Sie sind auf Seite 1von 14

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:


http://www.researchgate.net/publication/221990417

Exact stability model of space frames


ARTICLE in COMPUTERS & STRUCTURES JULY 1996
Impact Factor: 2.13 DOI: 10.1016/0045-7949(95)00380-0

CITATIONS

READS

23

3 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Mario Fafard
Laval University
159 PUBLICATIONS 616 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Available from: Mario Fafard


Retrieved on: 30 October 2015

Pergamon

00457949(95)003wo

EXACT

STABILITY

MODEL

S. Ammart&
TDepartment
Department

of Civil Engineering,

of Mechanical

Compurers & Brucrures Vol. 60. No. I, pp. 59-71. 19%


Copyright J; 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0045-7949196 $15.00 + 0.00

OF SPACE

FRAMES

G. Dhatt$,t and M. Fafardt


Pavillon Adrien-Pouliot,
GlK 7P4, Canada

Engineering,

INSA-Rouen,

Lava1 University,

B.P. no 8, 76131 Mont

Quebec,

St-Aignan,

France

(Received 3 February 1995)


Abstract-The
buckling loads are, in general, those for which 1K1= 0, where K is the stiffness matrix. In
this case, K is a transcendental
function of the buckling load 1. The Wittrick and Williams algorithm
consists of finding how many buckling loads have been exceeded at each iteration. Coupled with the
bisection method, this algorithm is infallible, but sometimes the convergence rate is slow. To accelerate
the convergence,
a new method for computing
the buckling loads is presented.
This method can be
considered as an improvement
on the bisection method of Wittrick and Williams algorithm.
An exact
geometric matrix which is a function of the buckling load I is derived. The stiffness and geometric matrices
are used to perform a linearized eigenproblem
combined with the Wittrick and Williams method.
Copyright
0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd

NOTATION

stability model of space frames in the form of a linear


algebraic eigenvalue problem. The rigidity and geometrical matrices are obtained by assembling the
corresponding elementary matrices. In order to obtain a precise buckling load 1 and corresponding
modes, each space column and beam is often represented by a number of elements leading to a large
size problem. An alternative is to construct the
stability model using the exact stiffness approach
leading to an algebraic eigenvalue problem which is
nonlinear in 1. Several works have been completed in
dynamic analysis using exact dynamic matrices in
order to obtain a precise estimate of frequencies [l-8].
However the application of this approach for stability
analysis has been very limited [9, lo].
In this study, we give a finite element representation on the exact stability model to include thick
and thin beam elements. A numerical method to
calculate the buckling loads and modes for the nonlinear eigenvalue model is presented as well. A number of examples are presented to demonstrate the
efficiency of the exact model and they are compared
with linear classical models.

internal virtual work


stiffness matrix
element of the stiffness matrix K at row i and
column j
determinant
of the stiffness matrix
upper triangle matrix obtained
from K by Gauss
elimination
geometric matrix
element of geometric matrix K; at row i and column j
nodals variables, (II) = (u, w, /I, ur w, &)
axial displacement
transversal
displacement
rotation
residue {R} = [K]{u}
constant axial load in compression (+) or in traction
(-)
trial buckling coefficient or eigenvalue
correction
of the trial eigenvalue 2:
length of an element
membrane
rigidity (H, = EA)
flexural rigidity (H, = EI)
shear rigidity (H, = GA)
stability

shear coefficient;

q = 1 -H.

I
I/I = 2 J
number of critical load factors
zero and trial value
value of J if constraints are
stability

coefficient:

IN,
.
qEI
of a structure

between

imposed to nullify all

2. MATHEMATICAL

MODEL

displacement
sign count of matrix K
rough convergence
tolerance
required convergence
tolerance

2.1. General aspects


A space frame is composed of different types of
beamcolumn
elements interconnected at the end
points or nodes. The physical laws governing the
behavior of space frame are:
(a) For each member;
(i) force equilibrium relations,
(ii) strain-displacement
relation,
(iii) constitutive relation.

1. INTRODUCTION

structural matrix method or finite element


method is employed to obtain the classical linear
$To whom all correspondence

should

be addressed.
59

S. Ammar

60

These relations are written in the form of differential relations or variational


expressions.
The finite
element approach leads to a representation
of these
laws in an algebraic form defined by elementary
matrices and nodal variables.
(b) For each node;
(i) force equilibrium,
(ii) kinematic continuity.
The assembling of elementary matrices to obtain
the global matrix is based on the satisfaction of nodal
force equilibrium and kinematic continuity.
The construction
of a linear stability model of
space frame is composed of two parts:
(a) Linear static model [l 1, 14, 151;
for a given load distribution,
we solve the classical
linear static problem in order to obtain distribution
of axial forces NO in each member or element;
(b) linear stability model [ll, 121;
by supposing that the axial forces vary linearly with
load level 1, we obtain a linear expression of physical
laws for a structure with an initial stress distribution
of ANO. At each element level, the stability model is
defined by a homogeneous
differential
equation
which is linear in i. However the finite element
representation
leads to geometrical stiffness which is
nonlinear in 1. using an exact stiffness approach.

et al.

The weak form or the variational


with eqn (1) is (only two-dimensional
considered for simplicity)

H,,, 2

form associated
space frame is

- w*Av dx

- [u*N,,, + w*7; - w,;M&

(2)

u* and w * are Galerkin type test functions.


The global model is obtained by

W=CW=O,

(3)

where the displacement continuity is assured by defining (u, w) in a common


coordinate
system. The
membrane-bending
coupling is introduced
at this
level. The finite element representation
of eqns (2)
and (3) are

we= (II,* >(fJ} - Pl{Ui) = (G>{rl

2.2. Linear static model


For each element, the linear static model for thin
beam in local coordinate
system, is given by [II]

w=~We=(Un*>({~~-[~l~~j)
e

H,,,$l.=O
H,, 2

= (U,*){R)

=o,

(4)

where (u, > and { U, ) are elementary


variables. The resolution
of eqn
evaluation of N,, for each element

-f;. = 0

and global nodal


(4) leads to an

Hm$+fu=O.

N,=H,$.
The endpoint equilibrium and displacement
continuity are to be satisfied as well.
The variable II is the axial displacement, v and w are
the transverse displacement.
H,,, , H,, are the constant
bending stiffnesses and H,,, the axial stiffness.
N,,,, M,., M,, T, and Tz are the internal generalised
axial force, the moment and the shear acting at
endpoints (Fig. 1).

2.3. Linear stability model for thin element


The construction
of a
essentially the element level.
the element to the global
assembling
process which
model. For a thin element

z
\

w\
/

Fig. 1. Local description.

stability model involves


The transformation
from
level is defined by an
is similar to the static
using Bernoulli approxi-

61

Exact stability model of space frames


mation (normal sections remain normal), the stability
model at the element level is

H$=O,

(5)

where N,, is positive for compression computed from


eqn (4). The end-point equilibrium and displacement
continuity are to be satisfied as well.
The weak form associated with eqn (5) is

where

Note that the continuity requirements for eqns (6)


and (9) are identical by choosing an approximation
for w* and u* which satisfies
d4w*
T+a

,d2w*

-=

dx2

d2u *
-0
dx2+$&

Hmgx

dx.

(6)

>
The admissible approximation is C for (w, w*)
and Co for (u, u*).
The main idea of exact stability model lies in the
choice of approximation for (w, w*). The classical
finite element approximation is
w = V)(a);

(10)

and we obtain
model

the expression

for exact stability

we= w;+ w:,

u = V>{b>

+a

,dw*
dx

>I

w 0

with
(P)=(l

x2

x3);

(P,)=(l

x)

or in nodal form

The approximations

w = <W{w,);

u = W,){U),

(7)

w* = (P(x)){a*};

where N, , . . . , N4 are the Hermite functions and

of w* and u* are

u*=(l-; ;){;i}

w* = (1 x (1 - cos(ax))

This leads to a linear algebraic


pression of the form

eigenvalue

We = <w,*X[[k,l - W,ll{w,>, + <~:Xknl~4.

(ax - sin(ax)))

ex-

(8)

Equation (6) is written in the following equivalent


form, which includes the nodal variables (using integration by parts):
2 d2w*
w-$H,,,u
dx2

As a +O, the expression (12) leads to classical


approximation
of eqn (6). Using eqn (12) we
obtain the discretized approximation of eqn (11) in
the form

dx
I

(9)

-KY,

(1 -W,)-alY,

1 -W,

cry,

where

a2

a3 s&al)

a3

- a 3 cos(al)

det = - a(2( 1 - cos(crl)) - al sin(&))

V, = cos(al),
The expression

9, = sin(al).

for F(a)] is

F(a)1=

(13c)
k22

sym.

_k*3
k3)

where
k =--zI
I
41c/3cot($) )
I3 1 - + cot($)

*;=:( H,

k==- Hf _
12(

and

The assembled
W=c

space frame model is


We=(CJ;)[K(i)]{U,)={O}

or

kml=; [

(14)

, ;]

where 1 is the eigenvalue

(W> = (WI 8,

w2

e,>, e = -wyy

In term of nodal variables,


Y=

we obtain
and a, N,, H, are different for each element.
For the case of clamped<lamped
element
{w;} = 0), the critical load is given by

H,<w~Xk(~)l{w,I

with F(a)] = H,([PJTF,


- a*k,]).
The nodal matrix [P] is
r

-1

-1

Iw,+I=

0
cL(ai)
1a sin(al)

iPnl{a*)

det[P,]
0
al - sin(&)

= 0

2( 1 - cos(al)) - al sin(al) = 0

0
a(1 - cos(al))

(i.e.

al = 2nn
4nGl*

ANo=--Hf
[2

n=1,2,...

(15)

63

Exact stability model of space frames


2.4. Linear stability model for thick element

Equation

(18a) gives

The weak variational form of a thick element based


on Mindlin approximation
(plane section remain
plane) is given by (for a plane frame)
dw*
=+a

- ANow,; w,,) dx,

W,,S,:x - K(B*
s0
+ HAP,: +

a2=0.

AN
?4

The approximation
(19) are

for w* and fi* satisfying

eqn

+ wf))8
w*

(1

sin(ax)

1 - cos(ax)

w,:,)wl dx

- W,:H,P + HAP* +

ax - sin(ax)){a*}

v,:>wlk

(17)

a cos(ax)

/?* = -rj (0

where

a sin(ax)

a(1 -cos(ax)+m)){a*},
q=,-_B23

and

HC

ci2=-.

ANo

where

H,
m=!-z

By choosing approximations
for /I * and w * which
satisfy
H,(/?* + VW,:) = Cst = -_rla$ H,
p,:X - E2w,t = -?a:

Pnl=

and

-rla

- qam

sin(al)

1 - cos(al)

-_?a cos(al)

--_?a sin(al)

a3* a
a2 1) >

1 - cos(aZ) + m)
I

/?:

w:

PTA

{wn*l =

[P,l{a*I
(20)

model

KU

dx

aI - sin(a[)
-?a(

W;= HA<w:XWNw,I).

W=H

a:?.!

The matrix [P,] is

(w,*)=(wf

exact stability

(a*)=

(W

we obtain

(19)

where

(16)

where H, is the shear rigidity and fi is the rotation.


One may write this expression
in an equivalent
form with endpoint terms

w; =

*dw*
==a$,

(18b)

1o
k=.-?

k22=H/
1

w
Y

-249~ytan(lL)]i

The expression
where

for F(a)] is the same as eqn (13~)

S. Ammar et al.

64

3.1. Incremental

where

linearized form

The incremental
Newton-Raphson

form of eqn (24) is obtained


linearization

Let {R(i)} = tR(J,)I{V

The determinant
det(P,)

of the matrix

= -(~c()~[(l

- co~(a/))~(l + m)

- sin(ctl)(al

- sin(ctl)) + m sin(al)].

For a double-clamped
element
critical load is given by

4n2H,

(21)

4lSH,

I+=

AI = (0)

form becomes

M~?l - W&G)ll{W

I1

[K,GN = dl

(22)
The elementary

(25)

= (0)

with

8K

~NO=~

The iterative

(i.e. (wi} = 0), the

Z (01

{IV + AA)} = {R(l)] +

[P,] is given by

by

matrix

l=i,

[k,(n)] is given by

(26)

For a Bernoulli model, the elements of the matrix (26)


are

3. GLOBAL EIGENVALUE PROBLEM

The classical

linear stability

model is given by
k

UK1 - nr~gll{~I

g1

= 101,

(23)

where [K] is symmetrical


and positive definite and
[Kg] is symmetrical.
One may obtain the solution of this problem by
inverse
iteration
method [l 11, subspace
iteration
method [ 121 or by more efficient Lanczos method [ 131.
However, the eigenvalue problem for exact formulation is nonlinear

= 0

k22 = 3
21L2(2+ cos(2$ )) - 3ti sin(2$)
8
41 [
($ cos($) - sinGi+))
k23 = -N,
6
-[ 4

2 sin2($) - $-

r(/ sin($)cos($)

(II/ cos(JI) - sin(4Q))*


2
1 - + cot($)

K(A)I{V

= (0).

1
1

-- cot(*)
r,G

(24)

+ ICI
- $ SW+Ws(+ 1
Equation (23) is a special case of eqn (24).
Some works [7,8] were done to improve the original Wittrick and Williams algorithm to solve this
nonlinear
eigenproblem.
We present here a new
method for computing
a set of eigenvalues
and
corresponding
eigenvectors
based on the bisection
method
of Wittrick
and Williams
method [l],
coupled with inverse iteration [ 1 I].

(+ cos(lc,
1- sin(ti )I2
2

1 - +!Icot($)

ti * - ti sin($ kos(lc,1
+ (+ cos(ti1- sin(J/)I21

--

1
sin2(+)

(27)

Exact stability
and for a Mindlin
(26) are

model, the elements

model of space frames

of the matrix

k=O
g

65

For a member without axial load (i.e. a-+0), the


different element of the exact geometric matrix in eqn
(28) leads to
+36N,(l

k22
e = $$

+2(1 -@)(n

+ 20~ + 120~~)
301(1 + 12rp)2

tan(*)
2@r] + (1 + @) see($) - ti
(
[
>

kjj+4NcJ2(1 + 1% + 90~~)
%
30&l + 12rp)2

-?)I
3N,l

k2

g -*301(1+

k2J = -NO tan($)


-g
4Y2
r#/

2Q

+(l+@)

tan(*)
sec2(ti) - 4+
(

+$
kr=$$

- NJ*( 1 + 60~ + 3609 2,

k3
g

>I
tan(*)

(l+@)sec2(+)+(l-@)---

1247)2

30/(1 + 12l$J)2

and if the shear effect is neglected (H,-*cc


the linear geometric matrix is obtained.
The inverse iteration method associated
(25) is

=- cp -+O),

with eqn

[KQ)]{U+ > = [K,(~)]{Uj

(1 + @){2tj sec2(+) + ($ csc(ti)


ALi+,

- cot(ti))(l -

tan2(1L)))

W+XW)I{U+~

(29a)

(V+)[K,(L)](U+}

(2W
+(l

+a)
The shifted inverse iteration
as follows:

2& sec2($)cot($)

k: = g

- seti

(1 + @){2$ sec2(+) - (9 csc*(JI)

For an approximate
;i; 0, calculate K(X), K,(X)
and triangularize
K(x). Choose A& = 0
Iterate: iter = 1, matiter;
Solve [K(i;)]{ U} = [K,(X)]{ D};

tan2W)))
Convergence

is presented

tan(* 1

- JI

>I

- cot(tiN(l +

algorithm

2r]+ sec2($)cot($)

- set($)

tan041

Update { 0) = {U};
Update A& = AL;
GoTo Iterate
end if

- -

J/

test

)I

(28)
X=T+M.

3.2. General algorithm

y = -tan(ll/1

rl3

In the opposite of the exact stiffness matrix F(L)]


which is presented in previous works [9, lo], the exact
geometric matrix F,(n)] with or without shear effect,
has never been presented before in literature.

We presented a method to calculate the eigenvalues


and eigenvectors
for the nonlinear
problem.
It is
based on the bisection scheme proposed by Wittrick
and Williams and shifted inverse scheme of the
preceeding section. The general algorithm of bisection is as follows:
. choose a trial value 1: between the previous
values 1p and nip 1.: < 1: < iip;
. compute the stiffness matrix K(1:) and triangularize it in the form
]K(A:)l=

[Ll[DIWTl;

S. Ammar

66
l

count the
represented

number of negative terms


by s[K*(E.b)] and obtain

et al.

Different aspects of general algorithm using bisection and shifted inverse iteration is as follows:
. evaluate a set of eigenvalues of linear problem

of [D]

[K(O) where J,, represents the sum of the number of


eigenvalues
of each double-clamped
member
which are less than ib

J,=Cf(i
e
l

if we are seeking
if J(ib)

otherwise

repeat

use the inverse


iteration
algorithm
with
Gram-Schmidt
orthogonalization
[l I] or Lanczos method [13] to obtain an estimate of the
eigenvalues

</I;,;

1=A Ir2r
j. ,,, >fnr
1.
. improve the estimate of A{, Ai,
, If,, by using
the bisection scheme for i = 1,2,.
, m with a
rough convergence tolerance,

qth eigenvalue
2 q

~K,fotlfW = 101

R_t/l

A: = Y

2
1 +/IP
1: = 9.
2

_ i:(oid)1is small,
until 11,lCnew)

(K(O)- XK,(O)]{u} = {O}

Assemble

and decompose

[K(X;)]

J(X:,) = .s(Ka)

Compute

JiYes
Assemble

[K(Xi)]

II-Perform

& [X,(X:)]

the first eigenvalue

Fig. 2. Algorithm

of update

of:

trial eigenvalues.

Exact stability model of space frames

67

Table 1. Different end conditions of a beam<olumn


Description
of ends
Pinned-Pinned

Number
of
elements

Exact
method
(WWO)
__

Inverse
iteration
(CEP)

9.869

12.000
9.944
9.869

17.75%
7.4 x 1O-2
3.0 x 1oa4

30.000

32.70%
2.50%
9.9 x 1o-5

(PP)

2
8

-lClamped-Pinned
El

(CP)

.P

-lClamped-Clamped
El
LP

(CC)

-IEI

20.709
20.193

2
8

Clamped-Free

20.191

1t
2
8

39.478

2.467

(CF)
P

2
8

-l-

Difference
and
KEP)

(WWQ)

Proposed
method
(EEP)
9.869

20.191

39.77s
39.478

7.4 x IO-
0.0%

2.486
2.469
2.467

7.6 x 10-l
5.3 x 1o-4
0.0%

39.478

2.467

tWith the classical eigenvalue problem (CEP), the critical load cannot be found with only one element because the matrix
is singular, due to the constraints imposed to nullify all nodal displacement. The WWQ and proposed method EEP compute
this critical load using the equation of the determinant of the matrix [P] (15) or (21).

perform shifted inverse iteration for each eigenvalue using the algorithm of section 3.1. Obtain
the eigenvector as well.

The algorithm
4.

is summarized

NUMERICAL

in Fig. 2.

EXAMPLES AND VALIDATION

The procedure
presented
in this paper will be
numerically
evaluated through the analysis of two
examples.
The results obtained
herein with exact
eigenvalue problem (EEP) will be compared
with
solutions obtained by classical eigenvalue problem
(CEP) and the Wittrick and Williams algorithm with
quadratic interpolation
(WWQ).
All examples are computed
with REFLEX finite
element programme [ 1 I], where we modify some routines to implement the Wittrick and Williams algorithm and the procedure
presented.
The required
tolerance is fixed to 1.0 x IO- for all problems. The
resolution of these examples was performed on HP
station.
4.1. Beam-column

in compression

In the first example we evaluate the first eigenvalue


(first buckling load) of a beam-column
with different

type of end condition. This is a basic example which


gives the error estimates of the classic method with
only one finite element discretization.
For the WWQ
and EEP method, only one element per beam is
used, but for the CEP method the beam is discretized
by one, two or eight elements. The WWQ is considered as an exact method and is employed
as
reference.
We consider four kinds of beam end condition as
pinned-pinned
beam (PP), clamped-pinned
beam
(CP), clamped-clamped
beam (CC) and clampedfree beam (CF). Each beam is submitted to an axial
load P and has a unit length I and unit flexural
rigidity EI. The results given by all methods are
presented in Table 1.
In the pinned-pinned
beam (PP) and clampedpinned
(CP) cases, the difference
between
the
eigenvalue
obtained
by CEP and WWQ varies
from 17.75% in the first case to 32.70% in the
second case. These results are obtained
for a
beam with only one finite element discretization.
The proposed
procedure
EEP gives exactly the
same eigenvalue that gives the Wittrick and Williams
algorithm
with less computing
time. This two
cases are the unfavourable
configuration,
that
means that only one element is not able to give
eigenvalues
with
the
CEP
algorithm.
good
The proposed procedure EEP gives the exact eigenvalue, as the WWQ does in this unfavourable
configuration.

Table 2. Shear effect on the critical load of beam-column

(PV
case I
case 2
case 3

0.98696 x 10
0.98347 x IO1
0.94054 X 10

Km
0.20191 x IOr
0.20031 x IO2
0.18175 x 102

(CC)
0.39478 x IO2
0.38925 x 10
0.32971 x IO2

(W
0.24674 x lo1
0.24652 x 10
0.24373 x IO

68

S. Ammar et al.

34444444444444

1444444444444l

a) Lateral displacementpermitted

c) bracedframe

b) Lateral displacementnotpermitted
Fig. 3. Six floor structure.

In the clamped-free
beam case (CF), the results
given by CEP are good compared with those obtained
by WWQ or obtained by our procedure.
In these
cases (where the lateral displacement is permitted, i.e.
favourable
configuration)
the procedure
presented
converges and the computing time is the same as the
reference method WWQ.
From these examples, we conclude that the EEP
method developed here, is very good for problems
where the lateral displacement
is not permitted, and
is cheaper than all other methods. In other cases, the
method converges well and the computing
time is
similar to the WWQ algorithm.
In these cases. a
classical eigenvalue problem CEP is sufficient to give
good results, even with only one element discretization. In all cases, if we take a large number of element

Mode I

(eight elements) per beam, the results given by CEP


converge to the exact value given by WWQ and our
procedure EEP too, but the computing time became
very large.
If the shear effect is taken into account, the results
are given in the Table 2. In the first case, G the shear
modulus of elasticity is taken to have the same effect
of the previous study (column without shear effect).
In the second case G is taken as
G=-

E
2(1 + v)

and generally v = 0.5 so G = E/3. In the third case,


G is taken for a composite column as presented in
Ref. [ 111where G = EjSOk (k is a factor to correct the

Mode 2
Mode 3
Mode 4
Fig. 4. Frame with permitted displacement.

Mode 5

model of space frames

Exact stability
Table

3. Material

data

for the six floor frame

The Young modulus E for all members


2.75 x 1OkN m-* and

Members

A (m2)

1, (m)

Columns
Beams
Braces

0.175
0.226
0.226

8.29 x 1O-4
6.09 x 1O-4
8.29 x 1O-4

4.2. Six jioor frame


For the second example, we apply our algorithm to
a six floor structure with distributed load at each floor
(50 kN m-) and two concentrated
loads (1000 kN) at
top nodes as shown in Fig. 3. The geometric data of
the beams and columns are presented in the Table 3.

For the WWQ and EEP method only one exact


element is used per beam or column. However, for the
CEP method one or four classical elements are used
per beam or column. The WWQ method is used as
reference. In this example, the first five buckling loads
are computed.
First, we permit the lateral displacement
(cf. Fig.
3a). In this case, results given by CEP are not so bad,
but those given by the proposed
method are best
compared to the exact results given by WWQ. The
computing time for CEP is 40% of the time for WWQ
algorithm
and the EEP method sensibly take the
same time as WWQ. The results are printed in
Table 4.
If the lateral displacement is not permitted, (cf. Fig.
3b), the situation is completely reversed. In fact, the
method proposed herein gives the exact results for all
critical load with only 60% computing time, but the
results obtained by the CEP with only one element
are not correct. To have acceptable results with CEP,

Table 4. Critical load when lateral

I
2
3
4
5

W.W.Q.
0.46724
0.61257
0.82451
0.11212
0.14769

x
x
x
x
x

IO
IO
10
102
lo2

Table
Cr. load

1
2
3
4
5

5. Critical

E.E.P.

0.23806 x IO2
0.29378 x IO*
0.29554 x IO2
0.35836 x IO*
0.37284 x IO*

1
2
3
4
5

W.W.Q.
0.16626
0.17058
0.17872
0.19319
0.21022

x
x
x
x
x

10
10
10
IO2
IO*

0.31035
0.39937
0.42407
0.53817
0.55557

load when nodal

rotation

0.23806
0.29378
0.29554
0.35836
0.37284

x
x
x
x
x

C.E.P.

E.E.P.
IO2
10
IO2
102
I02

0.16626
0.17058
0.17872
0.19319
0.21022

x
x
x
X
x

Iti
10
IO2
102
102

Table 7. Critical
Cr. load

1
2
3
4
5

W.W.Q.
0.35348
0.42494
0.42844
0.48370
0.51974

x
x
x
X
x

E.E.P.
IO
10
10
LO
IO

0.35348
0.42494
0.42844
0.48370
0.51974

x
x
x
x
X

IO
IO
10
10
IO

x
x
x
x
x

displacement
C.E.P.

0.17039
0.17085
0.18108
0.19575
0.2I300

is allowed

(1 ele)

0.46756
0.61403
0.83029
0.11388
0.15072

IO
10
IO
102
10

load when lateral

W.W.Q.

Table 6. Critical
Cr. load

x
x
x
x
x

displacement
C.E.P.

E.E.P.
0.46724
0.61257
0.82451
0.11212
0.14769

is equal to

E
G=----.
2(1 + v)

nonuniform
stress of cross-sectional
shapes). For a
rectangular section, k is equal to 5/6.
In Ref. [14], the critical load for a pinned-pinned
column is presented when the shear effect is taken
into account, and the results presented in Table 2 fit
very well with this formula.
As pointed
in this
reference, shear has no significant effect on reducing
column strength and may be safely neglected. The
shear effect should not, however, be neglected for
composite material where the ratio E/G is large, as
shown in Table 2.

Cr. load

69

C.E.P.
0.46724
0.61259
0.82456
0.11214
0.14761

(4 ele)
x
x
x
x
x

10
IO
IO
IO2
10

is not allowed

(1 ele)
x
x
x
x
x

diff.
30.4%
35.9%
43.5%
50.2%
49.0%

102
IO
IO2
IO2
102

C.E.P.
0.23823
0.29334
0.29587
0.36322
0.36731

(4 ele)
x
x
x
x
x

IO*
10
IO
10
10

is not allowed
(1 ele)
x
x
x
x
x

10
IO2
IO2
IO2
lo2

load for braced

frame

C.E.P.

(1 ele)

0.52396
0.67711
0.78252
0.91234
0.91356

diff.
0.1%
0.2%
0.7%
1.7%
2.1%

10
10
10
IO*
IO2

x
x
x
x
x

10
IO
10
10
IO

diff.

C.E.P.

2.5%
0.2%
1.3%
1.3%
1.3%

0.16682
0.17017
0.17881
0.19329
0.21033

diff.

C.E.P.

48.2%
59.3%
82.6%
88.6%
75.8%

0.35421
0.42817
0.42677
0.48579
0.51948

(4 ele)
x
x
x
x
x

lo2
IO
IO
IO2
IO*

(4 ele)
x
x
x
X
x

IO
10
10
IO
101

S. Ammar

70

et al.

11 1
jl
Mode1

Fig. 5. Frame

with non-permitted

displacement

-i

ModeI

Mode 2

Made I

Mode 2

with non-permitted

frame

Mode5

rotation.

Mode 4

Mode 3
Fig. 7. Braced

Mode 4

Mode 3

Fig. 6. Frame

Mode5

Mode 4

Mode 3

Mode 2

Mode 5

Exact stability model of space frames


we increase the number of elements to four. In this
case the computing
time became 650%, compared
with the reference computing
time. The results are
listed in Table 5.
In the third case, the rotation of all nodes is not
permitted.
In this case, the difference between CEP
with only one element and the exact results is not
large (cf. Table 6) and computing time is only 45%.
Our procedure
gives the exact values for all five
buckling loads using about the same computing time
as the reference method. The CEP method can give
better results if four elements are used per beam/
column, but the CPU time is about 700%.
To prevent lateral displacement,
braces are placed
in the frame with large area and moment of inertia as
presented in Table 3. One more time the methods
presented herein converge to the exact solution with
only 65% of the computing time needed by the WWQ
algorithm.
The CEP method with only one element gives
completely false results (cf. Table 7). If four elements
are used per beamcolumn,
the results are better, but
not exact, and the CPU time is about 800% more
than the WWQ method.
The five buckling modes are presented in Figs 47.

5. CONCLUSION

A new method for computing the eigenvalues of a


nonlinear problem is presented. This method may be
considered
as an improvement
on the bisection
method of Wittrick and Williams. The exact stability
model is developed
based on the finite element
method for Bernoulli and Mindlin cases. The main
advantage of this model is that we can use only one
element per member. This method is very attractive,
especially when the lateral displacement
of the frame
is not permitted (by limit condition or by braces).
Exact buckling loads are obtained with the proposed
method, with less computing time compared to the
reference method (Witrick and Williams method), or
classical eigenproblem
method with more than one
classical element. With this method, the user is sure
to obtain the exact critical load with only one element
per beam/column,
using less computing
time than
other methods.

71

Acknowledgemenr-The
authors gratefully thank the
National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada

for its financial

support.

REFERENCES

1. W. H. Wittrick and F. W. Williams, A general alaor-

ithm for computing natural frequencies oFelastic St&lures. 0. J. Mech. aoolied


Math.. XXIV. 263-284
..

(1971)._
2. F. W. Williams and W. H. Wittrick, An automatic
computation
procedure for calculating natural frequencies of skeletal structures. Inr. J. mech. Sci. 12, 78 1-79 I
(1970).
3. F. W. Williams and W. H. Wittrick, Exact buckling and
frequency calculations
surveyed. J. struct. Engng ASCE
109, 169-187 (1983).
4. R. Lundin and B. A. Akesson, Damped second-order
Rayleigh-Timoshenko
beam vibration in space-an
exact complex dynamic member stiffness matrix. Inf. J.
numer. Meth. Engng 19, 431449 (1983).
5. A. Simpson, On the solution of S(w)x = 0 by Newtonian procedure.
J. Sound Vibr. 97, 153-164 (1984).
6. J. H. SaIlstrom and B. A. Akesson, Fluid-conveying
damped Rayleigh-Timoshenko
beam in transverse vibration analysed by use of an exact finite element. Part
I: theory. J. Fluid Struct. 4, 561-572 (1990).
algorithm
for
7. A. Frid, A modified Wittrick-Williams
eigenvalue analysis of fluid vibration in piping systems.
Letter to the editor, J. Sound Vibr. 141.3555358 (1990).
.Rehable use of
8. F. W. Williams and D. Kennedy,
determinant
to solve nonlinear
structural
eigenvlaue
problems
efficiently. Inf. J. numer. Mefh. Engng 26,
1825-1841 (1988).
and frame stab9. F. W. Williams, Stability functions
ility-a
fresh approach.
Inr. J. mech. Sci. 23, 715-722
(1981).
10. P. Z. Baiant and L. Cedolin, Stability of Structures:
Elastic,
Inelastic,
Fracture and Damage
Theories.
Oxford University Press, New York (1991).
11. J. L. Batoz and Ci. Dhatt, Modeiisarion des Structures
Par Eiemenrs Finis. Les Presses de lUniversit6 Lava],
Quebec (1991).
D. Beauheu and G. Dhatt, Buckling of
12. M. Fafard,
thin-walled members by finite element. Comput. Sfrucf.
25, 183-190 (1987).
The Lanczos algorithm for solution of
13. B. Nour-Omid,
large generalised eigenproblem.
In: The Finite Elemenr
Method (Edited by T. J. R. Hughes).
Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1987).
Steel Sfrucrures,
14. C. G. Salmon and J. E. Johnson,
Design and Behavior, Emphasing Load and Resistance
Factor Des&n. 3rd Edn. Haroer and Row. New York
(1990).
Caicui des Charpentes
15. A. Picard and D. Beaulieu,
DAcier, 1st Edn. Institut canadien de la construction
en
acier (199I).