ELASTIC BUCKLING OF PLANAR COLUMNS

p2 EI
p
kL
p
e
; k ; cos cos 0; vL=2 ! 1
L2
L
2
2
0

(2.30)

ML2 PeL2 p2

P=PE e
8EI
8EI
8

More free ebooks : http://fast-file.blogspot.com

v1 L=2

Thus, the deflection is infinite when P equals the elastic buckling load, as
expected.
The center deection of a beam with a moment M at each end is equal to
(from linear structural analysis):

P PE

When

!
1  cos kL
2
vL=2 e
cos kL
2

The maximum deflection occurs at the center at z L=2 and it is equal to:

The deflection is found from the general solution v A sin kx B cos kx  e

with the boundary conditions v0 vL 0:


1  cos kL
v e cos kz
sin kz  1
(2.29)
sin kL

P
k2
EI

e is the load eccentricity (Figure 2.8b), v is the deflection at location e, P is

the axial force, and EI is the product of the elastic modulus and the moment
of inertia, respectively. The second line is a rearrangement after introducing

EIv00 Pe v
v00 k2 v k2 e

The differential equation is determined by equating the internal moment

EIv00 and the external moment Pe v, where e is the eccentricity of the
axial load (see Figure 2.8b) and v is the deection at the point of interest:

2.6.2 Column with Eccentric Load (Figure 2.8b)

4PE . However, the load has no chance of getting there because at P PE

the deflection of the column snaps from an S-shape into a half sine wave. A
similar problem was also encountered in Chapter 1. The unexpected occurrence of such a snap-through event during the test of a full-sized column in
the laboratory is something not easily forgotten.

48

49

(2.32)

More free ebooks : http://fast-file.blogspot.com

The variations of the magnification factors of equations 2.31 (for the

eccentric axial load) and 2.33 (for the column with a distributed load) are

5qL
, and therefore the magnification factor MF
The first-order deflection is 384EI
for this case is equal to
!
384
1
kL2
MF 4 4

1
(2.33)
8
5k L cos kL
2

With the boundary conditions v0 vL v00 0 v00 L 0, the

deflection at any location z and at the center of the member is, respectively:
"
#

q
1  cos; kL
kz2 k2 Lz
v 2

1
sin kz cos kz
2
Pk
sin kL
2
!
(2.33)
q
1
kL2
1
vL=2 2

8
Pk cos kL
2

This equation is then rearranged and solved for the deflection:

q
v0v k2 v00
EI
qz2
v A Bz C sin kz D cos kz
2P

EIviv Pv00 q

A distributed load is not specically an imperfection; however, the transverse loading on the column creates deection due to bending and is thus
similar to the imperfection cases described in the previous sections. The differential equation for this case is equation 2.9 with the foundation modulus
a 0:

2.6.3 Column with Distributed Load (Figure 2.8c)

If we divide the deflection of the column (equation 2.30) by the linear beam
deflection above we obtain a magnification factor, MF, that defines the
effect of the reduction of stiffness, and thus the increase of deflection, due to
the axial force:
2
q3
1  cos p2 PPE
8
6
7
q 5
MF 2
(2.31)
4
p P=PE
cos p2 PPE

2.6 THE EFFECT OF IMPERFECTIONS

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

Magnification Factor

Distributed load

Eccentric axial load

Initial crookedness

Fig. 2.11 Comparison of magnication factors.

ELASTIC BUCKLING OF PLANAR COLUMNS

10

More free ebooks : http://fast-file.blogspot.com



P Pv P
vA

1
sy
A S
A
S

It is evident from comparing the curves in Figure 2.11 that they are
essentially on top of each other, and thus the simpler equation 2.34 can be
used for all three cases. This fact has been used for many years in design
standards all over the world.
Historically, the idea of assuming an initial out-of-straightness or an accidental load eccentricity was used to arrive at formulas for the design of
columns. They are named, variously, the Rankine formula, or the PerryRobertson formula. Since such formulas were used extensively throughout
the last 150 years, it is useful to give a brief derivation at this point.
The common feature of these formulas is the assumption that the maximum strength of the column is reached when the sum of the axial normal
stress and the exural normal stress equals the yield stress of the material.
This is a very impractical assumption, of course, as we will show in Chapter
3, but since the initial deection is calibrated so that the formula predicts the
actual strength obtained by column tests, a useful and simple method of
design is achieved. The derivation of the Rankine formula is given rst:

plotted in Figure 2.11 against P/PE. Also plotted is the magnification factor
for the case of initial curvature (equations 2.24):
1
MF
(2.34)
1  P=PE

50

P/PE

51

P
sy
sy

  
 
A 1 cv2 L 2 1 a L 2
r
r
L

(2.35)

(2.36)

2
1
sy sE
sy sE 1 h
2

More free ebooks : http://fast-file.blogspot.com

L
Empirically in the Australian code, h 0:003 .
r

1
scr sy sE 1 h 
2

Solving for the critical stress, one obtains

vo
vo
vo sE

1  P=PE 1  sscrE sE  scr




sE
sy scr 1 h
sE  scr

(2.37)

The Perry-Robertson formula has been used in many countries, and it is

still in the current Australian steel design standard. It is derived as
follows:

scr 18 scr
18

 L 2  15 ksi
1
FS
33
1 18;000
r

The coefficient a is obtained by calibration to test data. For example, the

column formula in the 1923 Specification for steel building structures of
the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) was of this form. There
were many variants in use, and there probably are still extant some codes
that use it. In the 1923 AISC Specification, the formula is as follows for a
yield stress of 33 ksi and a factor of safety of 33=18:

scr

P is the axial load, A is the area and S is the elastic section modulus of the
cross-section. sy is the yield stress and v is the
 initial deflection at the center
Acv
cv
cv L 2
of the column. Note that Av

, where I is the moment of

2
2
S
I
r
L r
inertia, c is the distance from the neutral axis to the outer fiber of the crosssection, r is the radius of gyration, and L is the column length. The formula
is then in the following form:

2.6 THE EFFECT OF IMPERFECTIONS

STABILITY OF A RIGID FRAME

2.7

4EIB
uA auA av0 0
LB

MAB

IC

LB

Fig. 2.12 Restrained column.

IB

MAB /2

More free ebooks : http://fast-file.blogspot.com

LC

B
and a 3EI
LB when the far end is pinned. The moment at the top end of the

B
The symbol a is a spring constant that is a 4EI
LB when the far end is fixed,

MAB

Next we consider the effect of elastic end-restraint on the critical load of a

column. The structure is shown in Figure 2.12. The column has a pin at its
bottom, and it is restrained at the top by an elastic beam that has a xed end
at its far end.
The boundary conditions at the bottom of the column at z L are equal
to vL v00 L 0. At the top there is no deection, and the slope at the
top of the column equals the slope at the end of the beam. The bending moments oppose each other. From structural analysis it can be determined that
at the end of the beam

ELASTIC BUCKLING OF PLANAR COLUMNS

52

MAC EIC v00 0

53

PL2C
EIC

(2.39)

EIC
L2C

More free ebooks : http://fast-file.blogspot.com

Pcr 20:19

Equation 2.39 is the buckling equation for a column with a pinned end at
one end and an elastic spring at the other end. When IB a g 0, the
end restraint vanishes and we have a pinned-end column; that is, sin kLC
0 ! Pcr p2 EIC =L2C . When the top end is fixed, the following holds:
IB a g 1
kLC
kLC
tan kLC
kLC 2
g 1

kLC

a kLC
g kLC

PLC a kLC 2 g
a LC
g
EI
C
s
tan kLC

leads to the following eigenfunction:

Substitution of the deflection equation v A Bz C sin kz D cos kz and

its derivatives gives four homogeneous simultaneous equations. Setting the
determinant of the coefficients equal to zero


1 0

0
1


0 a

ak
P

0
1 L

sin
kL
cos
kL
C
C

0 0 k2 sin kLC k2 cos kLC

v0 0
av0 0  EIC v00 0 0
vLC 0
v00 LC 0

From the equilibrium condition MAB MAC 0, we then get the fourth
boundary condition. The four boundary conditions are summarized next:

column equals

2.7 STABILITY OF A RIGID FRAME

ELASTIC BUCKLING OF PLANAR COLUMNS

80

80

100

100

P
T
E Iv''(0)

Bv'(L)

E Iv''(L)

Tv'(0)

v (L) = 0
Bv'(L) E Iv''(L) = 0

Boundary conditions:
v(0) = 0
Tv'(0) EIv''(0) = 0

More free ebooks : http://fast-file.blogspot.com

40
60
= LC / EIC

40
60
= LC / EIC

More free ebooks : http://fast-file.blogspot.com

20

20

END-RESTRAINED COLUMNS

In this section we consider the general case of prismatic columns that are
restrained by elastic springs at their ends. By considering restrained ends,
we can develop a feel for the impact of end restraint on the buckling load
of the column. This situation is similar to a column restrained by beams
of nite stiffness, which is discussed in depth in Chapter 5. We start the
discussion with a compression member whose ends do not translate with
respect to each other (often called a non-sway case) and that have elastic
springs at each end. The column and its end boundary conditions are shown
in Figure 2.14.
Substitution of the four boundary conditions into equation 2.12 results in
four homogeneous simultaneous equations. The determinant of the coefcients of the constants A, B, C, D is equal to


1

0
0
1


1

L
sin kL
cos kL

0
2
0 aT

a
k
EIk
T


0 aB aB k cos kL EIk2 sin kL aB k sin kL EIk2 cos kL

2.8

Fig. 2.14 The nonsway restrained column.

55

constant. A little restraint goes a long way, but complete restraint is not
worth attaining. This principle is a general characteristic of buckling solutions discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.

2.8 END-RESTRAINED COLUMNS

Fig. 2.13 Effect of end-restraint.

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

Comparing these extremes to the corresponding cases in Table 2.1 it is seen

that the same answers are obtained. The variation of the critical load with
the spring constant between the two extremes is shown in Figure 2.13.
The upper graph shows that the critical load is PE when g 0, and it
approaches 2.045PE as the value of the spring constant approaches innity.
The lower graph illustrates the variation of the effective length factor K from
1.0 (pinned end) to 0.7 (xed end). There is an important trend that can be
deduced from these curves: On the one hand, when the restraint is small,
large increases of the buckling load result from small increases of the spring
constant a. On the other hand, when a becomes very large, a very small
change in the buckling load results from very large changes in the spring

54

P / PE

Effective Length K

RT

aT L
EI
aB L
RB
EI
(2.40)

and introducing the nondimensional spring

(2.41)

(2.43)

2EIgB
2IgB =LgB
! RB
LgB
IC =LC

aB

More free ebooks : http://fast-file.blogspot.com

(2.42)

2EIgT
2IgT =LgT
! RT
LgT
IC =LC

aT

Solving equation 2.41 numerically for the smallest kL gives the critical
buckling load. The limiting cases of this equation are the cases of both ends
pinned (aT aB 0 ! RT RB 0), and of both ends fixed (aT aB
1 ! RT RB 1). After some algebraic and trigonometric manipulations it can be demonstrated the eigenfunction for the pinned end column is
equal to sin kL 0 and for the fixed end column it equals sin kL
2 0. These
are indeed the same functions as are shown in Table 2.1 for Cases I and III.
Thus, equation 2.41 encloses all the intermediate conditions between the
totally pinned ends and the totally fixed ends. The critical load thus varies
from Pcr PE to 4PE, and the effective length varies from K 1:0 to 0.5.
The buckling condition of equation 2.41 is directly applicable for the situation where the elastic rotational spring constants aT and aB are known.
Following, we consider the specialization of the expression for the case of a
planar rigid frame. Such an application is within the everyday task of structural design engineers. An example is illustrated in Figure 2.15. We assume
that the far ends of the top and bottom beams have the same slope as the
near ends. This is not the correct situation for this given problem, but it is
the assumption that governs the effective length determination in the AISC
Specication (AISC 2005).
The top and bottom spring constants are:

2RT RB sin kLRT RB kL  kLRT RB  kL3 

cos kL2RT RB kL2 RT RB  0

the algebraic decomposition of the determinant results in the following

eigenfunction:

P
EI

ELASTIC BUCKLING OF PLANAR COLUMNS

Remembering that k
constant ratios

56