Engineering Strucw-es, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp.

125-132, 1996
Copyright 0 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0141-0296(95)00112-3 01414296/96 $15.00 + 0.00
ELSEVIER

Wagner term in flexural-torsional

buckling of thin-walled open-
profile columns*
W. A. M. Alwis and C. M. Wang
Department of Civil Engineering, National University of Singapore, Kent Ridge Crescent,
Singapore 051 I
(Received November 1994; revised version accepted February 1995)

This paper considers the Wagner term in flexural-torsional buckling

of thin-walled open-profile columns, which has drawn much atten-
tion following its rejection by Ojalvo in 1981. During the ensuing
debate on the subject, further issues of flexural-torsional buckling
were raised highlighting the need for a comprehensive clarification.
This paper collates various questions that have not been convinc-
ingly answered. In tackling these questions, two simple bar models
are first used to clarify important differences between alternative
representations of internal stress resultants, and their relationship
with the Wagner term. With this background, a statically admissible
free-body diagram is described, establishing the Wagner term with-
out resorting to disputed means such as the use of a fictitious lat-
eral load. The Wagner term is shown to be an internal stress result-
ant of the longitudinal prebuckling forces distributed across the
member section; this stress resultant is of the same order of magni-
tude as the St Venant and warping torque. The spatial effect of
stresses contributing to the Wagner term cannot be captured by
the single line representation as proposed by Ojalvo.

Keywords: flexural-torsional buckling, thin-walled open-profile

members, columns, Wagner term

1. Introduction shearing stresses that would cause a torque of -EI,#“,

known as the warping torque. As a result of nonuniform
Cross-sections of a free-ended thin-walled open-profile torsion, the applied torque T, and its gradient mZ per unit
member subjected to a constant torque will warp equally length of the member are, respectively, given by
according to St. Venant’s theory. The only stresses pro-
duced are the shearing stresses in member sections. These
T, = -EI&” + GJ+’ (la)
stresses yield a torque equal to GJ+‘, where GJ is the tor-
sional rigidity, 4 the angle of twist, (.)’ = d(.)/dz and z the mZ = -Tr = EIuv - GJ$’ (lb)
longitudinal co-ordinate. Under this pure torsion condition,
the relative longitudinal displacement is described by w@ This torque expression was derived first for doubly sym-
where w is the double sectorial area co-ordinate. When the metric I-beams by Timoshenko’ and later extended to gen-
torque is not uniform along the member length, 4’ will not eral thin-walled open sections by Wagner’.
remain constant along its length. However, it is still The conventional static-kinematic derivation of the gov-
assumed that the warping displacement remains’ as ~4’. erning flexural-torsional buckling equation for axially
The longitudinal stresses due to this nonuniform longitudi- loaded members (see for example, Timoshenko and Gere3)
nal distribution of warping yield neither a resultant force entails the introduction of a fictitious lateral load to replace
in the axial direction nor moments in the planes passing the effect of axial load P on the deformed member. This
through the member axis. They do, however, produce fictitious distributed load is derived by equating the
moment distribution in a laterally loaded beam to that of a
flexurally deflected member under an axial load. The fic-
* This paper is dedicated to Professor N. S. Trahair on his 60th birthday. titious load produces an applied torque gradient given by

125
126 Wagner term in flexural-torsional
mZ = Px,~v~,- PY,~u~- Pi$@ (2)
which when substituted into equation (lb) yields the gov-
erning flexural-torsional buckling equation3m8
EI&Y - GJfl + P<y - Px,p:’ + Pysu; = 0 (3)
where x,,y, are the co-ordinates of the shear centre S with
respect to the centroid C; u, and v, are the displacements
of the shear centre in the x- and y-directions, respectively,
(see Figure I ); and r,Tis the radius of gyration of the section
about its shear centre. Note that equation (3) has also been
derived via the work-energy approach.
The term Pr$#? of equation (3) is commonly referred to
as the Wagner term. The validity of the Wagner term in
the governing equation has been persistently questioned by
Ojalvo9-‘4. Using both the static-kinematic and work-
energy approaches, he argued that the radius of gyration r,,
in the Wagner term should be replaced by the distance d,
between the shear centre and the centroid of the cross-sec-
tion. Accordingly, Ojalvo’s bar theory not only yields a
significantly different buckling load solution, but it also
implies that pure torsional buckling is impossible when the
shear centre and the centroid coincide.
Ojalvo’s argument against the Wagner term has been
broadly rejected’5m20 on the basis of experimental evidence
as well as alternative analyses, including work-energy
based derivations. There have been suggestions” that the
single line representation of a member for deriving a the-
ory, which is viable for bending problems, may not be
applicable for torsion of open-profile members.
In the most recent rebuttal in the open literature, Goto
and Chen*O have claimed that Ojalvo’s energy derivation
is fundamentally flawed. They pointed out that Ojalvo has
allowed the axial load to change by a second-order magni-
tude as the bar buckles, which according to them is not
admissible. This latter argument has in turn been disputed
by Alwis and Wang*‘, who argued that it is not necessary
to impose a constant load for a valid bifurcation buckling
analysis. They showed that the conventional strain energy
functional, which incidentally was used by Ojalvo” as well
as Goto and Chen2’, implicitly presumes a constant load,
thus leading both parties to inexact conclusions. Alwis and
Wang*’ presented a general energy formulation accommo-
dating second-order changes in both the axial load and the
bar length, and concluded that the conventional total poten-
tial energy functional is correct, despite the constant load
limitation in the conventional strain energy functional. With
this latest clarification, one may consider that the validity
of the governing equation (3) inclusive of the Wagner term,
is established conclusively by the work-energy approach.
Figure 7 Thin-walled open-profile section
buckling: W. A. M. Alwis and C. M. Wang
Nevertheless, there remain some important issues raised
by Ojalvo and others, that do not appear to have been clari-
fied during this decade-long debate on flexural-torsional
buckling. Examples are: the dubious use of a fictitious
external load and the absence of a statically admissible free-
body diagram that can substantiate the Wagner term. It is
thus the aim of this paper to collate the various unresolved
issues and provide some answers to them. In tackling these
issues, we begin by considering two simple bar models
where important differences between alternative represen-
tations of internal stress resultant and their relationship with
the Wagner term are pointed out. With this background, a
statically admissible free-body diagram for establishing the
Wagner term is described. The derivation of the governing
torsional buckling equation, does not make use of the fic-
titious lateral load. This paper will also highlight the inad-
equacy of Ojalvo’s single-bar model for flexural-torsional
buckling. It is hoped that the present critical examination
of flexural-torsional buckling will contribute to a better
understanding of the individual terms in the established the-
ory, including the Wagner term.
2. ‘Unresolved’ issues of flexural-torsional
buckling theory
2.1. Absence of a free-body diagram
Ojalvo’2,‘3 has noted that hitherto static-kinematic deri-
vations in which the Wagner term appears, do not provide
a free-body diagram with which flexural-torsional equilib-
rium is expressed. The writers’ interpretation of Ojalvo’s’
argument is as follows. Consider a pin-ended open-profile
bar and take a free-body diagram of a segment from one
end to a generic section along the deformed bar. The appro-
priate axis of the torque at that generic section is the one
that passes through the shear centre parallel to the cen-
troidal axis. This torque T”zdue to the axial force P applied
at the member end is given by
4 + Y,4' v:- x,4’ 1
c = det u, + x,, v.s+y., z
0 0 P
= e&4’ - w: +Y.#i> (4)
where & =x5 + y$ By assuming that 71 is the same as Tz
of equation (la), one obtains by substitution in equation (4)
,I&“’ - GJ@ + Pdf$’ - Px,>v: + Py,,u: = 0 (5)
Wagner term in flexural-torsional buckling: W. A. M. Alwis and C. M. Wang 127

Equation (5) is the version suggested by Ojalvo and it The area referred to is of the cross-sectional surface which
replaces r,T in the conventional equation (3) by d,. The at all points remains normal to the longitudinal fibres pierc-
issues to be examined are: firstly, the absence of a free- ing the cross-section. The issue is whether it matters in this
body diagram for the c80nventional derivation; and sec- instance, that the deformed section is not contained in a
ondly, which one of equations (3) and (5) is valid? single plane and parts of the sectional surface are orthog-
onal neither to the deformed centroidal axis nor the
2.2. Bar idealization deformed shear centre axis.
Ojalvo has insisted that an open-profile member should be 2.6. Effect of end-traction distribution
represented as a single line. He argued that to be compatible
In the conventional work-energy approach for Euler buck-
with other engineering theories of structural elements, all
ling analysis of a bar, the potential energy of the load is
internal and external actions in the member must be cap-
calculated by taking the product of the load and the second-
tured by parameters defined along that line, which would
order change in distance between the centroidal axis ends.
then represent the three-dimensional member as a bar. Each
This change in distance (or shortening) is evaluated by inte-
point of the line represents a section of the actual member.
grating the square of deflection slope of the centroidal axis,
The lateral movement of a point of the line denotes the
on the basis that this axis does not change in length.
average lateral movement of the section. The bending
0jalvo’3 adopted the same approach to establish the poten-
moments, torsional moment, and axial forces are defined
tial energy for the case of torsional buckling. Silva23
on planes that are perpendicular to the line. Ojalvo chose
showed that if the square of the slope of the centroidal axis
the centroidal line as the reference line for deriving his the-
is replaced by the sectional average of the square of the
ory. The issue is whether Ojalvo’s line idealization is satis-
slope, one would obtain the conventional potential energy
factory and if so, whether it is superior to the conven-
expression. He added that Ojalvo’s approach for determin-
tional model.
ing potential energy is valid if the applied load is con-
sidered as a point load acting at the centroid. He contended
2.3. Filament model
that if the end traction is equally distributed across the end
Lenz and Vielsack** had remarked that in reality the length sectional surface, then the averaged square of slope should
of a closed-profile thin-walled member does not shorten be adopted. Ojalvo I4 disagreed with Silva’s proposal of
under torsion although a model based on longitudinal fibres having two alternatives and insisted that his approach is the
or filaments would predict that it would shorten. Ojalvoi3 only valid one for a bar theory. The important questions
appears to suggest that even open-profile members will not arising are: what is the correct potential energy expression
shorten in contrast to the conventional theory which pre- compatible with the established principles of mechanics;
dicts otherwise. The issue is whether Lenz and Vielsack’s and whether statically equivalent end tractions can lead to
remark on closed-profile members also applies for open- substantially different buckling loads.
profile members.
3. Flexural buckling of axially loaded pin-ended
2.4. Fictitious lateral load
column
Ojalvo objected to the use of a fictitious external load that
Before addressing the issue of flexural-torsional buckling,
leads to the Wagner term through the static-kinematic
the familiar flexural buckling of an axially loaded pin-
approach. He claimed that such an interpretation is equival-
ended column is revisited to highlight important aspects of
ent to a ‘spaghetti-like’ twisting idealization for the
its free-body diagram and the alternative representation of
deformed configuration which does not correspond to a bar
the stress resultants, which will elucidate the ensuing dis-
idealization. The objection here is to the application of such
cussion.
fictitious loads independently on each and every longitudi-
Referring to the straight column and its deformed con-
nal fibre, in order to represent the effect of the axial load
figuration as shown in Figure 2, equilibrium dictates that
on a twisted open-profile column. He suggested that in
reality where such fictitious loads are not present, the Ncos 8+ Vsin B=P (6a)
torque denoted by the Wagner term violates statical equilib-
rium. The issue is whether the governing equations can be Nsin 0- Vcos tI=H=O (6b)
derived by the static-kinematic approach without resorting Pv’-Iv’=0 (6~)
to the use of a fictitious load.
P P
e
2.5. Skew plane of deformed section
1 1 LLI -H
As an axially loaded column bends and twists, the longi-
tudinal fibres which were originally parallel to the column
V
axis would twist and warp around the shear centre axis. In
the conventional theory, the longitudinal stresses in these
inclined fibres are thought to produce a lateral effect on the
sloping surface of the warped member section. The total
torsional effect of the lateral effects about the shear centre
axis is P@’ - Px,v’,’+ Pysuns; that is how some texts on
the subject explain the Wagner term. The P?, factor in the tP tP tP tP
Wagner term is viewed as a reduction effect on the torsional
rigidity GJ of the column l5. Ojalvo’ pointed out that this (al lb) (cl Id)
torsional moment applies to an area that is not a plane and Figure 2 Flexural buckling of pin-ended column: alternative
not normal to the displaced longitudinal axis of the column. representation of stress resultants
128 Wagner term in flexural-torsional
where v is the lateral displacement; P the vertical load; N,
V and M are, respectively, the axial force, shear force and
bending moment at a generic cross-section; H is the hori-
zontal component of internal forces and 0 the slope of the
deformed column at the considered section. Note that,
equations (6~) and (6b) can be alternatively written as
N=Pcos 0 (7a)
V = P sin 19 (76)
We examine the following two potentially misleading
notions pertaining to the relationship between P and the
stress-resultants, N, V, M and H.
Shear force and lateral force: In this bifurcation analy-
sis, the deformation variables v and 8 are infinitesimally
small. Owing to the difference between P and N being of
second-order of 8, both can be taken to be of the same
magnitude. However, it will be questionable if one equates
V to H. The reason is that H is actually zero; whereas V=
P sin f3and is of the same order of magnitude as the terms
in the governing equation. If one accounts for lateral forces
and their moments, the use of H would yield completely
different results from those obtained by the use of V. In
this pin-ended column, the fact that H = 0 highlights that
the load P cannot produce a torque about any axis parallel
to the line of action of P. In contrast, if one replaces H
with V when determining the torque about such an axis, a
‘paradoxical’ first-order term will result. In view of equ-
ation (6b), this term would, however, be cancelled out by
the torque produced by N. This point is crucial in view of
the widely held notion that the vertical load P produces an
external torque about the vertical axis due to the inclination
of the longitudinal fibres under torsional buckling.
Role of jictitious load: Another issue of conern is the
use of a fictitious lateral load Pv” (see Timoshenko and
Gere3) to represent the horizontal action of the vertical load
P. The fictitious load produces H = Pv’. Such a represen-
tation is not identical to the correct one, i.e. H = 0 and V=
Pv’. Furthermore, the fictitious load introduces horizontal
reaction forces at the supports while there are none in the
original configuration. Thus it would become impossible to
have a statically admissible free-body diagram containing
one of the supports, once the axial load has been replaced
by the fictitious load. The possible incorrect inferences sug-
gest that one must be careful where such fictitious loads
are used. This is of interest in the present context since in
one form of derivation of the flexural-torsional equilibrium
equatiot?, the Wagner term arises directly from a fic-
titious load.
4. A simple torsional buckling model
Recognizing the significant difference between H and V in
flexural buckling, a mechanically connected two-bar model
is considered next to demonstrate the crucial role of the
horizontal stress resultants in torsional deformation. This
model simulates an axially prestressed bar-like three-
dimensional system. The reason for considering such a sim-
plified model before addressing the general thin-walled
open-profile column is to avoid any confusion arising from
the complications of section geometry and deformation.
This model consists of two vertical bars 2r apart, connected
buckling: W. A. M. Alwis and C. M. Wang
by a series of parallel thin rigid links, rigidly fixed orthog-
onally to the bar axes and spaced arbitrarily close to each
other, as shown in Figure 3a. The midpoint of each link is
prevented from lateral displacement (see Figure 3b), but
each link is free to rotate and move vertically. The distance
between the individual links is allowed to change. The cen-
tral reference axis runs vertically through the midpoints of
the links. Note that the centroidal axis of the system
coincides with the shear centre axis.
Consider a vertical conservative load P on each bar.
Apart from axial deformation, the only other possible mode
of deformation is symmetric twisting of the bars about the
central axis as shown in Figure 3c. Considering the free-
body diagram of a longitudinal element of the model as
shown in Figure 3d, the pertinent equilibrium equations can
be written as follows. For the bar components, by taking
moments about the radial and vertical axes, respectively,
one obtains
Pv’+H-M’=O (8)
T’ + H’r = 0 (9)
where T, M and H are, respectively, the torsional moment,
the bending moment and the lateral force (acting orthog-
onally to P) on the cross-section of each bar. Note that
v = r4, for infinitesimally small displacements; and the rad-
ial forces by the mechanical links do not enter the foregoing
equations. Equations (8) and (9) form the basis for the fol-
lowing discussion on the Wagner term and other related
issues.
Equation (8) is the same equilibrium equation as is nor-
mally written for bending of the Euler column as shown in
equation (6c), except for the presence of the lateral force
H. Equation (9) signifies the essential explicit link between
the internal lateral force gradient and the internal torsional
moment gradient. In other words, if a boundary condition
stipulates that the overall torsion at any section must be
zero, an internal torsional moment T can still exist together
with a nonzero internal lateral force H. If one attempts to
represent the foregoing two-bar example by a single equiv-
alent bar along the centroidal axis, this T and H combi-
nation will nullify each other. Hence, this particular tor-
sional effect cannot be captured in an equivalent single line
or single bar model.
By eliminating H from equations (8) and (9), one obtains
p$q - T’ - M”r = 0 (10)
The substitution of the familiar constitutive relations T =
GJ+’ and M = -EIpff where GJ is the torsional rigidity
and EI, the bending rigidity of one bar, into equation (10)
leads to
PI-=@ - GJV + ,EIx~ = 0 (11)
Equation ( 11) takes the form of the familiar torsional buck-
ling equation for the case of coincident shear centre and
centroid, if one replaces ?I, by 1,. Note that in the conven-
tional theory of torsional buckling of doubly-symmetric I-
columns, this replacement is admitted with r denoting the
radius of gyration of a flange about the web axis.
In the following, the Wagner term will be interpreted in
the context of the foregoing formulation. First we note that
P and H acting on the bar sections are internal forces and
Wagner term in flexural-torsional buckling: W. A. M. Alwis and C. M. Wang 129

I 2P

r
r
%

@I (b)

CC) cd,
Figure 3 Two-bar torsional buckling model

that H can be expressed in terms of the normal and shear Further, note that the shear force V and the normal force
forces in the form N in the column are given by

H= VCOS e-Nsin 8 (12) V=HcostI+Psine (13)

The V cos 8 part of H is the contribution from the internal
moment gradient and leads to the EZ&“’ term. The N sin
8 part of H is the contribution from the internal axial force
and produces the Wagner term PP#‘. Thus the Wagner
term is a torsional effect of the internal normal stress
components in a deformed section.
In Ojalvo’s single bar derivation for torsional buckling,
the inclusion of GJ@’ and EI,@“’ terms in the torsional
equation amounts to admitting the contributions of T and
V cos 8, respectively. However, the contribution of N sin
0 in its spatial form had been replaced erroneously by the
contribution of the statical resultant axial force passing
through the centroid. In the present two-bar model, the spa-
tial form of N sin 6 produces a nonzero torque while Ojal-
vo’s resultant force representation leads to a null moment.
As a result, Ojalvo’s theory predicts that torsional buckling
is not possible for the #considered model. This pinpoints
the inconsistency of Ojalvo’s static-kinematic derivation,
where the spatial effects of some internal forces are admit-
ted and others are compromised.
N=Pcose-Hsine (14)
The Wagner term should not be interpreted as the torsional
moment due to P sin 0 which is a part of V as shown in
equation (13). Although the magnitude of the result of
using P sin 0 is correct, it produces a torque acting in the
opposite sense of the correct internal moment, leading to
the misconception that the Wagner term is an external
effect. Such an interpretation of the Wagner torque as an
external effect is fraught with difficulties when considering
the statical equilibrium of a free-body segment. The intro-
duction of a fictitious lateral load, to represent the effect of
axial load on the deformed configuration, further reinforces
the inaccurate notion that the Wagner term is an external
effect. Moreover, in such a representation, the Wagner term
arises from the shear stresses generated by the fictitious
load and this has led to the linking of the Wagner term to
shear stresses on the sectional surface. This is incorrect,
and as pointed out earlier, the Wagner term arises from the
internal normal stresses in the axially loaded member.
130 Wagner term in flexural-torsional
5. Flexural-torsional buckling of open-profile
columd
In the preceding section, the two-bar model has illustrated
the basis of the Wagner term and clarified its misleading
interpretations. It remains now to derive the governing
equations with the Wagner term for a general thin-walled
open-profile column using the static-kinematic approach in
a similar manner.
The following points must be noted before attempting to
derive the governing equation from a free-body diagram.
In the conventional linear theory of structures, the consti-
tutive relations between generalized stresses and strains
are expressed subject to the assumption that geometrical
changes due to deformation do not affect the basic
relations. The linear theory guarantees a unique solution
for a given structure and loading. The alternative solution
provided by the Euler concept of buckling, is due to a
modified application of the linear theory. In bifurcation
buckling analysis, linear relationships are expressed link-
ing strains of an assumed deformed configuration, and
stresses that are in equilibrium with the loading in the
same deformed configuration. In other words, in the con-
ventional analysis, equilibrium is expressed for the undis-
turbed form of the structure whereas in buckling analysis,
equilibrium is expressed for a deformed state of the struc-
ture.
The introduction of such a variation does not pose any
difficulty in flexural buckling analysis of columns since
the bending moments in an initially imperfect column
can be readily related to the change in curvature from
an initial straight form to an assumed imperfect shape.
However, in flexural-torsional buckling analysis of thin-
walled open profile columns, the application of the Euler
concept of buckling requires careful consideration of the
assumed deformed configuration. The main difficulty lies
in the fact that when an initially straight member is
twisted subject to the conditions of no cross-sectional
distortion and no shear deformation in the middle sur-
face, the initially parallel longitudinal lines of the mem-
ber take spiral forms which are no longer parallel to
each other.
Consider the stress components acting on a warped open-
profile section as shown in Figure 4 which is subjected to
a uniform axial prestress o<,. The sectional surface is a plane
that is orthogonal to the axis of the undeformed member,
but after torsional deformation the sectional surface would
not be a plane in general. Nevertheless, this sectional sur-
Figure 4 Free-body diagram
buckling: W. A. M. Alwis and C. M. Wang
face forms a valid boundary along the member axis. The
incremental stresses due to flexural-torsional deformation
are as follows: 7: is the warping shear stress, T; the shear
stress due to bending, r;1, the St Venant shear stress, a:
the normal stress due to bimoment and ai the normal stress
due to bending. Note that in the conventional theory, it is
assumed that the transverse shear stress across the wall sec-
tion in the direction orthogonal to the middle surface is null.
The torsional moment Tz of these stresses about an axis
parallel to the original member axis is derived next. As
discussed in Section 1 of this paper, the terms -EZ&“’ and
GJ4’ are due to r: and r:v. The stresses ri, a; and a:
do not produce first-order moments. What remains to be
determined is the contribution from a,. The components of
oO normal to the z-axis are -a,~’ in the x-direction and
-a,~’ in the y-direction, where the displacements u and v
at (x,y) are given by
u = 4 - (Y - YJ4 (15)
v = v, + (X -X,)4 (lo)
in which U, and v, are the displacements of the shear centre
located at (x,,y,). Since the resultant force of all sectional
stresses has to be parallel to the z-axis, the moment of
stresses about any axis parallel to the z-axis will be the
same. It follows that, by taking moments about an axis par-
allel to the z-axis through the displaced shear centre of the
section, the contribution to T, from a, is given by
-a<> [U’(Y - Y,) - V’(X - -41 dA
i A
which on substitution from equations ( 15) and ( 16) yields
where A denotes the area of the section and P = u,,4. Hence,
the torsional moment of the internal stresses acting on the
deformed section, about the original member axis is
given by
TI = -EZw+“’ + GJ+’ - P(+#J’ + u,& - v,;x,~) (17a)
The moment gradient about the z-axis is thus given by
ml = EIwv - GJ$” + P(r&V + u;yy, - v’$~) (17b)
For flexural-torsional buckling of the open-profile column
under axial load
mZ = 0 (18)
The substitution of equation ( 17b) into equation ( 18) leads
to equation (3).
It is worth noting that the foregoing derivation is based
on a uniformly distributed end traction a,. This form of end
traction does not produce a bimoment. If other statically
equivalent end tractions are applied, such as a concentrated
load at the centroid, in general there will be a nontrivial
bimoment distribution along the member. The presence of a
bimoment results in a nonuniform normal stress distribution
across the section. Hence equation (17) may not apply in
such a case. The St Venant principle for end tractions will
Wagner term in flexural-torsional
not be valid in general for longitudinal end forces applied
on thin-walled open-proflle members5. Statically null sys-
tems of end tractions can give rise to primary longitudinal
stresses which may affect the buckling load.
6. Work-energy approach
Goto and ChenzO claimed that Ojalvo’s energy derivationI
is invalid because it violates the constant load condition.
In a recent paper, the writers2’ clarified that there is no need
to insist on the constancy of load for a valid bifurcation
analysis through the work-energy approach. As Ojelvo’s
error does not lie in imposing a constant load, it is then
imperative to determine where the mistake lies in his
energy formulation.
In the work-energy approach, up to second-order changes
in incremental strains and stresses need to be accounted for
when considering a deformed configuration. All terms of
order higher than the second can be neglected. For compati-
bility, it is necessary thal:
; AP = 6, + 6, + a,, = S
where L is the member length, EA the axial rigidity, AP
the second-order increment in the compressive load, 6, the
second-order increment of the average end-to-end distance
in the deformed configuration relative to the prebuckling
configuration, S, the change in end-to-end distance due to
bowing of the member, a,, is the contraction of the member
due to twisting while maintaining the Euler-Bernoulli
‘plane section’ condition, and 6 the total change in member
length. The second-order changes in length 6, and 8, are,
respectively, given by
8, = ; L (us’ + v;‘) dz
I 0
6, = ; < L @2 dz
I 0
in which r, is the polar radius of gyration of the member
section with respect to the centroid.
The incremental work done by the load and the
incremental strain energy in the member can be expressed,
respectively, by2’
w=-P62
lJ=-P6+ u,
in which U, is the conventional internal
component6 given by
U, = ; L (E&u;= + EI,v:~ + El,f=
I 0
It is clear from equations ( 19) and (23) that the conven-
tional strain energy functional implicitly presumes that the
member length and the load does not change (i.e. 6 = 0
and AP=O).
By the substitution for 8, from equation (19) and then
introducing equation (22), the general form of strain energy
buckling: W. A. M. Alwis and C. M. Wang 131
expression (23) for an axially prestressed open-profile thin-
walled member can be written as
u=w-P(6,+6,.)+U, (25)
Hence the total incremental energy functional is given by
II = u- w= -P(S, + S,,) + u, (26)
Note that II is independent of any second-order changes
assumed for end-to-end distance 8, or the load AP in the
buckled configuration considered.
The deficiency of the bar model proposed by Ojalvo can
also be readily identified in the foregoing work-energy deri-
vation. A bar model will not contain the 6, term which is
the axial shortening due to twisting of a three-dimensional
member. It is clear that the corresponding energy term PS,
is precisely the difference between Ojalvo’s energy func-
tional and the conventional one. Ojalvo had assumed that
the bar length does not change (i.e. S = 0) and has
implemented 8, + 8, = 0. This implementation is correct
(19) only when the member is represented by its centroidal axis
ignoring the longitudinal effect of twisting in three-dimen-
sions subject to the Euler-Bernoulli hypothesis.
The Wagner term in the governing equation (3) results
from the -P(& + S,,) term, This term is an exclusive
component of internal strain energy U as can be observed
from equation (25), and it is not a part of the external work
W given by equation (22). This result is in agreement with
the observation made in the preceding static-kinematic deri-
vation that the Wagner term denotes an internal stress
resultant. Many textbook derivations consider the special
case of constant load, AP = 0 which is tantamount to stating
that 6 = 0. Although this additional constraint is unnecess-
ary and irrelevant to the final result, its introduction makes
the expression for external work W appear as P( 8, + S,),
(20) giving the false impression that the consequent Wagner
term is an external load effect.
Lenz and Vielsack22 have commented that according to
(21)
experimental evidence, twisting of a closed-profile member
does not shorten it. If the deformation of the member is
taken to be due to changes in lengths of longitudinal lines
that deform to spiral shapes as the member twists, a short-
ening is predicted. It should be noted that when there is
twisting of such a closed-profile member, the wall middle
surface is subjected to shear deformation, or else twisting
cannot occur. In the linear theory, pure shear on a square
(22) element deforms it to a rhombus, yet leaves the direct
strains along edges of the square unaffected. However, the
(23)
thin-walled open-profile member theory is based on the
assumption that the middle surface of the walls undergoes
strain energy
no shear deformation. This assumption implies that any
change in length of longitudinal lines on the middle surface
(which wrap around the torsion axis in response to the
+ GJc#i2) dz torque) is accompanied by an appropriate change in longi-
tudinal stresses. The geometry of a twist that satisfies the
(24) condition of no shear deformation in the middle surface
requires the longitudinal lines to tilt with respect to others
depending on their spatial distances across the cross-sec-
tion. 0jalvo’s’3 suggestion that Lenz and Vielsack’s com-
ment on closed-profile members also applies to open profile
members is unacceptable because it ignores the fundamen-
tal difference in middle plane shear deformation in the the-
ories of closed- and open-profile thin-walled members.
132 Wagner term in flexural-torsional
7. Conclusions
A static-kinematic based explanation of the Wagner term in
the flexural-torsional buckling of thin-walled open-profile
columns has been presented. The Wagner term is an
internal stress resultant arising from the normal stresses act-
ing on the member section. This is a torsional moment of
the same order as other torsional effects (such as St Venant
torque and warping torque) when a member is prestressed
prior to initiation of an infinitesimally small torsional defor-
mation. However, when the prestressing force is of the
same order as the applied torsional moment, the torque
denoted by the Wagner term would become a higher-order
term when compared with the other two internal stress
resultants. Some issues raised by Ojalvo and others during
various discussions on the subject have also been addressed
herein in the process of clarifying the Wagner term. The
following is a brief comment on the main issues.
The reservation raised about the Wagner term by Ojalvo
stems from the fact that there has been no statically admiss-
ible free-body diagram to validate the Wagner term. This
issue has been clouded by the use of a fictitious lateral load
to simulate the axial prestressing effect and the belief that
the Wagner term is an external action. The presentation
herein of a statically admissible free-body diagram
accompanied by clarifications of various relevant issues
using two simple models, establishes the validity of the
Wagner term, without resorting to the use of a fictitious
load or other means questioned by Ojalvo.
The deformed member section not being in a single plane
does not affect the derivation since all moments are taken
about a single axis, accounting for the direction of different
stress components acting on the section. It is shown that
torsional deformation in an open-profile member involves
three-dimensional effects which cannot be simply modelled
by a single line representation unless due care is exercised.
In the case of Ojalvo’s bar theory, two spatial effects (St
Venant torsion and warping torsion) have been correctly
included, but the spatial effect of the normal stresses in
the deformed configuration has been oversimplified. This
oversimplification has led to Ojalvo’s erroneous conclusion
that torsional buckling cannot occur in members whose
shear centre and centroid coincide.
The conventional theory for flexural-torsional buckling
of axially loaded columns applies to cases where the bimo-
ments at the ends are zero. The case of the uniformly dis-
tributed end-tractions is one such instance. If the end bimo-
ments are nonzero, the primary longitudinal stresses will
not be uniformly distributed, leading to a possibly different
buckling solution.
The work-energy approach presented herein comp-
lements the static-kinematic derivation. The error made by
buckling: W. A. M. Alwis and C. M. Wang
Ojalvo in his energy formulation lies in having incompat-
ible strain and potential energy expressions.
It is hoped that the present clarification will be useful in
reaching a common ground on the Wagner term in flexural-
torsional buckling of thin-walled open-profile columns.
References
1 Wagner, H. ‘Verdrehung und Knickung von offenen Profilen,’ 25fh
Anniversary Publication, Technische Hochschule, Danzig, 1929,
329-343 (NACA translation, TM 807)
Timoshenko, S. P. Bull. Polytech. Inst., St. Petersburg, 1905
Timoshenko, S. P. and Gere, J. M. Theory of elastic stability,
McGraw Hill, New York, 1961
Goodier, J. N. ‘The buckling of compressed bars by torsion and flex-
ure,’ Bull. 27, Engineering Experiment Station, Cornell University,
Ithaca, New York, 1941
5 Vlasov, V. Z. Thin walled elastic beams, (Translated by Israel Pro-
gram for Scientific Translation for National Science Foundation,
Washington DC, 1961) (Russian original published 1941)
6 Bleich, F. Buckling strength of metal structures, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1952
I Galambos, T. V. Structural members and frames, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1968
8 Trahair, N. S. and Bradford, M. A. The behaviour and design of steel
structures, (2nd edn) Chapman and Hall, New York, 1988
9 Ojalvo, M. ‘Wagner hypothesis in beam and column theory,’ /.
Engng. Mech. Div., ASCE 1981, 107 (4) 669-677
10 Ojalvo, M. ‘Discussion on “Lateral-torsional buckling of tapered I-
beams”‘, J. Struct. Div., AXE, 1982, 108 (2), 503-504
II Ojalvo, M. ‘Closure of “Wagner hypothesis in beam and column
theory” ’, .I. Engng Mech. Div., ASCE 1983, 109 (3), 924-934
12 Ojalvo, M. ‘Discussion on “Buckling of monosymmetric I-beams
under moment gradient”‘, J. Struct. Engng., ASCE 1987, 113 (6),
1387-1391
13 Ojalvo, M. ‘The buckling of thin-walled open-profile bars,’ J. Appl.
Mech., ASME 1989, 56, 633-638
14 Ojalvo, ‘M. Closure of “The buckling of thin-walled open-profile
bars” ‘, J. Appl. Mech., ASME, 1990, 57, 479-480
15 Kitipomchai, S. and Dux, P. F. ‘Discussion on “Wagner hypothesis
in beam and column theory”‘, J. Engng. Mech. Div., ASCE 1982,
108 (3), 570-572
16 Studnieka, J. and K&tec, V. ‘Discussion on “Wagner hypothesis in
beam and column theory”‘, J. Engng. Mech. Div., AXE 1982, 108
(3). 573-574
17 Trahair, N. S. ‘Discussion on “Wagner hypothesis in beam and col-
umn theory”‘, J. Engng. Mech. Div., ASCE 1982, 108 (3). 575-578
18 Haaijer, G. ‘Discussion on “Wagner hypothesis in beam and column
theory” ‘, J. Engng. Mech. Div., ASCE 1983, 109 (3), 923-924
19 Kitipomchai, S., Wang, C. M. and Trahair, N. S. ‘Closure of “Buck-
ling of monosymmetric I-beams under moment gradient”‘, J. Strucr.
Engng., ASCE 1987, 113 (6), 1391-1395
20 Goto, Y. and Chen, W. F. ‘On the validity of Wagner hypothesis,’
ht. J. Solids Srrucr. 1989, 25 (6). 621-634
21 Alwis, W. A. M. and Wang, C. M. ‘Should load remain constant
when a thin-walled open profile column buckles?’ Int. J. Solids
Strucf. 1994, 31 (21) 2945-2950
22 Lenz, J, and Vielsack, P. ‘Eine kritsche Bemerkung zur Theorie des
Drill-knickens,’ Der Stuhlbau 1980, 49 (8), 245
23 Silva, R. R. ‘Discussion on “The buckling of thin-walled open-profile
bars” ’, J. Appl. Mech., ASME 1990, 57, 479