Kurt Ingerle - Non-Conservative Systems - New Static and Dynamic Stability Criteria

Non-Conservative Systems
New Static and Dynamic Stability Criteria

Non-Conservative Systems
New Static and Dynamic Stability Criteria
KURT INGERLE
Boca Raton London New York
CRC Press is an imprint of the

Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Group
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742
© 2018 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
No claim to original U.S. Government works
Printed on acid-free paper

Version Date: 20171214
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-138-30584-7 (Hardback)
This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable
efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot
assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and
publishers have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material reproduced in this publication
and apologize to copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not been obtained. If any
copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may rectify in any
future reprint.
Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced,
transmitted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or
hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers.
For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access
www.copyright.com (http://www.copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
(CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization
that provides licenses and registration for a variety of users. For organizations that have been granted
a photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged.
Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and
are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at
http://www.taylorandfrancis.com
and the CRC Press Web site at
http://www.crcpress.com
Prof. Dr.techn. Kurt Ingerle studied civil engineering at the
Vienna University (TU Wien). 1971-2000 Head of the Institute
of Environmental Engineering, University of Innsbruck. Numerous
technical patents: biocos waste water teatment system, large vertical
filter wells, etc.
v
Contents
Acknowledgements xi
History xiii
Introduction xix
1 Static stability of massless non-conservative systems 1

1.1 “Extra Energy Stability” criterion (Eex,min < 0, lin-
ear analysis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Non-conservative systems without non-trivial states of
equilibrium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.1 Ziegler’s column, “extra energy method” (Eex =
0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.2 Ziegler’s column (Eex,min = 0) . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.3 Ziegler’s column, “energy method” (Ep = Es ) 7
1.2.4 Approximate analysis of a non-conservative sys-
tem and calculation of a conservative system . 8
1.2.5 The tangentially loaded triple-hinged column . 10
1.2.6 Massless Beck’s column . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.2.7 Uniformly distributed tangential loaded
columns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.3 Non-conservative systems with non-trivial states of
equilibrium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.3.1 The tangentially loaded double-hinged column
supported by a spring at the tip . . . . . . . . 18
1.3.2 Ziegler’s column resting on an elastic foundation 19
1.3.3 The sub- and hyper-tangentially loaded double-
hinged column . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1.4 Non-conservative columns with constant stiffness . . . 22
1.4.1 The multi-spring-hinged method . . . . . . . . 22
1.4.2 Table of critical loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
vii
2 Dynamic stability of non-conservative systems 27
2.1 Different moving behavior of conservative and non-
conservative systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.2 Three Domain Stability (non-linear analysis) . . . . . 31
2.3 Three Domain Stability applied on Ziegler’s column . 34
2.3.1 Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.3.2 Static domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.3.3 Vibration and flutter domain . . . . . . . . . 37
2.3.4 Sudden transition from vibration to flutter . . 39
2.3.5 Impact of mass distribution, inertia, damping
and disturbance on flutter stability . . . . . . 43
2.3.6 Comparison of the moving pattern of undamped
and damped systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.4 Three domain stability (example: Beck’s column) . . 49
2.4.1 Computational model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.4.2 Static stability of Beck’s massless system . . . 50
2.4.3 Beck’s undamped column with mass, analyzed
with linear dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.4.4 Beck’s undamped column with mass, analyzed
with non-linear dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.4.5 Influence of mass distribution on motion
pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
2.4.6 Influence of damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
2.4.7 Influence of large disturbance . . . . . . . . . 56
2.5 Three domain stability (Example: Leipholz’s column) 58
2.5.1 Computational model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
2.5.2 Static stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
2.5.3 Undamped column, pulsating moving . . . . . 59
2.5.4 Damped column . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
2.6 Important statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
3 Static and dynamic stability criteria for conservative

and non-conservative elastic stability systems 65
3.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.2 Static stability of massless conservative systems (Eu-
ler - and Energy stability) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
viii
3.3 Static stability of massless non-conservative systems
(Extra Energy Stability). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3.4 Dynamic stability of conservative systems (Lyapunov
Stability) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
3.5 Dynamic stability of non-conservative systems (Three
Domain Stability) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
4 Experiments 73
5 Computational model for the static stability of multi-

spring-hinged columns (linear analysis) 77
5.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
5.2 Energy performed by the spring hinges . . . . . . . . 78
5.3 Energy performed by tangential load . . . . . . . . . 78
5.4 Energy performed by the uniformly distributed tan-
gential load gL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
5.5 Extreme value calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
5.6 Systems with tangential load P at the tip . . . . . . 81
5.6.1 Clamped free column (Fig. 5.2) . . . . . . . . 81
5.6.2 Hinged hinged column (Fig. 5.3) . . . . . . . 82
5.7 Systems with uniformly distributed tangential load
g = gL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
5.7.1 Clamped free column (Fig. 5.4) . . . . . . . . 83
5.7.2 Clamped hinged column (Fig. 5.5) . . . . . . 83
5.7.3 Clamped clamped column (Fig. 5.6) . . . . . 83
5.7.4 Hinged hinged column (Fig. 5.7) . . . . . . . 84
6 Computational model for the post-critical

response of multi-spring-hinged columns
(non-linear analysis) 91
6.1 The multi-spring-hinged column . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
6.2 Inertia forces due to the uniformly distributed mass
of the column . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
6.3 Inertia forces due to the mass at the tip
mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
6.4 Rotational hinge springs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
6.5 Tangential load P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
ix
6.6 Uniformly distributed tangential load . . . . . . . . . 98
6.7 Damping dependent on velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Bibliography 101
Index 105
x
Acknowledgements
Prof. Dr.tech. Helmuth Pradlwarter is responsible for the

computational calculation ( static stability and post-critical response
of multi-spring-hinged columns, i.e. chapter 7 and 8). The critical
commends of H. Pradlwarter contribute to specify statements by
the author in a more precise and detailed manner. The numerical
solution of the non-linear differential equation had the function to
check the validity of statements put forward by the author. The
collaboration with the author has long history dating back to the year
1988 (see [13]), where non-conservative systems has been analyzed
in a non-linear manner for the first time. H. Pradlwarter has been
of substantial help to finalize this book. I am grateful for his help,
his critical comments and the personal friendship, which has grown
since the first cooperation.
The author thanks Prof. I.Elishakoff of Florida Atlanta University,

Professor C. Adam and Professor G. Hofstetter of the University of
Innsbruck for their useful comments on this book and Dipl-Ing. H.
Jarosch for thorough editing of the figures.
xi
History
Over eight decades ago, it was believed that non-conservative

elastic stability systems do not have static stability limits
and can only be treated dynamically. More than 200 pub-
lications are based on this incorrect assumption. Initially, mainly
linear dynamic methods were used, and later on, non-linear analy-
sis took over. Nonetheless, meanwhile attempts were made to an-
alyze the smallest critical loads of the stability of massless non-
conservative systems by means of static methods.
The reason for this incorrect claim is the lack of generally appli-
cable static stability criteria valid for both conservative and non-
conservative systems. The presently used ’Euler criterion’ [1] and
the energy criterion are only applicable for cases where non triv-
ial equilibrium states exist. Since non-trivial equilibrium states for
many non-conservative loads do not exist, it was mistakenly con-
cluded that static stability limits do also not exist.
A further obstacle is encountered in structural dynamics. To assess

the stability in dynamics, the presently employed Lyapunov criteria
[2] are ill suited to describe the stability limits of systems with non-
conservative loads. A better suitable criteria will be introduced (see
section 1.1).
The work of Elishakoff [3] perfectly suits the description of the his-
tory of the stability and post-critical behavior of non-conservative
elastic systems. He compares 202 studies and shows that many
statements are not consistent. Some of the most relevant references,
closely related to the present work, are listed below according to the
year of publication:
xiii
1750: L. Euler develops the Euler stability criterion, which is in use
until now, only for systems with non trivial equilibrium states.
1892: A. Lyapunov develops the Lyapunov stability criteria for mov-

ing (dynamic) systems.
1939: Nikolai E.V.[4] emphasizes the necessity of dynamic analysis

to determine of the stability of non-conservative systems.
1950: Pflüger A. [5]: “The tangential loaded massless column has no

static stability and never becomes unstable”. This statement
implies that the system remains at rest also for an infinite large
load.
1952: Ziegler H. [6] denies the possibility to analyze the stability of

massless non-conservative systems with static criteria.
1952: Beck M. [7] finds a dynamic solution for the tangentially

loaded column with uniform mass - referred as Beck’s column.
These linear dynamic analyses had a stimulating effect over
decades and can be considered as classical. He and all scientists
deny the existence of static stability for this system.
1961: Bolotin V. [8]. “Static criteria are not applicable to massless

non-conservative systems”.
1962: Leipholz H.H. [9] analyzes the uniformly distributed tangen-

tially loaded column by means of linear dynamics - this system
is called Leipholz column. “Static stability calculations for
non-conservative systems are not possible”.
1969: Ingerle K. [10] indicates that the stability of massless non-

conservative columns can be analyzed statically: A critical
load of Beck’s column is to pc = 20.19.
xiv
1972: Smith T.E. and Herrmann G. [11] analyze dynamically the
stability of non-conservative columns resting on uniform elastic
foundations.
1977: El Naschie M.S. [12] treats the buckling load of Beck’s col-
umn based on static considerations (pc = 20.19) and writes
“the buckling load is identical with that obtained on grounds of
purely static considerations by Ingerle and the present author”.
He writes further in Reply by Author to J.Mayers (Technical
comments, May 1978): “I doubt that it was ever recog-
nized by anyone except Ingerle”.
1988: Ingerle K., Pradlwarter H. [13] show the moving behavior of

Ziegler’s column with a concentrated mass on the tip utilizing
numerical solutions of the non-linear equation of motion.
1991: Kounadis A.N. [14] states that a linearized dynamic stability

analysis fails to predict global stability of non-conservative sys-
tems. This paper is an excellent representative of non-linear
analysis, and incorrect results of linear calculations are shown.
1996: Koiter W.T. [15] warns the engineering community to con-

sider “follower forces” (non-conservative systems). He initiates
an intense controversy between the scientists.
1997: Sugiyama et al [16] replay to Koiter and they emphasize that

follower forces are indeed realistic: “These forces are undoubt-
edly playing an important role in some engineering fields.”
2006: Ingerle K. [17] presents a static approach with the force

distribution method.
2013: Ingerle K. [18] presents with the “Extra Energy Stability”

criterion the static calculation for massless non-conservative
systems. The results of this study challenge the currently still
xv
predominant opinion that the stability of non-conservative elas-
tic systems can only be calculated dynamically.
Until today, there has been uncertainty about the stability analy-
sis of non-conservative elastic systems. Since in 1939 Nikolai has
eliminated the possibility of using static stability criteria for non-
conservative elastic systems, only dynamic methods have been
employed to determine the stability limits. A breakthrough for sta-
bility analysis of non-conservative systems has been the study of
Beck 1952, where for the first time a finite stability load has been
determined based on linear dynamic analysis, the so-called Beck’s
load (see Fig.1b). As a result, Beck became an authority in the field
of non-conservative elastic systems. At this time, he was unaware
that his stability limit p = 20.05 is far away from the exact crit-
ical load p = π 2 (see section 1.2.6). Based on Beck’s work, in a
series of publications non-conservative systems were analyzed using
linear dynamics, leading to many contradictory conclusions. How-
ever, experimental results could not verify Beck’s stability limit. Af-
ter suitable computer hardware in the 90’s of the last century was
launched , non-linear dynamic analysis became feasible. Already
1988 K. Ingerle and H. Pradlwarter show the post-critical response
of Ziegler’s column based on the numerical solution of the non-linear
equation of motion. Kounadis 1992 could explain many discrepan-
cies of outcomes in linear dynamics analyses by using more accurate
non-linear dynamic. Because of the mentioned contradictions Koiter
warned 1996 authors and journal editors alike: “beware of unrealistic
follower forces”, and proposed “the elimination of follower forces as
external loads from the physical and engineering literature on elas-
tic stability”. This caused worldwide indignation because follower
forces are indeed realistic and scientists do not accept censorship.
This controversy motivated I. Elishakoff in 2005 to summarize and
compare the published works (202 references) on non-conservative
systems without providing final answers. Hence, till now some open
questions on non-conservative systems are not clarified.
xvi
Some attempts have been made to verify experimentally the stability
limit pBeck = 20.05 - derived by Beck [7] for Beck’s column (flexi-
ble rod with clamped-free boundary conditions). The value pBeck
could not be validated, since the value 20.05 is approximately twice
the correct value π 2 . Unfortunately, these failing experiments intro-
duced further uncertainties regarding non-conservative systems and
even supported the beliefs that non-conservative systems are not ac-
cessible to experiments.
Since 1900 the notion that non-conservative elastic system do not

have static stability limits predominates. However, there has
been continual efforts to find a static stability for these systems.
Ingerle 1969 showed for the first time that such systems have in-
deed static stability limits. Ten years later Naschie confirmed these
results. However, uncertainty about static stability of those systems
still remained. The presentation of a novel static stability criterion
in 2013 by Ingerle, the existence of static stability of such system is
now by most scientists accepted.
The existence of static stability limits triggers naturally the question

of what happens, if the static stability limits are surpassed. These
questions will be answered also in this book.
xvii
Introduction
In this book it will be shown that the static stability of non-conservative

massless systems can be analyzed by a new static stability cri-
terion, referred as Extra Energy Stability [18]. Furthermore,
a new dynamic stability criterion, referred as Three Domain
Stability is developed to describe the post-critical behavior of these
systems. Basic assumptions will be discussed upfront.
The static refers to massless and not to physical systems - thought

models. Thought models allow conclusions on the physical system.
Conservative systems have non-trivial equilibrium states. To de-
termine the static equilibrium states, inertia due to mass can be ig-
nored. Non-conservative stability systems without non-trivial
equilibrium states can not be determined in such a way. A new ap-
proach is proposed based on disturbing forces (extra forces) , which
allow to consider new static non-trivial equilibrium states. The work
performed by the disturbing forces is further used to determine the
static stability.
A system is non-conservative, if one of the applied forces is not con-

servative [3]. In contrast to conservative forces the energy of non-
conservative forces - follower forces - depends on the path
of the force.
The important properties of stability and the post-critical behav-

ior of non-conservative systems will be discussed on three different
examples:
1. Ziegler’s column (Fig.1a) is the most simple basic system
xix
and therefore especially suited for the representation of basic
properties of non-conservative elastic systems.
2. Beck’s column (Fig.1b) is well recognized, because it was the

first non-conservative system with mass whose finite stability
load has been analyzed by means of linear dynamics.
3. Leipolz’s column (Fig.1c) is subjected to uniformly distributed

forces, which at any time are directed tangentially to the axis
of the column. This forces are affected by the deformation of
the column and are therefore called “follower forces”.
Figure 1: a) Ziegler’s column, b) Beck’s column, c) Leipholz column.
Static methods consider the equilibrium of massless systems. Dy-

namic methods analyze the motion of systems with mass.
xx
The present book intends to summarize the essential properties of
non-conservative elastic systems (static stability and post-critical be-
havior) and the importance of novel stability criteria.
For non-conservative elastic systems, it is proposed to distinguish be-

tween the “fundamental” system and the “physical” system. For
illustration, Beck’s column is used to explain the difference:
• The fundamental system disregards forces caused by any

motion. The system is uniquely specified as static system
where inertia forces, damping and large disturbances are ab-
sent. In the case of Beck’s column, only the tangential force P
is effective.
• The physical system is additionally controlled by forces caused

by any motion (inertia and damping forces). For one funda-
mental system an infinite number of different physical systems
may exist.
For example, the massless tangential loaded clamped-free system

with constant bending stiffness EI (Fig.1b) is referred to as Beck’s
column. The assigned parameters mass, damping and disturbance
(E= modulus of elasticity, I= moment of inertia, P = axial load)
must be specified additionally.
For the static stability the fundamental system and for the dynamic
stability the physical system will be used. For describing the stability
and post-critical behavior dimensionless load parameters
• p = P l/c, p = P L2 /EI and ḡ = gL3 /EI
are used in this book. The following load parameters are
xxi
meaningful:
• pst = static stability limit for systems with non-trivial states

of equilibrium,
• pc = critical stability load of massless systems (many may ex-

ist),
• pcs = smallest critical stability loads of massless systems,
• pvibration = start of motion with small amplitudes
• pf lutter = start of motion with large amplitudes.
Instead of columns with a constant bending stiffness EI, a

multi-spring-hinged column (n hinges) is used to study the
dynamic behavior by integrating the exact non-linear equation of
motion. With this system it is possible to visualize the motion pat-
tern and the path of the system’s tip.
Uncertainty about non-conservative systems exists till now. There-

fore, it will be shown with simple examples the fundamental behavior
of these systems.
Readers interested in non-conservative systems are referred to the ex-

tensive compilation of publications (over 200) by Elishakoff, which
provides the present state-of-the-art [3]. Hence, the provided refer-
ences are limited to the ones closely related to the content of the
present book.
Till today only few reports on experiments with non-conservative

stability systems can be found in the literature. Therefore finally,
experiments with Beck’s column will be presented to show their sim-
plicity.
xxii
It is emphasized that non-conservative systems with follower forces
are realistic and important for fluid-interacting systems. These phys-
ical processes have a large importance in the nature. Unfortunately,
many contradictory results on the field have turned away the re-
searchers from non-conservative systems. The aim of this book is
to contribute to the understanding of the fundamentals of the prob-
lems dealing with non-conservative systems, and moreover, to help
and promote solving engineering problems in the wide field of non-
conservative forces.
Follower forces occur whenever fluids, like air or water, interact

with elastic bodies. At the beginning, the amplitudes of motion
might be small (vibration), however, a small increase of the interact-
ing forces might be the start to flutter with very large and destructive
amplitudes. The energie of loss due to damping, present in any real
system, will be replaced by the energy input of the ’follower forces’.
Rockets or satellites - travel with high velocity - begin to vibrate

after a critical density of the atmosphere is reached. The increasing
density might induce ’follower forces’ with destabilize the rockets or
satellites to an destructive uncontrollable state.
In case of wind over a free fluid surface (see or lake) with moder-
ate velocity, sinusoidal surface wave with moderate amplitude are in-
duced. With increasing velocity the amplitudes of the waves are also
increased. A further increase of the wind velocity introduces breaks
of the sinusoidal form, associated with a turbulent fluid motion and
high energy dissipation. In principle, moderate long sinusoidal waves
dissipate very little of energy compared with short breaking waves.
The observed ’mega waves’ are likely to be connected with the energy
balance of the air-water interaction.
xxiii
The significance of the static stability limit for systems with masses
can be summarized as follows:
• Whenever the static stability limit of a conservative system

as crossed, the damped systems toward its non-trivial
equilibrium state after some decaying oscillations.
• The dynamic behavior of non-conservative systems differs

fundamentally from conservative systems, if static non-trivial
equilibrium states are absent. In case the static stability limit
is exceeded, the system can not remain at rest and motion is
initiated, in spite of damping. The energy loss by damping
equals the energy input of the non-conservative load.
xxiv
List of Figures
1 a) Ziegler’s column, b) Beck’s column, c) Leipholz col-

umn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xx
1.1 Ziegler’s column, a) stable state, b) instable state, c)

critical deformation (in infinitesimal vicinity). . . . . 2
1.2 Ziegler’s column a) with all possible extra forces Zi ,
b) with the both extra forces Z1 and Z2 (extra energy
method), and c) with the composed load P (energy
method) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3 Minimum extra energy required to deform Ziegler’s
column (c = 1) a) conservative load, dEex,min /dp =
−6.0 for pst , b) tangential load, dEex,min /dp = −0.5
for pcs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4 The conservative loaded double-hinged column. . . . 9
1.5 The tangentially loaded triple-hinged column, a) sys-
tem with an extra moment M0 , b) system with three
extra forces Zi , c) system with the smallest critical
load pcs = 1.0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.6 Beck’s column: a) Beck’s stability based on linear dy-
namics (pBeck = 20.05), b) systems with an extra force
Zex applied to the tip (pc = 20.19) c) system with an
extra moment M0 applied to the tip (pc = pcs = π 2 ). . 13
1.7 Uniformly distributed tangential loaded double- and
triple-hinged columns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.8 (a) The tangentially loaded Ziegler’s column supported
by a spring at the tip with two extra forces. (b) Loads
computed for the column by static stability analysis
(pst ), and by the extra energy method (pcs ) . . . . . . 18
1.9 a) Massless Ziegler’s column with elastic foundations,
and b) Euler load (pst ) and smallest critical load (pcs ),
as a function of the stiffness parameter k of the elastic
foundation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
xxv
1.10 a) The sub- and hyper-tangentially loaded double-
hinged column, b) the static load pst , and smallest
critical load pcs for the column. . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1.11 Clamped-free column modeled as multi-spring-hinged
system. a) System with tangential load P on the tip
(Beck’s column), b) uniformly distributed tangential
load g (Leipholz’s column). The vertical components
of the infinitesimal forces Zi can be neglected com-
pared to the large tangential load P . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.1 Conservative loaded clamped free column with con-

stant EI and mass m on the tip. a) stable column
(p < pst ), b) limit of stability (two equilibrium states),
c) unstable column without damping (p > pst ), d)
static deformed column with damping (p > pst ). . . . 29
2.2 Non-conservative tangential loaded column with mass
at the top (Beck’s column). a) stable column p < pcs ,
b) begin of small moving p > pcs = π 2 , no damp-
ing, named vibration, c) begin of large moving (p >
pf lutter = 20.05), no damping, named flutter, d) sim-
ilar c) but with damping, reduction of the amplitude
of c). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.3 Energy input in a still stable Ziegler’s column (p =
2.0, a0 /l = 0.001, damping ζ = 0.001, m1 /m2 = 1/1. . 32
2.4 Comparison of conservative and non-conservative post-
critical dynamic responses. a) conservative system, b)
non-conservative system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.5 Parameters of Ziegler’s column with mass m0 = ml . 35
2.6 The energy to deform a massless Ziegler’s column (c =
1, l = 1), a) Disturbance(1): Eex /(cϕ22 ) = (2 − p)/2,
b) Disturbance (2): Eex /(cϕ22 ) = 0.5, c) Disturbance
(3): Eex /(cϕ22 ) = (4 − p2 )/8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.7 The three domain stability of the undamped Ziegler’s
column with the concentrated masses, parameters m1 /m2 =
0.002/1.0, m0 = 0, and disturbance (2) with a0 /l =
ϕ2,0 = 0.001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
xxvi
2.8 Horizontal component of the tip displacement of Ziegler’s
column (m1 /m2 = 0.002/1), no rotational inertia,
damping ζ = 0.2, disturbance (2) with a0 /l = 0.001, p =
2.403 > pf lutter = 2.402). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.9 Different paths of motion of the system of Fig.2.7: a)
path of the tip at 200 s a/l = 0.002, (1D motion), b)
path of transition to flutter at 400 s, (sudden tran-
sition from vibration to flutter), c) path of flutter at
500 s (a∞ l=0.62, (2D motion). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
2.10 Stable Ziegler’s column p = 2.4, damping ζ = 0.2,
ϕ1 = −ϕ2 = 0.001, m1 /m2 = 0.20/100. . . . . . . . . 44
2.11 Stable Ziegler’s column m1 /m2 = 0.25/100. . . . . . . 45
2.12 Ziegler’s column (m1 /m2 = 1/1, damping ζ = 0 and
ζ = 0.01, respectively) with length l = 1, stiffness
c = 1, and initial disturbance (1) of a0 /l = 0.001,
special situation pcs = pf lutter = 2.0 (no vibration
domain), a) p = 1.90, b) pcs = 2.0, c) p = 2.001, d)
p = 2.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.13 Becks’s column, (a) Beck’s continuous system with
constant bending stiffness EI and PBeck = 20.05EI/L2
(linear dynamics), (b) computational model with pa-
rameters (multi-spring-hinged system), (c) Zex -disturbance
with P = 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2.14 Beck’s undamped system with continuous mass. (a)
Beck’s calculation with linear dynamics, (b) Three
Domain Stability (based on non-linear dynamics of
the multi-spring-hinged model according to Fig. 2.15
with n = 50). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
2.15 Exact presentation of the abrupt turn over from vi-
bration to flutter of the system (section 2.4.4). Def-
inition of the flutter stability pf lutter : p = pf lutter for
α = da∞ (p)/dp = αmax ; m0 = 1, a0 /L = 0.001. . . . . 55
2.16 Flutter of Beck’s column with continuous mass corre-
sponding to Beck’s problem (m0 /mn = 1/0.01, hinges
n = 10, damping ζ = 0.3, rotational inertia r = 0.1,
Zex disturbance a0 /L = 0.001, load p = 21.7) . . . . . 57
xxvii
2.17 Flutter of Beck’s column with large mass on the tip
(m0 /mn = 0.01/1, hinges n = 10, damping ζ = 0.3,
rotational inertia r = 0.1, Zex disturbance a0 /L =
0.001, load p = 21.7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
2.18 Influence of mass distribution and of damping ζ for
Beck’s column (no rotary inertia, Zex disturbance a0 /L =
0.001; n = 20): a) m0 /mn = 1/0, b) m0 /mn = 1/0.01,
c) m0 /mn = 0.01/1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
2.19 Moving behavior of the undamped Leipholz column,
n = 20, disturbance Z = 0.001, g = 40.0, a0 = 3.0 ·
10−5 , a∞ /a0 = 3.3 vibration state . . . . . . . . . . . 60
2.20 Moving behavior of the undamped Leipholz column,
10−5 , a∞ /a0 = 500 flutter state . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
2.21 Moving behavior of the damped Leipholz column: damp-
ing ζ = 0.01, disturbance Z = 0.01, g = 37.0. Already
flutter occurs for this small value g = 37.0 . . . . . . 61
3.1 Ziegler’s column, only a lumped mass at the tip, no

damping, Three Domain Stability. . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.1 Photo of the experiment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
5.1 Multi-spring-hinged column (clamped free) a) bottom

of the column, b) tip of the column . . . . . . . . . . 78
5.2 Shape of displacements for the smallest critical load
pcs for various n of the clamped free multi-spring-
hinged column loaded by a tangential load P at
the tip. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
pcs for various n of the hinged hinged multi-spring-
hinged column loaded by a tangential load P at
the tip. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
gcs for various n of the clamped free multi-spring-
hinged column loaded by the constant tangential
load g. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
xxviii
gcs for various n of the clamped hinged multi-spring-
load g. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
gcs for various n of the clamped clamped multi-
spring-hinged column loaded by the constant tangen-
tial load g. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
gcs for various n of the hinged hinged multi-spring-
load g. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
xxix
List of Tables
1.1 Stability loads: a) Euler buckling loads, obtained by equi-

librium conditions, b) smallest critical loads derived by
the Extra Energy Stability criterion. . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.1 Ziegler’s column (no rotational inertia, disturbance

(1) with a0 /l = 0.001 and damping ζ = 0.01. Flutter
stability factor pf lutter as a function of the mass ratio
m1 /m2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.2 Ziegler’s column (m0 = 0.1, m1 /m2 = 0/1, rota-
tional inertia I2 = 0.012 l2 m2 , disturbance (1), a0 /l =
0.001, n = 10). Flutter stability factor pf lutter as a
function of the damping ratio ζ. . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.3 Ziegler’s column with large lumped masses (m1 /m2 =
0.002/1, damping ζ = 0.2, no rotational inertia), the
effect of different disturbances on pf lutter and on flutter
amplitude a∞ /l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
xxxi
1 Static stability of massless
non-conservative systems
1.1 “Extra Energy Stability” criterion

(Eex,min < 0, linear analysis)
First, it will be demonstrated that for massless non-conservative sys-

tems critical loads exist. For a better understanding we will dis-
tinguish now between “extra forces” Zi and “loads p” acting on
the systems: Deformations and the extra forces are infinites-
imal in size while the loads p are of finite dimension. In
Fig.1.1 three important deformation states of Ziegler’s column are
shown - loading with horizontal extra forces at the tip. Ziegler’s
column consists of two rigid rods connected by spring hinges with
constant rotational stiffness c. The critical load - shown in the fol-
lowing section - is not the smallest critical load, but one of infinite
many ones.
The three deformations states a, b, c in Fig.1.1 are positioned in in-
finitesimal vicinity (therefore the source tangential load)
Fig.1.1a In this configuration the column is stable because the en-

ergy Eex of the extra force Z0 is positive. Energy is needed to
deform the system
( Eex = Z0 l2ϕ0 /2 = Z0 lϕ0 = cϕ2 ϕ0 ).
Fig.1.1b The column is unstable, because energy Eex is negative

(Eex = −cϕ2 ϕ0 ). Z0 plays the role of a supporting force.
Fig.1.1c Ziegler’s column is in a critical state and extra force Z0 is

needed for stability. Energy Eex of the extra force Z0 is zero
in this configuration, because there is no displacement in the
direction of the force.
1
Figure 1.1: Ziegler’s column, a) stable state, b) instable state, c)
critical deformation (in infinitesimal vicinity).
Fig.1.1c shows a critical deformation. Because these config-

urations are based on the assumption of infinitesimal small defor-
mations, the same extra force Z0 = cϕ2 /l can be applied in these
configurations. Applying the equilibrium conditions, based on linear
relations, we obtain (Fig.1.1c):
cϕ2 = Z0 l; cϕ1 + 2Z0 l − P lϕ2 = 0

ϕ1 /ϕ2 = x; ϕ2 = 2ϕ1 ; x = ϕ1 /ϕ2 = 1/2
(1.1)
P l/c = p; p = 2 + x; Eex = 0; Z0 = cϕ2 /l
pc = 2.5
The load pc = 2.5 is a critical load and depends only on the deforma-
tion parameter x = ϕ1 /ϕ2 = 1/2. An infinite number of deformation
parameters x correspond to an infinite number of critical loads pc (x).
The smallest critical load pcs will be determined in section 1.2.1.
2
General
To deform a still undeformed stable massless elastic stability
system ( conservative and non-conservative), extra energy Eex
- here in the form of extra forces Zex - must be applied. The energy
of the load p (Ep ) and of the extra forces Zi (Eex ) correspond to
the energy stored in the system (Es ): Ep + Eex = Es (equilibrium
system). The energy Eex - necessary for a defined deformation of the
system - allows the following conclusions: For Eex ≥ 0, the system
is stable and for Eex = 0 a critical load pc is reached. An infinite
number of extra forces Zi applied to a system corresponds to an
infinite number of deformations with an infinite number of critical
loads pc . To find the smallest critical load pcs , all deformations
caused by extra forces must be investigated. Minimal surplus energy
Eex,min < 0 leads to the loss of stability. The system deforms in
the direction of the least resistance. For p ≤ pcs the system remains
still in the trivial state of equilibrium, for p > pcs the system leaves
automatically the trivial state.
Because extra energy with extra forces is used, this new stability cri-
terion is referred to as “Extra Energy Stability” criterion. Three
important steps are necessary for the analysis:
• To deform an undeformed elastic stability system, ex-

tra energy in form of extra forces Zi are required. All
possible deformations with extra forces have to be con-
sidered.
• Energy Eex of all extra forces Zi must be zero, (or the

energy of all loads on the system Ep - without the ex-
tra forces - corresponds to the energy stored in the
system.)
• To find the smallest critical load, all possible deforma-

tions caused by extra forces have to be investigated
3
(extreme value investigation).
The “extra energy method” (Eex = 0) takes into account also

all possible extra forces. The equilibrium equations and the energy
equation of the extra forces Eex = 0 are established. In contrast,
the “energy method”(Ep = Es ) refers to all possible deformations
and must not consider extra forces. In the analysis the energy of the
loads and of the systemis determined.
The “Extra Energy Stability” criterion - valid for conservative

and non-conservative systems - can be formulated in a very short
form:
• The smallest stability load of an undeformed elastic

stable stability system needs to be found, for which
the deformation energy - generated by extra forces -
is zero (Eex,min = 0) For Eex,min < 0 the system leaves
automatically the trivial state of equilibrium.
For conservative systems the static stability is based on the equilib-

rium of all acting forces (force equilibrium). The missing of non-
trivial states of equilibrium for non-conservative systems changes the
situation and the equilibrium of the energy is applied (energy equi-
librium). For conservative systems both equilibrium methods lead
to the same critical load. The shortestExtra Energy Stability to
find the smallest critical load has the form
Eex,min = 0 (1.2)
4
1.2 Non-conservative systems without non-trivial
states of equilibrium
1.2.1 Ziegler’s column, “extra energy method” (Eex = 0)
The non-conservative massless Ziegler’s column is analyzed using

the “extra energy method” [18]. This method must take into
account all possible extra forces Zi (Fig.1.2a) such that all extra
forces can be represented by horizontal force Z1 applied to the middle
hinge and the horizontal force Z2 on the tip of the system (Fig.1.2b).
Possible vertical infinitesimal extra forces can be ignored since they
are applied in axial direction and are negligible compared to the
finite load P . The equilibrium equations and the equation for the
Figure 1.2: Ziegler’s column a) with all possible extra forces Zi ,

b) with the both extra forces Z1 and Z2 (extra en-
ergy method), and c) with the composed load P (energy
method)
extra forces Eex = 0 lead to the infinite number of critical loads pc .
5
Extreme value analysis leads subsequently to the smallest critical
load pcs (see Fig.1.2b):
cϕ1 = Z1 l + Z2 2l − P lϕ2 ; cϕ2 = Z2 l
Eex = 0 = Z1 lϕ1 /2 + Z2 l(2ϕ1 + ϕ2 )/2
ϕ1 /ϕ2 = x, pc = −(x2 + 1)/x (1.3)
dpc /dx = −x2 + 1 = 0;
(x = −1; Z1 = −Z; Z2 = +Z) pcs = 2.0;
1.2.2 Ziegler’s column (Eex,min = 0)
A further method to calculate non-conservative massless stability

systems can be determined with the minimal deformation energy
Eex,min = 0 for all possible deformation. Eex is a function of p and
x. Eex,min is obtained for dEex /dx = 0 (see Fig.1.3). At last we
calculated the smalles load pcs with the condition Eex,min = 0.
cϕ1 = Z1 l + Z2 2l − P lϕ2 ; cϕ2 = Z2 l

Eex = Z1 lϕ1 /2 + Z2 l(2ϕ1 + ϕ2 )/2
Eex /(cϕ22 ) = (x2 + px + 1)/2
(1.4)
dEex /dx = 0 = 2x + p, x = −p/2;
Eex,min /(cϕ22 ) = (4 − p2 )/8, Eex,min = 0
(4 − p2 )/8 = 0; x = −1; pcs = 2
The minimum energy Eex,min /(cϕ22 ) is 1/2 for the system with p = 0
and zero for the smallest critical load pcs = 2.0 (see Fig.1.3).
The Extra Energy Stability criterion in form of Eex,min < 0

describes the instability domain of conservative and non-
conservative stability systems. Because mass is only effec-
tive in moving systems, this criterion is valid also for such
mass loaded systems.
6
Figure 1.3: Minimum extra energy required to deform Ziegler’s col-
umn (c = 1) a) conservative load, dEex,min /dp = −6.0
for pst , b) tangential load, dEex,min /dp = −0.5 for pcs .
1.2.3 Ziegler’s column, “energy method” (Ep = Es )
To compare the “energy method” [18] with the “extra energy

method”, the massless Ziegler’s column [6] is investigated once more
(see Fig.1.2c). The “follower” load P is split into the finite vertical
component PV = P (1 − ϕ2 /2) ≈ P and into an infinitesimal horizon-
tal component PH = P (ϕ1 + ϕ2 ). The energy of a non-conservative
load depends on the path. Therefore, it is important that this load
follows the “equilibrium path” during deformation. The deformation
parameter x = ϕ1 /ϕ2 is constant during the deformation. The “en-
ergy method” (Ep = Es ) leads to the same smallest critical load as
the “extra energy method”:
Es = c(ϕ21 + ϕ22 )/2; Ep = P l[ϕ21 + (ϕ1 + ϕ2 )2

−(2ϕ1 + ϕ2 )(ϕ1 + ϕ2 )]/2
Ep /ϕ22 = −P lx/2 (1.5)
pc = −(x2 + 1)/x; dpc /dx = 0;
x2 − 1 = 0; x = −1; pcs = 2.0
7
For the smallest critical load pcs = 2.0 the upper column moves in
the direction parallel to its initial state. The deformation x = −1
belongs to the deformation with an extra moment M0 at the tip of
the system.
1.2.4 Approximate analysis of a non-conservative system

and calculation of a conservative system
The “extra energy method” without extreme values analysis is well

suited for the calculation of the approximate critical loads of more
complicated systems. The application of one or two extra forces
or one extra moment is mostly adequate. It is important to note,
that the critical load pc is an upper bound of the smallest critical
load pcs . The energy equation Eex = 0 requires that, if only a
single extra force Z0 is applied, then this force must move in
a direction normal to the direction of the force. If only one
extra moment M0 exists, this moment should not produce
a rotation [18].
Ziegler’s column, per example, with one extra force Z0 applied at the
tip of the system results in a critical load pc = 2.5. One extra moment
at the top leads already to the smallest critical load pcs = 2.0.
• only single extra force Z0 at the top
pc = −(x2 + 1)/x
ϕ2 = −2ϕ1 x = −0.5; pc = 2.5
• single extra moment M0 at the top
pc = −(x2 + 1)/x
ϕ2 = −ϕ1 x = −1; pcs = 2.0
8
Figure 1.4: The conservative loaded double-hinged column.
To show that the “Extra Energie Stability” criterion is also valid for
conservative systems, the double-hinged column with a conven-
tional load P at the tip will be analyzed with the “energy method”
(Fig.1.4). This column consists of two rigid rods length l, connected
by spring hinges with constant rotational stiffness c.
Es = c(ϕ21 + ϕ22 )/2;
Ep = P l[ϕ21 + (ϕ1 + ϕ2 )2 ]/2
c(x2 + 1) = P l(2x2 + 2x + 1) (1.6)
pc = (x2 + 1)/(2x2 + 2x + 1);
dpc /dx = 0; x2 − x − 1 = 0; pcs = 0.382
9
The load pcs = 0.382 is identical with the Euler stability load pst .
The minimal energy to deform this conservative system (similar cal-
culation as in section 1.2.1) is determined as follows:
Eex /(cϕ22 ) = [x2 + 1 − p(2x2 + 2x + 1)]/2

dEex /dx = 0, x = p/(1 − 2p)
2Eex,min /(cϕ22 ) = (−2p3 + 7p2 − 5p + 1)/ (1.7)
(1 − 2p)2
dEex,min /dp = −5.0 for p = pst
For p = pst is Eex,min = 0 and for p = 0.4 Eex,min = −0.10. After

exceeding the stability limit, the conservative load introduces a large
amount of energy into the system, resulting in large finite deforma-
tions. In contrast introduces the tangential load pcs only the energy
dEex,min /dp = −0.5, hence a much smaller amount (see Fig. 1.3).
For large deformations, we use a non-linear calculation:
cϕ2 = P l sin(ϕ1 + ϕ2 )
cϕ1 = P l[sin(ϕ1 ) + sin(ϕ1 + ϕ2 )]
(1.8)
ϕ1 = ϕ2 [sin(ϕ1 ) + sin(ϕ1 + ϕ2 )]/ sin(ϕ1 + ϕ2 )
p = ϕ2 / sin(ϕ1 + ϕ2 )
for ϕ1 = 10o we get ϕ2 = 6.2o , p = 0.388, for ϕ1 = 45o , ϕ2 = 25.6o

p = 0.474.
1.2.5 The tangentially loaded triple-hinged column
Application of a horizontal extra force Z0 at the tip of the system

leads to the critical load pc = 1.4514, as demonstrated in [18]. Em-
ploying the approximate method with an extra moment M0 at the tip
leads to the following relation ship with ϕ1 /ϕ3 = x and ϕ2 /ϕ3 = y
10
(Fig.1.5a):
Eex = 0; ϕ1 + ϕ2 + ϕ3 = 0; x + y + 1 = 0
cϕ3 = M0 ; cϕ2 = M0 − P lϕ3 = cϕ3 − P lϕ3
cϕ1 = M0 − P l(2ϕ3 + ϕ2 ) = cϕ3 − P l(2ϕ3 + ϕ2 )
and further with x + y + 1 = 0
pc = 1 − y = (1 − x)/(2 + y)
y 2 + 2y = 0; y = −2; x = 1; pc = 3.0 (1.9)
y = 0; x = −1; pc = 1.0
To examine if pc = 1.0 is indeed the smallest critical load for this
Figure 1.5: The tangentially loaded triple-hinged column, a) system

with an extra moment M0 , b) system with three extra
forces Zi , c) system with the smallest critical load pcs =
1.0.
system, all possible combinations of the three extra forces (Fig.1.5b)

are investigated in a similar manner as demonstrated in section 1.2.1.
The result is also pcs = 1.0 (Fig.1.5c).
11
1.2.6 Massless Beck’s column
In his study Beck [7] determines a critical load for the tangentially
loaded clamped-free column with constant bending stiffness EI and
with uniformly distributed mass m (Fig.1.6a) to pBeck = 20.05
using a linear dynamic calculation. This critical load is much to
high and not correct as discussed in section 2.4.4
Application of the approximate method (section 1.2.4) yields: A

single horizontal extra force Z0 at the tip of the massless system
leads to the critical load pc = 20.19 [18]. However, this is not the
smallest critical load (Fig1.6b). Applying a single extra moment
M0 at the top (Fig.1.6c) leads to a critical load and therefore to an
upper bound for the smallest critical load. This problem can now
be reduced to the Euler case with length L/2: pc = π 2 .
The proof that pc = π 2 is the smallest critical load of the massless

system is obtained by replacing the elastic column with four and
more hinges and by proceeding a manner similar to that described
in section 1.2.5. For all smallest critical loads of this system with
different hinges it is correct that the tip of the systems does not
rotate. Therefore we obtain the smallest critical load pcs = π 2 . In
chapter 3.4 the stability of the massless Beck’s column is determined
by means of the multi-spring-hinged model with n = 50. The result
of this analysis is also:
pcs = π 2 (1.10)
This solution shows that the already difficult problem can be solved
with simple considerations.
12
Figure 1.6: Beck’s column: a) Beck’s stability based on linear dy-
namics (pBeck = 20.05), b) systems with an extra force
Zex applied to the tip (pc = 20.19) c) system with an
extra moment M0 applied to the tip (pc = pcs = π 2 ).
1.2.7 Uniformly distributed tangential loaded columns
To validate the “static computational model of multi-spring hinged

columns” (see chapter 5) the uniformly distributed tangential loaded
double-hinged and triple-hinged column with rods of length L/(2n)
at the bottom and at the tip (Fig.1.7b and 1.7c) are derived. Ad-
ditionally, the smallest critical stability limit, determined with the
new “Extra Energy Stability” criterion, will be compared with the
larger limit obtained using Euler’s criterion:
• “clamped free column”
– Column with 2 spring-hinges (n = 2).

The stability of this column correspond to Ziegler’s col-
13
Figure 1.7: Uniformly distributed tangential loaded double- and
triple-hinged columns.
umn with g = 4c/l2

P = 2 c/l = gl/2; c = EI/l; L = nl
(1.11)
g = 4c/l2 = 4n3 EI/L3 = 32EI/L3
Euler stability: do not exist
ϕ1 /ϕ3 = x; ϕ2 /ϕ3 = y
Es = c(ϕ21 + ϕ22 + ϕ23 )/2
Eg = gl2 [ϕ21 + (ϕ1 + ϕ2 )2 + 2ϕ21
− (2ϕ1 + ϕ2 )(ϕ1 + ϕ2 + ϕ3 )
(1.12)
− 2ϕ1 (ϕ1 + ϕ2 )]/4
= −gl2 (2ϕ1 ϕ3 + ϕ2 ϕ3 + 3ϕ1 ϕ2 )/4
gc l2 = 2c(x2 + y 2 + 1)/(2x + y + 3xy)
gcs = 1.2493 c/l2 = 33.73EI/L3
14
Euler stability: do not exist
Similar calculations as in section 1.2.3 lead to upper bounds

with a moment Mex at the tip to gc = 81.0EI/L3 and with
a force Zex at the tip to gc = 63.0EI/L3 .
• “clamped hinged column”
Es = c(ϕ21 + ϕ22 )/2

Eg = gl2 [ϕ21 − ϕ1 (ϕ1 + ϕ2 )]/4
= −gl2 ϕ1 ϕ2 /4
(1.13)
gl2 /(2c) = −(x2 + 1)/x
dg/dx = 0; x = −1
gcs = 4 c/l2 = 32EI/L3
Euler stability
3cϕ1 = Zl/2
cϕ1 = −3Zl/2 + 3lϕ1 gl/2 (1.14)
gst = 6.67c/l2 = 53.33EI/L3
5ϕ1 + 3ϕ2 + ϕ3 = 0
Es = c(ϕ21 + ϕ22 + ϕ23 )/2
Eg = −gl2 (2ϕ1 ϕ3 + ϕ2 ϕ3 + 3ϕ1 ϕ2 )/4
(1.15)
gc l2 = 2c(x2 + y 2 + 1)/(2x + y + 3xy)
dg/dx = 0, 41x2 + 116x + 5 = 0
gcs = 1.4664 c/l2 = 39.59EI/L3
15
– Euler stability with three equilibrium conditions
5ϕ1 + 3ϕ2 + ϕ3 = 0
(1.16)
gst = 1.496c/l2 = 40.41EI/L3
• “clamped clamped column”
– Column with 3 spring-hinges (n = 3). Two hinges

allow no deformation. The column with three hinges has
one possible way to deform, and the energy method and
the Euler stability lead to the same solution.
cϕ = Zl/2 − M ; (Z and M on the top)

2cϕ = −3Zl/2 + M + gl2 φ/2
(1.17)
cϕ = 5Zl/2 − M + 2gl2 ϕ
gcs = gst = 2c/l2 = 54EI/L3
• “hinged hinged column”
– Column with 2 spring-hinges (n = 2). The angles ϕ1

and ϕ2 correspond to the both spring hinges. ϕ0 is the
16
angle of the lowest rod (ϕ1 /ϕ0 = x, ϕ2 /ϕ0 = y)
4ϕ0 + 3ϕ1 + ϕ2 = 0, y = −(3x + 4)

Es = c(ϕ21 + ϕ2 )/2
gl (ϕ0 + ϕ1 )2 l ϕ20
Eg = [l +
2 2 2 2
1 3l
− ( ϕ0 + lϕ1 )(ϕ0 + ϕ1 + ϕ2 )]
2 l
l ϕ2 1 l
+ gl[ 0 − ϕ0 (ϕ0 + ϕ1 )]
2 2 22
gl2 (1.18)
Eg = −(3ϕ0 ϕ1 + 3ϕ0 ϕ2 + 2ϕ1 ϕ2 )
8
gc l2
= −4(x2 + y 2 )/(3x + 3y + 2xy)
c
= 4(5x2 + 12x + 8)/(3x2 + 7x + 6)
dg/dx = 0; x2 − 12x − 16 = 0
√
x = 6 − 52, x = −1.2111
gcs = 1.6657c/l2 = 13.33EI/L3
Euler stability with three equilibrium conditions
4ϕ0 + 3ϕ1 + ϕ0 = 0, 4 + 3x + y = 0
cϕ2 = Zl/2; cϕ1 = 3Zl/2 − gl2 ϕ2 /2
gl2 3ϕ0 ϕ1 gl2 ϕ1
0 = 4Zl/2 − ( + )−
2c 2 2 c 2
gl2 gl2
x = 3y − y, 8y − (3y + 3x) = 0
2c 2c (1.19)
gl2 gl2 8
( )2 − 4 + =0
2c 2c 3
gl2
= 0.8453
2c
c EI
gst = 1.6906 2 = 13.52 3
l L
17
1.3 Non-conservative systems with non-trivial
states of equilibrium
1.3.1 The tangentially loaded double-hinged column

supported by a spring at the tip
By application of a spring at the tip of Ziegler’s column this system

becomes to a non-conservative system with non-trivial state of equi-
librium (Fig.1.8a) [18]. The equilibrium conditions of such a
system do not necessarily yield to the smallest critical load.
To exactly identify the smallest critical load of this system, the ex-
tra energy method is applied.
Figure 1.8: (a) The tangentially loaded Ziegler’s column supported

by a spring at the tip with two extra forces. (b) Loads
computed for the column by static stability analysis (pst ),
and by the extra energy method (pcs )
Analysis of Euler’s critical load pst is performed with the equilibrium

method and leads to the following equations (Pst l/c = pst ; Kl2 /c =
18
k, k ≥ 0):
cϕ2 = −Kl2 (2ϕ1 + ϕ2 ) → 1 = −k(2x + 1)

cϕ1 = −P lϕ2 − 2Kl2 (2ϕ1 + ϕ2 ) (1.20)
x = −pst − 2k(2x + 1); pst = (1 + 5k)/(2k)
The smallest critical load pcs reads:
cϕ1 = Z1 l + 2Z2 l − P lϕ2 − 2Kl2 (2ϕ1 + ϕ2 )

cϕ2 = Z2 l − Kl2 (2ϕ1 + ϕ2 )
Eex = 0 = Z1 lϕ1 /2 + Z2 l(2ϕ1 + ϕ2 )/2
and further
(x − 2 + pc )x + [1 + k(2x + 1)](2x + 1) = 0
pc = −[x2 (1 + 4k) + 4xk + 1 + k]/x; dpc /dx = 0
(1.21)
x2 (1 + 4k) = 1 + k
pcs = 2(4k2 + 5k + 1)0.5 − 4k
For k = 0 we obtain x = −1.0 and pcs = 2.0 and for k = ∞, x = −0.5

and pcs = 2.5 (Fig.1.8b)
1.3.2 Ziegler’s column resting on an elastic foundation
The column resting on an elastic foundation with stiffness modulus

K is shown in Fig.1.9a. The Euler stability leads with Kl/c = k
ϕ2 = −k(5ϕ1 + 2ϕ2 )/6

ϕ1 = −2k(5ϕ1 + 2ϕ2 )/6 − k(6ϕ1 + ϕ2 )/6 − pst ϕ2
(1.22)
x = −(6 + 2k)/(5k); pst = −6x − k(16x + 5)
pst = (36 + 108k + 7k2 )/(30k)
The energy method Es = Ep + Ek + Eex (according to section 1.2.1)
19
Figure 1.9: a) Massless Ziegler’s column with elastic foundations,
and b) Euler load (pst ) and smallest critical load (pcs ),
as a function of the stiffness parameter k of the elastic
foundation.
leads to
Es /ϕ22 = c(x2 + 1)/2; Ep /ϕ22 = −P lx/2
Ek /ϕ22 = −Kl2 [(6x + 1)x + (5x + 2)(2x + 1)]/12
x2 + 1 = −px − k(16x2 + 10x + 2)/(6x)
pc = −[6(x2 + 1) + k(16x2 + 10x + 2)]/(6x)
and with dpc /dx = 0 for the smallest critical load [18]
q
x = − (6 + 2k)/(6 + 16k) (1.23)
The smallest critical load pcs - calculated with x introduced in the
equation for pc - gives with k = 0 pcs = 2.0 (Fig. 1.9b).
1.3.3 The sub- and hyper-tangentially loaded

double-hinged column
The Euler stability criterion yields the following equation for load
pst of the system shown in Fig.1.10a:
(1 − α)p2st − 3(1 − α)pst + 1 = 0 (1.24)
20
The smallest critical load pcs of the massless system (Fig.1.10a) com-
Figure 1.10: a) The sub- and hyper-tangentially loaded double-

hinged column, b) the static load pst , and smallest crit-
ical load pcs for the column.
puted by the energy method yields (Fig.1.10b) to

√
x = [(1 − α) ± 10α2 − 14α + 5]/(2 − 3α)
pcs = (x2 + 1)/(2x2 + 2x + 1 − 2αx2 (1.25)
−3αx − α)
21
1.4 Non-conservative columns with constant
stiffness
1.4.1 The multi-spring-hinged method
Instead of a continuous column with constant bending stiffness EI,

a multi-spring-hinged column is considered. The latter column is
composed of n + 1 rigid rods connected through hinges and elastic
rotational springs as shown in Fig.1.11.
The Extra Energy Stability must take into account all possible hor-
izontal infinitesimal extra forces Zi applied on all hinges and on the
tip of the column (Fig.1.11). Possible vertical extra forces can be
ignored since they are negligible compared to the finite load P .
Bending moments across the hinges are transferred by rotational lin-

ear elastic springs c. The rigid bars at the beginning and at the end
have the length l0 = ln = L/2n, and the bars in between have the
length l0<i<n = L/n. For large n, say n ≥ 50, this mechanical model
should be used to approximate the response of a continuous column
with constant bending stiffness EI. Hence, the spring stiffness is
selected as c = EI/l.
The multi-spring-hinged system is used to determine static stability

limits of non-conservative tangential loaded columns (linear calcula-
tion, see chapter 5). Now, the application of the “Extra Energy Sta-
bility” criterion is expanded to non-conservative columns with con-
stant bending stiffness EI. Not only a tangential load at the tip, but
also a uniformly distributed tangential load is considered. The con-
sidered columns exhibit different boundary conditions: clamped-free,
clamped-hinged, clamped-clamped, hinged-hinged (see Tab. 1.1).
22
The Euler stability identifies for non-conservative systems with non-
trivial states of equilibrium critical loads, which are, however, in
most cases not the smallest ones. Therefore it is necessary to use the
Extra Energy Stability criterion to find the smallest critical loads.
The results of the analysis are shown in Tab.1.1.
The corresponding extreme value calculation are presented in section
5.5.
1.4.2 Table of critical loads
In Tab.1.1 all mentioned critical loads are summarized concisely.
The critical loads of massless non-conservative systems with non-

trivial states of equilibrium published in the books of Pflüger, Leipholz,
Petersen and in many other publications - analyzed by equilibrium
conditions (Euler) - are in general not the smallest critical loads of
these systems. The smallest critical loads - specified in Tab. 1.1 -
can not be found in the literature to our best knowledge.
Lately, the critical loads of many other non-conservative systems

[19] and [20] - have been determined. This book does not show
more examples but describes the crucial behavior of non-
conservative systems.
23
Figure 1.11: Clamped-free column modeled as multi-spring-hinged
system. a) System with tangential load P on the tip
(Beck’s column), b) uniformly distributed tangential
load g (Leipholz’s column). The vertical components
of the infinitesimal forces Zi can be neglected compared
to the large tangential load P .
24
P L2 /EI P L2 /EI
clamped clamped
free hinged
non existent 20.19 a)
π2 20.19 b)
gL3 /EI gL3 /EI gL3 /EI gL3 /EI

clamped clamped clamped hinged
free hinged clamped hinged
non existent 57.00 80.26 18.96 a)
45.98 52.53 75.24 18.57 b)
Table 1.1: Stability loads: a) Euler buckling loads, obtained by equi-

librium conditions, b) smallest critical loads derived by the
Extra Energy Stability criterion.
25
2 Dynamic stability of
2.1 Different moving behavior of conservative and

To promote the understanding of the later made statements about

the moving behavior of non-conservative systems, the differences be-
tween conservative and non-conservative dynamic responses will be
compared. For this purpose clamped free column will be used loaded
at its tip by a conservative and tangential load. The following energy
quantities need to be considered:
• system: the elastic deformation is capable to store (negative

energy) and to provide energy (positive energy, transfered to
kinetic energy).
• forces: forces might perform positive and negative energy, i.e.

introduce and extract energy.
• mass: increasing and decreasing kinetic energy consumes and

supplies energy.
• damping: dissipates energy to non-mechanical form (heat).
• disturbance is of finite size an affects the potential energy of

the system.
All the above energy quantities interact during the dynamic response.
The disturbance is particularly important for non-conservative sys-
tems:
27
• In all numerical examples in this book, it is implied that the
system is at rest at start. To keep a static disturbance, addi-
tional forces are needed.
• To start the free motion, all additional supporting forces are

removed.
• Different kinds of disturbances may lead to different responses.
• In case the disturbance is large, the non-conservative load might

introduce energy into the moving system and might therefore
remain under the limits for static stability.
The clamped free column, shown in Fig.2.1, loaded by a

conservative load P , is in a stable state for p ≤ pst . To deform
the stable column by disturbing forces, potential energy is introduced
into the system. After removing the disturbing forces, the column
oscillates around its trivial equilibrium state. Without damping, the
oscillations continue for ever, with damping it will finally return to
its trivial state. In case the load is further increased to p > pst , a
supporting force is required to hold its tip at a small displacement
a0 . A static equilibrium state with a large finite tip displacement α
exists. Removing the supporting force , the column oscillates around
its equilibrium states α, as shown in Fig. 2.1 c. Without damping,
the initial displacement a0 will be reached in each oscillation. As-
suming damping, the oscillation diminish, and the static state with
tip displacement α will be taken. It is important to note, that for
p > pst , the trivial equilibrium state is automatically left, moving
toward a new non-trivial equilibrium state with large finite displace-
ments.
The clamped free column, shown in Fig.2.2, loaded by a

tangential load P , is stable for p <= pcs = π 2 . For p > pcs , non
trivial equilibrium states are absent. The undamped column starts
automatically to vibrate, influenced by inertia. At the beginning of
p > pcs , the increase in amplitude is very small, and is small for a
wide range of pst < p < pf lutter = 20.05. This kind of motion will
28
Figure 2.1: Conservative loaded clamped free column with constant
EI and mass m on the tip. a) stable column (p < pst ),
b) limit of stability (two equilibrium states), c) unstable
column without damping (p > pst ), d) static deformed
column with damping (p > pst ).
be denoted as ’vibration’. Damping decreases the amplitudes toward

its trivial state. For p > pf lutter any small disturbance increases
abruptly to large displacements. Damping decreases the flutter am-
plitudes. Summarizing the types of response for this column, three
distinct cases exist: static, vibration and flutter. Hence, this column
without damping behaves in the following way: Until p < pcs the
column is stable, for p > pcs the column starts to move with small
amplitudes (vibration), and with p > pf lutter the column will oscillate
with large amplitudes. The presently used stability criteria for con-
servative systems are not suited for non-conservative systems, since
29
they do not consider the peculiarities of non-conservative systems.
This difficulty will be discussed later on. The above short descrip-
tion of the different behavior of conservative and non-conservative
systems demonstrates that stability criteria applicable for con-
servative systems may not be suitable for non-conservative
systems. Hence, new stability criteria are needed. To show the
Figure 2.2: Non-conservative tangential loaded column with mass at

the top (Beck’s column). a) stable column p < pcs , b)
begin of small moving p > pcs = π 2 , no damping, named
vibration, c) begin of large moving (p > pf lutter = 20.05),
no damping, named flutter, d) similar c) but with damp-
ing, reduction of the amplitude of c).
large energy input of the tangential load, Ziegler’s column

with p = pcs = 2.0 (still stable), disturbance a0 /l = 0.001, damping
ζ = 0.01, mass m1 /m2 = 1/1 (see Fig. 2.12,b2) is used. The motion
30
starts with tip amplitude a0 and the amplitudes get larger with ev-
ery cycle. Die energy introduced by the tangential load increases the
potential elastic energy of the system and the kinetic energy of both
masses. Damping always dissipates energy. (Fig. 2.3). After approx-
imately 100 sec the largest tip amplitude amax /a0 = 35 is reached.
According to Lyapunov, the system is not stable, since the factor 35
can hardly be regarded as ’near’ or ’close’. The continued motion
shows, however, that now the tangential load extracts system en-
ergy (potential) and mass energy (kinetic) together with the present
damping energy, and the column will finally reach its trivial equilib-
rium state (see also Fig. 2.12,a2). This shows that the criteria by
Lyapunov do not lead to a correct statement on stability.
Hence, the criteria by Lyapunov are not suited for non-conservative
systems and might lead to incorrect stability limits.
2.2 Three Domain Stability (non-linear analysis)
It is shown that for the post-critical behavior of non-conservative sta-

bility systems (Ziegler’s, Beck’s and Leipholz’s column) three
different domains, i.e. stable, vibration, flutter, may exist. The
knowledge of the static stability of the massless non-conservative
systems allows to establish the so called Three Domain Stability
criterion. Additionally to the specification of vibration initiation
also initiation of flutter will be discussed. The limit between vi-
bration and flutter can be considered as kind of stability limit. In
contrast to conservative systems two stability limits exist for these
non-conservative systems.
The follower load can add or extract energy during the motion of
the system. For every equal and repeating motion the undamped
system needs no energy supply by the follower load. In the damped
system the dissipated energy equals the energy introduced by the
follower load.
31
Figure 2.3: Energy input in a still stable Ziegler’s column (p =
2.0, a0 /l = 0.001, damping ζ = 0.001, m1 /m2 = 1/1.
A constant vibration can abruptly change to flutter, induced by a

small increase of the load, of the damping or the disturbance. This
behavior may have a large importance on processes in nature.
Here, the influence of mass distribution, translational and

rotational inertia, damping and disturbance on the post-
critical behavior is discussed. These systems - simple examples
free of elaborate analyses - are used to demonstrate important prop-
erties of non-conservative stability systems.
32
Kind and magnitude of disturbances are of great importance for
the flutter initiation of non-conservative systems. It will be shown
that for growing disturbance flutter initiates at a lower critical load.
In general, it can be concluded that the disturbance has a significant
influence on the stability of non-conservative systems.
In the post-critical range of conservative systems exist for the

load p > pst still an undeformed state. In Fig. 2.4 a below, a typical
post-critical response of a damped conservative system is shown (the
amplitudes of motion as function of the load parameter p).
Figure 2.4: Comparison of conservative and non-conservative post-

critical dynamic responses. a) conservative system, b)
non-conservative system
For non-conservative systems the situation may be different. Be-

tween the static state and the state with large responses, a state with
small motions is present (above Fig. 2.4 b). Not only the fundamen-
tal system, but all parameters specifying the physical systems, such
as mass distribution, damping and the disturbance, are required.
The transition from small to large motion can occur abruptly. If only
one parameter is neglected, the response may be quite diverse.
The different post-critical behavior of conservative and non-conservative

systems have created in the past some problems, because the avail-
33
able stability criteria are not well suited for non-conservative sys-
tems.
2.3 Three Domain Stability applied on Ziegler’s

column
2.3.1 Model
The non-linear equation of motion for the calculation of the post-

critical behavior of Ziegler’s column (Fig.2.5) is derived in section
6.1. For n ≥ 50, the multi-spring-hinged model results in a sufficient
close approximation to the continuous model (see section 5.4).
For systems without non-trivial states of equilibrium forces Zex are
required for disturbances. To start the motion, the extra forces will
be removed. Surplus energy Ep − Es > 0 must be transfered to the
kinetic energy, since no other kinds of energy are available. For loads
larger than the smallest critical loads, damped conservative systems
converge to the non-trivial static position, damped non-conservative
systems move.
The post-critical behavior of Ziegler’s column (Fig.2.5) is analyzed

based on three different disturbances (Fig.2.6)
• Disturbance (1): ϕ1 = −ϕ2 , leading to a0 = ϕ1 l, Eex /ϕ22 =

c(2 − p)/2. With p = 0 we obtain Eex = cϕ21 /2+cϕ22 /2 = cϕ22
and with p = 2.0 the deformation energy Eex = 0.
• Disturbance (2): ϕ1 = 0; ϕ2 6= 0, leading to a0 = ϕ2 l,

Eex /ϕ22 = 0.5c = const
• Disturbance (3): the minimal energy, leading to ϕ1 = −pϕ2 /2;

Eex /ϕ22 = c(4 − p2 )/8
All numerical results in this book are based on the assumption c = 1.
34
Figure 2.5: Parameters of Ziegler’s column with mass m0 = ml
35
Figure 2.6: The energy to deform a massless Ziegler’s column (c =
1, l = 1), a) Disturbance(1): Eex /(cϕ22 ) = (2 − p)/2, b)
Disturbance (2): Eex /(cϕ22 ) = 0.5, c) Disturbance (3):
Eex /(cϕ22 ) = (4 − p2 )/8.
36
2.3.2 Static domain
In statics, an elastic massless stability system is stable if any distur-

bance from the trivial equilibrium state is associated with positive
energy (work) of the extra forces.
In other words, the system is statically unstable if the energy Eex

of the disturbing extra forces Zex becomes negative. The system
deforms then in the direction of the least resistance. The smallest
critical load pcs = 2.0 of Ziegler’s column can be quantified by em-
ploying the “Extra Energy Stability” criterion [18]. It is supposed
that for p ≤ pcs the system is at rest, because for any deformation
positive energy of extra forces Eex is necessary (Fig. 1.3). Inertia
forces occur only, if a system with mass is moving.
2.3.3 Vibration and flutter domain
To clarify the “Three Domain Stability” criterion, the undamped

Ziegler’s column with concentrated masses (parameters m1 /m2 =
0.002/1.0, m0 = 0, c = 1, l = 1, ζ = 0) and the Disturbance
(2) (ϕ1 = 0, ϕ2 = a0 /l = 0.001) are considered. For all different
tangential loads p the disturbance energy Eex /(cϕ22 ) = 0.5 is con-
stant. Among the three disturbances (1,2,3) the disturbance (2) is
best suited to describe the dynamic behavior, because the introduced
disturbance energy is always constant.
For p ≤ pcs = 2.0 the tangential load p brings no addtitional en-

ergy into the system and the amplitudes are constant a∞ /l = 0.001.
However, for p > pcs = 2.0 the behavior becomes different. Now
the moving tangential load introduces energy into the system and
the vibration amplitudes become larger with increasing of p. For
p = 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4, respectively, the ratio a∞ /l is 0.002, 0.004,
0.015 and 0.095. For p > 2.4 the amplitudes become large.
37
Figure 2.7: The three domain stability of the undamped Ziegler’s col-
umn with the concentrated masses, parameters m1 /m2 =
0.002/1.0, m0 = 0, and disturbance (2) with a0 /l =
ϕ2,0 = 0.001.
Between the static domain (p ≤ pcs = 2.0) and the domain

with very large amplitudes (flutter domain) an interim do-
main of motion with small amplitudes - dependent on p -
exists. This post-critical behavior of non-conservative systems is
referred as “Three Domain Stability” criterion (see Fig.2.7).
The exact distinction between vibration and flutter are provided in

section 2.4.4.
The Three Domain Stability is described subsequently in more

detail.
• “Static domain”: In statics, a massless elastic stability sys-

tem is stable whenever any disturbance from the trivial equilib-
38
rium state is associated with positive energy of the additional
disturbing forces.
• “Vibration domain”: In the “vibration domain”, the system

oscillates with small amplitudes. The picture of the oscillating
amplitudes can be considered approximately as unidirectional
or “one-dimensional (1D)”. Energy Ep - introduced by the tan-
gential force p - is very small. As opposed to flutter, the am-
plitudes a∞ of vibration depend on the size of disturbance a0 :
a∞ /a0 = f (p): “infinitesimal small amplitudes are possible.”
• “Flutter domain”: In this case, for a certain value of p, the

response amplitudes exhibit large values. The limit of p is re-
ferred as flutter stability limit pf lutter , separating the vibration
domain from the domain of “flutter”. The amplitudes have
significant vertical components and are therefore considered
as “two-dimensional (2D)”. The tangential force p produces
a large amount of kinetic energy. Remarkable is the sudden
transition from vibration to flutter.
In this example the amplitudes of vibration and flutter are constant

and depend only on the load p. Load p generates positive and nega-
tive energy during the motion. The motion follows a path for which
the load p does not introduce energy into the system (positive energy
+ negative energy = 0).
2.3.4 Sudden transition from vibration to flutter
The evolution of the amplitudes of the damped Ziegler’s column

with lumped masses m1 /m2 = 0.002/1; damping ratio ζ = 0.2,
disturbance (1), and p = 2.403 > pf lutter = 2.402 is shown in Fig.2.8.
At the beginning the disturbed system is at rest. After removing the
disturbing forces the system starts to vibrate. In any following cycle
the load introduces increasingly positive work into the system, and
consequently, the amplitudes increase. The time span until flutter
39
depends on the magnitude of the disturbance. A small disturbance
magnitude requires a longer time span than a larger one.
After 200 s amplitude ratio a/l has increased from 0.001 to 0.002.
After 400 s, the amplitude ratio reach a certain critical magnitude
acrit /l ≈ 0.030 and the transition to flutter occurs rather fast. A
stationary periodic motion with quite large constant amplitude ratio
a∞ /l = 0.620 is observed. In Fig.2.9 the path of the tip after 200 s
(vibration, Fig.2.9a), 400 s (transition to flutter, Fig.2.9b) and 500
s (constant flutter, Fig.2.9c) is shown.
In the above case, the load p is constant and slightly larger than
pf lutter . The vibration increases until the system starts to flutter, re-
sulting in large constant flutter amplitudes. The critical amplitudes
acrit is thirthy times larger than the initial disturbance a0 . During
stationary flutter (Fig.2.9a), the load p induces the same amount of
energy into the system as dissipated by damping.
40
Figure 2.8: Horizontal component of the tip displacement of Ziegler’s
column (m1 /m2 = 0.002/1), no rotational inertia, damp-
ing ζ = 0.2, disturbance (2) with a0 /l = 0.001, p =
2.403 > pf lutter = 2.402).
41
Figure 2.9: Different paths of motion of the system of Fig.2.7: a)
path of the tip at 200 s a/l = 0.002, (1D motion), b) path
of transition to flutter at 400 s, (sudden transition from
vibration to flutter), c) path of flutter at 500 s (a∞ l=0.62,
(2D motion).
42
2.3.5 Impact of mass distribution, inertia, damping and
disturbance on flutter stability
The mass distribution with the ratio m1 /m2 = 1/1 of lumped

masses on the undamped Ziegler’s column (m0 = 0) leads to the
critical load pf lutter = 2.0 and is equal to the lowest critical load
pcs = 2.0. In this case, no vibration domain exist. A large con-
centrated mass in the center m1 /m2 = 1/0 exhibits a critical load
pf lutter → ∞. The results of pf lutter listed in Tab.2.1 correspond to
a damped massless rod (m0 = 0, damping ζ = 0.01, no rotational
inertia, disturbance (1) with a0 /l = 0.001). The critical load pf lutter
is provided as a function of the mass ratio m1 /m2 .
In Fig. 2.10 and Fig. 2.11 the influence of small changes of the mass
distribution from m1 /m2 = 0.20/100 = 0.020 to m1 /m2 = 0.025 on
the dynamic response is shown. The previous stable system changes
to an instable one with large amplitudes a∞ /l = 0.40.
m1 /m2 pf lutter m1 /m2 pf lutter m1 /m2 pf lutter

100 6.90 2 2.08 0.05 2.264
50 5.41 1 2.00 0.02 2.315
20 3.96 0.5 2.042 0.01 2.350
10 3.18 0.2 2.142 0.001 2.415
5 2.56 0.1 2.211 >0 2.5
Table 2.1: Ziegler’s column (no rotational inertia, disturbance (1)

with a0 /l = 0.001 and damping ζ = 0.01. Flutter stability
factor pf lutter as a function of the mass ratio m1 /m2 .
The rotational inertia I reduces the dynamic stability consider-

ably. For instance, the flutter stability of Ziegler’s column with very
large rotational inertia may become less than pcs=2.0 . The rotational
inertia I1 = I2 = (0.1l)2 m1 leads for a system (m1 /m2 = 1/1, damp-
ing ratio ζ = 0.01, disturbances (1) a0 /l = 0.001) to pf lutter = 1.905
and the rotational inertia I1 = I2 = l2 m1 to pf lutter = 1.455 < pcs .
43
Figure 2.10: Stable Ziegler’s column p = 2.4, damping ζ = 0.2, ϕ1 =
−ϕ2 = 0.001, m1 /m2 = 0.20/100.
However, positive disturbance energy is needed in this case to ini-

tialize the vibration.
For the analysis of the effect of damping the following parameters

are used: It is assumed that each of the rods has a uniformly dis-
tributed mass m0 = 0.1 over its length l, and no additional mass at
the middle hinge, i.e. m1 = 0. At the tip, a mass of m2 = 1 with an
associated rotational inertia of I2 = 0.012 m2 l2 is applied. All results
are based on the disturbance (1) (a0 /l = 0.001).
It is observed that the stability limit pf lutter is almost constant for

ζ <= 0.01. In case of large damping of a non-conservative stabil-
44
Figure 2.11: Stable Ziegler’s column m1 /m2 = 0.25/100.
45
ζ 0.001 0.01 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0
pf lutter 2.235 2.235 2.241 2.254 2.339 2.506
The flutter stability pf lutter for different damping ratios ζ are shown
in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2: Ziegler’s column (m0 = 0.1, m1 /m2 = 0/1, rotational

inertia I2 = 0.012 l2 m2 , disturbance (1), a0 /l = 0.001, n =
10). Flutter stability factor pf lutter as a function of the
damping ratio ζ.
disturbance 1 disturbance 2 disturbance 3
ϕ2 = −ϕ1 ϕ2 = 0 ϕ2 = −2ϕ1 /p
a0 /l = ϕ1 a0 /l = 2ϕ1 a0 /l = 2ϕ1 + ϕ2
ϕ1 pf lutter a∞ /l pf lutter a∞ /l pf lutter a∞ /l
0.001 2.402 0.6260 2.402 0.6260 2.402 0.6260
0.01 2.395 0.6228 2.381 0.6150 2.395 0.6228
0.05 2.338 0.5876 2.297 0.5450 2.330 0.5815
0.10 2.285 0.5258 2.254 0.4370 2.278 0.5123
0.15 2.256 0.4450 2.249 0.4033 2.253 0.4270
0.2-0.5 2.249 0.4033 2.249 0.4033 2.249 0.4033
Table 2.3: Ziegler’s column with large lumped masses (m1 /m2 =
0.002/1, damping ζ = 0.2, no rotational inertia), the effect
of different disturbances on pf lutter and on flutter ampli-
tude a∞ /l.
ity system, the vibration amplitudes are reduced or even disappear

after a sufficient long time span. To demonstrate the influence of
the disturbance on the flutter stability, three disturbances (1,2,3)
with different magnitude (0.001-0.5) are used. The damped Ziegler’s
column has point masses m1 /m2 = 0.002/1.0. For small distur-
bances (ϕ1 ≤ 0.001), the flutter stability limit pf lutter becomes 2.402
with the amplitude ratio a∞ /l = 0.626, and for large disturbances
(ϕ1 ≥ 0.15), pf lutter is 2.249 with a∞ /l = 0.403. Note, that with
growing magnitude of the disturbance pf lutter decreases. For medium
disturbances, i.e. (ϕ1 ≈ 0.1), the flutter stability pf lutter limit is dif-
ferent for the disturbances. The outcome (pf lutter , a∞ /l) are shown
in Table 2.3.
46
2.3.6 Comparison of the moving pattern of undamped and
damped systems
For the Ziegler’s column with m1 /m2 = 1/1, length l = 1, stiff-

ness c = 1, disturbance (1) with a0 /l = 0.001 and pcs = 2.0, re-
spectively, the different moving pattern of the undamped and the
damped systems is shown in Fig.2.12. (damping ζ = 0; ζ = 0.01).
The undamped system (ζ = 0) with a tangential load p = 1.9 starts

to oscillate from the static equilibrium position a0 /l = 0.001 within
the amplitudes a/l = ±0.0043. When considering small damping
ratios, ζ = 0.01, the first maximum amplitude reaches the value
amax /l = 0.0035 and decreases subsequently to the trivial state, as
shown in Fig.2.12(a1,a2).
The undamped system with p = 2.0 = pcs takes off with a0 /l =

0.001 and reaches amax /l = 0.075 (see Fig.2.12(b1,b2)). The ampli-
tude grows from the initial disturbance a0 = 0.001 to an amplitude
a/l seventy-five times larger than its initial value and decreases sub-
sequently until the initial value is reached. This motion is repeated
continuously. Note that, loading P = pc/l introduces and extracts
already a large amount of energy into and of the system. The ampli-
tude of the damped system (ζ = 0.01) decreases from amax /l = 0.035
also in the direction of the trivial state.
A tiny increase of the load p from p = 2.0 to p = 2.001 changes

the characteristics of the dynamic response completely, as shown
in Fig.2.12(c1,c2). The response without damping has a peak am-
plitude of amax /l = 0.130. Including damping ζ = 0.01 leads to
stationary flutter, amax /l = 0.080. An increase of p by 0.05% leads
to an increase of amax /l by 100%.
47
Figure 2.12: Ziegler’s column (m1 /m2 = 1/1, damping ζ = 0 and
ζ = 0.01, respectively) with length l = 1, stiffness c =
1, and initial disturbance (1) of a0 /l = 0.001, special
situation pcs = pf lutter = 2.0 (no vibration domain), a)
p = 1.90, b) pcs = 2.0, c) p = 2.001, d) p = 2.1.
48
The undamped system with p = 2.10 responds with an amplitude
of amax /l = ±1.0. The damped system shows a stationary flutter
with amplitude a/l = 0.70, as shown in Fig.2.12(d1,d2).
It can be concluded that this undamped disturbed system remains

always in a oscillating state. In dependence of p the amplitudes
amax /a0 are: p = 0...amax /a0 = 1.0; p = 1.9...amax /a0 = 4.3;
p = 2.0...amax /a0 ≈ 75; p = 2.001...amax /a0 ≈ 130; and for p =
2.1...amax /a0 ≈ 1000. Between p = 2.0 and p = 2.001 (∆p = 0.001...
∆amax /a0 = 55) amax /a0 increases from 75 to 130. The abrupt turn
over occurs for pf lutter = 2.0 = pcs .
The damped disturbed system has a different oscillating behavior

than the undamped system, and it returns to the position at rest.
For p = 1.9 the initial amplitudes are a0 /l = 0.001 and grow up
to amax /a0 = 3.5. Similarly, the system reaches for p = 2.0 ampli-
tude amax /a0 = 35 and returns to amax /a0 = 0. For p = 2.001 the
situation is completely different.
2.4 Three domain stability (example: Beck’s

column)
2.4.1 Computational model
To study the post-critical behavior of Beck’s column (Fig.2.13a)

asymptotically, a multi-spring-hinged model is used for which the
exact equation of motion has been derived and implemented numeri-
cally (see Fig.2.13b). The bar of length L is divided into (n+1) rigid
segments of length l = L/(n + 1). The lowest segment, numbered 0,
is clamped at the bottom and and hence fixid. All remaining seg-
ments are numbered consecutively from 1 to n and are connected by
49
n hinges which a rotational stiffness c = nEI/L. The i-th segment
assumes in its non-trivial state the angle φi relative to the vertical
trivial position. Hence, the bending moment in the i-th hinge is
Mi = cϕi , where ϕi = φi − φi−1 . The angle of the lowest segment 0 is
φ0 = 0. For Beck’s column the damping matrix is selected such that
all modes of the multi-hinged spring model have identical damping
ratios. For n ≥ 50, the multi-spring-hinged model results in a suffi-
cient close approximation to the continuous model (see section 5.4)
The post-critical behavior of Beck’s column is analyzed by the “Zex

disturbance” criterion (P = 0, see Fig.2.13c).
2.4.2 Static stability of Beck’s massless system
The static stability of Becks’s column is calculated similarly as Ziegler’s

column (pcs = π 2 )[18]. With p > π 2 the system with continuous
mass m0 begins to move.
2.4.3 Beck’s undamped column with mass, analyzed with

linear dynamics
Beck’s critical load (pBeck = 20.05, m = m0 /L [7]), - based on the

approximate linear dynamic analysis EIw0000 + P w00 +mẅ
= 0 - leads to a value much too high. (see Fig.2.14a). This linear
differential analysis is suited for conservative systems, but not for
this non-conservative Beck’s column. The post-critical behavior of
Beck’s column - calulated with non-linear dynamics - shows that for
p > pcs = π 2 moving in form of vibration occurs. This moving begins
with disturbance amplitudes and increases slowly with increasing p.
The smallest critical load π 2 must be doubled that the amplitudes
50
Figure 2.13: Becks’s column, (a) Beck’s continuous system with con-
stant bending stiffness EI and PBeck = 20.05EI/L2 (lin-
ear dynamics), (b) computational model with parame-
ters (multi-spring-hinged system), (c) Zex -disturbance
with P = 0.
51
become very large (flutter). This vibration domain can not be cal-
culated with the approximate linear dynamic. Back has selected a
system with an incorrect equilibrium situation on the top.
A linear analysis is naturally valid in the infinitesimal vicinity of the

trival state and not in the finite domain of the post-critical response.
For the case, in which Beck could have use an exact equation
of motion, he would have got the correct smallest critical load π 2
(see 1.2.6). For non-linear systems, like Beck’s column, it is not
enough to calculate the smallest critical load, but it is necessary to
investigate the finite post-critical behavior. Already Kounadis [14]
has the meaning that calculation of any structural system in modern
analysis should always be non-linear...”.
2.4.4 Beck’s undamped column with mass, analyzed with

non-linear dynamics
The same undamped system, as used by Beck, analyzed non-

linearly (multi-spring-hinged column, with a0 /L = 0.001, m0 = 1
and n = 50 ), shows that for p > pcs = π 2 two distinct domains
of motion characteristics exist, i.e. vibration and flutter. The
energy input of the disturbance into the system is constant for dif-
ferent tangential loads. The tangential load p introduces for p > pcs
positive and negative energy into the system, and the amplitudes
amax of the movement get larger increasing p (see Fig.2.15). Vi-
bration initiates at p > π 2 with amplitude a∞ /L = 0.001, has for
p = 19.8 the constant amplitude a∞ /L = 0.005 and for p = 20.05 the
constant critical amplitude a∞ /L = 0.020. For p > 20.05 the ampli-
tudes “explode”. Between the static stability limit pcs = π 2 and the
flutter stability of the undamped Beck’s column with uniformly dis-
tributed mass p = 20.05 a large interim vibration domain with small
amplitudes (vibration) exists, similar to the Ziegler’s column. There-
fore, the whole domain can be split also here into three domains:
52
static-, vibration- and flutter:, and hence, it is referred as three
domain stability. For p > pf lutter , the constant amplitudes a∞ of
displacements become very large (see Fig.2.14).
It is now necessary to define exactly the flutter stability load

pf lutter (transitions from vibration to flutter): The flutter stabil-
ity load pf lutter specifies the normalized load p, for which angle
α = da∞ (p)/dp exhibits a maximum. The above definition separates
the concave function a∞ of the vibration domain from the convex
function a∞ of the flutter domain. For p > pf lutter the amplitudes
shown in Fig.2.15 grow from a∞ /L = 0.020 to a∞ /L = 0.140, al-
though the increase of ∆p is only 0.15.
The sudden transition from vibration to flutter a result of the non-

conservative load – can be found in physical processes. For example,
flows of fluids and gases might induce follower loads (follower forces)
in technical systems. For such systems the abrupt turn from vibra-
tion to flutter is significant, because usually small vibrations do not
endanger the system in contrast to large flutter motion.
Example: For Beck’s column with length L=200 cm we obtain with

a disturbance a0 = 0.001×200 = 0.2 cm, pf lutter = 20.05 a maximum
vibration amplitude a∞ = 0.02 × 200 = ±4 cm (see Fig.2.15). The
flutter amplitudes amount then abruptly to a much larger value. For
p = 20.3 is a∞ = 0.164 × 200 = ±32.8 cm.
2.4.5 Influence of mass distribution on motion pattern
The typical motion paths for two different mass distributions m0 /mn =
0.01/1 andqm0 /mn = 1/0.01 (damping ζ = 0.3, rotational inertia
r = 0.1 = In /L2 mn (see 8.2.3), a0 /L = 0.001, p = 21.7 and n = 10
) are shown in Fig.2.16 and Fig.2.17.
53
Figure 2.14: Beck’s undamped system with continuous mass. (a)
Beck’s calculation with linear dynamics, (b) Three Do-
main Stability (based on non-linear dynamics of the
multi-spring-hinged model according to Fig. 2.15 with
n = 50).
54
Figure 2.15: Exact presentation of the abrupt turn over from vi-
bration to flutter of the system (section 2.4.4). Def-
inition of the flutter stability pf lutter : p = pf lutter for
α = da∞ (p)/dp = αmax ; m0 = 1, a0 /L = 0.001.
55
2.4.6 Influence of damping
Ignoring damping of Beck’s column with its uniformly distributed

mass m0 = mL = 1.0, and applying a Zex -disturbance a0 /L = 0.001
and n = 10, shows that the difference between the undamped system
and the system with small damping ζ = 0.001 is considerable. As
already known, small damping leads to an essential reduction of the
flutter stability (p ≈ 19.7 to p ≈ 16.9). Larger damping increases
the stability and does not cause reduction such as small damping.
Fig.2.18 shows the enormous effect of mass distribution and damping

on the magnitude of the vibration domain.
2.4.7 Influence of large disturbance
For an identical system, a large disturbance can lead to a smaller flut-

ter stability pf lutter than a small one. Beck’s column with m0 /mn =
0.01/1.0, rotational inertia In = mn (rL)2 , r = 0.1, n = 10, and
damping ζ = 0.0001, shows that a larger disturbance can lead to a
smaller flutter stability pf lutter (for example: the disturbance a0 /L =
0.001 leads to pf lutter = 15.23 and the disturbance a0 /L = 0.092 re-
sults in pf lutter = 10.75).
For the amplitudes of the vibration domain , the size of the distur-
bance is relevant and it is meaningful to use the parameter a∞ /a0 .
The large amplitudes of flutter depend primarily on the load p, and
the parameter a∞ /L might be applied.
56
Figure 2.16: Flutter of Beck’s column with continuous mass corre-
sponding to Beck’s problem (m0 /mn = 1/0.01, hinges
n = 10, damping ζ = 0.3, rotational inertia r = 0.1, Zex
disturbance a0 /L = 0.001, load p = 21.7)
Figure 2.17: Flutter of Beck’s column with large mass on the tip
(m0 /mn = 0.01/1, hinges n = 10, damping ζ = 0.3, ro-
tational inertia r = 0.1, Zex disturbance a0 /L = 0.001,
load p = 21.7)
57
Figure 2.18: Influence of mass distribution and of damping ζ for
Beck’s column (no rotary inertia, Zex disturbance
a0 /L = 0.001; n = 20):
a) m0 /mn = 1/0, b) m0 /mn = 1/0.01, c)
m0 /mn = 0.01/1
2.5 Three domain stability (Example: Leipholz’s

column)
2.5.1 Computational model
The column with constant bending stiffness EI is approximated by

multi-spring-hinged rods, in the same way as used for Beck’s column.
Hence the stiffness and mass matrices remain the same as for Beck’s
column. There will be only a mass distributed uniformly along
the length L of the column, hence there are no different mass dis-
tributions as in the previous cases. Moreover, any disturbance will
be caused by a horizontal force at the free end of the column. The
loading however, will be different. There is no tangential force at the
tip of the column. Instead, all rigid rods of length L/n are loaded
by the non-conservative tangential load Gi = G/n. Hence Fig. 2.13
58
shows the multi-spring-hinged system, however, without the tangen-
tial uniformly distributed load.
2.5.2 Static stability
The derivation of the smallest critical load is shown in section 3.4

and its result gcs = 45.98EI/L3 is summarized in Tab.1 under the
category ‘clamped free’. Note, that for this case, no stability limit
using Euler’s criterion exists.
2.5.3 Undamped column, pulsating moving
The analysis of the uniformly distributed non-conservative loading

described by Leipholz is based on linear analysis. A linear analysis
does not allow to study the post-critical response. The multi-spring-
hinged model takes all non-linearities into account, and allows there-
fore to study the post-critical motion under this loading type.
The non-conservative uniformly tangential loading case has a small-

est critical stability limit psc . Since non-trivial equilibrium state are
absent, the column starts to move whenever the load exceeds this
stability value. In contrast to conservative systems, where a load
exceeding the limit cause large displacements, the tangential load-
ing case causes only small oscillations, e.g. motions called vibration
(see Fig. 2.19). Increasing the load g further to g > gf lutter leads
to very large displacements (see Fig. 2.20). This particular stability
behavior will be called “Three Domain Stability”.
The smallest static stability limit amounts to gcs = 45, 98. A distur-
bance with a load p < pcs needs energy, a disturbance with p > pcs
against it enters automatically energy and brings it into the sys-
tem. The deformed “clamped free” column (Leipholz’s column) -
59
Figure 2.19: Moving behavior of the undamped Leipholz column,
10−5 , a∞ /a0 = 3.3 vibration state
loaded by a constant tangential load g - shows that the tangential

load p begins in after a disturbance much energy into the system
and causes that the limit of vibration (gvibration ≈ 37.0) and the
limit of flutter gf lutter ≈ 41.5 lays substantially in front of the static
limit gcs = 45, 98. But once more mentioned: a disturbance with
the small load gvibration ≈ 37.0 necessitates already much energy and
occurs not automatically.
2.5.4 Damped column
In Fig. 2.21 the influence of a small damping value on the post-

critical motion is shown. Comparing Fig. 2.19 with Fig. 2.21 it
is observed that vibration exist for the undamped system with g =
60
Figure 2.20: Moving behavior of the undamped Leipholz column,
10−5 , a∞ /a0 = 500 flutter state
Figure 2.21: Moving behavior of the damped Leipholz column:

damping ζ = 0.01, disturbance Z = 0.01, g = 37.0.
Already flutter occurs for this small value g = 37.0
61
40.0, while flutter occurs already for g = 37.0 for the damped system.
Hence, damping reduces the stability limit for flutter.
2.6 Important statements
For the examination of the dynamic stability of non-conservative

systems the following conclusions are drawn:
• New definition of non-conservative systems: It appears

advisable to bring in a new clearness referring to the defini-
tion of non-conservative systems to distinguish clearly between
“fundamental” and “physical” systems. One massless funda-
mental system has an infinite number of different physical sys-
tems with different critical stability limits.
• Multi-spring-hinged column: Instead of colum-ns with bend-

ing stiffness EI systems with multi-spring-hinges are analyzed.
The computational equations of motion for those systems are
developed to study the motion and visualize the motion pic-
tures.
• Three Domain Stability criterion: The post-critical be-

havior of some non-conservative elastic systems is dominated
from the three domains static, vibration and flutter.
• Abrupt turnover from vibration to flutter: The abrupt

turnover from vibration to flutter is very significant and has
influence on many processes in nature.
• Static domain: It is supposed that for p ≤ pcs the system

remains in rest, because for any deformation positive Energy
of extra forces is necessary.
62
• Vibration domain: For p > pcs an infinitesimal surplus en-
ergy Ep −Es > 0 triggers automatically motion for mass loaded
systems. This is also valid for damped systems. For non-
conservative systems vibration or flutter will occur.
• Flutter domain: The start of flutter is denoted as pf lutter and

is a function of the parameters mass distribution, damping and
disturbance. Large rotational inertia might cause pf lutter < pcs .
• Damping: Damping might decrease and also increase the

value of flutter (pf lutter ) and is only active by motion.
• Disturbance: Disturbances are always finite magnitudes in

contrast to infinitesimal values in cases where p − pcs > 0. To
investigate the post-critcal response disturbances are required.
Different amounts of energy is introduced at the start by differ-
ent kinds and values of the disturbance. This might influence
the value pf lutter .
• New stability criteria: It is emphasized that conservative

and non-conservative systems must be treated differently. This
is especially true for the stability criteria. Therefore new static
and dynamic criteria ae proposed.
It is important to consider ’physical’ systems such that they can be

verified by experiments, at least in principle. Oversimplification to
facilitate the analysis may lead to incorrect results.
63
3 Static and dynamic stability
criteria for conservative and
non-conservative elastic stability
systems
3.1 General
In the last eight decades many contradictory statements about non-

conservative stability systems have been published [3]. The absence
of useful stability criteria for such systems is responsible for
that. The stability criteria for conservative elastic systems are not
appropriate for non-conservative ones.
For conservative systems, the Euler- and Energy stability (stat-

ics) [1] and the Lyapunov stability (dynamics) [2] criteria are avail-
able. For non-conservative systems two new criteria may be ap-
plied: The Extra Energy Stability (statics) and Three Domain
Stability criteria (dynamics).
For better understanding of the different features of the stability cri-

teria, they are discussed subsequently in more depth.
The conventional static and dynamic stability criteria for conserva-

tive systems are set in contrast to the new stability criteria for both
- conservative and non-conservative systems. First, the criteria for
conservative stability systems are treated and then the new univer-
sally valid criteria are presented. The stability of massless con-
65
Conservative Non-conservative
system system
Static Euler stability Extra Energy
(massless) Energy stability stability
Dynamic Lyapunov Three Domain
(with mass) stability Stability
servative and non-conservative stability systems can be ana-

lyzed by means of linear methods (infinitesimal disturbances). Con-
servative systems have non-trivial states of equilibrium, and static
stability limits can be calculated by applying equilibrium conditions.
Non-conservative systems without non-trivial states of equilibrium
need definitely extra forces for any deformation and for the determi-
nation of the smallest critical load.
For non-conservative stability systems with mass always non-

linear methods of analysis must be used.
3.2 Static stability of massless conservative

systems (Euler - and Energy stability)
The oldest and simplest stability criterion originates from Euler and
is denoted as “Euler stability” [1]. After reaching the critical load
pst , the system leaves the trivial state in the direction of the least
resistance and can take a new non-trivial equilibrium state. The in-
finitesimal deformations can be determined by means of equilibrium
conditions.
The second criterion denoted as “Energy stability” requires that

the energy of the load p (Ep ) is the same as the energy stored in the
66
system (Es ). For the equation Ep = Es non-trivial equilibrium is
considered. Both stability criteria are only efficient for systems with
non-trivial states of equilibrium.
The Euler- and the Energy stability - used for static stability prob-
lems - have the following restrictions:
• Only systems with non-trivial states of equilibrium can be in-

vestigated.
• In most cases many critical loads might exist. The deformation

for the smallest critical load is taken without scientific proof
(no extreme value investigation).
3.3 Static stability of massless non-conservative

systems (Extra Energy Stability).
The Euler - and the Energy stability criteria are not useful for non-
conservative systems. The absence of a static stability criterion for
non-conservative systems without non-trivial states of equilibrium
has led to the wrong opinion that these systems do not exhibit a
static stability.
Non-conservative stability systems without non-trivial states of equi-

librium cannot be deformed without extra forces Zi that supply extra
energy Eex into the system. The new “Extra Energy Stability”
criterion must be applied:
• The first demand is: The undeformed system must be de-

formed by extra forces, and the behavior of the extra energy
Eex provides a measure of the stability of the systems.
• The second demand is: If Eex = 0, a critical load pc is
67
reached. With the energy equation for the non-trivial equilib-
rium, Eex = 0, two new methods are available for the calcula-
tion of an infinite number of critical loads: the “extra energy
method” and the “energy method”.
• The third demand is: An infinite variety of extra forces

applied to a system corresponds to an infinite number of de-
formations with an infinite number of critical loads. To find
the smallest critical load - the system deforms automatically in
the direction of the least resistance - all deformations caused
by extra forces Zi must be investigated, i.e. extreme value
study.
This Extra Energy Stability criterion for conservative and non-

conservative massless systems consists of three steps: To deform the
non-conservative system extra forces Zex are required. All possible
deformations with extra forces must be considered. The energy of all
extra forces must be zero (extra energy method) or the energy of all
loads on the system - without the extra forces - corresponds to the
energy stored in the system (energy method). To find the smallest
critical load, all possible extra forces must be investigated.
For example, the massless tangential loaded Ziegler’s column [6] is

analyzed by the extra energy method (Eex = 0, see section 1.2.1).
The linear calculation is based on small deflections and leads to the
smallest critical load pcs = 2.0.
The critical deformation for the smallest critical load pcs = 2.0 is
produced by a moment acting on the upper rod and not by the
force at tip (pc = 2.5). In this specific case, leads the deformation
associated with a moment at the tip to the smallest critical load
and not the single force, as one might expect. For non-conservative
systems it is not easy to identify the critical deformation for pcs . An
extreme value study is necessary.
68
3.4 Dynamic stability of conservative systems
(Lyapunov Stability)
The two criteria proposed by “Lyapunov” (1892) [2] are crucial for
investigating the stability of dynamically conservative stability sys-
tems. The “Lyapunov stability” (first method) focuses on state x(t)
over time t in the close neighborhood of an equilibrium state xe . If
all solutions of the dynamical system that start close an equilibrium
state xe and stay close to xe forever, then the system is Lyapunov sta-
ble. More strongly, if the system is Lyapunov stable and all solutions
that start close to xe converge to xe , then the system is asymptotic
stable. [Wikipedia]
If the sum of potential and kinetic energy V (x) does not increase,
for all x close to xe the system is Lyapunov stable (second method).
In case of energy dissipation, dV (x)/dt < 0 for all state near xe , the
system converges to the equilibrium state [Wikipedia].
The definition “start close to” and “stay close” by Lyapunov is not
helpful for the description of the stability behavior of non-conservative
systems.
Non-conservative systems (like Beck’s column in Fig.2.13a) can have

a vibration domain with different very small amplitudes. With the
Lyapunov criterion, we get for this column a infinite number of dy-
namic stability loads between π 2 and 20.05, dependent on the spec-
ification of “near”. For example, specifying “near” by a∞ /a0 = 6
leads to a pLyapunov = 19.9.
69
3.5 Dynamic stability of non-conservative systems
(Three Domain Stability)
The “Three Domain Stability” criterion consists of two steps:
• First, the massless fundamental system will be calculated

with the Extra energy criterion,
• Following the exact non-linear equations of motions for the

physical system have to bee solved.
It is observed that the non-conservative load introduces and extracts

energy along its path. Hence, not only the close neighborhood of
the trivial state must be investigated (Lyapunov), but the complete
range of motion. In principle, it is to suppose that the three domains
static, vibration and flutter can exist.
The fundamental system is described in the Introduction, can be

be calculated in most cases very easyly and the knowledge of the
static stability is essential.
The dynamic behavior of the physical system depends on the mass

distribution, the translational and rotational inertia, the damping
and the disturbance. With the disturbance different extra energy
are introduced into the system. Therefore also the disturbance (kind
and magnitude) should be considered. These parameters complicate
the analysis dynamic response considerably. Especially the damping
and the disturbace cause difficulties.
To get a deeper understanding of the dynamic response in a first

step, it is efficient, to calculate first the massless system. Second,
the system with only a point mass on an important place (e.g. on
the tip) - with and without simple damping (see the following ex-
ample) - should be investigated. The selected disturbance should be
70
small and most simple.
In the literature a large number of studies of non-conser-vative sys-

tems with arbitrary selected parameters can be found. Such studies
without considering a fair range of parameters do not provide phys-
ical insight into the response and have led to misunderstandings of
non-conser-vative systems (followerer forces).
With the undamped Ziegler’s column as example (only lumped mass

at the tip), it can be demonstrated that for p ≤ pcs = 2.0 the system
is at rest. With p > pcs the motion starts with small amplitudes and
increases until pf lutter = 2.5 to the critical amplitude acrit /l ≈ ±0.03.
Subsequently an “abrupt turnover” to large amplitudes occurs.
This behavior is described by “Three Domain Stability” with
the domains “static, vibration, flutter” (Fig.3.1).
Figure 3.1: Ziegler’s column, only a lumped mass at the tip, no

damping, Three Domain Stability.
The “abrupt turnover from vibration to flutter“ can also occur

in many different non-conservative systems. For example, a constant
vibration can turn over to flutter with a small increase of the tangen-
tial load p or with a small increase of the disturbance (introduction of
energy). This fact has a large importance for processes in nature.
71
4 Experiments
Several attempts have been made to verify the result of Beck by ex-
periments in the past. In most cases, the tangential load could only
be applied for a short period of time and the results of the experi-
ments did not verify Beck’s prediction. In our experiment, however,
the tangential load can be applied an arbitrary time span. This ex-
periment is not the focus of this book, and should only show a simple
setup of testing similar non-conservative forces.
In our experiment the tangential load of Beck’s column is produced

by a water jet. The tip of the system, together with the water jet,
is attached a long vertical elastic tube such that small horizontal
displacements are not constrained by the tube. The tube feeds the
water jet with water. The load induced by the water jet is measured
by an electronic scale, and the clamp is then replaced by a hanger.
This model is only correct for small amplitudes a∞ and therefore not
for the post-critical behavior with large amplitudes. Fig.4.1 shows a
photo of the experiment.
The experiments with Beck’s column have shown that the tangential
load p produced by the water jet induces vibrations into the system
long before the limit of stability is reached, which reduces or elimi-
nate frictional forces. Therefore, damping has only little importance
for the flutter stability pf lutter in this experiment. The results of the
measurements have been in good agreement with the numerical cal-
culation.
In the “EDITOR-IN-CHIEFS REPLAY” reacts P.E. Doak 1996 to

the statement of Koiter (see [15]) “I can only wonder how it has come
about that so many structural dynamicists over the past fifty years
73
have adopted the follower force concept without its ever having been
validated experimentally”. This comment makes it quite clear that
until now, only very few successful experiments have been carried
out.
Figure 4.1: Photo of the experiment.
74
Similar experiments of Beck’s column by applying a water jet to
produce the tangential load have already been conducted in differ-
ent context, and can be realized very easily and with low costs.
75
5 Computational model for the
static stability of
multi-spring-hinged columns
(linear analysis)
5.1 General
Instead of the column with constant bending stiffness EI, a multi-

spring-hinged column is used. The number of the spring hinges n is
selected so high (n > 50) that the stability values for both columns
are nearly equal (see section 5.5)
A column of length L is divided into (n+1) rigid bars, connected by n

hinges, as indicated in Fig.1.11. Bending moments across the hinges
can be transfered by rotational linear elastic springs c. The rigid bars
at the beginning and at the end have the length l0 = ln = L/2n, and
the bars in between have the length l0<i<n = L/n. For large n, say
n ≥ 50, this mechanical model should be used to approximate the
response of a continuous rod with constant stiffness EI. Hence, the
spring stiffness is selected as c = nEI/L (see Fig. 5.1). To find the
smallest critical load the “Energy method” is used. The multi-
spring-hinged system is used to determine static stability limits of
non-conservative tangential loaded columns (linear calculation).
77
5.2 Energy performed by the spring hinges
The potential energy of the elastic system, stored in the rotational

spring, is
n
c
Es (n)/( ) = (φi − φi−1 )2 ;
X
φ0 = 0 (5.1)
2 i=1
Figure 5.1: Multi-spring-hinged column (clamped free) a) bottom of

the column, b) tip of the column
5.3 Energy performed by tangential load
The energy done by the tangential load depends in general on its

path to its final position (i.e. they have no potential). For infinites-
imal small deflections, we can place for cos(φ) = 1 − φ2 /2 and for
sin(φ) = φ.
78
The energy performed by the load P in direction of the trivial
axis Ed /(P l/2) reads as follows (see Fig. 5.1):
n−1
φ21 + φ22 + φ23 + .... + φ2n−1 = φ2i = Ed /(P l/2)
X
(5.2)
i=1
The energy performed by the load P normal to the trivial axis

En /(P l/2) can be written as follows :
− φn (φ1 + φ2 + φ3 + .... + φn−1 )
n−1
X (5.3)
= −φn φi = En /(P l/2); EP = Ed + En
i=1
5.4 Energy performed by the uniformly distributed

tangential load gL
A load G = gL is assumed to act along the axes of the rods in the

negative y-direction. Hence, the tangential non-conservative forces
acting on the rods are
G0 = G/(2n)
Gi,0<i<n = G/n
Gn = G/(2n)
The energy done by the load G = gl in the direction of the trivial
axis leads to:
φ21 +
φ21 + φ22 +
φ21 + φ22 + φ23 +
1 n−1 (5.4)
φ21 + φ22 + .... + φ2n−1 − φ2
X
2 j=1 j
n−1
1 n−1
i)φ2i φ2j = Ed /(gl2 /2)
X X
= (n − −
i=1 2 j=1
79
The energy performed by the load gL normal to the trivial axis
En /(gl2 /2) can be written as follows :
− φ1 φ2
− (φ1 + φ2 )φ3
− (φ1 + φ2 + φ3 )φ4 +
φn n−1
X (5.5)
− (φ1 + φ2 + .... + φn−1 )φn + φj
2 j=1
n−1 i
φn n−1
φj = En /(gl2 /2)
X X X
=− (φi+1 φj ) +
i=1 j=1 2 j=1
In both above expressions, the second term relate to half load gl/2.
5.5 Extreme value calculation
The Extra Energy Stability criterion leads for the multi-spring-hinged

columns to the equation p = F (ϕi ) with a large number of free un-
known parameters ϕi . The extreme value calculation is based on an
unconstrained minimization method.
There are an infinite number of critical loads. To determine the

smallest critical load, the unconstrained minimization procedure ’fmi-
nunc’, provided in MATLAB, is used.
To increase the accuracy of the minimization of pcr and γcr , the

gradient of these scalar functions are explicitly supplied,
∂pcr (n) 1 ∂Es (n) 1 ∂Ep (n)

= − 2 (5.6)
∂φk Ep (n) ∂φk Ep (n) ∂φk
80
∂γcr (n) 1 ∂Es (n) 1 ∂Eg (n)
= − 2 (5.7)
∂φk Eg (n) ∂φk Eg (n) ∂φk
where P = 1, L = 1, EI = 1 is implied, and φk are unconstrained
variables. To include the constrained variables, the derivatives are
determined by the sum
∂Ep (n) X ∂φj ∂Ep (n)

=
∂φk j ∂φk ∂φj
(5.8)
∂Eg (n) X ∂φj ∂Eg (n)
=
∂φk j ∂φk ∂φj
be reached asymptotically for n = 25 pEuler = 20.13, and for n = 50

already pEuler = 20.19 (clamped-hinged system). This calculation
shows that the result of the multi-spring-hinged columns, using n =
50, approximates the continuous elastic column with high
accuracy.
5.6 Systems with tangential load P at the tip
5.6.1 Clamped free column (Fig. 5.2)
A critical load pc = Pc L2 /EI is reached in case Ep = Es . The

smallest critical load psc is determined by minimization. Constraint
and unconstraint minmization provided by MATLAB is applied for
this purpose.
Clamped at the bottom (Beck’s column) implies the angle φ0 = 0 is

fixed to zero. Consequently read the expression for Ep = Es with n
hinges according to section 5.2 and 5.3.
φi
EP (n) = ES (n), xi = (5.9)
φ1
81
The results for various n are presented in Fig. 5.2. It also demon-
strates the close approximation to the continuous column with con-
stant bending stiffness EI. Note that the exact value for the continous
column is π 2 ≈ 9.87.
5.6.2 Hinged hinged column (Fig. 5.3)
This system has hinges without springs at the bottom and the tip.
The angles φ0 and φn are not zero. The energy normal to the trivial
axis is zero (En = 0). For the calculation of the energy in the
direction of the trivial axis Ed , we take the equations of the section
5.2 and 5.3 and complete these equations by the energy part of the
bottom rod:
n−1
φ20
φ21 +
X
Ed /(P l/2) = (5.10)
i=1 2
The last part of this equation consider that the length of the rod at
the botton is only l/2. The boundary conditions are:
φ0 6= 0, φn 6= 0, xi = φi φ1
n−1
X (5.11)
φ0 + φn + 2 φi = 0; Ed = Es
i=1
The results for various n are presented in Fig. 5.3. Again, the
close approximation to the continuous column with constant bend-
ing stiffness EI is seen. The exact value for the continous column is
pcs = π 2 ≈ 9.87
82
5.7 Systems with uniformly distributed tangential
load g = gL
5.7.1 Clamped free column (Fig. 5.4)
A critical load gc is reached in case Eg = Es . The smallest criti-

cal load gsc is determined by minimization. Clamped at the bottom
(Leipholz’s column) implies the angle φ0 = 0 fixed to zero. Con-
sequently read the expression for Eg = Es with n hinges according
section 5.2 and 5.4:
gl2 /c = Es /(En + Ed ) (5.12)
5.7.2 Clamped hinged column (Fig. 5.5)
The same equations for the energies of the clamped free system are
valid with the following additional boundary condition:
n−1
X
φn + 2 = 0; xi = φi /φ1 (5.13)
i=1
5.7.3 Clamped clamped column (Fig. 5.6)
This column is clamped at the bottom and the tip. We take the
boundary conditions 5.6.1 and in addition the condition
n
X
φn + 2 = 0; xi = φi /φ1 ; φ0 = 0; φn = 0 (5.14)
i=1
83
5.7.4 Hinged hinged column (Fig. 5.7)
This column equals the column of section 5.5, but has the load G =
gL instead of P . We take the equation of section 5.6.1 and complete
the energy, caused by φ0 6= 0
2 φ20 n−1
X φ0 φn
Eg /(gl /2) = En + Ed + φi − (5.15)
2 i=1 2 2
84
Figure 5.2: Shape of displacements for the smallest critical load pcs
for various n of the clamped free multi-spring-hinged
column loaded by a tangential load P at the tip.
85
Figure 5.3: Shape of displacements for the smallest critical load pcs
for various n of the hinged hinged multi-spring-hinged
column loaded by a tangential load P at the tip.
86
Figure 5.4: Shape of displacements for the smallest critical load gcs
for various n of the clamped free multi-spring-hinged
column loaded by the constant tangential load g.
87
Figure 5.5: Shape of displacements for the smallest critical load
gcs for various n of the clamped hinged multi-spring-
hinged column loaded by the constant tangential load
g.
88
for various n of the clamped clamped multi-spring-
hinged column loaded by the constant tangential load
g.
89
for various n of the hinged hinged multi-spring-hinged
column loaded by the constant tangential load g.
90
6 Computational model for the
post-critical response of
multi-spring-hinged columns
(non-linear analysis)
6.1 The multi-spring-hinged column
The computational model is described in Fig.5.1a. The lowest seg-

ment of the multi-spring-hinged column, with the index 0, is clamped
and fixed, and its angle is zero,
φ0 (t) = ϕ0 (t) = 0. (6.1)
Each hinge “i” , numbered consecutively from bottom to top from 1

to n, undergoes a rotation ϕi . Hence, each rigid segment is declined
by the angle φi relative to the vertical line, which is just the sum,
i
X
φi (t) = ϕk (t). (6.2)
k=0
To derive the equation of motion, the angles {φi (t)}ni=1 are used as
the coordinates, which specify uniquely the motion of the multi-
spring-hinged column.
91
6.2 Inertia forces due to the uniformly distributed
mass of the column
The center of mass of the i-th segment has the position ~ri (t) and
corresponding velocity ~r˙i (t)
i
X 1
~ri (t) =l (1 − δik )(sin(φk (t))~ex + cos(φk (t))~ey )
k=0 2
i (6.3)
1
~r˙i (t) =l
X
(1 − δik )φ̇k (t)(cos(φk (t))~ex
k=1 2
− sin(φk (t))~ey )
where δki denotes the Kronecker delta function. The associated

squared velocities of the mass center can be expressed by the fol-
lowing double sum:
i X
i
1 1
vi2 = l2
X
(1 − δik )(1 − δij )φ̇k φ̇j cos(φk − φj ) (6.4)
k=1 j=1 2 2
Each rigid bar has a uniformly distributed mass mi = m0 /(n+1) over

its length l and width b, leading to the moment of inertia Ii = I0
1 b2
Ii = mi l2 (1 + 2 ) (6.5)
12 l
The kinetic energy of the i-th segment is the sum of the of the kinetic
energy of the mass at the center plus the rotational energy:
1
Ti [m0 , l] = mi l2 ×
2
i X i
1 b2 1
{φ̇2i (1 + 2 ) +
X
(1 − δik ) (6.6)
12 l k=1 j=1 2
1
(1 − δij )φ̇k φ̇j cos(φk − φj )}
2
92
Using further Lagrange rule to derive the equation of motion,
∂Ti [m0 , l] 1 1 b2
= mi l2 {φ̇2i ( + )
∂ φ̇i 3 12 l2
i
1X
+ φ̇k cos(φi − φk )}
2 k=1
d ∂Ti [m0 , l] 1 1 b2
( ) = mi l2 {φ̈i ( + )
dt ∂ φ̇i 3 12 l2
i−1
1X
+ φ̈k cos(φi − φk ) + (φ̇2k − φ̇i φ̇k ) sin(φi − φk )}
2 k=1
i−1
∂Ti [m0 , l] 1X
= −mi l2 { φ̇i φ̇k sin(φi − φk )}
∂φi 2 k=1
(6.7)
leads to the following bending moment at the i-th hinge due the mass
of the i-th segment.
d ∂Ti [m0 , l] ∂Ti [m0 , l] 1 1 b2

( )− = mi l2 {φ̈i ( + )
dt ∂ φ̇i ∂φi 3 12 l2
i−1 (6.8)
1X
+ φ̈k cos(φi − φk ) + φ̇2k sin(φi − φk )}
2 k=1
All hinges j < i are also bent due to the inertia forces of the i-th
segment, derived below,
∂Ti [m0 , l] 1
= mi l2 { φ̇i cos(φi − φj )
∂ φ̇j<i 2
i−1 (6.9)
X
+ φ̇k cos(φk − φj )}
k=1
93
d ∂Ti [m0 , l] 1
( ) = mi l2 { φ̈i cos(φi − φj )
dt ∂ φ̇j<i 2
i−1
X
+ φ̈k cos(φk − φj )
k=1
1
+ (φ̇j φ̇i − φ̇2i ) sin(φi − φj )
2
i−1
(φ̇j φ̇k − φ̇2k ) sin(φk − φj )}
X
+
k=1
∂Ti [m0 , l] 1
= mi l2 { φ̇j φ̇i sin(φi − φj )
∂φj 2
i−1
X
+ φ̇k φ̇j sin(φk − φj )}
k=1
leading to the following bending moments:

d ∂Ti [m0 , l] ∂Ti [m0 , l]
( )− =
dt ∂ φ̇j ∂φj
i−1
1
mi l2 { φ̈i cos(φi − φj ) +
X
φ̈k cos(φk − φj ) (6.10)
2 k=1
i−1
1 2
φ̇2k sin(φj − φk )}
X
φ̇i sin(φj − φi ) +
2 k=1
Summing up the contribution from all segments (1 ≤ i ≤ n), the

inertia forces of the multi-spring-hinged column can be split into a
mass matrix M multiplied by the vector of φ̈ and a ’centrifugal’
matrix C multiplied by the vector of squared velocities φ̇2 .
All components of the mass matrix M [m0 , l, n] are given by

m0 2
Mij [m0 , l, n] = l ×
n+1
(
1 b2
n − i + 13 + 12 for 0 < i = j ≤ n (6.11)
l2
(n − max(i, j) + 12 ) cos(φi − φj ) for 0 < i 6= j ≤ n.
94
The components of the centrifugal force matrix
C[m0 , l, n] read:
m0 2 1
Cij [m0 , l, n] = l (n − max(i, j) + ) sin(φi − φj ) (6.12)
n+1 2
6.3 Inertia forces due to the mass at the tip mass
The tip mass mn has the position ~rn and velocity ~r˙n ,
n
X
~rn = l sin(φk )~ex + cos(φk )~ey
k=0
n
~r˙n = l
X
φ̇k [cos(φk )~ex − sin(φk )~ey ]
k=0
which leads to the following squared velocity:

n X
X n
vn2 = l2 φ̇k φ̇j cos(φk − φj ) (6.13)
k=1 j=1
The mass mn on tip of the column has the moment of inertia In , expressed
by
In = mn L2 r2 = mn l2 i2n
in = r(n + 1)
n−1
1 X
T [mn ] = mn l2 {φ̇2n (1 + i2n ) + 2φ̇n φ̇k cos(φn − φk )
2 k=1
n−1
X n−1
X
+ φ̇k φ̇j cos(φk − φj )}
k=1 j=1
95
The above relations allow to quantify the kinetic energy T [mn ] of the tip
mass, and further the generalized inertia force (bending in the hinges)
due to the tip mass, following Lagrange rule:
n−1
∂T [mn ] 2 2
X
= mn l {φ̇n (1 + in ) + φ̇k cos −(φn − φk )}
∂ φ̇n k=1
d ∂T [mn ] ∂T [mn ]
( )− = mn l2 {φ̈2n (1 + i2n )
dt ∂ φ̇n ∂φn
n−1
X
+ φ̈k cos(φn − φk ) + φ̇2k sin(φn − φk )}
k=1
n
∂T [mn ] X
= mn l2 φ̇k cos(φj − φk )
∂ φ̇j<n k=1
d ∂T [mn ] ∂T [mn ]
( )− =
dt ∂ φ̇j<n ∂φj<n
n
X
mn l2 φ̈k cos(φj − φk ) + φ̇2k sin(φj − φk )
k=1
The above generalized inertia force can be expressed by a mass matrix

M [mn , l, n] multiplied by the vector of acceleration φ̈ and a ’centrifugal’
matrix C[mn , l, n] multiplied by the vector of squared velocities φ̇2 .
The components of the mass matrix M [mn , l, n] are

(
2 1 + i2n for 0 < i = j = n
Mij [mn , l, n] = mn l (6.14)
cos(φi − φj ) else.
The components of the centrifugal force matrix

C[mn , l, n] read:
Cij [mn , l, n] = mn l2 sin(φi − φj ) (6.15)
96
6.4 Rotational hinge springs
The rotational hinge springs with the stiffness c have the potential energy
V
n n
1 X 2 1 X
V = c ϕ = c (φ2 − 2φk φk−1 + φ2k−1 ) (6.16)
2 k=1 k 2 k=1 k
leading to the generalized forces (bending moments in the hinges)
∂V
= cϕn = c(φn − φn−1 ) (6.17)
∂ϕn
and
∂V
= c(−φi−1 + 2φi − φi+1 ) = c(ϕi − ϕi+1 ).
∂φi
These forces can be represented by the linear stiffness matrix K multiplied
by vector φ:



2 for i=j<n

1 for i=j=n

Kij = c (6.18)


−1 for |i − j| = 1

0 for |i − j| > 1


6.5 Tangential load P
The tangential load P has the vector representation

P~ = −P sin(κφn )~ex − P cos(κφn )~ey ,
applied at position ~rn ,
n
X
~rn = l sin(φk )~ex + cos(φk )~ey .
k=0
Consequently, the generalized work done by the non-conser-vative load P
is
Qn [P ] = P~ · ∂~rn /∂φn = P l sin((1 − κ)φn ) (6.19)
and
Qj<n [P ] = P~ · ∂~rn /∂φj = P l sin(φj − κφn ) (6.20)
97
6.6 Uniformly distributed tangential load
It is assumed that a tangential load G = gL acts along the axis of the

column toward the bottom. Hence each of the (n + 1) rigid rods of the
multi-spring-hinged column is loaded by Gi = G/(n + 1) = gl. Each load
Gi = gl performs the virtual work
δWi (g) = gl(− cos(φi )δyi−1 − sin(φi )δxi−1
with the virtual displacements

i−1
X
δxi−1 = l cos(φk )δφk
k=1
i−1
X
δyi−1 = −l sin(φk )δφk
k=1
The resulting virtual work of the load Gi is

i−1
X
δWi (g) = gl2 sin(φk − φi )δφk
k=1
Consequently the generalized forces due to the load Gi are

(
2 0 for k ≥ i
Qk [Gi ] = −gl
sin(φi − φk ) for 0 < k < i
Summing up all contributions of {Gi , i = 2, .., n} leads to the generalized

force
n
X
Qk [g] = −gl2 sin(φj − φk ) (6.21)
j=k+1
6.7 Damping dependent on velocity
The damping matrix D is a constant symmetric matrix, derived from the

condition that all modes of the linearized (at the trivial position) system
98
assume critical damping for the damping ratio ζ = 1.0. This leads to a
damping matrix
D = 2ζM ψ[ωk ]ψ T M (6.22)
where√[ωk ] denotes a diagonal matrix containing all circular frequencies

ωk = λk determined from the solution of the eigenvalue problem,
Kψ k = M li ψ k λk (6.23)
and the matrix ψ contains all eigenvectors normalized such that ψ T M li ψ

leads to the identity matrix, where M li denotes the mass matrix in its
trivial position φ = 0.
99
Bibliography
[1] Euler, L. (1707-1783) Determinatio Onerum, Quae Columnae

Gestare Valent. Acta Acad. Sci. Petropolitanae 1.
[2] Lyapunov A. The general problem of stability of motion. Doctorial

dissertation 1892, Kharkov 1966 (translation Taylor and Francis
1992).
[3] I. Elishakoff. Controversy Associated With the So-Called “Follower-

Forces”: Critical Overview. Applied Mechanics Reviews, March
2005, Vol. 58, 117-142.
[4] Nokolai, E.V. About criterion of stability of elastic systems. Pro-

ceedings of the Odessa Institute of Civil and Communal Engeneer-
ing Nr.1, 1939.
[5] Pflüger, A. Stabilitätsprobleme der Elastostatik (Stability problems

of the elasto static), Springer Verlag Berlin, 1950.
[6] H. Ziegler. Die Stabilitätskriterien der Elastomechanik (The stabil-

ity criteria of the elasto mechanics), Ing. Arch. XX, Band 1952,
49.
[7] M. Beck. Die Knicklast des einseitig eingespannten, tangential

gedrückten Stabes. (The buckling load of a built in free rod sub-
jected to tangential endthrust) Kurze Mitteilungen - Brief Reports,
ZAMP, Vol. III, 1952.
[8] Bolotin, V.V. Nonconservative problems in the theory of elastic

stability. Fizmatgiz Publisher, Moscow (in Russian, English trans-
lation, Pergamon New York, 1964), 1961.
[9] H. Leipholz. Die Knicklast des einseitig eingespannten Stabes mit

gleichmäßig verteilter, tangentialer Längsbelastung (The buckling
101
load of the uniformly distributed tangential loaded column). ZAMP,
Vol 13/37, 1962, 581-589.
[10] K. Ingerle. Die Verwendung des statischen Stabilitätskriteriums für

Probleme der Elastostatik bei Fehlen nicht-trivialer Gleichgewicht-
slagen (The use the static stability criterion for problems of the
elasto static by absence of equilibrium positions). Forschung im In-
genieurwesen 35, 1969.
[11] Smith, T.E. and Herrmann, G. Stability of a beam on Elastic Foun-

dation subjected to a follower force. J.Appl.Mech. 39, 1972.
[12] El Naschie, M.S. Some remarks on the Beck problem, AIAA Journal
15, 1977, pp-1200-1201.
[13] Ingerle, K. Stabilität elastisch ebener Stabsysteme - insbeson-

dere bei Fehlen von nicht-trivialen Gleichgewichtslagen (Stabil-
ity of elastic even column by absence of equilibrium positions).
Österreichische Ingenieur - und Architekten Zeitschrift (ÖIAZ) 11-
12, 1988.
[14] Kounadis, A.N. On the reliability of postbuckling for nonconserva-

tive imperfect systems. Arch.Mech. 43(1), 1991.
[15] W.T. Koiter. Unrealistic follower forces. Journal of Sound and Vi-
bration (1996) 194(4) 636-638.
[16] Sugijama, Y. et al. Realistic Follower Forces. Journal of Sound and

Vibration, 225(4), 1999.
[17] Ingerle, K. On the stability of non-conservative plane beam struc-

tures (Static approach with the force distribution method). Int.J.
of Mechanical Science 48(2006),1439-1446.
[18] K. Ingerle. Stability of massless non-conservative Elastic Systems,

Int. Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 332(19), Sep.2013, 4529-
4540.
102
[19] Challamel N. et. all. Stability of non-conservative elastic structures
under additional kinematic constrains. Engineering Structures 32,
2010.
[20] H. Ghayesh, P. Michael, P. Paidoussis. Three-dimensional dynam-

ics of a supported cantilevered pipe conveying fluid, additionally
supported by an intermediate spring array. International Journal of
Non-Linear Mechanics (2010) 507-524.
103
Index
B Columns with constant stiffness,
Beck’s column, xii, xvi, 51f 22–23
experimental verification of Computational models
stability criteria, 73–75 clamped clamped column,
“fundamental” and “physical” 83
systems, xvi clamped free columns,
linear dynamic analyses, x, 81–83
12–13, 50–52 clamped hinged column, 83
non-linear dynamic analysis, damping dependent on
52–53 velocity, 98–99
static stability analysis, x–xi extreme value calculation,
Three Domain Stability 80–81
dynamic stability analysis, hinged-hinged column, 82,
49–58, See also Three 84
Domain Stability dynamic multi-spring-hinged column,
stability analysis 91–99
post-critical response of
C multi-spring-hinged
Clamped clamped column columns, 91–99
computational model, spring hinge energy, 78
83 static stability of
Clamped free column, comparing multi-spring-hinged
moving forces of columns, 77–90
conservative versus tangential load at tip, 81–82
non-conservative stability tangential load energy,
systems, 27–31 78–80
Clamped free column Three Domain Stability
computational model, dynamic stability
81–83 analysis
Clamped free Leipholz’s column, Beck’s column, 49–50
See Leipholz’s columns Ziegler’s column, 34–36
Clamped hinged column uniformly distributed
computational model, tangential loaded columns,
83 79–80, 83–84, 98
105
Conservative stability systems, xv, Disturbing forces, xv, 63
xx comparing conservative and
comparing conservative and non-conservative system
non-conservative system dynamics, 27–28
dynamics, 27–33 Three Domain Stability
dynamic stability, 69, See also dynamic stability analysis,
Lyapunov criteria 32–33, 70
static stability and force Beck’s column, 56
equilibrium, 4 Ziegler’s column, 34, 37,
static stability criteria, 46
65–67 See also Extra Energy
validity of Extra Energy Stability criterion
Stability criterion, 9–10 Dynamic stability analysis,
See also Non-trivial 61–63
equilibrium states comparing conservative and
Critical loads, See Smallest critical non-conservative systems,
loads 27–33
Critical loads table, 23, 25t damped and undamped
Critical stability load parameter, systems, 47–49, See also
xviii Damping forces
historical review, xi
D “physical” system, xvi, 70
Damping forces, 63 static versus dynamic
computational model for methods, xvi
velocity-dependence, Three Domain Stability,
98–99 31–34, 70–71
“fundamental” versus See also Three Domain
“physical” systems, xvi Stability dynamic stability
moving behaviors of analysis
conservative and
non-conservative systems, E
27–28 Energy equilibrium and static
Three Domain Stability stability, 4
dynamic stability analysis, Energy method, 4
32, 70 computational model for static
Beck’s column, 56 stability of
Leipholz’s columns, 60–61 multi-spring-hinged
Ziegler’s column, 44–49 columns, 77
106
demonstrating Extra Energy multi-spring-hinged column,
Stability validity for 22–23
conservative systems, table of critical loads, 25t
9–10 validity for conservative
sub- and hyper-tangentially systems, 9–10
loaded double-hinged Ziegler’s column, 6
column, 20–21 Extra forces, 1
Ziegler’s column, 7–8 Extreme value analysis, 68,
Energy models, 80–81
multi-spring-hinge
system, 78–80 F
Energy stability criteria, Flutter domain, Three Domain
65–67 stability, 31, 53, 63
Euler criterion, ix, x, 10, Beck’s column, 57f
65–67 Leipholz’s columns, 60–61
sub- and hyper-tangentially sudden transition from
loaded double-hinged vibration, 39–40, 53, 62,
column, 20–21 71
table of critical loads, 25t Ziegler’s column, 37–46, 71
tangentially loaded Follower forces, xi, xix, xv
double-hinged column, experimental verification of
18–19 stability criteria, 74
uniformly distributed historical review, xi
tangential loaded columns, Koiter’s proposal, xii
13–17 Three Domain Stability
Experimental verification of dynamic stability analysis,
stability criteria, xiii, 31
73–75 See also Non-conservative
Extra energy, 3 stability systems
Extra energy method, 4 Force equilibrium and static
tangentially loaded stability, 4
double-hinged column, “Fundamental” systems, xvi, 61,
18–19 70
Ziegler’s column, 5–6, 8
Extra Energy Stability criterion, H
xi–xii, xv, 1, 3–4, 23, 65, Hinged-hinged column
67–68 computational model, 82,
columns with constant 84
stiffness, 22–23 Historical review, ix–xii
107
I Massless non-conservative systems,
Inertial forces See Non-conservative
computational model of stability systems; Static
post-critical responses of stability limits for
multi-spring-hinged non-conservative
column, 92–96 systems
“fundamental” versus Models, See Computational
“physical” systems, xvi, models
70 Multi-spring-hinged column, xviii,
Three Domain Stability 22–23, 62
dynamic stability analysis, computational model (linear
32, 43–44, 70 analysis), 77–90, See also
Computational models
K computational model
Koiter, W. T., See Follower (non-linear analysis),
forces 91–99
massless Beck’s column
L stability determination,
Leipholz’s columns, x, xvi 12
non-linear dynamic analysis, Three Domain Stability
58–61 dynamic stability
Three Domain Stability analysis for Ziegler’s
dynamic stability analysis, column, 34
58–61
Linear analysis, computational N
model of static stability, Non-conservative stability systems,
77–90, See also xix–xx, xv, xvi, 69
Computational models comparing conservative and
Linear dynamic analyses, xii non-conservative system
Beck’s column, 12–13, 50–52 dynamics, 27–33
historical review, x energy equilibrium and static
Load parameters, xvii–xviii stability, 4
Loads versus extra forces, 1 experimental verification of
Lyapunov criteria, ix, x, 65, 69 stability criteria, xiii,
73–75
M “fundamental” and
Mass distribution, Three Domain “physical” systems, xvi,
Stability dynamic analysis, 61, 70
32, 43, 53, 58, 70 historical review, ix–xii
108
incorrect stability Non-linear dynamic analysis, xii,
assumptions, ix, 65, See 66
also Lyapunov criteria Beck’s column, 49–58
Lyapunov criteria and, See Leipholz’s columns, 58–61
Lyapunov criteria Three Domain Stability,
need for new stability criteria, 31–34
30–31, 61, 63 Ziegler’s column, 34–49, 71
non-trivial equilibrium states, See also Three Domain
See Non-trivial Stability dynamic stability
equilibrium states analysis
recommended resources, Non-trivial equilibrium states
xviii conservative versus
smallest critical load analysis non-conservative systems,
for systems with, 18–22 xv
static stability analysis, See energy equilibrium and static
Static stability limits for stability, 4
non-conservative incorrect assumptions for
systems non-conservative stability
table of critical loads, 23, systems, ix
25t static stability analysis for
See also Dynamic stability certain systems, 18–22
analysis; Extra Energy
Stability criterion; P
Follower forces; Static “Physical” systems, xvi, 61, 70
stability limits for Post-critical dimensionless load
non-conservative parameters, xvii–xviii
systems
Non-conservative stability systems, R
example systems, See Rockets, xix
Beck’s column; Leipholz’s Rotational hinge springs
columns; Multi-spring- computational model,
hinged column; Ziegler’s 97
column Rotational inertia, Three Domain
Non-linear analysis, xi Stability dynamic stability
Non-linear analysis, computational analysis, 32, 43–44, 70
model for post-critical
response of S
multi-spring-hinged Satellites, xix
columns, 91–99 Smallest critical loads, 1–2
109
computational models, See Stable domain, Three Domain
Computational models Stability, 31
energy method and, See Start of motion parameter, xviii
Energy method Static domain, Three Domain
extra energy method, 4, 8 Stability dynamic
Extra Energy Stability analysis, 37–39, 53, 59,
criterion, 3–4, 23, 68 62, 71
extreme value calculation, Static stability criteria for
80–81 conservative stability
massless Beck’s column, 12 systems, 65–67
massless Ziegler’s column, Static stability limits for
19–20 non-conservative systems,
sub- and hyper-tangentially ix, xii, xiii, xv, xx
loaded double-hinged columns with constant
column, 20–21 stiffness, 22–23
table of critical loads, 23, 25t computational model for
tangentially loaded multi-spring-hinged
double-hinged column, columns, 77–90,
18–19 See also Computational
tangentially loaded models
triple-hinged column, dimensionless load parameter,
10–11 xviii
uniformly distributed energy method, 4
tangential loaded columns, extra energy method, 4
13–17 Extra Energy Stability
See also Extra Energy criterion, xi–xii, xv, 1, 3–4,
Stability criterion; Static 67–68
stability limits for “fundamental” system, xvi
non-conservative incorrect stability
systems assumptions, ix, 65
Spring hinge energy model, 78 static versus dynamic
Stability criteria for methods, xvi
non-conservative systems, systems with non-trivial
See Extra Energy Stability equilibrium states,
criterion; Non-conservative 18–22
stability systems; Static tangentially loaded
stability limits for triple-hinged column,
non-conservative 10–11
systems thought models, xv
110
Three Domain Stability flutter influence, 57f
dynamic stability analysis, large disturbance influence,
31 56
uniformly distributed linear dynamic analyses,
tangential loaded columns, 50–52
13–17 mass distribution influence,
See also Energy method; Extra 53
energy method; Extra non-linear dynamic analysis,
Energy Stability criterion; 52–53
Non-conservative stability static stability analysis, 50
systems domains, 31
Static stability limits for Leipholz’s columns, 58–61
non-conservative systems, Ziegler’s column, 34–49, 71
example systems, See comparing damped and
Beck’s column; Leipholz’s undamped systems,
columns; Ziegler’s 47–49
column factors impacting flutter
Stiffness, columns with constant, stability, 43–46
22–23 model, 34–36
Sub- and hyper-tangentially loaded static domain, 37–39
double-hinged column, vibration and flutter
20–21 domain, 37–39
Surface waves, xix vibration to flutter
transition, 39–40
T Translational inertia, Three
Tangential load, uniformly Domain Stability
distributed columns, dynamic stability analysis,
13–17, 79–80, 83–84, 98 32, 70
Tangential load computational
model, 78–80, 97–98 U
Tangentially loaded triple-hinged Unconstrained minimization
column, 10–11 method, 80
Three Domain Stability dynamic Uniformly distributed tangential
stability analysis, 31–34, loaded columns, 13–17,
38, 53, 62, 65, 70–71 79–80, 83–84, 98
Beck’s column, 49–58
computational model, V
49–50 Velocity-dependent damping,
damping influence, 56 98–99
111
Vibration Z
comparing conservative and Ziegler’s column, xv–xvi, 35f, 48f
non-conservative system comparing moving behaviors
dynamics, 29 of conservative and
follower forces and, xix non-conservative systems,
Lyapunov criteria and 30–31
non-conservative systems energy method, 7–8, 19–20
and, 69 extra energy method, 5–6, 8
Three Domain Stability Extra Energy Stability
dynamic stability analysis, criterion, 6
31, 53, 63 moving behavior analysis, xi
Leipholz’s columns, 60 non-linear dynamic analysis,
sudden transition to flutter, xii, 71
39–40, 53, 62, 71 stable and unstable states,
Ziegler’s column, 37–40, 1–2
71 Three Domain Stability
dynamic stability analysis,
W 34–49, 71, See also Three
Waves, xix Domain Stability dynamic
Wind flows, xix stability analysis
112

Kurt Ingerle - Non-Conservative Systems - New Static and Dynamic Stability Criteria

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kurt Ingerle - Non-Conservative Systems - New Static and Dynamic Stability Criteria

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Non-Conservative Systems

New Static and Dynamic Stability Criteria

Boca Raton London New York

CRC Press is an imprint of the

© 2018 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

No claim to original U.S. Government works

Printed on acid-free paper

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-138-30584-7 (Hardback)

1 Static stability of massless non-conservative systems 1

3 Static and dynamic stability criteria for conservative

5 Computational model for the static stability of multi-

6 Computational model for the post-critical

Prof. Dr.tech. Helmuth Pradlwarter is responsible for the

The author thanks Prof. I.Elishakoff of Florida Atlanta University,

Over eight decades ago, it was believed that non-conservative

A further obstacle is encountered in structural dynamics. To assess

1892: A. Lyapunov develops the Lyapunov stability criteria for mov-

1939: Nikolai E.V.[4] emphasizes the necessity of dynamic analysis

1950: Pflüger A. [5]: “The tangential loaded massless column has no

1952: Ziegler H. [6] denies the possibility to analyze the stability of

1952: Beck M. [7] finds a dynamic solution for the tangentially

1961: Bolotin V. [8]. “Static criteria are not applicable to massless

1962: Leipholz H.H. [9] analyzes the uniformly distributed tangen-

1969: Ingerle K. [10] indicates that the stability of massless non-

1988: Ingerle K., Pradlwarter H. [13] show the moving behavior of

1991: Kounadis A.N. [14] states that a linearized dynamic stability

1996: Koiter W.T. [15] warns the engineering community to con-

1997: Sugiyama et al [16] replay to Koiter and they emphasize that

2006: Ingerle K. [17] presents a static approach with the force

2013: Ingerle K. [18] presents with the “Extra Energy Stability”

Since 1900 the notion that non-conservative elastic system do not

The existence of static stability limits triggers naturally the question

In this book it will be shown that the static stability of non-conservative

The static refers to massless and not to physical systems - thought

A system is non-conservative, if one of the applied forces is not con-

The important properties of stability and the post-critical behav-

1. Ziegler’s column (Fig.1a) is the most simple basic system

2. Beck’s column (Fig.1b) is well recognized, because it was the

3. Leipolz’s column (Fig.1c) is subjected to uniformly distributed

Figure 1: a) Ziegler’s column, b) Beck’s column, c) Leipholz column.

Static methods consider the equilibrium of massless systems. Dy-

For non-conservative elastic systems, it is proposed to distinguish be-

• The fundamental system disregards forces caused by any

• The physical system is additionally controlled by forces caused

For example, the massless tangential loaded clamped-free system

• p = P l/c, p = P L2 /EI and ḡ = gL3 /EI

are used in this book. The following load parameters are

• pst = static stability limit for systems with non-trivial states

• pc = critical stability load of massless systems (many may ex-

• pcs = smallest critical stability loads of massless systems,

• pvibration = start of motion with small amplitudes

• pf lutter = start of motion with large amplitudes.

Instead of columns with a constant bending stiffness EI, a

Uncertainty about non-conservative systems exists till now. There-

Readers interested in non-conservative systems are referred to the ex-

Till today only few reports on experiments with non-conservative

Follower forces occur whenever fluids, like air or water, interact

Rockets or satellites - travel with high velocity - begin to vibrate

• Whenever the static stability limit of a conservative system

• The dynamic behavior of non-conservative systems differs

1 a) Ziegler’s column, b) Beck’s column, c) Leipholz col-

1.1 Ziegler’s column, a) stable state, b) instable state, c)