See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/237808829

Lateral–Torsional Buckling of Singly Symmetric Tapered Beams: Theory and

Applications

Article in Journal of Engineering Mechanics · June 2005

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2005)131:6(586)

CITATIONS READS
78 1,682

2 authors, including:

Anísio Andrade
University of Coimbra
31 PUBLICATIONS 406 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Anísio Andrade on 30 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Lateral–Torsional Buckling of Singly Symmetric Tapered
Beams: Theory and Applications
A. Andrade1 and D. Camotim2

Abstract: A general variational formulation to analyze the elastic lateral–torsional buckling 共LTB兲 behavior of singly symmetric thin-
walled tapered beams is presented, numerically implemented, validated and illustrated. It 共1兲 begins with a precise geometrical definition
of a tapered beam; 共2兲 extends the kinematical assumptions traditionally adopted to study the LTB of prismatic beams; 共3兲 includes a
careful derivation of the beam total potential energy; and 共4兲 employs Trefftz’s criterion to ensure the beam adjacent equilibrium. In order
to validate and illustrate the application and capabilities of the proposed formulation, several numerical results are presented, discussed
and, when possible, also compared with values reported by other authors. These results 共1兲 are obtained by means of the Rayleigh–Ritz
method, using trigonometric functions to approximate the beam critical buckling mode, and 共2兲 concern the critical moments of doubly
and singly symmetric web-tapered I-section simply supported beams and cantilevers acted by point loads. In particular, one shows that
modeling a tapered beam as an assembly of prismatic beam segments is conceptually inconsistent and may lead to rather inaccurate 共safe
or unsafe兲 results. Finally, it is worth mentioning that the paper includes a state-of-the-art review concerning one-dimensional analytical
formulations for the LTB behavior of tapered beams.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9399共2005兲131:6共586兲
CE Database subject headings: Buckling; Beams; Thin shell structures; Symmetry; Torsion.

Introduction pered beams, it is indispensable to develop and disseminate effi-

As far as structural efficiency is concerned, tapered 共i.e., nonpris-
matic and with a continuous variation in cross section兲 thin-
walled beams are ideally suited to withstand variable bending
moments, provided that the cross-section variation matches the
moment diagram as closely as possible. In fact, using tapered
beams may lead to a non-negligible material economy, which
accounts for their increasing popularity in the construction
industry, namely in steel buildings 共e.g., industrial buildings兲.
However, the advantages of beam tapering can only be fully
exploited if accurate and easy-to-use design methodologies/tools
are available. At present, many design codes deal exclusively with
prismatic beams.
The structural behavior and strength of the vast majority of
laterally unrestrained beams 共either prismatic or tapered兲 is gov-
erned by lateral–torsional buckling 共LTB兲, a complex out-of-plane
instability phenomenon involving minor axis flexure, torsion, and
warping. For prismatic beams, the application of virtually all the
available design rules and recommendations related to LTB re-
quires the evaluation of the beam elastic critical moment M cr.
Given the obvious convenience of extending this approach to ta-
1
Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil Engineering, FCT, Univ. of
Coimbra, Coimbra 3030–290, Portugal.
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, IST, Technical Univ.
of Lisbon, Lisboa 1049-001, Portugal.
Note. Associate Editor: Hayder A. Rasheed. Discussion open until
November 1, 2005. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual
papers. To extend the closing date by one month, a written request must
be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper
was submitted for review and possible publication on May 25, 2003;
approved on March 26, 2004. This paper is part of the Journal of Engi-
neering Mechanics, Vol. 131, No. 6, June 1, 2005. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-
9399/2005/6-586–597/$25.00.
cient 共theoretically sound and accurate兲 methods to calculate the
corresponding M cr values. However, this constitutes a rather dif-
ficult task, because, unlike flexural buckling, LTB is qualitatively
different for prismatic and tapered beams, a fact that precludes
using prismatic finite elements. In addition, this qualitative differ-
ence has stirred a fair amount of controversy among the structural
stability research community, mostly regarding kinematical as-
pects 共e.g., Rajasekaran 1994a; Ronagh et al. 2000a; and Boisson-
nade and Muzeau 2001兲.
The elastic lateral–torsional buckling of narrow depth-tapered
rectangular beams has been studied by several authors, including
Federhofer 共results summarized by Timoshenko and Gere 1961兲,
Martin 共1951兲, Boley and Zimnoch 共1952兲, Gatewood 共1955兲, Lee
共1959兲, Massey and McGuire 共1971兲, and much more recently,
Baker 共1993兲, who also considered web-tapered T-beams. Since
narrow rectangular or T-section members twist without primary
warping, their buckling analysis is considerably simpler 共the
above authors invariably neglect the secondary warping exhibited
by these sections兲.
Culver and Preg 共1968兲 investigated the linear stability behav-
ior of doubly symmetric I-beams with linear homothetic tapering
and acted by unequal end moments. They used Bernoulli–Euler’s
bending theory and Lee’s nonuniform torsion equation 共Lee 1956兲
to establish adjacent equilibrium equations and presented some
numerical results, obtained by means of a finite difference ap-
proach. Kitipornchai and Trahair 共1972兲 addressed the same prob-
lem but they 共1兲 considered more general tapering and load con-
ditions, and 共2兲 used the differential flexure of the two flanges to
derive the equilibrium equations 共a specific procedure, applicable
only to I-beams兲. A few years later, the validity of these equations
was extended to singly symmetric I-beams 共Kitipornchai and Tra-
hair 1975兲. These authors also reported numerical results, ob-
tained by means of the finite integral method and which were

586 / JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / JUNE 2005

shown to correlate rather well with experimental values. More
recently, Braham 共1997兲 and Valicourt 共2000兲 employed Galer-
kin’s method to solve the above equilibrium equations and studied
the LTB of I-beams 共1兲 with uniform flanges and linearly tapered
webs, and 共2兲 acted by end moments. On the other hand, finite
element 共FE兲 formulations to perform linear stability analyses in
tapered I-beams were developed by 共1兲 Yang and Yau 共1987兲, for
doubly symmetric beams, 共2兲 Bradford 共1988b兲 and Bradford and
Cuk 共1988兲, for beams displaying equal or unequal flanges with
uniform or variable width and webs with constant or linearly
tapered height, and 共3兲 Boissonnade and Muzeau 共2001兲 and
Boissonnade and Braham 共2002兲, for doubly and singly symmet-
ric web-tapered beams. The effect of elastically restraining ta-
pered I-beams was addressed by Bradford 共1988a兲. It is worth
mentioning that each of the above investigations adopts some
kind of simplifying assumptions, which are often neither explic-
itly stated nor adequately justified.
Aside from an early attempt by Djalaly 共1974兲, Wekezer
共1985兲 appears to have been the first researcher to study the LTB
of thin-walled tapered beams with arbitrary cross section and
loading. He used a finite element formulation, in which 共1兲 the
walls are treated as membranes, and 共2兲 both the in-plane cross-
section deformations and the mid-surface shear strains are ne-
glected. However, this formulation is not fully consistent, mostly
because the locus of shear centers is not properly handled 共recall
that, in general, the location of the shear center varies along the
beam longitudinal axis兲. About a decade later, Rajasekaran
共1994a兲 also derived nonlinear equilibrium equations valid for
tapered beams with arbitrary cross-sections, which were then
solved by the FE method 共Rajasekaran 1994b兲. However, his deri-
vation of the nonlinear strain–displacement relations is inconsis-
tent, since it omits terms having the same order of magnitude as
others which are retained.
Pasquino and Marotti-de-Sciarra 共1992兲 proposed a variational
formulation to analyze the LTB of thin-walled tapered beams with
arbitrary cross-section and loading, which assumes the first order
term of the mid-surface shear strains to be negligible. However,
their paper does not include any numerical results. Finally, Ron-
agh et al. 共2000a兲 developed a general theory that can be used to
obtain the expressions of the first and second variations of the
total potential energy of thin-walled tapered beams, again with
arbitrary cross-section and loading. However, in spite of the gen-
erality of their theory, the authors only specified it to doubly
symmetric beams. In a companion paper 共Ronagh et al. 2000b兲,
these expressions are applied to the formulation of a 共doubly sym-
metric兲 tapered beam finite element, which is then used to study
the LTB of web and flange-tapered simply supported beams and
cantilevers acted by point loads.
For the sake of completeness, this brief literature review on the
LTB of tapered beams must also include a reference to a few
investigations that used either 共1兲 the prismatic beam strain–
displacement relationships to analyze tapered beams or 共2兲 a dis-
cretization with prismatic beam finite elements 共e.g., Bazant and
El Nimeiri 1973; Nethercot 1973; Horne et al. 1979; Brown 1981;
Shiomi and Kurata 1984; Galéa 1986; Chan 1990; Braham and
Hanikenne 1993; Gupta et al. 1996; and Kim and Kim 2000兲. As
mentioned earlier, these procedures are, in general, conceptually
incorrect, because they fail to capture relevant and unique behav-
ioral aspects stemming from the cross-section variation. However,
one should note that in some 共exceptional兲 situations, which are
addressed further ahead in the paper, such procedures are appro-
priate and lead to accurate results.
The objective of this paper is to present the derivation, validate
JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / JUNE 2005 / 587
Fig. 1. Undeformed tapered thin-walled beam and fixed Cartesian
reference system
and illustrate the application of a general variational formulation
to analyze the LTB of singly symmetric thin-walled tapered
beams—it is assumed that the beam plane of symmetry contains
all the cross-section 共centroidal兲 minor axes. This formulation
extends the geometrically linear theory developed by Wilde
共1968兲 and includes the following distinctive features: 共1兲 a rig-
orous description of the beam geometry and kinematics, avoiding
any reference to centroidal or shear centre lines 共which, in gen-
eral, cannot be defined a priori in an unambiguous way—Antman
1972兲, and 共2兲 consistently uses shell membrane theory in general
coordinates. The paper 共1兲 begins by addressing the undeformed
beam geometry, 共2兲 extends the kinematical assumptions tradi-
tionally adopted to study the LTB of prismatic beams 共Vlassov
1961兲, 共3兲 includes all relevant steps involved in the derivation of
the beam total potential energy, valid for an arbitrary 共conserva-
tive兲 loading, and 共4兲 employs Trefftz’s criterion to perform the
linear stability analysis.
In order to assess the validity and illustrate the application and
capabilities of the proposed variational formulation, several nu-
merical results are presented, discussed, and whenever possible,
compared with values reported in the literature. These results 共1兲
are obtained by means of the Rayleigh–Ritz method, using trigo-
nometric function sequences to approximate the beam critical
buckling mode, and 共2兲 concern the critical moments of doubly
and singly symmetric web-tapered I-section simply supported
beams and cantilevers. In particular, it is shown that it is concep-
tually incorrect to model a tapered beam as an assembly of pris-
matic beam 共finite兲 elements. Moreover, such a procedure may
lead to rather inaccurate results, i.e., significant under or overes-
timations of M cr.
Geometrical Description of Undeformed Beam
Denoting by B the region of the three-dimensional Euclidean
space occupied by the undeformed configuration of a thin-walled
beam, it is here assumed that B can be generated by the rigid-
body translation, along a straight line segment, of a plane figure,
which 共1兲 remains perpendicular to the above segment throughout
the whole motion, and 共2兲 has shape and dimensions that are
allowed to vary smoothly. This generating figure is 共1兲 simply
connected, 共2兲 symmetric w.r.t. its minor centroidal axis, and
共3兲 can be viewed as the “thickening” of a “primary line,” which
can exhibit branches and sharp corners. These considerations are
illustrated in Fig. 1, for the case of a tapered I-section beam with
unequal flanges, and it should be pointed out that they automati-
cally exclude closed or stepped thin-walled beams.
A fixed rectangular right-handed Cartesian reference system
x , y , z is introduced, as shown also in Fig. 1, so that 共1兲 the x axis
is parallel to the line segment used to generate B, and 共2兲 y = 0
defines the minor axis plane of symmetry of B. One still considers
an additional reference axis, designated as “polar axis”, which is
parallel to x and defined by y = 0 and z = z0. Finally, it is worth
mentioning that, when dealing with prismatic beams, the expres-
sions yielded by the present formulation become much simpler if
the x and polar axes are taken as the undeformed beam centroid
and shear center lines. This explains why it is important to allow
for the possibility of the polar and x axes being distinct.
The undeformed beam 共1兲 has a mid-surface denoted by S, 共2兲
its cross sections and associated mid-lines 共L共x兲兲 are defined as
the intersection of B and S with planes normal to the x axis, and Fig. 2. Beam mid-surface S, tangent plane at M, and base vectors:
共3兲 the end sections lie in the planes x = 0 and x = l, where l is 共a兲 a1, a2 and 共b兲 AI, AII
deemed much larger than the cross-section dimensions 共thickness
and mid-line length兲. At this stage, it is convenient to mention
that, unless otherwise stated, 共1兲 a Roman index takes values from
兵1, 2, 3其, 共2兲 a Greek index is equal to either 1 or 2, and 共3兲 the a11 = a1 · a1 = 1 + ␰2 + ␩2
summation convention is adopted for repeated indices.
A system of curvilinear 共Gaussian兲 coordinates ␪␣ is assigned
a12 = a21 = a1 · a2 = ␩ 共4兲
to S, which is defined as follows: 共1兲 ␪1 = x 共takes values in the
interval 关0 , l兴兲 and 共2兲 ␪2 measures the arc-length along the cross-
sections mid-lines 共i.e., lines defined by ␪1 = const兲, with the curve a22 = a2 · a2 = 1
␪2 = 0 lying on the symmetry plane y = 0. Therefore, the position
vector of a point on S may be written in the form where ␩ = ȳ ,1ȳ ,2 + z̄,1z̄,2 and a = det共a␣␤兲 = 1 + ␰2 艌 1. The contravari-
ant components of the metric tensor and the contravariant base
r̄共␪1,␪2兲 = ␪1e1 + ȳ共␪1,␪2兲e2 + z̄共␪1,␪2兲e3 共1兲 vectors on S are now readily determined by means of 共Sokolni-
where ei = Cartesian base vectors and the bar identifies koff 1964兲
“mid-surface quantities.” The scalar functions ȳ = ȳ共␪1 , ␪2兲 and
z̄ = z̄共␪1 , ␪2兲 are piecewise smooth on S—a “piecewise smooth a␣␭a␭␤ = a␤␭a␭␣ = ␦␣␤
function on S” is piecewise continuous and has piecewise con- 共5兲
tinuous first derivatives on S 共a “piecewise continuous function a␣ = a␣␤a␤
on S” is such that S may be divided into a finite number of
where ␦␣␤ = Kronecker’s delta.
domains, in the interior of which the function is continuous and
Since, in general, vectors a␣ are not orthogonal, it is conve-
tends to a finite limit as one approaches, “from the interior,” any
nient to associate, with every nonsingular point M of S, two or-
boundary point—Courant and Hilbert 1953兲.
thonormal vectors AI and AII, having the following properties
The covariant base vectors of S, associated with the ␪␣ coor-
共Wilde 1968兲: AII = a2 and AI · a3 = 0. From the latter condition, it
dinate system, are defined by 共Sokolnikoff 1964兲
follows that AI lies in the plane tangent to S at M and, thus, can
a1 = r̄,1 = e1 + ȳ ,1e2 + z̄,1e3 be expressed as a linear combination of a1 and a2, i.e., AI = c1a1
共2兲 + c2a2, with c1 , c2 determined from AI · AII = 0 and 储AI储 = 1 共to-
gether with c1 ⬎ 0兲. Then, one obtains
a2 = r̄,2 = ȳ ,2e2 + z̄,2e3
At a nonsingular point M of S 共i.e., a point where the normal to S 1
is uniquely defined兲, these base vectors are tangent to the ␪␣ c1 =
冑1 + ␰ 2
curves passing through M, which means that they 共1兲 span the
plane tangent to S at M, and 共2兲 are not necessarily orthogonal. 共6兲
Note also that a2 is a unit vector. ␩
c2 = −
A normal unit vector a3 can be associated with any nonsingu- 冑1 + ␰2
lar point of S, given by
Note that AI , AII are the base vectors of a new system of Gaussian
a2 ⫻ a1 1 coordinates on S, denoted by ␪I , ␪II and defined by the transfor-
a3共␪1,␪2兲 = = 共␰e1 + z̄,2e2 − ȳ ,2e3兲 共3兲
储a2 ⫻ a1储 冑1 + ␰2 mation

where ␰ = ȳ ,2z̄,1 − ȳ ,1z̄,2. A third curvilinear coordinate ␪3 is intro- ␪I = 冑1 + ␰2␪1

duced along a3, which measures the perpendicular distance from
S 共thus, one has ␪3 = 0 on S兲. This coordinate takes values in the
interval 关−t / 2 , t / 2兴, where the scalar function t = t共␪1 , ␪2兲 denotes
the undeformed beam wall thickness 共deemed much smaller than
the other cross-sectional dimensions兲 and is piecewise continuous
on S. Note that this geometrical description is inaccurate in the
vicinity of singular points of S. However, as far as the structural
behavior of thin-walled beams is concerned, this inaccuracy can
be neglected.
The covariant components of the metric tensor on S are given
by 共Sokolnikoff 1964兲
共7兲
␪II = ␩␪1 + ␪2
Figs. 2共a and b兲 show schematic representations of a portion of
the undeformed beam mid-surface S, the plane tangent to it at a
nonsingular point M and the base vectors a1 , a2 共nonorthogonal兲
and AI , AII 共orthonormal兲. Finally, note that 共1兲 the s , x coordi-
nates considered by Ronagh et al. 共2000a兲 are, precisely, the
above ␪␣ coordinates, and that 共2兲 these authors treat them as
orthonormal 共apparently, they are unaware of the orthonormality
issue兲.

588 / JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / JUNE 2005

Simplifying Assumptions
The variational formulation derived in this paper is based on a
number of simplifying assumptions, which are described next and
concern either 共1兲 the proper definition of the problem to be ad-
dressed 共e.g., beam geometrical or material properties兲 or 共2兲 the
development of a one-dimensional theory accurately describing
the LTB behavior of tapered beams.
Definition of Problem
The beams analyzed in this work 共1兲 display thin-walled open
cross-sections, 共2兲 are singly symmetric 共cross-section minor axes
lying on the beam symmetry plane兲, 共3兲 are made of homoge-
neous, elastic, and isotropic materials, and 共4兲 contain no initial
imperfections 共i.e., are “ideal”兲. The loading addressed may in-
clude any combination of conservative applied forces 共concen-
trated or distributed兲 and end moments, which 共1兲 act on the sym-
metry plane, and 共2兲 are proportional to a single load parameter ␭.
It is also assumed that the beam exhibits a linear prebuckling
state, which amounts to neglecting the effect of the prebuckling
共flexural兲 deflections in the bifurcation analysis—the interested
reader is referred to a recent paper by the authors 共Andrade and
Camotim 2004兲, in which the influence of the prebuckling deflec-
tions on the LTB of prismatic and tapered beams is assessed.
components V and W in the y and z directions, respectively.
Let M be a material point on the beam mid-surface, which is
identified in the undeformed configuration by 共1兲 the Gaussian
coordinates 共␪1 , ␪2兲 or, equivalently, 共2兲 the Cartesian coordinates
共␪1 , ȳ , z̄兲. Then, the displacement components of M along y and z
read
V̄共␪1,␪2兲 = V共␪1兲 − ȳ共␪1,␪2兲共1 − cos ⌽共␪1兲兲
− 共z̄共␪1,␪2兲 − z0兲sin ⌽共␪1兲
共8兲
W̄共␪1,␪2兲 = W共␪1兲 + ȳ共␪1,␪2兲sin ⌽共␪1兲
− 共z̄共␪1,␪2兲 − z0兲共1 − cos ⌽共␪1兲兲
The displacement component of M along the x direction,
Ū共␪1 , ␪2兲, will be determined further ahead.
Assuming M to be nonsingular, the Lagrangian membrane
strain components at this point, in the ␪␣ coordinate system, read
共Green and Zerna 1968兲
1
ē␣␤共␪1,␪2兲 = 2 共a␣ · U,␤ + a␤ · U,␣ + U,␣ · U,␤兲 共9兲
where U共␪1 , ␪2兲 = 关ŪV̄W̄兴T=displacement vector of M. After 共1兲
incorporating Eqs. 共2兲 and 共8兲 into Eq. 共9兲, and 共2兲 making A
= V,1 cos ⌽ + W,1 sin ⌽ and B = W,1 cos ⌽ − V,1 sin ⌽, one obtains

Solution of Problem
冉 1
冊
ē11 = Ū,1 1 + Ū,1 + ȳB⌽,1 − 共z̄ − z0兲A⌽,1 + ȳ ,1关A − 共z̄ − z0兲⌽,1兴
2
It is assumed that both the strains and the derivatives of the 1
longitudinal displacements U 共along x兲 are small, i.e., negligible + z̄,1共B + ȳ⌽,1兲 + 共V2,1 + W2,1 + ␳2⌽2,1兲
2
when compared with unity. Moreover, the beams are analyzed as
membranes 共which automatically implies that the normal stresses 1
perpendicular to the mid-surface are neglected兲 subjected to the ē12 = ē21 = 兵Ū,2共1 + Ū,1兲 + ȳ ,2A + z̄,2B + 关ȳ z̄,2 − 共z̄ − z0兲ȳ ,2兴⌽,1其
following kinematic constraints: 2
1. The projection of a cross-section mid-line, on a plane or- 共10兲
thogonal to the x axis, retains its shape and dimensions
throughout the whole deformation process. 1
2. The mid-surface shear strains 共referred to the orthonormal ē22 = Ū2,2
2
cordinate system ␪I , ␪II兲 are negligible.
It is worth mentioning that the above kinematic constraints are where ␳ = 关ȳ 2 + 共z̄ − z0兲2兴1/2 = distance between point M 共in the un-
just an extension of the classical Vlassov’s hypotheses 共Vlassov deformed configuration兲 and the polar axis. The transformation of
1961兲, commonly adopted in the analysis of prismatic beams. this strain tensor to the coordinate system ␪I , ␪II yields the shear
Note also that 共1兲 the first restriction precludes the occurrence of strain component
local instability phenomena, such as local-plate or distortional
1
buckling 共e.g., Hancock et al. 2001兲, and 共2兲 analyzing the beam
as a membrane amounts to completely neglecting the strain en-
ēI II = ēII I =
冑1 + ␰2 共ē12 − ␩ē22兲 共11兲

ergy due to uniform 共St. Venant兲 torsion, which must be then
added separately. This is done by means of the expression valid
for prismatic beams, but taking into account the variation of the
torsional rigidity GJ along the x axis, a procedure which is backed
by both theoretical 共Lee and Szabo 1967兲 and experimental 共Lee
1956兲 evidence.
Since it has been assumed that the derivatives of the longitudinal
displacements U are small, the terms Ū,1 and ␩Ū,2 can be ne-
glected 共in comparison with unity兲, thus leading to
1
ēI II = ēII I = 兵Ū,2 + ȳ ,2A + z̄,2B + 关ȳ z̄,2 − 共z̄ − z0兲ȳ ,2兴⌽,1其
2冑1 + ␰2

共12兲
Kinematics Because it has further been assumed that the mid-surface shear
strains are negligible 共ēI II = ēII I ⬇ 0兲, Eq. 共12兲 provides
The kinematic constraints imposed on the beam mid-surface
imply that the deformed configuration of the mid-line of any Ū,2 = − 兵ȳ ,2A + z̄,2B + 关ȳ z̄,2 − 共z̄ − z0兲ȳ ,2兴⌽,1其 共13兲
given beam cross section may be obtained by means of 共1兲 an
in-plane rigid-body motion, followed by 共2兲 displacements along and, after integration w.r.t. ␪2,
x, due to bending and warping. Moreover, the mid-line rigid-body
Ū = UL − ȳA − z̄B − ␻
¯ ⌽,1 共14兲
motion can still be decomposed into the successive application of
共1兲 a rotation about the polar axis 共⌽兲, and 共2兲 a translation with where

JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / JUNE 2005 / 589

 UL共␪1兲 = Ū共␪1,0兲 + ȳ共␪1,0兲A + z̄共␪1,0兲B Total Potential Energy
共15兲
¯ 共␪ ,␪ 兲 =
␻ 1 2
冕 C共␪1,␪2兲
关ȳ共␪ ,s兲z̄,s共␪ ,s兲 − 共z̄共␪ ,s兲 − z0兲ȳ ,s共␪ ,s兲兴ds
1 1 1 1
Strain Energy
The beam strain energy is the sum of two terms: 共1兲 one associ-
ated to the membrane strains and 共2兲 the other related to the shear
and C共␪1 , ␪2兲 = segment of L共␪1兲 comprised between the point de- strains due to uniform torsion. The first term is given by
fined by ␪2 = 0 and point M共␪1 , ␪2兲. Function UL provides the
displacements, in the x direction, of the points initially located on
the x axis, excluding the warping component. The last term on the
1
2
冕 S
n̄␣␤ē␣␤dA =
1
2
冕S
共n̄11ē11 + n̄22ē22兲dA 共18兲
right hand side 共r.h.s兲 of Eq. 共14兲 is the warping component of Ū.
As for function ␻ ¯ , its restriction to L共␪1兲 represents the sectorial where 共1兲 n̄␣␤ are the membrane forces work conjugate to the
coordinate 共1兲 defined on the 共undeformed兲 cross-section located Lagrangian strains ē␣␤, and 共2兲 the differential surface area on S
at coordinate ␪1: 共2兲 with origin at ␪2 = 0, and 共3兲 having its pole is given by 共Green and Zerna 1968兲
at the point with Cartesian coordinates 共␪1 , 0 , z0兲, corresponding
to the intersection between the polar axis and the plane that dA = 储a1 ⫻ a2储d␪1 d␪2 = 冑ad␪1 d␪2 = 冑1 + ␰2d␪1 d␪2 共19兲
contains the cross-section under consideration. Note that, at a For small strains, it is acceptable to assume that the membrane
singular point of S, ␻ ¯ and Ū are defined by the condition of strain energy density 共per unit area of S兲 is a quadratic function of
continuity of the deformed mid-surface. the Lagrangian strains, which means that one may assume a linear
It is still worth pointing out that the value of ␻¯ at a given point relation between n̄␣␤ and ē␣␤, with the same form as in the linear
of S does not depend on the particular definition adopted for the membrane theory — this corresponds to the so-called St. Venant–
Gaussian mid-line coordinate, provided that the curve ␪2 = 0 lies Kirchoff material 共e.g., Ciarlet 1988兲. Then, one may write
on the y = 0 plane, as is always required 共Andrade 2003兲. 共Green and Zerna 1968兲
Incorporating Eq. 共14兲 into Eq. 共10兲 and neglecting Ū,1 共in
comparison with unity兲, one obtains n̄11 = Et兵共a11兲2ē11 + 关共1 − ␯兲共a12兲2 + ␯a11a22兴ē22其 共20兲

ē11 = UL,1 − ȳ共A,1 − B⌽,1兲 − z̄共B,1 + A⌽,1兲 − ␻

¯ ⌽,11 n̄22 = Et兵关共1 − ␯兲共a12兲2 + ␯a11a22兴ē11 + 共a22兲2ē22其 共21兲
+
1
2 共V,1
2
+ W2,1 + ␳2⌽2,1兲 + z0A⌽,1 − ␺⌽,1 where 共1兲 E and ␯ are the material Young modulus and Poisson
ratio, 共2兲 the simplifying assumption of negligible normal stresses
␴33 is implicitly incorporated, and 共3兲 the approximation 1 − ␯2
ē12 = ē21 = 0 共16兲 ⬇ 1 was adopted 关if one does not wish to adopt this approxima-
tion, often used in the context of beam theories, it suffices to
1
ē22 = 2 兵ȳ ,2关A − 共z̄ − z0兲⌽,1兴 + z̄,2共B + ȳ⌽,1兲其2 replace E by E / 共1 − ␯2兲 in Eqs. 共20兲 and 共21兲 and subsequent
expressions兴. Then, the incorporation of Eqs. 共19兲–共21兲 into Eq.
where the function 共18兲 yields

␺共␪1,␪2兲 = ␻
¯ ,1 + ȳ ,1共z̄ − z0兲 − z̄,1ȳ 共17兲
冕冕
l
E
兵ē211 + 共1 + ␰2 + ␩2兲2ē222
is directly related to the beam tapering, i.e., the variation of its 2 0 L共␪1兲
cross-section. Indeed, ␺ is identically zero for prismatic beams, a
fact stemming directly from the annulment of all derivatives, + 2关␩2 + ␯共1 + ␰2兲兴ē11ē22其t*d␪2 d␪1 共22兲
w.r.t. ␪1 appearing in Eq. 共17兲. However, the converse is not true, where t* = t共1 + ␰2兲−3/2 共note that one has always t* 艋 t, with the
as can be readily shown by the following example 共Andrade equality holding if and only if ␰ = 0兲. The value of t* does not
2003兲: one has ␺ = 0 in a tapered I-section beam having a constant depend on the particular choice of coordinate ␪2, defined along
height 共distance measured between flange mid-lines兲 and equal or the cross-section mid-lines.
unequal flanges with varying width and/or thickness. Note that, Since the strain energy related to the shear strains due to uni-
similarly to what was said for function ␻ ¯ , the value of ␺ at a point form torsion is given by
of S does not depend on the particular definition adopted for

冕
l
coordinate ␪2. G
Concerning expression 共161兲, which provides the membrane J⌽2,1 d␪1 共23兲
2 0
strain component ē11, it should be noted that:
1. If the nonlinear terms are neglected, Eq. 共161兲 becomes the one may finally write
expression derived by Wilde 共1968兲 for the normal compo-
冕冕
l
nent ¯␧11 of the infinitesimal strain tensor. E
U= 兵ē211 + 共1 + ␰2 + ␩2兲2ē222
2. Making z0 = 0 共i.e., the polar and x axes coincide兲, Eq. 共161兲 2 0 L共␪1兲
becomes similar to the expression proposed by Ronagh et al.

冕
l
共2000a兲. G
3. The expression derived by Rajasekaran 共1994a兲 differs sig- + 2关␩2 + ␯共1 + ␰2兲兴ē11ē22其t*d␪2 d␪1 + J⌽2,1d␪1 共24兲
2 0
nificantly from Eq. 共161兲, mostly because this author, without
any reasonable explanation, neglects a few nonlinear terms It is worth mentioning that the elastic strain energy expression
having the same order of magnitude as others that are re- reported by Ronagh et al. 共2000a兲 does not include the ē22 terms
tained. Therefore, Rajasekaran’s expression is inconsistent and, rigorously speaking, is only valid for orthonormal base vec-
with regard to the degree of approximation. tors a1 , a2, i.e., if one has ␰ = 0 and ␩ = 0.

590 / JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / JUNE 2005

 n̄11f 共␪1,␪2,␭兲 = Et共1 + ␰2兲−2共UL,1
f f
− z̄W,11兲
共26兲
n̄22f 共␪1,␪2,␭兲 = Et共1 + ␰2兲−2关␩2 + ␯共1 + ␰2兲兴共UL,1
f f
− z̄W,11兲
Therefore, the evolution, along the fundamental path, of the
axial force and bending moment acting on a generic cross-section
of the beam is defined by 共note that a2 · e1 = 0兲

N f 共␪1,␭兲 = 冕 L共␪1兲
共a11兲−1/2共n̄11f a1 + n̄12f a2兲 · e1 d␪2

f
= E共A*UL,1 − S*y W,11
f
兲
共27兲

Fig. 3. Applied transverse forces and end moments M yf共␪1,␭兲 = 冕L共␪1兲

z̄共a11兲−1/2共n̄11f a1 + n̄12f a2兲 · e1 d␪2

= E共S*y UL,1
f
− I*y W,11
f
兲
where the functions
Potential Energy of Applied Loads
The beam is subjected to the generic system of applied loads and
end moments shown in Fig. 3. The transverse loads 共1兲 are either
A*共␪1兲 = 冕 L共␪1兲
t* d␪2

distributed along the beam span or concentrated at the end sec-

冕
tions 共e.g., tip loads in cantilevers兲, and 共2兲 follow the beam de-
formation, while retaining their original direction. As for the end S*y 共␪1兲 = z̄t* d␪2 共28兲
moments M y0 and M yl, they follow only the corresponding end L共␪1兲
cross-section rotations ⌽ about the polar axis, thus remaining

冕
perpendicular to the x axis, which ensures their conservative char-
acter — note that applied moments which either 共1兲 retain their I*y 共␪1兲 = z̄2t* d␪2
original direction or 共2兲 fully follow the rotation of the corre- L共␪1兲
sponding cross-sections are not conservative 共Ritto-Corrêa and
Camotim 2003兲. Then, all applied loads are conservative and their may be viewed as geometrical properties of “fictitious beam
potential energy is given by cross-sections,” having the same mid-line as the actual cross-
sections and a fictitious wall thickness t*共艋t兲, measured on the
cross-section plane and deemed concentrated at the mid-line.

冕 Since this work deals exclusively with beams 共i.e. members

l
Ve = − qz关W − 共zq − z0兲共1 − cos ⌽兲兴d␪1 − Qz0关W共0兲 − 共zQ0 − z0兲 subjected to bending moments only兲, one has N f = 0 and, therefore
0

⫻共1 − cos ⌽共0兲兲兴 − Qzl关W共l兲 − 共zQl − z0兲共1 − cos ⌽共l兲兲兴

f
UL,1 = zG* W,11
f

+ M y0共W,1共0兲cos ⌽共0兲 − V,1共0兲sin ⌽共0兲兲

M yf = E共zG* S*y − I*y 兲W,11
f
共29兲
+ M yl共W,1共l兲cos ⌽共l兲 − V,1共l兲sin ⌽共l兲兲 共25兲

zG* 共␪1兲 = S*y /A*

Linear Stability Analysis

Buckling Mode Variational Equation
The linear stability analysis of the tapered beams is performed by
Let us consider a beam deformed configuration adjacent to a fun-
means of Trefftz’s criterion 共e.g., Bazant and Cedolin 1991 or
damental equilibrium state and characterized by
Reis and Camotim 2001兲 and involves the following steps: 共1兲
characterization of the beam fundamental equilibrium path, 共2兲
UL共␪1,␭兲 = ULf共␪1,␭兲 + u共␪1兲
establishment of the buckling mode variational equation and, fi-
nally, 共3兲 use of standard calculus of variation techniques to ob-
tain the corresponding Euler–Lagrange equations and natural V共␪1,␭兲 = V f 共␪1,␭兲 + v共␪1兲 = v共␪1兲
boundary conditions. 共30兲
W共␪1,␭兲 = W f 共␪1,␭兲 + w共␪1兲
Fundamental Equilibrium Path
⌽共␪1,␭兲 = ⌽ f 共␪1,␭兲 + ␾共␪1兲 = ␾共␪1兲
In a fundamental state, corresponding to a given load parameter
value ␭, the beam is subjected solely to major axis bending and where u, v, w, and ␾ stand for displacement variations, indepen-
its deformed configuration is characterized by UL = ULf, V = V f = 0, dent from ␭. Then, according to Trefftz’s criterion, the bifurcation
W = W f , and ⌽ = ⌽ f = 0. As for the membrane forces n̄11 f and n̄22 f , points occurring along the fundamental path are identified by the
they are given by 共recall the linear prebuckling path assumption兲 stationarity condition

JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / JUNE 2005 / 591

 ␦共␦2⌸兲 = 0
for all kinematically admissible u, v, w and ␾, where ␦ ⌸ is the 2
共31兲
Iz*共␪1兲 = 冕 L共␪1兲
ȳ 2t* d␪2

second order term of the Taylor series expansion of the beam total
potential energy about a fundamental equilibrium state 共i.e., the
second variation of ⌸兲. This condition is often termed as “buck-
ling mode variational equation.”
I*␻共␪1兲 = 冕 L共␪1兲
␻
¯ 2t* d␪2

Taking into account results presented earlier, functional ␦2⌸

reads
I*␺共␪1兲 = 冕 ␺2t* d␪2

冕
L共␪1兲

␦ 2⌸ = 兵n̄11f ␦2ē11 + n̄22f ␦2ē22 + Et/2兵共a11兲2共␦ē11兲2

S

+ 共a 兲 共␦ē22兲 + 2关共1 − ␯兲共a 兲 + ␯a a 兴␦ē11␦ē22其其dA

22 2 2 12 2 11 22
*
I␻z 共␪1兲 = 冕 L共␪1兲
␻
¯ ȳt* d␪2

冕
共35兲

冕
l
+ G/2 J␾2,1d␪1 + ␦ Ve 2
共32兲
0
*
I␺z 共␪1兲 = ␺ȳt* d␪2
L共␪1兲
where the variations of the 共1兲 membrane strains and 共2兲 applied
load potential energy are given by 共note that assuming a linear
prebuckling behavior amounts to neglecting the effects of preb-
uckling deflections兲
I*␻␺共␪1兲 = 冕 L共␪1兲
␻
¯ ␺t* d␪2

␦ē11 = u,1 − ȳ v,11 − z̄w,11 − ␻

¯ ␾,11 − ␺␾,1 I*␳共␪1兲 = 冕 L共␪1兲
␳2t* d␪2

冕
␦ē22 = 0
␤*y 共␪1兲 = z̄␳2t* d␪2/I*y
L共␪1兲
␦2ē11 = − ȳw,11␾ + z̄v,11␾ + 1/2共v2,1 + w2,1 + ␳2␾2,1兲 共33兲
may, once again, be viewed as geometrical properties of fictitious
beam cross-sections 共actual mid-line and fictitious wall thickness
␦2ē22 = 1/2共␻
¯ ,2␾,1 + ȳ ,2v,1 + z̄,2w,1兲2 t*兲. Note also that the orthogonality conditions

␦ Ve = 共zq − z0兲/2
2
冕
l
qz␾ d␪ + 共zQ0 − z0兲/2Qz0␾共0兲 + 共zQl
2 1 2
冕 L共␪1兲
ȳt* d␪2 = 0

− z0兲/2Qzl␾共l兲2 − M y0v,1共0兲␾共0兲 − M ylv,1共l兲␾共l兲

At this point, given the complexity involved in carrying out a
冕 L共␪1兲
␻
¯ t* d␪2 = 0

linear stability analysis based on an expression as general as Eq.

共32兲, it is rather convenient to consider an additional simplifying
hypothesis, which consists of neglecting the contribution of the 冕 L共␪1兲
␺t* d␪2 = 0
membrane forces n̄22. It is worth noticing that this is one of the
共36兲

冕
basic assumptions of elementary beam theory 共e.g., Oliveira
1999兲 and that it seems fairly reasonable to adopt it also in the ȳ z̄t* d␪2 = 0
context of the present work. Then, ␦2⌸ becomes L共␪1兲

冕 冕
l
E
␦ 2⌸ = 共A*u2,1 − 2S*y u,1w,11 + I*y w2,11 + Iz*v2,11 + I*␻␾2,11 + I*␺␾2,1 ␻
¯ z̄t* d␪2 = 0
2 0 L共␪1兲
*
v,11␾,11 + 2I␺z
*
v,11␾,1 + 2I*␻␺␾,1␾,11兲d␪1
冕
+ 2I␻z

冕 冕 冉 冊 ␺z̄t* d␪2 = 0
l l
G 1 zG* I*␳ − ␤*y I*y
+ J␾2,1 d␪1 + M yf 2v,11␾ + ␾2,1 d␪1 L共␪1兲
2 0 2 0 zG* S*y − I*y
which are valid for singly symmetric beams 共Andrade 2003兲,
冕
l
1 1 were used to derive Eq. 共34兲.
+ 共zq − z0兲 qz␾ d␪ + 共zQ0 − z0兲Qz0␾共0兲2
2 1
2 0 2 It is particularly important to remark that Eq. 共34兲 includes
terms containing geometrical properties involving function ␺. In-
1 deed, if one recalls that ␺ is identically zero for prismatic beams,
+ 共zQl − z0兲Qzl␾共l兲2 − M y0v,1共0兲␾共0兲 − M ylv,1共l兲␾共l兲
2 this fact undoubtedly shows that, provided that ␺ ⫽ 0 共for in-
stance, this is always the case in web-tapered I-section beams兲,
共34兲
the LTB behaviors of prismatic and tapered beams are qualita-
where the functions tively different, as recently pointed out by Ronagh et al. 共2000b兲

592 / JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / JUNE 2005

and Boissonnade and Muzeau 共2001兲. This automatically implies
that either 共1兲 modeling a tapered beam through a sequence of
prismatic segments 共as done by Nethercot 1973兲 or 共2兲 using the
strain–displacement relations valid for prismatic beams only 共i.e.,
not including function ␺兲 to derive “tapered” beam finite elements
or any other numerical scheme 共e.g., Brown 1981; Galéa 1986;
and Chan 1990兲 constitute conceptually incorrect procedures. In-
deed, they fail to capture the above differences, regardless of the
number of segments or FEs adopted, a shortcoming that may lead
to a significant under/overestimation of the critical moment of a
tapered beam. This statement will be demonstrated further ahead,
in the section devoted to the presentation and discussion of nu-
merical results concerning the LTB of web-tapered simply sup-
ported beams and cantilevers.
Euler–Lagrange Equations and Boundary Conditions
The stationarity condition 共31兲 is the variational 共weak兲 formula-
tion of a continuum linear eigenvalue problem 共the bifurcation
load parameters and buckling modes are the eigenvalues and
eigenfunctions兲. Applying standard calculus of variations tech-
niques 共e.g., Courant and Hilbert 1953 or Reis and Camotim
2001兲, one is led to the strong formulation of this problem: find ␭
values and functions u, v, w, and ␾ 共not all of them identically
zero兲 satisfying the differential equations 共in 兴0 , l关兲
E共A*u,1 − S*y w,11兲,1 = 0 共37兲
E共Iz*v,11 + I␻z
*
␾,11 + I␺z
*
␾,1兲,11 + 共M yf␾兲,11 = 0 共38兲
E共− S*y u,1 + I*y w,11兲,11 = 0 共39兲
M yfv,11 + qz共zq − z0兲␾ − E共I*␺␾,1 + I␺z
*
v,11 + I*␻␺␾,11兲,1 − G共J␾,1兲,1
zG* I*␳ − ␤*y I*y
E共I*␺␾,1 + I␺z
*
v,11 + I*␻␺␾,11兲 + GJ␾,1 + M yl ␾,1 − M ylv,1
zG* S*y − I*y
− E共I*␻␾,11 + I␻z
*
v,11 + I*␻␺␾,1兲,1 + 共zQl − z0兲Qzl␾ = 0 ∨
␦␾ = 0 at ␪1 = l 共46兲
E共I*␻␾,11 + I␻z
*
v,11 + I*␻␺␾,1兲 = 0 ∨ ␦␾,1 = 0 at ␪1 = 0 and ␪1 = l
共47兲
It is worth pointing out that the load parameter ␭ may appear in
some 共natural兲 boundary conditions, thus leading to a “Steklov-
type eigenvalue problem” 共Babuska and Osborn 1991兲. Notice
also that the equations governing the lateral–torsional buckling
behavior of prismatic thin-walled beams are recovered if the x
and polar axes are taken as the undeformed centroid and shear
center lines 共e.g., Trahair 1993兲.
Simply Supported Beams and Cantilevers
In this section, the variational formulation just presented is speci-
fied and numerically implemented for 共1兲 simply supported beams
subjected to transverse loads and/or end moments, and 共2兲 canti-
levers acted by transverse loads. In both cases, the end conditions
concerning in and out-of-plane bending are identical and the lon-
gitudinal displacement 共along the x axis兲 is prevented at only one
end section, taken here to be the one defined by x = 0. In addition,
共1兲 the simply supported beam end sections are fully restrained
against torsion and may warp freely, and 共2兲 the cantilever fixed
end section is fully restrained against torsion and its warping is
either fully restrained or free.
Initially, a few analytical results are derived and used to ex-
press ␦2⌸ in terms of a single unknown function, the torsional

冉 冊
rotation ␾. Since the derivations and results are very similar for
zG* I*␳ − ␤*y I*y both the simply supported beams and cantilevers, only the former
− M yf ␾,1 + E共I*␻␾,11 + I␻z
*
v,11 + I*␻␺␾,1兲,11 = 0
zG* S*y − I*y ,1 case is dealt with here 共for more details, the interested reader is
共40兲 referred to Andrade 2003兲. Then, aspects related to the implemen-
tation of a numerical procedure to perform the linear stability
which are the Euler–Lagrange equations of functional ␦ ⌸, and 2
analyses are briefly addressed. This procedure uses the modified
the boundary conditions ␦2⌸ expression and employs the Rayleigh–Ritz method.
Since the longitudinal displacement is prevented at end section
E共A*u,1 − S*y w,11兲 = 0 ∨ ␦u = 0 at ␪1 = 0 and ␪1 = l 共41兲 ␪1 = 0, Eq. 共37兲 and the natural boundary condition Eq. 共41兲 at
␪1 = l lead to
E共Iz*v,11 + I␻z
*
␾,11 + I␺z
*
␾,1兲,1 + 共M yf␾兲,1 = 0 ∨ ␦v = 0 A*u,1 − S*y w,11 = 0
at ␪ = 0 and ␪ = l
1 1
共42兲 共48兲
0 艋 ␪1 艋 l
E共Iz*v,11 + I␻z
*
␾,11 + I␺z
*
␾,1兲 = 0 ∨ ␦v,1 = 0 at ␪1 = 0 and ␪1 = l In addition, using Eq. 共39兲, together with the natural boundary
共43兲 conditions Eq. 共45兲 at both ends, yields
I*y w,11 − S*y u,1 = 0
E共S*y u,1 − I*y w,11兲,1 = 0 ∨ ␦w = 0 at ␪1 = 0 and ␪1 = l 共44兲 共49兲
0 艋 ␪1 艋 l
E共− S*y u,1 + I*y w,11兲 = 0 ∨ ␦w,1 = 0 at ␪1 = 0 and ␪1 = l 共45兲 and, from Eqs. 共48兲 and 共49兲, one can immediately conclude that

冕
l
E
zG* I*␳ − ␤*y I*y 共A*u2,1 − 2S*y u,1w,11 + I*y w2,11兲d␪1 = 0 共50兲
E共I*␺␾,1 + I␺z
*
v,11 + I*␻␺␾,11兲 + GJ␾,1 − M y0 ␾,1 + M y0v,1 2 0
zG* S*y − I*y
which means that u and w can be ignored in ␦2⌸. Then, 共1兲
− E共I*␻␾,11 + I␻z
*
v,11 + I*␻␺␾,1兲,1 − 共zQ0 − z0兲Qz0␾ = 0 ∨ integrating twice Eq. 共38兲, 共2兲 using natural boundary conditions
Eq. 共43兲 at both ends, and 共3兲 recalling that the essential boundary
␦␾ = 0 at ␪1 = l conditions read ␾共0兲 = ␾共l兲 = 0, one gets

JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / JUNE 2005 / 593

 1
v,11 = − 共M yf␾ + EI␻z
*
␾,11 + EI␺z
*
␾,1兲 共51兲
EIz*
Finally, by incorporating Eqs. 共50兲 and 共51兲 and ␾共0兲 = ␾共l兲 = 0
into Eq. 共34兲, one obtains the modified ␦2⌸ expression 共␾ is the
only unknown function兲

冕 冋冉 冊 冉 冊
l
1 共EIwz
* 2
兲 共EIwz
* 2
兲
␦ 2⌸ = EI*␻ − ␾2,11 + EI*␺ − ␾2,1
2 0 EIz* EIz*

冉
+ 2 EI*␻␺ −
*
EI␻z *
EI␺z
EIz*
冊 册
␾,1␾,11 + GJ␾2,1 d␪2

冕 冉
l
1 zG* I*␳ − ␤*y I*y *
EI␻z
+ M yf ␾2,1 − 2 ␾␾,11
2 0 zG* S*y − I*y EIz*

−2
*
EI␺z
EIz * ␾␾,1 −
M yf
EIz
2 1
1
2
冊
* ␾ d␪ + 共zq − z0兲 冕 0
l
qz␾2 d␪1
Fig. 4. Simply supported beams and cantilevers: geometry, loading,
共52兲 material constants

Numerical Implementation
Validation and Illustrative Examples
In order to determine the critical load parameter ␭cr of a given
beam 共i.e., the lowest positive bifurcation load parameter兲, the In order to validate and illustrate the application and capabilities
well-known Rayleigh–Ritz method is employed 共e.g., Mikhlin of the proposed general variational formulation, specified and
1964兲. Its application requires selecting a sequence of “shape implemented for simply supported beams and cantilevers, a set of
functions” ␸n共␪1兲 , n = 1 , 2 , . . ., which must 共1兲 be admissible in numerical critical moments M cr is presented and discussed next.
the variational Eq. 共31兲 共this implies that they must satisfy all the These results concern the web-tapered I-section beams and canti-
essential boundary conditions兲, 共2兲 form a complete system levers shown in Fig. 4, which have 共1兲 uniform flanges, and 共2兲 a
共Mikhlin 1964兲, and 共3兲 be linearly independent. Then, if one 共1兲 linearly tapered web of constant thickness.
approximates the critical buckling mode by means of The simply supported beams 共1兲 exhibit two longitudinal
n
planes of symmetry 共equal flanges and symmetric tapering
slopes兲, 共2兲 have different ␣ 共tapering parameter兲 values, where ␣
␾n = 兺
k=1
a共n兲
k ␸k共␪ 兲
1
共53兲
is the ratio between the end and mid-span cross-section heights
共measured between flange mid-lines兲, and 共3兲 are acted by a mid-
共linear combination of the first n shape functions兲, and 共2兲 re- span point load applied at the web mid-height or at the top flange
places ␾ by ␾n in ␦2⌸, the stationarity condition Eq. 共31兲 defines mid-line. Since the x and polar axes are chosen to be coincident
a discrete eigenvalue problem. The lowest positive eigenvalue of and defined by the intersection of the two longitudinal symmetry
共n兲
this problem 共1兲 is denoted by ␭cr , 共2兲 provides an upper bound planes, they contain the line segment uniting the cross-section
for the beam true critical load parameter ␭cr, and 共3兲 corresponds centroids and shear centers 共in the undeformed configuration兲
共n兲 共n兲
to an eigenvector acr , leading to a buckling mode estimate ␾cr . and, thus, S*y 共and zG* 兲, I␻z
* *
, I␺z , ␤*y are identically zero.
共n兲 共n兲
Moreover, it can be shown that ␭cr and ␾cr tend to ␭cr and ␾cr as The cantilevers 共1兲 display unequal flanges, with the top one
n → + ⬁ 共e.g., Mikhlin 1964兲, which means that convergence is being always horizontal, 共2兲 have lengths varying between 3.0
always ensured. Indeed, by using a large enough number of shape and 6.0 m, 共3兲 are subjected to a tip load, applied at the top flange
functions, it is possible to obtain approximate results as accurate mid-line, and 共4兲 exhibit the following ␣ 共tapering parameter兲
as desired. values, where ␣ now stands for the ratio between the free and
For the three beam types addressed here, the following appro- fixed cross-section heights 共again measured between flange mid-
priate sequences of shape functions were considered: lines兲: ␣ = 1 共prismatic cantilever兲 and ␣ = 0.5. The x and polar
1. Simply supported beams axes are coincident and parallel to the top flange 共i.e., horizontal兲,
intersecting the free end section 共x = l兲 at mid-height. Finally, no-
␸n共␪1兲 = sin 冉 冊 n␲ 1
l
␪ , n = 1,2, . . . 共54兲
tice that the warping at the fixed end cross-section 共x = 0兲 is as-
sumed to be either fully restrained or completely free.
Two different analyses were performed for all tapered beams
2. Cantilevers with fully restrained warping at the fixed end
and cantilevers: 共1兲 one includes the influence of function ␺, ex-
共x = 0兲
actly defined in Eq. 共17兲, and 共2兲 the other imposes the condition

␸n共␪1兲 = 1 − cos 冋 共2n − 1兲␲ 1

2l
␪ , 册 n = 1,2, . . . 共55兲
␺ = 0, which amounts to incorporating, into ␦2⌸, the ē11 expres-
sion valid for prismatic beams only. In the latter case, the M cr
values obtained are precisely the same that would be yielded by
3. Cantilevers with free warping at the fixed end 共x = 0兲 prismatic beam FE analyses 共adopting a fine enough mesh兲. It is

冉 冊
still worth pointing out that, in the case of the simply supported
n␲ 1 beams, only half a beam was analyzed, due to the following sym-
␸n共␪1兲 = sin ␪ , n = 1,2, . . . 共56兲
2l metries w.r.t. x = l / 2: 共1兲 undeformed beam configuration, 共2兲

594 / JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / JUNE 2005

 Fig. 5. Simply supported beams: variation of Qcr with ␣
loading, and 共3兲 critical buckling mode. Moreover, this last sym-
metry implies that only the odd-number shape function terms
need to be considered in the sequence Eq. 共54兲.
Simply Supported Beams Acted by Mid-Span Point
Loads
The curves presented in Fig. 5 show the variation of
Qcr = 4M cr / l with the tapering parameter ␣, for the simply sup-
ported I-section beams described earlier 共see Fig. 4兲. After ob-
serving these curves and comparing them with results reported in
the literature, one concludes that:
1. When function ␺ is included in the analysis, both curves Qcr
versus ␣ 共11兲 are clearly nonlinear, 共12兲 virtually coincide
with the corresponding ones obtained by Yang and Yau
共1987兲 and Boissonnade and Muzeau 共2001兲 共the last authors
only analyzed beams acted by loads applied at mid-height兲,
and 共13兲 exhibit a minimum value for ␣ ⬇ 0.4, which means
that the beam with the least amount of material does not have
the minimum Qcr. One can explain this surprising last result
by looking at the variation of the stiffness values as ␣ in-
creases: while 共11兲 the average values of GJ, EI*␻ , EI*␻␺ in-
crease, 共12兲 EI*␺, constant along the x axis, decreases, and
共13兲 EIz* remains constant. As a result of the joint influence of
the above two 共conflicting兲 variations, the minimum Qcr
value occurs for an intermediate ␣ value.
2. When one imposes the condition ␺ = 0, 共21兲 the variation of
Qcr with ␣ becomes almost linear, and 共22兲 the Qcr value is
considerably overestimated 共the error goes up to about 25%,
for ␣ = 0.5 and top flange loading兲.
3. The Qcr values are significantly reduced when the load is
applied at the top flange 共zQ ⬍ 0兲, a well-known effect in
prismatic beams, due to the additional destabilizing torque
共about the shear center line兲 exerted in the adjacent configu-
ration.
Finally, it should be mentioned that, in order to achieve con-
vergence to the results displayed in Fig. 5, it was necessary to
approximate the critical buckling mode by means of a number of
shape functions that varied between 12 共␣ = 0.3 and ␺ ⫽ 0兲 and 2
共␺ = 0, either imposed or because ␣ = 1.0兲. In fact, it was found
that, when the tapering effects are fully taken into account, the
rate of convergence gradually decreases as the flange slope in-
creases. On the other hand, if one imposes ␺ = 0, the flange slope
does not affect convergence.
JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / JUNE 2005 / 595
Fig. 6. Cantilevers: variation of Qcr with l 共restrained warping at
fixed end兲
Cantilevers Acted by Tip Loads
The curves shown in Figs. 6 and 7 correspond to the variation of
Qcr = M cr / l with the length l and concern the prismatic 共␣ = 1兲 and
tapered 共␣ = 0.5兲 I-section cantilevers defined before 共Fig. 4兲, re-
spectively with restrained and free warping at the fixed end sec-
tion. The observation of these two sets of curves leads to the
following conclusions:
1. For a given length l, the tapered cantilever Qcr value always
exceeds its prismatic counterpart. This surprising result
stems from the fact that, for cantilevers loaded at the top
flange, tapering brings about two contradictory effects: 共11兲 a
material reduction, which implies a Qcr decrease, and 共12兲 a
smaller distance between the load point of application and
the torsion center, implying a Qcr increase. For all the par-
ticular cantilevers analyzed, the latter effect was found to be
predominant.
2. In the tapered cantilever analyses, neglecting the contribution
of function ␺, 共i.e., imposing ␺ = 0兲 always leads to a signifi-
cant underestimation of Qcr 共for the longer cantilevers, the
error reaches about 30%兲. Note, however, that the two curves
共␺ ⫽ 0 and ␺ = 0兲 are 共21兲 almost parallel, when the warping
is restrained at the fixed end, and 共22兲 slightly convergent 共as
l increases兲, when warping is free.
3. The Qcr increase due to restraining the fixed end section
against warping is much more meaningful for the prismatic
cantilevers than for the tapered ones. Most likely, this hap-
pens because tapering itself is responsible for a fair amount
of warping resistance, making the fixed end warping condi-
tion less relevant.
Finally, a few words about the buckling mode approximations
employed to determine the results presented in Figs. 6 and 7. The
number of shape functions required to achieve convergence was
Fig. 7. Cantilevers: variation of Qcr with l 共free warping at fixed end兲
found to vary between 9 共␣ = 0.5, ␺ ⫽ 0 and fixed end warping
restraint兲 and 5 共␣ = 1.0 or ␣ = 0.5 and ␺ = 0兲. As for the influence
of the fixed end warping condition on the buckling mode approxi-
mation required for convergence, it was observed that, if ␺ ⫽ 0,
a larger number of shape functions must generally be used when
analyzing the cantilevers restrained against warping.
Conclusions
A general variational formulation to analyze the LTB of singly
symmetric thin-walled tapered beams was presented and vali-
dated, and its application to simply supported beams and cantile-
vers was illustrated. This formulation 共1兲 extends the geometri-
cally linear theory developed by Wilde 共1968兲, and 共2兲 includes
such distinctive features as 共21兲 a thorough description of the
beam geometry and kinematics, which avoids any reference to
centroidal or shear center lines, and 共22兲 a consistent use of shell
membrane theory in general coordinates. First, the characteriza-
tion of the geometry of an undeformed tapered beam was ad-
dressed, which involved defining a number of concepts 共e.g.,
beam cross-section兲 and establishing appropriate coordinate sys-
tems. Then, several kinematical assumptions traditionally adopted
for prismatic beams were extended and used to derive an expres-
sion for the tapered beam total potential energy, which is valid for
an arbitrary conservative loading. Finally, Trefftz’s criterion was
employed to obtain the equilibrium equations for a configuration
adjacent to the fundamental path. It is worth mentioning that
it was demonstrated that the LTB behaviors of prismatic and
tapered beams are 共very often兲 qualitatively different, a feature
that automatically precludes modeling a tapered beam by means
of a sequence of prismatic segments 共finite elements兲.
Next, the above variational formulation was specified and nu-
merically implemented for 共1兲 simply supported beams subjected
to transverse loads and/or end moments, and 共2兲 cantilevers acted
by transverse loads. In particular, it was shown that the longitu-
dinal and major axis bending displacement variations can be ig-
nored and that the second variation of the beam total potential
energy 共␦2⌸兲 can be expressed in terms of a single unknown
function 共the torsional rotation ␾兲. The numerical procedure that
was implemented to determine the critical moments employed the
Rayleigh–Ritz method and, in all the problems dealt with, the
beam critical buckling mode was approximated by means of se-
quences of trigonometric functions.
Finally, in order to assess the validity and illustrate the appli-
cation and capabilities of the proposed formulation, several
numerical results were presented and discussed, and some of
them were compared with values reported by Yang and Yau
共1987兲 and Boissonnade and Muzeau 共2001兲. These results con-
cern the critical moments of 共1兲 doubly symmetric web-tapered
I-section simply supported beams acted by mid-span point loads
共applied at the top flange or mid-height兲, and 共2兲 singly symmetric
web-tapered I-section cantilevers acted by tip loads applied at the
top flange. In the latter case, warping at the fixed end section was
either fully restrained or free. The main conclusions drawn from
the analysis of the particular set of problems considered were:
1. When ␺ ⫽ 0, neglecting its contribution 共i.e., imposing ␺ = 0兲
leads to under or overestimations of M cr, which may be sig-
nificant. For instance, in the particular problems studied, the
errors reached 25% 共unsafe side兲 and 30% 共safe side兲 of M cr.
2. For a given length and load point of application, the tapered
beams/cantilevers with the least amount of material do not
necessarily exhibit the minimum M cr.
596 / JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / JUNE 2005
3. Restraining the fixed end against warping leads to a much
less meaningful M cr increase in tapered cantilevers than in
prismatic ones.
To conclude, it is worth mentioning that a state-of-the-art re-
view concerning one-dimensional analytical formulations for the
LTB behavior of tapered beams was also presented.
References
Andrade, A. 共2003兲. “Lateral-torsional buckling of prismatic and tapered
thin-walled beams.” MASc thesis, IST/TU, Lisbon, Portugal 共in Por-
tuguese兲.
Andrade, A., and Camotim, D. 共2004兲. “Lateral-torsional buckling of
prismatic and tapered thin-walled open beams: Assessing the influ-
ence of pre-buckling deflections.” Steel Composite Struct., 4共4兲, 281–
301.
Antman, S. S. 共1972兲. “The theory of rods.” Encyclopedia of physics, Vol.
VIa, C. Truesdell, ed., Springer, Berlin, 641–703.
Babuska, I., and Osborn, J. 共1991兲. “Eigenvalue problems.” Handbook of
numerical analysis, Vol. 2, P. G. Ciarlet and J. L. Lions, eds., North-
Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 641–787.
Baker, G. 共1993兲. “Lateral buckling of nonprismatic cantilevers using
weighted residuals.” J. Eng. Mech., 119共10兲, 1899–1919.
Bazant, Z. P., and Cedolin, L. 共1991兲. Stability of structures—Elastic,
inelastic, fracture and damage theories, Oxford University Press,
New York.
Bazant, Z. P., and El Nimeiri, M. 共1973兲. “Large-deflection spatial buck-
ling of thin-walled beams and frames.” J. Eng. Mech. Div., 99共6兲,
1259–1281.
Boissonnade, N., and Braham, M. 共2002兲. “Elastic lateral-torsional buck-
ling of tapered members with monosymmetric cross-sections: new
approaches and correct? solutions.” Proc., 3rd European Conf. on
Steel Structures, Coimbra, A. Lamas and L. S. Silva, eds., 311–320.
Boissonnade, N., and Muzeau, J. P. 共2001兲. “New beam finite element for
tapered members.” Proc., (CD-ROM) 8th International Conf. on Civil
and Structural Engineering Computing, Vienna, B. Topping, ed.,
Civil-Comp Press, Vienna, 73–74.
Boley, B. A., and Zimnoch, V. P. 共1952兲. “Lateral buckling of non-
uniform beams.” J. Aeronaut. Sci., 19共8兲, 567–568.
Bradford, M. A. 共1988a兲. “Lateral stability of tapered beam-columns with
elastic restraints.” Struct. Eng., 66共22兲, 376–382.
Bradford, M. A. 共1988b兲. “Stability of tapered I-beams.” J. Constr. Steel
Res., 9共3兲, 195–216.
Bradford, M. A., and Cuk, P. E. 共1988兲. “Elastic buckling of tapered
monosymmetric I-beams.” J. Struct. Eng., 114共5兲, 977–996.
Braham, M. 共1997兲. “Elastic lateral-torsional buckling of web tapered
I-beams subjected to end moments.” Proc., 18th Czech–Slovak Inter-
national Conf. on Steel Structures and Bridges, Brno, J. Melchner and
J. Skyva, eds., 37–42.
Braham, M., and Hanikenne, D. 共1993兲. “Lateral buckling of web-tapered
beams: an original design method confronted with a computer simu-
lation.” J. Constr. Steel Res., 27共1–3兲, 23–36.
Brown, T. G. 共1981兲. “Lateral-torsional buckling of tapered I-beams.” J.
Struct. Div. ASCE, 107共4兲, 689–697.
Chan, S. L. 共1990兲. “Buckling analysis of structures composed of tapered
members.” J. Struct. Eng., 116共7兲, 1893–1906.
Ciarlet, P. G. 共1988兲. Mathematical elasticity, Vol. 1, North-Holland, Am-
sterdam, The Netherlands.
Courant, R., and Hilbert, D. 共1953兲. Methods of mathematical physics,
Vol. 1, Interscience, New York.
Culver, C. G., and Preg, S. M. 共1968兲. “Elastic stability of tapered beam-
columns.” J. Struct. Div. ASCE, 94共2兲, 455–470.
Djalaly, H. 共1974兲. “La théorie du second ordre de la stabilité élastique
des barres à parois minces et profil ouvert et son application.” Ann.
Inst. Tech. Bat. Trav. Publics, 320共171兲, 130–162. 共in French兲.
Galéa, Y. 共1986兲. “Déversement des barres à section en I bissymétrique et
hauteur d’âme linéairement variable.” Revue Construction Métallique,
2, 49–54 共in French兲.
Gatewood, B. E. 共1955兲. “Buckling loads for beams of variable cross-
section under combined loads.” J. Aeronaut. Sci., 22共4兲, 281–282.
Green, A., and Zerna, W. 共1968兲. Theoretical elasticity, Oxford Univer-
sity Press, London.
Gupta, P., Wang, S. T., and Blandford, G. E. 共1996兲. “Lateral-torsional
buckling of non-prismatic I-beams.” J. Struct. Eng. 122共7兲, 748–755.
Hancock, G. J., Murray, T. M., and Ellifritt, D. S. 共2001兲. Cold-formed
steel structures to the AISI specification, Marcel Dekker, New York.
Horne, M. R., Shakir-Khalil, H., and Akhtar, S. 共1979兲. “The stability of
tapered and haunched beams.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng., Struct. Build.,
67共2兲, 677–694.
Kim, S. B., and Kim, M. Y. 共2000兲. “Improved formulation for spatial
stability and free vibration of thin-walled tapered beams and space
frames.” Eng. Struct. 22共5兲, 446–458.
Kitipornchai, S., and Trahair, N. S. 共1972兲. “Elastic stability of tapered
I-beams.” J. Struct. Div. ASCE, 98共3兲, 713–728.
Kitipornchai, S., and Trahair, N. S. 共1975兲. “Elastic behavior of tapered
monosymmetric I-beams.” J. Struct. Div. ASCE, 101共8兲, 1661–1678.
Lee, G. C., and Szabo, B. A. 共1967兲. “Torsional response of tapered
I-girders.” J. Struct. Div. ASCE, 93共5兲, 233–252.
Lee, L. H. N. 共1956兲. “Non uniform torsion of tapered I-beams.” J. Fran-
klin Inst., 262, 37–44.
Lee, L. H. N. 共1959兲. “On the lateral buckling of a tapered narrow rect-
angular beam.” J. Appl. Mech., 26, 457–458.
Martin, H. C. 共1951兲. “Elastic Instability of cantilever struts under com-
bined axial and shear loads at the free end.” J. Appl. Mech., 18共3兲,
329–329.
Massey, C., and McGuire, P. J. 共1971兲. “Lateral stability of non-uniform
cantilevers.” J. Eng. Mech. Div., 97共3兲, 673–686.
Mikhlin, S. G. 共1964兲. Variational methods in mathematical physics, Per-
gamon, Oxford, U.K.
Nethercot, D. A. 共1973兲. “Lateral buckling of tapered beams.” IABSE
Publications, 33-II, 173–192.
Oliveira, E. R. A. 共1999兲. Concepts of theory of elasticity, IST Press,
Lisbon, Portugal 共in Portuguese兲.
Pasquino, M., and Marotti-de-Sciarra, F. 共1992兲. “Buckling of thin-walled
JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / JUNE 2005 / 597
View publication stats
beams with open and generically variable section.” Comput. Struct.,
44共4兲, 843–849.
Rajasekaran, S. 共1994a兲. “Equations for tapered thin-walled beams of
generic open section.” J. Eng. Mech., 120共8兲, 1607–1629.
Rajasekaran, S. 共1994b兲. “Instability of tapered thin-walled beams of ge-
neric section.” J. Eng. Mech., 120共8兲, 1630–1640.
Reis, A., and Camotim, D. 共2001兲. Structural stability, McGraw-Hill,
Lisbon, Portugal 共in Portuguese兲.
Ritto-Corrêa, M., and Camotim, D. 共2003兲. “Work-conjugacy between
rotation-dependent moments and finite rotations.” Int. J. Solids
Struct., 40共11兲, 2851–2873.
Ronagh, H., Bradford, M., and Attard, M. 共2000a兲. “Nonlinear analysis of
thin-walled members of variable cross-section. Part I: Theory.” Com-
put. Struct., 77共3兲, 285–299.
Ronagh, H., Bradford, M., and Attard, M. 共2000b兲. “Nonlinear analysis of
thin-walled members of variable cross-section. Part II: Application.”
Comput. Struct., 77共3兲, 301–313.
Shiomi, H., and Kurata, M. 共1984兲. “Strength formula for tapered beam-
columns.” J. Struct. Eng., 110共7兲, 1630–1643.
Sokolnikoff, I. S. 共1964兲. Tensor analysis. Theory and applications to
geometry and mechanics of continua, Wiley, New York.
Timoshenko S. P. and Gere, J. M. 共1961兲. Theory of elastic stability,
McGraw–Hill, Tokyo.
Trahair, N. S. 共1993兲. Flexural-torsional buckling of structures, E&FN
Spon, London.
Valicourt, B. 共2000兲. “Lateral-torsional buckling of web-tapered I-Beams
acted by a non uniform bending moment diagram.” Graduation Rep.
No. 16, Civil & Urban Engineering Dept., INSA, Rennes, France 共in
French兲.
Vlassov, B. 共1961兲. Thin-walled elastic bars, Israel Program for Scientific
Translations, Jerusalem.
Wekezer, J. 共1985兲. “Instability of thin-walled bars.” J. Eng. Mech.,
111共7兲, 923–935.
Wilde, P. 共1968兲. “Torsion of thin-walled bars with variable cross-
section.” Arch. Mech. Stosow., 4共20兲, 431–443.
Yang, Y. B., and Yau, J. D. 共1987兲. “Stability of beams with tapered
I-sections.” J. Eng. Mech., 113共9兲, 1337–1357.