Elastic Buckling of Plates

The critical bucking stress for a simply supported plate subjected to compression in
one direction is given by
2
t 
f cr = kC m   , (1)
w
where, t and w are the thickness and width of the plate, respectively; k is the
buckling coefficient, and is dependent on the type of loading, boundary condition, and
length to width ratio of the plate; Cm is the material constant given by
π2E
Cm = 2 .(2)
(
12 1 − v )
For a simply supported plate of large length to width ratio (i.e., l/w greater than 4)
with uniform compression along the length, a value of k = 4 can be used with very little
loss in accuracy [Yu, 2000]. For a plate with 3 sides simply supported and 1 side free,
under uniform compression and large l/w ratio, k = 0.425.

Elastic Buckling of Plates with Holes
In cold-formed steel structural members, holes may be provided in webs or flanges
of the member for functional requirements like piping, electrical cables, ducts and other
utilities. Openings may also be required to accommodate the transverse member, which
may be structural or non-structural. The presence of holes alters the stiffness and strength
of the members.
Consider a simply supported plate, under uniform compression along the length,
with a central hole of width wh (Figure 1). The width of the plate at the hole is (w – wh).
Further, due to the presence of the hole, the boundary conditions, for the portion of the
plate at the hole, change to simply supported on 3 sides and free on 1 side (S3F1).
Simply Supported
Simply Supported

wh

34
Figure 1: Simply supported plate with circular hole under uniform longitudinal
compression.

Using these parameters, the buckling coefficient for a S3F1 plate can be expressed
as
f cr, w/ h  w 2
k w/ h =   , (3)
Cm  t 
where the critical buckling stress for a S3F1 plate is given by,
2
 t 
f cr, w/ h = 0.425Cm   . (4)
 w − wh 
Thus, by re-substitution, kw/ h can be expressed as
2
 w 
k w/ h = 1 .7 
w−w 
 , (5)
 h 
and its variation with respect to k = 4 is shown in Figure 2. Substituting wh = 0 in Eq. (5)
gives the buckling coefficient for a S3F1 plate of width w/2.
10

6
k

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

w h /w

Figure 2: Buckling coefficient for plate with and without hole.

Hole Specifications
The hole size and shape vary depending on the manufacturers. Special shapes of
holes can be requested, however, the oval hole shape shown in Figure 3 is very
commonly used for webs of structural studs. These holes are centered at 610mm
along the length of the stud, and centrally located on the width of the web.

Finite Element Analysis
This study investigates the effect of holes on the critical buckling of the web plates
of studs subjected to pure compressive load along the length of the plate. The web of the
studs is considered to be simply supported along the edges that intersect with the flanges.

35
The buckling analysis is performed using the commercially available finite element
software ABAQUS.

l = 101.6mm
305mm

610mm

610mm
R = 19.05mm

w = 38.1mm
(a) (b)
Figure 3: (a) Oval hole used in structural studs; (b) Location of the oval hole on the stud
web.

Element Type
In this study, the general purpose three-dimensional, stress/displacement, reduced
integration with hourglass control, shell element S4R (available in ABAQUS), is used to
model the plates. S4R has 4 nodes (quadrilateral), with all 6 active degrees of freedom
per node. S4R allows transverse shear deformation, and the transverse shear becomes
very small as the shell thickness decreases.

Loading and Boundary Conditions
The accuracy of the elastic buckling analysis using finite element method depends
on the mesh size, and the accuracy of the model to simulate the actual loading and
the boundary conditions. To minimize the local effect, it is necessary to use
consistent nodal loading to simulate the uniformly distributed compressive load.
This is achieved by applying concentrated loads which are proportional to the
tributary area associated with the corresponding node. For e.g., if P is the total
uniformly distributed load to be applied to a plate discretized into 4 elements, the
load should be applied as shown in Figure 4.

Finite Element Mesh
The coefficient of buckling k for a simply supported plate under uniform
compression is 4.0. This is used to determine the fineness of the finite element mesh
in the finite element analysis (FEA); the mesh size that yields the k value close to
4.0 for a simply supported plate without hole, is used to determine the buckling load
and the buckling coefficient of the same plate with hole. The length of the plate is
taken as 4w, where w is the plate width.

36
 Section Properties: Plate Sizes
The width of the structural stud sections given in the Steel Stud Manufacturers
Association (SSMA) catalog range from 63.5mm to 304.8mm [SSMA, 2001]. The
minimum thickness ranges from 33mils to 97mils (design thickness of 0.879mm to
2.583mm).

P/8 P/4 P/4 P/4 P/8

Figure 4: Consistent distributed load proportional to the tributary area for linear S4R
elements.

Analysis Results
Buckling analyses is performed for simply supported web plates of the studs
subjected to pure compressive loading along the length. Figure 5a shows the first
buckling mode for the simply supported web plate without opening of a 362S162-43 stud.
This is the typical local buckling mode, where the plate forms crests and troughs of half
wavelength equal to the width of the plate. Figure 5b shows the first buckling mode for
the simply supported web plate of a 362S162-43 stud with central opening.

37
 w = 92.075mm

l = 4w

Figure 5a: First buckling mode for the web plate of 362S162-43 (w = 90.075mm).

Figure 5a: First buckling mode for the web plate of 362S162-43 (w = 90.075mm).

The buckling stress for plate without (w/o) and with (w/) hole for plates of 43mils (t
= 1.14554mm) thickness are listed in Table 1a. The data in Table 1.1 is shown in Figure
6. The k values from the FEA results for plate without hole are in good agreement with
those calculated using the plate theory, i.e., Eq. (1). The k values for plate thickness of
97mils (t = 2.58318mm) show the same trend (see Figure 6b and Table 1b).

38
 As seen from Figures 6a and 6b, the value of buckling coefficient for a plate with 1
central standard hole is different (generally smaller) from that of the plate without hole.
The reduction in the k value is a function of the ratio of the width of the hole to the width
of the plate; for very small holes, as expected, the k value is same as that of plate without
hole. However, for larger width of the hole, values of k have a tendency to increase.
Further investigation is required to determine the factors influencing the k values for
plates with holes.

10 Plate Theory w /o Hole

Plate Theory w / Hole w h = 38.1
8 FEA w /o Hole
FEA w / Standard Hole (t = 1.14554)
6
k

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
w h /w

Figure 6a: Comparison of coefficient of buckling for t = 1.14554mm (first mode).

10
Plate Theory w /o Hole
Plate Theory w / Hole w h = 38.1
8 FEA w /o Hole
FEA w / Standard Hole (t = 2.58318)
6
k

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
w h /w

Figure 6b: Comparison of coefficient of buckling t = 2.58318mm (first mode).

References
1. Yu, W., Cold-Formed Steel Design, 3rd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NY, USA.
2. SSMA, Product Technical Information, ICBO ER-4943P, Steel Stud Manufacturers
Association, Chicago IL, USA.

39
Table 1a: Comparison of the plate theory results with the FEA results for plate (43mils) with and without openings.
fcr (MPa)

wh/w
Plate Theory FEA

w/t
w (mm)
Stud ID

(t = 1.14554) FEA w/

(wh= 38.1)
Standar

k (w.r.t.w)

k (w.r.t.w)

k (w.r.t.w)
Ratio Ratio of
Plate Plate of k FEA d Hole k
Theory Theory (t =
w/o (8)÷ (6 w/o 1.14554 (13)÷ (1
Hole k w/ Hole ) Hole ) 1)

(1)
(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
200P-43 50.8 44.346 0.750 373.241 4.000 2538.038 27.200 6.800 373.255 4.000 628.679 6.738 1.684
225P-43 57.15 49.889 0.667 294.906 4.000 1128.017 15.300 3.825 293.687 3.983 400.183 5.428 1.363
250S162- 63.5 55.432 0.600 238.874 4.000 634.509 10.625 2.656 238.404 3.992 258.269 4.325 1.083
43

350S162- 88.9 77.605 0.429 121.875 4.000 158.627 5.206 1.302 121.535 3.989 110.292 3.620 0.907
43

362S162- 92.07 80.377 0.414 113.614 4.000 140.514 4.947 1.237 112.476 3.960 100.91 3.553 0.897
43 5
400S162- 101.6 88.692 0.375 93.310 4.000 101.522 4.352 1.088 92.742 3.976 81.612 3.499 0.880
43

550S162- 139.7 121.951 0.273 49.354 4.000 39.657 3.214 0.804 49.239 3.991 42.501 3.445 0.863
43

600S162- 152.4 133.038 0.250 41.471 4.000 31.334 3.022 0.756 41.037 3.958 35.812 3.454 0.873
43

64
800S162- 203.2 177.384 0.188 23.328 4.000 15.018 2.575 0.644 23.048 3.952 20.663 3.543 0.897
43

1000S162 254 221.729 0.150 14.930 4.000 8.782 2.353 0.588 14.748 3.951 13.626 3.651 0.924
-43

1500P-43 381 332.594 0.100 6.635 4.000 3.482 2.099 0.525 6.555 3.952 6.536 3.940 0.997

65
Table 1b: Comparison of the plate theory results with the FEA results for plate (97mils) with and without openings.
fcr (MPa)

wh/w
Plate Theory FEA

w/t
w (mm)
Stud ID

(t = 2.58318) FEA w/

(wh= 38.1)
Standar

k (w.r.t.w)

k (w.r.t.w)

k (w.r.t.w)
Ratio Ratio of
Plate Plate of k FEA d Hole k
Theory Theory (t =
w/o (8)÷ (6 w/o 1.14554 (13)÷ (1
Hole k w/ Hole ) Hole ) 1)

(1)
(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
200P-97 50.8 19.666 0.750 1897.92 4.000 12905.8 27.200 6.800 1842.66 3.884 2783.80 5.867 1.511
0 58 3

225P-97 57.15 22.124 0.667 1499.59 4.000 5735.93 15.300 3.825 1474.15 3.932 1930.27 5.149 1.309
1 7 1 5

250S162- 63.5 24.582 0.600 1214.66 4.000 3226.46 10.625 2.656 1215.97 4.004 1254.31 4.131 1.032
97 9 5 1 7

350S162- 88.9 34.415 0.429 619.729 4.000 806.616 5.206 1.302 612.877 3.956 550.381 3.552 0.898
97

362S162- 92.07 35.644 0.414 577.726 4.000 714.511 4.947 1.237 568.615 3.937 504.851 3.495 0.888
97 5

400S162- 101.6 39.331 0.375 474.480 4.000 516.234 4.352 1.088 467.558 3.942 407.626 3.436 0.872
97

550S162- 139.7 54.081 0.273 250.965 4.000 201.654 3.214 0.804 247.56 3.946 214.468 3.418 0.866
97

600S162- 152.4 58.997 0.250 210.880 4.000 159.332 3.022 0.756 208.12 3.948 181.466 3.442 0.872

66
 97

800S162- 203.2 78.663 0.188 118.620 4.000 76.366 2.575 0.644 117.005 3.946 105.782 3.567 0.904
97

1000S162 254 98.328 0.150 75.917 4.000 44.657 2.353 0.588 74.897 3.946 70.238 3.701 0.938
-97

1500P-97 381 147.49 0.100 33.741 4.000 17.704 2.099 0.525 33.38 3.957 33.289 3.946 0.997
3

67
References

1. Ortiz­Colberg,   R.   A.   (1981).  The   Load   Carrying   Capacity   of  

Perforated   Cold   Formed   Steel   Columns.     Ph.D.   thesis,   Cornell 

University, Ithaca, NY. 

2. Sivakumaran,   K.   S.   (1987).   "Load   capacity   of   uniformly 

compressed   cold­formed   steel   section   with   punched   web." 

Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 14(4), 550­558. 

3. Miller,   T.   H.,   and   Pekoz,   T.   (1994).   "Unstiffened   Strip 

Approach   for   Perforated   Wall   Studs."  J.Struct.Eng.,  120(2), 

410­421. 

4. Sivakumaran,   K.   S.,   and   Abdel­Rahman,   N.   (1998).   "Finite 

element   analysis   model   for   the   behaviour   of   cold­formed 

steel members." Thin­Walled Structures, 31(4), 305­324. 

5. Pu, Y., Godley, M. H. R., Beale, R. G., and Lau, H. H. (1999). 

"Prediction   of   ultimate   capacity   of   perforated   lipped 

channels." J.Struct.Eng., 125(5), 510­514. 

66
6. Yu, W. W., and Davis, C. S. (1973). "Buckling behavior and 

post­buckling   strength   of   perforated   stiffened   compression 

elements."  First   Specialty   Conference   on   Cold   Formed   Steel  

Structures,  University of Missouri­Rolla, Rolla, Missouri, 58­

64 . 

7. Yu, W., and Davis, C. S. (1973). "Cold­formed steel members 

with perforated elements." ASCE J Struct Div, 99(ST10), 2061­

2077. 

8. Rhodes, J., and Schneider, F. D. (1994). "The compressional 

behaviour   of   perforated   elements."  Twelfth   International  

Specialty   Conference   on   Cold­Formed   Steel   Structures:   Recent  

Research   and   Developments   in   Cold­Formed   Steel   Design   and  

Construction,   Oct   18­19   1994,   University   of   Missouri­Rolla, 

Rolla, MO, United States, St. Louis, MO, United States, 11­28. 

9. Loov, R. (1984). "Local buckling capacity of C­shaped cold­

formed steel sections with punched webs." Canadian Journal of  

Civil Engineering, 11(1), 1­7. 

67
10. Rhodes,   J.,   and   Macdonald,   M.   (1996).   "The   effects   of 

perforation length on the behaviour of perforated elements in 

compression."  Thirteenth International   Specialty  Conference   on  

Cold­Formed Steel Structures: Recent Research and Developments  

in Cold­Formed Steel Design and Construction, Oct 17­18 1996,  

University   of   Missouri­Rolla,   Rolla,   MO,   United   States,   St. 

Louis, MO, United States, 91­101. 

11. Kesti,   J.   (2000).  Local   and   Distortional   Buckling   of   Perforated  

Steel   Wall   Studs.   Ph.D.   thesis,   Helsinki   University   of 

Technology, Espoo, Finland. 

12. Shanmugam,   N.   E.   (1997).   "Openings   in   thin­walled   steel 

structures." Thin­Walled Structures, 28(3­4), 355­372. 

13. Shanmugam, N. E., and Dhanalakshmi, M. (2001). "State­of­

art   review   and   compilation   of   studies   on   perforated   thin­

walled structures."  International Journal of Structural Stability  

and Dynamics, 1(1), 59­81. 

68
14. Abdel­Rahman, N., and Sivakumaran, K. S. (1998). "Effective 

design   width   for   perforated   cold­formed  steel  compression 

members." Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 25(2), 319­330. 

15. Shanmugam, N. E., and Dhanalakshmi, M. (2001). "Design for 

openings in cold­formed steel channel stub columns."  Thin­

Walled Structures, 39(12), 961­981.

16. Vann,   P.   W.   (1973).   "Compressive   buckling   of   perforated 

plate   elements."  First   Specialty   Conference   on   Cold­formed  

Structures, University of Missouri ­ Rolla, Rolla, Missouri, 58­

64. 

17. Narayanan,   R.,   and   Chow,   F.   (1984).   "Strength   of   biaxially 

compressed   perforated   plates."   George   Winter   Memorial 

Conference,   Seventh   International   Specialty   Conference   on 

Cold­Formed   Steel   Structures:   Recent   Research   and 

Developments in Cold­Formed Steel. Univ of Missouri­Rolla, 

Rolla, MO, USA, St Louis, MO, USA, 55­73. 

69
18. Chow,   F.,   and   Narayanan,   R.   (1984).   "Buckling   of   plates 

containing openings." George Winter Memorial Conference, 

Seventh International Specialty Conference on Cold­Formed 

Steel Structures: Recent Research and Developments in Cold­

Formed   Steel.   Univ   of   Missouri­Rolla,   Rolla,   MO,   USA,   St 

Louis, MO, USA, 39­53. 

19. Mahendran, M., Shanmugam, N. E., and Liew, J. Y. R. (1994). 

"Strength   of   stiffened   plates   with   openings."  Twelfth  

International   Specialty   Conference   on   Cold­Formed   Steel  

Structures:   Recent   Research   and   Developments   in   Cold­Formed  

Steel   Design   and   Construction,   Oct   18­19   1994,  University   of 

Missouri­Rolla,   Rolla,   MO,   United   States,   St.   Louis,   MO, 

United States, 29­40. 

20. Shanmugam, N. E., Thevendran, V., and Tan, Y. H. (1999). 

"Design   formula   for   axially   compressed   perforated   plates." 

Thin­Walled Structures, 34(1), 1­20. 

70
21. El­Sawy,  K. M., and  Nazmy, A.  S. (2001).  "Effect  of aspect 

ratio on the elastic buckling of uniaxially loaded plates with 

eccentric holes." Thin­Walled Structures, 39(12), 983­998. 

71