Observations on eigenvalue buckling

analysis within a finite element context

Christopher J. Earls1

INTRODUCTION

There is an increasing availability of commercial finite element

software systems that permit the consideration of the effects of
geometric nonlinearity in structural analysis. Oftentimes these
software systems will have the capability to treat stability
problems through eigenvalue extraction routines applied to the
global system stiffness matrix; an approach referred to,
alternately, as “buckling,” “eigenvalue buckling,” or “linearized
eigenvalue buckling” analysis.

This type of a stability analysis is attractive from the standpoint

that it is computationally inexpensive. As compared with a more
general incremental analysis that traces the entire nonlinear
equilibrium path of the structural system, the eigenvalue buckling
approach concerns itself with only one or two points on the
equilibrium path. In addition, results obtained from eigenvalue
buckling analyses, when applied to stability problems exhibiting
bifurcation instability, are usually quite accurate; and this
accuracy is obtained without much concern on the part of the
software user. However, care must be taken when applying this

1
Associate Professor, School of Civil & Environmental
Engineering, Cornell University, 220 Hollister Hall, Ithaca, New
York, 14853 cje23@cornell.edu
technique to problem types exhibiting other manifestations of
instability (e.g. limit point instability).

In practice, situations may arise in the design office where the

application of eigenvalue buckling may seem attractive for
problems involving elastic beam buckling (e.g. lateral torsional
buckling of a beam or planar truss) or elastic snap through
buckling (e.g. lattice dome, arch, or shallow truss assembly). In
the domain of stability research, too, linearized eigenvlaue
buckling is oftentimes attractive as a means for identifying a
“seed imperfection” for application in a more detailed incremental
nonlinear finite element analysis of a beam or framework, for
instance. In all of the foregoing, there are finite structural
deformations prior to the onset of instability that are additive to
the governing buckling mode (as compared to a bifurcation
instability where the pre- and post-buckling deformations may be
thought of as being orthogonal to one another). This fact creates
an inconsistency with regard to assumptions made in the
formulation of the linearized eigenvalue buckling procedure itself.

The present paper examines the underlying assumptions within

the formulation of the eigenvalue buckling method in order to
highlight the problem types that most readily lend themselves to
solution by this method. In addition, problems presenting
responses that violate these fundamental assumptions are also
examined. In this latter case, it becomes very important to
understand the nature of the implementation of eigenvalue
buckling in the given software system (example problems
variously solved with MASTAN2, ADINA, ABAQUS, and ANSYS
are included in this paper); certain implementations will make
application of eigenvalue buckling, to other than bifurcation
problems, extremely problematic.

The present paper begins with a discussion providing

background information related to the various finite element
buckling formulations within a single, standardized notation to
allow for a transparent comparison of underlying assumptions.
Subsequent sections separately treat bifurcation buckling and
limit point instability examples. A discussion of results and
concluding remarks follow.

OVERVIEW OF DOMINANT FINITE ELEMENT BUCKLING

ANALYSIS APPROACHES

The literature adopts the term “buckling analysis” when referring

to a family of finite element techniques applied to structural
systems for the identification of critical load levels through the
solution of an eigen-problem arising out of assumptions made
relative to changes in structural stiffness, and concomitant
applied loadings. While the technique is applicable to structures
that exhibit critical responses arising from limit point as a well as
bifurcation of equilibrium, the term buckling is nonetheless
universally applied. While this may seem inconsistent, since
buckling is normally associated with the condition of bifurcation
in the equilibrium path only, the nomenclature is defensible
nonetheless as a result of the fact that the egien-problem posed
within the finite element context resembles the familiar form
where the vanishing of the determinant of the stiffness matrix is
associated with a certain form of the Sturm-Liouville problem
[Reddy 1998, Boyce and Diprima 1986]. All formulations within
the present discussion will be presented in a standardized
notation (to facilitate comparison); defined subsequently.

Since the analyses considered here are strictly static, time will be
used to denote an equilibrium point for the subject structure
within configuration space; corresponding with a certain load
level:
[K0] ≡ linear elastic stiffness matrix whose elements are
independent of the current structural configuration (thus no time
reference is needed as a left sub-script)
[τKσ] ≡ initial stress matrix dependent on the state of stress at
arbitrary time, τ. This matrix is populated with terms that include
linear and quadratic dependencies on the current displacement
field.
The sum of the foregoing two stiffness matrices is typically what
is referred to as the “tangent stiffness matrix” associated with a
specific equilibrium point in configuration space. Some readers
may be more familiar with the notion of the tangent stiffness
being associated with a Taylor series expansion of the internal
force vector about the current configuration during the solution,
while others may recognize it as emanating from the stationarity
of the total potential functional whose internal energy term
includes the influence of finite strains. While other options exist
for the population of the tangent stiffness matrix [Wood and
Schrefler 1978][Holzer et al. 1990][Chang and Chen 1986] the
former definition has emerged as the most dominant to date.
0T ≡ equilibrium configuration associated with the trivial case of
no external actions
tT ≡ equilibrium configuration associated with an intermediate
loading condition occurring between the unloaded condition and
the unstable condition
∆t ≡ denotes an incremental motion through configuration space,
along the equilibrium path
t + ∆tT ≡ equilibrium configuration associated with an intermediate
loading condition, occurring between the unloaded condition and
the unstable condition; that is arbitrarily close to configuration tT
Tcr ≡ equilibrium configuration at incipient instability
In the present discussion it will be helpful to define two applied
loading conditions that are used to reckon an assumed
characteristic change in the system stiffness. In general, the
applied load will be referred to as “P.”
{Pbaseline} ≡ the loading condition used to bring the structure to a
point in configuration space denoted by tT.
{Pcharacteristic} ≡ the loading condition resulting in the structure
assuming configuration t+∆tT
{Pcr} ≡ the critical load associated with the equilibrium
configuration at incipient instability, Tcr
The structural state may be characterized using tangent stiffness
measures defined according to the following.
[Kbaseline] ≡ the instantaneous stiffness of the structure arrived at
by retaining only the terms in a Taylor series expansion of the
load – deflection response of the structure about the point in
configuration space corresponding to the applied loading
{Pbaseline}.
[Kcharacteristic] ≡ the instantaneous stiffness of the structure arrived
at by retaining only the terms in a Taylor series expansion of the
load – deflection response of the structure about the point in
configuration space corresponding to the applied loading
{Pcharacteristic}.

Classical Formulation
The initial treatment of the finite element buckling analysis
appeared in the literature prior to the formal naming of the finite
element method [Gallagher et al. 1967]; this earliest reference
identified the approach as being based on the “discrete element
procedure.” In light of the foregoing, and based on a survey of
the literature, it appears that in the most commonly held
definition of the classical formulation for finite element buckling
analysis, the following problem is solved [Cook et al. 2002,
Holzer et al. 1990, Chang and Chen 1986, Brendel and Ramm
1980]

det([ 0T
] [
K0 + λ tT
])
Kσ = 0 (1)

It is frequently assumed that the equilibrium point at Time tT is

very close to the initial configuration at time 0T, but this is not a
requirement in the literature.

The subsequent buckling load is computed as

{Pcr } = λ {Pbaseline } (2)

Secant Formulation
The present discussion adopts the name “secant formulation” to
describe the variation of the finite element buckling problem that
is referred to variously as the “secant formulation” [Bathe and
Dvorkin 1983, ADINA 2006] and the “linear and nonlinear
analysis” [Holzer et al. 1990]. This problem is posed as

det ([K baseline ] + λ ([K characteristic ] − [K baseline ])) = 0 (3)

The subsequent buckling load is computed as

{Pcr } = {Pbaseline } + λ ({Pcharacteristic } − {Pbaseline }) (4)

EXAMPLE PROBLEMS

In the following examples, comparisons of results from the two

approaches to finite element buckling analyses are considered
(i.e. those involving software packages employing buckling
approaches characterized by equations (1) and (2), and (3) and
(4), respectively). In some instances the results from closed form
solutions are also presented. In addition, some cases also
include results from manual implementation of the finite element
buckling approaches as encapsulated in equations (1) and (2).

We begin by distinguishing between bifurcation and limit point

instability in a formalized way. Consider the classical form of the
finite element statement of the incremental equilibrium
equations:

(  0T
K0  +  tT Kσ  ){ t +∆t T } {
∆u = t +∆tT
}
R (5)
Where {∆u} are the incremental nodal displacements and {R} is
the residual vector representing the imbalance between the
internal forces at time t, and the desired load level associated
with some set of external forces. We may use the standard form
of the eigenvalue problem to compute eigenvalues, ωi, and
eigenvectors, φi, for the tangent stiffness matrix according to

(  0T
)
K0  +  tT Kσ  {φi } = ωi {φi } (6)

We may thus form a spectral representation of the tangent

stiffness matrix according to

[KT ] = ∑ ωi {φi }{φi }

T
(7)
i

These same eigenvectors may also be used to define a

projection operator that takes the original displacement and load
vectors and projects them onto a new vector space spanned by
the eigenvectors, φi, such that

{ t + ∆tT
∆u = ∑ α i {φi };
} { t +∆t P} = ∑ ρi {φi } (8)
i i

Where {P} is the externally applied load vector on the structure

T
and ρi ≡ {φi} {P}. The transformations embodied in equations (7)
and (8) effectively diagonalize equation (5) and result in the
following transformation (Pecknold et al. 1985)

ωi α i = λρi (9)

In an elastic structure, the first critical point occurs when the

equilibrium equations become singular, or in other words, when
the tangent stiffness matrix is no longer positive definite. Since
we have well ordered eigenpairs as a result of this being one
case of the Sturm-Liouville problem, we recognize that loss of
positive definiteness of the stiffness occurs when ω1 = 0; at
which point we then have λρ1 = 0. Based on this fact, we can
recognize a distinction between bifurcation and limit point
instability (Pecknold et al. 1985). If ρ1 ≠ 0, then we see that the
eigenvector is not orthogonal to the externally applied loading
vector {P} and thus λ will have to be zero in order for λρ1 = 0 to
be true. In this case we have a limit point instability (this point will
become more clear as we continue the discussion). Conversely,
ρ1 = 0, when the loading is orthogonal to the eigenmode and we
have buckling occurring. We may thus summarize as follows:

T
Limit point instability: ω1 = 0, and {φ1} {P} ≠ 0; (10)

T
Bifurcation instability: ω1 = 0, and {φ1} {P } = 0 (11)

Equations (10) and (11) may be interpreted according to the

following. In the neighborhood of limit points on the equilibrium
path in configuration space, there is no increasing load and the
eigenvector is not orthogonal to the external load vector.
Conversely, if an increase in loading is possible in the
neighborhood of the critical point, and the eigenvector is
orthogonal to the load vector, then bifurcation instability is
present.

Bifurcation instability
The following three cases are classical examples of bifurcations
instability in the sense of equation (11). Pre-buckling
deformations are small and thus the underlying assumptions, in
this regard, present in the linearized eigenvalue buckling
approach are valid.

Flat rectangular plate under edge loading

Consider the case of the flat plate under edge loading depicted
in Figure 1.
 σcr

rollerY

b a = 50”
b = 10”
t = 0.1”
simpleX E = 29,000 ksi
ν= 0.3
free

a
since a>b
Y, u2
and b>>t
then
k = 0.425
X, u1 η=1
pinY

Boundary Conditions:
Free? u1 u2 u3 ur1 ur2 ur3

rollerY Y Y N Y N N
pinY Y N N Y N N
simpleX N Y N N Y N
free Y Y Y Y Y N

Figure 1. Plate buckling example

For this problem, the closed form solution is easily developed
and the critical edge stress is identified as

π 2E η (12)
σ cr = k 2
b
( )
12 1 − ν 2  
t

Substitution of the problem parameters described in Figure 1

yields a critical stress of 1.114 ksi. As expected, this is in close
agreement with finite element buckling results presented in Table
1 for both finite element buckling approaches under discussion.
 Linearized Eigenvalue Buckling Results:
(10 ADINA MITC4 four node shell elements
across width)

Pbaseline σcr Method

0.001 k/in 1.222 ksi Classical
0.01 k/in 1.217 ksi Classical
0.04 k/in 1.217 ksi Classical
0.05 k/in 1.217 ksi Classical
0.12 k/in NA Classical
0.001 k/in NA Secant
0.01 k/in 1.217 ksi Secant
0.04 k/in 1.217 ksi Secant
0.05 k/in 1.217 ksi Secant
0.12 k/in NA Secant

Table 1. FEM buckling results - plate

Euler Column
Another classical example of bifurcation instability, where both
finite element buckling analysis methods work quite well, is the
case of the Euler column depicted in Figure 2.
Boundary Conditions:
Z, u3 b = 1” Free? u1 u2 u3 ur1 ur2 ur3
1”
L = 10”
1” I = 0.0833 roller N Y N Y N N
E = 29,000 ksi pin N N N Y N N Pcr
Y, u2

10”

Figure 2. Euler column buckling example

For this problem, too, the closed form solution is easily obtained
(considering the first mode only):

π 2EI (13)
Pcr =
L2
which yields Pcr = 238 kips in the case of the proportions
described in Figure 2. This compares quite favorably with the
finite element buckling results presented in Table 2.

Linearized Eigenvalue Buckling Results:

(5 ADINA Hermitian beam elements)

Pbaseline Pcr Method

200k 235 Classical
100k 235.8 Classical
10k 236.5 Classical
1k 236.6 Classical
200k 235 Secant
100k 235.8 Secant
10k 236.5 Secant
1k 236.6 Secant

Table 2 FEM buckling results - column

Cylindrical shell loaded at one end

While it is encouraging to note the agreement between the two
dominant methods of finite element buckling analysis and the
related closed form solutions in the previous two cases, this type
of result is not universally true for all bifurcation type problems.

Consider the case of a silicon nitride cylindrical shell pinned at

one end and longitudinally loaded along the free edge at the
other end as depicted in Figure 3.
Linearized Eigenvalue Buckling Results:
(MITC4 shells) LDC solution = 984.9k

Pbaseline Pcr Method

0.7539k failure Classical
3.77k 975.6k Classical
37.7k failure Classical
75.4k 975.6 Classical
0.7539k failure Secant
3.77k 974.55 Secant
37.7k failure Secant
75.4k failure Secant

Figure 3. Cylindrical shell buckling example

While it is that good results are obtained for the classical

buckling responses that characterize the problems described in
Figures 1 and 2, irrespective of baseline load level, etc., the
same cannot be said for the case depicted in Figure 3. In this
case, the ADINA finite element buckling analyses were quite
sensitive to the baseline load level and thus in some cases a
result was obtained, while in other cases, the ADINA eigenvalue
extraction routine was unable to converge to a reasonable
eigenpair (i.e. one satisfying the Sturm sequence requirement).
When convergent eigenpairs were obtained, the agreement with
the much more computationally demanding incremental
nonlinear solution (LDC solution) was encouraging. However, the
lack of robustness, in terms of solution dependence on Pbaseline,
was anything but encouraging. It is also interesting to note that
ABAQUS was simply unable to achieve a convergent solution for
this problem; a fact may help to put the AINDA results into
context.

It is noted here that in the case of the ADINA two-point buckling

formulation (known as the secant formulation in the ADINA
literature) it is not possible to know what the load level of
Pcharacteristic is since the information contained in the output file
and portal file are incomplete in this regard. This is considered to
be a critical shortcoming in ADINA in terms of reliance on the so-
called secant formulation for finite element buckling analysis. As
will be seen subsequently, it is not possible to employ the secant
method intelligently when using ADINA since insufficient
information, regarding the underlying solution process, is
available to the user, and thus critical judgment related to the
specification of Pbaseline, or even simply the interpretation of
results, is severely compromised by this lack of information.

Limit point instability

The remaining cases for discussion all exhibit limit point (snap-
through) instability and thus pre-buckling deformations tend to be
finite. Strictly speaking, this may be viewed as a violation of the
underlying assumptions used in the formulations of equations (1)
and (3). Thus we might reasonably conclude that the finite
element buckling analyses are technically not applicable to such
instances. However, the fact remains that engineers do employ
this method to cases that are not strictly in consonance with the
underlying assumptions of the formulation; and thus it is
important to consider this class of problems within the present
discussion. In addition, it is not possible to escape the fact that,
under certain circumstances, very good answers are obtained
when comparing finite element buckling results with the results of
more exact methods of analysis.

Toggle frame
Consider the toggle frame structure depicted in Figure 4. The
model created to treat this case is constructed using 5 Hermitian
beam elements per side of the framework.
 b = 1” Boundary Conditions:
Pcr Free? u1 u2 u3
Span = 20”
Height = 2”
E = 29,000 ksi pin N N N
Y, u2 1” brace Y Y N

1”
LDC Pcr = 68 kips 2”
X, u1

20”

Figure 4. Toggle frame buckling example

An incremental nonlinear finite element solution (LDC) for this
problem yields a critical load of 68 kips; in addition to allowing a
trace of the equilibrium path to be developed (Figure 5).
300.00
Equilibrium Trace

250.00
Applied load (kips)

200.00

150.00

100.00

50.00

0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
-50.00
Vertical deflection (in.)
Figure 5. Equilibrium path for toggle frame example
The limit point instability response of the toggle frame case is
clearly visible in the depiction of the equilibrium path, as it is not
possible to resist increasing loads in the neighborhood of 0.5” in
vertical displacement without developing a large motion (a jump
of ≈2.75” in vertical deflection). We may now examine the
predictive capabilities of the two finite element buckling
approaches as applied to such limit point problems.
In the subsequent discussion, it will be useful to refer to a class
of diagrams known as eigenvalue plots [Brendel and Ramm
1980, Holzer et al. 1990]. Such a plot depicts a graph of Pcritical
versus Pbaseline (both normalized by dividing by the exact critical
load). An example of such a plot appears in Figure 6; as related
to the toggle frame example described in Figures 4 and 5.

1.6

1.4

1.2

1
λsecantPbase
0.8

0.6

0.4 Base Load

0.2 Classical
Pbase Secant
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 6. Eigenvalue plot – toggle frame

Pcritical versus Pbaseline (normalized by exact critical load)

The depiction of the eigenvlaue plot in Figure 6 is useful to

consider in the case of limit point instabilities since it highlights
the dependence of the finite element buckling solution on the
selection of a reasonable base loading, Pbaseline. The predicted
critical loading from the finite element buckling solution is arrived
at by multiplying the eigenvalues by the base loads, as described
in equations (2) and (4), respectively, for the classical and secant
approaches. The results presented in Figure 6 are consistent
with what is expected, from the standpoint that the approximate
finite element buckling loads improve in accuracy as the
magnitude of the base load increases. This is the case since at
higher loads, the softening response of the initial loading portion
of the equilibrium curve (Figure 5) is manifest, and thus, to some
degree, reasonably described by the stiffness change terms
present in equations (1) and (3). We may now use the
eigenvalue plot in our subsequent discussions.

For the case of the toggle frame structure from Figure 4, we may
study the finite element buckling predictions contained in Figure
6, and also in Table 3 below.

Linearized Eigenvalue Buckling Results:

(5 ADINA Hermitian beam elements / side)

Pbaseline Pcr Method

70k NA Classical
60k 74.79 Classical
50k 79.89 Classical
10k 92.23 Classical
1k 94.38 Classical
70k NA Secant
60k 62.34 Secant
50k 55.44 Secant
10k 36.29 Secant
1k 33.57 Secant
Table 3 FEM buckling results – toggle frame

From these results, it could be argued that the classical method

of finite element buckling analysis seems most appropriate since
it has the greatest consistency in results (i.e. the difference
between the classical Pcr and the exact value of 68 kips is
uniformly smaller than what is obtained using the secant
method.) Unfortunately, this will turn out to be highly problem
specific.

Truss Arch
Considering now the similar case of a truss arch, we may study
instances involving various height-to-span ratios. In all of the
following examples, the span length is held constant at 20” and
the height is varied from 2” to 25” (see Figure 7.)

Pcr Boundary Conditions:

b = 1” Free? u1 u2 u3
Span = 20”
Height = 2” pin N N N
Y, u2 1” E = 29,000 ksi brace Y Y N

1” height

X, u1

20”

Figure 7. Truss arch buckling example

Case with 2” height

The toggle frame is a particularly useful example, since it affords
the opportunity to easily obtain results using “hand” calculations.
In the case of the truss arch from Figure 7, with a height of 2”, an
energy formulation involving the stationarity of the total potential
yields a critical load of 85.4 kips. This agrees well with the results
from a nonlinear incremental finite element solution using ADINA
(85.8 kips). These results can be considered as exact when
comparing the results from various methods obtained within the
computational framework of various software packages.

In the case of the truss arch with 2” height, finite element

buckling results were obtained using MASTAN2, ANSYS and
ADINA. In the case of the first two pieces of software, only a very
small axial force is considered in the formulation of the tangent
stiffness matrix used in the classical approach from Equation (1).
These results, along with a “hand” calculation meant to parallel
the classical formulation, as presented in Equations (1) and (2),
appear in Table 4 and Figure 8 below.
 6

Base Load
3 ADINA - classical
ADINA - secant
Hand Calculation
MASTAN2
2 ANSYS

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 8. Eigenvalue plot – truss arch (ht. = 2”)

Pcritical versus Pbaseline (normalized by exact critical load)

Linearized Eigenvalue Buckling Results:

(1 truss element per side)

Pbaseline Pcr Method

100k NA Classical
85k 108.63 Classical
80k 151.44 Classical
70k 204.89 Classical
50k 287 Classical
10k 423.5 Classical
1k 451.9 Classical
100k NA Classical (hand)
85k 270 Classical (hand)
80k 303 Classical (hand)
70k 335 Classical (hand)
50k 375 Classical (hand)
10k 423.5 Classical (hand)
1k 451.9 Classical (hand)
100k NA Secant
85k 92.99 Secant
80k 104.08 Secant
70k 115.29 Secant
50k 129.4 Secant
10k 147.9 Secant
1k 151.3 Secant
Table 4 FEM buckling results –
truss arch
From Figure 8 it is clear that MASTAN2, ADINA, ANSYS, and
the hand calculation all agree reasonably well for small values of
Pbaseline. However, as Pbaseline grows, MASTAN2 and ANSYS
remain constant in their predictions since their implementation of
the classical method does not admit the possibility of a varying
Pbaseline. In addition, while the hand calculations and ADINA both
permit a variation in Pbaseline, the agreement is less favorable than
at low values of Pbaseline. This may be as a result of subtle
difference in the way the classical formulation is implemented in
ADINA; but as an unfortunate by product of a lack of inclusion
(within the .out files of ADINA) of intermediate values in the
solution process, it very difficult to test any theories aimed at
understanding the nature of the differences.

Case with 17” height

In the case of the 17” high truss arch, we see a difference in the
trending of the response observed in the eigenvalue plots
appearing in Figure 9.

4.5
Base Load
4 ADINA - classical
ADINA - secant
3.5 Hand Calculation
MASTAN2
3

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 9. Eigenvalue plot – truss arch (ht. = 17”)

Pcritical versus Pbaseline (normalized by exact critical load)
While the MASTAN2 and hand calculations agree well with each
other at low loads, and produce a reasonable estimate for the
critical load, the same is not true for the ADINA results. The
ADINA secant results are clearly diverging from the correct
solution (13,000 kips – obtained from a incremental nonlinear
finite element analysis) while the ADINA classical result begin at
a point inexplicably far away from the other two classical
implementations.

Case with 25” height

Adding a small amount to the truss arch height allows for the
illustration of several important points within the context of finite
element buckling analysis.

This first point to consider is that since the truss arch is so deep,
the classical nonlinear snap-through equilibrium path actually
bifurcates into a sway mode prior to the attainment of the limit
load. Indeed when tracing the nonlinear equilibrium path in
ADINA using an incremental nonlinear finite element solution
approach, a negative eigenvalue appears in the global system
stiffness matrix at a load of 12,313 kips while the limit point is
only attained at a load level of 19,488 kips. Indeed, this
bifurcation point, corresponding to the sway mode, can be
readily observed if a tiny (fraction of an inch) imperfection in the
horizontal position of the loaded joint is used as an initial
imperfection in the structure. The truss-arch response for this
case appears in Figure 10.
 20000
1st Negative eigenvalue
in LDC and buckling
15000
solution result

10000
Asymmetrical mode
5000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
-5000

-10000

-15000
LDC-equilibrium trace
LDC - imperfection trace
-20000

Figure 10. Equilibrium path for toggle frame example

(load versus vertical displacement)
Considering now the eigenvalue plot depicted in Figure 11, we
observe several interesting points:
1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4
Base Load
ADINA - classical
0.2 ADINA - secant
Hand Calculation
MASTAN2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 11. Eigenvalue plot – truss arch (ht. = 25”)

Pcritical versus Pbaseline (normalized by exact critical load)
1) The finite element buckling solutions are tending to converge
to a load level consistent with the equilibrium bifurcation
associated with the sway mode (i.e. not the limit load)

2) In the three earlier limit point stability analyses employing

finite element buckling, the ADINA classical method was always
predicting loads greater than those predicted using the secant
formulation. For the case of height = 25”, this trend has been
reversed.

3) The results from MASTAN2 and the hand calculations agree

less well with the bifurcation load for this particular truss arch
geometry. In contrast, ADINA does quite a bit better in this
regard than was the case when the truss arch height was only
moderately different (at 17”).

CONCLUSIONS
Finite element buckling analysis results should be interpreted
with great care. The results of ostensibly identical formulations
(as described in theory manuals, etc.) within various software
packages, frequently lead to estimates of critical loads that vary
significantly for identical structural configurations.

It seems reasonable to avoid using such finite element buckling

approaches for all but the simplest cases of bifurcation buckling;
but even then care must be taken when considering the validity
of the results.

Perhaps, given the ever increasing speed and core memory size
of desktop computers, stability analyses should be undertaken
within the context of incremental nonlinear finite element
solutions carried out using commercial software such as
ABAQUS and ADINA. However, even then, the results should be
interpreted with care, and by an analyst who is well versed in the
theoretic foundations of the method.
REFERENCES

ADINA (2005) ADINA Theory and Modeling Guide, ADINA R&D,

INC.

Bathe, K.J., Dvorkin, E.N., (1983) “On the automatic solution of

nonlinear finite element equations,” Computers and Structures,
17(5-6), pp. 871-879.

Boyce, W.E., DiPrima, R.C. (1986) Elementary Differential

th
Equations and Boundary Value Problems, 4 Ed., John Wiley &
Sons.

Brendel, B., Ramm, E. (1980) “Linear and nonlinear stability

analysis of cylindrical shells,” Computers and Structures, Vol. 12,
Pergamon Press, Great Britain, pp.549-558.

Chang, S.C., Chen, J.J. (1986) “Effectiveness of linear

bifurcation analysis for predicting the nonlinear stability limits of
structures,” International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering, Vol. 23, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., pp. 831-846.

Cook, R.D., Malkus, D.S., Plesha, M.E., Witt, R.J. (2002)

th
Concepts and Applications of Finite Element Analysis, 4 Ed.,
John Wiley & Sons.

Gallagher, R.H., Gellatly, R.A., Padlog, J., Mallett, R.H. (1967) “A

discrete element procedure for thin-shell instability analysis,”
AIAA Journal, 5(1), pp.138-145.

Holzer, S.M., Davalos, J.F., Huang, C.Y. (1990) “A review of

finite element stability investigations of spatial wood structures,”
Bulletin of the International Association for Shell and Spatial
Structures, 31(2), pp. 161-171

Pecknold, D.A., Ghaboussi, J., Healey, T.J. (1985) “Snap-

through and bifurcation in a simple structure,” Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston, Virginia, pp.909-922.

Reddy, B.D. (1991) Introductory Functional Analysis with

Applications to boundary Value Problems and Finite Elements,
Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Wood, R.D., Schrefler, B. (1978) “Geometrically non-linear

analysis – A correlation of finite element notations,” International
Journal for Numercial Methods in Engineering, Vol. 12, John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd., pp. 635-642