Buckling of Frames Theory of Elastic Stability

Theory of Elastic Stability Buckling of Frames
BUCKLING OF FRAMES
BUCKLING OF FRAME
Consider an elastically constrained column AB shown in Fig. 1. The two

members, AB and BC, are assumed to have identical member length and
flexural rigidity for simplicity. The moments, m and M, are due to the
rotation at point B and possibly due to the axial shortening of member
AB. Since Q =(M ‫‏‬+ m)/l<<< pcr , Q is set equal to zero and the effect of
any axial shortening is neglected.
Figure 1: Buckling of simple frame
Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama.


BUCKLING MODES OF FRAMES
Consider first the frame in which side sway is prevented by bracing either
internally or externally. It is obvious that the upper end of each column is
elastically restrained by the beam to which the column is rigidly framed,
and that the critical load of the column depends not only on the column
stiffness, but also on the stiffness of the beam. It would be very
informative to assume the beam stiffness to be either infinitely stiff or
infinitely flexible as these two conditions constitute the upper and lower
bounds of the connection rigidities. When the beam is assumed to be
infinitely stiff, the beam must then remain straight while the frame
deforms as shown in part (a), (1) Sidesway prevented, Fig. 2. Under this
condition, the columns behave as if they were fixed at both ends, and the
critical load of the column is equal to four times the Euler load of the
same column pinned at its both ends. As the other extreme case of the
opposite side, the beam can be assumed to be infinitely flexible. The
frame then deforms as shown in part (b), (1) Sidesway prevented, Fig. 2,
and the columns behave as if they were pinned at the top, and the critical
load is the same as that of the propped column: approximately twice that
of the Euler load of the same column pinned at both ends.
For an actual frame, the stiffness of the beam must be somewhere
between the two extreme cases examined above. The critical load on the
column in such a frame can be bounded as follows:
4PE > Pcr > 2PE
where Pcr is the critical load of the column and PE is the Euler load of the
same column pinned at both ends.
It is just as informative to apply the same logic to frames in which
sidesway is permitted. If the beam is assumed to be infinitely stiff, the

frame buckles in the manner shown in part (a), (2) Sidesway permitted,
Fig. 2. The upper ends of the columns are permitted to translate, but they
cannot rotate by definition.
Figure 2: Modes of buckling

Hence, the critical load on each column in the frame is equal to the Euler
load of the same column pinned at both ends. On the other extreme, if the
beam is assumed infinitely flexible, the upper ends of the columns are
both permitted to rotate and translate as shown in part (b), (2) Sidesway
permitted, Fig. 2. In this extreme case, each column acts as if it were a
cantilever column, and the critical load on each column is equal to one-
fourth the Euler load of the same column pinned at both ends. The critical
load on each column of the frame in which sidesway is permitted can be
bounded as follows:
PE > Pcr > 1/4 PE
Pcr, braced frame > Pcr, unbraced frame

A portal frame will always buckle in the sidesway permitted mode unless
it is braced. Unlike the braced frame where sidesway is inherently
prohibited, both the sidesway permitted and prevented modes are
theoretically possible in the unbraced frame under the loading condition
shown in Fig. 2. The unbraced frame, however, will buckle first at the
smallest critical load, which is the one corresponding to the sidesway
permitted mode. This conclusion is valid for multistory frames as well as
for single-story frames. The reason appears to be obvious as the effective
length of the compression member in an unbraced frame is always
increased due to the frame action, while that in the braced frame is always
reduced unless the beams in the frame are infinitely flexible.
CRITICAL LOADS OF FRAMES
1. Review of the Differential Equation Method

Case 1: Antisymmetric buckling
It is assumed that a set of usual assumptions normally employed in the
classical analysis of linear elastic structures under the small displacement
theory is valid. The sidesway buckling mode shape assumed and the
forces acting on each member are identified in Fig. 3(a) and (b),
respectively. The moment of the left vertical member at a point x from
the origin based on the coordinate shown in Fig. 3(c) is (moment
produced by the continuity shear developed in BC is neglected)

Figure 3: Buckling of unbraced frame
The general solution of Eq. above is given by
y = A sin k1x ‫‏‬+B cos k1x ‫‏‬Mab/P

Two independent boundary conditions are needed to determine the
integral constants, A and B. They are :
y=0 @ x=0 …..B=- Mab/P and y'=0 @ x=0 ….. A=0
y = Mab/P(1-cos k1 x)
Denoting the horizontal displacement at the top of the column (x = l1) by
δ, then
δ= Mab/P(1-cos k1 l1)
Summing the moment of member AB at A gives:

Pδ- Mab - Mba= 0 ….. Substituting in Eq. above give Mab cosk1l1+ Mba= 0
Since it is assumed that there is no axial compression presented in
member BC, the slope-deflection equations without axial force apply.
Hence,
Mba=2EI/l2(2θb+θc) …….. but θb=θc ……. Mba=(6EI/l2)θb
The compatibility condition at joint B requires that θb equal to the slope at

x = l1. Hence,
or

Setting the coefficient determinant equal to zero gives:
The critical load of the frame is the smallest root of this transcendental
equation. For I2=I1=I, l1 = l2 =l ......... tankl/kl=-1/6
By using any transcendental equation: kl=2.71646 and Pcr=7.38EI/l2
Case 2: Symmetric buckling ……..H.W.
2. Application of Slope-Deflection Equations to Frame Stability
It is assumed again that the axial compression in member BC would be

negligibly small.
but θb=-θc ……..
Case 1: Antisymmetric buckling

Since there is no axial force in member BC, (S1)2 = 4 and (S2)2 = 2. For
joint equilibrium Mba and Mbc are the same in magnitude and opposite in
sign. Thus
For which S1=2 will lead to the critical load of Pcr=25.18EI/l2
Case 2: Symmetric buckling ……..H.W.

SECOND-ORDER ANALYSIS OF A FRAME BY SLOPE-

DEFLECTION EQUATIONS
The current AISC (2005) specification stipulates that “any second-order

elastic analysis method that considers both P - Δ and P-δ effects may be
used.” Since both the joint rotation (P - δ effect) and joint translation (P -
Δ effect) are reflected by the slope-deflection equations with axial force
by a means of stability functions, S1 and S2, an elastic analysis using the
slope deflection equations is considered to be acceptable second-order
analysis.
Example: Buckling of a rigidly connected equilateral triangle shown in

Fig. 4. Take the counterclockwise moment and rotation as positive
quantities as adopted in the derivation of the slope-deflection equations in
previous Chapter.
Figure 4: Equilateral triangle
The moment at each end of each member is then given by:

Setting the determinant of the augmented matrix equal to zero for the
stability condition (a nontrivial solution) gives:
Two buckling modes are indicated by this Eq.:
S1( S1+ S1'+ S2')- S22=0 give kl=4.0122 & Pcr =16.1EI/l2
S1+ S1'- S2'=0 give kl=5.3217 & Pcr =28.32EI/l2

The buckling mode shape is given

in Fig. 5.
Figure 5: Equilateral triangle antisymmetric buckling mode
The buckling mode shape is given graphically

in Fig. 6.
Figure 6: Equilateral triangle
symmetric buckling mode

Buckling of Frames Theory of Elastic Stability

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Buckling of Frames Theory of Elastic Stability

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Buckling of Frames Theory of Elastic Stability

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theory of Elastic Stability Buckling of Frames

Consider an elastically constrained column AB shown in Fig. 1. The two

Figure 1: Buckling of simple frame

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama.

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama.

BUCKLING MODES OF FRAMES

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama.

Figure 2: Modes of buckling

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama.

Pcr, braced frame > Pcr, unbraced frame

CRITICAL LOADS OF FRAMES

1. Review of the Differential Equation Method

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama.

Figure 3: Buckling of unbraced frame

The general solution of Eq. above is given by

y = A sin k1x ‫‏‬+B cos k1x ‫‏‬Mab/P

Summing the moment of member AB at A gives:

Mba=2EI/l2(2θb+θc) …….. but θb=θc ……. Mba=(6EI/l2)θb

The compatibility condition at joint B requires that θb equal to the slope at

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama.

Setting the coefficient determinant equal to zero gives:

Case 2: Symmetric buckling ……..H.W.

2. Application of Slope-Deflection Equations to Frame Stability

It is assumed again that the axial compression in member BC would be

but θb=-θc ……..

Case 1: Antisymmetric buckling

For which S1=2 will lead to the critical load of Pcr=25.18EI/l2

Case 2: Symmetric buckling ……..H.W.

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama.

SECOND-ORDER ANALYSIS OF A FRAME BY SLOPE-

The current AISC (2005) specification stipulates that “any second-order

Example: Buckling of a rigidly connected equilateral triangle shown in

Figure 4: Equilateral triangle

The moment at each end of each member is then given by:

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama.

Two buckling modes are indicated by this Eq.:

S1+ S1'- S2'=0 give kl=5.3217 & Pcr =28.32EI/l2

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama.

The buckling mode shape is given

Figure 5: Equilateral triangle antisymmetric buckling mode

The buckling mode shape is given graphically

Asst. Prof. Dr. Sheelan M. Hama.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.