ONE-STORY R.C.

FRAME
BUCKLING ANALYSIS IN THE ELASTIC RANGE (Linearized theory)

See G.Toniolo and M. di Prisco, "CALCOLO STRUTTURALE I TELAI"

2 1
3 H p 3 H
B EJt C

EJp EJp

A D

FRAME GEOMETRICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Member AB n.1
BC n.2
CD n.3

b := 6000 mm

h := 4000 mm
1 3 4
Jp := ⋅ 300⋅ 400 mm
12

β := 2

Jt := β ⋅ Jp

LOADS

p := 300 kN/m=N/mm
H := 60000 N

I LEVEL ANALYSIS (APPROXIMATE METHOD)

We assume a plausible distribution of axial forces N and we carry out a second order analysis, with the stiffness terms
corrected by means of coefficients calculated on the basis of the assumed N distribution.

Example NAB= NCD=pb/2 = 900 kN

NBC= 0

DEFINITION OF THE MEMBER-END STIFFNESS COEFFICIENTS CORRECTIVE FUNCTIONS

Rotational stiffness corrective functions

κ
G1( κ ) := 1 +
30

κ
Gi( κ ) := 1 −
60

Translational stiffness corrective functions

κ
Gvi( κ ) := 1 + This is also the corrective coefficient that has to be applied to the shear generated by a
60 rotation of the beam end
κ
Gv ( κ ) := 1 +
10

Corrective function for the fixed-end moments (beam with a uniformly distributed load)
κ
G0( κ ) := 1 −
60

Moments of inertia vector

(
J := Jp Jt Jp )T
Member lengths vector

T
l := ( h b h )

Vector of the estimated axial loads N inherent with each member (tension has to be assumed positive)

T  −9 × 105 
p ⋅b p ⋅b   
N :=  − 0 − 
 2 2  N = 0 
 5
 −9 × 10 
i := 1 .. 3

MATERIAL MECHANICAL PROPERTIES

Rck := 55 MPa
Average elastic modulus (according to EC2)

1
3 4
Ecm := 9500⋅ ( 0.83⋅ Rck + 8) Ecm = 3.583 × 10 MPa

According to the C.N.R. 10025/98 code, the mechanical non-linearity can be considered by decreasing the elastic
modulus by means of a coefficient smaller than 1. If the coefficient is assumed equal to 1, a second order analysis with
an uncracked concrete section is carried out.
ψ := 0.46 ψ = 0.46
0.7 3
E := ψ ⋅ Ecm⋅ E = 9.614 × 10
1.2

Definition of ki:

κ :=
N⋅ l
i ( i)2  −0.936
κ = 0 
i E⋅ J  
i
 −0.936

STIFFNESS MATRIX
Restrained degrees of freedom:
1-rotation in B
2-rotation in C
3-horizontal displacement in C

The stiffness matrix K is a function of the vector k

 4⋅ E⋅ J1 4⋅ E⋅ J 2⋅ E⋅ J 6⋅ E⋅ J 
⋅ G1( κ ) + ⋅ G1( κ ) ⋅ Gi( κ ) ⋅ Gvi( κ )
2 2 1
 − 
( 1)
1 2 2 1
 l1 l
2
l
2 l
2 
 
 2⋅ E⋅ J 4⋅ E⋅ J 4⋅ E⋅ J 6⋅ E⋅ J 
⋅ Gi( κ ) ⋅ G1( κ ) + ⋅ G1( κ ) ⋅ Gvi( κ )
2 2 3 3
K ( κ ) :=  − 
(l3)
2 2 3 3
 l
2
l
2
l
3
2 
 
 6⋅ E⋅ J 6⋅ E⋅ J 12E⋅ J 12E⋅ J 
⋅ Gvi( κ ) ⋅ Gvi( κ ) ⋅ Gv ( κ ) + ⋅ Gv ( κ ) 
1 3 1 3
 − −
(l1)2 ( l 3) 2 (l1)3 (l3)3
1 3 1 3
 
 

 3.541× 1010 1.026× 1010 −5.679× 106 

 
K ( κ ) = 1.026 × 1010 3.541 × 1010 −5.679 × 106 

 
 6 6 3 
 −5.679 × 10 −5.679 × 10 5.229 × 10 
VECTOR OF THE EQUIVALENT NODAL LOADS

T  −9 × 108 
 ( 2) p ⋅ (l )
 p⋅ l 2 2   

⋅ G0( κ ) ⋅ G0( κ ) −H f = 9 × 108 

2
f := −
 12 2 12 2
  
 4
 −6 × 10 

SYSTEM SOLUTION (FIRST LEVEL)

 0.038 
u ( κ ) =  −0.034
−1
u ( κ ) := −K ( κ ) ⋅f Nodal displacements (First level)
 
 15.721

CALCULATION OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT INTERNAL ACTIONS (FIRST LEVEL)

1) Axial loads

6⋅ E⋅ J 6⋅ E⋅ J p ⋅l
( 2) ( 2)
2 2 2 5
N := ⋅ Gvi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) + ⋅ Gvi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) − N = −8.8 × 10 Axial load - first column
( l 2) (l2)
1 2 1 2 2 2 1

6⋅ E⋅ J 12⋅ E⋅ J
( 1) ( )
2 1 1 5
N := − ⋅ H − ⋅ Gvi κ ⋅ u( κ ) + Gv κ ⋅ u ( κ ) N = −2.131 × 10 Axial load - beam
( l 1) ( l 1)
2 3 2 1 3 1 3 2

6⋅ E⋅ J 6⋅ E⋅ J p ⋅l
( 2) ( 2)
2 2 2 5
N := − ⋅ Gvi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) − ⋅ Gvi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) − N = −9.2 × 10 Axial load - second column
(l2) (l2)
3 2 1 2 2 2 3

6⋅ E⋅ J 12⋅ E⋅ J
( 3) ( )
1 3 3
N := ⋅H + ⋅ Gvi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) − Gv κ ⋅ u ( κ ) 5
N = −2.131 × 10 Axial load – beam (starting
(l3) ( l 3)
2 3 2 2 3 3 3
2
from column CD

2) Columns base moments

2⋅ E⋅ J 6⋅ E⋅ J
( 1) ( )
1 1 8
M := − ⋅ Gi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) + Gvi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) M = −2.054 × 10
(l1)
1 l 1 2 1 3 1
1

2⋅ E⋅ J 6⋅ E⋅ J
( 3) ( )
3 3 8
M := − ⋅ Gi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) + Gvi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) M = 3.535 × 10
(l3)
3 l 2 2 3 3 3
3
3) Column base shears

6⋅ E⋅ J 12⋅ E⋅ J
( 1) ( 1)
1 1 5
V := − ⋅ Gvi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) + ⋅ Gv κ ⋅ u ( κ ) V = −1.731 × 10
(l1) ( l 1)
1 2 1 3 3 1

6⋅ E⋅ J 12⋅ E⋅ J
( 3) ( 3)
3 3 5
V := − ⋅ Gvi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) + ⋅ Gv κ ⋅ u ( κ ) V = 2.331 × 10
(l3) ( l 3)
3 2 2 3 3 3

II LEVEL ANALYSIS (REFINED METHOD)

First of all we carry out a first order elastic analysis, finding a refined value of axial loads N. Then we carry out a second
order analysis, with the stiffness terms corrected by means of coefficients calculated on the basis of the refined N
distribution. The second level analysis does not depend upon the first level one.

We make use of the above introduced expressions, imposing ki=0 (all the corrective functions assume a value
equal to 1, hence obtaining a first order stiffness matrix)

 0
κ := 0 κ =  0
i  
 0
SYSTEM SOLUTION (FIRST ORDER ANALYSIS):

 0.037 
u ( κ ) =  −0.033
−1
u ( κ ) := −K ( κ ) ⋅f Nodal displacements (First order analysis)
 
 13.868

1) Axial loads (First order):

6⋅ E⋅ J 6⋅ E⋅ J p ⋅l
( 2) ( 2)
2 2 2 5
N := ⋅ Gvi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) + ⋅ Gvi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) − N = −8.822 × 10
( l 2) 2 (l2)2
1 1 2 2 1

6⋅ E⋅ J 12⋅ E⋅ J
( 1) ( )
2 1 1 5
N := − ⋅ H − ⋅ Gvi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) + Gv κ ⋅ u ( κ ) N = −2.125 × 10
( l 1) 2 ( l 1)
2 3 1 3 1 3 2

6⋅ E⋅ J 6⋅ E⋅ J p ⋅l
( 2) ( 2)
2 2 2 5
N := − ⋅ Gvi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) − ⋅ Gvi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) − N = −9.178 × 10
(l2)2 (l2)2
3 1 2 2 3

2) Columns base moments

 2⋅ E⋅ J 6⋅ E⋅ J
( 1) ( )
1 1 8
M := − ⋅ Gi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) + Gvi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) M = −2.033 × 10
(l1)
1 l 1 2 1 3 1
1

2⋅ E⋅ J 6⋅ E⋅ J
( 3) ( )
3 3 8
M := − ⋅ Gi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) + G κ ⋅u(κ ) M = 3.367 × 10
2 vi 3
(l3)
3 l 2 3 3
3

3) Columns base shears

6⋅ E⋅ J 12⋅ E⋅ J
( 1) ( 1)
1 1 5
V := − ⋅ Gvi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) + ⋅ Gv κ ⋅ u ( κ ) V = −1.725 × 10
(l1) ( l 1)
1 2 1 3 3 1

6⋅ E⋅ J 12⋅ E⋅ J
( 3) ( 3)
3 3 5
V := − ⋅ Gvi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) + ⋅ Gv κ ⋅ u ( κ ) V = 2.325 × 10
(l3) ( l 3)
3 2 2 3 3 3

Redefinition of ki, based on the results of the first order analysis

κ :=
N⋅ l
i ( i)2  −0.918
κ =  −0.249
i E⋅ J  
i  −0.955

SYSTEM SOLUTION (SECOND LEVEL)

 0.038 
u ( κ ) =  −0.034
−1
u ( κ ) := −K ( κ ) ⋅f Nodal displacements (Second level)
 
 15.749
CALCULATION OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT INTERNAL ACTIONS (SECOND LEVEL)

1) Axial loads

6⋅ E⋅ J 6⋅ E⋅ J p ⋅l
( 2) ( 2)
2 2 2 5
N := ⋅ Gvi κ ⋅ u( κ ) + ⋅ Gvi κ ⋅ u( κ ) − N = −8.8 × 10 Axial load - first column
( l 2) (l2)
1 2 1 2 2 2 1

6⋅ E⋅ J 12⋅ E⋅ J
( 1) ( )
2 1 1 5
N := − ⋅ H − ⋅ Gvi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) + Gv κ ⋅ u ( κ ) N = −2.148 × 10 Axial load - beam
( l 1) (l1)
2 3 2 1 3 1 3 2

6⋅ E⋅ J 6⋅ E⋅ J p ⋅l
( 2) ( 2)
2 2 2 5
N := − ⋅ Gvi κ ⋅ u( κ ) − ⋅ Gvi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) − N = −9.2 × 10 Axial load - second column
(l2) (l2)
3 2 1 2 2 2 3
 6⋅ E⋅ J 12⋅ E⋅ J
( 3) ( )
1 3 3
N := ⋅H + ⋅ Gvi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) − Gv κ ⋅ u ( κ ) 5 Axial load – beam (starting
N = −2.148 × 10
( l 3) (l3)
2 3 2 2 3 3 3
2 from column CD

2) Columns base moments

2⋅ E⋅ J 6⋅ E⋅ J
( 1) ( )
1 1 8
M := − ⋅ Gi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) + G κ ⋅u(κ ) M = −2.076 × 10
2 vi 1
(l1)
1 l 1 3 1
1

2⋅ E⋅ J 6⋅ E⋅ J
( 3) ( )
3 3 8
M := − ⋅ Gi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) + Gvi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) M = 3.56 × 10
(l3)
3 l 2 2 3 3 3
3

3) Columns base shears

6⋅ E⋅ J 12⋅ E⋅ J
( 1) ( 1)
1 1 5
V := − ⋅ Gvi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) + ⋅ Gv κ ⋅ u ( κ ) V = −1.748 × 10
(l1) ( l 1)
1 2 1 3 3 1

6⋅ E⋅ J 12⋅ E⋅ J
( 3) ( 3)
3 3 5
V := − ⋅ Gvi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) + ⋅ Gv κ ⋅ u ( κ ) V = 2.348 × 10
(l3) ( l 3)
3 2 2 3 3 3

III LEVEL ANALYSIS (CORRECT METHOD)

We start from the II level solution and we keep updating the values of Ni, until the convergence criterion is satisfied.

κ :=
N⋅ l
i ( i)2 Redefinition of ki, based on the results of the II level analysis
 −0.915
κ =  −0.251
i E⋅ J  
i
 −0.957
Comparing the results, we find out that no more iterations are
 0.038  needed. If the convergence criterion is not satisfied, we evaluate the
u ( κ ) =  −0.034
−1
u ( κ ) := −K ( κ ) ⋅f new values of Ni, and we start again from the evaluation of ki.
 
 15.751
We have found the correct solution (III level)

CALCULATION OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT INTERNAL ACTIONS (THIRD LEVEL)

1) Axial loads

6⋅ E⋅ J 6⋅ E⋅ J p ⋅l
( 2) ( 2)
2 2 2 5
N := ⋅ Gvi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) + ⋅ Gvi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) − N = −8.8 × 10 Axial load - first column
( l 2) (l2)
1 2 1 2 2 2 1
 6⋅ E⋅ J 12⋅ E⋅ J
( 1) ( )
2 1 1 5
N := − ⋅ H − ⋅ Gvi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) + Gv κ ⋅ u ( κ ) N = −2.148 × 10 Axial load - beam
( 1) ( 1)
2 3 2 1 3 1 3 2
l l

6⋅ E⋅ J 6⋅ E⋅ J p ⋅l
( 2) ( 2)
2 2 2 5
N := − ⋅ Gvi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) − ⋅ Gvi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) − N = −9.2 × 10 Axial load - second column
( 2) ( 2)
3 2 1 2 2 2 3
l l

2) Columns base moments

2⋅ E⋅ J 6⋅ E⋅ J
( 1) ( )
1 1 8
M := − ⋅ Gi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) + G κ ⋅u(κ ) M = −2.076 × 10
2 vi 1
(l1)
1 l 1 3 1
1

2⋅ E⋅ J 6⋅ E⋅ J
( 3) ( )
3 3 8
M := − ⋅ Gi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) + G κ ⋅u(κ ) M = 3.561 × 10
2 vi 3
(l3)
3 l 2 3 3
3

3) Columns base shears

6⋅ E⋅ J 12⋅ E⋅ J
( 1) ( 1)
1 1 5
V := − ⋅ Gvi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) + ⋅ Gv κ ⋅ u ( κ ) V = −1.748 × 10
(l1) ( l 1)
1 2 1 3 3 1

6⋅ E⋅ J 12⋅ E⋅ J
( 3) ( 3)
3 3 5
V := − ⋅ Gvi κ ⋅ u ( κ ) + ⋅ Gv κ ⋅ u ( κ ) V = 2.348 × 10
(l3) (l3)
3 2 2 3 3 3

The calculated values coincide with those estimated in the II level.

CRITICAL BUCKLING LOAD CALCULATION (AT THE II LEVEL)

We keep H constant, while increasing p until the solution diverges.

Counter (a value greater than the critical j has to be provided as input):

jmax := 160
j := 1 .. jmax

Load multiplier:
j −1
γ := H := H γ =1
j 10 j 11

We make use of the above introduced expressions, imposing ki=0 (all the corrective functions assume a value equal to 1,
hence obtaining a first order stiffness matrix)
κ := 0 3 x jmax matrix
i, j
Data are built up as matrixes with 3 rows (3 problem unknowns) and j columns, where j stands for the step of the
evolving analysis. As a matter of fact, changing j, the distributed load (p) multiplier increases, until we get to the critical
multiplier (solution divergence).

γ ⋅p ⋅ l ( 2) 2 ⋅ G
( )
j
f := − 0 κ 2, j
1, j 12

 j ( 2) 
 γ ⋅ p ⋅ l 2 3 x jmax matrix
f
2, j
:=   ⋅ G0( κ 2 , j )
 12 

f := −H
3, j j

Nodal displacements vector for each j-th load combination:

〈j〉
u := −K κ
〈j〉 − 1 〈j〉
⋅f ( ) Nodal displacements (First order analysis)

N.B. to extract one column from a matrix, the command ctrl+6 can be used

First-order axial loads, for each j-th load:

6⋅ E⋅ J 6⋅ E⋅ J γ ⋅p ⋅l
( ) ( )
2 2 j 2 5
N := ⋅ Gvi κ ⋅u + ⋅ Gvi κ ⋅u − N = −8.822 × 10
1, j 2, j 1, j 2, j 2, j 1 , 11
( l 2) 2
( l 2) 2 2

6⋅ E⋅ J 12⋅ E⋅ J
( ) ( )
2 1 1 5
N := − ⋅ H − ⋅ Gvi κ ⋅u + Gv κ ⋅u N = −2.125 × 10
2, j 1, j 1, j 1, j 3, j 2 , 11
3 j
( l 1) 2
( l 1) 3

6⋅ E⋅ J 6⋅ E⋅ J γ ⋅p ⋅l
( ) ( )
2 2 j 2
N := − ⋅ Gvi κ ⋅u − ⋅ Gvi κ ⋅u − 5
3, j 2, j 1, j 2, j 2, j = −9.178 × 10
( 2) ( 2)
2 2 2 N
l l 3 , 11

Redefinition of ki, based on the results of the first-order analysis

κ :=
N
i, j
⋅ l ( i)2
i, j E⋅ J
i
At step 11 (load multiplier equal to 1) we get the same results of the previous analyses

0
0 -0.918
κ =
i , 11 1 -0.249
2 -0.955
SYSTEM SOLUTION (SECOND LEVEL)

〈j〉
u := −K κ ( )
〈j〉 − 1 〈j〉
⋅f Nodal displacements (Second level)

For j=11 we have:

 0.038 
( )
Same results of the previous analyses
〈11〉  〈11〉
= −0.034
24
u K κ = 4.331 × 10
 
 15.749

detK := K κ
j
( 〈j〉 ) detK
jmax
= −2.079 × 10
24

24
6×10

24
4×10

24
2×10
detK j
0

24
− 2×10

24
− 4×10
0 50 100 150
j
The critical load multiplier is:

jcritico := for j ∈ 2 .. jmax jcritico = 85

(
break if detK
j −1
≥ 0 ∧ detK ≤ 0
j )
jcritico ← j − 1

γcritico := γ γcritico = 8.4

jcritico

The following diagram shows the beam displacement versus the p load multiplier. The solution clearly diverges for a load
multiplier equal to the critical one (the determinant of the stiffness matrix tends to zero).

j := 1 .. jcritico
 20

16

12
γj

0
3 3 3
0 2×10 4×10 6×10
u3 , j