Structures Congress 2013 © ASCE 2013 1987

A PRACTICAL METHOD FOR CRITICAL LOAD DETERMINATION AND

STABILITY EVALUATION OF STRUCTURES

Pedro Fernandez, P.E., M.ASCE1 and Frederick R. Rutz, PhD, P.E., S.E.,M.ASCE2
1
ATKINS North America, 4601 DTC Blvd, Ste 700, Denver, CO 80237. (720) 475
7049, Fax (303) 221 7276, pedro.fernandez@atkinsglobal.com
2
J.R.Harris & Company, 1775 Sherman Street, Denver, CO 80203, (303) 860-9021,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 01/10/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FAX (303) 860 9537, fred.rutz@jrharrisandco.com and University of Colorado

Denver, Campus Box 113, PO Box 173364, Denver, CO, 80217,
frederick.rutz@ucdenver.edu

ABSTRACT

The critical load of a column, compression member or structure, calculated from a

linear elastic analysis of an idealized perfect structure, does not necessary correspond
with the load at which global instability of a real structure occurs. This calculated
critical load of a member does not provide sufficient information to determine when
failure, due to instability of the structure as a whole, will occur. To obtain this
information it is necessary to consider the initial geometrical imperfections,
eccentricities of loading, and the entire nonlinear load deflection behavior of the
structure. However, except for rather straightforward structural framing systems, this
process for determining the critical load is too cumbersome and time consuming to be
used in practical engineering applications.
Today’s computer programs allow for the analysis of complex structures in which
advanced analytical techniques are incorporated such as step-by-step large
deformation analysis, local member buckling analysis, progressive collapse analysis,
etc. It is just a natural progression that global stability analysis for structures be
analyzed with these tools.
The goal of this paper is to propose a practical method for stability evaluation and
assessment of structures that are difficult to analyze with conventional methods, (e.g.
the compression chord of a truss pedestrian bridge or a wind girt). This is done with
the use of computer programs in which a second order analysis can be readily
accomplished by taking into consideration end-restraints, reduced flexural stiffness
and initial geometrical imperfections or out-of-plumbness.

INTRODUCTION

For the most part, the design of steel structures in United States is performed using a
linear elastic analysis to determine the member internal forces. However, code
requirements require that the determination of those forces must include second order
effects for strength checks of individual members. For all but the simplest structural
systems, available methods for stability checks tend to be complicated and tedious.

Structures Congress 2013

 Structures Congress 2013 © ASCE 2013 1988

A PRACTICAL METHOD FOR STABILITY EVALUATION

The following process is proposed for critical load assessment of structures that are
difficult to analyze with conventional hand calculations - for example pony truss
bridges or the compression chord of a wind girt. The method can also be used for any
frame 3D structure or truss.
This proposed procedure incorporates an iterative process to determine the critical
load at which the structure becomes unstable, by systematically increasing the load
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 01/10/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

until the program does not converge on a solution. The two key factors in this
procedure are the introduction of an initial imperfection combined with the ability of
the program to perform a P-Δ analysis. The methodology is based on combining the
direct design method and utilizing readily available 3D commercial computer
software that allows the user to incorporate the two key factors mentioned above.
Geometric imperfections. In order to capture the effects of a second order analysis
in the computer program, an initial imperfection must be included in the model. This
imperfection can be in the form of an applied load, which will deform the structure to
certain displaced shape, or applied displacement to the nodes of the structure. This
initial imperfection, combined with the axial load, will create additional moments,
and these moments will lead to additional displacements and so forth. It is necessary
that a P-Δ analysis be performed. If the structure is stable, the P-Δ feature of the
program will lead to successively smaller displacements until a convergence is
reached. The analysis is repeated with larger loads until the analytical model no
longer converges, and that is the load that causes instability (i.e. buckling).
Reduced stiffness. As described in the Direct Analysis Method (AISC, 2005), one of
the requirements of this method is to reduce the flexural and axial stiffness of
members that contribute to the lateral stability of the structure. The computer program
allows the user to select the level of desired stiffness adjustment. This adjustment can
be set to no stiffness reduction, stiffness reduction with the stiffness reduction
parameter, τb, equal to 1, or stiffness reduction with τb found by an iterative process
presented in Appendix 7 of the 2005 AISC Specifications.
Benchmarks. In the commentary to Appendix 7 of the 2005 AISC Specification, two
benchmark problems are provided to assess the correctness of a second-order analysis
method or computer program. The benchmark problems have been established to
determine whether a proposed analysis method meets the necessary requirements of a
rigorous second-order analysis to be satisfactory for use in the Direct Analysis
Method. The problem descriptions and their rigorous differential equation solutions
can be found in Figure C-A-7.2 of the commentary to Appendix 7 of the AISC 2005
provisions. Case 1 is a simply supported beam column subject to a uniform transverse
load between supports. This problem contains only a P-δ effect because there is no
translation of one end of the member relative to the other end. The second problem is
a cantilever column with a lateral load at its top. This problem contains both P-Δ and
P-δ effects. See Figure C-A-7.3 (AISC, 2005).

Structures Congress 2013

 Structures Congress 2013 © ASCE 2013 1989

Before continuing with the pony truss models or any other model, the computer
program was assessed by setting up two benchmark columns and comparing the
results with the rigorous differential equation solutions shown in Figure C-A-7.2 of
the AISC Specifications and the plots of the maximum moment and deflection as a
function of the applied load P/PeL using the rigorous solution illustrated in Figure C-
A-7.3 (AISC, 2005). The columns were selected such that one column falls in the
long column range and the other column falls in the intermediate column range. The
critical load of an intermediate column is governed by inelastic behavior, while the
critical load of a long column is governed by elastic behavior. The yield stress for
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 01/10/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

these columns is 50 ksi, thus, the critical slenderness ratio, (L/r)c, (i.e. the threshold
between long columns and intermediate columns) can be found as follows:

⎛L⎞ π2 E π2 ( 29000ksi )
⎜ ⎟ = = = 75.66
⎝ r ⎠C σ PL 50ksi

Where E is the Modulus of Elasticity of the column and σPL is the proportional limit.
Both sides of the (L/r)c were investigated. Thus, an intermediate column with a
critical slenderness less than 75.66 and a long column with a critical slenderness
greater than 75.66 were selected. Consequently, the column parameters were set as
follows: the first column (BM-1) is a 15 foot W8x10 steel section fixed at its base, the
slenderness ratio (KL/r) of column BM-1 is 111.6. The second column (BM-2) is a 13
foot W10x22 steel section fixed at its base, the slenderness ratio (KL/r) of column
BM-2 is 73.2. The initial lateral load, H, as shown in Figure 1, was set such that both
columns have an initial lateral displacement of L/750.

Figure 1. Benchmark problem case 2.

( Figure C-A-7.2, AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, 2005. Used
with permission of AISC)

Structures Congress 2013

 Structures Congress 2013 © ASCE 2013 1990

The results of BM-1 (W8x10) are shown in Figures 2 and 3. Figure 2 shows the ratio
of maximum moment to initial moment versus the ratio of the applied vertical load to
the Euler load. Figure 3 shows the ratio of maximum displacement to initial
displacement versus the ratio of the applied vertical load to the Euler load. The Euler
load is defined as PeL=π2EI/L2. The curve labeled AISC Figure C-A-7.3, Case 2 is the
rigorous solution for case 2. Figures 4 and 5 show the results for column BM-2
(W10x22). Figure 4 shows the ratio of maximum moment to initial moment versus
the ratio of the applied vertical load to the Euler load of the column. Figure 5 shows
the ratio of maximum displacement to initial displacement versus the ratio of the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 01/10/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

applied vertical load to the Euler load of the column. In all cases, the response from
the proposed method is in good agreement with the response from the AISC
benchmark solution.

Figure 2. Column BM-1 (W8x10), maximum moment values a function of vs. the
axial force for benchmark problem case 2. Good agreement between method and
bench mark problem. Response asymptotically approaches 0.25, the critical
(buckling) load.

Structures Congress 2013

 Structures Congress 2013 © ASCE 2013 1991
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 01/10/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 3. Column BM-1 (W8x10), maximum moment values a function of vs. the
axial force for benchmark problem case 2. Good agreement between method and
bench mark problem. Response asymptotically approaches 0.25, the critical
(buckling) load.

Figure 4. Column BM-2 (W10x22), maximum moment values a function of vs.

the axial force for benchmark problem case 2. Good agreement between method
and bench mark problem. Response asymptotically approaches 0.25, the critical
(buckling) load.

Structures Congress 2013

 Structures Congress 2013 © ASCE 2013 1992
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 01/10/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 5. Column BM-2 (W10x22), maximum moment values a function of vs.

the axial force for benchmark problem case 2. Good agreement between method
and bench mark problem. Response asymptotically approaches 0.25, the critical
(buckling) load.

Structures Congress 2013

 Structures Congress 2013 © ASCE 2013 1993

ANALYSIS OF PONY TRUSS BRIDGE

For the evaluation and determination of the critical load of structures with elastic
lateral restraints, a parametric study was developed and a pony truss bridge model
was set up using the computer program. The model, herein referred as the full size
model (FS-1), was modeled with the following dimensions: The span was set at 40 ft,
and the deck width was set at 12 ft. The transverse frame consisted of 8 in x 4 in x ¼
in stringer beams and 4 in x 4 in x ¼ in verticals and diagonals. The 6 in concrete
deck was modeled composite with the frames. With the purpose of evaluating the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 01/10/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

influence of transverse frame stiffness, number of panels and flexural stiffness of the
top compression cord, a factorial process was developed such that, systematically, all
these variables were considered and the critical load was determined for each case. In
total, the parametric study included 42 analyses. The analyses included, varying the
top chord cross section form a hollow section of HSS 2x2x1/8 to a section of HSS
6x6x1/4. Two different heights of trusses were investigated, 4 feet and 6 feet, which
corresponds to an aspect ratio of 0.10 and 0.15 respectively. Three different panel
configurations were investigated, 6 panels, 8 panels and 10 panels.
The aspect ratio refers to the ratio of the height of the truss to the length of the bridge.
The stiffness parameter refers to the transverse rigidity of the frame (elastic restraint)
times the cross sectional area of the cord divided by the length of the chord.
The transverse rigidity of elastic restraints for the compression chord (AASHTO,
E
2009) is given by: C =
⎡ ⎞⎤
h 2 ⎢⎛⎜ h ⎞+⎛ b
⎟ ⎜ 2I ⎟ ⎥
⎣⎝ 3I c⎠ ⎝ b ⎠⎦

Once the model was completed and the gravity loads were applied to the deck
surface, the first step was to add a geometrical imperfection. This imperfection was
entered as a load that would cause an out of plane deformation of both of the upper
compression chords of L/750. The next step was to systematically increase the gravity
load until the critical gravity load was found. This was done by maintaining constant
the gravity load while incrementally changing the load factor. Hence, for each case,
the gravity load was increased until the program no longer converged to a solution, in
which, at this point the maximum load in the compression cord was recorded as the
ratio of such maximum load to the yield load of the chord.
Figure 6 presents of the models as an example, this model having an aspect ratio of
0.10 and 6 panels. Figure 7 shows the deformed shape of that model at the critical
load for a case when the top chord is slender with respect to the verticals of the truss.
For comparison, Figure 8 shows the same model’s deformed shape for a case when
the top chord is much stiffer with respect to the verticals of the truss.

Structures Congress 2013

 Structures Congress 2013 © ASCE 2013 1994
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 01/10/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 6. Computer Model with 6 panels and an aspect ratio of 0.10.

Figure 7. Deformed shape at the critical load with a slender top chord with
respect to the verticals stiffness.

Figure 8. Deformed shape at the critical load with a stiffer top chord with
respect to the verticals stiffness.

Structures Congress 2013

 Structures Congress 2013 © ASCE 2013 1995

RESULTS
The normalized results, from the full size model and with an aspect ratio of 0.15, 6
panels and stiffness parameter of 0.57 are shown in Figure 9. In addition, the
influence of the initial geometrical imperfection was investigated by adding three
different initial imperfections. These initial imperfections were implicitly defined by
adding a load that will cause the following out of plane displacements of the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 01/10/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

compression chord: L/500, L/750 and L/3000, where L is the length of the
compression chord. The load was systematically increased from 0.0 kip up to the
point the program did not reach a solution that is, the iterative process no longer
converged.
This 40 foot pony truss was designed for 100 psf. By the analytical method presented
here, the expected critical (buckling) was found to be 195 psf. Similarly, the critical
load of the compression chord was found to be in the order of 60% the yield strength
of the chord, regardless of the initial, out of plane, imperfection.
From the results obtained in the full size model analysis, a set of parameters were
selected to develop a smaller model so that the results can be verified with both an
analytical model and a real test model. That set of parameters consisted of an aspect
ratio of 0.15 and a stiffness parameter of 0.57 with 8 panels.

Figure 9. Lateral displacement of compression cord vs. P/Py for three different
initial geometrical imperfections for a given pony truss bridge. Note that
regardless of the initial imperfection, all become unstable at the same load, in
this case occurring at 0.60 Py of the compression chord.

Structures Congress 2013

 Structures Congress 2013 © ASCE 2013 1996

CONCLUSIONS

The authors present a method for determining critical loads for structures. The
method uses readily available computer software to solve for global critical
(buckling) load for structures. The method compares well against AISC benchmark
problems.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 01/10/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

REFERENCES

AISC (2005), Specifications for Structural Steel Buildings, ANSI/AISC 360-05,

American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.

AASHTO (2009), Guide Specifications for the Design of Pedestrian Bridges,

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington,
DC.

Structures Congress 2013