23

Stability Of
Structures:
Basic Concepts

23–1
Lecture 23: STABILITY OF STRUCTURES: BASIC CONCEPTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
§23.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23–3
§23.2 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23–3
§23.3 Testing Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23–3
§23.3.1 Stability of Static Equilibrium . . . . . . . . . . . 23–3
§23.3.2 Stability of Dynamic Equilibrium . . . . . . . . . . . 23–7
§23.4 Static Stability Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23–7
§23.4.1 Buckling Or Snapping? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23–7
§23.4.2 Response Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23–8
§23.4.3 Primary Equilibrium Path and the Design Critical Load . . . 23–9
§23.4.4 Stability Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23–9
§23.4.5 Stability Equations Derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . 23–10
§23.5 Exact Versus Linearized Stability Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 23–11
§23.5.1 Example 1: The HCR Column: Geometrically Exact Analysis . 23–11
§23.5.2 Example 1: The HCR Column: LPB Analysis . . . . . . 23–12
§23.5.3 Example 2: The PCR Column: Geometrically Exact Analysis . 23–13
§23.5.4 Example 2: The PCR Column - LPB Analysis . . . . . . 23–15

23–2
 §23.3 TESTING STABILITY

§23.1. Introduction

This Lecture presents basic concepts on structural stability, describes procedures for testing stabil-
ity, classifies models and analysis methods, and concludes by contrasting exact versus linearized
determination of critical loads.
The term stability has both informal and formal meanings. As regards the former, the American
Heritage Dictionary lists the following three. 1. Resistance to sudden change, dislodgment, or
overthrow. 2a. Constancy of character or purpose: tenacity; steadfastness. 2b. Reliability;
dependability. Related verb: to stabilize. Related adjective: stable. Antonyms: stability loss,
instability, to destabilize, unstable.
The formal meaning is found in engineering and sciences, concerning stability of systems.1 Broadly
speaking, structural stability can be defined as the power to recover equilibrium. It is an essential
requirement for all structures. Jennings2 provides the following historical sketch:
“Masonry structures generally become more stable with increasing dead weight. However
when iron and steel became available in quantity, elastic buckling due to loss of stability
of slender members appeared as a particular hazard.”

§23.2. Terminology

For referential convenience, Tables 23.1 and 23.2 provide a dictionary of terms that will be used
in the four Lectures on stability. Particularly important are the often used configuration and state,
which are related but should not be confused. “Configuration,” which is generically denoted by
C, is qualitative: it describes the disposition or arrangement of system components. On the other
hand, “state” is quantitative; it is precisely determined by a set of state variables called degrees of
freedom, or DOF. This set is finite in discrete models and infinite in continuous models.
In this and following Lectures we shall only use physical kinematic variables, such as displacements
and rotations, as DOF. We shall generically denote the DOF variables by u. In discrete models, u
is simply the vector that collects all DOF, and is called the state vector. In continuous models, u is
a function of the spatial (position) coordinates.

§23.3. Testing Stability

The stability of a mechanical system, and of structures in particular, can be tested (experimentally
or analytically) by observing how it reacts when external disturbances are applied. Here we have
to distinguish between statics and dynamics.

1 As defined in Table 23.1, a system is a functionally related group of components forming or regarded as a collective
entity. This definition uses “component” as a generic term that embodies “element” or “part,” which connote simplicity,
as well as “subsystem,” which connotes complexity. In this course we shall be concerned about mechanical systems
governed by Newtonian mechanics, with focus on structures.
2 A. Jennings, Structures: From Theory to Practice, Taylor and Francis, London, 2004, Chapter 7.

23–3
Lecture 23: STABILITY OF STRUCTURES: BASIC CONCEPTS

Table 23.1. Terminology Related to Mechanical Systems

Term Definition

System A functionally related set of components regarded as a physical entity.

Configuration The relative disposition or arrangement of system components.
State The condition of the system as regards its form, structure or constitution.
Degrees of Freedom A set of state variables that uniquely characterizes the state. Abbr.: DOF.
Kinematic DOF A DOF that is directly linked to the system geometry; e.g., a displacement.
Input The set of all actions that can influence the state of a system, or component.
Output The set of all quantities that characterize the state of a system, or component.
Model A mathematical idealization of a physical system.
Discrete Model A model with a finite # of DOF. Often expressed as vector equations.
Continuous Model A model with an infinite # of DOF. Often expressed as a ODE or PDE.
Event A change in the state variables produced by an agent.
Behavior A pattern of events.
Reference State A state of the system adopted as base or origin to measure relative changes.
Often the same as the undeformed state (cf. Table 23.2).
Motion The change in system geometry, as measured from a reference state.
Kinematics The study of system motion independently of force agents.
Kinetics The study of forces as action agents, and their effect on the system state.
Kinematic Constraint Any condition that restricts the system motion, usually expressed in terms of
kinematic DOF. Also simply called constraint.
Environment A set of entities that do not belong to the system, but can influence its behavior.
Open System A system that is influenced by entities outside the system (its environment).
Closed System A system that is not affected by entities outside the system.
Interaction The mutual effect of a system component, or group of such components,
on other components.
Forces The action agents through which effects are transmitted between system
components, or between environment entities and system components.
Internal Forces Forces that act between system components.
External Forces Forces that act between environment entities and system components.
Constraint Force A force manifested by removing a constraint while keeping it enforced.
Reaction Force A constraint force that is an external force.
Applied Load An external force specified as data. Also simply called load.

Some of these terms are useful in a more general context; for example active control.

§23.3.1. Stability of Static Equilibrium

For simplicity we will assume that the structure under study is elastic, since memory and historical
effects such as plasticity or creep introduce additional complications such as path dependence,
which are beyond our scope. The applied forces are characterized by a load factor λ, also called a
load parameter or load multiplier. This value scales a set of reference loads to provide the actual
applied loads.
Setting λ = 0 means that the structure is unloaded and takes up an equilibrium configuration C0
called the undeformed state. Furthermore, we assume that this state is stable in the sense defined
later. As λ is monotonically varied away from 0 the structure deforms and assumes equilibrium

23–4
 §23.3 TESTING STABILITY

Table 23.2. Terminology Related to Static Stability Analysis

Term Definition

Reference Loads A set of applied loads taken as reference for application of a load factor.
Load Factor A scalar, denoted by λ, which scales reference loads to get the actual
applied loads. Also called load parameter and load multiplier.
System Response Values of the DOF, or subset thereof, expressed as function of the load factor,
or of the load level if only one load is applied. Also simply called response.
Equilibrium State A state in which internal and external forces are in equilibrium.
The associated configuration is called an equilibrium configuration.
Undeformed State The equilibrium state under zero applied loads, or, equivalently, λ = 0.
The associated configuration is called an undeformed configuration.
Equilibrium Response A system response in which all states are equilibrium states.
State Space A RCC frame with a DOF subset as axes.
Response Space A RCC frame with the load factor as one axis, and a DOF subset as the others.
Response Plot A display of the system response in response space.
Equilibrium Path An equilibrium response viewed in response space.
Perturbation An externally imposed disturbance of an equilibrium state while actual
loads are kept fixed. It may involve application of forces or motions.
Allowed Perturbation A perturbation that satisfies kinematic constraints. Also called admissible
perturbation, and (in the sense of variational calculus) virtual variation.
Stability The ability of a system to recover an equilibrium state upon being
disturbed by any of the allowed perturbations.
Instability The inability of a system to recover an equilibrium state upon being
disturbed by at least one allowed perturbation.
Stable Qualifier for an equilibrium state, or configuration, at which stability holds.
Unstable Qualifier for an equilibrium state, or configuration, at which instability occurs.
Neutrally Stable Qualifier for an equilibrium state, or configuration, at which transition
between stability and instability occurs.
Critical A qualifier that flags the occurrence of neutral stability. Applicable to state,
configuration, load, and load factor. For example: critical load.
Critical Point In a equilibrium response plot, a location where a critical state occurs.
Bifurcation Point A critical point at which two or more equilibrium paths cross.
Limit Point A critical point at which the load factor reaches a maximum or minimum.
Buckling Name used by structural engineers for the occurrence of a bifurcation point.
Snapping Name used by structural engineers for the occurrence of a limit point.
Also called snap-through, snap buckling, and snap-through buckling.

configurations C(λ). These are assumed to be (I) continuously dependent on λ and (II) stable for
sufficienttly small |λ|.
How is stability tested? Freeze λ at a value, say λd , in which d connotes “deformed.” The associated
equilibrium configuration is Cd = C(λd ). Apply a perturbation to Cd , and remove it. What sort
of perturbation? Any action that may disturb the state, for example a tiny load or a small imposed
motion. It must meet two conditions: any kinematic constraints (for example structural supports)
are satisfied, and the applied loads are kept fixed. Such perturbations are qualified as allowed or
admissible, as noted in Table 23.2.

23–5
Lecture 23: STABILITY OF STRUCTURES: BASIC CONCEPTS

Motion oscillates about

equilibrium configuration S: Stable*
Apply an
allowed or decays toward it
perturbation
Transition
Equilibrium Subsequent between stable N: Neutrally stable
configuration motion outcome and unstable

Motion is either unbounded, or

oscillates about, or decays toward, U: Unstable
another equilibrium configuration
* Strictly speaking, S requires stability
for all possible admissible perturbations

Figure 23.1. Stability test outcomes.

Applying and removing an allowed perturbation will trigger subsequent motion of the system.
Three possible outcomes are sketched in Figure 23.1.
S: Stable For all admissible perturbations, the structure either returns to the tested configu-
ration Cd or executes bounded oscillations about it. If so, the equilibrium is called
stable.
U: Unstable If for at least one admissible perturbation the structure moves to (decays to, or
oscillates about) another configuration, or “takes off” in an unbounded motion,
the equilibrium is unstable.
N: Neutral The transition from stable to unstable occurs at a value λcr , which is called the
critical load factor. The configuration Ccr = C(λcr ) at the critical load factor is
said to be in neutral equilibrium. The quantitative determination of this transition
is a key objective of the stability analysis.
The foregoing classification has gaps and leaves some details unanswered.
First, speaking about “moving” or “returning” introduces time into the picture. Indeed the concept
of stability is necessarily dynamic in nature3 There is a before: the act of applying the perturbation
to the frozen configuration, and an after: what happens upon removing it. Many practical methods
to assess critical loads, however, factor out the time dimension as long as certain conditions4 are
verified. Those are know as static criteria.
Second, the concept of “perturbation” as “small imposed change” is imprecise. How small is a
“tiny load” or a “slight deflection”? The idea is made more mathematically precise later when we

3 For example, Bazant and Cedolin in Stability of Structures: Elastic, Inelastic, Fracture and Damage Theories, Dover,
2003, comment on p. 144: “Failure of structures is a dynamical process, and so it is obviouly more realistic to approach
buckling and instability from a dynamical point of view.”
4 E.g., conservative loading: applied loads derive from a potential.

23–6
 §23.4 STATIC STABILITY LOSS

introduce linearized stability, also called “stability in the small.” This is a natural consequence of
assuming infinitesimal configuration changes.
§23.3.2. Stability of Dynamic Equilibrium
Stability of motion is a more general topic that includes the static case as a particular one. (As
previously noted, the concept of stability is essentially dynamic in nature.)
Suppose that a mechanical system is moving in a predictable manner. For example, a bridge
oscillates under wind, an airplane is flying a predefined trajectory under automatic pilot, a satellite
orbits the Earth, the Earth orbits the Sun. What is the sensitivity of such a motion to changes of
parameters such as initial conditions? If the system includes stochastic or chaotic elements, like
turbulence, the analysis will require probabilistic methods.
To make such problems mathematically tractable it is common to restrict the kind of motions in such
a way that a bounded reference motion can be readily defined. For example, a bounded periodic
motion of structure oscillating under periodic excitation. Departures under parametric changes are
studied. Transition to unbounded or unpredictable motion is taken as a sign of instability.
An important application of this concept are vibrations of structures that interact with external
or internal fluid flows: bridges, buildings, airplanes, fluid pipes. The steady speed of the flow
may be taken as parameter. At a certain flow speed, increasing oscillations may be triggered:
this is called flutter. Or a non-oscillatory unbounded motion happens: this is called divergence. A
famous example of flutter in a civil structure was the collapse of the newly opened Tacoma-Narrows
suspension bridge near Seattle in 1940 under a moderate wind speed of about 40 mph.
Modeling and analysis of dynamic instability is covered in other courses, primarily at the graduate
level because it requires fancier mathematical tools and heavier use of complex analysis. In this
course we will consider only static stability. Moreover, the class of problems, methods and examples
will be severely constrained so as to fit within four lectures.

§23.4. Static Stability Loss

As just noted, we restrict attention to stability of static equilibrium. Two behavioral assumptions
are introduced:
Linear Elasticity. The structural material is, and remains, linearly elastic. Displacements and
rotations, however, are not necessarily small.
Conservative Loading. The applied loads are conservative, that is, derivable from a potential.
For example, gravity and hydrostatic loads are conservative. On the other hand, aerodynamic and
propulsion loads (wind gusts on a bridge, rocket thrust, etc) are often nonconservative.
The main reason for the second restriction is that loss of stability under nonconservative loads is
inherently dynamic in nature, and thus lies beyond our scope.
§23.4.1. Buckling Or Snapping?
Under the foregoing restrictions, two types of instabilities may occur:
Bifurcation. Structural engineers use the more familiar name buckling for this one. The structure
reaches a bifurcation point, at which two or more equilibrium paths intersect. What happens after
the bifurcation point is traversed is called post-buckling behavior.

23–7
Lecture 23: STABILITY OF STRUCTURES: BASIC CONCEPTS

Load or load (a) Load or load (b)

parameter parameter Terms in red are
Limit point those in common
Equilibrium (snapping) use by structural
path engineers
L Equilibrium paths
B
Initial linear
response
Bifurcation
Representative point (buckling) Representative
R deflection R deflection

Reference state Reference state

Figure 23.2. Graphical representation of static equilibrium paths and their critical points: (a) a response path with no
critical points; (b) multiple response paths showing occurrence of two types: bifurcation point (B) and limit point (L).

Snapping. Structural engineers use the term snap-through or snap buckling for this one. The
structure reaches a limit point at which the load, or the loading parameter, reaches a maximum.
What happens after the limit point is traversed is called post-snapping behavior.
Bifurcation points and limit points are instances of critical points. The importance of critical points
in static stability analysis stems from the following property:

Transition from stability to instability can only occur at critical points

Reaching a critical point may lead to immediate destruction (collapse) of the structure. This depends
on its post-buckling or post-snapping behavior, and nature of the material. For some scenarios the
knowledge of such behavior is important since immediate collapse may lead to loss of life.
On the other hand, there are some configurations where the structure keeps resisting significant
— or even increasing — loads after traversing a critical point. Such “load-sustaining” designs are
obviously preferable from a safety standpoint.
§23.4.2. Response Diagrams
To illustrate the occurrence of static instability as well as critical points we will often display load-
deflection response diagrams.5 This is a plot of equilibrium configurations taken by a structure
as a load, or loading parameter, is gradually and continuously varied. The load, or the loading
parameter λ, is plotted along the vertical axis while a judiciously chosen representative deflection,
which could be an angle, is plotted along the horizontal axes. A common convention is to take zero
deflection at zero load. This defines the reference state, labeled as point R in such plots.
A continuous set of equilibrium configurations forms an equilibrium path. Such paths are illustrated
in Figure 23.2. The plot in Figure 23.2(a) shows a response path with no critical points. On the

5 Students should be familiar with this visualization technique if they have done tension or torsion mechanical tests.

23–8
 §23.4 STATIC STABILITY LOSS

Load or Load or
load factor (a) (b)
load factor

L L
B B
Critical load, Critical load,
or load factor, Primary or load factor, Primary
of interest equilibrium Representative of interest equilibrium Representative
path deflection path deflection
R R
Reference state Reference state

Figure 23.3. For design purposes, a critical load is that associated with the critical point first encountered when
traversing the primary equilibium path from the reference state. In (a) the critical load occurs at bifurcation point B
beacuse the limit point occurs later. In (b) the critical load occurs at the limit point L, because bifurcation occurs later.

other hand, that in Figure 23.2(b) depicts the occurrence of two critical points: one bifurcation and
one limit point. Those points are labeled as B and L, respectively, in the Figure.
§23.4.3. Primary Equilibrium Path and the Design Critical Load
A complex structure in general will exhibit multiple critical points, with a mixture of bifurcation
and limit points. An important question for design engineers is:

Which critical point should be chosen as determining the critical load to be

used for estimating the safety factor against instability?

Most textbooks say: pick the one associated with the lowest6 critical load or load factor. That is
fine if post-buckling behavior is not considered. For a more comprehensive answer, it is useful to
introduce the following definition:
The primary equilibrium path is the one that passes through the reference state (which is often the
same as the undeformed or unloaded state).
Then we define the design critical load as follows: the one located on the primary equilibrium path
that is nearest to the reference state. This choice makes engineering sense since most structures are
designed to operate on the primary equilibrium path while in service. The definition is illustrated
in Figure 23.3.
Note that in the case illustrated by Figure 23.3(b). the limit point L defines the design critical load
because it is encountered first while traversing the primary equilibrium path starting from R. It does
not matter that the bifurcation point B occurs at a lower load factor unless post-critical behavior is
important in design, which is rarely the case.

6 If the load factor can take either sign, as happens in some types of instability scenarios, lowest means in the sense of
absolute value, i.e., closest to zero.

23–9
Lecture 23: STABILITY OF STRUCTURES: BASIC CONCEPTS

§23.4.4. Stability Models

Stability models of actual structures fall into two categories:
Continuous. Such models have an infinite number of degrees of freedom (DOF). They lead to
ordinary or partial differential equations (ODEs or PDEs) in space, from which stability equations
may be derived by perturbation techniques. Obtaining nontrivial solutions of the perturbed equations
generally leads to trascendental eigenproblems, even if the underlying model is linear.
Discrete. These models have a finite number of DOF in space. Where do these come from?
Often they emerge as discrete approximations to the underlying continuum models. Two common
discretization techniques are:
(1) Lumped parameter models, in which the flexibility of the structure is localized at a finite
number of places. One common model of this type for columns: joint-hinged rigid struts
supported by extensional or torsional springs at the joints.
(2) Finite element models that include the so-called geometric stiffness effects.
Stability equations for discrete models may be constructed using various devices. For lumped
parameter models one may resort to either perturbed equilibrium equations built via FBDs, or to
energy methods. For FEM models only energy methods are practical. All techniques eventually
lead to matrix stability equations that take the form of an algebraic eigenproblem.
Both continuous and lumped-parameter discrete models for column problems are presented later
in this Lecture, and in the following two Lectures.
§23.4.5. Stability Equations Derivation
The equations that determine critical points are called characteristic equations in the applied math-
ematics literature.7 In structural engineering the names stability equations and buckling equations
are common. Two methods are favored for deriving those equations.
Equilibrium Method. The equilibrium equations of the structure are established in a perturbed
equilibrium configuration. This is usually done with Free Body Diagrams (FBD). The resulting
equations are examined for the occurrence of nontrivial solutions that produce disturbed equilibrium.
configurations. Those are obtained by disturbing original equilibrium positions through admissible
buckling modes. If those equilibrium equations are linearized for small perturbations, one obtains
an algebraic eigenproblem. The eigenvalues give values of critical loads while eigenvectors yield
the buckling mode shapes.
Energy Method. The total potential energy of the system is established in terms of the degrees
of freedom. The Jacobian matrix of the potential energy function, taken with respect to those
degrees of freedom, is established and tested for positive definiteness as the load parameter (or set
of parameters) is varied. Loss of such property occurs at critical points. These may be in turn
categorized into bifurcation and limit points according to a subsequent eigenvector analysis.
The energy method is more general for structures subject to conservative loading. It has two
major practical advantages: (1) merges naturally with the FEM formulation and so it can be
efficiently implemented in general-purpose codes, and (2) requires no a priori assumptions as
7 Often this term is restricted to the determinantal form of the stability eigenproblem. This is the equation whose roots
give the eigenvalues, which can be interpreted physically as critical loads, or as critical load parameters.

23–10
 §23.5 EXACT VERSUS LINEARIZED STABILITY ANALYSIS

(a) (b) (c)

P = λ Pref λ
vA = L sin θ
A P = λ Pref
A Equilibrium path
A' of tilted column
θ

L Bifurcation
point
rigid MB = k θ L λcr = k /(LPref )
k Primary equilibrium

;;;;
path: vertical
B (untilted) column
B θ
P Stable
Unstable

Figure 23.4. Geometrically exact analysis of the hinged cantilevered rigid (HRC) column: (a) untilted
column, (b) tilted column with nonzero θ , (c) equilibrium paths intersecting at a bifurcation point.

regards admissible perturbations. But since energy methods are not covered at the undergraduate
level, only equilibrium methods will be presented here. Such techniques are necessarily restricted
to simple 1D problems amenable to FBDs, but those are sufficient to gain basic understanding of
stability analysis.

§23.5. Exact Versus Linearized Stability Analysis

As noted above, we will use only the equilibrium method to set up stability equations. Its key feature
is that FBDs must take the perturbed configuration into account. For certain simple problems it
is possible to establish the equations using the exact geometry of the deflected structure. Such
analyses will be called geometrically exact. A couple of examples follow to illustrate exact versus
linearized results.
§23.5.1. Example 1: The HCR Column: Geometrically Exact Analysis

Consider the configuration depicted in Figure 23.4(a). A rigid strut of length L stabilized by a
torsional spring of stiffness k > 0 is axially loaded by a vertical dead load P = λPr e f , in which
Pr e f is a reference load and λ a dimensionless load parameter. The load remains vertical as the
column tilts. (Observe that k has the physical dimension of force × length, i.e. of a moment.) This
configuration will be called a hinged cantilevered rigid column, or HCR column for brevity. The
definition P = λk/L renders λ dimensionless, which is convenient for result presentation. As state
parameter (and only DOF) we pick the tilt angle θ as most appropriate for the ensuing analysis.
For sufficiently small P the column remains vertical as in Figure 23.4(a), with θ = 0. The only
possible buckled shape is the tilted column shown in Figure 23.4(b). This Figure depicts the FBD
required to analyze equilibrium of the tilted column. Notice that θ is not assumed small. Taking
moments with respect to the hinge B as sketched in the figure, we obtain the following equilibrium

23–11
Lecture 23: STABILITY OF STRUCTURES: BASIC CONCEPTS

equation in terms of λ and θ:

k θ = P v A = λ Pr e f L sin θ ⇒ k θ − λ Pr e f L sin θ = 0. (23.1)

The equation on the right has two equilibrium solutions:

k θ
θ = 0 for any λ, λ= . (23.2)
Pr e f L sin θ

These pertain to the untilted (θ = 0) and tilted (θ = 0) equilibrium paths, respectively. Since
lim(θ/ sin θ) → 1 as θ → 0, those paths intersect when

k k
λcr = , or Pcr = . (23.3)
Pr e f L L

The two paths are plotted in Figure 23.4(c). The intersection (23.3) characterizes a bifurcation
point B. The diagram shows four branches emanating from B. Three are stable (drawn as full lines)
and one is unstable (drawn as dashed line). Note that the applied load may rise beyond the critical
Pcr = λcr Pr e f = k/L by moving to a tilted configuration. It is not difficult to show that the
maximum load occurs if θ → 180◦ , for which P → ∞; this is a consequence of the assumption
that the column is rigid, and that it may fully rotate by that amount about the hinge without being
impeded, say, by hitting the ground.
§23.5.2. Example 1: The HCR Column: LPB Analysis
The geometrically exact analysis that leads to (23.2) has the advantage of providing a complete
solution. In particular, it shows what happens after the bifurcation point B is traversed. For this
particular configuration the structure maintains load-bearing capabilities while tilted, which is the
hallmark of a safe design.
But for more complicated cases this approach becomes impractical because it involves solving
systems of nonlinear algebraic or differential equations. Even for the Euler column presented in
Lecture 25, a geometrically exact analysis leads to elliptic functions.
Often the engineer is interested only in the critical load. This is especially true in preliminary design
scenarios, when the main objective is to assess safety factors against buckling. If so, it is more
practical to work with a linearized version of the problem. Technically the full technical name is
linearized prebuckling (LPB) analysis. This approach relies on the following assumptions:
• Deformations prior to buckling are neglected. Consequently the analysis can be carried out in
the reference configuration (undeformed) geometry.
• Perturbations of the reference configuration are restricted to infinitesimal displacements and
rotations.
• The structure remains linearly elastic up to buckling.
• Both structure and loading do not exhibit any imperfections.
• The critical state is a bifurcation point.

23–12
 §23.5 EXACT VERSUS LINEARIZED STABILITY ANALYSIS

We apply these rules to the HCR column of Figure 23.4(a). The equilibrium equation (23.1) is
linearized by assuming an infinitesimal tilt angle θ << 1, whence sin θ ≈ θ and that expression
becomes
 
k − λ Pr e f L θ = 0. (23.4)
This is the stability equation. Since the product of two numbers is zero, at least one must be zero:
θ = 0 or k − λ Pr e f /L = 0, or both. The solution θ = 0 reproduces the untilted configuration. For
buckling to occur, we must have θ = 0. If so, the expression in parenthesis must vanish, which
requires
k k
λ = λcr = or Pcr = λcr Pr e f = . (23.5)
Pr e f L L
This reproduces the critical load given in (23.3).
Note that LPB analysis only provides the critical load. It does not give any information on post-
buckling behavior. If this is necessary, a more comprehensive analysis, such as the geometrically
exact one carried out in the previous subsection, is required.
It should also be noted that if the loss of stability is by snap buckling, it cannot be obtained by LPB
analysis. The main reason is that deformations prior to buckling are essential in the determination
of limit points, whereas the first LPB assumption listed above explicitly precludes those.
§23.5.3. Example 2: The PCR Column: Geometrically Exact Analysis
Consider next the configuration pictured in Figure 23.5(a). This one differs from the HRC column
in the type of stabilizing spring. A rigid strut of length L is hinged at B and supports a vertical
load P = λPr e f at end A. The load remains vertical as the column tilts. The column is propped
by an extensional spring of stiffness k attached to A. This configuration will be called a propped
cantilevered rigid column; or PCR column for short. As before, the only DOF is the tilt angle θ.
For the geometrically exact analysis is it important to know what happens to the spring as the
column tilts. One possible assumption is that it remains horizontal, as pictured in Figure 23.5(b).
If so, the FBD in the tilted configuration will be as shown in Figure 23.6(a). Taking moments about
B yields the equilibrium condition

λPr e f sin θ = k L sin θ cos θ. (23.6)

(Important: do not cancel out sin θ from both sides of (23.6) yet — that will cause the primary
equilibrium path θ = 0 to be lost as a solution.) This equation has two equilibrium solutions

kL
θ = 0 for any λ , λ= cos θ. (23.7)
Pr e f

These solutions yield the vertical- and tilted-column equilibrium paths, respectively, which are
plotted in Figure 23.6(b) on the λ versus θ plane. The two paths intersect at θ = 0 and λ = λcr =
k L/Pr e f , which is a bifurcation point. Consequently the critical load is given by

kL
λcr = or Pcr = λcr Pr e f = k L . (23.8)
Pr e f

23–13
Lecture 23: STABILITY OF STRUCTURES: BASIC CONCEPTS

;; ;
(a) (b)
P = λ Pref vA = L sin θ

;; ;
C P = λ Pref
A A
C' uA = L (1−cos θ)

;; ;
k
θ A'

L
rigid L

;; B B
P

Figure 23.5. Geometrically exact analysis of a propped rigid cantilever (PRC) column with extensional
spring remaining horizontal: (a) untilted column, (b) tilted column.

(a) (b) λ
vA = L sin θ
P = λ Pref
A
A' Bifurcation
FA = k vA point Equilibrium path
θ Primary equilibrium of tilted column
path: vertical
(untilted) column
L cos θ
λ cr = k L/Pref

B −90 +90
θ
Stable
P Unstable

Figure 23.6. Geometrically exact analysis of the hinged cantilevered rigid (HRC) column: (a) untilted
column, (b) tilted column with nonzero θ , (c) equilibrium paths intersecting at a bifurcation point.

Of the four branches that emanate from the bifurcation point B, only one (the θ = 0 path for λ < λcr )
is stable. Once B is reached, the tilted column supports only a decreasing load P, which vanishes
at θ = ±90◦ . Consequently this configuration is poor from the standpoint of post-buckling safety.

Another reasonable assumption is that the spring attachment point to the wall, called C in Fig-
ure 23.7(a), stays fixed. The distance AC is parametrized with respect to the column length as ηL,
in which η is dimensionless. If the column tilts, the spring also tilts as pictured in Figure 23.7(b).

The geometrically exact FBD for this case is shown in Figure 23.7(c). As can be observed, it is
considerably more involved than for the spring-stays-horizontal case. We quote only the final result

23–14
 §23.5 EXACT VERSUS LINEARIZED STABILITY ANALYSIS

(a) (b)

; ;
ηL P = λ Pref
vA = L sin θ
P = λ Pref

; ;
A A
A' uA = L (1− cos θ)
C C
k
θ
L

;;
rigid L

;;
B B
P
(c)
ϕ = angle A'CA
positive CW vA = L sin θ P = λ Pref
C A
A' uA = L (1− cos θ)
FA = k ds
ds : tilting θ
spring
elongation

B
P

Figure 23.7. Geometrically exact analysis of a propped rigid cantilever (PRC) column with wall-
attached extensional spring: (a) untilted column; (b) tilted column; (c) FBD for tilted equilibrium.

for the two equilibrium path equations:

k L η cos θ + sin θ
θ =0 for any λ, λ= . (23.9)
Pr e f η + sin θ

As in previous cases, the first solution corresponds to the untilted column whereas the second one
pertains to the tilted one. Figure 23.8 shows response plots on the λ versus θ plane for the tilted
column, that is, the second solution in (23.9), for the four cases η = 14 , η = 12 η = 1 and η = 5,
drawn with Pr e f = 1, k = 1, and L = 1.
Although the bifurcation points stay in the same location: λ = 1 and θ = 0, the post-buckling
response is no longer symmetric for with respect to θ. That deviation is most conspicuous when
η < 1, since if so the spring tilting has a highly noticeable effect if θ < 0. The sharp drop of λ
towards −∞ occurs when the spring and the tilted column are nearly aligned. Comparing the plot
for η = 5 with that in Figure 23.6(b), it is clear that as η >> 1 the response approaaches that of the
spring-stays-horizontal tilted-column in (23.7), as may be expected. This may be mathematically
proven by taking the limit of the second of (23.9) as η → ∞.

23–15
Lecture 23: STABILITY OF STRUCTURES: BASIC CONCEPTS

4 λ 2 λ
L
3
Note occurrence of η = 1/4 1.5 η = 1/2
limit points
2
B
Note occurrence of 1
limit points
B 0.5
1
L
−60 −40 −20 R 20 40 60 80
−60 −40 −20 R 20 40
angle θ (deg) −0.5 angle θ (deg)
−1
−1
B 1 B
1
λ λ
0.75 0.8
0.5
η=1 0.6 η=5
0.25
0.4
−60 −40 −20 R 20 40 60 80
−0.25
angle θ (deg) 0.2
−0.5
angle θ (deg)
−0.75
−60 −40 −20 R 20 40 60 80
−1

Figure 23.8. Geometrically exact analysis of a PRC column with wall-attached extensional spring: λ vs./ θ
response diagrams for tilted column and four values of η [defined in Figure 23.7(a)], with Pr e f = k = L = 1.
Note: the untilted-column equilibrium path θ = 0 is not plotted beyond B to reduce clutter.

§23.5.4. Example 2: The PCR Column - LPB Analysis

To linearize the PRC problem, assume again that θ is so small that sin θ ≈ θ and cos θ ≈ 1. Then
the equilibrium equations of the two foregoing cases (horizontal spring and wall-attached spring)
collapse to
(λ Pr e f − k L) θ = 0. (23.10)
The two solutions of (23.10) represent the equilibrium paths θ = 0 and λ = k L/Pr e f , which pertain
to the untilted (vertical) and tilted column, respectively. Consequently

kL
λcr = , or Pcr = λcr Pr e f = k L . (23.11)
Pr e f

This result is independent of assumptions on how the spring wall-attachment point behaves after
the column buckles. This is to be expected since linearization filters out that information. Once
again, the LPB analysis provides no information on post-buckling behavior.

23–16