imperfection effects (geometric imperfections, load

eccentricities and minor variations in stress distributions) related to specic specimens. This smoothing, very useful in parametric studies, is demonstrated very

clearly in Figures 4.17 and 4.18 (reproduced from [4.31]). Figure 4.17 shows the

critical loads, for the cases in which plate buckling occurred, as recorded from tests

without the use of the Southwell method, whereas Figure 4.18 shows the buckling

load of the specimens computed by Southwell method from the same set of data,

resulting in a signicant reduction of scatter.

b PE

Figure 4.17

203

measured (for the case in which plate buckling occurred, from [4.31])

with great care, (see also [2.1], p. 403) in particular with respect to the boundary

conditions. They employed the idea of varying end conditions, by enabling

movement of the support ball position under load, to eliminate initial load

eccentricities and to counteract initial curvature or crookedness, originated by

von Karman [4.4].

Though some applications of the Southwell plot to other structures have been

considered, the discussion so far has dealt primarily with simply supported columns

for which Southwell derived his method. As has been shown, the theoretical basis

has been broadened in 1938 by Donnell [4.26] and then in 1939 by Tuckerman

[4.30], who showed that by applying Westergaards general theory for buckling

of elastic structures [4.32], Southwells method or Lundquists modication can

be generalized and applied to a broader class of structures. His elegant derivation,

however, did not yield detailed justications for practical structures beyond those

considered earlier.

4.6.3

columns with different combinations of end conditions and with varying exural

rigidity, as well as to plane frameworks. His derivation considered combinations

of pin end, xed end and free end boundary conditions for the column. For

frameworks, justication of the validity of Southwells method was presented both

for buckling in the plane of the structure and for lateral buckling out of its plane.

Ariaratnams analysis justied earlier intuitive extensions of Southwells method

204

Figure 4.18

Smoothing data with the Southwell method: buckling loads P versus width

W, computed by the Southwell method from the same data as in Figure 4.17

(from [4.31])

the extended method for in-plane buckling; that of Murray [4.35] who applied the

method to lateral buckling of the members of a truss and used it to determine the

experimental buckling load, which was 8 percent below his approximate theoretical

prediction for lateral buckling; and those of Gregory [4.36] [4.39] who applied

the method to tests of in-plane and out-of-plane (torsional-exural) buckling of

triangular frames and lattice girders. Gregory used strains and not displacements

and his experimental results yielded very consistent linear Southwell plots. The

buckling loads obtained from those plots were very close to the theoretical

predictions for the corresponding perfect frames: between 3.2 percent above and

4 percent below the theoretical values. In one case [4.38] the maximum load

reached in the test was 9 percent below that obtained from the Southwell plot,

which was about 1 percent below the theoretical value.

Southwells method has also been extended by Horton, Cundary, and Johnson,

in their 1967 review of the application of the method to elastic column and plate

structures [4.40], to lateral buckling of beams. By the Rayleigh Ritz method

approximate relationships between the load and both the lateral and torsional

deformations were derived for the case of a deep beam subjected to a concentrated force applied in the plane of the beam. Assuming single term expressions

for initial and total deections and rotations, an approximate relationship between

load and rotation, for small rotations, was arrived at

0

D Pcr

P

2

205

4.23

Massey [4.41] had shown earlier experimentally that the Southwell method could

be adapted to lateral instability of rectangular section aluminum alloy beams, loaded

with a concentrated vertical load at midspan. The predictions, using a modied

Southwell plot, were 0.72 3.7 percent above the experimental collapse loads, for

the three beams tested. Way [4.42] re-examined the problem experimentally, rst

repeating Masseys work and then extended it to large deections and beams elastically restrained at midspan. He showed that the Southwell plot of /P versus

, for example for the typical plot shown in Figure 4.19 (from [4.42]), where is

the lateral midspan deection (proportional to of Eq. 4.23), yields a critical load

prediction 3.3 percent above the test value. Ways other experiments also yielded

similar agreement between the Southwell plot predictions and test values.

Leicester [4.43] extended the validity of the Southwell method by presenting

a theoretical justication for beam-columns. He also considered the special case

of a beam loaded through its shear center which requires a modication to the

Southwell plot. Then for experimental verication, tests on two beams, one loaded

through the shear center and one loaded off the shear center, were carried out.

The test specimens were made of hardwood (Leicester worked at the Division of

Forest Products of CSIRO, Australia), and had signicant imperfections purposely

imparted by an interesting process. Each beam was soaked in water and allowed to

dry for half a day while subjected to 90 percent of its Euler load. This procedure

caused the beams to develop a permanent set with a shape close to that of the

buckling mode, and hence made them very appropriate specimens for verication of

Figure 4.19

load at its midspan (from [4.42])

206

the Southwell method. One can nearly classify them as demonstration experiments

of the kind discussed in Section 4.4.

4.6.4

Another aspect of Southwells method was already pointed out by Donnell in 1938

[4.26] its usefulness as a nondestructive test method. It permits the stability limit

to be determined without destroying the structure. This advantage of the Southwell

method was exploited by Wilson, Holloway and Biggers [4.44] in their experiments

on expensive tapered column models, by carrying their tests, and the data recording,

only up to loads which gave a denite straight line on the Southwell plot. Thus they

prevented damage due to plastic bending which would have occurred at the highload nonlinearities of the plot. The use of the Southwell plot as a nondestructive

test method has been extensively studied for shells with as yet not completely

conclusive results and will be discussed in Chapters 9, 13, and 16 of Volume 2.

For columns, the Southwell method is universally accepted as a nondestructive

test technique for determination of elastic stiffness properties of actual structural

components. When the struts have very small initial curvatures, as is common

with modern manufacturing quality control, deection measurement errors are

introduced because the deections remain relatively small with load. Hence an

alternative method of testing has been proposed by Tsai [4.45] to load the strut with

an intentional eccentricity to compensate for the low initial geometric imperfection.

Essentially this proposal uses and emphasizes the well known concept of approximate equivalence of the effects of initial curvature and load eccentricity, which

has been employed sometimes in column tests to counteract the initial curvature

of the specimens (see [2.1], pp. 28 36, 190 192).

Rederiving the Southwell type equation in the presence of a predetermined load

eccentricity e at both ends of the strut, it becomes instead of Eq. (4.11)

1

1

W

PE

P

W D PE W0 e

4.24

1 .

cos

P

P

2 PE

Simplication of Eq. (4.24), by expanding the cosine, series conversion and multiplication, yields a rst order approximation

2

W

W

W0 e D PE

W0 1.234e.

4.25

W D PE

P

8

P

For W0 D 0 this equation is identical to one derived by Sechler in 1952 [4.46].

Equation (4.25) is very close to a similar approximate formula

4

W

W

W0 e D PE

W0 1.273e

4.25A

W D PE

P

P

derived in the early thirties ([2.1], p. 191). With a reasonable load eccentricity e,

the deections would be larger at low axial forces and hence the accuracy of the

measurements for the Southwell plot would improve. It has to be remembered,

207

however, that this method is useful only when the column is very straight, and

in introducing the load eccentricity care has to be exercised that the test points

remain in the elastic regime.

4.7

As has been shown, Southwells method has been applied successfully to many

types of columns, beam-columns and frameworks, and has been modied and

extended for more convenient use. The 1939 warning of Ramberg et al. [4.24]:

that it must not be concluded from the success of Southwells method in all those

cases in which the existence of a straight-line relation . . . was established over a

large range of deformations, that Southwells method is applicable to the whole

range of primary instabilities that may be encountered in monocoque construction,

has been heeded and theoretical justications have been derived for various types

of structures, as pointed out in this chapter. Extensions to plates and shells and

plastic buckling have been widely studied and are discussed in Chapters 8, (this

volume) and 9, 13 and 16 of Volume 2. The general conclusion is that, with certain

signicant limitations, the Southwell plot, and its extensions, have a general validity

for practically all linear instability problems and sometimes even beyond that.

The limitations of the applicability and validity have been pointed out by many

investigators (e.g., [4.20] and [4.26]) and have been elucidated by Roorda [4.47].

Recalling rst the differences between various types of buckling behavior

(Figure 4.20) he explains:

In the linear theory of elastic stability, any perfect structural system that yields

a well-behaved eigenvalue problem gives rise to the load-deection characteristic

depicted in Figure 4.20(a). The trivial (unbuckled) solution D 0 is crossed by the

horizontal line P D PCR at the point of bifurcation. This type of characteristic might

be described as a neutral characteristic and it arises purely from the linearization

of the problem. Small imperfections give rise to equilibrium paths in the form of

rectangular hyperbolas as shown. In essence, Southwells method is based on the

neutral characteristic.

In the nonlinear theory of elastic stability the post-buckling behavior is generally

not of the neutral type but takes one of three forms, depending on the nature of

the nonlinearities in the system (in the following, the deections are considered to

be nite but relatively small so that only the initial post-buckling behavior need

be considered). The possible load-deection curves are depicted in Figure 4.20(b),

4.20(c) and 4.20(d), and may be described as the asymmetric, stable-symmetric, and

unstable-symmetric characteristics, respectively. The corresponding load-deection

curves for an imperfect system are also indicated on the diagram. These are now

not rectangular hyperbolas but have the perfect equilibrium curves as asymptotes.

. . . It now becomes evident that a post-buckling behavior other than the neutral

type gives rise to a curved Southwell line.

. . . Typical Southwell lines corresponding to the four buckling types, namely

neutral, asymmetric, stable-symmetric, and unstable-symmetric, are drawn in

208

Figure 4.20

lines and imperfect ones by broken lines): (a) neutral load-deection characteristic

(arising from linearization of the problem), (b) asymmetric load-deection

characteristic, (c) stable-symmetric load-deection characteristic, (d) unstablesymmetric load-deection characteristic

Figure 4.21(a), 4.21(b), 4.21(c) and 4.21(d), respectively. The initial slope in each

case is 1/PCR . For the neutral case, this slope is maintained for all values of . For

the asymmetric case, the slope decreases as increases in the positive direction

and increases as increases in the negative direction. For the stable symmetric

and unstable symmetric cases, the slope decreases and increases, respectively, as

jj increases.

On the basis of these diagrams, it is now possible to draw certain conclusions

regarding the validity of the Southwell procedure as the measured deections

become large.

For the neutral buckling characteristic there is no problem. The asymmetric buckling characteristic is the most interesting. If in an experimental structure the imperfections are such that they generate a load-deection curve with monotonically

increasing load (positive deections in Figure 4.20(b)), then the best straight line

tted to the experimental points in a Southwell plot will have a slope which is

less than the true slope at zero deection. Hence, the Southwell procedure would

overestimate the critical load. If, on the other hand, the imperfections generate a load

deection curve in which the load reaches a local maximum (i.e. negative deections

in Figure 4.20(b)), then the Southwell procedure underestimates the critical load.. . .

A steep ideal post-buckling curve may give rise to a considerable discrepancy.

Similarly, in the case of symmetric buckling characteristics (Figures 4.20(c,d)),

the following conclusion is drawn: The Southwell procedure overestimates the critical load for a stable symmetric characteristic and underestimates it for an unstable

symmetric characteristic, regardless of the sense of the initial imperfections.. . .

The sharper the initial curvature in the ideal post-buckling path, the greater the

difference between PCR and its estimated value.

Figure 4.21

209

in Figure 4.20 (from [4.47]): (a) neutral, (b) asymmetric, (c) stable symmetric,

(d) unstable symmetric

Southwell procedure is applied to structures other than the column, great care

must be taken in the interpretation of the results. Correct interpretation of the

Southwell plot for such structures depends upon a knowledge of the post-buckling

behavior of the idealized structure.

In other words, for column type structures, as discussed here and in Chapter 6, for

which the postbuckling behavior is neutrally stable and the bifurcation modes are

well separated, the Southwell method is a convenient and reliable tool for prediction

of the critical load of the perfect structure. For other types of structures, like plates,

which have stable symmetric postbuckling behavior, or shells, which have unstable

symmetric postbuckling behavior, the Southwell method has limitations, which are

discussed in more detail in Chapters 8 (this volume) and 9, Volume 2.

In Roordas paper [4.47] two experiments of the demonstration type are

presented to conrm the arguments and to emphasize the proper interpretation

procedure, a Warren truss and a shallow frame. Here the Warren truss (Figure 4.22)

will be discussed. It consisted of triangulated frames made of high tensile steel

strips of 1 in. by 1/16 in. cross section. The truss had a span of 36 in. and the

members were rigidly jointed by xing the ends in slotted joint blocks, made

from Duraluminum rods of 1.5 in. diameter, as shown in Figure 4.23(a). The truss

was supported on knife edges with a roller support (Figure 4.23(b)) at one end to

prevent horizontal reactions. The load was applied vertically at one of the joints in

the top chord and transmitted to the truss through a double knife edge and movable

knife seat arrangement (Figure 4.23(c)). The two knife seats could be moved to

210

Figure 4.22

Buckling modes of a Warren truss (from [4.47]): (a) unbuckled form, (b) stable

buckling, (c) unstable buckling

positions near the joint by turning the screws, thus allowing slight variations of

the eccentricity of loading. The rotation of the loaded joint served as a deection

parameter and was measured optically during the loading process. A semi-rigid

loading device, consisting of a spring-balance and screw jack combination, was

used so that unstable branches of the load-deection curves could be traced. Two

such load-deection curves were obtained, one for a value of load eccentricity

which induced counter-clockwise joint rotation (unstable mode of buckling) and

the other for a slightly different eccentricity which induced clockwise joint rotation

(stable mode of buckling). These curves appear in Figure 4.24. The dotted portion

in the unstable load-deection curve could not be obtained due to insufcient

rigidity of the loading device.

Although in real structures the perfect post-buckling curve can never be attained,

it is clear from these experimental results that this curve would have a nite slope

Figure 4.23

211

Roordas Warren truss experiment details (from [4.14]): (a) the truss tested,

(b) the roller support, (c) frame joint detail with loading arrangement

212

Figure 4.24

Experimental load

at the point of bifurcation, i.e. the experimental system gives rise to an asymmetric

buckling characteristic.

Plotting the experimental points in accordance with the Southwell procedure

yields the curve shown in Figure 4.25 which is of the type shown in Figure 4.21(b)

(i.e., there is no reversal of curvature as the curve passes through the origin). The

correct buckling load is given by the inverse of the slope of the tangent to the

curve at the origin, and is approximately equal to 65.0 lb. One should note that

due to the curvature of the Southwell plot, it is important to use the tangent at the

origin for a correct interpretation. Photographs of the two buckling modes for this

experimental system are shown in Figure 4.22.

Before closing this section it should be noted that, as pointed out by Bushnell [4.48], the Southwell method can also be used for a non-experimental

task in conjunction with computer programs to ascertain certain unknown or

doubtful characteristics of a complicated structure, such as effective stiffness or

boundary conditions. These characteristics would be changed in repeated runs of

the computer program until the critical bifurcation load predicted by the program

agrees with that from the Southwell plot. Jones, Costello and Reynolds [4.49]

applied the Southwell plot in this non-experimental mode to evaluate their

References

Figure 4.25

213

under external pressure.

References

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

Euler, L., Sur le force des colonnes, Mem. de lAcad. de Berlin, Berlin Annee 1759,

XIII, 252 257. English Translation by Van der Brock, Am. J. Physics, 15, July 1947,

309 318.

van Musschenbroek, P., Introductio ad cohaerentiam rmorum in Physicae

experimentales et geometricae Dissertationes, Lugduni (Leiden) 1729, 652 660 and

Table 27.

Salmon, E.H., Columns A Treatise on the Strength and Design of Compression

Members, Oxford Technical Publications, London, 1921.

von Karman, Th., Untersuchungen u ber Knickfestigkeit, Mitteilungen u ber

Forschungsarbeiten auf dem Gebiet des Ingenieurwesens, Verein Deutscher

Ingenieure, Heft 81, Berlin, 1910.

Prandtl, L., Kipp-Erscheinungen, Inaugural Dissertation, Ludwig-MaximiliansUniversitat Munich, 1899, Buchdruckerei Robert Stich, Nurenburg.

Beedle, L.S. and Tall, L., Basic Column Strength, Proc. American Soc. of Civil Engineers, 86, (ST-7), July 1961, Proc. Paper 2555, 139, 173.

Tall, L., Centrally Compressed Members, in Axially Compressed Structures, Stability

and Strength, R. Narayanan, ed., Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London, 1982,

1 40.

214

4.8

4.9

4.10

4.11

4.12

4.13

4.14

4.15

4.16

4.17

4.18

4.19

4.20

4.21

4.22

4.23

4.24

4.25

4.26

4.27

4.28

von Tetmajer, L., Die Gesetze der Knickungs-und der zusammengesetzten Druckfestikeit der technisch wichtigsten Baustoffe. 3rd edn., Franz Deuticke, Leipzig and

Vienna, 1903.

Kirsch, B., Ergebnisse von Versuchen u ber die Knickfestikeit von Saulen mit fest

eingespannten Enden, Zeitschrift d. Verein deutscher Ingenieure, Berlin, June 3, 1905,

907 915.

Palmer, A.C., Structural Mechanics, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1976, 202 206,.

Kirby, P.A. and Nethercot, D.A., Design for Structural Stability, Granada Publishing,

London, 1979.

Southwell, R.V., On the Analysis of Experimental Observations in Problems of

Elastic Stability, Proc. Royal Society, (London), Series A, 135, 1932, 601 616.

Brivtec, S.J. and Chilver, A.H., Elastic Buckling of Rigidly-Jointed Braced Frames,

Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, 89, (EM6), Proc. Paper 3736,

1963, 217 255.

Roorda, J., Instability of Imperfect Elastic Structures, Ph.D. Thesis, University of

London, 1965.

Roorda, J., Experiments in Post-Buckling in Buckling of Elastic Structures, Solid

Mechanics Division, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 1980, 73 93.

Walker, A.C., Croll, J.G.A. and Wilson, E., Experimental Models to Illustrate the

Non-Linear Behavior of Elastic Structures, Bulletin Mech. Engineering Education,

10, 1971, 247 259.

Ayrton, W.E. and Perry, J., On Struts, The Engineer, Dec. 10, 1886, 464 465, Dec.

24, 1886, 513 515.

Hoff, N.J., The Analysis of Structures, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1956, 230 242.

Murray, N.W., Introduction to the Theory of Thin-Walled Structures, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1984, 12 15.

Spencer, H.H. and Walker, A.C., Critique of Southwell Plots with Proposals for

Alternative Methods, Experimental Mechanics, 15, (8), 1975, 303 310.

Robertson, A., The Strength of Struts, Selected Paper No 28, Institution of Civil

Engineers (UK), 1925.

Gough, H.J. and Cox, H.L., Some Tests on the Stability of Thin Strip Material Under

Shearing Forces in the Plane of the Strip, Proc. Royal Society (London), Series A,

137, 1932, 145 157.

Fisher, H.R., An Extension of Southwells Method of Analyzing Experimental Observations in Problems of Elastic Stability, Proc. Royal Society (London), Series A, 144,

1934, 609 630.

Ramberg, W., McPherson, A.E. and Levy, S., Experimental Study of Deformation

and of Effective Width in Axially Loaded Sheet-Stringer Panels, NACA TN 684,

1939.

Lundquist, E.E., Generalized Analysis of Experimental Observations in Problems of

Elastic Stability, NACA TN 658, 1938.

Donnell, L.H., On the Application of Southwells Method for the Analysis of Buckling Tests, Stephan Timoshenko 60th Anniversary Volume, McGraw-Hill, New York,

1938, 27 38.

Engesser, F., Die Sicherung offener Brucken gegen Ausknicken, Zentralblatt der

Bauverwaltung, 1884, (40), 415 417 and 1885, (7), 71 72.

Hayashi, T. and Kihira, M., On a Method of Experimental Determination of the

Buckling Load of an Elastically Supported Column, Proc. 10th Japan Congress on

Testing Materials, 1967, 163 165.

References

4.29

4.30

4.31

4.32

4.33

4.34

4.35

4.36

4.37

4.38

4.39

4.40

4.41

4.42

4.43

4.44

4.45

4.46

4.47

4.48

4.49

215

Jones, R.E. and Green, B.E., Force/Stiffness Technique for Nondestructive Buckling

Tests, Journal of Aircraft, 13, April 1976, 262 269.

Tuckerman, L.B., Heterostatic Loading and Critical Astatic Loads, Research Paper

RP1163, Jour. Res. National Bureau of Standards, 22, 1939, 1 18.

Bridget, F.J., Jerome, C.C. and Vosseler, A.B., Some New Experiments on the Buckling of Thin Wall Construction, Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical

Engineers, 56, 1934, 569 578.

Westergaard, H.M., Buckling of Elastic Structures, Transactions of the American

Society of Civil Engineers, 85, Paper 1490, 1922, 566 676.

Ariaratnam, S.T., The Southwell Method for Predicting Critical Loads of Elastic

Structures, Quarterly Journal of Mechanics and Applied Mathematics, 14, Pt. 2,

1961, 137 153.

Merchant, W., The Failure Load of Rigid Jointed Frameworks as Inuenced by

Stability, The Structural Engineer (UK), 32, 1954, 185 190.

Murrey, N.W., A Method of Determining an Approximate Value of the Critical

Loads at which Lateral Buckling Occurs in Rigidly Jointed Trusses, Proc. Institution

of Civil Engineers (UK), 7, 1957, Paper 6209, 387 403.

Gregory, M., The Use of the Southwell Plot on Strains to Determine the Failure Load

of a Lattice Girder when Lateral Buckling Occurs, Australian Journal of Applied

Science, 10, (4), 1959, 371 376.

Gregory, M., The Buckling of an Equilateral Triangular Frame in its Plane, Australian

Journal of Applied Science, 10, (4), 1959, 377 387.

Gregory, M., The Application of the Southwell Plot on Strains to Problems of Elastic

Instability of Framed Structures, where Buckling of Members in Torsion and Flexure

Occurs, Australian Journal of Applied Science, 11, (1), 1960, 49 64.

Gregory, M., The Use of Measured Strains to Obtain Critical Loads, Civil Engineering and Public Works Review (UK), 55, (642), Jan. 1960, 80 82.

Horton, W.H., Cundary, F.L. and Johnson, R., The Analysis of Experimental Data

Obtained from Stability Studies on Elastic Column and Plate Structures, Israel

Journal of Technology, 5, (1 2), 1967, 104 113.

Massey, C., Southwell Plot Applied to Lateral Instability of Beams, Engineer, 218,

(5666), Aug. 1964, 320.

Way, E.R., The Lateral Instability of a Simply Supported Deep Beam Subjected to a

Concentrated Load at its Centroid, Engineer Thesis, Stanford University, California,

1967.

Leicester, R.H., Southwells Plot for Beam Columns, Journal of the Engineering

Mechanics Division, ASCE, 96, (EM6), Proc. Paper 7750, 1970, 945 965.

Wilson, J.F., Holloway, D.M. and Biggers, S.B., Stability Experiments on the Strongest Columns and Circular Arches, Experimental Mechanics, 11, (7), 1971, 303 308.

Tsai, W.T., Note on Southwells Method for Buckling Tests of Struts, Journal of

Applied Mechanics, ASME, 53, 1986, 953 954.

Sechler, E.E., Elasticity in Engineering, Dover Publications, New York, 1968, 364.

Roorda, J., Some Thoughts on the Southwell Plot, Journal of the Engineering

Mechanics Division, ASCE, 93, (EM6), Proc. Paper 5634, 1967, 37 47.

Bushnell, D., Computerized Buckling Analysis of Shells, Martinus Nijhoff,

Dordrecht/Boston, 1985.

Jones, R.F., Costello, M.G. and Reynolds, T.E., Buckling of Pressure Loaded Rings

and Shells by the Finite Element Method, Computers and Structures, 7, 1977,

267 274.

5

Modeling

Practice

5.1

Theory and

columns, it may be useful to pause and consider the general problem of modeling.

First we have to differentiate between physical and mathematical modeling. A

physical model represents the real world, the real physical engineering problem, by

identifying the primary factors that affect the behavior of a structure (in our case)

and describes a simpler structure, or one more amenable to testing and measurements, that still demonstrates the main response behavior of the real structure.

A mathematical model on the other hand is an abstraction of the real problem

in the conceptual world, it is the physical problem transformed into an idealized

image that has built-in assumptions and approximations, but constitutes the basis

for analysis and predictions. Often the physical model leads to the mathematical

one, but it must be remembered that the mathematical model is an idealized abstract

representation of the physical one.

Mathematical modeling is an essential step in the process of analysis, computation and prediction, (see for example [5.1]), whereas physical modeling leads to

experimental investigations, to model analysis of structures.

In civil engineering primarily, structural modeling has been extensively used for

more than half a century as an experimental method for solution of strength and

deformation problems of structures. It has been considered as a parallel design tool

to analysis (see for example [5.2]) and has been the subject of special textbooks (for

example [5.2] or [5.3]) and numerous papers. Since most experimental studies on

buckling and postbuckling behavior of structural elements, also in other engineering

disciplines, are carried out on models of the actual structures, appropriate modeling

is indeed an essential part of experimental investigation.

The theory of models, and in particular dimensional analysis, can be an important

guide to the experimenter in the choice of his models. Hence, though the principles

of dimensional analysis are usually well known to scientists and engineers and are

Plates Volume 1. J. Singer, J. Arbocz and T. Weller Copyright 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

218

Modeling

given in many textbooks (for example [5.3] [5.11]), the main concepts are briey

reviewed in the following section.

5.2

Dimensional Analysis

deduced from one postulate that the phenomenon can be described by a dimensionally correct equation among certain variables. Dimensional analysis does not yield

a complete solution nor does it reveal the complete character of the phenomenon,

but it reduces the number of variables in a problem. This makes it an important

mathematical tool for experimentalists.

In its simplest form, dimensional analysis can be used to check the dimensional

correctness of equations and to classify them into homogeneous and nonhomogeneous ones. An equation is dimensionally homogeneous, if its form does not

depend on the fundamental units of measurement, or in other words if the equation

is valid in all consistent systems of units. A more interesting application of dimensional analysis is the prediction of the qualitative form of unknown mathematical

relationships among physical quantities, whose quantitative relationship can then

often be determined by experiments.

5.2.1

The rst step in the dimensional analysis of a problem is to decide what variables

enter the problem, a decision which, to be meaningful, requires some understanding

of the physical nature of the problem. When the dimensions of these variables have

been determined they are grouped into dimensionless products.

Consider for example, (as in [5.4]) a classical problem of uid dynamics, a

smooth spherical body of diameter D immersed in a stream of incompressible

uid moving at a velocity V. The drag force F on the body is represented by an

equation of the form

F D fV, D, ,

5.1

in which is the mass density of the uid, is the coefcient of viscosity of the

uid (the ratio of the viscous shear stress to the normal velocity gradient) and f

is an unspecied function. Equation (5.1) only says that the drag F depends on the

variables V, D, and , without indicating the nature of this relationship. As will

be shown shortly, in order to be dimensionally homogeneous Eq. (5.1) must have

the following form:

F/V2 D2 D f1 VD/.

5.2

The function f1 is still unknown, but it depends now on only one variable (VD/)

instead of the four separate variables V, D, and . Note that the expressions

(F/V2 D2 ) and (VD/) are dimensionless. Such groupings are called dimensionless products. In general, if L denotes a length, the dimensionless product (VD/)

Dimensional Analysis

219

is called Reynolds number (usually denoted by R), and the dimensionless product

(F/V2 D2 ) is called a pressure coefcient (often denoted by P), since (F/L 2 ) can

be interpreted as a pressure.

The projected area of a sphere A D /4D2 and hence Eq. (5.2) may be written,

F/V2 A D 1/28/f1 R

5.3

where the term 8/f1 R D CD is called the drag coefcient. The equation for

the drag of a sphere may therefore be written, in the well known form,

F D 1/2CD V2 A

5.4

CD versus R, and the plot provides information about the drag forces on smooth

spherical bodies of all sizes in incompressible uids with any density and viscosity,

owing at any velocity.

Obviously many other dimensionless products can be formed from the variables

F, V, D, , of the example considered, but they will all be found to be of the

form

R a Pb

5.5

where a and b are constant exponents. On the other hand the products R and P are

independent of each other, in the sense of each not being a product of the other,

as can be immediately seen here from the fact that occurs only in R and F only

in P. Other dimensionless products formed will not be new ones, since they are

all expressible in terms of R and P, as per Eq. (5.5).

5.2.2

dimensionless products of given variables is complete, if each product in the set is

independent of the others, and every other dimensionless product of the variables

is a product of powers of dimensionless products in the set.

This leads to Buckinghams theorem: If an equation is dimensionally homogeneous it can be reduced to a relationship among a complete set of dimensionless

products. The theorem was stated by Buckingham in 1914 [5.12], without a

rigorous proof, was discussed in detail by Bridgman in 1922 [5.13], restated and

proved by van Driest in 1946 [5.14], and presented in 1951 with an algebraic

proof in Langhaars book [5.4]. Buckingham denoted the independent dimensionless products or groups Pi terms, and they are usually designated as i . Hence

the theorem is known as the Buckingham Pi Theorem. A corollary to the theorem,

which may be considered the second part of the theorem, states in general terms

that: the number of independent dimensionless products required to express a

relationship between the variables in any phenomenon is equal to the number of

derived variables involved n, minus the number of dimensions m, or primary variables, in which these quantities may be measured. The number of terms is

therefore (n m).

220

Modeling

uid, F, V, D, and are the nD 5 derived variables. After choosing mD 3 of

these such that they contain among them all the primary dimensions (say, V, D and

), one forms dimensionless products with the remaining m nD 2 variables as

follows:

1 D Va Db c

.

5.6

2 D Vd De f F

In terms of the primary dimensions M, L, T these products are:

a c

L

M

M

Lb

1 D

T

L3

LT

d f

.

L

M

ML

2 D

Le

T

L3

T2

5.7

must vanish. Hence

L : a C b 3c 1 D 0

5.8a

T : a 1 D 0

M: cC1D0

yielding a D b D c D 1

and

L : d C e 3f C 1 D 0

T : d 2 D 0

M: fC1D0

5.8b

1 D /VD D 1/R

.

5.9

and 2 D F/V2 D2 D P

Buckinghams theorem asserts here that if we assume that the ve variables are

related by a dimensionally homogeneous equation, similar to Eq. (5.1),

fF, V, D, , D 0

5.10

f1 , 2 D 0 or

fP, R D 0

5.11

5.3

5.3.1

Similarity

The Concept of Similarity

proper relations between the model and its prototype. Usually geometric similarity is maintained, which means that the parts of the model have the same shape

Similarity

221

correspondence between a model and its prototype, called homology in geometrical terminology. Two points that correspond to each other are homologous, and

parts of the model and its prototype are homologous if there is a point-to-point

correspondence between them.

Similarity extends to other characteristics besides geometry, like mass distribution or stiffness. For example, in an aircraft wing-utter model similarity of

mass distribution is required, if not for all the details of the structure at least in

a restricted sense, such that the ratio of masses of segments of the wing and its

model, which are included between homologous cross sections, has to be constant,

i.e. similarity of the spanwise distribution of mass. Furthermore, chordwise distributions of mass, in the same restricted sense, and spanwise distributions of mass

moments of inertia are to be similar, and the ratio of stiffnesses of homologous

cross sections of the wing and its model has to be constant.

Applying dimensional analysis, the general equation for the prototype may be

written as

5.12

p D f1p , 2p , . . . np

where the s are a complete set of dimensionless products. For the model, a

similar equation holds

m D f1m , 2m , . . . nm .

5.13

If the model is designed and tested so that

1m D 1p

2m D 2p

..

..

.

.

nm D np

one obtains

or p D m

5.14

5.15

and model and prototype are completely similar. The general Eqs. (5.12) and

(5.13) and their equality, Eq. (5.15), emanate from Buckinghams theorem.

Equation (5.14) are sometimes called the design conditions and Eq. (5.15) the

prediction equation, and if all the design conditions are satised the model is called

a true model, as complete similarity is assured, provided that all the pertinent

quantities were included in the dimensional analysis that yielded the Pi terms.

5.3.2

Model Laws

The concept of similarity can also be expressed in a different form, as model laws.

For example, the dimensionless equation dening the drag on a body in a stream

of incompressible uid (Eq. (5.2)), which was derived earlier, can be considered

as follows: If a geometrically similar model is to be tested, the Reynolds numbers

222

Modeling

VL/m D VL/p .

5.16

KV KL K D K

5.17

where

Kv D Vm /Vp

KL D Lm /Lp

K D m /p

K D m /p etc.

5.18

These Ks are called scale factors. It should be noted that Eq. (5.17) expresses the

requirements of similarity in terms of scale factors, in this case. Such expressions

of these requirements are known as similarity conditions.

Equations (5.2) and (5.17) yield the scale factor for the drag force

KF D K K2V K2L D K2 /K .

5.19

Equations (5.17) and (5.19) represent the model law for the problem of a body

immersed in a stream of compressible uid.

To express the concept of similarity in terms of scale factors more generally,

two homologous (corresponding) rectangular Cartesian space reference frames are

selected (xp , yp , zp ) and (xm , ym , zm ), with which points in the prototype and the

model are designated respectively. The model and prototype systems are related

by equations dening homologous (corresponding) points and times.

xm D Kx xp

ym D K y yp

.

5.20

zm D Kz zp

tm D K T tp

The constants Kx , Ky , Kz are the scale factors for lengths in the x, y and z

directions. For geometric similarity,

Kx D Ky D Kz D KL .

5.21

For a distorted model, two length scale factors are usually equal, and one

unequal, for example Kx D Ky 6D Kz . In such a case the ratio (Kz /Kx ) is known

as the distortion factor. The constant Kt is called the time scale factor. It should

be remembered that in transient phenomena, states that occur at homologous times

are considered and not simultaneous states.

Kinematic similarity denotes similarity of motions and can be dened as

follows (see for example [5.4]): The motions of two systems are similar, if

homologous particles lie at homologous points at homologous times. Homologous

223

(corresponding) points and times are dened by Eq. (5.20). With kinematic

similarity, corresponding components of velocity or acceleration are similar. For

geometric similar systems, satisfying Eq. (5.21), the velocity scale factor is:

KV D KL Kt

5.22

5.23

similar net forces. For geometric similarity and for similar mass distributions,

indicated by the existence of a scale factor for mass

Km D mm /mp ,

5.24

KF D Km KL /K2t .

5.25

Note that models which satisfy similarity conditions for mass and elasticity (as

mentioned for the example of an aircraft wing-utter model), are usually known

as dynamically similar models.

It may be noted that complete similarity is sometimes called replica modeling,

especially in cases of structural response to transient loads, which are discussed

in a later section. A replica model is dened as a model which is geometrically

similar in all respects to the prototype and employs identically the same materials

at similar locations [5.33]). For geometric similarity with different materials, the

term dissimilar material modeling is often employed, which however assumes

constitutive similarity for the materials. Constitutive similarity means that model

and prototype materials have homologous constitutive properties and homologous

stress-strain curves. Materials possessing constitutive similarity will have identical

scaled strength and stiffness properties.

5.4

5.4.1

Prescribed Loads

structures. The structure itself may be specied by the modulus of elasticity E and

Poissons ratio , by one length and the ratios r1 , r2 , etc. of all other lengths

to . The loads may be concentrated loads, distributed ones and moments, but for

simplicity only concentrated loads will be considered here. These may be specied

by one of them P and the ratios r11 , r21 , etc. of the other loads to P. The directions

of the loads may be specied by 1 , 2 , etc. A particular stress component at

some point x, y, z, will be given by a relation

D f1 x, y, z, E, , P, , r1 , r2 . . . , r11 , r21 . . . , 1 , 2 . . .

5.26

224

Modeling

assuming isotropy, homogeneity and Hookes law. Since only two primary

variables, or fundamental units, are required here for the measurement of all the

n quantities in Eq. (5.26), force and length, m D 2, and hence n 2 independent

dimensionless products form a complete set of dimensionless products. In the

present case these dimensionless products can be determined intuitively, but will

then also be rederived by a formal systematic approach. Writing the dimensionless

products intuitively, the complete set of dimensionless products consists here of

, E, x/, y/, z/, P/E2 , , r1 , r2 . . . , r11 , r21 . . . , 1 , 2 . . .

5.27

/E D f[x/, y/, z/, P/E2 , , r1 , r2 . . . r11 , r21 . . . , 1 , 2 . . .]. 5.28

Note that Poissons ratio and the other ratios, r1 , r2 etc., are dimensionless

quantities. For the formal determination of the dimensionless products, only one

load P and one dimension x will be considered, for simplicity. Hence there are

n D 6 variables and Eq. (5.26) is replaced by

D f2 x, E, , P, .

5.29

Since only two fundamental units are required here, force and length, one has to

choose m D 2 variables from Eq. (5.29) such that they contain these two dimensions, say E and . One of the variables in Eq. (5.29), Poissons ratio , is already

a nondimensional quantity. Therefore one forms dimensionless products with the

remaining n m 1D 3 variables as follows:

1 D Ea b P

5.30

2 D Ec d .

e f

3 D E x

In terms of the two primary dimensions F, L these products are:

a

F

1 D

L

F

L2

c

F

F

d

.

L

2 D

L2

L2

e

3 D

L

L

2

L

5.31

For 1 , 2 , 3 to be dimensionless, the exponents for each of the primary dimensions must vanish. Hence

L : 2a C b D 0

5.32

F:

aC1D0

yielding a D 1 and b D 2, and

L : 2c C d 2 D 0

F:

cC1D0

5.33

225

L : 2e C f C 1 D 0

F:

eD0

2 D /E

3 D x/

5.34

5.35

and hence

f3 1 , 2 , 3 ,

5.36

5.37

the same process would have yielded an alternative grouping of dimensionless

products instead of Eq. (5.35).

only changes the unknown function of the products . 5.35A

2 D 2 /E

3 D x/

This would give an alternative equation to Eq. (5.37),

N

P/E2 , ].

2 /P D f[x/,

5.37A

With the additional ratios r1 , r2 etc. and the dimensionless products (y/) and

(z/), obtained in the same manner as (x/), Eq. (5.37) would again become

Eq. (5.28). With the grouping of Eq. (5.35A) an alternative equation to Eq. (5.28)

would result,

N

y/, z/, P/E2 , , r1 , r2 . . . , r11 , r21 . . . , 1 , 2 . . .]

2 /P D f[x/,

5.28A

It may be noted, that a more precise formulation of the corollary to Buckinghams

Pi Theorem (or its second part) would be that the number of dimensionless products in a complete set is equal to the total number of variables minus the rank of

their dimensional matrix as stated by Langhaar [5.4]. To apply this formulation

here one would write the dimensional matrix of the n variables of Eq. (5.26) and

nd that the rank1 of this matrix is 2 (see for example [5.10] p. 284). The number of

dimensionless products necessary for a complete set is therefore n 2, as obtained

1 In algebra, the rank of a matrix is said to be r, if the matrix contains a nonzero determinant of order r,

and all determinants of order greater than r that the matrix contains have the value zero.

226

Modeling

all the n variables.

Equation (5.28) is now applied to both model and prototype. For geometric

similarity r1 , r2 , . . . have to be the same for both model and prototype. Making r11 ,

r21 , . . . and 1 , 2 . . ., the same for both means similarity of load distribution, and

making (x/), (y/), (z/) the same means that the stress is measured at the point

in the model corresponding to the equivalent point in the prototype (homologous

points). Complete similarity is obtained when all the independent dimensionless

products of Eq. (5.28) are the same for model and prototype. Then

m /Em D p /Ep

or p D Ep /Em m .

5.38

Pm /Em 2m D Pp /Ep 2p

or Pm /Pp D Em /Ep m /p 2

5.39

5.4.2

and

Hence

5.40

5.41

5.42

It is important to point out here that the displacements have not been assumed to

be small. The similarity rules discussed apply, therefore, also to large deformations

of exible structures (made of a material obeying Hookes law), where the stresses

and displacements are not in general proportional to the loads. For example, very

exible steel springs or thin plates compressed beyond buckling are in this class,

as long as the proportional limit is not exceeded.

The dimensional analysis also shows how curves of data obtained in model

tests should be plotted to apply directly to the prototype. For example, if a stress

is plotted versus a load P, the curve showing ( 2 /P) versus the strain number

(P/E2 ) is a graphical representation of Eq. (5.28A), or the curve of ( /E) versus

(P/E2 ) represents Eq. (5.28). With the similarity conditions being satised, these

curves are identical to the corresponding one obtained from data measured on the

prototype. In elastic structures, the strain number (P/E2 ) has therefore a similar

role to that of the Reynolds number in uid dynamics.

227

If the structure is not all of the same material, one has to include in the list of

variables the moduli E, E1 , E2 , etc., and Poissons ratios , 1 , 2 , etc. Additional

dimensionless groups (E1 /E), (E2 /E), etc., and 1 , 2 , etc., will then appear, which

have to be the same for model and prototype to satisfy the similarity conditions.

For stiff structures, where the deformations do not signicantly affect the action

of the loads, the stresses, strains and displacements are always linear functions

of the load (as follows from the linearity of the basic differential equations and

boundary conditions of the classical theory of elasticity). For such linear structures the dimensional analysis becomes simpler. Since must be proportional to

P, /E in Eq. (5.28) cannot be an unknown function of (P/E2 ), and therefore the

right-hand side of Eq. (5.28) f[. . .] should be independent of the group (P/E2 ).

Hence Eq. (5.28) can be written

/E D P/E2 g1 [x/, y/, z/, , r1 , r2 . . . , r11 , r21 . . . , 1 , 2 . . .] 5.43

and for geometrical and load distribution similarity g1 [. . .] becomes a constant k1 ,

identical for model and prototype, and

/E D k1 P/E2 .

5.44

It should be remembered that when other types of loads are also acting, their portion

of stress can be simply added to Eq. (5.44), since the principle of superposition

holds here.

In the same manner Eqs. (5.40) and (5.41) simplify to

u/ D k2 P/E2

5.45

D k3 P/E2

where also k2 and k3 are the same constants for model and prototype. Note that

since E cancels in Eq. (5.44) it conrms the well known result that stresses (or

forces, like redundant reactions) are independent of Youngs modulus E.

The preceding discussion considered problems of prescribed loads. Alternatively,

certain displacements, dened by a displacement U and the ratios of the others to

it, can be prescribed. The problem then becomes that of determining the stress ,

displacement u and strain e in terms of U, the relevant ratios (assumed to be the

same for model and prototype) and the other variables specifying the structure. In

the same manner as before, dimensional analysis yields expressions for prescribed

displacements

N 1 [U/, x/, y/, z/, , r1 , r2 . . . , ]

/E D f

5.46

u/ D f

N

D f3 [U/, x/, y/, z/, , r1 , r2 . . . , ]

which correspond to Eqs. (5.28), (5.40) and (5.41) for prescribed loads. When

there is no restriction to small deformations, geometrical similarity and identity of

Poissons ratios and (U/) values must be assured. Identity of (U/) values means

that the model must reach a geometrically similar deformed state as the prototype.

Then the stress, displacement and strain of Eqs. (5.46) are identical for model and

228

Modeling

prototype. For linear structures, Eqs. (5.46) simplify, in the same manner as for

prescribed loads, to

/E D K1 U/

u/ D K2 U/

5.47

D K3 U/

where K1 , K2 , K3 are the same constants for model and prototype.

5.5

For loading beyond the proportional and elastic limit, Goodier [5.9] indicated that

the one-dimensional curved stress-strain relations may be expressed in the form

/E D f

5.48

modulus, as for example the initial slope of the curve, and f is a function,

involving suitable numbers, that describes or approximates the measured stressstrain curve. The function f may be for example

/E D m

5.49

curve, where E, and m have to be obtained by tting the experimental curve. In

Figure 5.1 it is shown that such a representation is essentially similar to another

commonly used representation, the Ramberg Osgood method [2.77]:

D /E C /En

5.50

on the experimental curve can be obtained by adding BA horizontally to the linear

stress-strain relation, i.e. D /E C /En , Ramberg-Osgood [2.77], or by

subtracting CA vertically from the linear relation, /E D m , Goodier [5.15]

Buckling Experiments

229

One can note in Figure 5.1 that a typical point A on the experimental curve can

be obtained either by adding BA D /En horizontally (to the linear strain value

at stress A) according to Eq. (5.50), or by subtracting CA D m vertically (from

the linear stress value at strain A) according to Equation (5.49). Equation (5.49)

will remain valid when the unit of stress is changed, since and E will retain

the same ratio. The nonlinear stress-strain relations between all six components of

stress and the six components of strain can in a similar manner be written in terms

of a chosen E and a function f, which consists of numbers that do not change

with change of system of units, as discussed in detail in [5.15].

With the new meaning of E, as expressed by Eq. (5.48), the conclusions

of the previous sections hold, except for the change in the denition of

E. With geometrical similarity, using the alternative formulation Eq. (5.28A),

m 2m /Pm D p 2p /Pp at the same strain number (P/E2 ). For the nonlinear

stress-strain relation there is, however, no freedom of choice of a different material

for the model. The numbers appearing in the stress-strain relation Eq. (5.48) must

be the same for model and prototype. As shown in [5.15], the strict condition of

identical material may be relaxed to a requirement of model material stress-strain

relations being obtainable by an afne transformation from those of the prototype.

If parts of the structure are in the plastic regime, their behavior can still be

represented by a curved stress-strain law. Even if the loading causes the stress at a

point not to increase monotonically, but to alternate increases with decreases, the

similarity is still preserved, provided model and prototype go through the same

strain number (P/E2 ) in the same sequence.

Note that the important nding of Goodier is that, with care and some restrictions, similarity rules are valid also for nonlinear material behavior and in the

plastic regime. Thus their guidance for experimental studies extends also to large

and plastic deformations, as for example in postbuckling studies.

5.6

5.6.1

Buckling Experiments

Similarity Considerations for Buckling

As was pointed out in Section 5.4, curves like ( 2 /P), (u/) or versus the

strain number (P/E2 ) obtained from a model are valid also for the corresponding

prototype, even when the displacements are large. A buckling phenomenon would

appear as a sudden growth of (u/) at a certain value of (P/E2 ). Since the curve

is valid for all geometrically similar elastic structures (made of a material obeying

Hookes law), all these similar structures will buckle in the same manner at the

same strain number (P/E2 ). This can be expressed as

Pcr /E2 D C

5.51

where C is the same dimensionless number for all similar structures. Note that

buckling at a denite strain number is analogous to the onset of turbulence at a

denite Reynolds number in a given type of uid ow.

230

Modeling

Following the arguments of Section 5.5, the conclusion of Eq. (5.51) can be

extended to buckling in the plastic regime, except that now the material has to

be the same for model and prototype. The material and hence E being the same,

both model and prototype will buckle at the same value of (P/2 ), or at the same

critical stress cr .

It may be useful to amplify these arguments, originally presented by Goodier in

[5.9] and [5.15], by a more detailed discussion (following a presentation by Chilver

in [1.12]). Considering the general problem of elastic buckling of a structure,

under a well-dened loading system, it is assumed that buckling can be dened

in some appropriate form, such as the development of gross deformations. Where

the loading is due to some external force, such as an external point load, stress or

pressure, and the critical value of this force at which buckling develops is required,

the dimensional analysis of the problem is relatively simple. It is rst supposed that

the material of the structure is isotropic and homogeneous with Youngs modulus,

E, and Poissons ratio, . Then, for geometrically similar structures, the critical

value of the load, P

5.52

Pcr D fE, ,

where is a typical linear dimension. Dimensional analysis then gives

Pcr /E2 D f.

5.53

Buckling is usually a structural problem at the extremes of the geometric forms, and

in many such cases, as for example slender columns or thin plates, its dependence

on Poissons ratio is weak. For materials of the same Poissons ratio, f can

be replaced by a constant C, which reduces Eq. (5.53) to Eq. (5.51). This will also

hold approximately for the many cases of materials with dissimilar Poissons ratios

where buckling is not strongly dependent on .

5.6.2

Comparing now the elastic buckling behavior of a given structure and that of a

geometrically similar model structure, not necessarily made of the same material,

but of an elastic material of the same Poissons ratio , Eqs. (5.53) or (5.51) yields

the simple scaling law

Pcr.m /Pcr.p D Em /Ep m /p 2

5.54

which is the same as Eq. (5.39) derived for any static load. Hence a small-scale

model, in a relatively exible material, can be used effectively to enable useful

experiments to be carried out at relatively low loads.

If the structures are considered in terms of stresses, the scaling rule is

cr.m / cr.p D Em /Ep

5.55

the same as Eq. (5.38) for any static load. Thus if model and full-size structure

are of the same material, the critical stresses are equal. Note that for complete

Buckling Experiments

231

cr /E D constant C.

5.56

cr /E D cr / y y /E

5.57

where y is the yield stress of the material. Then for geometrical similarity

cr / y m D cr / y p [ y /Ep / y /Em ].

5.58

Hence a suitable choice of material for the model can usually eliminate plastic

buckling effects in the model. The yield stress, or rather the ratio ( y /E) is therefore

of prime importance in designing a model. For example, a high strength steel model

will give, compared with a mild steel prototype,

cr / y m D order f1/5 cr / y p g.

5.59

This means that the high strength steel model will buckle at a stress far below

yielding, whereas it might have been at or beyond yielding in the mild steel

full-scale structure. The model would therefore also permit study of postbuckling

behavior while remaining elastic.

The need to increase ( y /E) to study elastic buckling phenomena, and especially

postbuckling behavior, is reected in the materials used for recent postbuckling

studies. For example, high-strength steel strip and sheet have been used successfully

in the study of the stability of framed structures and at plates. Polyester lms have

been used extensively to study the stability of shells, and many shell buckling

problems have been studied by using electrolytically deposited nickel or copper

shells.

Some typical examples for ( y /E) are:

1. Structural steel

y /E D 0.0013.

2. Medium strength steel (AISI 4130 drawn tubes, used for example in test specimens of stringer-stiffened cylindrical shells [9.206, Volume 2]) y /E D

0.0022.

3. High strength steel (17-7 PH heat treated after hydrospinning, used for

test specimens of ring-stiffened conical shells [9.149, Volume 2]) y /E D

0.0057.

4. Aluminum alloy (7075-T6 drawn tubes used, for example, for test specimens

of stringer-stiffened cylindrical shells [13.52, Volume 2]) y /E D 0.0072.

5. Mylar polyester lms (used, for example, for test specimens of cylindrical

shells [9.263, Volume 2]) y /E D 0.0210.

6. Electroformed nickel (used for test specimens of complete spherical shells

[9.90, Volume 2]) y /E D 0.0018.

The values indicate the relative suitability of the materials for models in postbuckling studies.

232

5.6.3

Modeling

Elasto-Plastic Buckling

the situation becomes more complex for collapse involving inelastic effects. Instead

of the curved strain hardening stress-strain relation assumed in Section 5.5, the

material is now assumed to be sharp yielding, as structural steel, and that strain

hardening after yielding may be ignored. For complete geometric similarity, one

can write

5.60

max D fE, y ,

where max is a maximum external stress of the system, such as the average

compressive stress for collapse of a column or plate, and y is the yield stress.

Weak dependence on Poissons ratio is assumed and is therefore omitted from

Eq. (5.60), though one could include it easily if desired.

In the dimensional analysis, the dimensionless products are determined formally

with Buckinghams Pi theorem. Again only m D 2 fundamental units are required

here, force F and length L, and hence, since the number of variables in Eq. (5.60)

n D 4, n m D 2. Choosing y and as the m D 2 variables from Eq. (5.60), one

forms dimensionless products with the remaining n m D 2 variables as follows:

a

F

F

a b

Lb

1 D y E D

2

2

L c L .

5.61

F

F

c d

d

2 D y max D

L

L2

L2

For 1 , 2 to be dimensionless, the exponent for each of the primary dimensions

must vanish, and this yields a D c D 1 and b D d D 0. Hence

D f1 [E/ y , max / y ]

5.62

N y /E.

max / y D f

5.63

Hence if full-size structure and model are of the same material, max is the same.

Furthermore, where ( y /E) is the same for the full-size structure and the model,

the values of ( max / y ) are the same. Thus when modeling in the same material is

difcult, such a suitable choice of ( y /E) leads to model results, from which max

for the full size structure can immediately be found from

max .p D max .m y.p / y.m .

5.64

In cases where plastic collapse follows the initial development of elastic buckling, some progress can be made by assuming that the elastic buckling stress, cr ,

for a perfectly-elastic material plays a role in determining the maximum stress,

max . Suppose, for complete geometric similarity,

max D f y , cr ,

5.65

Buckling Experiments

233

yields, in a similar manner to Eqs. (5.61) to (5.63),

N y / cr .

max / y D f

5.66

For columns, for example, this suggests a simple interaction curve between

( max / y ) and ( max / cr ) since Eq. (5.66) may be written as

N max / cr y / max .

max / y D f

5.67

Figure 5.2 shows the results of some pin-ended column tests by Chilver [1.12]

on a light-alloy material. Here the yield stress is taken as reasonably well-dened

by the 0.2 percent proof stress of the material. A well-dened interaction curve

emerges between max / y and max / cr , where the right side represents the

region where elastic buckling predominates and the left side the shorter columns

that fail primarily by yielding.

In [1.12], Chilver also examined the collapse stresses obtained on axially

compressed plates, square tubes channel sections, I sections and other open sections

made of a range of materials and observed that Eq. (5.66) was indeed applicable

with relatively small scatter. The appropriate functional form for simply supported

plates was found to be

max / y D fp y / cr 1/2

5.68

with fp nearly a linear relation of y / cr 1/2 . In Figure 5.3 the experimental

collapse stresses of compressed channel sections of different materials (Figure 5

Figure 5.2 Pin-ended column tests on a light-alloy material ( y D 0.2 proof stress), showing

interaction curve between ( max / y ) and ( max / cr ), (from [1.12])

234

Modeling

Figure 5.3 Experimental collapse stresses of axially compressed channel sections and simply

supported plates made of different materials (from [1.12]), , represent channel

plates

sections, and , ,

of different materials (Figure 2 there) to emphasize the applicability even more.

Chilver found that for all the experimental results he examined, the collapse stress

max is indeed a function of the local elastic buckling stress cr , represented approximately by Eq. (5.68).

It should be pointed out that Eqs. (5.66) and (5.68) were derived for a perfectly

elastic-plastic material, which represents structural steels fairly accurately. For

strain-hardening materials, they are only approximate, unless the restrictions of

Section 5.5 apply, i.e. or the material of model and prototype is identical, or the

stress strain curves of the model material can be obtained from those of the prototype material by an afne transformation.

5.6.4

representing typical aeronautical structural elements, which buckle elastically and

plastically, Goodier and Thomson performed in 1944 at Cornell University a series

of experiments on square thin sheets in shear, with or without holes [5.15]. Square

panels of thin 2024 aluminum alloy sheet were tested in a hinged frame made of

relatively rigid angle irons (see Figure 5.4). Three sizes of frames, scaled, relative

to the smallest, in the ratios 3.20, 1.99, 1.00 (and made as nearly geometrically

Buckling Experiments

Figure 5.4 Goodier and Thomsons Cornell University experiments on shear panels

frame (from [5.15]): (a) test setup, (b) details of test frame

235

test

similar as possible), and specimens, with two sizes of central lightening holes or

without, and of ve thicknesses (from 0.02000 to 0.06400 ) were made. The thin

shear panels represented a problem of large displacements extending also beyond

the elastic limit.

If the bars of the hinged frame are taken to be rigid, the variables are: the

diagonal deections , the stresses , the strains , the external shearing load P,

236

Modeling

the geometric variables of the plate, the side of the square a (see Figure 5.4), the

thickness of the sheet t and the diameter of the central hole D, and the material

constants E and , where below the elastic limit E is Youngs modulus, and if

there is plastic deformation or a curved stress-strain relation, E is a dimensional

constant as dened in Section 5.5. Dimensional analysis of the variables, in the

manner discussed earlier, then yields seven dimensionless products (since n D 9

and m D 2 here), which may be written in the form of the following relations:

/a D f1 P/Ea2 , t/a, D/a,

5.69

5.70

/E D f2 P/Ea2 , t/a, D/a,

5.71

D f3 P/Ea2 , t/a, D/a,

Hence, if the model is of the same material as the prototype, the curves of

/a versus the strain number (P/Ea2 ), of ( /E) versus (P/Ea2 ) and of versus

(P/Ea2 ) are the same for all panels in which (t/a) and (D/a) are the same. Here,

since the strain and the diagonal displacement can be measured directly, the

test curves are (/a) and versus the strain number.

The test specimens are arranged in groups with the same (t/a) and (D/a) values,

or very nearly the same, depending on available standard sheet thicknesses. Similarity is conrmed if all members of each group fall on the same dimensionless

curve, as for example one of the curves in Figure 5.5.

Figure 5.5 Goodier and Thomsons Cornell University experiments on shear panels curves

of tensile and bending strains, as well as nondimensional diagonal and lateral

displacements versus the strain number (P/a2 E), here the ordinates, for plates

without holes of three sizes (from [5.15]). Values for the small frames are designated , for the medium sized ones and for the large ones . Similarity is

clearly conrmed in (a) and (c), whereas in (b) and (d) there is more scatter

237

The experiments were carried out by loading the hinged frame, which was

supported laterally, by means of a hydraulic jack (see Figure 5.4a). The diagonal

deection was measured with a mechanical dial gage. Note that is independent

of any rotation of the supporting wall, unless such rotation causes bending of the

frame. The strains were measured with strain gages, which were attached, in plates

without holes, along the center line of the diagonal tension fold, that appears after

buckling. In plates with holes, the strain gages were placed at the edge of the holes

at the positions of maximum bending and maximum tension. The maximum lateral

buckling deection w was measured at the middle of plates without holes, and

in plates with holes at the edge of the hole along a line parallel to the diagonal

tension lines (here at 42 to the horizontal).

In Goodier and Thomsons NACA TN 933 [5.15], curves of tensile strain t ,

bending strain b , nondimensional diagonal displacement (/a) and nondimensional

lateral displacement (w/a) were plotted versus the strain number (P/Ea2 ) for all

the similarity groups. In Figure 5.5 one set of these curves, for plates without

233 (actually 228, 230, 240) is reproduced from that

holes D/a D 0 and t/a D

NACA TN. In the gures, represents measured values for the small frames, x

values for the medium sized frames and o values for the large frames. Similarity is

clearly conrmed in Figures 5.5(a) and (c) for tensile strain and diagonal displacement, while for the bending strain and lateral displacement in (b) and (d) there is

more scatter. This scatter is primarily due to errors of measurement. Indeed the

measurement of lateral deections was pointed out to be unreliable and inuenced

by rotation of frame edges. Also the bending strains were very sensitive to errors in

positioning of strain gages and their relative size. However, as a whole, similarity

was demonstrated in [5.15] by all the curves to a reasonable degree, the scatter

diminishing when the group included only two scaled frames.

Since the tests extended well into the plastic region, the results conrm the

validity of the similarity principles, not only for elastic buckling but also for

inelastic postbuckling behavior.

One notes that in buckling experiments simple dimensional analysis can be a

helpful guide in the design of meaningful experiments and that it can be extended

also to deal with yielding and collapse conditions. One of the weaknesses of

the dimensional analysis approach is that geometric imperfections, which have

a signicant effect on buckling behavior, are not included in it. If a structure is

strongly imperfection sensitive, even careful experiments will demonstrate strong

scatter. The experiments themselves therefore may present an indication or warning

of imperfection sensitivity, even if theoretical consideration have not brought

it out.

5.7

Since dynamic loads are often the cause of buckling of structures, the similarity

and scaling conditions for time-variant problems have also to be considered.

238

5.7.1

Modeling

Free Vibrations

time-variant phenomenon. For geometrically similar systems, the frequency of

any specied natural mode of vibration depends on an overall scale length , and

mass density , Poissons ratio and Youngs modulus E. Hence

D f, , E, .

5.72

p m D 3 fundamental units

and therefore two dimensionless products 1 D /E and , which are found

in the usual manner described in Section 5.2. Hence

f1 /E, D 0

5.73

which can also be written as

1

D

E

f2 .

5.74

Since the vibrations are small, the dependence on Poissons ratio, f2 , may be

approximated by a proportionality relation k. Then Eq. (5.74) can be replaced by

k E

D

.

5.75

The resulting model law is

K D 1,

1

K D

KL

KE

K

5.76

where the K0 s are the relevant scale factors, KL D m /p , etc. The condition K D

1 may often be disregarded, as Poissons ratio has only a negligible effect. If

the model and the prototype are made of the same material, P anyhow and also

KE D K D 1. Then Eq. (5.76) reduces to

K KL D 1

5.77

5.7.2

dynamic loading. The damage (like bending or fracture) at some distance from the

point of collision depends on the mass m and velocity V of the incident body, but

has been found to be practically independent of the size of this body (except for

very high speed impact ballistics). Hence one can assume the same length scale

239

factor for the incident body and the structure. With geometrical similarity the size of

the striking body and the impacted structure are then determined by a characteristic

length . The maximum stress at any point depends therefore on m, V, , the

mass density of the structure and on E and . As discussed in Section 5.5, E

and can also characterize a material with a nonlinear stress-strain behavior, but

the effects of rate of loading were not considered there. For simplicity these strain

rate effects are neglected here, i.e. E and are assumed to be insensitive to strain

rate, but this makes the analysis inapplicable to very high-speed impacts. Hence

D f, , E, , m, V

5.78

There are n D 7 variables, m D 3 fundamental units, and therefore four dimensionless products are yielded by the dimensionless analysis:

3

1 D

mV2

3

E

2 D

.

5.79

mV2

3

3 D

m

4 D

These products are again obtained in the manner described in Section 5.2. One

may note that, as pointed out in Section 5.4, there are alternative groupings of the

dimensionless products, depending on the choice, in the dimensional analysis, of

the variables that contain the fundamental units. These alternative groupings can,

however, be converted from one to another by multiplication or division of the

s by each other. Here, one alternative grouping would be (m/3 ), (E/V2 ),

( /V2 ), . Dividing the second and third product by the rst yields essentially

the same grouping as in Eq. (5.79).

Equations (5.79) can be written as

E3 m

2 3

,

, .

5.80

D mV f1

mV2 3

If the model and the prototype are made of the same material KE D K D K D 1,

Eq. (5.80) yields the following model law:

K D 1,

K D 1,

Km D K3L .

5.81

This implies that a model and its prototype, geometrically similar and made of the

same material, experience the same stresses when impacted by bodies moving at

the same speed V, provided the masses of the striking bodies are proportional to

the linear dimensions of the structures cubed. Note that the model law of Eq. (5.81)

includes the three conditions given in the equation, as well as the requirements of

the same material for model and prototype KE D K D K D 1.

In this case, if the damage is determined by the stresses, the model and prototype

suffer the same overall damage. One may note that, to be precise, only the onset of

240

Modeling

damage is entirely determined by the stresses, whereas its propagation depends also

on the inelastic deformation and failure mechanisms which may scale somewhat

differently. Hence the statement, though valid, may involve some approximation.

In the collision of two model vehicles or ships, for example, the models suffer the

same damage as the full scale vehicles or ships that collide at the same speed as

the models, provided models and prototypes are made from the same material, and

are geometrically similar. One should remember that complete geometric similarity

means here that the masses of the models vary as their linear dimensions cubed,

which satises the last requirement of Eq. (5.81).

For dissimilar materials, for example if two materials are to be used for the

model and the prototype respectively, for which KE D K D and K D 1, the

model law would become

K D KE D K D ,

K D 1,

KV D 1 and Km D K K3L

5.81A

As an example of the model law for dissimilar materials, of the type presented by

Eq. (5.81A), one may consider a half-scale aluminum alloy model of a steel prototype structure. Here Youngs modulus of the model is 0.35 that of the prototype,

Em D 0.35Ep , its mass density is also 0.35 that of the steel prototype, m D 0.35p ,

and Poissons ratio of both steel and aluminum alloy is approximately 0.3. The

model law Eq. (5.81A) becomes therefore for this example:

K D KE D K D 0.35

Km D K K3L D 0.35 0.53 D 0.0438

K D 1 and KV D 1

5.81B

Hence a mass of 0.0438 that striking the prototype, which impacts the aluminum

model with the same velocity, will produce on the model a maximum stress of

0.35 that acting at the corresponding point of the steel prototype.

If the half-scale model and prototype were of the same material, model law

Eq. (5.81) would apply and then a mass of 1/8 that striking the prototype would

cause the same maximum stress on the model as that appearing at the corresponding

point of the prototype.

Strain-rate effects were neglected in the preceding elementary dimensional analysis for impact, but they are signicant for strain-rate sensitive materials, like hot

rolled mild steels (see for example [5.16] [5.19]). Material strain-rate effects do not

scale properly and appear as a size effect, which causes laboratory models to be

stronger than the corresponding full-scale structures (see [5.19], [5.20], or [5.21]).

Other phenomena associated with the impact process, like certain non-linear

load-displacement characteristics of structures, crack propagation and dynamic

tearing, also cause deviations from the elementary geometrical scaling. Detailed

experimental studies have therefore been carried out to examine the validity of

impact scaling laws and to explore the deviations observed (for example [5.22]

to [5.24]).

5.7.3

241

A typical study, aimed at establishing how reliable scale model testing is for

impact loading, is the experimental investigation of Booth, Collier and Miles on

welded steel plate structures [5.23]. They carried out a series of 13 drop tests on

one-quarter scale to full-scale thin plate mild steel and stainless steel structures.

Four types of specimens were tested, two groups of square cellular (eggbox) structures, one group fabricated from mild steel plates and one from stainless steel; and

two groups of plate girders shown in Figure 5.6, both manufactured from mild

steel plates, but one mounted on a 5 inclined baseplate. Each type of structure

was made in three different scales: 1/4, 1/2 and F/S for the eggbox structures,

and 1/3, 2/3 and F/S for the plate girders. One model was repeated. Geometric

similarity was aimed at and quality assurance checks were carried out to achieve

it as far as possible. The specimens of each group were subjected to the same

impact velocity, as required for scaling, by dropping the scaled test weights (their

masses being proportional to the scale cubed, according to Eq. (5.81)) from the

same drop height. From the model law the stresses, and also the strains, will then

be the same. The deformations are the strains multiplied by the relevant length,

which is scaled. Hence the deformed shapes of the specimens should be geometrically similar and proportional to the scale. However, in the tests considerable

deviations from similarity were observed, as shown for example for one group in

Figure 5.7.

For comparison of post-impact deformations, precise pre- and post-impact

measurements were carried out, the principal ones being the axial (vertical)

deformations at 10 points round the edges of the top plates of all specimens, with

additional points for the eggbox specimens. The deformations were normalized

with respect to the values measured on the full scale. The normalized vertical

N are plotted on a log scale in Figure 5.8. If linear scalability

deformations U

applied, these normalized deformations should equal the geometric scale factor

, but in Figure 5.8 it is evident that the measured deformations for the models

are signicantly less.

Since the impact velocity V is the same for all the tests here, and the arresting

length is proportional to the scale , the strain rate P is proportional to 1/. For

the small scale model the strain rate is therefore larger, resulting in a higher ow

(yield) stress for the strain rate sensitive steel. As the energy to be absorbed (the

kinetic energy) per unit volume is the same there, the plastic deformation for the

small scale model should be less.

This strain rate effect is signicant, which is also corroborated by the fact that

the results for the less strain rate sensitive stainless specimens in Figure 5.8 do not

deviate as much as the mild steel ones from linear scalability.

The overall strain rate effect, however, does not sufce to explain quantitatively

the signicant deviations from linear scaling observed in Figure 5.8, as shown by

Calladine (Appendix 6.III of [5.23]) and later by Jones [5.21], who re-evaluated

the test results after an overall compensation for the actual dynamic yield stress.

The corrections were in the right direction, but insufcient.

242

Modeling

(a)

Figure 5.6 Scale model testing for impact loading drop tests on mild steel plate girders by

Booth et al. at Ove Arup and Partners, London. Full scale specimen that was

tested concurrently with its 1/3 and 2/3 scale geometrically similar models (from

[5.23]): (a) Dimensions (in mm) of full scale plate girder, (b) side view of full

scale specimen

243

(b)

One should point out here, that intuitive plots like Figure 5.8 are of limited value,

since they represent arbitrary selections of incomplete groups of variables, which

may work if there is only one signicant dimensionless group. It is preferable

to plot all the proper dimensionless groups (resulting from dimensional analysis)

against one another, then to assess their relative importance, and nally plot only

the principal ones.

In Figure 5.8 apparently other factors, in addition to the overall strain rate factor,

inuence the scaling. For example, the strain rate effect may also have changed

244

Modeling

Figure 5.7 Drop tests by Booth et al. on mild steel plate girders deformed shape of models

and full scale specimen dropped from the same height, producing the same height,

producing the same impact velocity (from [5.23]): (a) 1/3 scale plate girder, (b)

2/3 scale plate girder, (c) full scale plate girder

245

Figure 5.8 Scale model testing for impact loading: Drop tests on steel eggbox specimens and

plate girders by Booth et al. evaluation of scalability of normalized deformations

(from [5.23] with some omissions for clarity). Note that the measured deformations

for the models are signicantly below the linear scalability line

the mode of deformation (see [5.25]) and thus the modal distribution of energy, or

inertia effects may be important.

Calladine and his students, [5.23], [5.26] and [5.27] emphasized the importance

of inertia effects in structures of the type tested by Booth et al. They point out

(in [5.26]) that structures can be classied into two types, type I, for which inertia

effects are insignicant, and type II, for which they are important.

246

Modeling

Figure 5.9 Calladines classication of structures into type I and type II in quasi-static

conditions (from [5.26]): (a) Load-deection curves, and (b) energy-deection

curves for idealized structures, where F represents load, s deection and U energy

absorbed

Typical load-deection curves for the idealized type I and type II structures in

quasi-static conditions are shown in Figure 5.9(a), and the corresponding energydeection curves obtained by their integration are shown in Figure 5.9(b). Type

I has a at-topped load deection curve, and a corresponding linear energydeection curve, whereas type II has a steeply falling load-deection curve, and

a corresponding nonlinear energy-deection relation U / s1/2 . Laterally loaded

beams, plates and shell elements usually exhibit behavior of type I. Behavior of

type II occurs in structures that have a high initial load before buckling initiates, which falls off rapidly after buckling and collapse, like columns or in-plane

compressed curved panels and shells.

The eggbox structures and plate girders tested by Booth et al [5.23] can probably

be classied as type II structures, for which transverse inertia effects are signicant.

These inertia effects are related to the transverse acceleration of the structural

elements and the rapid rotation of the plastic hinges, which are more pronounced

in type II structures. Furthermore, in such structures a substantial fraction of the

incident kinetic energy will be lost in the initial impact and will not be available for

bending deformations of the structure. In [5.27] Tam, under the guidance of Calladine, carried out a careful experimental study on the dynamic collapse mechanism

of typical type II structures. With the aid of high-speed photography, piezoelectric

transducers and pairs of strain gages at different locations, two primary consecutive

stages of energy dissipation were identied. In stage 1, immediately after impact,

energy was lost in inelastic collision between the falling mass and impacted structure by means of axial squashing. During stage 2, the remaining energy of the

falling mass was dissipated within the specimen by means of rotation of the plastic

hinges. The results of the experimental study supported the theoretical concept of

energy loss due to inelastic impact, proposed by Zhang and Yu [5.28] as the mechanism of energy dissipation in type II structures, and served as the basis for the

improved model of [5.27].

Application of dimensional analysis to the dynamic response showed that it is not

possible to maintain the equality of all the independent dimensionless groups [5.27].

247

In particular the different dimensionless groups due to inertia effects and strain-rate

effects cannot be maintained simultaneously. The more important dimensionless

groups for model testing have therefore to be chosen from physical considerations,

as is customary in uid dynamics, but for tests of energy absorbing structures there

is as yet insufcient experience for a judicious choice.

The difference in scaling requirements for inertia effects and for elementary

geometric scaling may provide the missing part to the explanation of the observed

deviations from linear scalability in the tests of Booth et al. (Figure 5.8).

Calladine and English [5.26] tested experimentally two simple types of mild

steel specimens: thick walled tubes compressed between parallel plates and pairs

of joined pre-bent plates (see Figure 5.10a), whose measured load deection

curves approximated type I and II structures respectively. The results presented

in Figure 5.10b show clearly that, whereas the quasi-static deections (Vo D 0)

of the two types of structures are nearly equal, their dynamic deections differ

signicantly. The dynamic deections of the type II specimens are much less than

those of the corresponding type I specimens indicating a stiffening inertia effect

Figure 5.10

and during deformation and method of loading for type I and type II structures,

(b) experimental results obtained by Calladine and English for the two types of

structures. The kinetic energy delivered was kept constant at 122 J (from [5.26])

248

Modeling

in the dynamic behavior of type II structures. A similar but more extensive test

program was later carried out by Tam and Calladine [5.27], which also included

scaled specimens. The results of the experimental investigations in [5.27] conrm

the different dynamic behavior of the two types of structures and the scaling

difculties inherent in type II structures.

In the test program of [5.27], the mild steel specimens were very nearly identical

to those shown in Figure 5.10. 186 specimens were tested, 36 representing type I

structures and 150 representing type II structures, of which 85 were geometrically

scaled to 1.56 of the original or approximately so, and 23 were made of aluminum

alloy. As a result of a limitation on the amount of kinetic energy that could be

delivered from the drop-hammer to the specimens, the width of the up-scaled mild

steel specimens did not scale according to the geometric scale-factor. It was shown,

however, that the mode of collapse was independent of the width of the specimens

and hence the scaling of the width could be relaxed.

To facilitate comparison of the behavior of the two types of structures and of

scale effects in the dynamic test results, a dimensional analysis was carried out in

[5.27]. In order to incorporate the load-deection characteristics of the structure

into the formulation, the quasi-static energy deection-curves (like Figure 5.9) were

used to interpret the nal shortening of structure in the dynamic tests. The quasistatic energy, which would be required to give the same nal shape as that in the

structure tested dynamically, is dened as a new parameter SE. This parameter

accounts for the load-deection characteristics and also, as a rst approximation,

for the strain-hardening effects. The ratio (KE/SE), the ratio of the kinetic energy

used in the dynamic test to the quasi-static energy required to give the same

nal deformed shape of the structure tested dynamically, emerges therefore as an

indicative parameter.

For the S1 specimens, representing type I structures the ratio (KE/SE) was

found to depend more strongly on the impact velocity Vo than on the mass ratio

(between hammer and specimen). This suggests that indeed the strain-rate effects

must dominate the dynamic behavior of type I structures. For the S2 specimens,

representing type II structures, the ratio (KE/SE) was found in [5.27] to depend

more strongly on than on Vo , which suggests that inertia effects indeed dominate

the deformation process in type II structures. Furthermore, for type I structures the

ratio (KE/SE) was found to increase with increasing impact velocity Vo . This

points again, in type I structures, to the important role of strain-rate effects, which

are augmented with Vo and reduce the dynamic deections. For the same deection,

requiring the same SE, more KE is therefore required with growing Vo , yielding

the observed increase in (KE/SE) with increasing Vo .

On the other hand, for type II structures the ratio (KE/SE) was found to increase

with decreasing mass ratio and decrease slightly with increasing impact velocity

Vo . This behavior of the type II structures emphasizes the role of the inertia effects,

which are augmented with increase in the mass of the structure, i.e. decrease in

, and thus reduce the dynamic deections. For the same deections, requiring

the same SE, more KE is therefore needed for smaller m, yielding the observed

increase in (KE/SE) with decreasing (see Figure 5.11). Also, for the same KE

Figure 5.11

249

structures comparison of experimental results with theory (from [5.27]):

(a) mild steel 0.64 scale models S2a, (b) mild steel full scale prototype S2c

specimens. In the tests both mass ratio and impact velocity Vo were varied. The

data points in the gure are experimental values of the ratio of kinetic energy to

quasi-static energy (KE/SE), while the solid lines represent (KE/T2 ) from theory

(T2 being the energy available for rotation of plastic hinges, which in the absence

of strain rate effects would be equal to SE). For clarity, only values for two typical

mass ratios have been plotted in the gures

an increase in Vo means a smaller hammer mass G, which for the same requires

a smaller structure mass m. Thus an increase in Vo reduces the inertia effects

(which depend on m), permitting larger dynamic deections that would require a

larger SE to reach them. The result would be the observed decrease in (KE/SE)

with Vo for type II structures (which can also be seen in Figure 5.11).

250

Modeling

The aluminum alloy type II specimens, tested in [5.27], exhibited similar trends,

of increase in (KE/SE) with decreasing and decrease in (KE/SE) with increasing

Vo , as observed in the mild steel specimens. Since aluminum alloy is strain-rate

insensitive over a wide range of strain rates, this substantiates the role of inertia

effects in the dynamic behavior of type II structures.

For the same amount of kinetic energy delivered to S1 (type I) specimens and to

S2a (type II) specimens, even though the quasi-static deections are approximately

equal, the dynamic deections of S2a specimens were found (in [5.27]) to be

considerably less than those of the S1 specimens.

For the type II specimens scalability was also studied. In Figure 5.11 (which

is taken from Figure 5.10a and 5.10b of [5.27]) the ratio (KE/SE) versus Vo is

plotted for the type II S2a and S2c specimens at two typical mass ratios D 245.3

and D 409.0. Specimens S2a represent the models here at a scale of 0.64 of the

prototypes S2c, though, as pointed out, the width of the specimens was not scaled

geometrically. One notes that the values of (KE/SE) are larger for the model

than for the prototype, and therefore the deections are smaller for the model. For

example, at Vo D 4 m/sec and D 245.3,

KE/SEmodelS2a D 1.70

and

KE/SEprototypeS2c D 1.53

Since here Vo and G are identical (for an identical and mmodel D mprototype , as

a result of the width limitation in these tests, Gmodel D Gprototype ) the KE energy

imparted is the same. Therefore the ratio of the quasi-static energy SE, required

for the same nal shape as that in the dynamic tests, is

SEmodel

1.53

D

D 0.90.

SEprototype

1.70

p

The quasi-static energy SE is proportional to u and hence the ratio of deections

is for these conditions,

SEmodel 2

umodelS2a

'

D 0.81.

uprototypeS2c

SEprototype

The model deection relative to its scale D 0.64 (height or thickness) is therefore 0.81 0.64 D 0.52 that of the prototype. If simple linear scaling applied, the

relative deection of the model would have been 0.64 that of the prototype.

Comparison of this experimental relative deection obtained here, in this example

from Tams tests [5.27], with the corresponding deection ratio 0.475 that would

appear from the results of Booth et al [5.23] presented in Figure 5.8, shows a

similar magnitude. This indicates that the structures tested in [5.23] exhibit a similar

behavior to those of [5.27], that of type II structures, with the accompanying scaling

problems.

The experiments of Booth et al and the work by Calladine and his students point

out some of the difculties of model testing for impact loading. It is evident that, in

251

spite of the recent clarication of the physical process, additional experimental and

theoretical investigations of scaling of dynamically loaded structures are warranted,

in particular of type II, since at present no comprehensive rules for scaling of such

structures can be formulated. This need has also been stressed by other authors

(see for example [5.21]), and further studies in this direction have been and are

being carried out.

5.7.4

A recent similarity study carried out on thin plates subjected to impulsive normal

loading, a commonly encountered case of dynamic loading, presents another good

example of the use of dimensionless parameters for providing prediction guidelines.

In their review of experimental investigations on impulsively loaded thin plates

Nurick and Martin [5.29] compared the data collected with the aid of dimensionless

numbers. First they tried Johnsons dimensionless damage number [5.30]:

D

V2

5.82

where , V and are, as before, the material density of the plate, the impact

velocity and the maximum stress respectively ( being denoted here as d the

damage stress). Note that of Eq. (5.82) can be obtained from the dimensionless

products obtained earlier in Eq. (5.79), since from there

3 /1 D [3 /m/ 3 /mV2 ] D V2 / D .

5.82A

predicts an order of magnitude deformation, characterizing the regime of response

behavior. Since does, however, not consider the method of impact, the target

geometry and dimensions, and the interpretation of the damage stress, considerable

variations appear, as can be seen in Figure 5.12 (reproduced from [5.29]) which

shows a plot of deection-thickness ratios for circular plates of varying dimensions

and material properties. The abscissa in this gure is the square root of Johnsons

damage number written in terms of impulse

0 D

I2

I20

D

t2

A20 t2

5.83

where I is the total impulse, A0 is the area of the plate over which the impulse is

imparted, I0 D I/A0 and t is the thickness of the plate. One may note that since

the impulse imparted I D VA0 t,

0 D

I2

V2 2 A20 t2

V2

D

D

D .

A20 t2

A20 t2

5.83A

different investigations, with less variations than those in Figure 5.12, Nurick and

252

Modeling

Figure 5.12

versus square root of Johnsons damage number for different plate geometries

and loading conditions (from [5.29]). The lines represent the least squares t to

the respective data: (1) Nurick et al. [5.30], R D 50 mm, t D 1.6 mm, mild steel

uniformly loaded; (2) Wierzbicki and Florence [5.31], R D 50 mm, t D 6.3 mm,

mild steel uniformly loaded; (3) Bodner and Symonds [5.32], R D 32 mm, in (a),

(c), (d) t D 1.9 mm, mild steel, in (b) t D 2.3 mm, titanium; (a), (b) uniformly

loaded, (c) loaded R0 /R D 1/2, d loaded R0 /R D 1/3)

damage number

D

5.84

incorporates geometry factors

D [0 A0 /A2 ]1/2

5.85

where A is the total area of the plate and is a number dened by the geometry

of the plate (e.g. in a rectangular plate is the ratio of length to breadth, or in a

circular plate D 1). is the relationship between the distance from the center of

the plate to the nearest boundary and the plate thickness (e.g. for a circular plate

D R/t). A loading parameter , which accounts for the effect of partial loading

is also included in . For circular plates it is assumed to be

D 1 C lnR/R0

5.86

where R0 is the radius of the loaded area (e.g. for uniform loading over the full

area of the plate D 1).

A dimensionless plot of central deection-thickness ratio versus the modied

damage number for experimental results on circular plates is shown in Figure 5.13

(reproduced from [5.29]). The data are for steel, titanium and aluminum plates,

some with partial and some with uniform loading, from the tests of [5.31] [5.33]

Figure 5.13

253

versus the modied damage number c , for steel, titanium and aluminum plates,

showing least squares correlation (solid line) bounded each side by a one

deection-thickness ratio (broken lines) condence limit (from [5.29]). Most of

the data points lie within these bounds

and some others cited in [5.29]. The experimental results in Figure 5.13 are bounded

on either side of the least square t by a one deection-thickness ratio condence

limit, and most of the data points lie within these bounds. A similar good t within

such bounds was shown in [5.29] also for rectangular plates.

The modied damage number proposed by Nurick and Martin appears therefore to be a reliable dimensionless parameter for scaling of plates subjected to

impulsive normal loading.

For example, for circular plates, the geometry number D 1 by denition, and

the scalability requirement is

1/2

1/2

5.87

254

Modeling

m D Rm /tm D Rp /tp D p

and for loading similarity

m D p .

5.88

5.89

Substituting 0 from Eq. (5.83A) into Eq. (5.87) yields, with Eqs. (5.88)

and (5.89),

1/2

1/2

m D Im / m1/2 m

A0m /A0m tm R02 D Im / m1/2 1/m

tm R02 D p .

5.90

m / p D Im /Ip 2 tp /tm 2 Rp /Rm 4 .

5.91

m / p D Im /Ip 2 22 24 D Im /Ip 2 .

5.91A

An impulse of (1/8) the prototype impulse will therefore result in the same

damage stress in a half scale similar model of the same material as in the prototype

structure.

5.7.5

which very often necessitates small scale model tests. Hence extensive efforts have

been devoted to derivation of appropriate model laws and their verication by

experiments (see for example [5.34] [5.45]). Baker, Westine and Dodge summarized in their book [5.34] the experience and state of the art (in 1973) of scale

modeling of structures subjected to blast loading. They also presented detailed

methodologies for the application of dimensional analysis to a broad spectrum of

dynamically loaded structures.

As mentioned earlier, the modeling employed in the response of structures to

blast loading can be either replica modeling (geometric similarity with identical

materials) or dissimilar material modeling (geometric similarity with different

materials). Before scaling the response of the structure, a blast scaling law has

to be derived. Such a law is Hopkinsons blast scaling law, rst formulated in

1915 [5.36], and derived in detail in [5.34]. It implies that, if the same materials

(explosive and uid medium through which the blast wave is transmitted) are

employed in model and prototype and geometric similarity is ensured, the pressure,

velocity, density, etc. are identical at homologous times and locations. As shown in

the derivation in Chapter 4 of [5.34], the time scales in Hopkinsons law directly

as the length scale factor , or

KT D KL .

5.92

Hopkinsons blast scaling has been conrmed experimentally by many investigators

over a wide range of distances and explosive source energies, as pointed out in

255

Chapter 4 of [5.34]. Other blast scaling laws which have been proposed are also

discussed there, with one, Sachs scaling law [5.37], being a generalization of

Hopkinsons law which accounts for changes in ambient conditions, like altitude.

Sachs law has also been veried by many tests.

The scaling of the small-deection elastic response of structures to blast loading

was rst presented by Brown [5.38] for replica modeling. Following [5.35], the

modeling can be described by imagining the following experiment: An energy

source of characteristic dimension d is initiated a distance R from an elastic structure of characteristic dimension L, producing a transient pressure loading on the

structure of amplitude P and duration T, and causing the structure to respond

in its natural modes of vibration with periods 1 , 2 , . . . , n , and corresponding

displacements amplitudes X1 , X2 , . . . , Xn (see Figure 5.14). Strain-time histories

Figure 5.14

(a) blast wave scaling, (b) scaling of response to blast wave

256

Modeling

of response of the structure are characterized by the periods n and the corresponding strain amplitudes en . Let the entire experiment be scaled geometrically

by a scale factor , making the energy source of characteristic dimension d and

locating the structure of characteristic dimension L at a distance R from the

source. Then, replica modeling predicts that the pressure loading on the structure

will be similar in form to that obtained in the rst (full-scale) experiment, with

amplitude P and duration T; and that the structural response will also be similar in

character, with the natural periods being 1 2 , . . . , n and displacement amplitudes X1 X2 , . . . , Xn , and strain amplitudes e1 , e2 , . . . , en (see Figure 5.14b).

The blast scaling is Hopkinsons blast (scaling as shown in Figure 5.14a).

In the analysis summarized in this conjectured experiment, gravity effects in

both uid and solid media were neglected, as well as heat conduction and viscosity

effects in uid media and strain-rate effects in solid media.

Baker showed in [5.35] that the replica modeling, which applies to the smalldeection response of elastic structures, describes the large-deection response as

well, with similar neglects. He also showed there, by arguments similar to those

presented in Section 5.5, that replica modeling should also apply to elastic-plastic

response of structures to blast loading.

There has been extensive experimental verication of the replica structural

response law summarized in Figure 5.14, for small-deection and large-deection

elastic response, as well as for elastic-plastic response.

A typical example for elastic response modeling are the tests of Hanna, Ewing

and Baker on four geometrically scaled model steel containment shells for nuclear

reactors subjected to internal blast [5.39]. The shells were thin-walled cylindrical

shells (R/t D 240) with hemispherical ends of 1/8, 1/4, 1/2 and full scale. Geometrically similar charges were detonated at homologous locations within the shells

and strains were measured with 16 strain gages located at homologous positions

and at the same orientations. The shells were half buried to assess the effect of

earth support. Peak strains for homologous locations on the shells were in general

similar, and the records obtained at scaled times showed similarity between corresponding traces. The results of the study veried that the elastic response of each

shell could be predicted from measurements of the response of any other model

shell, with the aid of the replica model laws for structural response.

Another example of replica modeling of elastic response is the study by Denton

and Flathau of semicircular buried arches, of 1/3, 2/3 and full-scale, subjected to

external over-pressures [5.40]. Peak strains and deections were measured and the

results scaled quite well.

Baker [5.35] and Ewing and Hanna [5.41] studied larger-deection response of

slender cantilever beams to blast loading. The beams were made of 6061 aluminum

alloy and were of 1/4, 1/2 and full-scale. Small-deection and large-deection

elastic response, as well as permanent plastic deformation, were measured and the

results veried the predictions of the replica model laws also for large elastic and

plastic response to blast loading.

The application of replica response modeling to explosive forming, which

involves large plastic deformations, has been veried experimentally on aluminum

257

specimens by Ezra and his co-workers [5.42] and [5.43]. Its application to punchimpact loading has been veried for mild- and stainless-steel plates by Duffy

et al. [5.24], by comparison of half- and full-scale tests (with maximum scaled

differences within 10 percent).

In order to allow more freedom in dynamic model testing, replica response

modeling laws have been extended to dissimilar material modeling, where the

dissimilar materials are restricted here to materials possessing constitutive similarity, i.e. having identical (or nearly identical) stress-strain curves, as for example

the annealed brass and annealed aluminum in Figure 5.15 (reproduced from [5.44]).

Though dissimilar material modeling had been used before, it was rst systematically studied and veried by Baker and Westine in 1969 [5.44]. The general blast

response scaling law for dissimilar material structures differs from replica scaling

in that the requirements on the model and prototype materials are now

/0 m D /0 p

5.93a

i /Em D i /Ep

5.93b

i /Ci m D i /Ci p

5.93c

E/a0 m D E/a0 p

5.93d

where, is the density of the material, 0 the density of the ambient atmosphere, i the stresses, E the elastic modulus of the material, Ci its plastic moduli

and a0 is the sound velocity in the ambient atmosphere. From Eq. (5.93a) it is

apparent that testing in identical atmospheres requires identical materials, whereas

Figure 5.15

Bakers modeling of blast response to structures stress-strain curves for materials possessing constitutive similarity used in shock-tube tests of cylindrical shells

(from [5.35])

258

Modeling

Equations (5.93b) and (5.93c) are the requirements of constitutive similarity, and

if model and prototype are tested at the same temperature (yielding the same

a0 ), Eq. (5.93d) requires equality of the ratios E/ for model and prototype. This

requirement that KE D K can often be satised, as shown in the example of an

aluminum alloy model for a steel prototype earlier in this section (see Eq. (5.81b)).

Baker and Westine [5.44] veried the dissimilar materials blast response scaling

law experimentally for clamped-end cylindrical shells and for cantilever beams. The

cylindrical shell prototypes for air-blast loading under sea-level ambient conditions

were of heat-treated Inconal X (an iron-nickel-cobalt alloy), while the model shells

1/3p ), and were blast loaded in a

were of 6061-T6 aluminum alloy (with m D

1/3 density atmosphere, as required by Eq. (5.93a). (E/) for model and prototype

materials are practically equal, as required by Eq. (5.93d), and their stress-strain

curves are very similar, satisfying Eqs. (5.93b) and (5.93c) approximately. Another

series of clamped cylindrical shells were subjected to long-duration blast loading

in a shock tube, the test being in the quasi-static regime, where the model law

only dictates geometric similarity and constitutive similarity for the materials. In

these tests the prototypes were made of annealed aluminum alloy and the 1/3

scale models of annealed brass, the two materials having very similar stress-strain

curves indeed (see Figure 5.15). The correlation between model and prototype

structural response was generally good for the cylindrical shells, and even better

for the cantilever and pin-ended beams tested in a similar manner (see [5.44]),

except for the comparison between steel prototype beams and lead-plastic models

(for which constitutive similarity was not preserved, on account of a steep strainhardening of the lead-plastic). For the cylindrical shells there is signicant scatter

in the results due to the failures being caused by buckling, for which in cylindrical

shells scatter is usual, on account of their sensitivity to initial imperfections. For

the quasi-static regime experiments, the internally trapped air was not properly

scaled and the internal pressure in the aluminum prototype was too high, which

stiffened their postbuckling behavior and reduced their inelastic response. But, in

spite of the scatter, the results of all the experimental investigations carried out

by Baker and Westine, demonstrated clearly that elastic-plastic structural response

modeling with dissimilar materials is feasible and permits a signicant broadening

of response modeling techniques.

One may note that scale modeling of structures subjected to impulsive normal

loading or to blast loading appears to yield fairly reliable results, which were

veried by a considerable spectrum of experiments. This seems at rst surprising

in view of the difculties in scaling of dynamically loaded structures experienced by

Booth et al. [5.23] and by Calladine and his students, [5.26] and [5.27]. But a closer

study of the experimental investigations summarized in [5.29] and [5.34], shows

that these tests deal with type I structures, according to Calladines classication,

whose behavior agrees well with the scaling laws, whereas the difculties and

signicant discrepancies arise in type II structures.

An additional verication of the scalability of type I mild steel structures

subjected to dynamic lateral loads, was presented by two series of preliminary

259

scaled experiments carried out by Donelan and Dowling [5.45] in preparation for

drop tests on Magnox fuel transport asks. Models of 1/3, 1/2 and full scale were

employed and the dynamic behavior could indeed be obtained from the models.

One can therefore conclude that scaling under dynamic loading of type I structures can be employed with condence, whereas for type II structures no comprehensive scaling rules can yet be formulated and further studies are needed to

develop such reliable rules. It is therefore important to study the quasi-static

load-deection behavior of the structure to be scaled, before one embarks on the

application of geometrical scaling for dynamic loading. Furthermore, as pointed

out by Jones in [5.21] and [5.46], this conclusion applies only to ductile dynamic

response whereas geometrical scaling does not apply when tearing, cutting or

ductile-brittle transitions occur during a structural response.

5.8

5.8.1

Problems in Scaling of Laminated Composites

Laminated ber composite structures are widely used in modern aerospace, marine

and automotive vehicles, on account of their high strength- and stiffness-to-weight

ratios. Since no design data base, comparable to that available for steel and

aluminum structures, has yet been assembled, the designers have to resort to extensive testing. Full scale prototype testing is, however, very expensive, especially

with advanced composites, which has motivated scale-model testing and development of scaling rules, aimed at making the interpretation of the model tests more

reliable.

Advanced ber reinforced composite materials consist of thin, stiff, strong bers

(for example, carbon, boron, glass or aramid bers), with diameters of about

6 20 m (0.00015 0.0005 in.) embedded in a comparatively low performance

matrix. The usual matrix materials are thermosetting resins (primarily epoxy resins)

or thermoplastic resins (like polyetheretherketone PEEK or polyethersulphone

PES). The material is built up of laminae, each having a thickness of about 0.13 mm

(0.005 in.) and a specied direction of the bers. This lamina thickness has become

a standard for Graphite Epoxy composites and many others, so that the thickness

of laminates is usually specied only in terms of the number of laminae in the

lay-up.

For similarity, scaling of composite structures should ideally include also scaling

of the microstructure of the material, namely, laminae thickness and ber diameter

should also be scaled. This is practically impossible, as pointed out by Morton

[5.47] who studied the scaling of laminated ber composites very extensively.

When damage occurs, the inability to scale the laminae and bers presents a serious

limitation on the modeling of laminated composites, since there are frequent interactions between microstructural and macrostructural properties. But for overall

structural response, prior to substantial damage, scaling rules that do not scale

the microstructure sufce, even in the case of impact loading, as was shown by

260

Modeling

([5.47] [5.51] and [5.53], [5.54], respectively).

5.8.2

Morton derived such scaling rules for laminated beams subjected to transverse

impact loading using dimensional analysis [5.47], and similar scaling rules were

derived by Qian and Swanson [5.53] from the differential equations governing the

impact response of transversely impacted orthotropic laminated plates.

These rules show that if the geometry of the beams or plates is scaled as

(assuming that the lay-up can be scaled, which in practice is only rarely feasible),

the maximum strain in the beams or plates is constant with scaling if the impact

velocity V is unchanged. Also the contact force scales as 2 , and if the contact area

scales geometrically the contact pressure (or stress) is unchanged. If the impactor

also scales geometrically, the impact mass scales as 3 . The time of response will

also be scaled, the time to maximum load and strain scaling as . It is assumed that

the same material is being used in model and prototype. Note that the events in a

smaller model ( < 1) will therefore appear to occur faster than in the prototype.

For example, a 1/5 scale model will reach its maximum strain in 1/5 the time it

takes the prototype to do so.

In terms of scale factors, the model law is, as in Eq. (5.81),

K D 1, KV D 1, Km D K3L

with KT D KL and K D 1,

5.81A

where KL D and T represents the time of response and the strain, and with the

requirements for the same material now being KEij D Kij D K D 1, where Eij

and ij are the equivalent directional elastic properties of the laminate (assuming

appropriate scaling of the lay-ups).

The scaling laws are essentially the same as those derived in Section 5.7 for the

impact of a rigid body on a structure, summarized in Eq. (5.81), or as the replica

structural response law for blast loading, summarized in Figure 5.14b. Hence, prior

to signicant damage, the model laws for the overall structural response of laminated ber composite structures are unaffected by the nature of their microstructure.

This conclusion for dynamically loaded structures will certainly hold also for statically loaded ones (assuming again appropriate lay-up scaling).

5.8.3

When substantial damage occurs, matters are more complicated, since the failure

mechanisms of laminated composites are not yet well understood. As pointed out

by Morton [5.47], different damage mechanisms may appear, including ber fracture, delamination and matrix cracking, and there are frequent interactions between

micro- and macrostructural properties. All damage modes start on a microscopic

261

scale and eventually interact with the macroscopic scale on a laminate level. For

example, a matrix microcrack may grow across a lamina until it reaches the interlaminar boundary, and then either delamination or ber fracture occurs, or both.

Furthermore, the notch-sensitivity of laminated composites, depends not only

on the sensitivity of each lamina, but also on the lay-up of the laminae. Also

the rate-sensitivity depends on the bers (for example, glass and aramid bers

are highly rate-sensitive, whereas carbon bers are rate-insensitive), on the matrix

(thermoplastics being more rate-sensitive than the epoxy resins), and on the lay-up

of the laminae.

Hence the scale modeling of laminated composite structures when substantial

damage occurs is complex, the choice of scaling parameters is difcult and extensive testing is required to establish guidelines for this choice. As yet, few tests have

been performed and insufcient information is available for appropriate scaling

guidelines.

Morton [5.47] tested a series of scaled laminated composite beams, supported

on rollers and impacted centrally by a free falling mass. The specimens were

fabricated from unidirectional carbon/epoxy (AS4/3502) prepreg in four types

of lay-ups: A 902C2 ; B C45C1 , 45C1 s ; C 90C1 , 0C1 s ; and D quasiisotropic 45 , 90 , 45 , 0 s . The scaled laminates were produced with D 1, 2

and 3 (8-, 12- and 16-ply), except the quasi-isotropic lay-up, which was only made

with D 1, 2 (8- and 16-ply). The beam dimensions and impactor shape and mass

were scaled approximately according to the scaling laws (5.81A). The use of the

same prepreg material and forming the lay-ups by scaling as indicated, with sufcient number of plies for each orientation, ensured the similarity of elastic behavior

in all the scale models.

From recorded strain output traces (strain versus time), the duration of impact

and the maximum strain were obtained as output parameters. The duration of

impact should scale with the scale factor , and therefore the measured durations

divided by should be constant. The results satised this requirement within 10

percent as is shown for example in Figures 5.16(a) (d), reproduced from [5.47].

The differences in the elastic parts of Figures 5.16(a) (c) is attributed primarily to

departure from scaling in the thickness of the beams, since the molded thicknesses

of the laminates did not scale exactly, though the number of plies did. For the

quasi-isotropic laminates (lay-up D), on the other hand, the scaling of the molded

thickness was nearly exact and therefore the elastic parts of Figure 5.16(d) practically coincide, as expected. An elastic analysis in [5.47] predicts that the impact

durations should be independent of the impact velocity, which is conrmed by

the test results in Figure 5.16. Deviations from the behavior indicates the initiation of impact damage, which invalidates the scaling laws and the elastic analysis

employed in predicting the behavior.

When damage occurs signicant size effects appear. Figure 5.16 clearly shows

that damage occurs at higher impact velocities in the smaller specimens than in

the corresponding larger ones. In general, small scale models are observed to

be stronger than their respective prototypes and to carry proportionally higher

post-damage loads. This is probably due to macrostructural fracture effects, which

Scaled normalized impact durations for composite beams at various normalized impact velocities (from [5.47]): (a) lay-up A, (b) lay-up

B, (c) lay-up C, (d) lay-up D

Modeling

Figure 5.16

262

Theory and Practice

263

tentatively indicate that the absolute size of matrix cracks rather than their scaled

size are important in laminated composites, and hence are more detrimental in the

large prototype than in its model.

Similar agreement with scaling law predictions was found for the normalized

impact force in the elastic part, and similar deviations after impact damage occurs

were observed, with small scale models being consistently stronger.

In similar studies on the response of Graphite Epoxy beam columns by Jackson

and Fasanella [5.48] [5.51] the emphasis was on large deection response. First

the scaling effects in static large deection response was studied and then the

scaling in similar dynamic responses was investigated. The scaled beams were

loaded in a beam-column fashion by an eccentric axial load (see Figure 5.17).

This structural conguration, though simple, possessed such interesting features as

large deections, combined tensile and compressive loading, and global failures.

The beams were made of a high modulus graphite ber and an epoxy matrix

system designated as AS4/3502, in four different laminate stacking sequences:

unidirectional, angle ply, cross ply and quasi-isotropic. The full scale beam was

3 in. (7.62 cm) wide, with a 30 in. (76.2 cm) gage length and 48 plies thick, with

an average ply thickness of 0.0054 in. (0.137 mm).

For the static tests, the scale model beams were constructed by applying seven

different geometric scale factors, 1/6, 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, 3/4 and 5/6 to the full

Figure 5.17

beams test setup (from [5.48]): (a) schematic drawing of the exural test

conguration, (b) details of the scaled hinge-beam attachment

264

Modeling

scale beam dimensions (see Figure 5.18). The thickness dimension was scaled

by reducing the number of layers in each angular ply group of the full scale

laminate stacking sequence, which consisted of at least six plies of similar orientation. Using this approach, it was not possible to make a 1/2 or 3/4 scale quasiisotropic beam.

Figure 5.18

scaled beams, 1/6 scale to full scale (from [5.50]): (a) failed unidirectional beams,

(b) failed quasi-isotropic beams

265

It should be noted that ideally, in true replica models of the prototypes, the

microstructure should also be scaled. This would involve scaling of the individual

lamina thicknesses and ber diameters for each scale model, which is not practical.

Scaling by reduction of number of layers was therefore used as an approximation.

The beams were machined from panels which were hand layed-up from prepreg

tape and cured according to manufacturers specications. Slight variations were

observed in the thickness dimensions of the cured specimens, the maximum deviation in normalized thickness being 6 percent. For each laminate type and size of

beam, three replicate tests were carried out.

For the impact tests, 1/2, 2/3, 3/4, 5/6 and full scale beams were fabricated,

and the specimens with the scaled eccentric hinges of Figure 5.19 were placed and

loaded in a drop-tower (described in detail in [5.49] and [5.50]).

For the statically loaded beams, the normalized load versus end displacement

plots (the vertical load was normalized by the corresponding Euler buckling load

Figure 5.19

tested 1/2 scale and full scale beams (from [5.49] or [5.50]): (a) dynamically

failed unidirectional beams, (b) dynamically failed quasi-isotropic beams

266

Modeling

Figure 5.20

normalized load versus end displacement for statically loaded scaled beams, 1/6

scale to full scale (from [5.50]): (a) unidirectional beams, (b) quasi-isotropic beams

and the end displacement by the gage length) were plotted for the four lay-ups. The

curves for the unidirectional and quasi-isotropic beams, shown in Figure 5.20, and

those for cross ply beams and angle ply specimens (shown and discussed in [5.48]

and [5.50]) which are roughly similar, indicate that the response scales well at small

end displacements for all lay-ups. The unidirectional (Figure 5.20a) and cross ply

beam responses scaled as predicted by the model law even at large displacements,

267

whereas for angle ply and quasi-isotropic beams (Figure 5.20b) some deviation

from scaled response was observed, due to damage initiation.

Jacksons experiments therefore verify and amplify the earlier conclusions of

Morton [5.47] about the scalability of the elastic or small deection structural

response of composite structural elements. Also in the dynamic tests the initial

response scaled adequately for all the lay-ups. For the unidirectional beams the load

and strain responses also scaled according to the model law at large deections

(see for example Figure 5.21a), but for angle ply, cross ply and quasi-isotropic

beams scaling of load and strain histories, at large deections, was found to be

inconsistent (see for example Figure 5.21b). The deviations from scaled response

at large deections were observed to depend on the laminate stacking sequence.

The models (in [5.48] [5.50]) were tested until failure. In general, failure modes

were consistent between scale models within a laminate family, both for static

loading (see, for example, Figures 5.18(a) and (b)) and for dynamic loading (see

Figures 5.19(a) and (b)). However, a signicant scale effect was observed in

strength, as can also be clearly seen in the normalized load versus end displacement

curves (Figures 5.20(a) and (b)), where the smaller scale model beams failed at

Figure 5.21

versus scaled time plots for scaled dynamically loaded beams, 1/2 scale and full

scale (from [5.50]): (a) unidirectional beams, (b) quasi-isotropic beams

268

Modeling

higher normalized loads and much higher normalized end displacements than their

full scale prototypes. Since the usual failure theories for composites cannot predict

this scale effect, there appears to be a scale effect in the failure behavior, as was

also pointed out by Morton [5.47]. A similar scale effect in strength was also

observed in the dynamic tests, [5.49] and [5.50].

This strength scale effect was also studied by Kellas and Morton in an extensive series of tensile tests on replica model bars [5.52]. The specimens were all

of AS4/3502 Graphite-Epoxy, in four different lay-ups and four different scaled

sizes, 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 and full-scale. The full scale specimen was 32 plies thick, and

the thickness was again scaled by reducing the number of layers in each angle

ply group. As in the bending experiments, also in the tensile tests, the stiffness at

small strains was independent of specimen size. There was, however, also here a

signicant scale effect in tensile strength, the small scale models failing at significantly higher normalized loads than their prototype. In Figure 5.22 (from [5.51])

this strength scale effect is summarized for both tension and bending, showing

its magnitude and dependence on the lay-up of the composite structure.

5.8.4

laminated carbon/epoxy (AS4/3501-6) plates impacted laterally by cylindrical

projectiles, were carried out by Qian et al. [5.53] and [5.54]. Five sizes of

geometrically scaled square plates with D 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, from 50 mm 50 mm

by 1.072 mm thick to 250 mm 250 mm by 5.36 mm thick (from 2 by 2 by

0.042 inch to 10 by 10 by 0.211 inch), were tested. The corresponding lay-up was

[72 , 02 ]s with the geometric scaling factor and the specimens being 8-, 16-,

24-, 32- and 40 ply.

The plates were clamped on two opposing edges and free on the other two

edges. The clamped edges were normal to the 0 degree bers, whose direction is

designated as the X direction. The projectiles were shot from a horizontal air gun

at the plates in a vertical position. The impactors were also scaled geometrically,

requiring ve different barrels, their mass varying as the cube of the scale factor ,

and at each scale three different tip congurations were tested. All plate sizes were

tested at four impact velocities, V D 4.57, 12.2, 18.3 or 24.4 m/s (15, 40, 60 or

80 ft/s). For each condition, four specimens were tested, one of them instrumented

with strain gauges (the strain gauge sizes were scaled geometrically with the plates).

An extensive series of tests indeed.

The strain response (in the Y direction, parallel to the clamped edges) is shown

for three sizes of specimens in Figure 5.23 (reproduced from [5.53]), all for the

same impact velocity of 4.57 m/sec (15 ft/sec), which is believed to be below

the threshold for damage formation. The time has been divided here by the scale

factor to show how the strain traces nearly coincide, since according to the

scaling laws the time scales as . The results in Figure 5.23 show indeed that

the dynamic response scale is in close agreement with the scaling rules derived.

Similar agreement is found for other strain traces, and the strain predicted from the

Figure 5.22

269

beams (from [5.51]): (a) normalized strength versus specimen size for four

laminates loaded in tension, (b) normalized failure load versus scale factor for

unidirectional, angle ply, cross ply and quasi-isotropic beams subjected to exural

loading

dynamic plate analysis also compares quite well with experiment. The experiments

therefore verify the scaling laws for overall structural response during impact at

moderate damage levels.

The experiments were designed so that signicant damage would be developed

in the plates impacted at the higher velocities. The damage then took the form of

contact point indentation, matrix cracking, broken bers and delamination. With

damage, the scaling laws will become more complicated than those derived for the

linear structural response. This is apparent in Figure 5.24 (reproduced from [5.54])

presenting the delamination areas determined by C-scan for three specimen sizes

at a constant impact velocity of 12.2 m/s (40 ft/s). If the size of the delaminations

270

Modeling

Figure 5.23

behind impact point, showing time scaling, for the same impact velocity of

4.57 m/s (from [5.48])

Figure 5.24

Scaling effects in the impact response of composite plates increase in delamination area with specimen size for centrally impacted plates at a constant impact

velocity of 12.2 m/s (from [5.49])

were governed by the simple geometric scaling, the delamination area would scale

as 2 . The measured delaminations are however signicantly larger for the larger

specimens, a size effect which is apparently consistent with fracture mechanics.

5.8.5

Recently Swanson, Smith and Qian extended the studies to the response of cylindrical lament wound carbon/epoxy (IM7/55A) cylindrical shells impacted by

cylindrical projectiles [5.55]. Two sizes of cylindrical shells were designed so

that all geometric parameters were scaled by a factor of approximately 3.3. The

271

scaling included the thickness of the ply groups, the cylinder diameters and wall

thicknesses, and the sizes of the projectiles. The experimental set-up was similar

to that employed in the earlier tests, [5.53] and [5.54].

Scaling rules, developed by Christoforou [5.56] from the differential equations

governing the impact response of transversely impacted laminated cylindrical shells,

were employed for the scaling of the impact experiments. Again also for cylindrical

shells, if their geometry is scaled as (assuming that the lay-up too is scaled) the

strain is constant if the impact velocity is unchanged. The contact force scales then

as 2 , the time of impact duration scales as and the impact mass scales as 3

(the projectiles are scaled geometrically). All as in beams and plates.

Though the detail scaling of the lay-up was not complete (the basic ber diameter

and number of bers per windings were not scaled), these scaling rules proved to

be quite accurate for impact velocities below the damage threshold. An example

is shown in Figure 5.25, where typical strain responses of the small and large

cylinders appear to compare rather well. As in the beam and plate test results,

the time scale in this gure is divided by the geometric scale factor , according

to the scaling rules. These studies on cylindrical shells were limited to structural

response below the level of damage formation.

It should be pointed out that to date all the experiments verifying the scalability of dynamically loaded laminated composite structures deal only with type I

structures, according to Calladines classication, and the reservations regarding

the scalability of type II structures, discussed in the previous section, apply here

as well.

Figure 5.25

response between small and large cylinders, illustrating scaling of strain and time

scale (from [5.55])

272

Modeling

a structural response, can be scaled reliably, whereas for postbuckling behavior,

which may involve signicant damage, scaling requires great caution, and additional experimental studies are warranted to develop appropriate guidelines.

Some recent studies on the impact behavior of quarter-scale of model composite

sailplane fuselage segments [5.57] indicate that there is room for optimism. Since

qualitative comparisons with eld observations of actual crash damage in composite

sailplanes, with that in the model impact tests simulating typical nose-down crashes,

showed that the model failed in the same failure mode as the full-scale fuselages

and at appropriately scaled loads.

5.9

5.9.1

Model Analysis as a Design Tool

experimental method to supplement and even replace analysis. Model analysis of

structures, as an alternative to theoretical analysis, initiated in the rst decades of

the 20th century and reached maturity and widespread use in the second half of the

century (in Germany for example, model-analysis called there Modellstatik is

considered a special discipline, with a special chair and institute in at least one

university). Model analysis employs measurements on a scale model to determine

the stresses, deformations, strength and failure modes of the prototype, whereas

theoretical analysis uses an imaginary mathematical model for the same predictions. The proponents of model analysis claim (see for example [5.2]) that their

model simulates the real structure more realistically (in particular with regard

to material behavior, boundary conditions, loading conditions and possibly also

imperfections) than the idealized mathematical model of the analysts, the idealizations being imposed by theoretical limitations and the extent of the computational

efforts. With the rapid development of more sophisticated computational methods

and faster computers, the theoretical simulations have recently improved signicantly, but in many cases the economics are still in favor of model analysis as a

design tool. Hence, though modern computer aided design is slowly conquering the

eld, model analysis remains a viable tool, especially for new structural concepts

and materials, whose behavior is not yet well known.

Model analysis used to be divided into two basic methods (as in [5.3]): (a) the

indirect method, which determines the inuence lines of frameworks, and (b) the

direct method, that measures the stresses and deformations of the structure. The

indirect method with its simple celluloid models, which was widely used up to the

sixties is now only of historic interest, since inuence lines are today determined

much easier and faster with a computer. The direct method, on the other hand,

continues to serve as a valuable design tool.

For buckling problems, model experiments are mostly used to study behavior

of new structural concepts and to verify theoretical and numerical methods on

273

relatively simple structural elements under well dened conditions. Such experiments cannot precisely be classied as model analysis proper. Combinations of

theoretical and numerical methods with series of increasingly more realistic model

studies, which can be considered an extended model analysis, are however often

employed in the design process of civil, marine and aerospace structures, where

buckling is the governing parameter. Some examples will demonstrate this.

5.9.2

One illustrative example of the use of model analysis, not for a buckling problem

but for a related one, are the vibration studies on various machine structures and

their supporting elements carried out on plastic models by Wright and Bannister at

the Westinghouse Research Laboratories in 1970, [5.58] and [5.59]. They strongly

advocate the use of plastic models, made from plexiglas (acrylic resins) or Tenite

II (cellulose acetate butyrate) for analysis and design improvement of complicated

structures on economic grounds, stating that for complex structures, a model is

often the cheapest computer one can buy. This statement may not be entirely

accepted today, but their next one, a model study gives good physical understanding of the behavior of the entire structure is certainly still very valid and

appropriate.

Wright and Bannister noted that dissimilar materials models are valuable for

vibration studies on complex structures. They showed that plastic models have

several advantages for static and vibration tests: (1) deections under given applied

loads are large and easily measured, whereas the required driving forces are small;

(2) model natural frequencies are relatively low, allowing for the use of smallmodels measuring equipment with limited upper frequency response; (3) model

cost is low; (4) structural modications can easily be made; and (5) since the

required impedances of the model are much smaller, high-impedance foundations

are easily provided.

Using dimensional analysis, they generated in [5.59] a replica model law for

elastic vibrations of complex structures for dissimilar materials. For the simplest

case, of a freely suspended structure with solid joints, there are seven independent variables: L a characteristic length, c the velocity of sound in the material,

its mass density, its Poisson ratio, the damping loss factor (representing

uniformly distributed material damping of the complex-modulus type), Fi the sinusoidal driving force, and its circular frequency. Note that the longitudinal speed

of sound c is an alternative

to Youngs modulus E, for specication of the elastic

p

properties, since c D E/. Also introduction of the damping loss factor brings

in material damping, which is an inelastic effect, into elastic vibrations.

It should be remembered that the velocity of sound is the material property of

prime importance in natural frequency tests. Hence it must be measured at the

ambient temperature of the model test at all frequencies of interest. In [5.58] the

velocity of sound c and the damping loss factor were determined by measuring the

resonant and antiresonant frequencies of free-free columns and beams, machined

from the actual batch of plastic used to construct the model.

274

Modeling

Since there are three fundamental dimensions, there will be four Buckingham

pi terms:

1 D L/c

2 D Fi /c2 L 2

.

5.94

3 D

4 D

Satisfaction of the pi terms of Eq. (5.94) (as a matter of fact usually only the

rst two of them exactly, as will be discussed below), and some other physical

relationships (like Hookes law), yields similarity conditions for the model vibration

tests (only the important ones are listed):

K D Kc /KL

for frequency

for strain

K D 1

2

for stress

K D K Kc

5.95

for velocity

KV D Kc

where the K0 s are the scale factors,

K D m /p

Kc D cm /cp

etc.

K D m /p

5.96

For example, for a 1/6 scale model of a steel prototype (KL D 1/6), the scale

factors for a steel model and plexiglas or Tenite II models would be as shown in

Table 5.1.

It was found difcult to satisfy also 3 and 4 . Poissons ratio of plexiglas, for

example, is about 0.38 versus D 0.28 for steel, a 35 percent difference, but resulting

only in an error of about 4 percent in the natural frequencies, which can be corrected

if the structure is not too complex. On the other hand, the damping loss factor

for the plastic material is at least an order of magnitude higher than that of steel,

which makes plastic models inaccurate in scaling response amplitudes near resonance

peaks. Frequencies and mode shapes are, however, modeled very accurately.

Table 5.1:

steel prototype

Scale Factor

Steel

Plexiglass

Tenite II

Kc

K

KV

K

K

K

KF

1

6

1

1

1

1

(1/36)

(1/2.50)

2.40

(1/2.50)

(1/6.70)

1

(1/41.9)

(1/1510)

(1/4.21)

1.42

(1/4.21)

(1/6.70)

1

(1/119)

(1/4290)

Figure 5.26

275

Plexiglas model (from [5.59])

Wright and Bannister also extended the dimensional analysis to structures with

joint friction, with impedance terminations, suspended in an inviscid uid, and

located in an incompressible uid (see [5.59]). For these more complicated cases,

some of the new pi terms may also be difcult to satisfy. For example for joint

friction, the coefcient of friction is different for steel and plastic contacts. But

sometimes judicious matching may overcome such problems. For example, the

material damping of plexiglas is approximately equal to the joint damping of some

large bolted and welded steel machinery structure at low frequencies.

Hence in spite of inaccuracies in some pi terms (which can be assessed), modelprototype comparisons show often good agreement, as for example the scaled

vibration amplitudes in the submarine propulsion unit and its plexiglas model in

Figure 5.26 (reproduced from [5.59]).

5.9.3

Hull Structure

Another example is the buckling experiments carried out at the U.K. Naval

Construction Research Establishment in the early seventies on four small-scale

plastic models, representing the bottom structure of a prototype glass berreinforced plastic minesweeper ([5.60]). During the design of the hull structure,

serious problems of elastic instability were encountered, which arose mainly as a

result of the high strength, low stiffness characteristics of the hull material (whose

tensile and compressive strength equalled the yield strength of mild steel, but

276

Modeling

whose E was only seven percent that of steel). The need for high strength under

explosive loads and fabrication considerations led to the adoption of a transversely

framed hull, in which buckling could be expected to cause catastrophic failure, with

practically no postbuckling reserve of strength. Theoretical studies [5.61] predicted

that, under longitudinal compression, failure of transversely framed bottom and

deck panels would occur by local instability. Four forms of local instability

were indicated for the panels stiffened by transverse top-hat frames, shown in

Figure 5.27. Types-3 and -4 forms of instability had been overlooked by previous

Figure 5.27

structure forms of local instability in panels with transverse top-hat frames (from

[5.60])

277

design methods, and type-3 buckling was now predicted to occur at signicantly

lower stresses than in the other modes. The model experiments were therefore

carried out primarily to demonstrate the existence of the predicted critical type-3

instability, but also to verify the predicted buckling stresses and check the validity

of the assumed boundary conditions.

The structural modeling was carried out in two stages: First, compression tests

on two small-scale at rectangular panels with transverse top-hat frames (see

Figure 5.28a), and secondly tests on two further models, one representing the

Figure 5.28

rig for Perspex models 1 and 2 of a transversely stiffened panel under longitudinal

compression (from [5.60]): (a) the transversely stiffened panel (schematic), (b) the

test rig

278

Modeling

complete vee-bottom structure of the ship and the other representing a full 3dimensional ship compartment, for evaluation of the assumed boundary conditions.

The models were all made of Perspex (polymethylmethacrylate), whose high

strength to stiffness ratio1 (about 5 8 times that of aluminum alloy) allows elastic

instability to develop in many practical structural forms long before material failure

occurs.

The 1524 mm 622 mm and 1524 mm 533 mm Perspex rectangular panels

were supported in the test rig (Figure 5.28b) at their end and sides by steel tie-bars,

having bottle-screws to allow vertical adjustment. These tie-bars were pin-jointed

at one end to a heavy steel reaction frame and at the other end to the edge of

the test panel. Vertical displacement was thus restrained at the edges of the panel,

with negligible restriction of in-plane displacements and edge rotation, closely

approaching classical simple supports. Similar supports were employed recently by

Minguez [8.61] for the unloaded edges of his plate tests discussed in Chapter 8,

the tie-bars being replaced there by longer tensioned steel wires (see Figures 8.37

and 8.38) to ensure an even better approach to simple supports. The loaded ends

of the panels were reinforced here by steel sandwich plates, which distributed the

concentrated jack loads uniformly to the panel, but no doubt restricted the inplane displacements and rotation of the loaded edges. Since, however, the critical

buckling form was a many wave local instability, the reinforcements only reduced

the risk of premature failure at the ends and had negligible inuence on the local

instability of the panels away from the two edge bays. Strain gage measurements

on the panels veried that the tie-bar supports indeed ensured negligible load loss

to the test rig (less and 2 percent).

The deection proles were measured along the centerline of each panel at

selected load steps and well dened buckling patterns could be discerned. The

type-3 instability, which was overlooked by conventional design methods, but

was predicted by the studies of [5.61] to be critical, was indeed demonstrated

experimentally to be critical (very clearly so in one of the at panels and in the

two larger models of the second stage, but less obviously in the second at panel).

The results of the two at panels indicated that panels, stiffened by transverse

top-hat frames and having small imperfections, are likely to fail catastrophically

at a load close to the initial buckling stress, with little if any postbuckling reserve

of strength. The model analysis therefore emphasized important aspects of the

behavior of the structure, which were not obvious from the calculations.

In the second stage of modeling, the Perspex models and their supports in the

test rig were similar to the at panels, but represented the actual combination of

panels and boundary conditions. The aim of the model of the full width vee-bottom

structure, comprising two panels similar to those tested in stage one, and incorporating a stiff keel girder, was to verify that under buckling conditions the deadrise

angle and keel girder would impose a plane of antisymmetry at the centerline.

The results veried this and indicated that the torsional stiffness of the keel girder

1 The strength to stiffness ratio can be expressed as that of the ultimate stress to Youngs modulus.

0.03 for tension and u /E

In perspex u /E D

D 0.05 for compression or bending, compared to

u /E

D 0.006 for both loading cases in a typical aluminum alloy 2024-T3.

279

augmented the compressive strength of the panels. The purpose of the model of the

complete ship compartment was to check the design assumption that the curvature

at the ships bilges would resist buckling sufciently to impose longitudinal node

lines, which would limit the effective transverse span of the bottom panels, an

assumption which was indeed conrmed. Both models of the second stage also

clearly demonstrated the dominance of the type-3 local instability.

Though the results of the small scale Perspex model tests were not considered

sufcient by the designers for complete assessment of the collapse behavior, and

therefore additional tests were later carried out on large-scale GRP panels and hull

sections, the small-scale models provided the initial guidelines on the buckling and

collapse behavior and an assessment of the design assumptions. They therefore

represent a good example of extended model analysis.

5.9.4

The design of the Thames Barrier gates is an example of the use of comprehensive

structural model testing as a primary design tool in a major civil engineering project

(see [5.62] and [5.63]). Dowling and Owens point out there that previous experience

in the Civil Engineering Laboratories of Imperial College, London, where the

model tests were carried out, had proved for such complicated structures as ships,

the usefulness of small-scale Araldite models as a design tool to complement, and

indeed sometimes replace, expensive nite element analysis.

The model analysis for the 61 m long rising sector gates consisted therefore

of a 1:25 scale Araldite model, as well as a large 1:6 scale steel model. The

small-scale model (see Figure 5.29), made of an epoxy casting resin Araldite 219,

was commissioned to check the linear elastic nite element modeling used in the

analysis of the actual gate, in particular in respect to the stress distributions in the

perforated webs and near the gate-to-gate arm connections. The results of the tests

(which included measurements from 700 strain gauges) increased the condence

in the FEM analysis, but showed that some adjustments were necessary to it,

in particular to account for the arching action of the curved skin and for shear

stress peaks adjacent to openings. They also highlighted an extreme sensitivity of

the reactions to misalignment. All the observations from the small-scale Araldite

models were incorporated into the iterative analysis-test-analysis design procedure.

It may be mentioned here, that Araldite models had been used extensively also

by other investigators for buckling tests. For example, Tulk and Walker [5.64]

at University College, London, also employed small-scale Araldite 219 models

to elucidate the elastic buckling characteristics of stiffened-plate panels subjected

to in-plane compressive loading. They emphasized that because of the very high

elastic strain capacity of Araldite (maximum elongation up to 5 percent), its use in

models permits repeated testing well into the postbuckling regime to explore the

behavior of the structure without any permanent deformation. They pointed out

its convenient molding and that, by use of Araldite also as an adhesive, built up

structures which are practically homogeneous and free of residual stresses can be

obtained.

280

Modeling

Figure 5.29

The 1:25 scale Araldite model for the Thames Barrier gates (from [5.63]):

(a) construction of the model, (b) the test rig with model under test

Figure 5.30

The 1:6 scale steel model for the Thames Barrier gate

reverse head test (from [5.62])

281

Returning to the model analysis of the Thames Barrier gates, the purpose of

the larger welded structural steel model was an ultimate load test to study the

complete response of the gate (including inelastic buckling) up to collapse, to

quantify the reserves of strength possessed by the structure beyond the initiation

of signicant yielding and to establish the post-yield buckling behavior of the

compression anges and webs. The steel 1:6 model (Figure 5.30) was instrumented

with 1000 strain gauges, their locations being determined by the results of the

Araldite model tests. Collapse was caused by inward buckling of the curved skin

at the change of section at the quarter point of the gate.

One should note that the extended model analysis, employed here as an integral

part of the iterative design process, not only improved the design but also reinforced

the condence of the designers, at a time when civil engineering condence had

been shaken by a series of recent tragic bridge disasters.

5.9.5

Photoelastic Models

Before leaving the topic of model analysis, one should also mention photoelastic

models, which are models made of transparent elastic material that when loaded

and examined in a eld of polarized light, exhibit interference fringes that represent

the stress distribution in the model. Though photoelasticity is a major branch of

model analysis, it seems more appropriate to postpone its discussion to Chapter 20,

Volume 2, together with other optical methods.

282

5.10

Modeling

Analogies

If the concept of model analysis is taken one step further, one obtains analogies, where the model has lost any physical similarity with the prototype and

has preserved only a mathematical afnity with it. Analogies are widely used in

dynamic systems, since many time-dependent phenomena are analogous to electrical ones. The next step leads to simulation by computer, which is also often

employed to extend the range of experiments. Though analogies are rarely used

for buckling phenomena, they are briey discussed here on account of their potential for unconventional experiments. More detailed discussion of analogies can be

found in many texts (for example [5.65], [5.66] or [5.67]).

In engineering, the usual denition of analogy is: Two or more apparently

different physical systems are said to be analogous, if their characteristics can

be expressed in identical mathematical form. Analog methods were already developed in the second half of the 19th century, but they reached their prime in the

rst half of this century. Among the most notable analogies was the membrane

analogy for the study of the torsional stress distribution in a shaft, developed by

Prandtl in 1903 [5.68].

This analogy is a good example of the concept and is discussed in nearly every

text on the theory of elasticity (as for example [4.46]). It is based on the identity

of the equation of vertical equilibrium of a stretched and inated membrane

r2 z D

p

T

5.97

where z is the elevation of the membrane, T the uniform tension throughout the

membrane and p the small pressure differential, with an equation derived (by

integration) from the equation of compatibility of the stress function for Saint

Venant torsion of a bar, whose cross-section is identical with the planform of the

membrane

r2 D 2G

5.98

where G is the shear modulus and the angular twist per unit length. The boundary

conditions for z and also have to match, which they do, since along a boundary s

z

D0

s

and

D0

s

in a plane of constant z

.

5.99

The resultant shear stress at any point, D d/dn, is represented by the slope

of the membrane

dz/dn, taken normal to the contour line through that point.

Furthermore, the torsional moment Mt is represented by twice the volume under

the inated membrane, since

References

Mt D 2

dx dy

2 Volume D 2

z dx dy

283

is analogous to

5.100

Note that from Eqs. (5.97) and (5.98), p/T D 2G when D z.

The membrane analogy was applied extensively in the rst decades of this

century to measure the slopes of soap lms or rubber membranes of complicated

cross sections. A very famous and widely used apparatus is that of Grifth and

Taylor developed in 1917 [5.69], but many others and more sophisticated ones were

developed in the following decades. This demonstrates the direct use of an analogy

for measurement of the behavior of the analogous system in order to calculate that

of the original system.

However, the analogy serves also for better understanding of the essential

features of the original system. For example, in the case of the membrane analogy

it is easier to visualize the shape of the soap lm and its slope and volume, and

evaluate from them the behavior of the twisted bar, than to assess it directly. This

is probably today the most important function of the membrane analogy, and as a

matter of fact of most analogies.

The direct application by measurement of the behavior of the analogous system

is today usually superseded by numerical solutions (like Finite Element Methods),

solved conveniently by available computer programs. Hence the many other ingenious hydrodynamic and electrical analogies, developed in the thirties, forties,

fties and sixties, will not be discussed (and the reader be referred to the texts

mentioned earlier, where many references are also given), except one important

example, the electrical circuit analogies for structures developed by MacNeal in

the early sixties [5.70] which will be briey mentioned. MacNeal proposed analog

computation for solution of many practical problems of structural analysis using

direct analog computers. He derived detailed electrical circuit analogies for these

problems and obtained with them and the appropriate analog computers very efcient solutions for complicated problems, which represented a signicant advance

in structural analysis. Modern digital computation has superseded these analog

methods, but their ingenuity should be noted as one non-conventional approach to

combined experimental-computational analysis.

Finally, it may be worth noting that in the last decade electrical analog techniques have been revived in fracture mechanics for experimental study of crack

propagation and evaluation of stress intensity factors, recently also for composites

(see for example [5.71].

References

5.1

5.2

Dym, C.L. and Ivey, E.S., Principles of Mathematical Modeling, Academic Press,

New York, 1980.

Muller, R.K., Handbuch der Modellstatik, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1971.

284

5.3

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.8

5.9

5.10

5.11

5.12

5.13

5.14

5.15

5.16

5.17

5.18

5.19

5.20

5.21

5.22

5.23

5.24

Modeling

Charlton, T.M., Model Analysis of Structures, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1954.

Langhaar, H.L., Dimensionless Analysis and Theory of Models, John Wiley & Sons,

New York, 1951.

Murphy, G., Similitude in Engineering, Ronald Press, New York, 1950.

Pankhust, R.C., Dimensional Analysis and Scale Factors, Chapman & Hall, London,

Reinhold, New York, 1964.

Gukhman, A.A., Introduction to the Theory of Similarity, Academic Press, New York,

1965.

Taylor, E.S., Dimensional Analysis for Engineers, Oxford (Clarendon Press), London

and New York, 1974.

Goodier, J.N., Dimensionless Analysis, Appendix II in Handbook of Experimental

Stress Analysis, M. Hetenyi, ed., 1st edn., John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1950.

Durelli, A.J., Phillips, E.A. and Tsao, C.H., Introduction to the Theoretical and

Experimental Analysis of Stress and Strain, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1958.

Ipsen, D.C., Units, Dimension, and Dimensionless Numbers, McGraw-Hill, New

York, 1960.

Buckingham, E., On Physically Similar Systems; Illustrations of the Use of Dimensional Equations, Phys. Rev. Series 2, 4,(4), 1914, 345 76.

Bridgman, P.W., Dimensionless Analysis, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1922,

1931 (revised edition).

Van Driest, E.R., On Dimensional Analysis and the Presentation of Data in FluidFlow Problems, Journal of Applied Mechanics, 13, 1946, A-34 A-40.

Goodier, J.N. and Thomson, W.T., Applicability of Similarity Principles to Structural Models, NACA TN 933, 1944.

Manjoine, M.J., Inuence of Rate of Strain and Temperature on Yield Stresses of

Mild Steel, Journal of Applied Mechanics, 11, 1944, 211 218.

Marsh, K.J. and Campbell, J.D., The Effect of Strain Rate on the Post-Yield Flow

of Mild Steel, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 11, 1963, 49 63.

Bodner, S.R., Strain Rate Effects in Dynamic Loading of Structures, in Behavior of

Materials Under Dynamic Loading, N.J. Hufngton, ed., ASME, New York, 1965,

93 105.

Symonds, P.S., Viscoplastic Behavior in Response of Structures to Dynamic Loading,

in Behavior of Materials Under Dynamic Loading, N.J. Hufngton, ed., ASME, New

York, 1965, 106 124.

Jones, N., Structural Aspects of Ship Collisions, in Structural Crashworthiness,

N. Jones, and T. Wierzbicki, eds., Butterworths, London and Boston, 1983,

308 337.

Jones, N., Scaling of Inelastic Structures Loaded Dynamically, in Structural

Impact and Crashworthiness Vol 1, G.A.O. Davies, ed., Elsevier Applied Science

Publishers, London, 1984, 45 74.

Duffy, T.A., Scaling Laws for Fuel Capsules Subjected to Blast, Impact and Thermal

Loading, in Proceedings Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference,

SAE Paper No. 719107, 1971, 775 786.

Booth, E., Collier, D. and Miles, J., Impact Scalability of Plated Steel Structures, in

Structural Crashworthiness, N. Jones, and T. Wierzbicki, eds., Butterworths, London

and Boston, 1983, 136 174.

Duffy, T.A., Cheresh, M.C. and Sutherland, S.H., Experimental Verication of

Scaling Laws for Punch-Impact Loaded Structures, International Journal of Impact

Engineering, 2, 1984, 103 117.

References

5.25

5.26

5.27

5.28

5.29

5.30

5.31

5.32

5.33

5.34

5.35

5.36

5.37

5.38

5.39

5.40

5.41

5.42

5.43

285

Bodner, S.R. and Symonds, P.S., Experimental and Theoretical Investigation of the

Plastic Deformation of Cantilever Beams Subjected to Impulsive Loading, Journal

of Applied Mechanics, 29, 1962, 719 728.

Calladine, C.R. and English, R.W., Strain-Rate and Inertia Effects in the Collapse

of Two Types of Energy-Absorbing Structure, International Journal of Mechanical

Sciences, 26, 1986, 689 701.

Tam, L.L., Strain-Rate and Inertial Effects in the Collapse of Energy-Absorbing

Structures, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cambridge, England, February 1990.

Zhang, T.G. and Yu, T.X., A Note on a Velocity Sensitive Energy Absorbing

Structure, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 8, 1989, 43 51.

Nurick, G.N. and Martin, J.B., Deformation of Thin Plates Subjected to Impulsive

Loading A Review, Part II: Experimental Studies, International Journal of Impact

Engineering, 8, 1989, 171 186.

Johnson, W., Impact Strength of Materials, Edward Arnold, London, 1972.

Nurick, G.N., Pearce, H.T. and Martin, J.B., The Deformation of Thin Plates Subjected to Impulsive Loading, in Inelastic Behaviour of Plates and Shells, L. Bevilacqua,

ed., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1986.

Wierzbicki, T. and Florence, A.L., A Theoretical and Experimental Investigation of

Impulsively Loaded Clamped Circular Viscoplastic Plates, International Journal of

Solids and Structures, 6, 1970, 555 568.

Bodner, S.R. and Symonds, P.S., Experiments on Viscoplastic Response of Circular

Plates to Impulsive Loading, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 27,

1979, 91 113.

Baker, W.E., Westine, P.S. and Dodge, F.T., Similarity Methods in Engineering

Dynamics, Spartan Books, Hayden Book Co., Rochelle Park, N.J., 1973.

Baker, W.E., Modeling of Large Transient Elastic and Plastic Deformations of Structures Subjected to Blast Loading, Journal of Applied Mechanics, 27, 1960, 521 527.

Hopkinson, B., British Ordnance Board Minutes 13565, 1915.

Sachs, R.G., The Dependence of Blast on Ambient Pressure and Temperature, Ballistics Research Lab. (BRL), Report No. 466, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland,

1944.

Brown, H.N., Effects of Scaling on the Interaction Between Shock Waves and Structures, Ballistics Research Lab. (BRL), Report No. 1011, Aberdeen Proving Ground,

Maryland, 1957, Appendix I.

Hanna, J.W., Ewing, W.O. and Baker, W.E., The Elastic Response to Internal Blast

Loading of Models of Outer Containment Structures for Nuclear Reactors, Nuclear

Science and Engineering, 6, 1959, 214 221.

Denton, D.R. and Flathau, W.J., Model Study of Dynamically Loaded Arch Structures, Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, Proc. of ASCE, 92, (EM3),

1966, 17 32.

Ewing, W.O. and Hanna, J.W., A Cantilever for Measuring Air Blast, Ballistics

Research Lab. (BRL), Technical Note 1139, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland,

1957.

Ezra, A.A. and Penning, F.A., Development of Scaling Laws for Explosive Forming,

Experimental Mechanics, 2, 1962, 234 239.

Ezra, A.A. and Adams, J.E., The Explosive Forming of 10 feet Diameter Aluminum

Domes, Proc. of the First International Conference of the Center for High Energy

Forming, Estes Park, Colorado, June 19 23, 1967.

286

5.44

5.45

5.46

5.47

5.48

5.49

5.50

5.51

5.52

5.53

5.54

5.55

5.56

5.57

5.58

5.59

5.60

5.61

5.62

Modeling

Baker, W.E. and Westine, P.S., Modeling the Blast Response of Structures Using

Dissimilar Materials, AIAA Journal, 7, 1969, 951 959.

Donelan, P.J. and Dowling, A.R., The Use of Scale Models in Impact Testing, in

The Resistance to Impact of Spent Magnox Fuel Transport Flasks, The Institution of

Mechanical Engineers, London, 1985.

Jones, N. and Jouri, W.S., A Study of Plate Tearing for Ship Collision and Grounding

Damage, Journal of Ship Research, 31, 1987, 253 268.

Morton, J., Scaling of Impact-Loaded Carbon-Fiber Composites, AIAA Journal, 26,

1988, 989 994.

Jackson, K.E. and Fasanella, E.L., Scaling Effects in the Static Large Deection

Response of Graphite-Epoxy Beam-Columns, NASA Technical Memorandum (TM)

101619, June 1989, also Proceedings of the American Helicopter Society National

Technical Specialists Meeting on Advanced Rotorcraft Structures, Williamsburg, VA,

Oct. 25 27, 1988.

Jackson, K.E. and Fasanella, E.L., Scaling Effects in the Impact Response of Graphite-Epoxy Composite Beams, SAE Technical Paper 891014, General Aviation

Aircraft Meeting and Exposition, Wichita, KS, April 11 13, 1989.

Jackson, K.E., Scaling Effects in the Static and Dynamic Response of GraphiteEpoxy Beam-Columns, NASA TM 102697, July 1990.

Jackson, K.E. and Morton, J., Evaluation of Some Scale Effects in the Response

and Failure of Composite Beams, Presented at First NASA Advanced Composite

Technology (ACT) Program Conference, Seattle, WA, Oct. 21 Nov. 1, 1990.

Kellas, S. and Morton, J., Strength Scaling of Fiber Composites, NASA Contractor

Report 4335, November 1990.

Qian, Y. and Swanson, S.R., Experimental Measurement of Impact Response in

Carbon/Epoxy Plates, AIAA Journal, 28, 1990, 1069 1074.

Qian, Y., Swanson, S.R., Nuismer, R.J. and Bucinell, R.B., An Experimental Study

of Scaling Rules for Impact Damage in Fiber Composites, Journal of Composite

Materials, 24, (5), May 1990, 559 570.

Swanson, S.R., Smith, N.L. and Qian, Y., Analytical and Experimental Strain

Response in Impact of Composite Cylinders, Composite Structures, 18, (2), 1991,

95 108.

Christoforou, A.P., Investigation of Impact in Advanced Composites, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Utah, Department of Mechanical Engineering, 1988.

Kampf, K.-P., Crawley, E.F. and Hausman, R.J., Experimental Investigation of the

Crashworthiness of Scaled Composite Sailplane Fuselages, Journal of Aircraft, 26,

1989, 675 681.

Wright, D.V. and Bannister, R.C., Plastic Models for Structural Analysis, Part I:

Testing Types, The Shock and Vibration Digest, 2, (11), 1970, 2 10.

Wright, D.V. and Bannister, R.C., Plastic Models for Structural Analysis, Part II:

Experimental Design, The Shock and Vibration Digest, 2, (12), 1970, 3 10.

Smith, C.S., Investigation of Ship Buckling Problems Using Small-Scale Plastic

Models, Proceedings 5th International Conference on Experimental Stress Analysis,

Udine, 1974, 4.127 4.135.

Smith, C.S., Buckling Problems in the Design of Fiberglass-Reinforced Plastic Ships,

Journal of Ship Research, 16, (3), 1972, 174 190.

Tappin, R.G.R., Dowling, P.J. and Clark, P.J., Design and Model Testing of the

Thames Barrier Gates, The Structural Engineer, 62A, (4), 1984, 115 124.

References

5.63

5.64

5.65

5.66

5.67

5.68

5.69

5.70

5.71

287

Dowling, P.J. and Owens, G.W., Structural Model Testing of a Rising Sector Flood

Gate, in Thames Barrier Design, Institution of Civil Engineers, London, 1978,

117 124.

Tulk, J.D. and Walker, A.C., Model Studies of the Elastic Buckling of a Stiffened

Plate, Journal of Strain Analysis, 11, (3), 1976, 137 143.

Mindlin, R.D. and Salvadori, M.G., Analogies, Ch. 16 in Handbook of Experimental

Stress Analysis, M. Hetenyi, ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1950, 700 827.

Sutherland, R.L., Engineering Systems Analysis, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.,

Reading, MA., 1958.

Lee, G.H., An Introduction to Experimental Stress Analysis, John Wiley & Sons,

New York, 1950, 225 244.

Prandtl, L., Zur Torsion von prismatischen Staben, Physikalische Zeitschrift, 4, 1903,

758 759.

Grifth, A.A. and Taylor, G.I., The Use of Soap Films in Solving Torsion Problems,

Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, London, 1917, 755 809.

MacNeal, R.H., Electric Circuit Analogies for Elastic Structures, John Wiley & Sons,

New York, 1962.

Srinivasan, G.V. and Virkar, A.V., Application of the Electrical Analog Technique

in Fiber-Reinforced Composites, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 32, (3), 1989,

479 492.

6

Columns, Beams and

Frameworks

6.1

6.1.1

Column Curves and Secondary Effects in Column

Experiments

In the three-quarters of a century since von Karmans thesis, the buckling and

postbuckling of columns has been studied extensively, with a signicant portion

of the efforts devoted to experimental investigations. Many of these deal with the

interaction between material properties, residual stresses, shape of cross-section and

the postbuckling behavior, and many are design oriented. As a matter of fact, while

considerable progress has been made towards better prediction of the buckling load

in the inelastic region, and the maximum load a column can carry its strength,

the designers have usually been using empirical column curves. A column curve

is a plot of load, or stress, versus slenderness ratio, and is the line of best t

through the scatter band of column test results (see for example Figure 6.1). One

should note that for over a century the universal practice was to lump together test

results for different materials and different cross-sections which therefore appeared

as a galaxy of points (see for example Figure 6.2, or one of the many gures in

Chapter 4 of [4.3]). A number of empirical and semi-empirical design formulae

have been developed, some dating back as far as the 18th century (see [4.3]), which

are usually called column curves. Until the fties, the most signicant ones were:

the Rankine Gordon formula (see also [4.3]), the Tetmajer straight line [4.8] and

the Johnson Parabola

2

L

cr D y C

6.1

where C is a constant depending on the proportional limit and Youngs modulus

of the material of the column. The 1893 Johnson Parabola [6.2] is the basis of the

modern column curves, which have been developed in recent decades, by special

national and international bodies and committees of experts. The leader among

Plates Volume 1. J. Singer, J. Arbocz and T. Weller Copyright 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

290

Figure 6.1

Column curves and test results for rolled H-shapes (from [6.1])

these is the Structural Stability Research Council (formerly the Column Research

Council) of the Engineering Foundation, a US (but essentially international) body,

that has for nearly 50 years fostered research and developed design and test procedures for column stability. The SSRC Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal

Structures [6.3] is not only an internationally recognized design guide (though

aimed primarily at civil, mechanical and marine engineers, it is also an authoritative source for work carried out in other elds), but also a guide to modern

column testing, to which we will refer later. Other similar, well-known bodies are

the Column Research Committee of Japan [6.4] or the European Convention for

Constructional Steelwork (ECCS) [6.5].

The original aim has been to develop a single design curve (the CRC curve in

Figure 6.2), but since the wide scatter is not a test phenomenon, the alternative

of multiple column curves has been extensively studied. The resulting wealth of

empirical information, augmented by many theoretical studies eventually brought

about the adoption of the concept of multiple column curves for the design of

steel columns both by the US Structural Stability Research Council (SSRC), [6.3],

and the European Convention for Constructional Steelwork (ECCS), [6.5]. The

SSRC multiple column curves are shown in Figure 6.3a and the ECCS ones in

Figure 6.3b. Note that, as pointed out by Tall in [4.7], the American and European

multiple column curves correlate very well, though they were obtained by different

approaches, the US studies using actual measured values while the European studies

used theoretical data as a basis for computations that were then compared with

experimental data. In Europe, the ECCS multiple column curves were adopted for

design practice, but in the US designers still prefer a single design curve (see [4.7]

and [1.13]).

Now, as mentioned already, the bulk of the theoretical and experimental studies

on buckling of columns in recent decades has dealt with inelastic behavior of

steel columns and the inuence of yield strength, of geometry, of residual stresses

291

Figure 6.2 Test results for columns of different shapes, yield strength and fabrication methods

(from [4.7])

(as the geometric imperfections are called in columns). Tall [4.7] summarized

these experiments and the resulting design curves from the point of view of civil

engineers, emphasizing the effect of residual stresses, which have been the major

factor in the design of welded steel columns (see also [4.6], [6.1], [6.3] or [6.6]).

Residual stresses occur in a structural member as a result of plastic deformations

during manufacture. They may be due to differential cooling after hot-rolling,

to fabrication processes like ame-cutting or cold-bending, or due to localized

292

Figure 6.3 Multiple column curves (from [4.7]): (a) proposed US SSRC multiple column

curves (where L D light, H D heavy), (b) European ECCS multiple column curves

stresses in rolled and welded steel shapes are shown in Figure 6.4 (reproduced

from [4.7]). As seen in the gure, welded columns usually have higher residual

stresses than rolled columns and their magnitude depends on the geometry of the

cross-section. They also tend to have a greater out-of-straightness. Hence welded

columns have lower strengths than corresponding rolled columns (see Figure 6.5

293

Figure 6.4

Figure 6.5

Column tests results for small to medium rolled and welded shapes (from [4.7])

reproduced from [4.7], and this strength has to be assessed by a more complicated

analysis of the behavior in the inelastic range.

Both size and yield strength inuence the strength of a steel column. The process

of cooling in heavy shapes (large size cross sections) yields larger residual stresses

than in small size shapes, whether rolled or welded, and hence heavy columns have

reduced strengths. Since the residual stresses are mainly a function of geometry,

they are of the same order of magnitude in high strength steels as in mild steels.

Thus the effect of residual stresses is smaller in columns made of steels with higher

yield strength.

294

columns, derived from decades of extensive steel column tests, emphasizes the

important interaction of material properties, geometry and fabrication processes on

the buckling behavior and strength of columns. It furthermore indicates that one

has to be very careful to include also such secondary effects in the design and

evaluation of buckling and postbuckling tests of all structural elements.

6.1.2

Column Testing

one can proceed to the test procedures. Here one can turn to the SSRC Guide

to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures [6.3] for guidance on modern

column testing, which indeed appears there in the form of Technical Memoranda.

In Appendix B there, after a preface which points out that some of the proposed

methods are not always used, the recommended test procedures for compression

testing of metals are presented (pp. 703 708) and then those for stub-column tests

(pp. 708 717). The object of a compressive stub-column test is to determine the

average stress-strain relationship over the complete cross-section, which can then

be employed as the actual material properties for the column test. Technical Memorandum No. B4 there Procedure for Testing Centrally Loaded Columns ([6.3],

pp. 717 732) is based on a 1970 Lehigh University Fritz Engineering Laboratory Report [6.7], which summarized the extensive test experience accumulated at

that university. It discusses the reasons for experimental scatter in column tests

and then presents a suggested test procedure. Because of its importance, the main

points of this memorandum are briey recapitulated, some paragraphs being quoted

verbatim.

The reasons for the wide scatter band of the experimentally determined values

of column strength when plotted versus the effective slenderness ratio KL/r, in

which KL denotes the effective column length and r the appropriate radius of

gyration of the cross section, are enumerated as:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

eccentric application of load

nonhomogeneity of material

residual stresses

variation in the action of the loading machines

imperfections in end xtures.

These effects have already been discussed, except the last two which are directly

related to the tests themselves. The buckling and postbuckling behavior of a

column, or of any other structural element, is inuenced by the action of the

loading devices. These may be categorized as gravity, deformation (screw-type) and

pressure (hydraulic) testing machines, each differing in its force-deection characteristic. The gravity type has the simplest characteristic, which can be represented

by straight lines parallel to the deection axis. The screw-type load deection

295

characteristic is also well dened, and its shape depends on the elastic response

of the loading system. The hydraulic testing machine is the most common today,

but its load-deection characteristic is not as easily dened and testing is always

conducted under some nite loading rate, which inuences the results. However,

modern testing machines (both hydraulic and screw-type) have continuous feedback computer control that assures precise predetermined displacement or loading

rates, which can be kept very low. For example, both MTS and Instron testing

machines can apply displacement rates as low as 1 micron/hour, with a resolution

of a few percent of that rate, as well as similar loading rates. These machines can

also apply a constant force for considerable test times (about 20 hours or so).

End conditions can vary from full restraint (xed) to zero restraints (pinned,

simple supports) with respect to end rotation and warping. The pinned-end conditions are recommended for column tests, since then the critical cross section is

located near the mid-height of the column and is therefore little inuenced by end

effects. With pinned-end conditions it is, however, necessary to provide end xtures

with minimum restraint to column end rotation. Under xed-end conditions, on the

other hand, there are often problems of variation of the end restraints, and hence

the effective length, with load, which make the tests less reliable.

Figure 6.6 shows several practical pinned ends (from [6.8]), some are positionxed like (a), (d) and (h), and the others are direction-xed, having cylindrical

end xtures, with which the column is essentially pin-ended about one axis (usually

chosen to be the minor principal axis of the column cross-section) and essentially xed end, or clamped, about the other. The cylindrical (and hemispherical)

xtures, (e), (f), (g) and (d), are designed to have their center coincide with the

centroidal axis of the cross-section at the column end. Thus the actual column

length remains the effective one when the column starts to bend. Knife edges,

Figure 6.6(b), conical points (a), or free warping ends like (h), are suitable only

for small columns. Complete roller bearings, as shown in Figure 6.6(g), were used

for the well known 1938 tests of Karner and Kollbrunner at the ETH, Zurich [6.9]

on centrally and eccentrically loaded small aluminum alloy (Avional M) and structural steel columns. For large columns, requiring the application of large axial loads,

roller bearing blocks, like Figure 6.6(e), are sometimes used, or a relatively large

hardened cylindrical surface bearing on a hard at surface is employed, for example

the end xtures used at the Lehigh University Fritz Engineering Laboratory for

loads between 400 1000 tons, shown in Figure 6.7 (from [6.10]). Hemispherical

xtures, approximately similar to those of Figure 6.6(d), are also used sometimes in

tests of large columns. For example, in the experiments on plastic column behavior

at high axial loads, carried out at Imperial College London in the seventies [6.11],

the large horizontally oating test columns were held in position by spherical

PTFE (polytetrauoroethene) bridge bearings. This was an economical solution,

that permitted exing about both axes. There were, however, signicant friction

losses in the PTFE bearings, which were measured by H-section load cells attached

at the end of the test columns. Roller bearings similar to those of Figure 6.6(g) were

employed for pin ends in the classical 1939 Aluminum Company of AmericaNACA tests of extruded aluminum H-sections [1.29]. Another method for pin ends

Figure 6.6

296

Columns, Beams and Frameworks

297

Figure 6.7 Standard large column end xture at Lehigh University Fritz Engineering Laboratory (from [6.10])

in those tests, a type of position xed ends, was a mixture of the hemisphere in

Figure 6.6(d) and the rollers in Figure 6.6(e) consisting of bearing plates provided

with a spherical seat resting in a nest of 25 hardened steel balls, whose center

of rotation coincided with the ends of the at-ended specimen that rested on the

bearing plates. The corresponding US National Bureau of Standards NACA tests

used knife edges for pinned ends. Flat-ended ends were obtained by centering the

mutually parallel machined at ends of the specimen on the xed heads of the

testing machine.

Hemispherical pin-end supports of the type shown in Figure 6.6(d) were used in

the eighties in a typical experimental study of local and overall buckling of welded

steel box columns [6.12] and are shown in Figure 6.8(a). A second example of

hemispherical pin-end supports, of the type shown in Figure 6.6(d), are those used

in the late eighties in the large beam column tests at the University of Toronto,

discussed in Section 6.6.2 (see Figure 6.58 and [6.118]). Another roller type of

pin-end supports, a combination of those shown in Figures 6.6(e) and 6.6(g), that

was employed in the eighties in a series of tests on heavy I-section columns at

Karlsruhe University in Germany [6.13] is shown in Figure 6.8(b). The special

SKF rollers in these supports ensured a low friction coefcient < 0.07.

6.1.3

Test Procedures

In the actual test procedure, some important points (from Technical Memorandum

No. 4 of [6.3]) should be remembered. These are obviously only general guidelines,

most appropriate to columns used in civil engineering.

298

Figure 6.8 Typical hemispherical and roller bearings employed for heavy columns:

(a) hemispherical pin-end xture used in a buckling study of welded steel box

columns at Nagoya University, Japan (courtesy of Professor T. Usami), note the

roller bearing in the center of the picture, which provided the pin-end support;

(b) roller pin-ends used at Karlsruhe University, Germany, for heavy I-section

columns (from [6.13])

299

a. Preparation of Specimens

Both ends of the specimen should be milled. Columns may be tested with the

ends bearing directly on the loading xtures, provided the material of which the

loading xtures are made is sufciently harder than that of the column to avoid

damaging the xtures. Otherwise, base plates should be welded to the specimen

ends, matching the geometric center of the specimen to the center of the base

plate. The welding procedure should be such that compressive residual stresses at

the ange tips caused by the welding are minimized. For columns initially curved,

the milled surfaces may not be parallel to each other, but will be perpendicular to

the centerline at the ends because milling is usually performed with reference to the

end portions of the columns. For relatively small column specimens, it is possible

to machine the ends at and parallel to each other by mounting the specimens on

an arbor in a lathe. For small deviations in parallelism, the leveling plates at the

sensitive crosshead of the testing machine may be adjusted to improve alignment.

b. Initial Dimensions

The variation in cross-sectional area and shape, and the initial curvature (camber

referred to major axis and sweep referred to minor axis), and twist, will affect

the column strength. Therefore, detailed initial measurement of these parameters

of the specimen is important.

c. Aligning the Column Specimen

Aligning the specimen within the testing machine is the most important step in

the column testing procedure, prior to loading. Two approaches have been used to

align centrally loaded columns. In the rst approach the column is aligned under

load such that the axial stresses are essentially uniform over the mid-height and

the quarter-point cross sections. (In the test one actually measures strains.) The

objective in this alignment method is to maximize the column load by minimizing

the bending stresses caused by geometrical imperfections of the specimen. In the

second alignment method, the column is carefully aligned geometrically, but no

special effort is made to secure a uniform stress distribution over the critical cross

section. Geometric alignment is performed with respect to a specic reference

point on the cross section. The method of geometric alignment is recommended

for columns as it is, generally, simpler and quicker. As a matter of fact, in recent

years the rst method has practically disappeared, and geometric alignment with

exact measurements of initial out-of-straightness, coupled with analytical strength

predictions, is usually used.

In other structural elements, however, the uniform stress approach is usually

preferable, as will be discussed later.

d. Instrumentation

to compare the behavior of the column specimen under load, with theoretical

300

predictions of behavior. The instrumentation for column tests has changed markedly

in recent years due to progress made in measuring techniques and data acquisition

systems, and it is now possible to obtain automatic recordings and plotting of the

measurements (online real-time presentation). Such recordings are more convenient

and more precise than manual readings.

The most important records needed in column testing are the applied load and

the corresponding lateral displacements, twist, and overall column shortening. A

typical column set-up and instrumentation are shown in Figure 6.9 (from [6.3]).

Lateral deections normal to both principal cross-sectional axes may be automatically recorded by means of potentiometers attached at quarter points of the

column (more points may be used for longer columns). Lateral deections may

also be measured from strip scales attached to the column and read with the aid

of a theodolite.

Strains are measured using electric-resistance strain gages. For ordinary pinnedend column tests, it is sufcient to mount eight strain gages at each end and at the

mid-height level. . . . As shown in Section A-A of Figure 6.9, the gages should be

mounted in pairs back-to-back to enable the local ange bending effects to be

cancelled by averaging the readings of each pair of back-to-back gages.

In the xed-end test condition more strain gages are mounted below and above

the quarter- and three-quarter levels. This is done to determine the actual effective length of the column by locating the inection points using the strain gage

measurements.

With modern multi-channel data loggers more strain gages can be readily used

to obtain additional check data and thus improve the reliability of the test.

End rotations are measured by mechanical or electrical rotation gages

(see [6.3]). . . . The angles of twist are determined at mid-height and at the two

ends by measuring at each level the differences in lateral deections of the two

anges. For better accuracy, the measurements may be taken at points located at

the ends of two rods attached transversely on the adjacent sides of the column, as

shown in Section B-B of Figure 6.9.

The overall shortening is determined by measuring the movement of the sensitive

crosshead relative to the xed crosshead using a dial gage or potentiometer, or

preferably a few gages, potentiometers or LVDTs.

Large steel column specimens are usually whitewashed with hydrated lime.

During testing, the whitewash cracking pattern indicates the progression of yielding

in the column (the cracking reects the aking of the mill-scale at yielded zones).

e. Testing

After the specimen is aligned in the testing machine, the test is usually started

with an initial load of 1/20 to 1/15 of the estimated ultimate load capacity of the

column. This is done to preserve the alignment established at the beginning of the

test. At this load all measuring devices are adjusted for initial readings.

Further load is applied slowly, typically at a rate of 1 ksi/min (6.9 MPa/min),

and the corresponding deections are recorded instantly. This stress rate, (or corresponding strain rate) is established when the column is still elastic. The dynamic

Figure 6.9

301

curve is plotted until the ultimate load is reached, immediately after which the

maximum static load is recorded. . . . A static condition, as is needed to obtain

the maximum static load, is when the column shape is unchanged under a constant

load for a period of time. This means that the chord length of the column must

remain constant, or practically, the distance between the crossheads must remain

constant during the period.

302

This condition can easily be maintained with screw type machines, but was difcult to maintain in hydraulic machines a decade ago. In modern testing machines

with feedback computer control these difculties have been eliminated.

After the maximum static load is recorded, compression of the specimen is

resumed at the strain rate which was utilized for the elastic range. . . . The specimen

is compressed in the unloading range until the desired load-displacement curve

is attained. [An example of such a curve is shown in Figure 6.10 (from [6.3])].

One should note that, as pointed out in Chapter 2, the dynamic load is larger

than the static one. This means that a column can sustain a considerably higher

buckling load if the load is applied rapidly, i.e. under impact, as will be further

discussed in Chapter 18, Volume 2.

The behavior of the test specimen under load well into the post-buckling region

is determined with the assistance of measurements of lateral deections at various

levels along the two principal directions, rotations at the ends, strains at selected

cross sections, angles of twist, and the column shortening. These measurements

are compared to theoretical predictions. The results of the test are most clearly

presented in diagrammatic form.

For example, Figure 6.11(a) (from [6.3]) shows the mid-height load-deection

curve of a typical structural steel H-section column, along the minor axis, where

the primary bending occurs. Figure 6.11(b) shows the corresponding similar curve

along the major axis. These curves present the most signicant data of the column

test. Similar curves are usually presented for strains, end rotations, angles of twist

and overall shortening versus load.

Figure 6.10

Figure 6.11

303

Load-deection curves for a typical structural steel H-section column (from [6.3]):

(a) midheight deection along minor axis, (b) midheight deection along major

axis

behavior, or axial strain-bending strain behavior, and the theoretical prediction.

A preliminary theoretical prediction can be made on simplied assumptions of

material properties, residual stresses, and measured initial out-of-straightness. The

prediction may be improved if the actual residual stresses and the variations in

material properties are used in the analysis. These properties should be determined from preliminary stub-column tests of specimens obtained from the original

source stock.

6.1.4

The widespread design and development of large offshore structures in the last

decade has motivated considerable research efforts related to the buckling of these

structures. A recent state-of-the-art review [6.14] considers only tubular columns in

the discussion of columns, since both the main and the bracing members of a typical

offshore structure are usually circular cylinders. It is of interest to note that the

emphasis in this review and design guide is on information based on experimental

investigations. The discussion of column buckling experiments in [6.14] is essentially similar to that in the SSRC Guide [6.3], except that the comparisons are with

the special codes and design recommendation developed for offshore structures

and that interaction with local buckling (shell buckling) is considered in detail.

Since offshore platforms are usually designed as highly redundant space frames,

where buckling of an individual member will not necessarily lead to failure

304

of the structure as a whole, and since they are subjected on rare occasions to

extreme loads, post-collapse characteristics are very important for assessment of the

survivability of offshore structures. The post-collapse behavior of tubular columns

strongly depends on whether collapse is initiated by local instability.

If local stability predominates, the post-buckling behavior is that of a cylindrical

shell, which is highly unstable, as has been discussed in Chapter 2. If local buckling

is avoided, as in tubes with low (D/t) ratio, the post-collapse behavior is controlled

by the ratio of the Euler critical stress xkE to the yield stress y , and by the magnitude of initial imperfections (out-of-straightness). Figure 6.12 (from [6.14]) shows

typical average axial stress-strain curves for tubular columns. (These curves are

typical presentations corresponding to experimental results.) For the two extreme

cases (a) xkE y and (c) xkE y , collapse is gradual and a signicant load

carrying capacity is retained. However, in case (b), when 0.7 xkE /y 1.3,

post-buckling can be highly unstable for tubes with small imperfections, with

signicant reduction in load-carrying capacity in the post-collapse range. The presence of large imperfections considerably reduces the pre-buckling stiffness and the

buckling load in all cases, but collapse then occurs very gradually and with little

reduction in load carrying capacity.

6.1.5

As mentioned in Chapter 4, von Karman in his classical 1910 paper already recognized two possible sources of errors connected with the end ttings of simply

supported (pin-ended) columns: their rigidity and their restraint to column end rotation. The calculations showed, however, that for his experiments and other typical

columns these errors were insignicant. Von Karmans analysis of the elastic buckling of columns with rigid end connections was presented again in the classic

1940 text of von Karman and Biot [6.15] in a slightly different form, that however

yielded similar results. Later investigators reexamined this effect for short columns,

suspecting there a more signicant inuence. For example, Chilver in 1956 [6.16]

considered the same type of column, but extended the von Karman study beyond

the elastic range, to be suitable for short columns. Figure 6.13 shows schematically

a typical column with rigid knife ends. The fraction (2a/L) is the rigid portion of

the total length of the column. The effective length a of the end ttings is the

length that can be regarded as completely rigid from the bending point of view.

The analysis of the schematic column of Figure 6.13 obviously applies also to

other types of pin-ended ttings (like spherical ends or roller and ball bearings).

The approximate solution for the elastic buckling load with rigid ends is

2 EI

[1 C 1/32a/L3 /22 ]2 .

6.2

L2

Hence, the adjusted length of the column Lad , that includes the effect of the rigid

ends, is

Lad D L/[1 C 2 /122a/L3 ].

6.3

Pcr D

Figure 6.12

305

Typical average axial stress-strain curves for tubular columns with small and large

imperfections (from [6.14])

One may note that even for large values of 2a/L, say 0.4, the elastic buckling

load would increase only by about 11 percent. For any practical proportions, say

2a/L < 0.2 the error would be less than 1.3 percent.

For short columns, beyond the elastic range, the stress-strain curve has to be

considered, from which the value of the tangent modulus Et can be obtained for

306

ttings schematic (from [6.16])

Table 6.1

(2a/L)

Increase in Pcr

(percent)

L Lad /L (percent)

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.16

1.32

4.49

10.8

21.7

0.08

0.66

2.2

5.0

9.3

any value of the compression stress. From Eq. (6.2) the buckling stress is

cr D

2 Et

[1 C 1/32a/L3 /22 ]

L/2

6.4

where is the radius of gyration of the cross-section of the column and the elastic

modulus E has been replaced by the tangent modulus Et , to generalize the solution

for both elastic and plastic buckling. Chilver re-arranged Eq. (6.4) to

6.5

Et /cr D L/f1 C 2 /12[2a/3 /L/3 ]g1

p

and then plotted Et /cr versus L/ for three values of 2a/r D 5, 10 and

15 (see Figure 6.14). The last value of 2a/r D 15, which for a slenderness ratio

L/ D 20 corresponds to 2a/L D 0.75 or an unsupported length of L/4, is

probably an extreme practical condition. Usually 2a/ will not exceed 5, corresponding to 2a/L D 0.25 for L/ D 20 or to 2a/L D 0.125 for a slenderness

ratio L/ D 40, and Chilvers curves in Figure 6.14 show that then the effect of

Figure 6.14

307

p

The function Et /cr for pin-ended columns with rigid end ttings versus the

slenderness ratio L/ (from [6.16])

the end tting is negligible. His calculations for two typical wrought aluminum

alloys indicated that for short columns, where buckling is elasto-plastic, rigid endttings increased the buckling load of a pin-ended column by not more than

5 percent for 2a/ D 15 and much less for the usual small values of 2a/,

being almost negligible for 2a/ < 10.

Hence a suitable design rule for column end ttings was suggested:

2a/ < 10/L/

6.6

for negligible effect of end tting rigidity. For example, with a slenderness ratio

of 40 it would be permissible to support rigidly a quarter of the total length of the

column, or L/8 at each end.

The second source of error identied by von Karman, the possible rotational

restraint, was not amenable to similar simple analyses. The simple knife edges,

rollers or conical points, shown in Figures 6.6(a) 6.6(c), were, however over the

years, found to be rather material and load dependent and not very consistent.

Hence also for small columns, roller or ball bearings are nowadays preferred.

A simple undergraduate student column experiment, carried out routinely at the

Technion in Haifa, can serve as an example of this trend. A couple of decades ago

the simply supported column was represented by a simple knife edge end tting,

as shown in Figure 6.15. There, two bolts A pressed on two small rectangular steel

plates B, which slid on pins C, to x the column D (of rectangular cross-section)

in the steel end tting. If the test column had not been clamped centrally, which

308

Figure 6.15

Early knife-edge end ttings for student column experiments at Technion Israel

Institute of Technology

became evident in the strain gage readings as the load was applied, its position

could be adjusted by just loosening and tightening the bolts A, even under load.

The knife edge of this simple end tting, however, lost its edge after some use and

a small and undened rotational constraint appeared.

In order to make the tests more consistent, especially as the study of the correlation between vibrations and buckling was added to the column experiment, a new

end tting with roller bearings has been introduced, Figure 6.16. Here the column

Figure 6.16

Figure 6.15 for student column experiments at the Technion

Crippling Strength

309

D rests between two wedge-shape jaws B, which x it in the rotating body C of the

end tting. The compressive load tightens the grip of the jaws, due to the wedge

shape of the cavity in which they t. The body C rotates in two ball bearings E

and therefore the end tting represents a good pin-end. The holding bracket F of

the end tting rests on the platens of the testing machine, or is attached to it with

suitable bolts.

Though slightly more complicated than its knife edge predecessor, the ballbearing end tting has proven itself as a consistent, inexpensive and convenient

end xture, and has presented no problems to the students.

6.2

6.2.1

Crippling Strength

Crippling Failure

fail by compressive yielding of the material, followed by squashing or a shear

failure, if the column is very short. The design stress, which limits the buckling as

the length of the column diminishes, is therefore the compressive yield stress. If,

however, the cross section of the column is thin-walled, the yielding is replaced by

local buckling of the thin-walled, ange-plate elements of the column, which can

also occur elastically. Tests show that often, after such local buckling (sometimes

called wrinkling) has occurred, the column still has the ability to carry a greater load

before it fails. Local buckling and local failure loads are therefore not the same.

Figure 2.11, in Chapter 2 shows the stress distribution for a typical channel

section after local buckling has occurred, but prior to failure. As the load is

increased, the local buckles on the at sections grow, but most of the increasing

load is transferred to the much stiffer corner regions, until the stress intensity

reaches a high enough value to cause excessive deformation and failure called

crippling (see for example Chapter C7 of [2.78]). When local buckling occurs

at relatively low stress levels, the crippling stresses will be signicantly higher.

But, as already pointed out in Section 2.1.3, when local buckling takes place at

high mean stress levels (say 0.7 0.8cy ), the buckling and crippling stresses are

practically the same. In both cases, however, the crippling stress (also sometimes

referred to as crushing stress or maximum average stress) replaces the yield stress

as the limiting design stress for short columns with thin-walled cross-sections.

It was also pointed out in Chapter 2, that in the absence of satisfactory analytical

solutions (partly because the manner in which stresses build up in the corner regions

is not well understood), the crippling stress has to be calculated by semi-empirical

methods. Since the crippling strength is one of the most basic data for air-frame

design, very extensive tests were carried out in the forties and fties to establish the

required data base (for example [6.17] [6.21]). Based on these tests (usually carried

out in standard testing machines, with at-ended specimens bearing directly on the

guided platens, assumed to simulate clamped ends) empirical and semi-empirical

methods of crippling stress prediction were derived. The methods of Crockett,

310

summing the crippling loads of elements including the curved junctions [6.17], and

of Needham, the angle method [6.21], were widely adopted by industry; but the

method proposed in 1958 by Gerard [6.22], based on a careful review of previous

work and a comprehensive semi-empirical investigation, was more general and

was therefore widely accepted.

6.2.2

Gerard proposed the following formula for the crippling stress cc :

m

gt2

E 1/2

cc

D

cy

A

cy

6.7

where cy is the compressive yield stress, A is the cross-sectional area, t the

thickness and g is the number of imaginary cuts needed to divide the cross-section

into a series of anges plus the number of anges that would exist after the cuts are

made. The parameters and m are empirical constants determined from test data.

Gerard based the derivation of Eq. (6.7) on the fact that the failure stress of

plates after buckling depends strongly on the stresses along the supported unloaded

edges. Thus in curve tting Eq. (6.7) to the available experimental data, one must

differentiate between cross-sectional shapes where the unloaded edges are free

to warp in the plane (such as angles, plates supported in V-grooves and square

tubes) and cross-sectional shapes with straight unloaded edges (such as T-sections,

cruciforms and H-sections). Ways to determine g for typical cross-sections and

values for the corresponding parameters and m are summarized in Figures 6.17a

and 6.17b, respectively. Up to now all the material effects are included in the

parameter E/cy . Ways to account for the strain hardening effects in the corners

of formed sections, or for the use of a cladding correction factor for sections made

out of clad aluminum-alloy sheet, are discussed in Gerards paper [6.22] and on

pp. 477 479 of Rivellos textbook [2.10].

Finally, it was recommended that the cut-off or maximum crippling stress for

thin-walled cross-sections should be limited to the values summarized in Table 6.2,

unless the use of higher crippling stresses could be supported by appropriate results.

The use of Gerards method to calculate the crippling stress of columns with

thin-walled composite cross-sections is illustrated in Bruhns textbook [2.78] by

numerous worked out examples.

Table 6.2

different cross-sections (from [2.78])

Type of sections

Angles

V-groove plates

Multi-corner sections, including tubes

Tee, Cruciform and H-sections

2-corner sections, Z-, J- sections, channels

Max. cr

0.7

1.0

0.8

0.8

0.9

cy

cy

cy

cy

cy

Crippling Strength

Figure 6.17

6.2.3

311

Gerards formula for the crippling stress (from [6.22])

Though Gerards method and the other semi-empirical methods for crippling stress

prediction were derived in the fties, they are still in use today. Because of

the semi-empirical nature of these methods and their material dependence, many

additional crippling strength tests have since been performed, in particular whenever new structural congurations or materials were introduced (see for example

[6.23] [6.31]).

For example, when a trapezoidal corrugated plate was considered as a compression element at the Technical University of Munich, Germany, in the seventies,

a series of crippling strength experiments were carried out (see [6.23]). Short

stub aluminum alloy columns (or rather short corrugated plates), with cast and

subsequently machined top and bottom epoxy end beams (see Figure 6.18a) were

carefully tested for local buckling (see Figure 6.18b) and then for crippling failure

(see Figure 6.18c).

Or, with the introduction of composite laminates in the US aerospace industry,

a series of crippling tests on graphite/epoxy columns and plates were performed

at the Convair Division of General Dynamics in San Diego, California in the late

Figure 6.18

TU Munich crippling tests on short corrugated aluminum alloy plates (from [6.23]): (a) dimensions of specimens, (b) local buckling

just prior to failure specimen 3B, (c) crippling failure specimen 5C

(a)

312

Columns, Beams and Frameworks

Crippling Strength

313

used and at plate specimens (different laminates), as well as square tubes and

I-sections, were tested. The no-edge-free at plate compression specimens were

supported along the unloaded edges by V-grooves in steel blocks and the oneedge-free tests were carried out with just one V-block support. The loaded edges

in both cases were potted with epoxy in aluminum alloy blocks. The square-tube

and I-section specimens were potted with cerrobend in aluminum end blocks and

then placed between the platens of a universal testing machine. Load-displacement

plots like Figure 6.19, usually showed that the crippling load Pcc considerably

exceeded that of incipient buckling Pcri , which again was usually slightly above

the theoretical elastic buckling load Pcrth . Sometimes the crippling failure was

accompanied by severe delamination (common in composite laminate failures, as

discussed in Chapter 14, Volume 2). Empirical crippling curves, based on a nondimensional crippling equation similar to that proposed by Gerard for thin-walled

metal columns Eq. (6.7), were obtained. It was also found that the no-free-edge

empirical crippling curves could be used to predict the crippling strength of square

tubes.

The wide-spread use of thin-walled cold-formed and welded columns in the

eighties (discussed in Sub-section 6.2.5) also motivated many crippling tests in

civil engineering studies, though under the label of stub-column tests. For example,

at the Structural Stability Laboratory of the University of Liege, Belgium, extensive

stub-column experiments were carried out on steel columns with thin-walled open

proles (see [6.26] [6.30]). Large series of U,C and angle sections were tested

Figure 6.19

Convair/GD crippling tests on graphite/epoxy columns and plates typical loaddisplacement plot for a one-edge-free specimen (from [6.24])

314

Figure 6.20

failure of a short specimen (of 5 cm length), crippling of angle section near the

semi-circle portion of the cross section (from [6.31])

in a universal testing machine, with xed end ttings. The strain hardening in the

corners, typical of crippling tests, was taken into account as well as the increased

warping rigidity and warping restraints important in angle-section stub columns.

The results of the comprehensive tests on all the open prole stub columns indicated

that caution must be exercised in applying current design rules to columns with

such sections.

Another more recent example are the crippling tests on aluminum-lithium alloy

extruded stringers carried out at the Institut fur Leichtbau of the Technical University, Aachen in 1992 [6.31]. The compression experiments on the thin-walled

bulb type (semi-circle angle cross-section) extruded A Li stringers DAN 5013 included column local buckling and postbuckling tests as well as short column

crippling tests. One of these is shown in Figure 6.20, where failure was by crippling of the angle section near the semi-circle. At failure, these A Li specimens

exhibited long cracks, which apparently were due to brittleness of the material or

some layered structure caused by the extrusion process.

6.2.4

Crinkly Collapse

The local postbuckling behavior of the corners of thin-walled columns attracted the

attention of many investigators over the years, since it was not fully understood.

In many thin-walled columns failure by a localized buckling mode, involving the

Crippling Strength

315

collapse of the corners, was observed and was called crinkly collapse. There was

some similarity between this phenomenon and the crippling failure discussed in

the previous section.

It was found that this crinkly collapse type of failure was initiated by a combination of geometric instability and material plasticity, presenting a difcult problem

of elasto-plastic analysis. Since it appeared that the elastic collapse was similar to

the elasto-plastic one, an analysis of the simpler elastic problem was initiated

at the University of Southampton in the late seventies. Simultaneously an experimental study on silicone rubber model columns was carried out there [6.32], which

demonstrated the localized crinkly collapse mode, that was initiated by geometric

elastic instability at the corners associated with their waviness prior to failure. The

curing silicone rubber (commercially available) was chosen as the model material

to permit the large elastic deformations required for an elastic crinkly collapse.

Special silicone rubber sheets were cast, cut and bonded to form square section

tubes. The ends of these specimens were plugged with wood and machined perpendicular to the column axis. The models were tested in an Instron testing machine,

which provided automated plotting of load and compressive strain.

With increasing compression, local buckles appeared at an early stage. Then, as

the amplitude of the buckles grew, a gradual decrease in stiffness occurred and

noticeable curvature of the column corners appeared (see Figure 6.21a). Collapse

was accompanied by a sudden drop in load and by the appearance of two crinkles, either in opposite or adjacent corners of the specimens (see Figure 6.21b).

Upon unloading, the specimens jumped back to the original buckled conguration,

at a somewhat lower strain, and demonstrated elastic behavior (see Figure 6.22).

Four nominally identical specimens were tested to investigate experimental reproducibility. Their overall stress-strain curves shown in Figure 6.22 indeed demonstrated excellent reproducibility. Experiments with columns of different length

showed that the stiffening effect of the end supports (not accounted for in the

analysis), which effectively clamp and locally stiffen the column with the wooden

plugs, caused a signicant length dependence of the test results. The silicone

rubber modeling indeed served well to exhibit the large deection of the crinkly

collapse.

Before leaving the topic of crippling collapse of columns, it may be appropriate

to mention a related phenomenon, web crippling, which occurs in thin-walled

beams subjected to concentrated or patch loads and which is discussed in Chapter 8.

6.2.5

Though not directly related to crippling, the buckling and postbuckling behavior of

thin-walled cold-formed and welded columns has some characteristics that make

their discussion appropriate here.

As already mentioned in Chapter 1 and in Sub-section 6.2.3, there has been a

signicant increase in the use of thin-walled cold-formed and welded columns

in the last decade. This has been accompanied by an extensive research effort.

For the light, thin-web welded columns, the focus was on the residual stress

316

Figure 6.21

crinkly collapse (from [6.32]): (a) noticeable curvature at corners, (b) appearance

of corner crinkles, (c) crinkly-cum-overall buckling

patterns (see for example [1.30]), which were found to be different and larger than

those commonly experienced with thick-walled or rolled sections. These signicant

residual stresses and the early local plate buckling of anges and webs resulted in

a nonlinear behavior of the columns, that required comprehensive tests in order to

provide design data. Similar nonlinear behavior also occurred in thin-walled coldformed columns due to early plate buckling, and therefore they too warranted

Crippling Strength

Figure 6.22

317

crinkly collapse overall stress-strain curves of four nominally identical specimens, showing the experimental reproducibility (from [6.29])

extensive experiments (see for example [6.33] [6.35]). It may be pointed out

that in the more recent tests careful geometrical imperfection measurements were

performed on all specimens, both in cold-formed and welded columns, and the

effect of these imperfections was then evaluated (see for example [6.35]).

For short columns, these tests resembled the crippling tests (discussed in Subsection 6.2.3) and the observed interactive buckling failures involved only local

buckling and overall bending modes. For longer columns, interaction with torsional

buckling modes is also possible (see for example [6.36]), and the long column

tests are therefore discussed separately in the next section, in connection with

torsional-exural buckling.

It may also be mentioned that in the last two decades numerical simulations,

which take into account the real geometrical imperfections and material inhomogeneities, have often been employed to supplement the results obtained from

column buckling tests, in order to reduce the experimental work needed for determination of buckling curves and design data. Such numerical simulations have,

for example, been used for rolled high strength steel round tubes and rectangular

tubes built-up from welded cold-formed high strength steel channels in a joint study

carried out at Milan Polytechnic and Liege University in the late seventies [6.37].

This numerical simulation could, however, not be applied to the cold-formed square

tubes of the same program, since their residual stresses were biaxial (and rather

difcult to measure), whereas the numerical simulation took into account only

uniaxial residual stresses. Many more tests were therefore required for the buckling strength data of these cold-formed square tubes. Note that the investigators

318

could take advantage of numerical simulation in their column buckling experiments, only when the basic observed phenomena were well dened and amenable

to precise measurement.

As an example of a typical modern laboratory type setup for compression tests

on small thin-walled columns, that was recently used for experiments on coldformed sections at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, Scotland [6.38], is

now discussed. These tests were carried out under carefully controlled loading and

boundary conditions, in order to accurately assess the failure predictions of the

recent British code for cold-formed steel sections, BS 5950 Part 5, and to examine

other aspects of column behavior, such as growth and shape of local buckling and

postbuckling deformations.

Uniform compression of all the plate elements of the column was considered to

be of particular importance. The two generally used approaches, loading through

at parallel platens or through platens attached to ball joints, were therefore thought

to be insufcient. With at parallel platens any out-of-atness or skew of the specimen ends could result, because of the very small end displacements involved,

in substantial load concentrations on a single element of the section or even at

a single location. With platens attached to ball joints, they could align to eliminate load concentration, but the compression might still be nonuniform due to the

wandering centroid phenomenon. Hence the Strathclyde University test setup

was designed to overcome these loading uniformity problems.

The relatively simple test rig, shown in Figure. 6.23, was built to be used on

a Tinius Olsen testing machine. It consisted of two platens, a top platen (2 in.

Figure. 6.23) attached to the crosshead of the testing machine, and a bottom one

(5) mounted on a ball table (7), which in turn was placed on the Tinius Olsen

platform (8). Four leveling jacks (6) were provided for holding the bottom platen

in position during the tests. For adjustment of the test rig prior to testing, the

platens were connected by adjustable screw tie rods (not shown in the gure),

which were then removed for the actual experiment.

The procedure was as follows: First the top platen, the test specimen and the

bottom of the platen were joined and held in place using the adjustable tie rods.

This assembly was then placed on the ball table (7), positioned on the platform of

the testing machine (8) and secured to the machine crosshead (1). A small preload

was applied and the leveling jacks (6) were adjusted to give equal bearing forces at

the support. The jacks were then locked in position, ensuring that the specimen was

properly seated and that the compression would be uniform. Finally the preload

was removed and the tie rods were dismantled.

A deection measuring device (not shown in the gure), consisting of a stiff light

framework, that supported a system of tubular guides along which an LVDT could

move, was attached to the bottom platen. This transducer measured the out-ofplane deection of the plate elements of the column, while another LVDT attached

to the framework measured the position of the deection LVDT across the section.

The deection transducer could be moved across a plate element remotely, with

deections and positions being automatically recorded on an X Y plotter. During

the tests, the displacements were thus measured along the central horizontal line

Crippling Strength

Figure 6.23

319

rig assembly (from [6.38]): 1. Tinius Olsen cross head 2. top platen 3. end plate

4. test specimen 5. bottom platen 6. leveling jack 7. ball table 8. Tinius Olsen

platform 9. end plate glued to specimen with Araldite glue

of the main plate element (except in two specimens where this line coincided with

the nodal line). Load-displacement records were taken with the usual test machine

equipment. Additional dial gages measured the relative displacement of top and

bottom platens, to check the uniformity of compression. Centrally located pairs

of strain gages were attached to the main plate of four of the six specimens, for

experimental determination of the critical loads. On one specimen, additional four

pairs of strain gages were added at the section corners to examine the uniformity

of strains over the cross-section. More extensive application of strain gages would

have probably enhanced the test results, as would have further LVDT measurements

along additional horizontal lines.

The six specimens were made from sheet steel by cold-forming on a brake press.

All the specimens were manufactured from the same sheet of steel and therefore

had practically the same thickness and material properties. Though the (b/t) ratios

of their main plate elements were nearly identical b/t D 153 155, each column

section was different, from C channel to lipped channel, trapezoidal channel and

320

one lipped channel closed by a plate spot welded to its lips. Duplication or triplication of each shape would have probably given more weight to the experimental

conclusions.

In order to prevent lateral movement of the loaded ends of the specimens during

the tests, while offering only little restraint to out-of-plane rotation of the plate

elements, these aluminum end plates were glued to both ends of the columns

with Araldite glue, as shown in Figure 6.23 (Section BB). Since the glue prevents

translation of the specimen ends, while permitting angular movement of the plate

elements, the ends were considered to be a close approximation to simple supports.

The failure load predictions of BS 5950 Part 5 were found to be in good agreement with experimental results. All the tests continued far into the plastic unloading

range.

One should note that though relatively simple, this test rig provided the means

for the required controlled uniform compression loading.

6.3

6.3.1

Torsional Buckling

columns, torsional buckling is a possible mode of buckling and failure for thinwalled columns of medium length, whose torsional stiffness is relatively low, as

already pointed out in Section 2.1.3 of Chapter 2.

The phenomenon of torsional buckling and torsional-exural buckling of

columns was recognized in the twenties, when the rst all-metal airplanes were

designed and built. Open-section columns, such as channels, zees or angles, were

then widely used in aircraft design, since they were easily connected and could be

conveniently inspected, but due to their small torsional rigidity they were prone

to torsional failure. Wagner in Germany was the rst to present in 1929 a theory

for arbitrary thin-walled sections [6.39]. His work was further developed in 1937

by Kappus in Germany [6.40] and by Lundquist and Fligg in the US [6.41]. The

problem was extensively studied in the thirties and forties by many investigators

(see for example [6.42] [6.44]), and since the forties and fties it has been an

important topic in most relevant text books (see for example [2.1], [2.3], [4.18],

[4.19], [6.45] [6.47]).

6.3.2

The earliest experimental study of torsional buckling was that carried out in 1934

by Wagner and Pretschner on plain and anged aluminum alloy angles [6.48].

Signicant experimental data on torsional buckling was also provided by a series

of tests on about 500 equal angle section steel and aluminum alloy columns, made

by Kollbrunner in Zurich in 1935.

321

Another series of tests on 33 aluminum alloy channels, carried out for NACA

by Niles at Stanford University in the late thirties ([6.50], or see [6.45], pp. 316,

351 355), set the pattern for torsional buckling experiments on columns in the

following decades. The columns were loaded by an hydraulic jack in a universal

testing machine, through special sophisticated end ttings. These were designed

to apply the resultant load through the centroids of the end cross-sections, while

permitting free warping of the three main elements of the column cross-section,

except at their mid-points. This was achieved by a system of three knife edges,

one acting at the mid-point of each of the three elements, which supported three

bearing blocks, beveled to allow a 5 degree uninterfered rotation about the knife

edge, which thus ensured the desired free warping.

Rotations and translations of cross-sections were measured with the aid of

antennas, constructed from round steel rods attached at different heights in the

center of the back of the specimens (see Figure 6.24). As shown in the gure,

the movement of each antenna (1) was determined by measuring the distances

from reference points (2) about 0.5 inch from the end of each of its arms to xed

reference points (3) on the wooden scaffolding (4). As can be seen, the distances

between the reference points were measured by ordinary vernier calipers (5) with

special lozenge-shaped attachments (6) on their jaws. Though rather unsophisticated (today probably LVDTs or optical means would have been employed), the

accuracy of the rotation measurements was quite good, with an error of less than

0.04 degrees, but the measurements of the translational movements of the crosssections were less satisfactory. The change in length of the specimens under load

Figure 6.24

indication of rotation of cross sections and the positioning of calipers for

measurement of distances from reference points on the scaffolding (from [6.50]):

1. antenna, 2. reference point, 3. xed reference point, 4. wooden scaffolding,

5. vernier caliper, 6. lozenge-shaped attachment

322

was measured by dial gages attached to the end ttings, as was and still is customary

in many tests.

A very detailed description of the test procedure was presented, including

enumeration of checks to reduce the human errors, as well as a detailed description

of the calibration of the Bourdon pressure gage of the jack for load measurements.

The precision of the results was also carefully examined. These discussions

presenting important experimental details are worth reading even today.

The critical (failure) loads for all the columns are plotted in Figure 6.25 against

their length, and are compared with theoretical predictions based on the analysis of

Lundquist and Fligg [6.41], shown as curve Pth . The Euler load PE , also depicted

in the gure, emphasizes the importance of torsional buckling as a failure mode

that can result in much lower critical loads. It may be noticed that for lengths

in excess of 24 in., when failure is by torsional buckling, the agreement between

prediction and experiment is very good.

It may be noted that, contrary to the sophisticated free warping ends of the

Stanford University tests [6.50], most other torsional or torsional-exural buckling

experiments of the forties mentioned below, used simpler at ends. For example

in Ramberg and Levys tests [6.54], the ends of their 125 extrusions were ground

at and perpendicular to the axis and the specimens were compressed in a testing

machine between ground steel blocks. To obtain uniform loading, a plaster of

Paris cap was placed between the top steel block and the head of testing machine.

Figure 6.25

length comparison of experimental buckling loads with theoretical prediction Pth

and Euler loads PE (from [6.50])

323

The distribution of strain was measured with Tuckerman mechanical strain gages

(this was before electric strain gages were available) and when at low loads strain

divergences exceeded 10 percent, the column was reground and retested. The twist

was measured only at the center of the specimen, but in some of the tests quite

accurately, by optically measuring the relative rotation of two prisms with an

autocollimator.

In the late thirties and forties further extensive experiments were carried out

to lend support to the theory and design methods for torsional and exuraltorsional buckling of columns and stringers attached to sheets, primarily for aircraft

structures. For example, at NACA and at the US National Bureau of Standards,

aluminum-alloy panels stiffened by Z-, S-, C- and U-section stiffeners were tested

([4.24], [6.51] and [6.52]), as well as similar panels stiffened by bulb angles [6.53].

Later many tests were also performed on extruded sections made of aluminum

and magnesium alloy [6.54], which included also inelastic buckling. At about

the same time, a series of tests on folded mild steel and aluminum alloy angle

section columns, was carried out at Battersea Polytechnic, London [6.55], for civil

engineering applications.

By the fties, the aeronautical engineers seemed to have a sufcient data base

for design against torsional and torsional-exural buckling. But the growing use

of thin-walled open sections as load carrying structural members in other elds of

engineering, in the following decades, motivated extensive studies of torsional

and torsional-exural buckling, primarily by civil engineers (see for example

[6.56] [6.58]). As a typical example of the experimental investigations involved,

one can consider the series of tests on columns with different cross-sections

performed at Cornell University in the mid-sixties [6.59], or the tests on buckling

of steel angle and tee struts, carried out a few years later at the University of

Windsor in Ontario, Canada, [6.60].

The Cornell experiments (see [6.59]) included columns with lipped and plain

angles, channels and hat sections, all tested with fully restrained ends. Fixed ends

were preferred at Cornell, to avoid the complex end tting required for accurate

simple supports. The test setup is shown in Figure 6.26. The ends of the test

column, to which steel end plates were welded was set in hydrostone (a type of

quick-setting cement), which served two distinct purposes. While it was wet and

plastic, the column could be tilted and brought into vertical alignment. After it had

dried and hardened the hydrostone served as a means of evenly distributing the

load from the testing machine to the specimen. At Cornell at the time, any further

renement in the alignment procedure was considered superuous, in view of the

shape imperfections inherent in any cold-formed member. Today, the imperfections

would be measured and their effect be compensated by some means of adjustment

of the alignment during the test.

The twist and lateral displacements of the column tested were measured by a

simple set of pointers, scales and two transit theodolites, which provided fairly

accurate measurements of twist and local distortion.

One may note that the Southwell plots (discussed in detail in Chapter 4,

Section 4) employed here, again yielded good agreement between experimentally

324

Figure 6.26

test setup, schematic (from [6.59]). The hydrostone assists alignment while wet

and plastic, and helps to even load distribution after hardening

observed buckling loads and those predicted by linear theory. The plain and lipped

equal-legged angles and hat section columns had a stable postbuckling curve and

failed only at loads about 15 percent above the theoretical buckling load. This

postbuckling strength was attributed to the axial membrane stresses caused by the

large twisting deformations (20 40 degrees at the center of the column).

The Windsor tests set out to eliminate the limitations of the then current US AISC

and Canadian CSA specications, which did not take torsional-exural buckling

into account. The tests included 72 angle struts with both hinged and xed end

conditions, and 27 T-sections with hinged ends.

In order to minimize end effects, the specimens were made as long as possible,

consistent with required slenderness ratios (22 to 114) and the capacity of the

available testing equipment. The angle struts were about 4 ft. (1.2 m) long and the

T-section struts 4 7 ft. (1.2 2.1 m). The test pieces were fabricated by regular

production processes (in line with the as fabricated specimen philosophy that

aims at providing reliable empirical data that can be used for design), and three

specimens of each conguration were tested.

325

The test setup was a regular horizontal test frame, comprising two nearly 10 ft.

(3 m) long 12 in. channels placed back to back, 14 in. (356 mm) apart, and bolted

to a 1/4 in. (6.35 mm) thick steel plate at the bottom, with three batten plates at the

top. The load was applied by a 120 kip (534 kN) capacity hydraulic jack through

a at precalibrated load cell. Some columns required a larger, 200 kip (890 kN)

capacity jack. In placing the specimens in position, shims were used to ensure truly

axial load, and friction was minimized by lubricating the contact surfaces. Deections were measured at quarter points of the column with dial gages mounted on a

separate rigid frame. For a few tests on the xed-end angle struts, the deections

were also measured at the ends to ensure that there was no signicant end rotation.

The critical loads were determined by the top-of-the-knee method, developed

at NACA in the mid-forties for plates and discussed in Chapter 8, Section 8.3

(see Figure 8.57). There was good agreement between the experimental buckling

stresses and the theoretical ones, with an (Pexp /Pth ) range of 0.95 1.19 and an

average ratio of 1.05 with a standard deviation of 0.06. In the majority of cases

the actual modes of failure were also predicted correctly. Nearly all the single

angles failed by exural buckling, more than half of the double angles failed by

torsional-exural buckling with the remainder divided between inelastic exural

or plate buckling, and all the T-struts failed by torsional-exural buckling. Typical

torsional-exural failures of double angles are shown in Figure 6.27 (reproduced

Figure 6.27

failures of double angles (from [6.60])

326

from [6.60]). Practically always, the three specimens of each conguration failed

in the same mode. Calculations showed signicant discrepancies between the theoretical predictions (that were veried by the tests) and those of the AISC and CSA

specications, justifying their possible modication.

There have been many other experimental investigations of torsional-exural

buckling of open section thin-walled columns in the last decades, as is evident for

example in the comprehensive 1982 review on buckling of angles by Kennedy and

Madugula [6.61]. The results of these studies have been incorporated in the various

design recomendations for thin-walled columns, as for example in Chapter 13 of the

SSRC Guide [6.3] or the ECCS Recommendations for Steel Constructions [6.5].

Before leaving the topic of torsional-exural buckling, it may be of interest to

mention that the widely discussed 1978 collapse of the space-truss roof of the

Hartford Coliseum in the USA (see for example [6.62] or [6.63]) was originally

attributed to torsional buckling failure of its columns, with a four equal leg angle

cruciform cross-section. The disagreements about the cause of this collapse motivated a review of the buckling analysis of four angle cruciform columns [6.64],

which however lacks experimental verication.

6.3.3

Distortional Buckling

The columns of industrial steel rack structures are usually cold-formed open

sections, most commonly thin-walled lipped channels. In experiments on these

channel columns, another failing mode distortional buckling was observed in

addition to exural-torsional or local (plate) buckling (see [6.65] and [6.66]).

The distortional mode (sometimes called also local-torsional mode) is shown in

Figure 6.28. It involves a rotation of the ange and lip combinations (A), about the

ange/web junctions (B). The stiffness of the web element of the channel (C, often

called front face in rack columns), provides a restraint to this rotation, which

depends upon the slenderness of the web and the destabilization of the web caused

by the compressive stress present. Note that the distortional mode shown in the

gure does not involve any rotation of the whole cross-section which characterizes

torsional buckling.

The more recent series of tests [6.66] included 68 thin-walled steel channel

columns of four different section geometries, with dimensions commonly used in

Figure 6.28

[6.65])

327

the rack industry, and made of three different steels (see Figure 6.29). A nite

strip elastic buckling analysis indicated that the intermediate slenderness columns

of all four sections would fail mainly in the distortional mode, whereas the longest

specimens would fail by exural-torsional buckling and the shortest ones by local

buckling. These buckling modes were indeed conrmed in the tests. The specimen

lengths ranged from 0.3 in. to 1.9 in. Their ends were milled to provide at loading

surfaces.

The experiments were performed in a 250 kN capacity Instron TT-KM testing

machine, except for the thick short columns which were tested in a 2000 kN

capacity Avery testing machine. All specimens were tested with xed ends. The

load was applied at the top end, through a rigid end platen xed against rotation,

whereas the bottom end rested on a spherical bearing, which was restrained from

rotation about both horizontal axes and the vertical axis during the test (although

free to move for adjustments prior to loading). The purpose of the spherical bearing

was to ensure parallel ends prior to loading, in order to promote uniform loading

across the sections. Two of the specimens had 11 pairs of strain gages attached

at the mid-height position, to measure the stress distribution during loading, and

Figure 6.29

sections (from [6.66]). Typical dimensions: t D 1.6 2.4 mm, bw D 76 85 mm,

bf or b1 D 30 80 mm: (a) simple lipped channel, (b) rack column upright,

(c) rack column upright with additional lip stiffeners, (d) hat

328

Figure 6.30

distortional buckling modes of test specimens (courtesy of Prof. G.J. Hancock)

it was indeed found fairly uniform till 0.85 0.95 of the maximum load. Typical

distortional buckling modes obtained in the tests are shown in Figure 6.30. More

recent experimental studies on distortional buckling by Hancock and his students

at the University of Sydney can be found in [6.176] and [6.177].

6.4

6.4.1

Lateral instability of beams

greatest exural rigidity, can buckle by combined twist and lateral bending,

329

Section 2.1.6. Due to the low torsional and lateral exural stiffness of slender

beams, with narrow rectangular sections, I-sections with narrow anges or thinwalled open sections, their cross-sections in the center of the beam rotate and

deect laterally, as in torsional-exural instability caused by axial compression.

The moment of inertia in the plane of bending therefore decreases till the reduced

bending stiffness together with the torsional stiffness are insufcient to resist the

bending loads, leading to lateral buckling failure.

The phenomenon of lateral buckling was already known in the last decades of

the 19th century and had been observed in some tests on wrought iron and mild

steel beams (see for example [6.67]), but the rst rigorous theoretical analyses

were those published simultaneously in 1899 by Prandtl [4.5] and Michell [6.68].

Extensive theoretical and experimental studies continued in the rst half of this

century, motivated both by civil and aeronautical engineering applications (see for

example, [6.69] [6.78], [9.45], Volume 2, and Lees 1960 review [6.79]).

6.4.2

1899 tests show, as do the 1910 von Karman experiments discussed in Chapter 4,

the methodology of careful buckling experiments, with awareness of the essential

elements of a successful test already in the planning stage, as well as a realization

of many important factors that have worried experimenters in the 20th century and

even today still present pitfalls to the experimentalist.

Consider an example of Prandtls reasoning: Motivated by the possible use of

vibrations for determination of the stability of the beam, Prandtl sets out to minimize friction in his test setup. He therefore chose a type of loading that promised the

smallest friction, a cantilever loaded by weights at the free ends. Then he demanded

very high rigidity of his clamping arrangement, but realized that it could not be

completely achieved in practice, since some small movements remained that gave

rise to small frictions, which were noticeable near the critical load in spite of their

small magnitude. Prandtl reported that these frictions played many tricks in his

early tests. They were found to be primarily due to the twisting of the cross-sections

during torsional displacements, that extended into the clamping block and resulted

in a residual torsional deformation at the root. He suggested that the incomplete

clamping could be compensated by appropriately increasing the effective length of

the beam, at least for elastic buckling.

Or consider the simple system of loading and of monitoring the deections of

the free end. As shown in Figure 6.31, reproduced from Prandtls thesis, a scale

pan suspended from a curved bar (b), which rested on a knife edge, applied the

load and thus ensured that it was acting in the midplane of the beam. The position

of the free end of the beam at any moment was indicated by marks made on a

graph paper attached to a wooden plate by the two sharp corners S. The wooden

plate, which was moved by hand on three guides, parallel to the initial midplane of

the beam, was presented against the sharp corners to make the marks. From these

330

S

3

1

39.9

3 mm

Figure 6.31

free end of cantilever beam (from [4.5])

marks the angle of twist could be easily found, since the distance between the

two corners was known. In order to follow the deections of the free end as they

became large, the wooden plate sat on small metal knife edges that permitted it to

tilt as required. With this simple system Prandtl obtained consistent prebuckling

and initial postbuckling records and from them the buckling load.

6.4.3

he put it made the attempt to verify one or two of the results given by the theory.

As a test beam he used a 4 ft long engineers steel straight-edge, from which the

feathered edge was removed by planing.

The elastic constants of the steel were determined by bending and twisting the

specimen itself. The bending deections were measured by a screw-micrometer,

with an error of about 0.05 percent. The angles of twist were determined by setting

a small mirror xed to the vertical circle of a theodolite normal to a line of sight

attached to the specimen, with an average error of 0.17 percent.

In order to eliminate the effects of the weight of the specimen, counterpoises

(counterbalancing weights) were used to apply forces directed vertically upwards

at (11) points 10 cms. apart along the axis, each force being equal to the weight

of 10 cms. of the specimen. These forces, as well as the test loads, were applied

by means of steel hooks tting in small double-counter-sunk holes drilled through

the specimen.

The specimen was adjusted before each experiment so that no lateral deection

occurred with a moderate load. The test-load was then gradually increased until the

point of application would remain at rest in contact with either of two stops placed

331

about 1 cm on each side of the initial position, this being considered the critical

load. Since a marked sideways movement was observed in every case already with

test-loads 1 or 2 percent less than the critical one (the minimal load that would

maintain a deection to either side), the experimental load was expected to be

slightly in excess of the true one.

The specimen was tested as a cantilever (of 110 cms net length) in four positions, being twice inverted and once reversed end for end. The mean measured

load was 2.9 percent above the calculated one. The specimen was then tested as a

simply supported beam with a single central load, with the beam being inverted for

the second test. The mean experimental buckling load was found to be 0.2 percent

less than the calculated one. Finally, as a check on the methods and apparatus

the specimen was tested as an Euler column, yielding a buckling load 2.2 percent

above the theoretical one. Michell concluded that the chief source of error in

the experiments was the want of uniformity in the thickness of the specimen

(being C1.4 to 1.6 percent of the mean), since the torsional and lateral bending

stiffnesses varied as the cube of the thickness.

One should note the relatively simple, yet accurate, test setup, the careful experimental procedure and the lucid discussion of measurements and results of these

experiments, carried out nearly a century ago, which warrant their detailed presentation even today and justify the verbatim quotation of some paragraphs of Michells

paper.

The early civil engineering oriented lateral buckling investigations dealt primarily

with deep I-beams subjected to transverse loading. One of the most important of

these was the test series of 31 full size steel I-beams, carried out by Marburg at

the University of Pennsylvania in 1909 [6.69]. The beams were of 15 in., 24 in.

and 30 in. depth and of three shapes: American Standard I-beams, I-beams with

specially wide anges rolled by the Bethlehem Steel Company, and Bethlehem

broad-anged girder beams. The beams were tested with a minimum of lateral

support and in many cases failure was clearly by lateral buckling.

The next comprehensive investigation was performed by Moore at the University

of Illinois in 1910 1913 and included 40 full size I-beams [6.71]. Moore also

tabulated and assessed the available earlier test results. Moores tests were nearly

all made on a four-screw 200 000 lb Olsen testing machine with a long table for

beam tests. The method used for supporting unrestrained beams and preserving

freedom in respect to sidewise buckling (the term used for lateral buckling) is

shown in Figure 6.32. The unrestrained test beam in the gure rested on the long

weighing table of the testing machine via a sphere and plate bearing at one end

and a rocker bearing at the other end. The load was applied via sphere and plate

bearings and a roller bearing, at about 1/3 and 2/3 the span, with the rocker

and roller bearings permitting axial displacement. In two of the test series, the Ibeams were restrained against end twisting, by heavy angles at the ends, or against

sidewise buckling by fastening two beams together along their compression anges

with batten plates.

Moores Illinois experiments provided considerable insight into the phenomenon

of lateral buckling, about which he stated, for example, that the resistance of a

332

Figure 6.32

method of support and loading which permits unrestrained lateral buckling (from

[6.71])

beam against buckling depends on the stiffness of the beam and on the amount

of torsional xity of the bearings. They also yielded substantial empirical design

data and recommendations, whose inuence was felt in many countries for decades

(see for example [6.75]).

Aeronautical engineers encountered lateral buckling in the twenties, when

new airfoil sections permitted the use of deeper spars. At MIT in Cambridge,

Massachusetts, a small series of tests on deep spruce spars, with depth to breadth

ratios of 2.5 17, were therefore performed in 1926 for NACA [6.74]. In these tests,

beyond a critical span or depth-breadth ratio, failures by lateral collapse occurred,

but at stresses below the elastic limit of the material, making repeated tests on a

single specimen possible.

A decade later, the lack of experimental results motivated NACA to sponsor

extensive tests on deep rectangular aluminum beams at the Aluminum Company of

America Research Laboratories [6.76]. The investigators, Dumont and Hill, pointed

out that the experiments were necessary to verify the apparently rigorous theoretical

elastic solution, in order to increase the condence in it; but also to provide data

for an empirical extension of the elastic analysis to the plastic regime (for which

at the time no analytical solutions existed).

The study covered 26 deep rectangular beams, including also two of hollow

sections. The rectangular bars were tested in pairs, each pair being securely bolted

to channel spreaders, as can be seen in Figure 6.33, which shows the arrangements

of the ends. The spreaders held the ends of the bars vertically and prevented lateral

deections at the ends. The central transverse load was applied via a loading beam

and rollers, and subjected the beams to a constant bending moment in their vertical

planes. The ends of the test beam pair rested on perpendicular stub I-beams, which

were attached to the base table, made of a pair of heavy channel beams.

In the following years, Dumont and Hill carried out further lateral buckling

experiments at ALCOA, for example a series of tests on equal-anged AluminumAlloy I-beams [6.77]. The specimens were extruded 27 ST aluminum alloy, relatively light I-beams. They were again tested in pairs in a 40 000 lb. capacity Amsler

Figure 6.33

333

loading arrangement for a pair of specimens (from [6.76])

testing machine. The test setup was similar to that shown in Figure 6.33, except

that here the ends of each pair of beams were laterally restrained by means of relatively rigid end restraining frames. The lighter beams and heavy end frames were

to achieve a high degree of end xity, but complete lateral restraint of the ends of

the beams was not attained. Calculations based on the experimentally determined

critical stress indicated that the degree of end xity varied between 96 percent for

the longest specimens to 81 percent for the shortest ones. It may be pointed out

that the difculty to obtain complete end xity, found in these tests, has since often

troubled experimenters in many types of test setups for various structural elements.

One should also note, that the Southwell method for determination of the critical loads, presented in Sections 4.5 and 4.6 of Chapter 4, was applied here, very

successfully, for the rst time to lateral buckling.

6.4.4

By the middle of the century, lateral buckling had been recognized as an important

factor in the design of many types of structures. In the last decades it became

the subject of many studies, in particular on the inuences of the conditions of

loading, end conditions and lateral restraint, of monosymmetry and of inelastic

buckling (see for example the reviews of Lee, Galambos, Trahair and Nethercot,

[6.79] [6.81] and [2.19] respectively). Today, lateral buckling also occupies a

signicant chapter in texts on stability or design of structures (for example, [2.1],

[2.3], [4.11], [4.19], [6.47] and [6.82]). It has, however, also been realized that, due

to the different types of imperfections affecting the lateral buckling behavior, which

are not completely accounted for in the analyses, comprehensive experimental

data is required for reliable design methods. Extensive experimental studies have

therefore been carried out in the seventies and eighties (see for example the review

334

of Nethercot and Trahair [6.83], or of Fukumoto and Kubo [6.84]), many of them

focused on the effects of local concentrated loads.

A typical example of these are the lateral buckling tests carried out by

Fukumoto and his co-workers at Nagoya University in Japan in the early

eighties ([6.85] [6.87]). One of the series of experiments, that on lateral buckling

of welded continuous beams [6.87] is discussed in detail. The purpose of this study

was to determine the effect of an adjacent nonloaded span L2 on the lateral buckling

strength and deformation of the critical loaded span L1 (see Figure 6.34). Twentyone two-span continuous welded beams were tested under a midspan concentrated

load, as shown in the gure. Their buckling behavior was compared with that of

similar simple welded beams tested earlier ([6.85] and [6.86]), as well as with

calculated results.

The 21 mild steel beams had a nominal identical cross-section I-250 100

6 8 mm, as shown in Figure 6.34, which was also identical to that of the earlier

simple welded beams. They were treated in seven groups of three, each group

having a different span length (3.5 5.5 m), with span ratios (L2 /L1 ) varying from

0.287 to 0.909. The beams were built-up from anges and webs, made from

ame-cut plates, with single-run welds. A diagram of the test setup is shown in

Figure 6.35. The loaded span L1 was supported on simple supports and the continuous extension L2 had a plate welded to its end, which was bolted with 18 bolts

to a xed support C. The test beams were restrained at the supports A and B

against twisting about the longitudinal axis and lateral movement, but were free to

warp at support A. Longitudinal displacement was free at both A and B, whereas

support C provided xed-end conditions vertically, laterally and torsionally. The

concentrated load was applied vertically at midspan of AB, through a Lehigh-type

gravitational load simulator, designed to eliminate any restraining effects of the

applied load. This gravity load simulator is discussed in Section 6.6.2 (see also

[6.118] or [6.120]).

Figure 6.34

test specimen and buckling mode (from [6.87])

335

(a)

(b)

Figure 6.35

test setup: (a) diagram of test rig (from [6.87]), (b) view of a test (courtesy of

Prof. Y. Fukumoto)

The points of strain and deection measurements on the specimens are shown in

Figure 6.36. The strain gages are located so as to separate in-plane and out-of-plane

strains and to experimentally yield the inection points in AB. Initial geometrical

imperfections were carefully measured on all the beams and their initial lateral

deections u0 and twist 0 at the centroid are shown in Figure 6.37 (where they

are drawn as if all groups had the same span length). The nondimensionalized

values of the initial lateral crookedness u0 of the continuous beams were found

to be slightly greater than those of the simple one-span beams, whereas the initial

twists were similar.

The mechanical properties of the original plates, from which the beam sections

were ame-cut, were determined from 30 tensile coupon tests. The longitudinal

336

Figure 6.36

measurement points for strains and deections (from [6.87])

Figure 6.37

initial crookedness of test beams, lateral displacement u0 and twist 0 (from

[6.87])

residual stresses were measured by the sectioning method and found to be similar

to those obtained for the earlier simple beams. The curves of load versus measured

vertical strain for four arbitrary test beams were compared with computed values

and found to agree well; indicating that the loading and support conditions were

very close to the designed ones.

In Figure 6.38 (taken from [6.83]) the lateral buckling test results of the continuous welded beams tested by Fukumoto et al. [6.87] are compared with those of

the earlier hot rolled continuous beams studied by Poowannachakai and Trahair

[6.88] and theoretical approximate curves for simply supported hot-rolled beams

with equal end moments. The results are presented in the gure as a nondimensional test strength, the ratio of the failure

load Pu to the full plastic collapse

load Pp , versus the modied slenderness, Pp /PE , where PE is the elastic buckling transverse load. One can note that the Fukumoto et al. beams were relatively

slender and buckled primarily in the elastic range, where they agreed well with

earlier results. They hardly extended to the inelastic range, where the earlier results

were considerably below the predictions.

Figure 6.38

337

beams [6.88] with welded beams [6.87] and approximate inelastic predictions

(from [6.81])

Another typical example are the lateral buckling experiments carried out by

Yura and his students and co-workers at the University of Texas at Austin in the

seventies and eighties (for example [6.89] [6.92]).

One of the special topics studied at Austin was the lateral buckling of coped

steel beams. In steel construction, beam anges must often be notched out to

provide clearance for the supports when framing beams are at the same elevation

as the main girders, or when the bottom anges of intersecting beams have to be

at the same elevation (see Figure 6.39). Such notches or cutouts are called copes.

They can be at the top, bottom or both anges in combination with different types

of shear connections, as shown in the gure. Since theoretical studies [6.93] had

shown that coped connections could signicantly reduce lateral buckling strength,

and only a few tests with one cope detail had been reported [6.94], a series of

experiments with different copes were carried out [6.92].

A single length of W12 14 section beam was used for six elastic lateraltorsional buckling tests on coped connections. The varying cope details, as shown

in Figure 6.40, were cut successively into the two ends of the beam, and test LTB1

with no cope served as reference. After each test, the beam was either rotated to

connect the other coped end to the stub column, or further coped while in place,

when feasible. Then a new test was performed.

In order to minimize the end restraint, and thus approach a pinned end condition,

12 in. 6 in. and 0.133 in. thick shear end plates were welded onto the test beams

and attached to the supports by four bolts. At each bolt location, two washers

were placed between the end plate and the supporting column, which reduced

the in-plane and lateral-end restraint of the beam. Standard bolt-hole clearances

were used.

338

Figure 6.39

The test setup, shown schematically in Figures 6.41 and 6.42, was designed to

apply specied forces to the coped connection to be tested. The beam was loaded

upside down, with a reaction oor and wall system serving as a loading frame. One

coped beam end A was bolted to a heavy stub column, which itself was attached

with large bolts to the vertical reaction wall.

Load was applied upwards to the test beam at B, 114.3 in. (D 2.903 m) from the

face of the end plate, by a 60 ton hydraulic ram via a load cell. The load position

B was chosen so as to produce elastic buckling in the test span AB, while minimizing restraint of the adjacent span. The hydraulic pressure was also monitored

to provide a second measure of the load. A roller assembly (see Figure 6.43) was

placed between the bottom ange of the beam and the ram to permit longitudinal

displacement. A tension load cell was placed at C, 108.9 in. (D 2.766 m) from the

center of the jack B, to measure the reaction. This load cell was connected to the test

beam and the oor beam by a bracket arrangement with pin joints to allow longitudinal displacement also at C. The test beam was supported laterally at the load

and reaction locations, B and C respectively by out-of-plane bracing systems. These

included adjustable brace plates with slotted holes, which prevented lateral movement but permitted vertical movement of the beam, as shown in Figure 6.42 for the

load location B. An additional adjustable lateral stop was placed near the midspan of

the test span (see Figure 6.41) to prevent large lateral movements (beyond 0.75 in.)

that could cause yielding on the compression ange of the test beam.

Figure 6.40

339

coped connections (from [6.92])

The load applied by the hydraulic jack was determined by the load cell and

veried by two pressure transducers, one linked to a strain indicator and the second

0.025 mm) intervals

connected to an X Y plotter. Six dial gages with 0.001 in. (D

were used to measure the in-plane deection at the coped connection A, at the

load point B and at the reaction C (see Figure 6.43), and an inclinometer with a

0.00003 radian accuracy was used to measure the rotation of the coped connection.

The out-of-plane deection instrumentation consisted of the simple device of a

string stretched parallel to the beam and a scale with graduations to 0.02 in. (D

0.5 mm) placed at eight locations along the compression ange, for measurement

of lateral displacement. A potentiometer was also placed near the center of the test

span for monitoring of the load-lateral-deection response with an X Y plotter. A

180 mm)

inclinometer was also placed near the middle of the test span, 7 in. (D

away from the potentiometer position, to measure the twist of the compression

ange.

Prior to the main tests, four connection restraint tests were carried out with

102 cm) long W12 14 beams, identical in section

dead weights on 40 in. (D

and material to the test beams, and with the same size end plate connection to

Figure 6.41 University of Texas at Austin lateral buckling tests on coped beams: (a) schematic of test setup, (b) view of test setup (from [6.92])

340

Columns, Beams and Frameworks

341

Figure 6.42

of loading system and out-of-plane bracing (from [6.91])

Figure 6.43

deection instrumentation (from [6.91])

342

Figure 6.44

deection instrumentation (from [6.91])

the stub columns. From these preliminary tests, in-plane and out-of-plane moment

rotation curves were found for the connections with and without washers, showing

a much smaller in-plane stiffness (about 2.5 to 3.5 times) with washers, whereas

the out-of-plane rotation curves were almost the same with and without washers,

and about half the stiffness as the in-plane one with washers.

In the test procedure, before applying loads, the rst loading stage data were

taken as the self-weight of the beam, which was supported by the connection to

the stub column and the far end reaction. Then loading was applied in increments

till about 85 percent of the buckling load, determined by the Southwell method in

order to avoid yielding due to large lateral deections.

The test results of the lateral buckling investigation showed indeed that the

reduction of buckling strength due to coping could be very signicant. They also

showed that the end restraints from connections and the restraints from adjacent

spans could signicantly increase the buckling strength of coped beams, especially

for large copes.

The Southwell method, employed here and discussed in Chapter 4, Sections 4.5

and 4.6, usually yields a very good estimate of the experimental buckling load of

columns or beams without testing them to failure, by plotting the measured outof-plane deformation divided by the measured load versus that deformation. Two

typical Southwell plots for Test LTB4 are presented in Figure 6.45, (a) using the

measured lateral deections, and (b) using the measured twists. The buckling load

Pcr , determined by a straight line passing through the data points (here, using the

least square method), was nearly the same for lateral deection and twist. However,

when the coped depth increased, localized distortion of the coped region affected

the ange twist data and hence the lateral deection data was preferred here for

the analysis of the test results.

Figure 6.45

343

University of Texas at Austin lateral buckling tests on coped beams: typical Southwell plots, for Test LTB4, (from [6.91]): (a) employing lateral deection data,

(b) using ange rotation data

In a typical test, one would plot the data as the load was gradually increased,

and (after disregarding the unreliable initial data points) would obtain estimates

for the buckling load during the test, in real time. One could therefore plan

where to terminate the experiment to remain non-destructive, even without good

theoretical predictions, at least in the case of columns, beams or frames. As pointed

out in Chapter 4, for reliable Southwell estimates the test load should approach

the buckling load, at least reach 80 85 percent of it. In the University of Texas

tests on coped beams the Pmax reached at least 87 percent of Pcr yielding accurate

estimates of Pcr .

One may note that Cheng and Yura also used other plotting techniques in their

work: the 1938 Lundquist plot [4.25] discussed in Chapter 4, and the method

proposed by Meck in 1977 [6.95]. However, all three methods yielded almost the

same results, and therefore the University of Texas coped beam lateral buckling

tests represent a good example of reconrming the applicability and usefulness

of the Southwell method. Yura and his co-workers employed Southwell plots

successfully also in other studies (see for example [6.89], [6.90] and [6.96]).

344

It may be mentioned here that for beams another plot (which is essentially

also an adaptation of the Southwell plot) has been extensively used, the Massey

plot ([6.97] or [4.41]), and other methods have been proposed (see for example

[6.95] [6.99]). It appears, however, that the Southwell method is preferable.

6.5

6.5.1

Mode Interaction and Early Studies

coupling, which can signicantly reduce the collapse load of a built-up structure,

was demonstrated with the aid of van der Neuts analysis of an idealized thin-walled

column [2.17].

The primary mode interaction for columns is that between the overall column

buckling (Euler buckling) in one half wave and the local plate buckling in shorter

waves. It was rst studied by Bijlaard and Fisher at Cornell University in the early

fties under the sponsorship of NACA, [6.100] and [6.101], and included also tests

on aluminum alloy drawn square tubes and extruded H-sections. Though carried

out over four decades ago, these Cornell experiments exhibited some ideas and

techniques, which were reported in detail, and are worth considering even today.

The specimens were carefully measured for deviations from atness, straightness, squareness, twist and thickness variations, which were generally found to

be well within tolerable limits. The compressive stress-strain characteristics of the

square tubes were measured directly on 8 in. long square tube specimens whose

walls were supported to prevent their premature local buckling. The walls were

supported by blocking inside and outside, such that unsupported portions of wall

had a width to thickness ratio b/t < 12.5.

The external blocking arrangement consisted of three square clamping frames,

which held four vertical steel supporting blocks, one against each face of tube. For

internal blocking, a special octagonal expanding xture operable from the ends of

the specimens was used, which consisted of two semi-octagonal supporting blocks

and a screw driven wedge system. Since the range of expansion was about 1/4 in.,

auxiliary blocks had to be used for the larger tubes.

To prepare for a stress-strain test, the internal expander, slightly shorter than

the specimen, was inserted rst with the necessary auxiliary blocking and centered

on the length of the tube. All block surfaces contacting the tube were lubricated

to avoid frictional restraint. Next the external blocking was applied. The steel

supporting blocks, also lubricated, were centered vertically and laterally, while

being supported on sponge-rubber pads and held in place by the center square

clamping frame. All blocking was then drawn up to the tube, a light seating load

was applied and the other two square clamping frames set in place. The appropriate

clamping pressure, selected in preliminary tests, was then applied.

Strains were measured with (the then relatively new) SR-4 electrical resistance

strain gages. In the stress-strain tests eight gages were used, two to a face, outside

the supporting blocks.

345

It is of interest to note how centering the specimen and providing uniform stress

distribution, considered by Lundquist and Fisher to be perhaps the most difcult

and persistent problem encountered, was achieved. First, nearly perfect atness of

ends was obtained by squaring and sanding of the sawed specimens on a disk sander

(today one would probably use a milling machine), followed by hand-lapping on a

surface plate with oil and emery. Then, in the testing machine, use was made of

tissue paper shims, 0.0015 in. thick, slipped between the upper machine head and

the corners of a hardened-steel bearing block on the upper end of the specimen

in order to correct for nonparallelism of ends and/or machine heads. Paper shims

were applied or relocated until strain readings on the eight gages showed a total

high-to-low deviation of less than 3 percent. Usually in the short column stressstrain tests they could hold this to less than 1.5 percent at each of three widely

separated loads in the elastic range!

For the longer actual column test specimens, which were supported at the ends

by knife edges, centering was done with both strain readings and lateral deection

readings. Eight Tuckerman optical strain gages were applied to the corners of the

column at two appropriate stations, and centering adjustments were determined

from these two sets of strain readings. Final centering, at about two-thirds of the

predicted critical load, was done by adjusting the column ends until the lateral

deections at mid-length and both quarter-points were negligible, and then making

a nal check of strain distribution. Centering by deection proved to be considerably more accurate than strain readings for the nal adjustments. Differences in

the average strain on opposite faces of the column could be held to a maximum

of 1 2 percent.

Another interesting experimental point was the separate measurement of local

and overall column (Euler) buckling deformations. Bijlaard and Fisher felt that

electrical resistance strain gages on the column faces would have difculty in

sorting out the proportionate effects of the two types of deformation. (Today

such a sorting out would probably be done by computer from data acquired with

a large number of small strain gages.) They therefore developed a mechanical local

buckling gage, consisting of a suspended blade in contact with the column face, two

accurate dial gages measuring the blade movement due to the buckle formation,

and a collar to t on the column at a desired location and carry the gage elements,

without affecting the local buckling characteristics. This local buckling gage could

ride with the column during its primary deection, and thus measure the net

local buckling deections.

Both calculations and experiments in [6.100] indicated that for box sections and

common size I-, H- and channel sections the interaction effects were negligible,

but could be signicant in sections prone to torsional buckling like T- or angle

shapes.

6.5.2

analytically and experimentally in the last two decades (see for example [6.12],

346

[6.34] [6.36], [6.102] [6.113]). Many theoretical studies dealt with the general

nonlinear problem of compound instability, which can arise in optimized structures

when local and overall buckling loads of the perfect structure are equal or

near-equal, and then the imperfection sensitivity is magnied (see for example

[6.102] or [6.103]). Most experimental studies, on the other hand, focused on

the practical problem of interactive buckling failures in slender section columns.

Typical examples were the tests on I-section columns, [6.34], [6.36] or [6.109],

on box sections, [6.12] or [6.107], or on channels and lipped channels, [6.104],

[6.110] or [6.111].

The test setups and techniques used in these investigations were in general

similar to those considered in the earlier sections of this chapter. Hence only some

particular aspects of typical interactive buckling tests will be discussed here.

At the University of Sydney, Australia, a comprehensive research program on

the interaction of local and overall column buckling of fabricated I-sections was

in progress in the mid-eighties. One typical group of tests in the program were the

compression tests on short and long welded high tensile steel I-sections carried out

by Davids and Hancock [6.108] and [6.36]. An I-section, whose ange width was

equal to the web depth and with web and anges of the same nominal thickness,

was chosen for all the tests, because it appeared from previous theoretical studies

[6.106] to be rather sensitive to interaction buckling. These proportions were therefore expected to accentuate interaction effects, though they would usually not be

chosen in practical designs.

The purpose of the short column tests was to study the local buckling and

post-local buckling behavior of this I-section. A test length corresponding to a

nominal three local buckling half-wave-length was therefore chosen for all the test

specimens in the series, referred to as Series I. Nine specimens, three of each size,

were fabricated. One of each three was used for residual strain measurement by the

method of sectioning. The remaining two of each size were tested to destruction

in a DARTEC 2000 kN servo-controlled vertical universal testing machine. In the

test setup, shown in Figure 6.46, a pair of freely moving universal joints, with

spherical bearings and rigid end platens, were installed at the top, on the end of

the hydraulic actuator, and at the bottom, on the base bed of the testing machine.

Each specimen was centered on the end platens so as to distribute fabrication errors

uniformly about the geometric centroid.

One specimen of each size was tted with strain gages around the perimeter at

column midlength. The, perhaps regrettable, economizing with strain gages was

probably due to the focusing on displacement measurements. These were performed

with linear displacement transducers (LDTs), supported from an instrumentation

frame, which measured the ange tip and web centerline deformations on all the

specimens tested (see Figure 6.46). The experimental loading was controlled by a

signal from the extensometer (a high resolution LDT) mounted on the lower bearing

and connected to the upper one by an axially stiff arm, as shown in the gure.

Geometric imperfections were measured by optical survey leveling of the specimens (standard civil engineering practice) to an accuracy of 0.002 in. (0.05 mm)

per reading (with a Zeiss Koni 007M precise level). All component plates (anges

Figure 6.46

347

columns: test conguration (from [6.108])

and web) of the test specimens were divided into grids consisting of four equally

spaced lines on each ange outstand and ve on each web, and 19 stations along

them, as shown for a ange in Figure 6.47a. The observed surface prole can be

decomposed into overall plate twisting, as shown in Figure 6.47b, and a net plate

ripple which is the local geometric imperfection. This local ripple measured relative to lines A,B,C,D of the twisted plane of Figure 6.47b is shown in Figure 6.47c

for one ange of a typical specimen. A cubic polynomial curve tting program was

used to draw the curves in the gure. It should be noted that the local imperfections at the ange tip (line A) are signicantly larger than those nearer to the web

junction. The local ripple component of the imperfection was then modeled as a

nite Fourier series. In Chapter 10, Volume 2, different techniques of reducing

geometric imperfection data are discussed in detail. Here the Fourier term of

the same half-wavelength as the predicted local buckling mode was averaged

for the local ripple component over the four ange tips and the web centerline,

yielding a maximum amplitude of these terms for the three sizes of specimens of

0.26 0.49 mm (D 0.05 0.10t, where t is the plate thickness).

All specimens in this series buckled with three local buckling halfwaves. Local

buckling was clearly observed visually and by the rapid changes in the linear

displacement transducer readings.

348

Figure 6.47

of geometric imperfections (from [6.108]): (a) measuring points on one ange

outstand, (b) twisted plane, (c) variation of local ripple imperfections along ange

length

349

original stiffness), derived from measurements taken by the high resolution LDT

mounted on the lower bearing, was employed as an indication of buckling. As was

expounded in [6.108], for each particular column geometry a different value of the

axial stiffness ratio S would dene the point local buckling. Here S D 0.65 was

the appropriate value.

The short column tests of Series I demonstrated that the specimens buckled in

the local mode predicted by the local buckling theory. The stage was therefore

set for the long column tests of the same I-section, denoted Series II [6.36]. The

specimens were fabricated from a similar high strength hot rolled steel plate as

the short columns and in a similar manner, though some variability of welding

technique between Series I and II was indicated by the residual strain gradients.

One 700 mm long specimen of each of the three cross-sectional sizes was fabricated

for residual strain measurement, again by the method of sectioning.

The local geometric imperfections of the Series II specimens were measured by

high precision optical leveling, as in the case of Series I, and the data was also

reduced in a similar manner. The magnitudes of the relevant Fourier term were

0.01 0.02 t, less than those in Series I. The overall geometric imperfections about

the minor exural axis of the long columns were determined by measuring, with

a high precision optical level, the in-plane displacements relative to a line passing

through the ends of the specimens. A Fourier analysis was also carried out on

the overall geometric imperfections measured, and the magnitudes of the relevant

Fourier terms (of the same half-wavelength as the length of the column L), were

found to be less than 0.0002 L.

The long columns were tested in a horizontal reaction rig with a 2000 kN

capacity servo-controlled hydraulic ram, shown in Figure 6.48. The test rig could

take specimens up to 10 m long. The ends were pin-ends similar to those used

in the vertical setup for the short columns. The specimen was supported on rigid

end platens, which were mounted on spherical bearings. The end bearings allowed

rotations about two perpendicular axes located in the same plane by the use of

a shear box as can be seen in the detail of the end bearing (Figure 6.48b). Two

adjustable ball bearings were bolted onto the end plate mounted on the extended

ram (as shown in Figure 6.48d). These bearings moved longitudinally on either side

of a xed rail (not shown in the plan view Figure 6.48a) and thereby eliminated

the possibility of a specimen failure in the exural-torsional buckling mode.

A transducer was mounted on a plate supported at the center of the rigid end platen

near the ram (see Figure 6.48c). A rigid bar, extending between the two end platens,

was attached to a bearing, supported at the center of the opposite rigid end platen

(see Figure 6.48a). Since the center of the end platens coincided with the centroid of

the specimen, the transducer measured the centroidal specimen shortening, between

the faces of the end platens. Another transducer measured lateral deection at the

column midlength (see Figure 6.48a). Additional transducers were attached at each

end bearing to measure horizontal and vertical end rotations (see Figure 6.48b).

The plate deections at mid-length were measured by three transducers supported

on a special frame which was attached to the specimen (see Figure 6.48e). Thus

Figure 6.48

University of Sydney interaction buckling tests on long I and channel section columns: schematic plan view of horizontal test conguration. The test rig is based on a 2000 kN capacity servocontrolled hydraulic loading ram located in a reaction frame which can

accommodate specimens up to 10 m long (from [6.112]): (a) plan view of test conguration, (b) detail of an end bearing, (c) Section

A-A, (d) Section B-B, (e) special frame, attached to specimen at midlength, to support plate deection transducers

350

Columns, Beams and Frameworks

351

the plate deections could be measured at the same point on the specimen during

overall buckling. The frame was attached to the specimen at the ange-web junctions (where local buckling deformations are small), with four set screws (see

Figure 6.48e).

The axial shortening and lateral deection transducers, which formed part of the

control loop for controlling the tests, were (stepless) LVDTs, whereas all the transducers to measure the plate deections (the cross-section distortions) were LDTs

(potentiometer based displacement transducers). The tests were controlled electronically, usually by adjustment of the ram position to a required axial displacement,

as in Series I, with the load following automatically, also in the post-ultimate range.

In these tests, the lengths of the specimens, between the centers of the pin-ends,

were L D 2.45 6.25 m, yielding slenderness ratios of 54.7 117.2. As mentioned,

displacements and axial strains were measured during each test with displacement

transducers and strain gages, respectively.

Two tests were performed for each column size and length. One, concentrically

loaded to nd the overall bifurcation load, and one with eccentrical loading, to nd

the maximum strength of an imperfect specimen, whose geometric imperfection

was augmented by a nominal load eccentricity of 0.001 L. During the tests, at

loads below the local buckling load, the strain gages and displacement transducers

were used to calculate the actual equivalent load eccentricity. This was found to

be less than 0.00025 L for the concentrically loaded columns and of an average

magnitude of 0.00091 for the eccentrically loaded ones.

The load versus axial shortening for a typical pair of nominally identical

specimens, one concentrically loaded and one eccentrically, is shown in

Figure 6.49. After local buckling (the mean experimental local buckling load is

indicated as P exp ), the concentrically loaded specimen developed local buckling

cells of approximately uniform wavelength and amplitude along the full length of

the column. The local buckling resulted in decreasing axial stiffness with increasing

load, appearing as a change in the slope of the path shown in the gure. The

buckling mode and change in axial stiffness were similar to those observed for the

short columns of Series I. The nonlinear post local buckling path in Figure 6.49

indicates the occurrence of interaction buckling. The initial loading eccentricity

in the second specimen caused lateral deections from the beginning of loading,

a reduced local buckling load and a lower ultimate load. However, as is usually

the case for large imperfections, the initial rate of post-ultimate load shedding was

milder than that for the concentrically loaded twin.

The experimental studies on distortional buckling by Professor Hancock and

his co-workers at the Centre of Advanced Structural Engineering of the University of Sydney have continued vigorously (see for example [6.176] and [6.177]).

Recently three test series on thin-walled I-sections and square hollow sections,

subject to combined compression and bending have been initiated. The group has

also embarked on another test program on plain and lipped thin-walled channel

section columns, focusing on the effect of end conditions on the interaction buckling behavior. Hence one can expect a ow of a wide range of data and improved

test techniques on distortional buckling from this research center.

352

Figure 6.49

measured load versus axial shortening for a pair of specimens (240 4200 A

and B, from [6.36])

interaction between local buckling and lateral-torsional buckling of beams in

bending, were the tests carried out recently (in parallel with theoretical studies)

by Menken and his co-workers at Eindhoven University of Technology in The

Netherlands, [6.113] [6.115]. In these experiments a simply supported prismatic

aluminum T-beam was loaded in pure bending, with the anges in compression

(see Figure 6.50a). The beam was built up from a thin ange, carefully machined

from sheet metal and glued to a relatively stiff web (Figure 6.50b). In this manner

the anges were assumed to have a practically uniform thickness. It was then

experimentally veried that the glue had no effect on the bending stiffness.

The test rig is shown in Figure 6.51, schematically in (a) and by a general side

view in (b). The beam was simply supported by being suspended from two thin

strips, whose in-plane rigidity prevented both vertical displacement and rotation

about the longitudinal axis at the ends of the beam. On the other hand, the outof-plane bending and torsional exibility of these strips permitted the ends of the

beam to rotate freely with respect to their principal axes, as required for simple

supports.

In mounting a test specimen in the test rig, twisting of the beam could occur,

which had to be prevented. A cylindrical boss made of Araldite was therefore

xed to each end of the beam, as can be seen in Figure 6.51. Each boss was

Figure 6.50

353

beams in bending (from [6.113]): (a) test conguration, (b) cross-section of beam

inserted into a holder attached to one of the suspension strips, and the jaws of

each holder were tightened by turning a tapered nut. A lever was then attached to

each nut to apply the bending moment. A simple dead-loading device was used in

the earlier test series to apply the bending moments, which meant, however, that

descending equilibrium paths could not be followed during the tests. In later test

series [6.115], the dead-loading was therefore replaced by a device prescribing the

vertical displacement at midspan. An air bearing permitted nearly frictionless lateral

movement, while keeping the direction of loading vertical. Hold-ups (which can

be seen in Figures. 6.53a and b) prevented the lateral deections of the specimen

from becoming excessive.

The overall buckling components (v the lateral displacement of the center of area

of the cross-section, and the rotation of the relatively stiff web) were determined

by measuring the lateral deections of two points on the web at the midspan of

the beam with displacement transducers. Their average was the lateral deection v,

whereas their difference indicated the rotation of the cross-section. The components of local buckling were measured by four or ve lightweight displacement

transducers attached to the web (see Figure 6.52b), which yielded the amplitude

of the local buckles a, and their half wavelengths , as well as the phase shift and

the average transverse displacement of the edge of the ange.

In Figure 6.53a, one can see an example of isolated local buckling, which could

only be obtained by restraining the lateral bending of the beam. When the beam was

free to deect laterally, interactive buckling would occur as shown in Figure 6.53b,

representing a good example of combined local ange buckling and overall buckling.

354

(a)

Figure 6.51

beams in bending test setup: (a) schematic (later test series conguration),

(b) side view (from [6.113])

In the later test series, the non-periodic local buckling was also measured by

means of a video tracking system (see Figure 6.52), which recorded the position

of an array of retro-reective markers glued to the rim of the ange, which after

the appropriate processing yielded the true local buckling components.

These experimental studies provided needed insight into the phenomenon of

interaction between local buckling and lateral torsional buckling as a result of

Figure 6.52

355

beams in bending video tracking system for measuring the non-periodic local

buckles: (a) camera arrangement (from [6.115]), (b) the displacement transducers

and the retro-reective markers used to determine the shape of the non-periodic

local buckles (courtesy of Dr. C.M. Menken)

356

Figure 6.53

beams in bending (from [6.113]): (a) local buckling only, (b) combined local

and overall buckling

bending, and provided support and verication to concurrent analytical and numerical studies. Theory and experiments show that interactive buckling will occur when

the local buckling load is smaller than the overall buckling load, and that the ratio

of overall to local buckling load is the primary parameter inuencing the interactive

behavior. The manner of supporting the beam, the measurement of local buckling

components and other experimental techniques employed are worth noting.

6.6

6.6.1

Beam-Columns

Beam-Columns as Structural Elements

combined axial compression and bending. The bending stresses may be due to

transverse loads, applied moments or eccentric loading. Most members in typical

structures, in particular in civil engineering practice, can be classed as beamcolumns, and hence beam-columns have been subjected to extensive theoretical and

experimental studies. Beam-columns occupy an important place in most structural

engineering and stability textbooks (see for example [2.1], [2.3], [6.3], [6.47] or

[6.116]), and some texts have been entirely devoted to them, (e.g. [2.22]).

Beam-Columns

357

not differ signicantly from those used on columns and in lateral buckling tests on

beams, except that they are sometimes a little more complicated (see for example

[6.117] or [6.118]). Hence the discussion here will focus on a recent example of

a large scale experimental study on fabricated tubular beam-columns, as used in

offshore structures.

6.6.2

fabricated tubular steel members carried out by Birkemoe and Prion at the Department of Civil Engineering of the University of Toronto in the eighties [6.119]. The

goal of the experiments was to study the beam-column behavior of full scale fabricated steel tubes with various ratios of axial load to bending moment, and to relate

the test results to the design and fabrication of typical members in offshore structures. In order to monitor and keep control of induced fabrication imperfections,

the specimens were fabricated in the Structures Laboratories of the University of

Toronto (except the cold rolling of the plate material into cylindrical tubes), but the

fabrication process itself followed the convention of offshore eld practice. The

fabrication induced geometric distortions and residual strains, caused by welding,

were rigorously recorded during the fabrication process.

The size of the test specimens was chosen to be as near as possible to full scale,

within the capacity of the testing equipment of the laboratory, resulting in an inside

diameter of 430 mm, with wall thickness of 4.5 8.8 mm, or R/t

D 25 49. The

internal diameter was kept constant to facilitate welding to reusable extension

tubes. The scale of the specimens was approximately that of full scale diagonal

bracing members and of the order of half to one fth scale of the main jacket legs.

Three different lengths were tested 1.5 m, 5 m and 10 m, yielding approximate

slenderness ratios L/

D 10, 30 and 60, in four types of tests: concentric stubcolumn tests, eccentrically loaded short column tests, 10 m long beam-column tests

(called Type C) and 5 m long beam-column tests (called Type D). Only the 10 m

long beam-column test (Type C) will be discussed here, since it was the most

challenging experimental setup. The interested reader should, however, also study

the other three types of tests described in detail in [6.119].

The specimens were fabricated by cold rolling and welding hot-rolled steel plate.

The plates (from a special batch of CSA G40.21-M350W steel) were ame-cut

and then cold formed by rolling to form cylindrical tubes (called cans) of length

750 mm and inside diameter of 430 mm. The roll formed tubes were then welded

longitudinally by an automated arc welding process in a single pass procedure.

Weld induced surface residual strains were measured on some of the cans,

with the aid of a mechanical extensometer (Pfender gage) mounted ball targets and

reference length gages. The targets consisted of 1 mm diameter hardened steel balls

set into the parent plate material with a special punch, 100 mm apart, around the

circumference of the tube, on the inside and outside, at midlength. The distances

between the targets were measured with the mechanical extensometer, before and

358

Figure 6.54

beam column test setup (from [6.119])

beam-column

experiments:

10 m

after welding to an accuracy of 1 105 strain units. On a few cans these strain

readings were veried with resistance strain gage data.

Complete surface proles of some of the single cans were recorded, from all

test specimen types, before and after the seam weld process, to determine the distortion and to correlate it with the welding parameters. Then the cans were manually

welded together by circumferential welds, using a Metal Inert Gas welding process.

For the long beam-column tests, the 3 m long test sections consisted of four cans

each, and two 3.5 m long stiffer reusable extension tubes of equal internal diameter

and a wall thickness of 10 mm were welded to their two ends (see Figure 6.55).

To obtain an accurate geometric record of each specimen, as well of some single

cans for assessment of welding distortions, a special proling rig was built (see

Figure 6.56) in which the specimen, or single can, was mounted vertically and

rotated about an axis close to its longitudinal centroidal axis. After approximate

centering of the specimen with adjustable screws on the top and bottom spider

clamps, the variation in its radius was measured with an LVDT mounted on a

carriage that could slide along a vertical aluminum rail. The angular position of

the rotating specimen was indicated by a rotational potentiometer attached to the

bottom shaft and the vertical position of the LVDT was obtained from a second

rotational potentiometer activated by a chain linkage. At each vertical position, a set

of 72 radius-angle readings for a complete circumferential scan were automatically

Figure 6.55

University of Toronto tubular steel beam-column experiments: 10 m beam column test layout (from [6.119])

Beam-Columns

359

360

Figure 6.56

specimens, test sections and cans (from [6.119])

measured and recorded electronically on a tape data le. On-line analogue plots

were produced independently, as well as analogue plots of vertical proles which

served as back-up to the circumferential data.

Such surface proles were obtained for all test specimens prior to testing, but for

the long beam-column specimens only their four can test sections were measured.

For the short specimens, the straightness of their longitudinal axis could also be

obtained from the proling data. For the long beam-column specimens, however,

Beam-Columns

361

the straightness was determined from simple measurements of the distance between

the specimen and a taut string at four quarter circumference positions.

The complete surface proles of the specimen test sections provided four types

of information (as discussed in detail in [6.119]):

1. a general visual impression of the specimen geometry and its initial geometric

imperfections

2. out-of-roundness gures at each circumferential prole plot

3. mismatch of abutting edges at circumferential welds

4. out-of-straightness of the test section.

Further data reduction along the lines outlined in Chapter 10, Volume 2, could

provide additional assessments on the inuence of the imperfections on the buckling behavior of the beam-columns.

The 10 m beam-column (Type C) horizontal test arrangement is shown in

Figure 6.54 and its layout in Figure 6.55. As seen in the layout, the 3 m long

test section of each specimen consisted of four cans, with their longitudinal welds

staggered at 90 degrees. The reusable extension tubes welded to the test section

had anges at their outer ends, which were bolted to spherical bearings, that will

later be discussed in detail. In the tests, the axial load was rst applied to a predetermined level and then the bending moment was introduced by application of

two equal vertical upward point loads at a distance 2.4 m apart.

The axial load was applied with a 10 MN (2000 kip) hydraulic actuator, at the

east end of the test setup, which was controlled manually through a hydraulic pressure maintainer (see also Figure 6.58). The actuator was anchored to the test oor

through a reaction frame system, which was held down against overturning forces

by heavy beams bolted to the test oor. The horizontal shear was transmitted by

friction between the oor and a 3 m 3 m steel plate that covered 24 pretensioned oor bolts. Half of the anticipated horizontal force could be resisted by the

frictional force, and the remaining resistance was produced by pretensioning the

reaction system with four high strength rolled thread tension bars (DYWIDAG)

to approximately balance the frictional resistance. The horizontal resistance of the

reaction system was thus doubled and brought up to the required magnitude.

The vertical forces, which introduced the bending moment in the test section,

were applied with two pairs of hydraulic actuators (see Figure 6.55). To maintain

a constant bending moment in the test section, these vertical forces had to be kept

equal throughout the test, and were therefore controlled, using real-time control

of the servo-actuators through a micro-computer, and constantly monitored during

the test. Each vertical actuator was attached to a Lehigh gravity load simulator,

which permitted horizontal movement (shortening) of the specimen with only a

very small change in verticality of the applied loads.

This gravity simulator, developed at the Fritz Engineering Laboratory, Lehigh

University [6.121], is a mechanism that ensures vertical alignment of the load in

structures that are allowed to sway laterally under load. The basic layout of the

mechanism, as used in the Toronto beam-column tests, is shown in Figure 6.57. By

choosing appropriate ratios for the member lengths, the locus of the load point A

362

Figure 6.57

The mechanism of the Lehigh gravity load simulator, which ensures vertical

alignment of the load in structures that are permitted to sway laterally (from

[6.119])

(shown highly exaggerated by the full line in the gure) can be kept very close to

a horizontal line. For static equilibrium the line of action must pass the intersection

O of the long members, but for stability of the load its line of action must also be

perpendicular to the locus of A. Due to this perpendicularity the line of action is

not always vertical, but for the amount of sway allowed its deviation from vertical

was shown to be negligible. Further details on the gravity load simulators (which

have been used at Lehigh University, at the University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee

and at Nagoya University in Japan) can be found in [6.121] or in Appendix D of

[6.119]. Three such gravity load simulators were used in the 10 m beam-column

tests, two for the vertical loads and one for the vertical reaction (see Figures 6.55

and 6.58, which also show the actual construction of these simulators).

The vertical reactions at either end of the 10 m specimen were provided by reaction collars (see for example Figure 6.58) which were lined with neoprene rubber

to give a more uniform load distribution and to offer the least amount of restraint

to distortion of the specimen at their locations. Similar collars were employed for

application of the vertical loads at the test section. The reaction collars, which were

instrumented and calibrated as load cells, were connected, via single high strength

steel threaded connecting rods, to hand operated hydraulic jacks that were adjustable

at each of the two reaction points. At the east end, the connecting rod and actuator

were attached via a gravity load simulator (see Figure 6.58) to allow horizontal

displacement as the specimen shortened. At the west end (not shown here in detail),

the rod and jack were directly connected to the test oor, permitting only the little

displacement arising from deection of the reaction frame.

The end plates of the extension tubes were bolted, via adaptor plates, to spherical

bearings (see Figure 6.58), which were designed to have low friction, as opposed

Figure 6.58

University of Toronto tubular steel beam-column experiments: load application and instrumentation, east end of test rig (from [6.119])

Beam-Columns

363

364

to the usual spherical bridge bearings, mentioned in Sub-section 6.1.2 (and [6.11]).

The contact surfaces of these special bearings were covered with a layer of lightly

greased low friction Teon, bearing on a polished stainless steel surface with a

friction coefcient of about 0.005.

To ensure the proper smooth functioning of these special spherical bearings (used

for the rst time in large scale laboratory applications to model near moment-free

boundary conditions) in the experimental setup, a performance friction test was

carried out (see Appendix E of [6.118]). As seen in Figure 6.59 there, the two

Figure 6.59

University of Toronto tubular steel beam-column experiments: friction test rig for

spherical bearings (from [6.119])

Beam-Columns

365

spherical bearings were arranged, with a spacer block, as parts of a complete sphere.

The vertical (axial) load was applied with a 2750 kN MTS servo-controlled testing

machine. Rotation of the spherical core was achieved by application of a vertical

force, via a small spherical bearing, to a lever arm welded to the spacer block,

with a hand operated hydraulic jack in series with an electronic load cell. The jack

load F corresponded to the initial static friction load P. Since P was known, the

friction coefcient could be found. Eleven tests yielded an average static friction

coefcient D 0.0049 with a standard deviation of 0.00063. Load-displacement

plots of these tests showed a marked increase in friction load as the rotation of

the bearing increased, probably due to a small misalignment or to a deviation in

the radius of the spherical surface. In the Toronto test setup these increases would

not occur.

Returning to the test layout, one may note that all load application and reaction points were horizontally free oating (east-west), except the western spherical

bearing which was connected directly to the reaction frame, and represented therefore the reference point for the displacement of the specimen.

As can be seen in Figures 6.58 and 6.60, many linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs) were used in the instrumentation of the tests. The shortening of

the specimen was measured by two LVDTs at the ends of the specimen, the strain

distribution in the extension tubes was determined by a set of four mounted at

top, bottom and sides of the tube, and similarly the longitudinal strain of the test

section was measured by four LVDTs, though with a much longer gage length.

Rotation of reaction points (with reference to the longitudinal axis), was, however,

measured with rotational potentiometers attached at the load collar axes.

At three circumferential weld locations in the test section, the change in diameter

of the tube was measured vertically and horizontally. Steel rods were connected to

diametrically opposite holes in the tube and attached to the tube wall on one side

and to an LVDT (mounted to the tube via a bracket) on the other (see Figure 6.60).

Strain gages were located on the inside and outside of the test section wall

in the compression region where local buckling was expected. Additional strain

gages were also placed on the extension tubes in some of the tests to determine

the moment gradient outside the test section.

The aluminum proling rail, that had been used in the proling rig of

Figure 6.56, was mounted horizontally below the test section (see Figure 6.60) to

monitor the curvature changes and the formation of buckles. Proles were recorded

as analogue plots, as the carriage was moved manually along the rail, at regular

intervals until the buckling deformations became too large.

Most of the data acquisition was done automatically. Full sets of readings were

processed at predetermined increments, but instantaneous data readings could also

be initiated by the operator. The longitudinal prole of the compression side of the

test section was also intended to be recorded automatically, but due to insufcient

speed of the controlling micro-computer this option was not used and replaced by

analog plots.

A schematic layout of the computerized test control employed is presented in

Figure 6.61. Such a computerized system for test control and data acquisition was

366

Figure 6.60

University of Toronto tubular steel beam-column experiments: detail of instrumentation in central test section (from [6.119])

used for the rst time in the Structures Laboratory of the University of Toronto. The

control hardware was installed and calibrated simultaneously with the development

of software for test control and data acquisition. Appropriate interrupt routines

were introduced to permit a reasonable degree of manual control when required.

The system operated satisfactorily, but the processing speed and memory capacity

of the controlling micro-computer were found to be inadequate. It was therefore

concluded that a more powerful computer was essential for future tests. It was also

found that the manual adjustment of the vertical positions of the reaction collars

was unsatisfactory, and should be replaced by continuous adjustment with software

controlled servo-actuators.

Buckling of Frameworks

Figure 6.61

367

of computerized test control (from [6.119])

The experimental data obtained claried the beam-column behavior of unstiffened fabricated tubular members throughout the loading, ultimate and post ultimate

stages, and pointed to inadequacies in the design rules. The experimental setup and

techniques have been discussed here in considerable detail, because they represent

modern test methods for large scale column or beam-column experiments, and the

sophistication necessary to provide the information on the behavior of the structure,

required to study the effectiveness of advanced analytical techniques.

6.7

6.7.1

Buckling of Frameworks

Frame Instability

Frames, plane and three-dimensions (spatial), are one of the commonest forms

of structures in civil engineering and other elds. They and their instability have

therefore been extensively investigated in the last decades, though most of the

studies were theoretical and numerical. Frame buckling features prominently in

many textbooks (see for example [2.3], [4.11], [4.18], [6.45] [6.47], [6.82] or

[6.122]) and several monographs and volumes have been devoted to their strength

and buckling behavior (e.g. [6.123] [6.126]).

368

Frames (or frameworks, as they are sometimes called) can be broadly divided

into two groups: no-sway frames and sway frames (see for example [2.3] or

[4.11]). For simplicity, the discussion is usually limited to plane frames. The rst

group, the no-sway frames, which include triangulated trusses and braced building

frames, use mainly the axial stiffness of their members to maintain the shape of

the frames under load. Flexural stresses may be important, as in the beams of

building frameworks, but the essential feature of the no-sway frames is that no

substantial translational displacements of their joints can occur in the plane of the

frame without axial deformations in some of the members. Alternatively, one can

just state that the joints of no-sway frames are not free to move relative to each

other. The second group, the sway frames, which include building frames whose

beams and columns are rigidly connected at the joints but not braced, resist lateral

forces entirely by exure of the members. In sway frames substantial translational

displacements of the joints can occur without axial deformations in any member.

Alternatively, one can just state that in sway frames the resistance to lateral loads

is provided by sway moments induced in their members.

Up to the forties, it was customary to determine the buckling load of a framework

by examining each bar individually and calculating its buckling load with some

column formula, assuming some end xity coefcient. In reality, however, the

stability of any bar, or member of a frame, depends not only on its stiffness

but also on the amount of end restraint offered to it by adjacent bars, whose

stiffnesses in turn are inuenced by the stiffnesses of their neighbors. This was

realized in the late thirties and resulted in overall frame stability analyses (see

for example [6.127] [6.129]). At the Aeronautical Laboratories of the Polytechnic

Institute of Brooklyn, Hoff and his co-workers also carried out, in the late forties,

a series of careful tests on eight rigid-jointed frameworks (two welded steel frames

and six riveted 24 S-T aluminum alloy specimens, 45 60 in. long and 15 20 in.

high), concurrently with their analyses [6.129]. Each specimen was made of two

identical vertical diagonally braced plane frames, with a length-to-height ratio of

3:1, which were connected by horizontal and diagonal braces so as to constitute

a 3-dimensional framework, in order to avoid out-of-plane buckling in the plane

frames. The stiffening effect of these horizontal braces was, however, neglected in

the analysis, which considered the two vertical frameworks to be 2-dimensional.

The specimens had each bars of different cross-sections. They were tested under

the combined action of a vertical load and a bending moment, causing tension

in the upper chords of the vertical frames and compression in their lower ones.

Care was taken that the shear and bending moment be evenly applied to the two

vertical plane frames of the specimen. These frame experiments, in which (the

then relatively new) electric strain gages were extensively employed, were a good

example of the modern aeronautical buckling experiments of the period.

From the fties onward, frame stability has been the subject of extensive research

efforts, devoted primarily to the development of reliable methods of analysis and

design for frames. Satisfactory and safe methods have been arrived at, but as to

which of them is the optimal approach, even in 1987 there is yet no general

agreement among the leaders of the structural engineering profession. Research,

Buckling of Frameworks

369

p. 571).

Experiments did not feature too prominently in these investigations, perhaps

because of their likely complexity, but some were of signicant importance.

6.7.2

In the sixties, when the postbuckling behavior of frames was widely studied, a

series of noteworthy experiments on model frames were carried out by Roorda,

Brivtec and Chilver at Cambridge University and at University College, London,

some of which were discussed already in Chapter 4, Sections 4.4 and 4.7. The

series included two groups of tests: one on pin-jointed frames [6.130] and one

on rigidly-jointed ones ([4.13] [41.5] and [4.47]). As pointed out in Chapter 4,

the models frames in both groups consisted of high-tensile spring steel members

(1 in. wide, 1/16 in. thick and 10 36 in. long), that permitted buckling and large

deformations without inducing plastic strains.

As an example, one of Brivtecs model pin-jointed frames (Example 4 of [6.130],

see Figure 6.62) will now be considered. The reader may wish to complement

the discussion with that of Roordas rigidly jointed Warren truss in Chapter 4

(see Figure 4.23 there). The frame here consisted of four identical members, three

compressive ones and one tensile member.

The pin-joints were obtained, in this and the other similar model frames, by

knife edges at the ends of the struts bearing on at notches of the end attachments

of the tensile members, which assured the required freedom of rotation at the joints

in the plane of the frame.

In order to be able to study the unstable post-buckling paths of the model frame,

an hydraulic device was employed. The frame was loaded by means of dead

weight (lead shot) in a cylindrical container, which was allowed to sink into a

matching cylindrical water vessel. The load applied to the frame was measured

directly by a dynamometer placed between the lead-shot container and the frame.

The diameters of the container and the water vessel were chosen so that the rate

of fall-off of the applied load exceeded the rate of fall-off of the load along the

equilibrium path of the buckled frame. Due to this hydraulic loading device,

the whole system, including it and the frame, represented a stable system, which

permitted following the unstable equilibrium path without a motion arising in the

frame. One may recall from Chapter 4, that for the same purpose Roorda later

used in his model Warren truss a semi-rigid loading device, consisting of a springbalance and screw jack combination.

The vertical displacements of the frame were measured optically (to avoid

interference with the buckling behavior) by observing the joint image of a light,

graduated scale freely suspended from a point on the frame and of a vertical calibrated vernier in a xed position relative to the scale on the frame. Buckling loads

for the members of the frame were estimated with the aid of Southwell plots, as

in Chapter 4.

370

Figure 6.62

Brivtecs model pin-jointed frames: elastic buckling and postbuckling of a fourmember (three compressive and one tensile) frame in a mode in which only two

members buckled (from [6.130])

In the test of the four member frame, shown in Figure 6.62, all the three compressive members (1, 2 and 3) were on the point of buckling simultaneously, but only

two (1 and 2) were observed to buckle, whereas member 3 remained straight and

started to unload. The experimental unstable postbuckling equilibrium path for

this mode is shown in the gure, together with Brivtecs theoretical prediction

for a perfect frame. Good agreement was obtained, bearing in mind the initial

geometric imperfections of the model tested. Similar results were obtained for the

other model frames tested, with one of them, a two member model, exhibiting a

stable postbuckling path.

One may note that these model frame tests, as well as the similar rigidlyjointed ones, were essentially simple demonstration experiments, but their precision

elevated them to the status of well known and often quoted verication experiments

for nonlinear postbuckling analyses.

It may also be mentioned here that model analysis, discussed in detail in

Chapter 5, Section 5.9, has often been applied to frames, as for example in

Vaswanis experiments on plexiglass (methyl methacryloate) models of rigidjointed rectangular frames [6.131].

Buckling of Frameworks

6.7.3

371

Behavior of Connections

Conventional analysis and design of frameworks used to assume that the connections of beams to columns are either fully rigid or ideally pinned. Experimental

observations, however, showed that all connections used in practice have stiffnesses which fall between the two extremes, and should therefore be classied as

semi-rigid connections, or exible joints. The corresponding frames are referred

to in some specications as PR (partially restrained). Hence, though the idealized

joint behavior, of ideally pinned or fully rigid joints, simplied the analysis and

design, it was realized that the resultant predictions of frame response to loading

would be incorrect. The real behavior of beam-column connections, of exible

or semi-rigid joints, and their inuence on frame behavior had to be investigated

in order to provide practical methods of analysis and design. The seventies and

eighties saw therefore extensive research activity on exibly connected frames

and the relevant beam-to-column moment-resisting connections (see for example

[6.125] and [6.132] [6.138]).

The beam-to-column connection exibility can be characterized by a momentrotation curve, or M-

relationship, (like those in Figure 6.63 for common types of

connections shown in Figure 6.64), which is typically nonlinear over practically the

entire loading range. Since the axial and shearing deformations are usually small

compared to the rotational deformation (and torsion can be neglected for plane

frames) the rotational deformation represents the total response of the connection

and the M-

relationship denes the connection behavior.

Gerstle [6.133] noted in 1985 that in spite of various attempts . . . no reliable

method for prediction of connection response has been accepted by the profession

and therefore in the absence of analytical solutions reliance must be placed on tests

results. However, though connection testing has been carried out sporadically

since the 1930s . . . complete, systematic test programmes . . . are rare. He added

In particular, experimental data on the behavior of modern high-strength bolted

connections are sadly lacking. . . . New connection research is needed to establish

reliable stiffness data.

In 1989 Nethercot and Zandonini (Chapter 2 of [6.134]) concurred with Gerstles

assessment, stating that at present the ability to predict the moment-rotation curve

with good accuracy is rather limited and that test data are not usually readily

available to designers, despite the recent attempts to assemble them in usable

collections. In the same volume, also Davison and Nethercot point out in their

overview of connection behavior (Chapter 1 of [6.134]), that the M-

relation is

most conveniently obtained from physical tests on connections and that a large

body of test data is available . . ., although not always readily accessible.

Two years later, Chen and Lui discussed the connection data base in their

book [6.125] and listed some of the data bases available, in which the data was

also compared with some available prediction equations. They discussed three data

bases, covering up to ten types of beam column connections: the 1983 Goverdhan

data base [6.139], the 1985 Nethercot data base [6.140] and the 1986 Kishi and

Chen data base [6.141]. These data bases were indeed fairly comprehensive, but

not readily accessible to designers.

372

Figure 6.63

Flexible frame joint connections: moment-rotation curves for typical beam-tocolumn connections shown in Figure 6.64 (from [6.144])

Hence, though a large amount of data has accumulated, an accessible data bank,

collecting all the suitable test data in a standard and convenient form, is still badly

needed. Also additional tests on high-strength bolted connections are yet missing.

At Purdue University, such a data bank is being assembled by Chen and Kishi, a

development of the earlier one [6.141], and for its control a special program, Steel

Connection Data Bank Program (SCDB) has been developed (see [6.136]). This

may eventually fulll the requirements.

The test carried out to obtain the M-

relationships were essentially rotational

stiffness tests of joints subjected to bending moments. These rotational stiffness

Buckling of Frameworks

Figure 6.64

373

[6.144])

cruciform test rig. The setup shown schematically in Figure 6.65 was used in the

beam-to-column web connection studies at the Fritz Engineering Laboratory of

Lehigh University in the late seventies [6.135] and represents a typical example of

such a cantilever test rig.

After some pilot tests on small scale web connections, four full-scale web

connection assemblages with realistic beam and column sections were tested,

consisting each of a 5.5 m (18 ft) long column and a 1.5 m (5ft) long horizontal

cantilever beam, connected at mid-height of the column. Four different geometries

of welding and bolting the beam to the column (simulating actual building connections) were used in the specimens. The assemblage was placed in a 22 240 kN

(5 000 000 lb) universal testing machine and an axial load was applied to the

column. The purpose of this axial load (that affects the yielding and deformation of the connections) was to simulate realistic loading on the web connection

assemblage. The axial load P was increased till P C Vmp (where Vmp was the

beam load V calculated to cause a fully plastic moment Mp at its critical section)

was equal to 0.5 Py , Py being the load that would cause yielding in the column.

The lower end of the column was rigidly bolted to the test oor and also the upper

end was held in a xed end condition by the head of the testing machine. Then

374

Figure 6.65

rig schematic (from [6.135])

about 110 kN (25 kips) till deections became excessive, when instead of specied

loads, specied deection increments were applied.

A typical load-deection curve (for Connection 14 3) is shown in Figure 6.66.

The loading of the beam was continued till V reached about 90 percent of Vmp , the

load calculated to cause the plastic bending moment Mp at the critical section of

the beam. The plot shows an initial linear elastic slope up to about 400 kN and then

a secondary linear slope up to a load of 890 kN. Such a type of behavior of two

distinct slopes was observed also in other tests on bolted connections conducted

at Lehigh University. The second linear slope, indicating a change in rotational

stiffness, was due to many minor slips of the bolted ange plates, though no

one major slip occurred during this test or during other Lehigh beam-to-column

connection tests. As V increased further, the load-deection curve gradually lost

stiffness due to yielding of elements within the assemblage. Towards the end of

the loading, after V reached about 1330 kN, a tear developed in the tension ange

connection resulting in a load drop to about 1100 kN. Then the connection was

unloaded. Similar, though somewhat different, behavior was observed in the other

three tests.

A recent example of a cruciform connection test arrangement is shown in

Figure 6.67, which presents the test rig used at the University of Shefeld in the

mid-eighties [6.142]. The primary objective of the Shefeld tests was a comparative

assessment of different types of beam-to-column connections in terms of connection

Buckling of Frameworks

375

Figure 6.66

for connection 14-3 (from [6.135])

Figure 6.67

[6.142])

rotational stiffness and moment capacity. Thus all the specimens of the 17 tests

had similar beam and column sizes and were tested on the same test setup by

the same procedure. The cruciform test arrangement of Figure 6.67 was preferred

over a cantilever type, since it required a less extensive test rig and provided some

indication of the variability of nominally identical connections.

376

Load was applied to the centrally located column by a 500 kN screw jack.

The reaction of each beam was measured at a distance of 1000 mm from the

column face or web for the major and minor axis tests respectively. Rotations were

measured at a point on the centerline of each beam and on the column. The rotation

at each of these three positions was gauged with the aid of three LVDTs, attached

by a system of wires and pulleys to T-bars, tack welded to the specimen, as can be

seen on the right hand side of the gure. Rotation of the specimen, and the attached

T-bar, resulted in changes in the length of the three wires, which were measured

by the LVTDs. The rotation of each joint could then be computed from the new

geometry. Positioning the T-bars as near as practicable to the connection minimized

the contribution of the beam curvature to the relative connection rotation, justifying

its neglect. This measurement system yielded only the overall moment-rotation

response and did not provide any quantitative information on the contributions of

the individual components to the connection exibility, but for the comparative

assessment aimed at this limitation was immaterial. The data were recorded and

processed by a microcomputer-based data logging system.

In the interest of the comparative assessment, all the specimens were fabricated

at the Departments workshop and by the same technician. For better assembly

consistency, bolt tightness was controlled, rst by the touch of the same technician,

and then more efciently by applying a predetermined torque to the bolts with a

torque wrench.

The rotational stiffness of the joints, or their connection exibility, signicantly

affects the behavior of a exibly connected frame. The joint rotations contribute to

the overall frame deformations, and in particular to the frame sway under lateral

load. The connection exibility also affects the buckling strength of the frame,

as well as its natural periods of vibration and therefore its dynamic response to

seismic motions. The joint exibility also affects the distribution of internal forces

and moments and thus the resulting stresses. Hence exibly connected frames have

to be analyzed as such (see [6.133]), taking into account the connection exibilities,

and the methods of calculation have to be veried by experiments. A few series of

tests on the strength of exibly connected single- and two-story frames have been

performed, but without consideration of column instability or large deections. As

a matter of fact, Gerstle [6.133] pointed out that no testing seems to have been

carried out on exibly-connected frames in which failure is initiated by members

or frame buckling. Buckling and postbuckling experiments of exibly connected

frames are therefore still missing and warranted.

Joint exibility also affects the buckling behavior of other types of frameworks.

An interesting example is the torsional stability of a geodesic shell-like composite

framework developed for battle-damage tolerant helicopter rear fuselages. In the

investigation carried out at Imperial College, London, for Westland Helicopters

Ltd., on these (600 mm long and of 150 mm diameter) carbon ber reinforced

cylindrical geodetic shells [6.145] it was found that the detailed behavior of the

geodetic joints signicantly affected the torsional buckling load of the geodesic

shell. In the construction of this composite framework, tape prepegs were layed

up at, since the bars were geodesics, and the orthogonal passes produced an

Buckling of Frameworks

377

the exible interlaminar matrix to resist a scissoring-action at the joints. This

exibly resisted scissoring presented the joint exibility, which was studied both

by small specimen tests and then by a nite element model incorporating the joint

exibility measured in these tests. With this new exible model the predicted

torsional buckling load exceeded the experimental one only by about 7 percent,

whereas the earlier rigid-joint model yielded values 30 percent above experimental

buckling load. The joint exibility was therefore also here of prime importance.

Some preliminary compression tests on complete geodesic cylindrical shells,

indicated that there the joint exibility (the scissoring) was even more dominating.

6.7.4

One of the most severe loading cases for building frames are seismic loads. These

horizontal loads, resulting from the acceleration of the earthquake ground motion,

present some of the overriding design criteria for building frames. Buckling and

postbuckling occur mainly in bracing members of these structures, which experience large cyclic deviations in tension and compression in the postbuckling range

during a severe earthquake (see for example [6.146]). Thus, though seismic tests

are primarily concerned with large plastic deformations, failure and energy absorption under repeated loading, buckling and postbuckling phenomena represent an

important aspect of the behavior of the members of the frame, in particular their

bracing members. Seismic tests serve therefore also as buckling experiments.

A good example are the comprehensive tests carried out in the eighties as part of

the US/Japan Cooperative Research Program in Earthquake Engineering Utilizing

Large Scale Test Facilities, under the auspices of the US National Science Foundation and the Japanese Ministry of Construction and Science and Technology

Agency. The program had three phases: one focused on a reinforced concrete test

specimen, the second on a structural steel one and the third on masonry specimens.

The second phase, focusing on steel specimens, is widely concerned with buckling

phenomena and is of interest here.

The purposes of the cooperative research program in steel and reinforced concrete

buildings were to improve earthquake-resistant design in the US and Japan; to

establish relationships between full-size and reduced-size specimen test results, to

correlate static, cyclic, pseudodynamic and shaking table experimental results; to

verify analytical modeling techniques and make recommendations for inclusion in

design codes.

The base of reference for each of the associated research projects in the structural

steel phase was the full-scale six-story steel specimen tested at the Large Size

Structures Laboratory of the Building Research Institute (BRI) in Tsukuba, Japan

(see [6.147] [6.150], [6.152] [6.154]). The structure was a six-story, two-bayby-two-bay, steel-framed ofce building with a composite steel metal deck and

lightweight concrete oor system. A typical oor plan and the elevations of the

major frames are presented in Figure 6.68. The structure was 15 m (49.2 ft) square

in plan, 22.4 m (74.3 ft) high and had two bays in each direction, but was loaded in

378

Figure 6.68

test structure geometry: (a) typical oor plan, (b) frame B, (c) frames A and C,

and (d) frames 1 and 3 (from [6.152])

the north south direction as indicated. The major load frames (A, B and C) had full

moment resisting connections and the center frame (B) had K-bracing (concentric

chevron bracing) in its south bay. The outside frames (A and C) were momentresistant frames, and the end frames (1 and 3) had cross-bracing with simple

connections, whereas the middle frame (2) was unbraced. The cross-bracing of the

Buckling of Frameworks

379

provided, however, lateral stability for the test structure in the transverse direction

and greatly increased its torsional stiffness, minimizing accidental twisting of the

oors during the tests.

The full-scale test program was divided into four phases (see [6.147]): For

phase I the test building was designed and tested with the center frame B braced

concentrically. After completion of phase I, the concentric braces were removed,

the building was repaired and eccentric braces were installed in the north bay of

the center frame B for phase II tests. At the end of phase II, the eccentric braces

were removed from the center frame B, and the moment frames A and C (with

their rigid moment-resisting connections) were tested in phase III. In phase IV,

nonstructural walls and cladding were installed on the building and an additional

series of tests was performed.

The full-scale tests, conducted in the Large Size Testing Laboratory of BRI, used

their computer on-line actuator (COLA) pseudodynamic test system. The pseudodynamic method (see for example [6.151] or [6.158]) is an integrated experimentalanalytical procedure. It is similar to standard step-by-step nonlinear dynamic

procedures in that the controlling computer software considers the response to

be discretized into a series of time steps. Within each step the governing equations

of motion are solved numerically for the incremental structural deformations. In

the pseudodynamic method, the ground motion as well as the structures inertial

and damping characteristics are specied numerically as in a conventional dynamic

analysis. However, rather than using a mathematical model to determine the structures restoring force characteristics, these are measured directly from the damaged

specimen as the test procedure progresses. Since dynamic effects are accounted for

in the equations of motion, computed displacements are quasi-statically imposed

on the test specimen.

The pseudodynamic test idealization is shown schematically in Figure 6.69. The

principal difference between pseudodynamic testing and well-established dynamic

analysis is that the computed structural displacements d1 , d2 , . . . are actually

imposed on the test specimen, and the restoring forces r1 , r2 , . . . are measured

experimentally from the deformed specimen.

Figure 6.69

(from [6.151])

380

allowing the use of full-scale specimens and a slow test rate that enhances test

observations.

In the BRI full-scale tests, eight servo-controlled actuators attached to a huge

reaction wall were used to load the structure. The displacements (loads) were

applied through loading beams installed at the edge of each oor. For the COLA

test method, the structure was interfaced with the computer through the actuators

and displacement measuring transducers in such a way that the response of the

building to a given earthquake was self-controlled.

Two types of data were measured and stored. The rst type was that used for

the COLA testing, which included the measured actuator forces and oor displacements, and the computed velocities and accelerations. This data was used for

investigation of the overall load-deection relationships of the building tested, as

well as for assessment of the performance of the COLA testing method. The second

type of data included member strains and displacements measured with strain gages

and LVDTs, which were used for the study of moment-rotation relationships for

beams, load-deection behavior of braces, etc. About 1000 channels of this second

type of data were recorded for each test, which also included determination of the

force-deection curves of the braces and their buckling behavior.

Prior to testing, linear and nonlinear analyses of very detailed models of the

building were carried out with several combinations of input ground motion and

damping levels, in order to ensure the proper parameters for the COLA pseudodynamic tests. These analyses also indicated the locations at which large strains

could be expected and where therefore instrumentation should be placed. Before

and after each major test, and after any repair or modication, vibration tests were

carried out to determine the damping of the structure and the frequencies of the

rst few modes. Comparison of the values measured indicated the effect of the

previous test program or repair on the structural properties.

Phase I testing focused on the behavior of frame B with concentric bracing (see

[6.147], [6.149], [6.150] and [6.152]). The record of the Miyagi-Ken-Oki 1978

earthquake (with a magnitude of 7.4 on the Richter scale) was chosen for COLA

tests, with the peak acceleration scaled to an appropriate value.

Three tests were performed: an elastic one, a moderate one and a nal one. The

elastic test simulated a small, frequent earthquake with a ground motion scaled to a

peak acceleration of 6.5 m/s2 (0.065 g), throughout which the structure appeared to

remain elastic. The moderate test simulated an intermediate-size earthquake, with

a peak acceleration of 25 m/s2 (0.25 g), in which limited yielding and some brace

buckling were observed. The nal test simulated a major earthquake, with a peak

acceleration of 50 m/s2 (0.5 g), and indeed extensive brace buckling and yielding

were detected. Brace buckling was observed visually in seven of the 12 braces

of frame B, and beams and columns showed yielding throughout the bottom three

stories.

The behavior of the braces is of primary importance in the overall response of

the structure. In general, bracing members provide a large portion of the lateral

stiffness and strength in steel structures comprising a bracing system and moment

Buckling of Frameworks

381

resisting frames (so called dual system), and their behavior, and in particular their

buckling and postbuckling behavior, therefore governs that of the structure, in both

the elastic and inelastic ranges.

Brace buckling was also a major source of energy dissipation in the nal test

(as a matter of fact, postbuckling and yielding of the braces were the dominant

source of energy dissipation as the deections grew larger), and it ultimately led to

failure of the north brace in the third story. One of the buckled braces is shown in

Figure 6.70. After buckling, a progressive tearing occurred, which ultimately lead

to rupture of the tubular brace. As the deection grew even larger, the exural

yielding of beams and columns became more important for energy dissipation.

These sequential modes of energy dissipation illustrated the benecial redundancy

of the dual bracing system. Some of the braces buckled in-plane while others

buckled out-of-plane, which motivated detailed studies of the force deection

behavior of individual braces (see [6.152]), that explained the experimental results

and also indicated that actually only six braces buckled, whereas the preliminary

visual observations suggested that seven did.

The effect of composite action, the inuence of the composite steel and concrete

oors, on the stiffness of the braces and the whole structure, was also studied and

found to be not very signicant.

Prior to the phase II testing, the cracked concrete oor slabs were repaired by

pressurized epoxy injection or recast. With the installation of the new eccentric

bracing in the north bay of frame B, modications were also made to the instrumentation, like relocation of some of the potentiometers and LVDTs to the north

Figure 6.70

(a square tube) of the full scale structure tested at BRI in Tsukuba (courtesy of

Professor C.W. Roeder)

382

bay. The 1952 Taft acceleration record was chosen as the input excitation for

the phase II testing (see [6.148] and [6.153]), and the same damping values as in

phase I were used. Two tests were rst carried out in phase II, one for examination

of the elastic behavior with the Taft accelogram scaled to 6.5 m/sec2 (0.065 g), and

one inelastic test with the Taft record scaled to a peak acceleration of 50 m/sec2

(0.5 g).

Since relatively little damage and small story drifts and displacements occurred

in the inelastic test, three additional tests with sinusoidal ground acceleration were

performed to determine the strength, ductility and nal failure mechanism of the

eccentrically braced structure. All ve tests were conducted with the computer online actuator (COLA) pseudodynamic test technique, the input being scaled Taft

acceleration records for the rst two and a sinusoidal ground acceleration for the

last three tests.

During the third cycle of the sinusoidal tests, the gusset plates, attaching the

braces in the rst story to the second level oor, buckled. This caused the end

of the brace to move out-of-plane, which produced a large torque on the second

level oor girder, resulting in a large inelastic torsional deformation. The brace

was then unable to develop and maintain large axial forces, and therefore the

stiffness and strength of the rst story decreased. A similar effect, though of smaller

magnitude was also observed in the second story. Eventually the moment frames,

which as pointed out before served as a redundant backup, took over large

loads, maintaining the overall performance of the structure. However, it should be

noted that the failure of the gusset plates signicantly reduced the overall stiffness

of the building, as observed in the post-test vibration measurements that showed

a 19 percent increase in the natural period (indicating a 30 percent reduction in

stiffness). This emphasized the importance of connection detail design.

The tests demonstrated the signicant contribution of the shear links of the eccentrically braced frame (EBF) to the energy dissipation and the overall performance

of the building. They conrmed the conclusions of earlier studies (for example

[6.160]) about the efciency of eccentrically braced frames in resisting lateral

seismic loads.

Upon completion of phase II and removal of the eccentric braces, the phase III

test on the moment frames was performed. After a vibration test, which indicated

that the elastic stiffness of the phase III moment frame was 20 25 percent of that

measured in the braced frames of phases I and II, the building was subjected to the

1940 El Centro earthquake with 35 m/s2 (0.35 g) peak acceleration. Though the

phase III structure was signicantly more exible and had less resistance than the

phase I and II congurations, its inelastic behavior was stable. After having been

subjected to several major simulated earthquakes, the moment frames performed

remarkably well.

The phase IV tests on nonstructural elements, though important to the seismic

performance of the building are not relevant to buckling experiments.

Concurrently with the extensive test program carried out on the full-scale structure at BRI in Tsukuba, also some reduced-scale models of the same structure were

tested at BRI and at some structural research centers in the USA: in Tsukuba, static

Buckling of Frameworks

383

loading tests on six half-scale model frames, representing the lower three stories

of the center frame B, were performed [6.157]. At the Fritz Engineering Laboratory of Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, a 0.305 scale model of the complete

structure was tested in a quasi-static manner [6.155]. Two series of tests on a

0.305 scale model of the complete structure, rst one with concentric chevron

bracing and then with eccentric bracing, were carried out on the earthquake simulator at the University of California at Berkeley [6.154] and [6.159]. And, as part

of the same program, also a series of small-scale models (1:12.5 models of three

beam-columns, one braced frame and one unbraced one) were tested at Stanford

University [6.156].

The BRI half-scale model static experiments [6.157], whose main purpose was

clarication of the elastic and plastic behavior for better prediction of that of the

full-scale structure, included six frames with inverted-V-braces, two of which were

exact half-scale models of the lower three stories of the full-scale six-story test

building, except for the details of the brace connections. The other four models

were only roughly similar and had no composite oor slabs, and one of them had

no braces. From the buckling point of view, the primary predicted and observed

phenomenon was the fact that large story drifts introduced mainly large axial

compressive displacemen