C Hendy, S Denton, D MacKenzie, D Iles 1

EN1993 PRACTICE PAPER: BUCKLING ANALYSIS OF

STEEL BRIDGES
C Hendy, Atkins, Epsom, UK
S Denton, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Bristol, UK
D MacKenzie, Flint and Neill, London, UK
D Iles, SCI, Ascot, UK
Abstract
Eurocode 3 presents definitions of slenderness in terms of critical forces or critical stresses to
facilitate determination of slenderness from a computer elastic critical buckling analysis. This
analysis will not always be required (there are often simpler provisions), but its availability
allows more accurate slenderness determination than might otherwise be obtained by simple
codified equations. Determination of slenderness can be avoided by carrying out second
order analysis allowing for imperfections; this is a more time-consuming approach but will
often given a more economic result, although not always depending on the imperfections
used. The exceptions are discussed in the paper.
Introduction
Accounting for buckling is a key aspect of the design of steel structures. Eurocode 3 offers
considerable flexibility to designers in the way that this can be done, and it is therefore
important for designers to have an understanding of the fundamental concepts underpinning
buckling behaviour, such as the implications of imperfections and slenderness, the effects of
geometric and material non-linearity, and the possibility that buckling will occur at a global,
member and/or local level.

Eurocode 3 presents definitions of slenderness in terms of critical forces or critical stresses to
facilitate determination of slenderness from a computer elastic critical buckling analysis. This
analysis will not always be required (there are often simpler provisions), but its availability
allows more accurate slenderness determination than might otherwise be obtained by simple
codified equations. Determination of slenderness can be avoided by carrying out second
order analysis allowing for imperfections; this is a more time-consuming approach but will
often given a more economic result, although not always depending on the imperfections
used. The exceptions are discussed in the paper.

This paper provides some guidance on the use of both calculation methods including some
areas where caution is required. A brief overview of buckling behaviour and analysis is also
given. References to clauses in EN 1993 have been abbreviated below. For example, 3-1-
5/3.3(1) is a reference to clause 3.3(1) of EN 1993-1-5.
General Overview of Buckling Behaviour and Analysis
In this section buckling behaviour and analysis requirements are considered in general terms;
the specific requirements of Eurocode 3 are discussed in the following sections of the paper.
C Hendy, S Denton, D MacKenzie, D Iles 2


It is easiest to first explore buckling behaviour in the context of a simple pin ended member
under axial load, and such an approach is taken here. The observations are however, more
generally relevant.

If a pin ended member with some initial (bow) imperfection is subjected to an increasing axial
load, the member will tend to bow outwards until a point is reached when, with increasing
lateral deflection, the load that can be sustained will reduce. The maximum axial load
(referred to here as the buckling load) will be dependent upon the slenderness of the member,
the initial bow and the material strength. The buckling load is usually reached when, or soon
after, yield first occurs at an extreme fibre of the cross-section; yielding leads to a reduction in
the (tangent) flexural modulus of the member and therefore the rate of change of lateral
deflection with load increases.

The axial buckling load that can be sustained may be considerably lower than the (theoretical)
maximum axial load that could be sustained by a perfectly straight member that remains in the
elastic state. This theoretical maximum axial load is the elastic critical force (in Eurocode
terminology) and for a pin ended member is the Euler buckling load, given by t
2
EI / L
cr
2
,
where L
cr
is the member length.

Of course, there are other factors that affect the buckling load, for example:

(i) Residual (self-equilibrating) stresses in the member due to the way it has been
manufactured can result in first yield, and therefore lateral instability, occurring at a
lower axial load.
(ii) Local buckling of the plates that make up the member might occur, and whilst this
local plate buckling might itself stabilise, it can result in a reduction in the effective
stiffness of the member and therefore a reduction in the buckling load. This effect is
usually very small.
(iii) If the member forms part of a larger structure, it is possible that some global
buckling instability will occur, before the member reaches its buckling load.

The effects of geometric imperfections and residual stresses can be accounted for by
incorporating appropriate geometric imperfections in the member buckling analysis as
discussed in the section on imperfections below. It should be noted that the use of equivalent
geometrical imperfections to represent residual stresses is usually more conservative than
modelling the pattern of residual stress directly in the analysis.

There are essentially two methods that can be used to calculate the buckling load accounting
for imperfections. The first is to use buckling curves that give a reduction factor that is
applied to the resistance of the cross section (squash load); the reduction factor depends on
the so-called non-dimensional slenderness that expresses the relationship between elastic
critical force and the squash load. In this way, the effect of buckling is taken into account
through a reduction in the member resistance. This is the approach that has generally been
used in past UK practice. The derivation of the buckling curves in EN 1993-1-1 is presented
in reference 3.
C Hendy, S Denton, D MacKenzie, D Iles 3



The second approach is to model the imperfections in the member in a numerical analysis
package that can take account of geometric non-linearity (i.e. the additional force effects
arising from the lateral deflection of the member under axial load) and material non-linearity
(i.e. yielding of the steel). There is generally no need to consider material non-linearity if the
analysis is stopped when yield is first reached the further increase in load is small. Both
methods are discussed in this paper; if the imperfections are suitably chosen, both approaches
can give identical results.

When the first of these two methods is used there are several ways in which the elastic critical
force can be determined. In past UK practice, this was generally done through establishing an
effective buckling length (typically using tables and graphs) and the same method can still
effectively be used in designs to Eurocodes. However, with the increasing availability of
software that can perform elastic critical buckling analysis, it is expected that the elastic
critical force will increasingly be determined directly through numerical methods. There are a
number of pitfalls when using software to perform elastic critical buckling analysis, and these
are discussed later. There can also be considerable advantages.

It is, however, absolutely crucial that designers recognise that the results of elastic critical
buckling analyses do not give the buckling load of the structure directly they give ideal
results (equivalent to the Euler buckling load) that must then be factored to account for
imperfections.

There is one further aspect that merits comment, although it does tend to be more relevant to
building than bridge design. This concerns the global response of the structure and the
influence that it may have on member buckling. If a structure is globally sensitive to second
order effects (i.e. if changes in its geometry under load give rise to increasing load effects),
then it will be important that such second order effects are taken into account in determining
the boundary conditions used for member buckling verifications, and in doing so, that account
is taken of the effects of global imperfections. Finally, of course, it will be understood that
consideration of imperfections is not only important in second order analysis, it is also
important in evaluating the loads in bracing members etc.

A general overview of the approaches that can be taken to account for member and global
buckling behaviour, the effects of imperfections and second order effects, is shown in Figure
A.1 in Appendix A of this paper. In this figure, the term first order analysis is used to refer
to an analysis in which the deformed geometry is not taken into account, the term second
order analysis is used to refer to an analysis in which the deformed geometry is taken into
account, and non-linear analysis is used to refer to an analysis in which both geometric (i.e.
second order) non-linearity and material non-linearity are modelled.
C Hendy, S Denton, D MacKenzie, D Iles 4


Elastic Critical Buckling Analysis
Use for buckling checks on members
Eurocode 3 presents the expressions for non-dimensional slenderness expressions in terms of
critical forces, e.g. N
cr
, M
cr
, or, in the case of shear, in terms of critical stress,t
cr
. Some
examples are shown below:

Buckling in compression:


Buckling in bending:


Buckling in shear:



It is therefore often beneficial to be able to evaluate these critical forces and stresses directly
to determine the most accurate slenderness. The resistance to the mode of buckling being
considered is then determined from equations for reduction factor for that particular mode,
which is usually theoretically based and adjusted for test observations. The reduction factor
curves for buckling of compression members in clause 6.3.1 of EN 1993-1-1 are a good
example, having been derived from the Perry-Robertson theory using values of imperfections
which provide good correlation with test results.

The critical stresses and forces can sometimes be obtained by hand calculation using
mathematical expressions. This is quite easy for members in compression where the concept
of effective length (L
cr
) can be used to determine the critical buckling force N
cr
as
2
cr
2
L
EI t
.
However, for bending the situation is different and it is difficult to determine an expression
for M
cr
for real bridge situations and hence determining the value directly from an elastic
critical buckling analysis can be desirable and will often bring economic benefit.
Practical example of use
A good example of use is the buckling of paired beams during construction of the concrete
deck slab. This may be a critical check as the girders will often be most susceptible to lateral
torsional buckling (LTB) failure when the deck slab is being poured. Beams are normally
braced in pairs with discrete torsional restraints, often in the form of X bracing or K bracing
(as shown in Figure 1), but for shallower girders single horizontal channels connecting the
beams at mid-height is an economic, but less rigid, alternative.

cr
y
N
Af
=
cr
y
M
Wf
LT =
cr
y
t
t

t
=
C Hendy, S Denton, D MacKenzie, D Iles 5




Figure 1. Pairs of braced beams awaiting deck slab construction

Paired girders with torsional bracing as above generally fail by rotation of the braced pair over
a span length as shown in Figure 2. With widely spaced torsional bracing, buckling of the
compression flange between bracing points is also possible. There are no formulae for the
former situation given in EN 1993 so there are two possible approaches to determine a
slenderness and hence the reduction factor for buckling:

(i) utilise the hand calculation method of PD 6695-2
[1]
to determine the slenderness
directly;
(ii) determine M
cr
by computer analysis for use in slenderness calculation.

The second method will produce the most economic design.




Figure 2. Buckling of paired beams prior to concrete hardening

Point of
rotation
C Hendy, S Denton, D MacKenzie, D Iles 6


An example composite bridge case is considered below. It is a simple single span bridge with
two steel plate girders braced together by cross bracing. The dimensions are representative of
typical UK construction, being based on a recently constructed bridge. A uniformly
distributed vertical load was applied to both girders, representing ULS factored load from
concreting of the span and steel self weight, and an elastic critical buckling analysis carried
out. The lowest global mode of buckling, corresponding to the attainment of M
cr
, is shown in
Figure 3; the girder pair is seen to rotate together over the whole span. The second lowest
global mode is shown in Figure 4 and corresponds to lateral buckling of the compression
flange between braces. M
cr
is obtained from the computer analysis as the largest initial first
order bending moment multiplied by the load factor at buckling in the mode of interest.

Table 1 shows a comparison of the final bending resistances produced from method (i), (ii)
and a full non-linear analysis (method iii), the latter being a very close approximation to the
real bending resistance of the girders and is discussed more in below. The elastic critical
bucking analysis method has a clear economic advantage over the hand calculation method.
More detail on this particular example can be found in reference 2.



Figure 3. Lowest global mode of buckling for single span beams
C Hendy, S Denton, D MacKenzie, D Iles 7



Figure 4. Second lowest global mode of buckling for single span beams


Calculation method
Bending resistance
(kNm)
(i) Hand calculation to PD 6695-2 5260
(ii) EN 1993-1-1 clause 6.3.2 with M
cr

determined from elastic buckling analysis
7470
(iii) Non Linear FE (with strain hardening)
9591

Table 1. Comparison of resistances obtained by different methods for paired beams

Use for buckling checks on entire systems BS EN 1993-1-1, 6.3.4
Clause 6.3.4 of EN 1993-1-1 is written as a general method for checking out of plane (lateral)
buckling of members and frames when the axial force and bending moment both give rise to
out of plane buckling of the element(s) i.e. the axial force or bending moment applied
separately would lead to lateral buckling of the element(s). An example of this is given in the
Designers Guide to EN 1993-2
[3]
, section 6.3.4.1, example 6.3-4. The slenderness for
buckling is given by:

op cr
k ult
op
,
,
o
o
=

where o
ult,k
is the load factor to apply to the factored ULS loads to cause cross section failure
and o
cr,op
is the load factor to apply to the same loads to give elastic critical buckling. In such
cases, it is logical that the cross section resistance used in the slenderness calculation be based
C Hendy, S Denton, D MacKenzie, D Iles 8


upon both the axial force and the bending moment together, because both cause lateral
buckling of the system i.e.



An important caveat to this approach is that if there are significant in-plane second order
effects (i.e. if the moment M
y,Ed
is significantly amplified by the presence of the axial force
and in-plane deflections and imperfections) then these must be included in deriving M
y,Ed
and
hence
k ult,
o . This is because since the moment M
y,Ed
leads to lateral buckling, its full value
including second order effects must be used when checking lateral buckling.

The UK National Annex to EN 1993-1-1 limits the application of the rule to nominally
straight members. This restriction was not intended by the Eurocode drafters; moments from
initial curvature are included in the calculation of M
y,Ed
perfectly satisfactorily. Indeed, the
example of application of the clause prepared by the Project Team
[4]
features a curved
member.

The above format was not intended to be used to check other situations where the axial force
and moment do not both promote out of plane buckling. The checking of arches is one such
area, noting the limitations above in the UK NA regarding applicability only to straight
members! The format could, with care, however be applied to arches. The application of the
clause to the design of an arch is discussed in reference 5 where the method was shown to be
acceptable.

Pitfalls in elastic critical buckling analysis
For those inexperienced in elastic critical buckling analysis, there are many pitfalls and some
examples are given below:
(i) Not using the correct mode in calculations
The lowest global mode of buckling for the paired beams example above was shown in Figure
3. However, where shell elements have been used throughout, numerous local buckling
modes such as that shown in Figure 5 will usually be found at much lower load factors. These
typically correspond to buckling of the top of the web plate in compression or potentially to
torsional buckling of the top flange and may be ignored for the purposes of determining M
cr
;
these buckling effects are considered in the effective section properties and flange outstand
shape limits in codified approaches. These modes may occur at much lower load factors than
the overall mode of buckling sought and their use in calculation would be very conservative.
It is important that this is understood. Simpler models can sometimes be used to avoid
determining modes that are of no interest e.g. the use of beam elements for flanges in plate
girders to eliminate flange torsional buckling modes.



C Hendy, S Denton, D MacKenzie, D Iles 9

















Figure 5. Typical local elastic buckling modes for beams
(ii) Not appreciating the limitations of software
Many, if not most, software programmes which can perform elastic critical buckling analysis
do so based on the initial un-deformed geometry. Where a structure (e.g. an arch) or element
flattens under load due to elastic shortening or abutment movements, the geometry changes
and the compressive forces can increase as illustrated in the simplified system in Figure 6.
Snap through buckling then becomes a possibility and this will be undetected by the software
unless it can include the effects of geometric non-linearity.


Figure 6. Flattening of arch (idealised as two pin-jointed members) due to abutment
movement and elastic shortening
(iii) Not appreciating the limitations of code methods
The slenderness of arches can be determined by first obtaining N
cr
from an elastic critical
buckling analysis. This would be fine for the arch in Figure 7 with pin jointed hangers (not
shown). The slenderness is determined, then the reduction factor is obtained and the arch
strength is checked.


initial
shape
C Hendy, S Denton, D MacKenzie, D Iles 10










Figure 7. In-plane buckling of arch with pinned hangers


The same analysis can be used for the arch in Figure 8. However, this design has rigid
connections at the ends of the hangers. The buckling deformations induce moments in the
hangers but the analysis gives no information directly useful for checking the hangers.
Consequently, arch buckling may be checked as above but the additional effects on the
hangers are then missed if they are only designed for first order effects only. For this case, a
second order analysis should be used to determine the hanger moments.



buckled shape

Figure 8. In-plane buckling of arch with rigid hanger connections

(iv) Not understanding the software output
The output of an eigenvalue buckling analysis is a series of buckling mode shapes and their
corresponding load factors. Often, software also displays moments and forces with each
mode. These are the internal effects associated with the mode shape when the peak
displacement in that mode has been set to unity in some set of units. It is not therefore
information that can be used directly in the design. Inexperienced engineers have however
been seen to try and design against the moments produced.
buckled shape
C Hendy, S Denton, D MacKenzie, D Iles 11


Non-Linear Analysis
Imperfections
The modelling of imperfections is a key aspect to the non-linear analysis of structures.
Imperfections comprise geometric imperfections and residual stresses. The term geometric
imperfection is used to describe departures from the exact centreline setting out dimensions
found on drawings which occur during fabrication and erection. This is inevitable as all
construction work can only be executed within certain tolerances. Geometric imperfections
include lack of verticality, lack of straightness, lack of fit and minor joint eccentricities. The
behaviour of members under load is also affected by residual stresses within the members.
Residual stresses can lead to yielding of regions of members at lower applied external load
than predicted from stress analysis ignoring such effects, leading to a reduction in the member
stiffness. The effects of these residual stresses can be modelled by additional equivalent
geometric imperfections and these are given throughout EN 1993 for the overall design of
members (e.g 3-1-1/5.3.1(2)) and for local buckling of plates (e.g. 3-1-5/C.5). Member
imperfections can apply to overall structure geometries (global imperfection) or locally to
members (local imperfection).

Imperfections must be included in global analysis unless they are included by use of the
appropriate resistance formulae in clause 6.3 when checking the members. For example, the
flexural buckling curves provided in 3-1-1/Figure 6.4 include all imperfections for a given
member effective length of buckling. It should be noted that the equivalent geometric
imperfections given in EN 1993 are not slenderness dependent, being a function of length
only, whereas the imperfections in the resistance formulae are a function of the slenderness
with a cut-off level such that below a certain slenderness, no imperfection is applied in order
to replicate the results of tests for stocky elements. It should therefore be noted that if the
compression resistance of a simple pin-ended member of a given slenderness is obtained
using second order analysis with the imperfections given in Table 5.1 of EN 1993-1-1 for a
particular buckling curve, the resulting resistance will usually be slightly lower than that
obtained from the corresponding resistance curve in 3-1-1/Figure 6.4. For this reason, the UK
NA to EN 1993-1-1 requires the following:

For elastic analysis of the cross-section, the initial imperfections for an individual section about a
particular axis should be back-calculated from the formula for the buckling curves given in BS EN
1993-1-1:2005, 6.3 using the elastic section modulus.

It may not be immediately apparent to designers how to do this but in fact 3-1-1/5.3.1(11)
itself provides guidance through an alternative method. To overcome this moderate
conservatism caused by the difference between imperfections recommended for global
analysis and those used in the resistance curves, EN 1993-1-1 provides an alternative method
whereby the imperfection for the whole structure (global and local imperfections) or an
element is based on the shape of the critical elastic buckling mode and with a magnitude
directly relating to that used in the resistance curves for the particular slenderness. This
unique imperfection is given by:

C Hendy, S Denton, D MacKenzie, D Iles 12


( )
cr
max cr,
Rk
2
1 M
2
2
init
1
1
2 0
q
q
_

o
q
' '
EI
M .

= (D5.3-1)

cr
q represents the local ordinates of the mode shape and
' '
q is the curvature produced by the
mode shape such that max cr,
' '
EIq is the greatest bending moment due to
cr
q at the critical cross
section. Other terms are as follows:

o is the imperfection factor taken from 3-1-1/Tables 6.1 and 6.2 for the relevant mode of
buckling. For varying cross section, the greatest value can conservatively be taken.

cr
k ult,
o
o
= where
k ult,
o is the load amplifier to reach the characteristic squash load N
Rk
of the
most axially stressed section and
cr
o is the load amplifier for elastic critical buckling.

_ is the reduction factor for the above slenderness determined using the relevant buckling
curve appropriate to o.

The derivation of this equation is given in reference 3.

This method and the proposed modification in the UK NA have the disadvantage that the
slenderness of the structure has to be determined first from an eigenvalue analysis which
tends to reduce the appeal of second order analysis as a practical design method. Second
order analysis of a pin-ended member with imperfections determined in this way will however
produce the same resistance as obtained from the resistance curves.

The above discussions relate in the main to flexural buckling. If lateral torsional buckling is
to be taken into account by second order analysis, the compression flange can be given a bow
imperfection about the beam minor axis. A value of 0.5 e
0
is recommended in 3-1-1/5.3.4(3)
where e
0
is again taken from 3-1-1/Table 5.1 (or back-calculated according to the UK NA,
which will improve the resistance) but the UK NA modifies this to the full value of 1.0 e
0
.
Example non-linear analysis for global buckling
The same FE model of paired girders discussed in section 2.1 above was analysed under the
same loading considering non-linear material properties including strain hardening in
accordance with 3-1-5/Annex C (and in this case including the partial material factor for steel)
and non-linear geometry and including an initial deformation with shape corresponding to the
first elastic global buckling mode. This was used to determine the collapse load. The
magnitude of the largest bow deflection in this mode was taken as L/150 for curve d of Table
5.1 of EN 1993-1-1. The maximum moment reached and the moment at which first yield
occurred were noted. Failure occurred by rotation of the braced pair over a span in the same
shape as the elastic buckling mode of Figure 3; this equivalence in shape between eigenmode
C Hendy, S Denton, D MacKenzie, D Iles 13


and ultimate collapse mode will not generally occur in all buckling problems. Where there is
not equivalence, a refined (lower) prediction of the ultimate load will usually be obtained by
using the collapse geometry as a revised imperfection geometry for a new analysis.

Figure 9 shows the load-deflection curve up to failure for the bridge. The ultimate resistance
obtained by this method is given in Table 1 above. Non-linear analysis can be used to extract
greater resistance from beams for a number of reasons which include benefit from:
- partial plastification of the tension zone in non-compact sections
- strain hardening
- moment redistribution in statically indeterminate structures (but not in the
above example).













Figure 9. Load-deflection curve for non-linear analysis of single span model

Local buckling
Analysis of local buckling problems often requires a greater degree of experience and
understanding, particularly in the application of imperfections.

3-1-5/C.5 gives guidance on imperfections for the local modelling of plate elements. In
general, the distribution (or shape) of the imperfections to be used can be determined by one
of four methods:
Single Span - LTB - Non Linear
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Vertical Displacement at most affected node (mm)
L
o
a
d

F
a
c
t
o
r
C Hendy, S Denton, D MacKenzie, D Iles 14


1) Using the same distribution as the mode shapes found from elastic critical
buckling analysis
Elastic critical buckling analysis can be used to determine a unique imperfection distribution,
with the same form as the buckling mode shape, in the same manner as discussed in section
3.1 above for frames. It is often assumed that this method of applying imperfections will
maximise the reduction in resistance but this is not always true and there are difficulties in
implementation. The imperfection distribution will vary with each load case and it is difficult
to specify the imperfection magnitude for coupled modes involving both overall stiffened
panel buckling and local sub-panel buckling. The elastic buckling mode with the lowest load
factor may not also be the critical mode shape for reducing ultimate strength. Often, a slightly
lower resistance is produced using method 4).
2) Using assumed imperfection shapes based on buckling under direct stress
The imperfection distribution can be based on the local and global plate buckling mode
shapes for compression acting alone in the longitudinal direction. This method will not
necessarily maximise the loss of resistance, but the resulting resistance will usually not be far
from the true resistance.
3) Applying transverse loading
A variation on 2) above is to apply transverse loading so that the first order effects of such
loading replicate the first order effects of imperfections.
4) Application of the deformed shape at failure
In this method, the deformed shape of the structure obtained at failure from a previous
analysis is used as the initial imperfection shape. This frequently gives the lowest resistance
(but rarely significantly lower than the other methods). It has the disadvantage that the
method is iterative, as an initial analysis to failure is required to produce the imperfection
shape.

A more detailed description of a typical application of non-linear analysis to a local buckling
problem (buckling of transversely stiffened webs in bending and shear) is given in reference
6.
Conclusions
Eurocode 3 offers some real improvements in the codification for the design of steel plate
structures in that it provides a framework in which advanced methods may be used. This
paper has shown that there are some significant benefits that can be realised from this
approach but that there are also warnings that the more advanced methods require a greater
level of understanding of the fundamental physics behind the code. There are risks for the
unwary in unlocking the benefits of the code. Like all codes and standards, there is a
reasonable expectation that the user is familiar with the subject matter and competent in its
use.
C Hendy, S Denton, D MacKenzie, D Iles 15


References
[1] PD 6695-2: Recommendations for the design of steel bridges. British Standards
Institution, London.

[2] Hendy C.R and Jones R.P (2009) Lateral buckling of plate girders with flexible restraints,
ICE Bridge Engineering, March 2009, Thomas Telford, London.
[3] Hendy C.R. and Murphy C.J. (2007) Designers Guide to EN1993-2, Eurocode 3: Design
of steel structures. Part 2: Steel bridges. Thomas Telford, London. ISBN 9780727731609
[4] CEN/TC250/SC3/N1639E, CEN background document
[5] Baird B, Hendy C.R, Wong P, Jones R.P, Sollis A.J, Nuttall H, Design of the Olympic
Park Bridges H01 and L01, to be published in Structural Engineering International
[6] Presta F., Hendy C.R. and Turco E. (2008) Numerical validation of simplified theories for
design rules of transversely stiffened plate girders, The Structural Engineer, Volume 86,
Number 21 pp 37 46

C Hendy, S Denton, D MacKenzie, D Iles 16


Appendix A Overview of Analysis Approaches


1
s
t
O
r
d
e
r

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

t
y
p
e
G
l
o
b
a
l

i
m
p
e
r
f
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

t
o

d
e
s
i
g
n

f
o
r
c
e
s

i
n

a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t

b
r
a
c
i
n
g

m
e
m
b
e
r
s

m
o
d
e
l

u
s
i
n
g

n
o
t
i
o
n
a
l

f
o
r
c
e
s
D
e
s
i
g
n

E
f
f
e
c
t
s
G
l
o
b
a
l

s
e
c
o
n
d

o
r
d
e
r

e
f
f
e
c
t
s
G
l
o
b
a
l

i
m
p
e
r
f
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
1
s
t
O
r
d
e
r

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

+

s
i
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
d

m
e
t
h
o
d
s

f
o
r

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
i
n
g

2
n
d
o
r
d
e
r

e
f
f
e
c
t
s
G
l
o
b
a
l


2
n
d
o
r
d
e
r

e
f
f
e
c
t
s

m
o
d
e
l
l
e
d
u
s
i
n
g

m
e
t
h
o
d
s

i
n

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l

p
a
r
t
s

e
.
g
.

m
a
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

f
a
c
t
o
r
s
G
l
o
b
a
l

i
m
p
e
r
f
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

m
o
d
e
l
l
e
d
u
s
i
n
g

n
o
t
i
o
n
a
l

f
o
r
c
e
s
2
n
d

O
r
d
e
r

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
G
l
o
b
a
l

2
n
d
o
r
d
e
r

e
f
f
e
c
t
s

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

f
r
o
m

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
G
l
o
b
a
l

i
m
p
e
r
f
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d

i
n
t
o

m
o
d
e
l

g
e
o
m
e
t
r
y

o
r

m
o
d
e
l
l
e
d
u
s
i
n
g

n
o
t
i
o
n
a
l

f
o
r
c
e
s
M
o
d
e
l

e
l
a
s
t
i
c

c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

b
u
c
k
l
i
n
g

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
u
r
w
i
t
h

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

o
r

e
i
g
e
n
v
e
c
t
o
r

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

E
l
a
s
t
i
c

c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

b
u
c
k
l
i
n
g

m
o
d
e
s

+

f
o
r
c
e
s
M
e
m
b
e
r

i
m
p
e
r
f
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

+

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l

n
o
n
l
i
n
e
a
r
i
t
y

a
c
c
o
u
n
t
e
d

f
o
r

u
s
i
n
g

b
u
c
k
l
i
n
g

c
u
r
v
e
s
M
e
m
b
e
r

d
e
s
i
g
n

r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d

f
r
o
m

b
u
c
k
l
i
n
g

c
u
r
v
e
s
M
e
m
b
e
r

d
e
s
i
g
n

r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
M
e
m
b
e
r

i
m
p
e
r
f
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l

n
o
n
l
i
n
e
a
r
i
t
y
V
e
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

s
a
f
e
t
y
V
e
r
i
f
y

d
e
s
i
g
n

e
f
f
e
c
t

<

d
e
s
i
g
n

r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
F
u
l
l
y

n
o
n
-
l
i
n
e
a
r

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l

+

g
e
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
G
l
o
b
a
l

2
n
d
o
r
d
e
r

e
f
f
e
c
t
s

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

f
r
o
m

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
G
l
o
b
a
l

i
m
p
e
r
f
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d

i
n
t
o

m
o
d
e
l

g
e
o
m
e
t
r
y
M
e
m
b
e
r

i
m
p
e
r
f
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

+

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l

n
o
n
l
i
n
e
a
r
i
t
y

i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d

i
n
t
o

m
o
d
e
l

D
e
s
i
g
n

r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

b
u
c
k
l
i
n
g

i
s

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

m
o
d
e
l
l
e
d
S
a
f
e
t
y

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

v
e
r
i
f
i
e
d

u
s
i
n
g

c
o
r
r
e
c
t

s
a
f
e
t
y

f
o
r
m
a
t
.
I
n
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
t
o

g
l
o
b
a
l

s
e
c
o
n
d

o
r
d
e
r

e
f
f
e
c
t
s
?
Y
N


Figure A.1. Overview of analysis options to account for global and member buckling,
second order effects and imperfections