THESIS

ELASTIC BUCKLING LOADS OF SLENDER COLUMNS
WITH VARIABLE CROSS SECTION BY THE NEWMARK METHOD







Submitted by
Charles E. Riley
Department of Civil Engineering






In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the Degree of Master of Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado
Summer 2003
ii



COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY

May 20, 2003
WE HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE THESIS PREPARED UNDER OUR
SUPERVISION BY CHARLES RILEY ENTITLED ELASTIC BUCKLING LOADS
OF SLENDER COLUMNS BY THE NEWMARK METHOD BE ACCEPTED AS
FULLFILING IN PART REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF
SCIENCE.
Committee on Graduate Work
(Please print name under signature)













Adviser


Department Head/Director
iii



ABSTRACT OF THESIS
ELASTIC BUCKLING LOADS OF SLENDER COLUMNS
WITH VARIABLE CROSS SECTION BY THE NEWMARK METHOD

Determining the critical buckling load for columns with variable cross section
presents a unique design problem for engineers. Exact solutions for certain column
geometries and end conditions exist, but no concise design equations have been presented
that cover the broad range of potential column configurations. This thesis provides an
exhaustive literature review to put the research presented here in context and point the
way towards further research.
This thesis utilizes the Excel spreadsheet environment with the Newmark iterative
procedure to perform buckling analyses on determinate (pinned-pinned and fixed-free)
and one-degree indeterminate (fixed-pinned and fixed-guided) columns. The critical
buckling loads of columns with variation of the moment of inertia between powers of one
and four, corresponding to linear tapering of common cross section shapes, are calculated
to a high degree of accuracy and presented in the form of design curves and closed-form
equations based on curve fitting.
The process of developing the Newmark numerical method within the Excel
spreadsheet environment is presented in detail to provide a powerful tool for engineers to
use when designing unique columns that have no available solution. A round column
with parabolic variation of its diameter and crucifix column with linear variation from its
iv
ends to the middle are examined to demonstrate the capabilities of the Newmark method
in this regard.

Charles E. Riley
Department of Civil Engineering
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
Summer 2003
v



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. Marvin E. Criswell for his assistance and encouragement
during the entire thesis process. His willingness to take on another advisee in the midst
of his already busy schedule was very much appreciated.
I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Paul R. Heyliger and Dr.
Frederick W. Smith, for their assistance with the odds and ends of my work. Their
unique skills and knowledge were the perfect resource as my research was completed. I
would also like to thank Dr. Pat Pellicane for accepting a position on my committee on
very short notice. Many trips were paid to the office of Dr. Darrell G. Fontane for help
with Excel and Visual Basic. Dr. Fontane’s assistance and suggestions were invaluable
and are thus acknowledged.
My friends and family deserve huge thanks for their support during the more
difficult days of research and writing. I would specifically like to thank Fernando
Ramirez, and my parents Fran and Keith Smith for all of their support.
vi



TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
1. Introduction
1.1 Buckling behavior
1.2 Euler buckling problems
1.3 Inelastic buckling
1.4 Members of varying cross section
1.5 Objectives of the research
1.6 Organization of the thesis
2. Background
2.1 Euler buckling loads
2.1.1 Buckling load for a prismatic pin-ended column
2.1.2 Buckling load for a prismatic fixed-free column
2.2 Effective length factors
2.3 Buckling loads of tapered columns by the Newmark numerical
method

2.4 Buckling loads of tapered columns by other methods

2.4.1 Closed-form solutions of the governing equation

2.4.2 Other numerical methods
2.5 Buckling load determination for tapered members in code-based
structural design

1
1
3
5
5
6
9
11
11
11
14
17

19

21

21

25


28

vii
2.5.1 Wood Codes
2.5.1.1 ASD Code for wood
2.5.1.2 LRFD Code for wood
2.5.2 LRFD code for steel
2.5.3 Concrete Code
3. Analysis Procedures
3.1 Conjugate beam method
3.2 Concentrated loads from ordinates of a distributed load
3.3 Characterization of column taper
3.4 Spreadsheet development for determinate and one-degree
indeterminate tapered column buckling analysis

3.4.1 A pinned-pinned column
3.4.2 A fixed-free (pinned-guided) column
3.4.3 A fixed-pinned column
3.4.4 A fixed-guided column
3.5 Spreadsheet modification for more complex column geometry
4. Results
4.1 Buckling loads of pinned-pinned columns
4.2 Buckling loads of fixed-free (pinned-guided) columns
4.3 Buckling loads of fixed-pinned columns
4.4 Buckling loads of fixed-guided columns
4.5 Rate of convergence and accuracy
4.6 Columns with uncommon cross section variations
28

28

30

30

31

32

32

33

35

38


38

46

52

61

69

71

71

73

78

81

84

85


viii
4.6.1 Parabolic variation of the radius
4.6.2 Tapered crucifix cross section
5. Discussion
5.1 Excel as applied to the Newmark numerical method
5.2 Tapered column data and trends
5.2.1 Linearly tapered pinned-pinned columns
5.2.2 Linearly tapered fixed-free columns
5.2.3 Linearly tapered fixed-pinned columns
5.2.4 Linearly tapered fixed-guided columns
5.3 Rate of convergence and accuracy
5.4 Columns with uncommon cross section variations
6. Conclusions and Recommendations
6.1 Conclusions
6.2 Recommendations for future research
References
Appendix
A.1 Generated values of P* for 4 end conditions and 4 taper geometries

A.2 Power trendlines for end conditions with end-dimension ratios
from 1 to 10

A.3 Buckled shapes for linearly tapered columns with 4 end conditions
and 4 taper geometries

A.4 First six iterations of example spreadsheets for columns with 10
approximating elements, 4 end conditions, and 4 taper geometries
85

85

87

87

88

89

89

90

91

92

93

95

95

95

97



100


107


111


118
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1.1

Figure 1.2

Figure 2.1

Figure 2.2

Figure 3.1

Figure 3.2


Figure 3.3

Figure 3.4

Figure 3.5

Figure 3.6

Figure 3.7


Figure 4.1


Figure 4.2

Figure 4.3


Figure 4.4


Figure 4.5


Figure 4.6



Graphical depiction of bifurcation buckling

Snap-through problem for a two-bar truss

Pin-ended Euler column

Fixed-free (cantilever) Euler column

End conditions paired with their conjugate equivalents

Concentration formulae for two cases of a parabolic distributed
load

Notation used to characterize tapered column geometry

Thrust line concept for a fixed-pinned column

Thrust line concept for a fixed-guided column

Details of a round column with parabolic variation of the radius

Details of a cruciform column with linear variation from the ends
to the middle

Buckling load factor versus the ratio of end dimensions for a
pinned-pinned column with given taper geometry

Normalized buckled shapes for the pinned-pinned column, n=4

Buckling load factor versus the ratio of end dimensions for a
fixed-free column with given taper geometry and large end fixed.

Buckling load factor versus the ratio of end dimensions for a
fixed-free column with given taper geometry and small end fixed

Normalized buckled shapes for the fixed-free column where (a)
the small end is fixed and (b) the large end is fixed, n=4

Buckling load factor versus the ratio of end dimensions for a
fixed-pinned column with given taper geometry and large end
fixed

2

2

11

14

33


34

36

54

63

69


70


72

72


74


76


76



78

x
Figure 4.7



Figure 4.8


Figure 4.9


Figure 4.10

Figure 4.11



Figure 4.12



Buckling load factor versus the ratio of end dimensions for a
fixed-pinned column with given taper geometry and small end
fixed

Normalized buckled shapes for the fixed-free column where (a)
the small end is fixed and (b) the large end is fixed, n=4

Buckling load factor versus the ratio of end dimensions for a
fixed-guided column with given taper geometry

Normalized buckled shapes for the pinned-pinned column, n=4

Euler buckling load factor, P*, as a function of middle-to-end
diameter ratio for a round column with parabolic variation of the
cross section

Euler buckling load factor, P*, as a function of middle-to-end
dimension ratio for a crucifix column varying linearly from its
ends to its middle


80


80


82

84



86



86


xi
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1


Table 2.2


Table 2.3


Table 2.4


Table 3.1


Table 3.2


Table 3.3


Table 3.4


Table 3.5


Table 4.1



Table 4.2



Table 4.3



Table 4.4


First three buckled modes and buckling loads for a pinned-pinned
prismatic column

First three buckled modes and buckling loads for a cantilevered
prismatic column

Critical loads and effective length factors for prismatic columns
with given end conditions (Kaewkulchai, 1997)

Exact buckling loads for linearly tapering solid columns of circular
or square cross section (Gere and Carter, 1962)

Various cross sections and their associated shape factors based on
Equation 3.3.2 (Gere and Carter, 1962)

First three iterations for a pinned-pinned column approximated by
ten elements, d
b
/d
a
= 2

First three iterations for a fixed-free column approximated by ten
elements, d
b
/d
a
= 2

First iteration for a fixed-pinned column approximated by ten
elements, d
b
/d
a
= 2

First iteration for a fixed-guided column approximated by ten
elements, d
b
/d
a
= 2

Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation
and end-dimension ratio for a linearly tapering pinned-pinned
column

Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation
for a linearly tapering column with the large end fixed and the
small end free

Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation
for a linearly tapering column with the large end free and the small
end fixed

Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation
for a linearly tapering column with the large end fixed and the
small end pinned

14


17


18


23


37


45


51


60


68



73



75



77



79
xii
Table 4.5



Table 4.6



Table 4.7
Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation
for a linearly tapering column with the large end pinned and the
small end fixed

Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation
for a linearly tapering column with large end fixed and small end
guided

Comparison to the exact solution of P* for linearly tapered pinned-
pinned columns, of shape factor n=4, obtained using the Newmark
numerical method using 10 and 50 elements


81



83



84

1
1. Introduction
1.1 Buckling behavior
There are a number of limit states, or conditions for which a structure can be
deemed unusable and can be considered to have failed. Structures can fail when
members or the entire structure reach yield or ultimate strength, exceed a specified
maximum deflection, or when fracture of members or collapse occurs. Buckling of
members, not commonly considered to be a separate limit state, presents a stability issue
that resembles a limit state in that it limits the resistance that can be developed by the
member.
While buckling is a broad term that describes a range of mechanical behaviors, it
generally refers to an event whereby a structural element in compression deviates from a
behavior of elastic shortening within the original geometry and undergoes large
deformations involving a change in member shape for a very small increase in load.
When the member has symmetry of section geometry, section resistance, and load, it is
equally likely to buckle in at least two directions. This phenomenon, more specifically
called bifurcation buckling, is depicted graphically in Figure 1.1. The buckling load, or
the point at which the deviation from the original geometry first occurs, is also called the
critical load or bifurcation load. If the proportional limit has not been reached at any
point in the member before the critical load is reached, the buckling is termed elastic
buckling. While elastic buckling is commonly examined by analyzing long slender
compression members, elastic buckling can also occur in plates and shells. In this case,
the basic buckling phenomenon is the same, although the geometry and possible restraint
conditions make the solutions more complicated.
2
Another form of buckling exists that is called limit-load buckling. This form of
buckling generally refers to a structural system, as opposed to a single member, that
drastically changes geometry during elastic deformation. The point at which this change
in geometry occurs is called the limit load. A classical example of limit-load buckling is
the snap-through problem depicted in Figure 1.2. At the limit load of this system, any
small addition in load will cause hinge C to snap through and elements AC and CB,
previously in compression, will go into tension as hinge C moves to a position below
Points A and B.





Figure 1.1. Graphical depiction of bifurcation buckling.




Figure 1.2. The snap-through problem for a two-bar truss.

There are many other forms of instability that are generally also referred to as
buckling. Lateral-torsional buckling is a phenomenon common in slender laterally
unsupported steel beams that can affect any laterally unbraced beam segment with a
section height significantly greater than its width. Under lateral-torsional buckling of a
Load
Deflection
Buckling Load
Post-buckling resistance
A B
C
P
Original position
Snap-through position
3
laterally unbraced beam under positive moments from vertical loads, the top portion of
the beam reaches a critical load in compression and buckles laterally. This generally
causes twisting of the beam section because the tension flange stays straight rather than
moving laterally with the compression flange. Thus, both lateral and torsional stiffnesses
must be considered when designing against this phenomenon.

1.2 Euler buckling problems
The basic Euler buckling equations are restricted to members that meet the
definition of the Euler column. The Euler column is a straight, prismatic, centrally
loaded, pin-ended element with slenderness sufficient that it can buckle without stresses
in the cross section exceeding the proportional limit (Galambos 1998). The Euler column
also utilizes the assumption that deformations of the member are small enough that the
curvature may be approximated by the second derivative of the deflection with respect to
position along the member. The basic Euler buckling equation, originally formulated for
a pinned-pinned column, can be modified for other end conditions.
The Euler column equation provides a meaningful way to analyze buckling
problems. To solve for the buckling load of an Euler column, the governing differential
equation of the element is set up as an eigenvalue problem, which is then solved via
traditional mathematical techniques. Solutions to Euler columns with various end
conditions are covered in detail in Section 2.1.
While the Euler column allows for a mathematically elegant problem, the
assumptions to which it is held are usually very difficult to satisfy exactly when actual
structural members are analyzed. Thus, unless manufacturing flaws and initial
4
eccentricities in loading are taken into account, the Euler buckling load is an
unconservative (i.e. upper bound) estimate of the actual buckling load of a member.
Analytical results are available for such conditions as initial member curvature and end
load eccentricities. In these cases, the direction of buckling is determined by the
eccentricities involved and a bifurcation load does not exist. The relationship shown in
Figure 1.1 is then an upper bound on the behavior of the member. For column and
column-like member areas (such as laterally unbraced compression flanges of beams),
there is little increase in resistance after the buckling load is reached. A small additional
loading results in enough lateral (buckling) motion that the member curvature causes
flexural yielding. The post-buckling resistance then decreases, rather than increasing
slightly in the post-buckling stage as the elastic buckling curve indicates. Thus, the
critical buckling load is a usable maximum resistance for practical columns and column-
like members.
Euler was the first to investigate a problem called the elastica, which is the elastic
buckling of a pin-ended bar with an allowance for large deformations. A solution to this
problem is possible when the exact differential equation governing buckling is used,
rather than the equation that approximates the curvature of the member by d
2
y/dx
2
. The
elastica begins as a compression member and, after initial elastic buckling, loops over
onto itself until it becomes a tension member. This is only one such scenario, but it
illustrates the capabilities of the elastica. Numerous equilibrium positions allowing for
multiple loops were discovered and feasible mathematical solutions exist for many, often
requiring elliptic integrals to quantify. Solutions for the elastica, while providing an
5
interesting mathematical exercise, have little practical application in the world of
engineering.

1.3 Inelastic buckling
Inelastic buckling includes any buckling phenomenon during which the
proportional limit of the material is exceeded somewhere within the cross section before
buckling occurs. For usual material properties, this would often be the case for a column
that has a length less than 20 to 25 times its diameter. Columns meeting this criterion
will generally buckle inelastically, meaning permanent deformations will occur upon
reaching the critical buckling load. If residual stresses are a factor, inelastic buckling can
occur when the compressive stress due to applied load plus the local residual compressive
stress locally exceeds the material proportional limit, a condition often reached at the tips
or corners of wide flange steel columns.

1.4 Members of varying cross section
Structures are generally designed on the basis of economy and safety. For
common structures, economy often requires the use of standard members because these
members are relatively inexpensive and easy to obtain. For many structures, however,
using tapered members may both increase structural efficiency and be economical. For
small projects, this may not translate into overall economy, but more complex, unique, or
large structures may (and often do) take full advantage of the structural efficiency tapered
members offer by reducing the amount of material required while strategically stiffening
certain parts of a member, thereby increasing the overall performance of the structure.
6
Material weight can be especially critical in some types of structures (such as aircraft)
and a few types of structural members are tapered by their nature, the most notable of
which may be wood pole members. Thus, it is prudent to understand how to design with
members of varying cross section.
Beam and beam-column members with varying cross section may often be found
in frame structures, specifically those employing a three-hinge frame. In this type of
structure, a frame sits on two pinned or hinged connections and has a hinge in the center
of the horizontal beam or roof element. Because bending and axial force, not shear, often
govern the design of this type of structure, the depth of the cross section follows the
general magnitude of the moment and coincident axial force that will be carried. Thus,
the cross section is shallower at the hinges and it grows to a maximum depth at the knee
of the frame, farthest from the hinges. This is only one example of a structure that
employs members of variable cross section to increase efficiency.

1.5 Objectives of the research
The objectives of this research are:
1) To adapt the powerful Newmark Method procedures to a widely available
spreadsheet format, such that their potential for use in buckling analyses of
columns with variable cross section may be fully realized. And,
2) To generate designer-friendly information in the form of compact equations and
design curves to both demonstrate the behavior of tapered columns and facilitate
their design.
7
The Newmark method is a modeling and computational technique that
approximates the deflection of a continuous system by the deflection at the nodes of a
system with a discrete number of prismatic elements with constant properties. Its many
applications include buckling problems. The computation procedure for Newmark’s
method as it applies to tapered column buckling is easily translated into spreadsheet
format since it involves iterative trials at many locations along a member. Before the
common use of computers, the degree of accuracy practically available by the Newmark
method was limited by the number of elements (and therefore calculations) and iterations
(and therefore repetition of those same calculations) that the engineer could physically
and mentally withstand. Thus, concessions were made to limit the number of elements,
often to around 5, and the number of iterations, often to one or two, which allowed the
critical buckling load to be bounded sufficiently for most designs. However, with the
advent of personal computers, this same method, which was previously used for its ease
of calculation and rapid convergence to the solution, can be used to obtain an extremely
accurate and precise value of the critical buckling load for a column of virtually any
configuration. Before the development of spreadsheets, this was done with computer
programs prepared using a language such as FORTRAN.
This thesis deals specifically with columns of varying cross section. Columns of
this type may be used in all manner of structures, but the relatively difficult nature of
their analysis leads many design engineers to simply opt for a prismatic column or to
make often very approximate and usually conservative simplifying assumptions. The
goal of this thesis is to use Newmark’s method within a widely available spreadsheet
environment to provide a straightforward simple approach to the analysis of columns
8
with virtually any variation in their cross section using tools that recent civil engineering
graduates will have encountered in their undergraduate curriculum or can easily
understand. These tools are the conjugate beam method (which is required only for
understanding of the method, not for general use), the Newmark method of discretizing a
continuous structural member, replacement of a distributed load with statically equivalent
concentrations, and a spreadsheet program like Excel, which is used exclusively here.
Previous research in the realm of columns of varying cross section has resided in
two areas, exact and approximate solutions of the buckling problem.
By employing small angle approximations, exact solutions to the buckling
problem, which takes the form of an eigenvalue problem, are readily available for
prismatic columns with common end conditions. Indeed, these problems are regularly
employed in the undergraduate engineering curriculum to introduce the student to both
column buckling and the eigenvalue problem. However, when the column in question is
tapered along its length, the number of combinations of taper and end conditions for
which there is an exact solution drops dramatically. Additionally, the differential
equations for which there are exact solutions will primarily utilize Bessel functions to
solve.
Approximate solutions for the buckling problem, as well as most other problems
in structural engineering and mechanics, are plentiful. The middle of the twentieth
century was dominated by the introduction of numerical methods that allowed for
practical hand calculations. The development of computer technology has allowed more
calculation-intensive methods, such as the finite element and finite difference methods, to
flourish. These methods allow for virtually any structural system or element under
9
arbitrary loading conditions to be analyzed to an incredible degree of numerical accuracy.
Thus, these methods have become the most powerful general tool available to the
structural engineer. However, certain less general methods retain their individual
applicability for special problems.
The overall purpose of the work reported in this thesis is to describe situations
when computational precision, computation time, and, most importantly, designer effort
may be reduced by either using Newmark’s method in the Excel spreadsheet
environment, or design aids generated from numerical studies using this tool, to analyze
the buckling load of a column with many types of varying cross section shapes.

1.6 Organization of the Thesis
The thesis is organized such that a reader with limited knowledge of buckling in
general, and buckling of tapered members specifically, will be able to understand both of
these concepts via the background information provided. In Chapter 2, an intensive
review of past and current literature is provided along with the current state of tapered
column design in various material codes to provide a context for the research later
presented. Prismatic members and Euler buckling loads are discussed to provide a
reasonable background. Then, other concepts, such as the conjugate beam method,
development of resultant loads from ordinates of a distributed load, and characterization
of column taper, are provided to allow the reader to understand and use the Newmark
numerical method with confidence. Finally, in Chapter 3, step-by-step instructions are
provided for developing spreadsheet-based programs for tapered column analysis of
determinate and one-degree indeterminate column cases. Numerical examples utilizing
10
ten prismatic elements are provided as an aid to these instructions. The two-degree
indeterminate column case (i.e. fixed-fixed) was deemed beyond the scope of this paper,
and perhaps beyond the capabilities of the basic Newmark numerical method. Further
adaptations of the method may prove its potential in this area.
Results of the thesis, given in Chapter 4, include design plots relating a critical
buckling load factor to end dimension ratios for various powers of variation of the section
moment of inertia. Fitted curves are further applied to these results, in part to confirm
work by past researchers, but more to provide a comprehensive and simplified set of
design equations for a wide range of cross section shapes and variations. Normalized
buckled shapes are provided as an additional design aid and visualization of tapered
column buckling behavior. Also included are some demonstrations of the method’s
ability to address general column geometries not able to be analyzed by closed form
techniques.
Chapter 5 provides a discussion of the results and recommendations for future
work. Finally, appendices are provided with extensive numerical examples, deflected
shapes, and raw data.

11
2. Background
2.1 Euler buckling loads
2.1.1 Buckling load for a prismatic pin-ended column
The mathematical expression for the Euler buckling load of an ideal column
follows from consideration of equilibrium, the mechanics of bending, geometry of the
column, and material properties within the initial linear range. The basic geometry and a
free body diagram of a portion near one end of the column is shown in Figure 2.1.
Because of symmetry, there is no horizontal shear at the support or cut section of the
deflected column.






Figure 2.1. Pin-ended Euler column.

The moment at any section located a distance x from the base of the column is
2
2
) (
dx
y d
EI x M − = (Eq. 2.1)
M
P
P
x
y
P
12
utilizing the approximate curvature of
2
2
dx
y d
in place of the exact expression of
2
3
2
2
2
1
(
(
¸
(

¸

|
.
|

\
|
+
dx
dy
dx
y d
.
The bending moment at any cross section is
Py x M = ) ( (Eq. 2.2)
Combining equations 2.1 and 2.2 gives the governing differential equation for the
pinned-pinned Euler column:
0
2
2
= + Py
dx
y d
EI (Eq. 2.3)
By introducing the notation
EI
P
k =
2
, Equation 2.3 may be written as
0
2
2
2
= + y k
dx
y d
(Eq. 2.4)
The general solution for this homogeneous linear differential equation is
kx B kx A y cos sin + = (Eq. 2.5)
Constants A and B can be evaluated by introducing boundary conditions:
0 = y at 0 = x
0 = y at L x =
The first condition requires that B=0, leaving
kx A y sin = (Eq. 2.6)
Evaluating equation 2.6 under the second boundary condition yields
0 sin = kL A (Eq. 2.7)
13
In order to obtain a result that is not trivial, A must be non-zero. Thus
0 sin = kL or π n kL = (Eq. 2.8)
where n = 1,2,3…
Substituting Equation 2.8 into Equation 2.3 yields the buckling load equation:

2
2 2
L
EI
n P
n
π = (Eq. 2.9)
The critical buckling load, or Euler load, can be evaluated with n=1 as this is the
smallest load for which instability will occur:

2
2
L
EI
P
cr
π
= (Eq. 2.10)
Equation 2.9 may be used to calculate higher mode buckling loads. However, the
member is unlikely to buckling in these modes unless it is forced to do so. Thus, the
critical buckling load of a pinned-pinned column may be effectively quadrupled if lateral
deflection is held at zero at the center of the column. This can be shown by examining
the mode shape of the buckled column.
Substituting Equation 2.1.1.8 into Equation 2.6 yields the mode shape equation:

L
x n
A y
π
sin = (Eq. 2.11)
Equation 2.11 can be evaluated for any buckling mode and defines the geometry of the
bent shape. It should be noted that the amplitude of the deflected shape is not defined as
a result of using
2
2
dx
y d
to approximate the curvature. Table 2.1 displays the first three
buckling modes of the pinned-pinned Euler column along with the buckling loads.


14
Table 2.1. First three buckled modes and buckling loads for a pinned-pinned prismatic
column.
Mode 1 2 3
Mode
Shape











Critical
buckling
load
2 2
2
8696 . 9
L
EI
L
EI
≈ π
2 2
2
4784 . 39 4
L
EI
L
EI
≈ π
2 2
2
8264 . 88 9
L
EI
L
EI
≈ π

2.1.2 Buckling load for a prismatic fixed-free column
For the fixed-free “flag pole” problem, the expression for the buckling load of the
ideal column is similar to that for the pinned-pinned case. The equations of equilibrium
and boundary conditions are changed based on the different geometric conditions shown
in Figure 2.2.






Figure 2.2. Fixed-free (cantilever) Euler column.

P
P
M
P
x
y
15
Again, the relationship between bending moment and curvature, approximated by
the second derivative, will be used:
2
2
) (
dx
y d
EI x M − = (Eq. 2.12)
The bending moment at any cross section at any section located a distance x from
the base of the column is
) ( ) ( y P x M − = δ (Eq. 2.13)
Equating Equations 2.12 and 2.13 gives the governing differential equation for the
fixed-free Euler column:
0 ) (
2
2
= − + y P
dx
y d
EI δ (Eq. 2.14)
Introducing the notation
EI
P
k =
2
, Equation 2.14 may be written as
δ
2 2
2
2
k y k
dx
y d
= + (Eq. 2.15)
The general solution for this homogeneous linear differential equation is
δ + + = kx B kx A y cos sin (Eq. 2.16)
Constants A and B can be evaluated by introducing boundary conditions:
0 = =
dx
dy
y at 0 = x
These conditions can be satisfied by
0 = A and δ − = B
Thus
) cos 1 ( kx y − = δ (Eq. 2.17)
The condition at the free end of the column requires that
16
δ = y at L x =
This condition is satisfied if
0 cos = kL δ (Eq. 2.18)
Equation 2.18 may be satisfied if either 0 = δ or 0 cos = kL . If 0 = δ , then there
is no deflection at the free end of the column and consequently no buckling. Thus, cos kL
must equal zero and the following relation must be true:
( )
2
1 2
π
− = n kL where: n=1,2,3… (Eq. 2.19)
By reintroducing,
EI
P
k =
2
, this equation becomes
( )
2
1 2
π
− = = n
EI
P
L kL or ( )
2
2
2
4
1 2
L
EI
n P
π
− = (Eq. 2.20)
The critical buckling load will be obtained when n = 1:

2
2
4L
EI
P
cr
π
= (Eq. 2.21)
Substituting equation 2.19 into equation 2.17 yields the mode shape equation:

(
¸
(

¸

|
.
|

\
| −
− =
L
x n
y
2
) 1 2 (
cos 1
π
δ (Eq. 2.22)
Equation 2.22 can be evaluated for any buckling mode and defines the geometry of the
buckled shape. As was the case for the pinned-pinned column, the amplitude of the
deflected shape is not defined as a result of using
2
2
dx
y d
to approximate the curvature.
Table 2.2 displays the first three buckling modes of the pinned-pinned Euler
column along with the buckling loads. It should be noted that equivalent results may be
17
obtained by analyzing a guided-pinned column. The guided-pinned and fixed-free
columns buckle in exactly the same shape and at the same load for a given mode.

Table 2.2. First three buckled modes and buckling loads for a cantilevered prismatic
column.
Mode 1 2 3
Mode
Shape











Critical
buckling
load
2 2
2
4674 . 2
4 L
EI
L
EI
≈ π
2 2
2
2066 . 22
4
9
L
EI
L
EI
≈ π
2 2
2
6850 . 61
4
25
L
EI
L
EI
≈ π

2.2 Effective length factors
For ease of computation in most design manuals, buckling loads of columns for
different end conditions are given based on the effective length of the column, kL. The
effective length is determined based on the effective length factor, k, which is easily
computed for common cases involving prismatic columns. The effective length of a
column is simply the length a column with given end conditions would require to fit into
the Euler buckling load equation:

( )
2
2
kL
EI
P
cr
π
= (Eq. 2.23)
Thus, for a pinned-pinned prismatic column (the basic case discussed in Section 2.1.1),
because
2
2
L
EI
P
cr
π
= , k = 1. For a cantilevered prismatic column (the basic case
δ δ δ
18
discussed in Section 2.1.2),
2
2
4L
EI
P
cr
π
= and k = 2. Table 2.3 shows the critical loads and
effective length factors for prismatic columns with various end conditions.
The effective length factor takes on a more physical meaning when it is applied to
the buckling mode shape. The effective length factor is equivalent to the inverse of the
number of half sine waves that occur in the buckled shape. Thus, for the pinned-pinned
column, k = 1, so there is one half wavelength over the buckled column length. For the
cantilevered column, k = 2, so the buckled mode shape is one quarter wavelength. This
can be seen graphically in Table 2.3. For design purposes, some of these effective length
factores are reduced, reflecting the practical difficulties in achieving fully fixed and other
theoretical boundary conditions.

Table 2.3. Critical loads and effective length factors for prismatic columns with given
end conditions (Kaewkulchai, 1997).
End Conditions Critical Load k Deflected Shape
Simple Support–
Simple Support
2
2
L
EI π
1.000



Fixed-Free
2
2
4L
EI π
2.000



Simple Support-
Guided
2
2
4L
EI π
2.000



Fixed-Simple
Support
2
2
) 6997 . 0 ( L
EI π

0.699



Fixed-Guided
2
2
L
EI π
1.000



Fixed-Fixed
2
2
4
L
EI π
0.500




19
2.3 Buckling loads of tapered columns by the Newmark numerical method
In 1943, Nathan M. Newmark published a paper in the Transactions of the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) entitled “Numerical Procedure for
Computing Deflections, Moments and Buckling Loads.” This paper thoroughly outlined
a procedure by which the value of a function of a single variable is calculated so long as
the second derivative of the function is known. The procedure is an adaptation of the
general mathematical method of successive approximations.
Vianello and Engesser, around 1900, identified similar procedures for use in
determining the buckling loads of bars (Newmark, 1943). Stodola (1906) applied a
method of successive approximations similar to Vianello’s to the rotation of turbine
shafts where it is called Stodola’s method. In his Mechanical Vibrations text, Hartog
(1956) provides a treatment of Stodola’s method as it applies to the problem of finding
the natural frequency of a rotor. Nakahira et al (1992) used what they called the Stodola-
Newmark method (a combination of the Newmark numerical method and Stodola’s
iterative process) to determine the natural frequencies of cantilever beams of varying
cross-section. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate that convergence to the
exact solution is possible with a relatively small number of sections approximating the
tapered beam. The study also presented the natural frequencies of cantilever beams with
arbitrarily varying cross section when placed in either air or water. Methods for
obtaining greater accuracy with numerical methods had been developed prior to
Newmark’s work by Niles, Southwell, and others (Newmark, 1943). However,
Newmark’s unique contribution to the field was in his treatment of specific problems and
20
generalization of the procedure to a wide range of problems while providing for increased
accuracy.
Newmark expounded on this work first reported in 1943 in later publications,
including a book devoted to numerical solution techniques and published in honor Hardy
Cross, father of numerical methods in engineering (Newmark, 1949). In this publication,
his chapter, “Numerical Methods of Analysis of Bar, Plates, and Elastic Bodies,” presents
in general what he calls “iterative” and “step-by-step” methods. He illustrates the
application of these methods to systems as complex as membrane structures and provides
a discussion of convergence rates and accuracy.
Newmark’s work was furthered by William G. Godden, who had been a visiting
staff member at the University of Illinois in 1954. In 1965, Godden published a book
called Numerical Analysis of Beam and Column Structures, which Newmark praised for
its practical and easily understood examples as well as its new applications of his
methods. Godden’s discussion of the Newmark method is the most complete, beginning
with a derivation of the principles and moving through applications to common energy
principles, influence lines, buckling and eccentric loading of struts, beam analysis with
various support conditions, and into vibration analysis of free and forced spring-mass
systems. As an examination of the power of the Newmark method, Godden’s book is
extremely complete. Newmark’s method of successive approximations as it applies to
column buckling is also given adequate treatment in Timoshenko’s Theory of Elastic
Stability, 2
nd
Ed (Timoshenko and Gere, 1961) and Sechler’s Elasticity in Engineering
(Sechler, 1952).
21
Newmark’s method was used by Criswell (1991) to obtain buckling capacities of
tapered wood members as a step in developing design expressions for the basic column
cases included in the National Design Specification for Wood Construction (AF&PA,
1997) and the LRFD Standard for Engineered Wood Construction (AF&PA/ASCE,
1995).
Kaewkulchai (1997) provided an extension of work performed by Criswell (see
Section 2.5.1.1) to determine design equations for columns with indeterminate end
conditions and more complex cross-sectional variations. His work utilized an equivalent
section approach, such that buckling loads for end dimension ratios greater than three
could be determined with a reasonable degree of accuracy. However, a conclusion made
in his thesis that closed form solutions are not generally available in the literature is false.
The closed form equations presented by Gere and Carter (1962) could easily be included
in the wood codes, as they are relatively simple and specifically include members with
double linear taper, such as round section poles and piles. Kaewkulchai’s work extended
and revised a basic FORTRAN program that had previously been developed by Criswell.
However, the nature of the problem lends itself to analysis by the spreadsheet software
now available. This fact and Criswell’s continued interest in the buckling problem for
columns of general nonprismatic shapes provided the impetus for this thesis.

2.4 Buckling loads of tapered columns by other methods
2.4.1 Closed-form solutions of the governing equation

Prior to numerical methods, analysis of nonprismatic columns was limited to
certain situations where closed form equations were available using the tools of
22
mechanics. Thus, tapered columns with fixity conditions that did not allow for a closed-
form solution were designed by various “rules of thumb.” These early designs used an
equivalent prismatic column, the cross-section of which was based on the cross-section at
a given point of the tapered column (e.g. the cross-section at ½ or 2/3 of the length from
the small end).
James M. Gere and Winfred O. Carter (1962) published a paper in the ASCE
Journal of the Structural Division that provided equations and design curves for
calculating the critical buckling loads of columns with many different cross sections and
four different fixity conditions: pinned-pinned, fixed-free, fixed-pinned, and fixed-fixed.
This greatly enhanced the information that had previously been available for
nonprismatic column design, particularly for tapered wide flange sections. Gere and
Carter used methods developed by Timoshenko (solution of the differential equation of
the deflection curve) and Newmark (method of successive approximations of the
deflection curve), along with an innovative shape factor to account for the cross-sectional
variation along the column, to ultimately provide a relatively concise set of equations to
calculate the critical buckling load. Many of the situations that were analyzed could be
solved in closed form, but required a difficult solution process based on Bessel functions
with many related variables. However, for columns with a linear taper, circular cross
section, and pinned-pinned, fixed-pinned, or fixed-fixed end conditions, the resulting
equation is simply the product of the square of the ratio of end diameters and the critical
buckling load of a prismatic column for the given end conditions (Table 2.4).
Fogel and Ketter (1962) provided a treatment of the tapered-column problem
similar to that in the Gere and Carter paper in the same edition of the ASCE Journal of
23
the Structural Division. While the solution procedure is more complete in this paper, the
results are not nearly as extensive as those presented by Gere and Carter. Tapered web
wide flange sections and tapered box sections are examined under axial load as well as
applied end moments.

Table 2.4. Exact buckling loads for linearly tapering solid columns of circular or square
cross section (Gere and Carter, 1962).
End Conditions Schematic Buckling Load
Pinned-Pinned










2
2
2
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
a
b a
cr
d
d
L
EI
P
π

Fixed-Pinned










( )
2
2
2
6997 . 0
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
a
b a
cr
d
d
L
EI
P
π

Fixed-Fixed









2
2
2
4
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
a
b a
cr
d
d
L
EI
P
π


A subsequent discussion of Gere and Carter’s paper by N.C. Lind (1962)
examined the previously employed “rules of thumb” as compared to the equations
d
a
d
b
d
a
d
b
d
a
d
b
24
presented by Gere and Carter. Lind found that for the fairly narrow ranges of end
diameter ratios and shape factors usually used in design, the half-point and third-point
rules (from the small end) give non-conservative results with up to 15% to 20% error for
the critical buckling load. By his analysis, effective cross sections should be located at
the 4/10-point for the pinned-pinned condition and the 6/10-point for the fixed-free
condition to give conservative results with errors less than 7%.
Very early in tapered column analysis, Dinnik (1929) used Bessel functions to
solve for the buckling loads of linearly tapered members symmetric about their half-
length. His procedures are very straightforward and his design curves are presented
neatly. Later, he produced a paper including many example problems and solutions using
his previously published material (Dinnik, 1932). While these papers were originally
written and published in Russian in 1914 and 1916, they were later translated and
published in the United States.
Gatewood (1954) extended some of Timoshenko’s (1961) work and published
design curves for all taper ratios and variation of the moment of inertia between the zero
and sixth power for a fixed-free column.
Smith (1988) provides an analytic solution to the tapered-column buckling
problem, which allows for virtually any variation of the cross-section along the length of
the member. His primary example is a fixed-free column with moment of inertia varying
by the power of 4 along the length of the member. By comparing to results provided by
Dinnik (1929), he shows that for small taper ratios, the error in his calculations is small,
but increases as the taper becomes more severe and the trigonometric assumption for the
deflected shape becomes more approximate. For cases other than linearly tapered round
25
and square sections, his analytic expressions quickly become very cumbersome for hand
calculations. He recommends the use of symbolic analysis software to handle these
expressions.

2.4.2 Other numerical methods
Rivello (1969) provided a short treatment of the finite-difference method as it can
be applied to determinate tapered column buckling problems. This method, like the Ritz
and finite element methods, produces a set of homogeneous simultaneous linear
equations, which must then be solved. It is the computationally expensive nature of these
methods (when sufficiently small mesh sizes are used) that makes the Newmark method
more appropriate for the study of tapered column buckling. Rivello (1969) also provided
a treatment of tapered column analysis using the Rayleigh-Ritz Method.
Galambos (1998) gave a general introduction to the use of the finite element
method to conduct stability analyses. The governing differential equations for an axially
loaded prismatic column are provided as an example along with the statement of total
potential energy. He then goes on to discuss weighted-residual and variational
formulations of the problem. Coverage of higher-order analyses is provided briefly and
extensive recommendations for finite element software are given.
In most cases, finite element approximations of a structure underestimate the
stiffness of the structure and thus err on the side of conservatism. However, they can be
significantly inaccurate unless fine meshes are used. The versatility of the finite element
method allows for the study of more complex problems, such as inelastic buckling and
second-order analyses. For the buckling of slender column or beam members, the finite
26
element method adds unnecessary complexity to a problem that can be solved by simpler
and more computationally economical means.
Seide (1975) provides a comparison of the finite difference method applied to the
buckling of a prismatic column to the finite element method based on the principle of
minimum potential energy and a mixed variational principle. While Seide’s findings are
only for a prismatic column, his analysis of the number of nodes required for a
reasonably accurate solution is pertinent to this discussion. The most accurate
approximation he considered uses the finite element method based on the principle of
minimum potential energy where the lateral deflection is a cubic function of the distance
along the column length. This approximation requires only 6 elements to achieve an
accuracy of 0.01%. Less accurate approximations are provided for comparision. It is
uncertain how tapering of the section would affect Seide’s findings.
Kim et al (1997) employ the finite-element method to thin-walled tapered beam-
columns. Column buckling was considered for solid section tapered members and plate
buckling considerations were made when examining lateral-torsional and inelastic
buckling behavior. Comparing their solution for the critical buckling load of a single-
tapered rectangular section to theoretical solutions developed by Timoshenko and Gere
(1961), they achieve deviations of less than 3% using only six elements. It is difficult to
assess how precise there numbers are for the purposes of comparing to this study as the
buckling load factor is only reported to two decimal places. The crux of their paper is the
development of stiffness matrices for tapered elements. Thus, the buckling problem
comprises only a small portion of the paper.
27
In 1981, M.D. Vanderbilt and his coworkers at Colorado State University reported
on analysis program, POLEDA-80, developed using the Newmark numerical technique
for single-pole utility structures (EPRI, 1981 and EPRI, 1987). This analysis program
considered the large deformation behavior of nonprismatic restrained-free (fixed or
specified rotational spring modeling foundation conditions) cantilever members with
axial loads and moments introduced at specified locations along the pole length.
Buckling loads for the one end condition (restrained-free) could be obtained using
POLEDA-80.
Additional numerical solution methods for nonprismatic columns are presented by
Ram and Rao (1951), Chen et al (1987), and Ku (1979). Tapered column buckling under
stepped axial loads was researched by Ermopoulos and analyzed using numerical
integration and a discretized column made up of prismatic sections. Tapered box
columns under biaxial loading were analyzed by Liew et al (1989) using moment-
curvature-thrust relationships and Horne’s stability criteria.
Some recent research in tapered column buckling loads addresses ever more
complex variations in cross section and applied loading. Researchers at the University of
Wales in Cardiff have incorporated many of the exact solutions developed using Bessel
functions into design curves that qualify the buckling trends for linearly tapered columns
with uniform compressive force applied along all or part of their length (Williams and
Aston, 1989). Banerjee and Williams (1986) produced a set of tapered element stiffness
matrices for input into a finite element program that allowed for the buckling, torsion,
flexure, and vibration analyses of tapered beam-columns to be performed. With an
adequate number of elements (400 or more), they show member stiffnesses can be
28
approximated to seven-figure accuracy. They also include a very complete discussion of
past research in tapered columns and they provide excellent references for Bessel
functions and solution of complex differential equations. Many of the equations that
these more recent analyses use are based on initial work performed by Wittrick and
Williams (1973) that extended work in computing natural frequencies of structures to
determination of buckling loads. The bulk of the research by Williams is presented in a
culminating paper describing the capabilities of BUNVIS-RG, a FORTRAN program
employing the matrix stiffness method to calculate critical load factors and natural
frequencies of vibration (Anderson and Williams, 1987).

2.5 Buckling load determination for tapered members in code-based design
2.5.1 Wood Codes
2.5.1.1 ASD Code for Wood
The National Design Specification (NDS) for Wood Construction provides an
allowable strength design procedure for the design of most wood structural members
(AF&PA 1997). In its Section 3.7.2, the NDS uses an equivalent prismatic section
approach to the design of tapered columns and piles, and only rectangular and circular
cross sections are considered. Hollow or built-up columns are not taken into account.
The equations used to determine the equivalent prismatic section of the tapered column
were developed by Criswell (1984).
According to the most recent version of the NDS:

For design of a column with rectangular cross section, tapered at one or both
ends, the representative dimension, d, for each face of the column shall be
derived as follows:
29

d = d
min
+ (d
max
– d
min
)[a – 0.15(1-d
min
/d
max
)] (3.7-2)

where

d
min
= the minimum dimension for that face of the column
d
max
= the maximum dimension for that face of the column

Support Conditions
Large end fixed, small end unsupported or pinned a = 0.70
Small end fixed, large end unsupported or pinned a = 0.30
Both ends pinned:
Tapered toward one end a = 0.50
Tapered toward both ends a = 0.70
For all other support conditions:

d = d
min
+ (d
max
– d
min
)(1/3) (3.7-3)
and

The design of a column of round cross section shall be based on the design
calculations for a square column of the same cross-sectional area and having the
same degree of taper.

While the design equations for tapered columns with pinned-pinned, fixed-
pinned, and fixed-free support conditions are an improvement over the earlier versions of
the code, support conditions not explicitly defined here still rely on the more conservative
third-point rule (i.e. assume a prismatic column with section taken at one-third of the
tapered member length from the small end) for determining the equivalent prismatic
section. Previous versions of the NDS had relied on this third-point method exclusively,
but Criswell’s improvements made the design of columns with pinned-pinned, fixed-
pinned, or fixed-free support conditions more efficient. It should be noted that the NDS
equations are very good for small end dimension ratios (d
max
/d
min
>3) but that
conservatism is increased as the column becomes more tapered. It is obvious to the
author that the current NDS allows for reasonable efficiency and ample conservatism, but
30
for a more complete and efficient design the methods provided in this thesis should be
employed.

2.5.1.2 LRFD Code for Wood
The Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Manual for Engineered Wood
Construction provides a load and resistance factor design procedure for the design of
most wood structural members (AF&PA/ASCE 1995). The LRFD manual also uses an
equivalent prismatic section method for the design of tapered columns and piles, and only
rectangular and circular cross sections are considered. The equations used to determine
the equivalent prismatic section are modified slightly from the NDS code equations to
accommodate the LRFD notation, but the research behind the equations is the same. As
in the NDS, rectangular columns tapered along one or both faces of the column are
considered, as are columns with circular cross section. And again, more exact equations
for pinned-pinned, fixed-pinned, and fixed-free support conditions are provided while
other support conditions require the use of the third-point rule. This similarity between
the ASD and LRFD design documents reflects the wood industry’s philosophy that the
basic behavioral equations can, and should, be the same for these two documents. The
content of these two design documents is intentionally and actively coordinated.

2.5.2 LRFD Code for Steel
The Load and Resistance Factor Design version of the Manual of Steel
Construction by the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC, 2001) provides
provisions for web-tapered members that must conform to three requirements:
31
1) The member shall possess one axis of symmetry that is perpendicular to
the plane of bending.
2) The flanges must have equal and constant area along the member
length.
3) The depth of the web must vary linearly.
Compression members meeting these requirements may be designed by standard
methods with weak axis buckling remaining the same and strong axis buckling modified
only by a different effective length factor (K
γ
), which shall be “determined by a rational
analysis” (AISC, 2001). Much of the research on web-tapered steel compression
members has been conducted by C.G. Lee and his associates at the University of New
York at Buffalo and is discussed in the excellent reference, The Guide to Stability Design
Criteria for Metal Structures (Galambos, 1998).

2.5.3 Concrete Code
The ACI 318-02 does not specifically address tapered members, leaving the
analysis of nonprismatic members for flexure and combined axial load plus bending
largely up to the designer. This is partly because concrete columns seldom are loaded in
compression only (rather than acting as beam-columns). Long column effects are based
on a moment-multiplier concept. Nonprismatic columns are not addressed. However,
Head and Aristizabal-Ochoa provide an algorithm and design procedures for concrete
columns with linear taper (Head and Aristizabal-Ochoa, 1987).

32
3. Analysis Procedures
3.1 Conjugate beam method
Prior to using Newmark’s method to calculate buckling loads of tapered columns,
sufficient background should be had in the conjugate beam method. Similar to the
moment area method, the conjugate beam method uses moment and stiffness response of
the beam (or column) in question to load what is called the conjugate beam, a beam of
equivalent dimensions and cross-sectional variation that has different end conditions.
Shear and moment response in the conjugate beam correspond to the deflections and
section rotations of the original beam, respectively. The end conditions of the conjugate
beam are chosen according to set rules based on ?. According to these rules, if the
original beam is able to undergo a rotation at its left end, then its conjugate beam must be
able to develop a shear at its left end. Accordingly, if the original beam is able to
undergo a deflection at its left end, then its conjugate beam must be able to develop a
moment at its left end. Thus, if the original beam were free at its left end, then the
conjugate beam would be fixed at its left end. Figure 3.1 provides original beam end
conditions and their conjugate equivalents. Conjugate beams must also be adjusted for
internal hinges and other discontinuities. These situations may be analyzed by following
the general rules for the conjugate beam, but they will not be discussed here as all of the
columns to be examined will be continuous.
Once the original and conjugate beams are formulated, the theory holds that the
moment distribution of the original beam shall be calculated and then divided by EI along
its length. Hence, if the beam stiffness varies along its length, this can be taken into
account in the analysis. The conjugate beam is then loaded with the magnitude of the
33
approximate curvature, M/EI, for the original beam. Shears and moments may then be
calculated along the length of the conjugate beam. These values correspond to rotation
and deflection at each section of the original beam, respectively. Just as the shear and
moment diagrams represent the first two integrations of the loading diagram subject to
specified shear and moment boundary conditions, the conjugate beam includes the two
integrations of the curvature values subject to known rotation and deflection boundary
conditions to obtain the rotations and deflections. Thus, the conjugate beam method
ultimately allows for the rapid calculation of deflections and rotations in a beam (or in the
case of this thesis, column) of varying cross section.

Original Beam End Condition Conjugate Beam End Condition
Simple Support
y = 0
θ ≠ 0




Simple Support
y = 0
θ ≠ 0

Guided Support
y ≠ 0
θ = 0




Guided Support
y ≠ 0
θ = 0

Fixed Support
y = 0
θ = 0




Free End
y ≠ 0
θ ≠ 0

Free End
y ≠ 0
θ ≠ 0




Fixed Support
y = 0
θ = 0

Figure 3.1. End conditions paired with their conjugate equivalents.

3.2 Concentrated loads from ordinates of a distributed load
Background will be provided here concerning the concentration formulae used to
discretize a distributed load at the node points based on the pattern of values (ordinates)
34
of this distributed load. In order to use Newmark’s method for calculating the critical
buckling loads of columns, a non-uniform distributed load reflecting the usual pattern of
the M/EI values must be concentrated at the nodal points between each element. By
using a power series to approximate the distributed load, accurate equations have been
produced to calculate the concentrated loads based on the ordinates of the distributed load
at adjacent points. For uniform or linearly varying distributed loads, these equations are
easy to develop. Newmark (1943) provides the derivation for these curves, while
Godden (1965) develops more of these equations to account for distributed and
concentrated loads. The most effective equations are very often those used to
approximate a parabolic curve, a common shape for a moment diagram and thus for the
M/EI loading. These equations are shown schematically in Figure 3.2 for the two
resultant values that are pertinent to this thesis: the first, when the ordinates at the node in
question and the adjacent nodes are known (R
B
), and the second, when the ordinates at
the node in question and the two nodes in one direction from the node in question are
known (R
A
). By symmetry, the value that would be R
C
has the same form as R
A
.


24
) 6 7 ( c b a d
R
A
− +
= (a)

12
) 10 ( c b a d
R
B
+ +
= (b)
Figure 3.2. Concentration formulae for two cases of a parabolic distributed load
(Newmark, 1943).

a b c
d d
R
A
R
B
35
3.3 Characterization of column taper
The research on tapered columns has yielded a great number of ways to
characterize the taper of a given member. For linearly tapering members of various cross
section, a shape factor is generally devised that is based on the variation of the moment of
inertia along the length of the member. If more complex taper scenarios are required,
then the shape factor is often based on the variation of some cross-sectional dimension
along the length of the member.
Gere and Carter (1962) provide the most general expression for the variation of
the moment of inertia for a linearly tapering column:

n
a
b
a
L
x
d
d
I x I
(
¸
(

¸

|
|
.
|

\
|
− + = 1 1 ) ( (Eq. 3.1)
where I(x) is the moment of inertia at any distance x from the small end of the column
(end a as defined in Figure 3.3), I
a
is the moment of inertia at the small end of the
column, d
a
and d
b
are the general dimensions at the small and large ends of the column,
respectively, and n is the shape factor given by the equation

a
b
a
b
d
d
I
I
n
log
log
= (Eq. 3.2)
This allows for the shape factor to be determined for any given cross section. However,
for most simple shapes, n may be evaluated by inspection. For example, knowing that
I=πd
4
/64 for a circular cross section, one can deduce that for linear variation of the
diameter, the moment of inertia will vary by the power of 4.
36
Figure 3.3 provides the notation used for this thesis, while Table 3.1 gives cross-
sectional shapes, taper conditions, and shape factors discussed in this thesis. Wide flange
and closed box sections with constant web thickness, constant flange thickness, constant
width, and varying depth have a shape factor between 2.1 and 2.6. The shape factor for
these shapes must be evaluated on an individual basis. While design equations are not
provided for these cases, they are obviously bounded by the n=2 (no web thickness) and
n=3 (web thickness equals flange width = rectangular section) cases and can be estimated
by the equations provided.













Figure 3.3. Notation used to characterize tapered column geometry.
x
y
a = smaller end dimension
b = larger end dimension
L
37
Table 3.1. Various cross sections and their associated shape factors based on Equation
3.2 for linear tapers (Gere and Carter, 1962).
Shape Shape factor, n


Solid circular section
Varying diameter, d


4


Solid square section
Varying dimension, d


4

Solid rectangular section
Constant width, b
Varying depth, d
Buckling about horizontal axis


3


Solid rectangular section
Constant width, b
Varying depth, d
Buckling about vertical axis


1


Tower Section
Constant areas concentrated
near corners
Varying dimension, d


2


Open-web section
Constant dimensions b, t
f

Varying depth, d
Buckling about horizontal axis


2
d
d
d
b
d
b
d
d
d
b
d
t
f

t
f

38
3.4 Spreadsheet development for determinate and one-degree indeterminate
tapered column buckling analysis

Excel is a commonly available and widely used spreadsheet program capable of
many operations involving tabularized data. For these reasons, it was chosen as the
computational environment for this study, although several other spreadsheet programs
have similar capabilities and operational features. The procedure for using Excel to
calculate the critical buckling loads and mode shapes for tapered columns with pinned-
pinned, fixed-free, fixed-pinned, and fixed-guided end conditions will be presented in a
stepwise manner. Each step will include the general method, applicable for any column
configuration. Then, details will be given that relate specifically to a linearly tapering
round column. This step-by-step development both illustrates the steps in the Newmark
method, whether it is carried out by hand, by specific programs prepared for its use, or by
spreadsheets, and the implementation of this method in a spreadsheet computing
environment. A table follows the procedure for each set of end conditions, which
contains a numerical example using 10 approximating elements for a column of circular
cross section with an end diameter ratio of 2. The steps in the following processes
correspond to the spreadsheet column numbers provided in the table.

3.4.1 A pinned-pinned column
Table 3.2, located at the end of this section, contains a numerical example for a
round pinned-pinned column with 10 approximating elements and end diameter ratio of
2. The first six iterations of this example are included in Appendix A.4.
1) The first spreadsheet column is set up as the ratio of the distance from the top of
the column to the column length, L. With the first cell containing a zero, the cell
39
below should contain a formula adding 1/N to the previous cell, where N is the
number of equal-length elements (h = element length = L/N) approximating the
column. This formula should be dragged down N-1 cells until a cell results in the
number 1. Thus, the first column represents the distance from the top of the
column as a fraction of the total length. This distance will henceforth be referred
to as x.
2) The second column provides a representative dimension on which the calculation
of the moment of inertia may be based. Thus, in the case of a linearly tapering
round column, the dimension d is used to represent the diameter at any point x
along the column length. The first cell in this column is equal to d
a
, the column
diameter at the top of the column. The second cell should contain the formula d =
d
a
+ x(d
b
- d
a
), where d
a
and d
b
are the column diameters at the top and bottom of
the column, respectively, and are fixed.
3) The third column is defined to be the moment of inertia, I, at any location x along
the column length. Thus, for the linearly tapering round column, I = πd
4
/64. As
for the diameter, I
a
and I
b
refer to the moments of inertia at the top and bottom of
the column, respectively.
4) The fourth column creates a ratio of I to I
a
. By scaling the moment of inertia,
which is often a very large number, the computations required of Excel are more
precise and the equations on the screen are easier to examine.
5) The fifth column is provided for the assumed lateral deflection of the column,
denoted y
o
. It is given a common factor, a, to account for scaling and units. The
factor a is retained and will be used later in the final calculation of the buckling
40
load. For the pinned-pinned case, a parabolic curve varying from 0 at the ends to
1 at the middle of the column is appropriate. The user may begin the Newmark
iterative procedure with whatever deflected shape is desired and use any method
to generate the assumed deflections. If formulae are used initially in this column,
they will be overwritten as the iterations progress and a final solution is found. It
should be noted that the assumed deflection should resemble the exact deflection
to such an extent that the solution will converge on the critical buckling load and
shape. In this case, an initial deflected shape varying linearly from 0 at the ends
to 1 in the middle will converge to the anticipated solution. However, the
assumed shape may be required to be more exact for more complex end
conditions. If the assumed shape is greatly different from the true solution shape,
convergence may not occur or convergence to a high mode buckled shape may
occur.
6) The sixth column represents the moment, M, that occurs at each section of the
column. Thus, M = (-P)(y
o
) and is simply –1 times the previous column. To
account for the compressive load, the common factor for this column is aP.
7) The seventh column contains computations of the curvature, M/EI, which is a
quantity that is distributed along the length of the column. By the procedure of
the conjugate beam method, this will become the applied load at the nodal points
for the conjugate column. The calculation of this column simply divides column
6, the column internal moment, by column 3, the ratio of section moment of
inertia to end moment of inertia. Thus, the common factor for this column
41
becomes aP/EI
a
. The modulus of elasticity, E, is assumed to be constant, not a
variable with length.
8) The eighth column is the nodal concentrations of the distributed M/EI. This
column utilizes the equations given in Figure 3.1 as appropriate. Equation (a) in
that figure is used to calculate the nodal concentration at the top and bottom
nodes, while Equation (b) is used to calculate the nodal concentration for each
internal node. If the distance between the nodes, h, and 1/12, common to both
equations, are left as common factors and pulled out, the common factor for this
column becomes ahP/12EI
a
.
9) The ninth column is an aid that allows the shear at the top end of the column to be
calculated by summing the moments due to the nodal concentrations of M/EI
about the bottom end of the column (italics will be used when referring to shear or
moment in the conjugate column, noting that these equate to rotation and
deflection, respectively, in the original column). The calculation is simply the
nodal concentrations times the distance from the bottom end: (nodal M/EI)(1-x)
where 1-x is the proportion of the nodal load that contributes to the reaction at the
top of the conjugate column. These values are then summed in the tenth column
to provide a starting point for the shear calculation at each node.
10) The tenth column is the shear at each node, which may be systematically
calculated by subtracting the nodal concentration at that node from the shear in
the previous node. Thus, the section rotations for each element in the original
beam can be calculated. Note that the shear at the top of the column is the sum of
42
the values in the ninth column divided by –1. The common factor for this column
remains ahP/12EI
a
.
11) The eleventh column is the deflection in the original column, which equates to the
moment in the conjugate column. At this point, the boundary conditions of the
column are used as a starting point. Because this is a pinned-pinned column, the
deflection, or moment, at both ends is zero. Setting the deflection at the top of the
column to zero and systematically calculating the moments by adding the shear
times the distance to the next node, h, to the moment in the previous node, the
deflections are easily obtained. By retaining h as a common factor, the common
factor for the column becomes ah
2
P/12EI
a
.
12) The twelfth column is the normalized deflection that can then be used as the
assumed deflection in the next iteration. This column is calculated by dividing
each value of the eleventh column by the absolute maximum value in that column.
13) The thirteenth column is the percent difference of the assumed deflection from the
derived deflection. Ultimately, the sum of the squares of the values in this
column will be driven toward zero to determine the approximated buckled shape,
obtained by the solution’s convergence to an acceptable error. For the analyses
performed for this research a value of 10
-10
was used to indicate a reasonable
degree of convergence.
14) The fourteenth column is the Euler factor for each point along the beam. These
values differ slightly for the individual elements as they bound the exact buckling
load. The Euler factor is calculated by equating the assumed and derived
deflections, including their factors:
43

a
d o
EI
aPh
y a y
12
2
= (Eq. 3.3)
Thus, substituting h = L/N and solving for P yields P
cr
:

2
2
12
L
EI
N
y
y
P
a
d
o
cr
|
|
.
|

\
|
= (Eq. 3.4)
15) Equation 3.4 can be manipulated to give a factor, P*, that multiplies the Euler
buckling load for a pinned-pinned column. P
cr
becomes some multiple, P*, of the
buckling load for a prismatic column with pinned-pinned end conditions. Thus,
( )
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
2
2
*
L
EI
P P
a
cr
π
(Eq. 3.5)
where

2
2
12
*
π
N
y
y
P
d
o
|
|
.
|

\
|
= (Eq. 3.6)
To facilitate a rapid solution within the spreadsheet, a number of final steps were
followed. First, a cell was created which calculates the sum of the squares of the
thirteenth column, which contains the percent difference between the assumed and scaled
deflections. This value is an indicator of the degree to which the assumed and derived
deflections match. By the nature of the solution, as the normalized derived deflection, y
n
,
is used as the assumed deflection, y
a
, the buckled shape becomes more exact with each
iteration and the sum of the squares of the thirteenth column is driven to some chosen
small error value (for the research presented here it was 10
-10
).
A Visual Basic program was written to achieve the necessary number of iterations
by copying the normalized derived deflections (column 12) into the assumed deflection
column (column 5) and then repeating the remaining calculations until a sufficient degree
44
of accuracy (based on the sum of the squares of the thirteenth column) was achieved.
This program is as follows:
Sub ss_iterate()
sumerror = Range("N57").Value ‘gives the variable sumerror the value of
the sum of the squares of the percent difference between the normalized
derived deflections and the assumed deflections’
Do Until (sumerror < 0.0000000001) ‘performs calculations within loop
until the sumerror is less than 1x10
-10

Range("M6:M56").Select ‘selects the normalized derived deflections’
Selection.Copy
Range("F6").Select ‘selects the first cell in the column of assumed
deflections’
Selection.PasteSpecial Paste:=xlValues, Operation:=xlNone,
SkipBlanks:= _
False, Transpose:=False ‘pastes the values of the normalized derived
deflections into the assumed deflections’
sumerror = Range("N57").Value ‘reads in new sumerror value’
Loop ‘closes loop’
Range("F6").Select ‘puts focus on cell F6’
Application.CutCopyMode = False ‘removes copy selection box’
End Sub

45
46
3.4.2 A fixed-free (pinned-guided) column
The deflected shape and buckling load are the same for a fixed-free and a guided-
pinned column. Thus, they are presented here as one case. Table 3.3, located at the end
of this section, contains a numerical example for a round fixed-free column with 10
approximating elements and end diameter ratio of 2. The first six iterations of this
example are included in Appendix A.4.
1) The first spreadsheet column is set up as the ratio of the distance from the top of
the column to the column length, L. With the first cell containing a zero, the cell
below should contain a formula adding 1/N to the previous cell, where N is the
number of equal-length elements (h = element length = L/N) approximating the
column. This formula should be dragged down N-1 cells until a cell results in the
number 1. Thus, the first column represents the distance from the top of the
column as a fraction of the total length. This distance will henceforth be referred
to as x.
2) The second column provides a representative dimension on which the calculation
of the moment of inertia may be based. Thus, in the case of a linearly tapering
round column, the dimension d is used to represent the diameter at any point x
along the column length. The first cell in this column is equal to d
a
, the column
diameter at the top of the column. The second cell should contain the formula d =
d
a
+ x(d
b
- d
a
), where d
a
and d
b
are the column diameters at the top and bottom of
the column, respectively, and are fixed.
3) The third column is defined to be the moment of inertia, I, at any location x along
the column length. Thus, for the linearly tapering round column, I = πd
4
/64. As
47
for the diameter, I
a
and I
b
refer to the moments of inertia at the top and bottom of
the column, respectively.
4) The fourth column creates a ratio of I to I
a
. By scaling the moment of inertia,
which is often a very large number, the computations required of Excel are more
precise and the equations on the screen are easier to examine.
5) The fifth column is provided for the assumed lateral deflection of the column,
denoted y
o
. It is given a common factor, a, to account for scaling and units. The
factor a is retained and will be used later in the final calculation of the buckling
load. For the fixed-free case, a linear variation from 0 at the fixed end to 1 at the
free end is an appropriate starting shape. The user may begin the Newmark
numerical procedure with whatever deflected shape is desired and use any method
to generate the assumed deflections. If formulae are used initially to characterize
the assumed deflected shape, they will be overwritten as the iterations progress
and a final solution is found. It should be noted that the assumed deflection
should resemble the exact deflection to such an extent that the solution will
converge on the critical buckling load and shape. In this case, an initial deflected
shape varying linearly from 0 at the fixed end to 1 at the free end will converge to
the anticipated solution. However, the assumed shape may be required to be more
exact for more complex end conditions or cross section variation. If the assumed
shape is greatly different from the true solution shape, convergence may not occur
or convergence to a high mode buckled shape may occur.
48
6) The sixth column represents the moment, M, that occurs at each section of the
column. Thus, M = (-P)(y
o
) and is simply –1 times the previous column. To
account for the compressive load, the common factor for this column is aP.
7) The seventh column should contain computations of the curvature, M/EI, which is
a quantity that is distributed along the length of the column. By the procedure of
the conjugate beam method, this will become the applied load at the nodal points
for the conjugate column. The calculation of this column simply divides column
6, the column internal moment, by column 3, the ratio of section moment of
inertia to end moment of inertia. Thus, the common factor for this column
becomes aP/EI
a
. The modulus of elasticity, E, is assumed to be constant, not a
variable with length.
8) The eighth column is the nodal concentrations of the distributed M/EI. This
column utilizes the equations given in Figure 3.1 as appropriate. Equation (a) in
that figure is used to calculate the nodal concentration at the top and bottom
nodes, while Equation (b) is used to calculate the nodal concentration for each
internal node. If the distance between the nodes, h, and 1/12, common to both
equations, are left as common factors and pulled out, the common factor for this
column becomes ahP/12EI
a
.
9) The ninth column is the shear at each node, which may be systematically
calculated by subtracting the nodal concentration at that node from the shear in
the previous node. Thus, the section rotations for each element in the original
beam can be calculated. For the guided-pinned case, the rotation at the guided
49
end is set to zero and the section rotations are calculated from that starting point.
The common factor for this column remains ahP/12EI
a
.
10) The tenth column is the deflection in the original column, which equates to the
moment in the conjugate column. At this point, the boundary conditions of the
column are used as a starting point. Because this is a guided-pinned column, the
deflection, or moment, at the pinned end is zero. Setting the deflection at the top
of the column to zero and systematically calculating the moments by adding the
shear times the distance to the next node, h, to the moment in the previous node,
the deflections are easily obtained. By retaining h as a common factor, the
common factor for the column becomes ah
2
P/12EI
a
.
11) The eleventh column is the normalized deflection, y
n
, that can then be used as the
assumed deflection in the next iteration. This column is calculated by dividing
each value of the eleventh column by the absolute maximum value in that column.
12) The twelfth column is the percent difference of the assumed deflection from the
derived deflection, (y
n
-y
o
)/y
n
. Ultimately, the sum of the squares of the values in
this column will be driven toward zero to determine the approximated buckled
shape obtained by the solution’s convergence to an acceptable error. For the
analyses performed for this research a value of 10
-10
was used to indicate a
reasonable degree of convergence.
13) The thirteenth column is the Euler factor for each point along the beam. These
values differ slightly for the individual elements as they bound the exact buckling
load. The Euler factor is calculated by equating the assumed and derived
deflections, including their factors:
50

a
d o
EI
aPh
y a y
12
2
= (Eq. 3.7)
Thus, substituting h = L/N and solving for P yields P
cr
:

2
2
12
L
EI
N
y
y
P
a
d
o
cr
|
|
.
|

\
|
= (Eq. 3.8)
14) Equation 3.8 can be manipulated to give a factor, P*, that multiplies the Euler
buckling load for a guided-pinned column. P
cr
becomes some multiple, P*, of the
buckling load for a prismatic column with guided-pinned end conditions. Thus,
( )
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
2
2
4
*
L
EI
P P
a
cr
π
(Eq. 3.9)
where
2
2
48
*
π
N
y
y
P
d
o
|
|
.
|

\
|
= (Eq. 3.10)
To facilitate a rapid solution within the spreadsheet, a number of final steps were
followed. First, a cell was created which calculates the sum of the squares of the
thirteenth column, which contains the percent difference between the assumed and scaled
deflections. This value is an indicator of the degree to which the assumed and derived
deflections match. By the nature of the solution, as the normalized derived deflection, y
n
,
is used as the assumed deflection, y
a
, the buckled shape becomes more exact with each
iteration and the sum of the squares of the thirteenth column is driven to some chosen
small error value (for the research presented here it was 10
-10
). A Visual Basic program
identical to that used for the pinned-pinned case was written to rapidly perform the
iterations for the fixed-free case.
51

52
3.4.3 A fixed-pinned column
Table 3.4, located at the end of this section, contains a numerical example for a
round fixed-pinned column with 10 approximating elements and end diameter ratio of 2.
The first six iterations of this example are included in Appendix A.4.
1) The first spreadsheet column is set up as the ratio of the distance from the top of
the column to the column length, L. With the first cell containing a zero, the cell
below should contain a formula adding 1/N to the previous cell, where N is the
number of equal-length elements (h = element length = L/N) approximating the
column. This formula should be dragged down N-1 cells until a cell results in the
number 1. Thus, the first column represents the distance from the top of the
column as a fraction of the total length. This distance will henceforth be referred
to as x.
2) The second column should provide a representative dimension on which the
calculation of the moment of inertia may be based. Thus, in the case of a linearly
tapering round column, the dimension d is used to represent the diameter at any
point x along the column length. The first cell in this column is equal to d
a
, the
column diameter at the top of the column. The second cell should contain the
formula d = d
a
+ x(d
b
- d
a
), where d
a
and d
b
are the column diameters at the top
and bottom of the column, respectively, and are fixed.
3) The third column is defined to be the moment of inertia, I, at any location x along
the column length. Thus, for the linearly tapering round column, I = πd
4
/64. As
for the diameter, I
a
and I
b
refer to the moments of inertia at the top and bottom of
the column, respectively.
53
4) The fourth column should create a ratio of I to I
b
. By scaling the moment of
inertia, which is often a very large number, the computations required of Excel
are more precise and the equations on the screen are easier to examine.
5) The fifth column is provided for the assumed lateral deflection of the column,
denoted y
o
. It is given a common factor, a, to account for scaling and units. The
factor a is retained and will be used later in the final calculation of the buckling
load. For the fixed-pinned case, a linear variation from 0 at the ends to 1 at the
middle is an appropriate starting shape. The user may begin the Newmark
iterative procedure with whatever deflected shape is desired and use any method
to generate the assumed deflections. If formulae are used initially to characterize
the assumed deflected shape, they will be overwritten as the iterations progress
and a final solution is found. It should be noted that the assumed deflection
should resemble the exact deflection to such an extent that the solution will
converge on the critical buckling load and shape. In this case, an initial deflected
shape varying linearly from 0 at the ends to 1 at the middle will converge to the
anticipated solution. However, the assumed shape may be required to be more
exact for more complex end conditions or cross section variation. If the assumed
shape is greatly different from the true solution shape, convergence may not occur
or convergence to a high mode buckled shape may occur.
6) The sixth column represents the moment, M, that occurs at each section of the
column. For both indeterminate cases, a thrust line concept is used. While the
determinate columns may have no points of inflection of the deflected shape (and
therefore the moment diagram), the one-degree indeterminate cases have one
54
point of inflection along their length. The thrust line is the path the load would
take from either end of the column through the point of inflection (see Figure 3.4).
The first step in determining the true moment in the column is to estimate the
position of this thrust line. Because the thrust line is linear from the pinned end
through the inflection point to some unknown point at the fixed end, any value for
the unknown at the fixed end can be used. A correction is applied later to account
for any difference. Thus, the expression for calculating moment derived in the
two previous cases still applies, however now M = (-P)(y
t
), where y
t
is the
distance from the thrust line to the deflected shape. Because the value of y
t
at the
fixed end is arbitrary, an existing column of data is used to provide the linear
variation. Column 1, representing the distance from the top of the column may be
used as the initial position of the thrust line. Thus, the calculation within this
column is x-y
o
. The compressive load, P, is common to all terms and is retained,
making the common factor for this column aP.






Figure 3.4. Thrust line concept for a fixed-pinned column.
7) The seventh column should contain computations of the curvature, M/EI, which is
a quantity that is distributed along the length of the column. By the procedure of


P
thrust line
deflected shape
55
the conjugate beam method, this will become the applied load at the nodal points
for the conjugate column. The calculation of this column simply divides column
6, the column internal moment, by column 3, the ratio of section moment of
inertia to end moment of inertia. Thus, the common factor for this column
becomes aP/EI
b
. The modulus of elasticity, E, is assumed to be constant, not a
variable with length.
8) The eighth column is the nodal concentrations of the distributed M/EI. This
column utilizes the equations given in Figure 3.1 as appropriate. Equation (a) in
that figure is used to calculate the nodal concentration at the fixed end, while
Equation (b) is used to calculate the nodal concentration for each internal node. If
the distance between the nodes, h, and 1/12, common to both equations, are left as
common factors and pulled out, the common factor for this column becomes
ahP/12EI
b
.
9) The ninth column is the shear at each node, which may be systematically
calculated by subtracting the nodal concentration at that node from the shear in
the previous node. Thus, the section rotations for each element in the original
beam can be calculated. For the fixed-pinned case, the rotation at the fixed end is
set to zero and the section rotations are calculated from that starting point. The
common factor for this column remains ahP/12EI
b
.
10) The tenth column is the deflection in the original column, which equates to the
moment in the conjugate column. Because this is a fixed-pinned column, the
deflection, or moment, at the fixed end is zero. Setting the deflection at the
bottom of the column to zero and systematically calculating the moments by
56
adding the shear times the distance to the next node, h, to the moment in the
previous node, the deflections are easily obtained. By retaining h as a common
factor, the common factor for the column becomes ah
2
P/12EI
b
.
11) The eleventh column begins a new series of columns required to account for the
error in the initial estimation of the thrust line. The error will be based on the
moment in the conjugate column at the fixed end, so any additional moment
required to correct this would produce a linear moment diagram, maximum at the
fixed end and zero at the pinned end. Thus, the eleventh column varies linearly
from some arbitrary value (10 is used in this case) at the fixed end to zero at the
pinned end. This redundant moment will move through the same manipulations
as the moments due to the assumed deflection would. This accounts for the effect
the taper in the column has on the redundant moment.
12) The twelfth column is the redundant moment divided by EI, with the common
factor aP/EI
b
.
13) The thirteenth column is the nodal concentration of the redundant moment
curvatures computed as before using Equation (a) from Figure 3.1 for the fixed
end and Equation (b) from the same figure for the internal nodes. The common
factor becomes aPh/12EI
b
.
14) The fourteenth column is the slope of each element in the original column due to
the effect of the redundant moment and is calculated in the same way as the ninth
column. The common factor is aPh/12EI
b
.
57
15) The fifteenth column is the deflection in the original column due to the effect of
the redundant moment and is calculated in the same way as the tenth column. The
common factor is aPh
2
/12EI
b
.
16) The sixteenth column is the scaled deflection as a result of the redundant moment.
The redundant deflections are normalized to allow for scaling based on the error
produced in the first cell of the tenth column. The common factor is aPh
2
/12EI
b
.
17) The seventeenth column is the correction to be applied to the deflections
calculated in the tenth column. The scaling factor is the value of undesired
deflection at the pinned end of the column produced in the tenth column. The
common factor is aPh
2
/12EI
b
.
18) The eighteenth column is the adjusted deflection. This takes the derived
deflections of the tenth column and adds the correction produced in the
seventeenth column. The common factor is aPh
2
/12EI
b
.
19) The nineteenth column is the normalized deflection, y
n
, that can then be used as
the assumed deflection in the next iteration. This column is calculated by
dividing each value of the eighteenth column by the absolute maximum value in
that column. The common factor is aPh
2
/12EI
b
.
20) The twentieth column is the percent difference of the assumed deflection from the
derived deflection, (y
n
-y
o
)/y
n
. Ultimately, the sum of the squares of the values in
this column will be driven toward zero to determine the approximated buckled
shape. For the analyses performed for this research a value of 10
-10
was used to
indicate a reasonable degree of convergence.
58
21) The twenty-first column is the Euler factor for each point along the beam. These
values differ slightly for the individual elements as they bound the exact buckling
load. The Euler factor is calculated by equating the assumed and derived
deflections, including their factors:

b
d o
EI
aPh
y a y
12
2
= (Eq. 3.11)
Thus, substituting h = L/N and solving for P yields P
cr
:

2
2
12
L
EI
N
y
y
P
b
d
o
cr
|
|
.
|

\
|
= (Eq. 3.12)
22) Equation 3.12 can be manipulated to give a factor, P*, that multiplies the Euler
buckling load for a fixed-pinned column. P
cr
becomes some multiple, P*, of the
buckling load for a prismatic column with fixed-pinned end conditions. Thus,
( ) |
.
|

\
|
=
2
1997 . 20
*
L
EI
P P
b
cr
(Eq. 3.13)
where
19997 . 20
12
*
2
N
y
y
P
d
o
|
|
.
|

\
|
= (Eq. 3.14)
To facilitate a rapid solution within the spreadsheet, a number of final
steps were followed. First, a cell was created which calculates the sum of the
squares of the thirteenth column, which contains the percent difference between
the assumed and scaled deflections. This value is an indicator of the degree to
which the assumed and derived deflections match. By the nature of the solution,
as the normalized derived deflection, y
n
, is used as the assumed deflection, y
a
, the
buckled shape becomes more exact with each iteration and the sum of the squares
59
of the thirteenth column is driven to some chosen small error value (for the
research presented here it was 10
-10
). A Visual Basic program identical to that
used for the pinned-pinned case was written to rapidly perform the iterations for
the fixed-free case.
60
61
3.4.4 A fixed-guided column
Table 3.5, located at the end of this section, contains a numerical example for a
round fixed-guided column with 10 approximating elements and end diameter ratio of 2.
The first six iterations of this example are included in Appendix A.4.
1) The first spreadsheet column is set up as the ratio of the distance from the top of
the column to the column length, L. With the first cell containing a zero, the cell
below should contain a formula adding 1/N to the previous cell, where N is the
number of equal-length elements (h = element length = L/N) approximating the
column. This formula should be dragged down N-1 cells until a cell results in the
number 1. Thus, the first column represents the distance from the top of the
column as a fraction of the total length. This distance will henceforth be referred
to as x.
2) The second column should provide a representative dimension on which the
calculation of the moment of inertia may be based. Thus, in the case of a linearly
tapering round column, the dimension d is used to represent the diameter at any
point x along the column length. The first cell in this column is equal to d
a
, the
column diameter at the top of the column. The second cell should contain the
formula d = d
a
+ x(d
b
- d
a
), where d
a
and d
b
are the column diameters at the top
and bottom of the column, respectively, and are fixed values.
3) The third column is the moment of inertia, I, at any location x along the column
length. Thus, for the linearly tapering round column, I = πd
4
/64. I
a
and I
b
refer to
the moments of inertia at the top and bottom of the column, respectively.
62
4) The fourth column should create a ratio of I to I
b
. By scaling the moment of
inertia, which is often a very large number, the computations required of Excel
are more precise and the values on the screen are easier to examine.
5) The fifth column is the assumed lateral deflection of the column, denoted y
o
. It is
given a common factor, a, to account for scaling and units. The factor a is
retained and will be used later in the final calculation of the buckling load. For
the fixed-guided case, a linear variation from 0 at the ends to 1 at the middle is an
appropriate starting shape. The user may begin the Newmark iterative procedure
with whatever deflected shape is desired and use any method to generate the
assumed deflections. If formulae are used initially to characterize the assumed
deflected shape, they will be overwritten as the iterations progress and a final
solution is found. It should be noted that the assumed deflection should resemble
the exact deflection to such an extent that the solution will converge on the critical
buckling load and shape. In this case, an initial deflected shape varying linearly
from 0 at the ends to 1 at the middle will converge to the anticipated solution.
However, the assumed shape may be required to be more exact for more complex
end conditions or cross section variation. If the assumed shape is greatly different
from the true solution shape, convergence may not occur or convergence to a high
mode buckled shape may occur.
6) The sixth column represents the moment, M, that occurs at each section of the
column. For both indeterminate cases, a thrust line concept is used. While the
determinate columns may have no points of inflection of the deflected shape (and
therefore the moment diagram), the one-degree indeterminate cases have one
63
point of inflection along their length. The thrust line is the path the load would
take from either end of the column through the point of inflection (see Figure 3.5).
The first step in determining the true moment in the column is to estimate the
position of this thrust line. Because the thrust line must be parallel to the
deflected shape at both the fixed and guided end, it is simply a line parallel to the
length of the column but offset some amount between the end deflections.
Because the deflections at the column ends are 0 and 1 by the design of the
solution, the thrust line is assumed to be positioned directly between the two at
0.5. A correction is applied later to account for any difference between this
assumption and the true position. The expression for calculating the moment
derived for the fixed-pinned case applies here as well: M = (-P)(y
t
), where y
t
is the
distance from the thrust line to the deflected shape. In this case, the calculation
within this column is y
t
= x-y
o
. The compressive load, P, is common to all terms
and is retained, making the common factor for this column aP.






Figure 3.5. Thrust line concept for a fixed-guided column.
7) The seventh column should contain computations of the curvature, M/EI, which is
a quantity that is distributed along the length of the column. By the procedure of

P
thrust line
deflected shape
64
the conjugate beam method, this will become the applied load at the nodal points
for the conjugate column. The calculation of this column simply divides column
6, the column internal moment, by column 3, the ratio of section moment of
inertia to end moment of inertia. Thus, the common factor for this column
becomes aP/EI
b
. The modulus of elasticity, E, is assumed to be constant, not a
variable with length.
8) The eighth column is the nodal concentrations of the distributed M/EI. This
column utilizes the equations given in Figure 3.2.1 as appropriate. Equation (a) in
that figure is used to calculate the nodal concentration at the fixed and guided
ends, while Equation (b) is used to calculate the nodal concentration for each
internal node. If the distance between the nodes, h, and 1/12, common to both
equations, are left as common factors and pulled out, the common factor for this
column becomes ahP/12EI
b
.
9) The ninth column is the shear at each node, which equates to the section rotation
in the original column. This value may be systematically calculated by
subtracting the nodal concentration at that node from the shear in the previous
node. Thus, the section rotations for each element in the original beam can be
calculated. For the fixed-guided case, the rotation at the fixed end is set to zero
and the section rotations are calculated from that starting point. The common
factor for this column remains ahP/12EI
b
.
10) The tenth column begins a new series of columns required to account for the error
in the initial estimation of the thrust line. The error will be based on the moment
in the conjugate column at the guided end, so any additional moment required to
65
correct this would produce a uniform moment diagram. Thus, the tenth column is
constant (10 is used in this case) along the length of the column. This redundant
moment will move through the same manipulations as the moments due to the
assumed deflection would. This accounts for the effect the taper in the column
has on the redundant moment.
11) The eleventh column is the redundant moment divided by EI, with the common
factor aP/EI
b
.
12) The twelfth column is the nodal concentration of the redundant moment
curvatures computed as before using Equation (a) from Figure 3.1 for the ends
and Equation (b) from the same figure for the internal nodes. The common factor
becomes aPh/12EI
b
.
13) The thirteenth column is the slope of each element in the original column due to
the effect of the redundant moment and is calculated in the same way as the ninth
column. The common factor is aPh/12EI
b
.
14) The fourteenth column is the scaled rotation as a result of the redundant moment.
The redundant deflections are normalized to allow for scaling based on the error
produced in the first cell of the ninth column. The common factor is aPh/12EI
b
.
15) The fifteenth column is the correction to be applied to the rotations calculated in
the ninth column. The scaling factor is the value of undesired rotation at the
guided end of the column produced in the ninth column. The common factor is
aPh/12EI
b
.
66
16) The sixteenth column is the adjusted rotation. This takes the derived rotations of
the ninth column and adds the correction produced in the fifteenth column. The
common factor is aPh/12EI
b
.
17) The seventeenth column is the derived deflection calculated from the boundary
condition at the fixed end where deflection is zero. The next cell may be
calculated by adding the rotation calculated for that particular section to the
deflection from the previous cell. The common factor is aPh
2
/12EI
b
.
18) The eighteenth column is the normalized deflection, y
n
, that can then be used as
the assumed deflection in the next iteration. This column is calculated by
dividing each value of the seventeenth column by the absolute maximum value in
that column. The common factor is aPh
2
/12EI
b
.
19) The nineteenth column is the percent difference of the assumed deflection from
the derived deflection, (y
n
-y
o
)/y
n
. Ultimately, the sum of the squares of the values
in this column will be driven toward zero to determine the approximated buckled
shape. For the analyses performed for this research a value of 10
-10
was used to
indicate a reasonable degree of convergence.
20) The twenty-first column is the Euler factor for each point along the beam. These
values differ slightly for the individual elements as they bound the exact buckling
load. The Euler factor is calculated by equating the assumed and derived
deflections, including their factors:

a
d o
EI
aPh
y a y
12
2
= (Eq. 3.15)
Thus, substituting h = L/N and solving for P yields P
cr
:
67

2
2
12
L
EI
N
y
y
P
a
d
o
cr
|
|
.
|

\
|
= (Eq. 3.16)
21) Equation 3.16 can be manipulated to give a factor, P*, that multiplies the Euler
buckling load for a fixed-guided column. P
cr
becomes some multiple, P*, of the
buckling load for a prismatic column with fixed-guided end conditions. Thus,

2
2
*
L
EI
P P
a
cr
π
= (Eq. 3.17)
where
2
2
12
*
π
N
y
y
P
d
o
|
|
.
|

\
|
= (Eq. 3.18)
To facilitate a rapid solution within the spreadsheet, a number of final steps were
followed. First, a cell was created which calculates the sum of the squares of the
thirteenth column, which contains the percent difference between the assumed and scaled
deflections. This value is an indicator of the degree to which the assumed and derived
deflections match. By the nature of the solution, as the normalized derived deflection, y
n
,
is used as the assumed deflection, y
a
, the buckled shape becomes more exact with each
iteration and the sum of the squares of the thirteenth column is driven to some chosen
small error value (for the research presented here it was 10
-10
). A Visual Basic program
identical to that used for the pinned-pinned case was written to rapidly perform the
iterations for the fixed-free case.
68
69
3.5 Spreadsheet modification for more complex column geometry
Architectural, as well as structural, concerns will have an impact on the shape of a
column member. Architectural concerns often require structural engineers to push the
limits of the usual requirements of safety and economy. Columns such as those shown in
Figures 3.5 and 3.6 are examples of potential columns that a designer might face. The
equations required to characterize the columns in these figures are given. The round
column with parabolic variation of the radius (Figure 3.5) requires a more complex
variation of the diameter to characterize, but moment of inertia calculations remain
relatively simple. The cruciform column (Figure 3.6) requires both manipulation of the
characteristic dimension and the moment of inertia. These columns are still relatively
easy to characterize, but their more complex variation provides an example of the power
of the Newmark numerical method to calculate the critical buckling load for all manner
of nonprismatic columns. The characteristic dimension and moment of inertia data are
the only numbers that require manipulation. The rest of the spreadsheet remains intact.




a b
a a m a m
d d
d x d d x d d x d
=
+ − + − − = ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) (
2




Figure 3.6. Details of a round column with parabolic variation of the radius.


d
b

d
m

d
a

x
y
70
x d d d d
a m a
) ( 2 − + = from x = 0 to L/2
) 5 . 0 )( ( 2 − − − = x d d d d
a m m
from x = L/2 to L

a b
d d =

( )
4 3 3
) ( ) ( ) (
12
1
a a a
d d d d d I − + |
.
|

\
|
=







Figure 3.7. Details of a cruciform column with linear variation from the ends to the
middle.

d
b

d
b

d
m

d
m

d
a

d
a

x
y
d
71
4. Results
The buckling loads of tapered columns are presented here in the same way for
each column. The ratio of end dimensions is always given as the large dimension divided
by the small dimension, thus it is always greater than one. The critical buckling load is
listed as a multiple, P*, of the Euler buckling load based on the moment of inertia of the
large end for the given end conditions. Therefore, the buckling load provided here will
always begin at P* = 1 for the prismatic column and be reduced as the column becomes
more tapered. The Newmark numerical method as presented in Section 3.4 was used
with 50 approximating elements to produce the following results. The numerical results
of the spreadsheet analyses for each column are presented in Appendix A.1.

4.1 Buckling loads of pinned-pinned columns

A plot of design curves according to variation of the moment of inertia as defined
in Section 3.3 is provided in Figure 4.1. A plot of buckled shapes for the case when n = 4
is presented in Figure 4.2. Plots of buckled shapes for all of the cases examined are
included in Appendix A.3. Design equations based on power curve trendlines applied to
the design curves are presented in Table 4.1 along with correlation values for the
trendlines and error values between the trendline approximation and the data. The design
equations are organized based on the variation of the moment of inertia and the ratio of
end dimensions, such that the buckling load may be found for any slender column with
pinned-pinned end conditions and linear taper of a section with moment of inertia that
varies as the power of 1, 2, 3, or 4. There is also a certain degree of error associated with
the numerical data. This concern is addressed in Section 4.5 and discussed later.
72
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 2 4 6 8 10
d
b
/d
a
P
*
n=4
n=3
n=2
n=1
d
a
d
b
( )
2
2
*
L
EI
P P
b
cr
π
=

Figure 4.1. Buckling load factor versus the ratio of end dimensions for a pinned-pinned
column with given taper geometry.



0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
normalized deflection
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a

Figure 4.2. Normalized buckled shapes for the pinned-pinned column, n=4.



73
Table 4.1. Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation and end-
dimension ratio for a linearly tapering pinned-pinned column.
n Power fit d
b
/d
a

Correlation
(R
2
)
Minimum
% Error
Maximum
% Error
1
4426 . 0
9938 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 1 Æ 2 0.9987 -0.39% 0.62%
1
3133 . 0
9010 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 2.1 Æ 5 0.9971 -0.48% 1.02%
1
2104 . 0
7647 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 Æ 10 0.9976 -0.23% 0.50%
2
9233 . 0
9917 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 1 Æ 2 0.9995 -0.52% 0.83%
2
7473 . 0
8675 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 2.1 Æ 5 0.9990 -0.67% 1.41%
2
5990 . 0
6844 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 Æ 10 0.9993 -0.34% 0.74%
3
4426 . 1
9938 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 1 Æ 2 0.9999 -0.39% 0.62%
3
3133 . 1
9010 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 2.1 Æ 5 0.9998 -0.48% 1.02%
3
2101 . 1
7644 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 Æ 10 0.9999 -0.24% 0.49%
4
9997 . 1
9997 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 1 Æ 10 1.0000 -0.01% 0.04%


4.2 Buckling loads of fixed-free (pinned-guided) columns

A plot of design curves according to variation of the moment of inertia as defined
in Section 3.3 is provided in Figures 4.3 and 4.4. A plot of buckled shapes for the case
when n = 4 is presented in Figure 4.5. Plots of buckled shapes for all of the cases
examined are included in Appendix A.3. Design equations based on power curve
74
trendlines applied to the design curves are presented in Tables 4.2 and 4.3 along with
correlation values for the trendlines and error values between the trendline approximation
and the data. The design equations are organized based on the variation of the moment of
inertia and the ratio of end dimensions, such that the buckling load may be found for any
slender column with fixed-free or guided-pinned end conditions and linear taper of a
section with moment of inertia that varies as the power of 1, 2, 3, or 4. There is also a
certain degree of error associated with the numerical data. This concern is addressed in
Section 4.5 and discussed later.


0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 2 4 6 8 10
d
b
/d
a
P
*
n=4
n=3
n=2
n=1
d
a
d
b
( )
2
2
4
*
L
EI
P P
b
cr
π
=

Figure 4.3. Buckling load factor versus the ratio of end dimensions for a fixed-free
column with given taper geometry and large end fixed.




75

Table 4.2. Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation for a
linearly tapering column with the large end fixed and the small end free.
n Power fit d
b
/d
a
Correlation (R
2
)
Minimum
% Error
Maximum
% Error
1
2751 . 0
9953 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 1 Æ 2 0.9982 -0.29% 0.47%
1
1818 . 0
9278 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 2.1 Æ 5 0.9959 -0.34% 0.71%
1
1133 . 0
8321 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 Æ 10 0.9966 -0.15% 0.31%
2
5786 . 0
9936 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 1 Æ 2 0.9992 -0.40% 0.64%
2
4377 . 0
8923 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 2.1 Æ 5 0.9981 -0.55% 1.15%
2
3157 . 0
7343 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 Æ 10 0.9984 -0.29% 0.60%
3
9124 . 0
9951 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 1 Æ 2 0.9998 -0.31% 0.49%
3
7854 . 0
9015 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 2.1 Æ 5 0.9994 -0.56% 1.14%
3
6529 . 0
7287 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 Æ 10 0.9995 -0.33% 0.70%
4
2627 . 1
0085 . 1 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 1 Æ 2 0.9997 -0.85% 0.54%
4
4969 . 1
2110 . 1 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 2.1 Æ 5 0.9994 -2.17% 1.03%
4
7222 . 1
7338 . 1 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 Æ 10 0.9998 -1.06% 0.48%

76
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 2 4 6 8 10
d
a
/d
b
P
*
n=4
n=3
n=2
n=1
d
a
d
b
( )
2
2
4
*
L
EI
P P
a
cr
π
=

Figure 4.4. Buckling load factor versus the ratio of end dimensions for a fixed-free
column with given taper geometry and small end fixed.




0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
normalized deflection
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
a
/d
b
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
normalized deflection
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a

(a) (b)
Figure 4.5. Normalized buckled shapes for the fixed-free column where (a) the small
end is fixed and (b) the large end is fixed, n=4.



77
Table 4.3. Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation for a
linearly tapering column with the large end free and the small end fixed.
n Power fit d
a
/d
b
Correlation (R
2
)
Minimum
% Error
Maximum
% Error
1
6616 . 0
9955 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 1 Æ 2 0.9997 -0.28% 0.45%
1
5637 . 0
9238 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 2.1 Æ 5 0.9994 -0.38% 0.59%
1
4775 . 0
8048 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 Æ 10 0.9996 -0.21% 0.43%
2
3623 . 1
9953 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 1 Æ 2 0.9999 -0.28% 0.47%
2
2661 . 1
9254 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 2.1 Æ 5 0.9999 -0.36% 0.61%
2
1897 . 1
8193 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 Æ 10 1.0000 -0.18% 0.36%
3
0974 . 2
9988 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 1 Æ 2 1.0000 -0.07% 0.12%
3
0693 . 2
9775 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 2.1 Æ 5 1.0000 -0.11% 0.17%
3
0471 . 2
9439 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 Æ 10 1.0000 -0.05% 0.08%
4
8626 . 2
0053 . 1 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 1 Æ 2 1.0000 -0.53% 0.32%
4
9393 . 2
0625 . 1 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 2.1 Æ 5 1.0000 -0.62% 0.20%
4
9773 . 2
1283 . 1 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 Æ 10 1.0000 -0.16% 0.09%




78
4.3 Buckling loads of fixed-pinned columns

A plot of design curves according to variation of the moment of inertia as defined
in Section 3.3 is provided in Figures 4.6 and 4.7. A plot of buckled shapes for the case
when n = 4 is presented in Figure 4.8. Plots of buckled shapes for all of the cases
examined are included in Appendix A.3. Design equations based on power curve
trendlines applied to the design curves are presented in Tables 4.4 and 4.5 along with
correlation values for the trendlines and error values between the trendline approximation
and the data. The design equations are organized based on the variation of the moment of
inertia and the ratio of end dimensions, such that the buckling load may be found for any
slender column with fixed-pinned end conditions and linear taper of a section with
moment of inertia that varies as the power of 1, 2, 3, or 4. There is also a certain degree
of error associated with the numerical data. This concern is addressed in Section 4.5 and
discussed later.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 2 4 6 8 10
d
b
/d
a
P
*
n=4
n=3
n=2
n=1
d
a
d
b
( )
( )
2
2
699 . 0
*
L
EI
P P
b
cr
π
=

Figure 4.6. Buckling load factor versus the ratio of end dimensions for a fixed-pinned
column with given taper geometry and large end fixed.

79
Table 4.4. Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation for a
linearly tapering column with the large end fixed and the small end pinned.
n Power fit
d
b
/d
a

Correlation (R
2
)
Minimum
% Error
Maximum
% Error
1
4530 . 0
9944 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 1 Æ 2 0.9992 -0.32% 0.52%
1
3415 . 0
9133 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 2.1 Æ 5 0.9980 -0.43% 0.91%
1
2448 . 0
7824 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 Æ 10 0.9982 -0.21% 0.50%
2
9382 . 0
9928 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 1 Æ 2 0.9997 -0.41% 0.68%
2
7947 . 0
8901 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 2.1 Æ 5 0.9994 -0.56% 1.16%
2
6697 . 0
7287 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 Æ 10 0.9996 -0.31% 0.63%
3
4544 . 1
9946 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 1 Æ 2 0.9999 -0.30% 0.50%
3
3539 . 1
9218 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 2.1 Æ 5 0.9999 -0.37% 0.79%
3
2734 . 1
8106 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 Æ 10 1.0000 -0.19% 0.40%
4
9994 . 1
9990 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 Æ 10 1.0000 -0.03% 0.09%

80
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 2 4 6 8 10
d
a
/d
b
P
*
n=4
n=3
n=2
n=1
d
a
d
b
( )
( )
2
2
699 . 0
*
L
EI
P P
a
cr
π
=

Figure 4.7. Buckling load factor versus the ratio of end dimensions for a fixed-pinned
column with given taper geometry and small end fixed.

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
normalized deflection
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
a
/d
b
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
normalized deflection
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a

(a) (b)
Figure 4.8. Normalized buckled shapes for the fixed-free column where (a) the small
end is fixed and (b) the large end is fixed, n=4.

81
Table 4.5. Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation for a
linearly tapering column with the large end pinned and the small end fixed.
n Power fit
d
a
/d
b

Correlation (R
2
)
Minimum
% Error
Maximum
% Error
1
4544 . 0
9946 . 0 *









=
b
a
d
d
P 1 Æ 2 0.9993 -0.30% 0.50%
1
3539 . 0
9218 . 0 *









=
b
a
d
d
P 2.1 Æ 5 0.9987 -0.37% 0.64%
1
2739 . 0
8113 . 0 *









=
b
a
d
d
P 5.1 Æ 10 0.9991 -0.18% 0.39%
2
9382 . 0
9928 . 0 *









=
b
a
d
d
P 1 Æ 2 0.9997 -0.41% 0.68%
2
7947 . 0
8901 . 0 *









=
b
a
d
d
P 2.1 Æ 5 0.9994 -0.56% 0.89%
2
6698 . 0
7288 . 0 *









=
b
a
d
d
P 5.1 Æ 10 0.9996 -0.30% 0.64%
3
4530 . 1
9944 . 0 *









=
b
a
d
d
P 1 Æ 2 0.9999 -0.32% 0.52%
3
3413 . 1
9132 . 0 *









=
b
a
d
d
P 2.1 Æ 5 0.9999 -0.44% 0.68%
3
2443 . 1
7820 . 0 *









=
b
a
d
d
P 5.1 Æ 10 0.9999 -0.23% 0.48%
4
9991 . 1
9988 . 0 *









=
b
a
d
d
P 1 Æ 10 1.0000 -0.03% 0.08%

4.4 Buckling loads of fixed-guided columns

A plot of design curves according to variation of the moment of inertia as defined
in Section 3.3 is provided in Figure 4.9. A plot of buckled shapes for the case when n = 4
is presented in Figure 4.10. Plots of buckled shapes for all of the cases examined are
included in Appendix A.3. Design equations based on power curve trendlines applied to
the design curves are presented in Table 4.6 along with correlation values for the
82
trendlines and error values between the trendline approximation and the data. The design
equations are organized based on the variation of the moment of inertia and the ratio of
end dimensions, such that the buckling load may be found for any slender column with
fixed-guided end conditions and linear taper of a section that varies as the power of 1, 2,
3, or 4. There is also a certain degree of error associated with the numerical data. This
concern is addressed in Section 4.5 and discussed later.


0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 2 4 6 8 10
d
b
/d
a
P
*
n=4
n=3
n=2
n=1
d
a
d
b
( )
2
2
4
*
L
EI
P P
b
cr
π
=

Figure 4.9. Buckling load factor versus the ratio of end dimensions for a fixed-guided
column with given taper geometry.






83

Table 4.6. Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation for a
linearly tapering column with large end fixed and small end guided.
n Power fit d
a
/d
b
Correlation (R
2
)
Minimum
% Error
Maximum
% Error
1
4725 . 0
9956 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 1 Æ 2 0.9995 -0.27% 0.44%
1
3791 . 0
9273 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 2.1 Æ 5 0.9989 -0.37% 0.75%
1
2960 . 0
8116 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 Æ 10 0.9990 -0.21% 0.43%
2
9468 . 0
9914 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 1 Æ 2 0.9995 -0.53% 0.86%
2
7611 . 0
8602 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 2.1 Æ 5 0.9988 -0.74% 1.53%
2
5769 . 0
6392 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 Æ 10 0.9985 -0.50% 1.04%
3
4246 . 1
9878 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 1 Æ 2 0.9995 -0.77% 1.22%
3
1755 . 1
8179 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 2.1 Æ 5 0.9992 -0.96% 1.95%
3
9370 . 0
5563 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 Æ 10 0.9989 -0.68% 1.39%
4
9102 . 1
9853 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 1 Æ 2 0.9996 -0.91% 1.47%
4
6887 . 1
8397 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 2.1 Æ 5 0.9998 -0.61% 1.32%
4
5271 . 1
6456 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 Æ 10 0.9998 -0.49% 1.04%


84
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
normalized deflection
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a

Figure 4.10. Normalized buckled shapes for the pinned-pinned column, n=4.



4.5 Rate of convergence and accuracy

Values of the buckling load factor, P*, for a pinned-pinned column based on
models employing 10 approximating elements and 50 approximating elements were
compared to the exact values of the buckling load for a given taper ratio. The results of
this comparison are presented in Table 4.7.
Table 4.7. Comparison to the exact solution of P* for linearly tapered pinned-pinned
columns, of shape factor n=4, obtained using the Newmark numerical method using 10
and 50 elements.
Pinned-Pinned Column Percent Difference
d
b
/d
a

N=10 N=50 exact N=10 N=50
1 0.999959 1.000000 1.000000 -0.004% 0.000%
2 4.001540 4.000002 4.000000 0.038% 0.000%
3 9.026722 9.000043 9.000000 0.297% 0.000%
4 16.161502 16.000281 16.000000 1.009% 0.002%
5 25.588415 25.001160 25.000000 2.354% 0.005%
6 37.582708 36.003630 36.000000 4.396% 0.010%
7 52.490270 49.009422 49.000000 7.123% 0.019%
8 70.708148 64.021405 64.000000 10.481% 0.033%
9 92.672686 81.043882 81.000000 14.411% 0.054%
10 118.853376 100.083025 100.000000 18.853% 0.083%
85
4.6 Columns with uncommon cross section variations
Columns with uncommon variation of the cross section can be found in many
already constructed structures. Structures that require a certain architectural style may
utilize non-prismatic columns, and often times these will have very unusual cross-
sectional variation. Their analysis is equally as important as any other column, but
perhaps more difficult. The method developed in this thesis was used to examine a
number of uncommon column shapes, more to show that it can be done than to draw
conclusions for design purposes.

4.6.1 Parabolic variation of the radius
A round column with parabolic variation of the radius was analyzed to determine
its buckling load factor for four end conditions. The details of the column are provided in
Section 3.6 and the resulting curves displaying the factor of the Euler buckling load for
the given end conditions versus the ratio of middle diameter to end diameter are provided
in Figure 4.11.


4.6.2 Tapered crucifix cross section

A tapered crucifix cross section with linear variation of its radius from the end to
the middle was analyzed to determine its buckling load factor for four end conditions.
The details of the column are provided in Section 3.6. The resulting curves displaying
the factor of the Euler buckling load for the given end conditions versus the ratio of
middle dimension to end dimension are provided in Figure 4.12.
86
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1 2 3 4 5
d
m
/d
a
P*
Pinned-Pinned
Fixed-Free
Fixed-Pinned
Fixed-Guided

Figure 4.11. Euler buckling load factor, P*, as a function of middle-to-end diameter
ratio for a round column with parabolic variation of the cross section.


0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1 2 3 4 5
d
m
/d
a
P*
Pinned-Pinned
Fixed-Free
Fixed-Pinned
Fixed-Guided

Figure 4.12. Euler buckling load factor, P*, as a function of middle-to-end dimension
ratio for a crucifix column varying linearly from its ends to its middle.

87
5. Discussion
5.1 Excel as applied to the Newmark numerical method
Newmark’s numerical method is easily adapted to the Excel spreadsheet
environment. Inserting equations and dragging them facilitates a fast development of the
initial model. With the results appearing immediately, checking for errors is far easier
than debugging long lines of code. Adding more approximating elements becomes an
easy task once a spreadsheet is set up for any number of elements. And, once a model for
simple end conditions is formulated, that model may be copied and modified to analyze
other end conditions.
The analysis of any cross section variation is possible by substituting into the
characteristic dimension or moment of inertia columns. While this will be discussed
further in Section 5.4, it is worthy of note here. Members with highly non-uniform cross
section may be rapidly integrated into the tool and modified as part of a subroutine to
optimize for small variations in column geometry.
The need for both FORTRAN code and spreadsheet analysis of the data for
presentation and plotting is reduced to a single tool. Visual Basic is integrated into the
software to provide the capabilities of traditional computer programming languages when
necessary.
Visualization of results is nearly immediate with the plotting and printing
capabilities of Excel. Producing large tables of values for all end conditions and taper
ratios would be extremely tedious if not for the options available through Visual Basic
scripting. Visual Basic allows repetitive tasks to be coded into a loop. This provides an
easy way to produce precisely formatted tables of data. Thus, many more column
88
conditions can be analyzed easily with this tool. The method could conceivably be
converted into Visual Basic code entirely. However, the visual nature of the spreadsheet
environment makes it more applicable to the problem and producing results directly as
they will be presented is another timesaving feature of the tool as it now exists.

5.2 Tapered column data and trends
The data generated for the four column cases shows the basic trend of decreased
buckling load as the column becomes more tapered. This trend is attenuated, as one
might expect, when the power of the variation of the moment of inertia is lower (i.e. n=1)
and is more pronounced when that variation is greater (i.e. n=4). This apparent decrease
in buckling load is due entirely to the choice of notation for the buckling load. The
critical buckling load is given as a fraction of the Euler buckling load for a prismatic
column with moment of inertia defined to be the moment of inertia for the large end of
the tapered column. Thus, the buckling load for a tapered column given this notation will
always be less than the prismatic.
The variation of the buckling load with increased end dimension ratio follows the
general trend of a negative power. While this is not exact for all cases, it is still accurate
enough to be used for design purposes, and it is exact for those cases already noted by
Gere and Carter (1962). The compact nature of the equations produced in this format
also makes them potentially useful in design manuals where tabulated coefficients for
design equations are common.


89
5.2.1 Linearly tapered pinned-pinned columns
The power curve fits that were applied to the entirety of the curve were not exact
enough to give accurate results for cases n = 1, n = 2, and n = 3 (see Appendix A.2). By
applying separate trendlines to three sections of the curve (d
b
/d
a
from 1 to 2, 2 to 5 and 5
to 10), the relative error for each equation was drastically reduced. Only one equation in
Table 4.1 produces error greater than 1.0%, while without the separate equations the error
was as great as 12.5% and greater than 1.0% for all. Also, by using three separate
trendlines for each curve, the correlation values went from 0.9793 at the lowest to 0.9971.
The trendline applied to the n = 4 case was virtually exact. This case was solved
exactly by Gere and Carter (1962) (see Table 2.4). The error in the equation presented in
Table 4.1 is likely a result of the approximations inherent in the numerical method.
However, the results of the numerical method here validate those produced by Gere and
Carter, and vice versa.
5.2.2 Linearly tapered fixed-free columns
For the large-end-fixed condition, the power curve fits that were applied to the
entirety of the curve were not exact enough to give accurate results for any of the taper
cases examined: n = 1, n = 2, n = 3, n = 4 (see Appendix A.2). By applying separate
trendlines to three sections of each curve (d
b
/d
a
from 1 to 2, 2 to 5 and 5 to 10), the
relative error versus using a single equation was drastically reduced. Only four equations
in Table 4.2 produce error greater than 1.0%, while without the separate equations the
error was as great as 20.4% and greater than 2.0% for all. Also, by using three separate
trendlines for each curve, the correlation values went from 0.9708 at the lowest to 0.9959.
90
For the small-end-fixed condition (Table 4.3), three separate curve fits were also
required per curve to reduce error. In this case, however, the error reduction was
outstanding. The greatest error achieved in these results is 0.62%, so the power
trendlines match the experimental data very closely. This can also be seen by examining
the correlation of the trendlines. The R
2
value went from 0.9960 at its lowest to 0.9994,
using three fits per curve. It should be noted that the error produced by trendlines applied
to whole curves (see Appendix A.2) produced no more than 7.3% error. Thus, for the
small-end-fixed condition these equations might be used instead, given their more
compact presentation.
5.2.3 Linearly tapered fixed-pinned columns
For the large-end-fixed condition, the power curve fits that were applied to the
entirety of the curve were not exact enough to give accurate results for cases n = 1, n = 2,
and n = 3 (see Appendix A.2). By applying separate trendlines to three sections of the
curve (d
b
/d
a
from 1 to 2, 2 to 5 and 5 to 10), the relative error for each equation was
drastically reduced. Only one equation in Table 4.4 produces error greater than 1.0%,
while without the separate equations the error was as great as 10.4% and greater than
1.0% for all. Also, by using three separate trendlines for each curve, the correlation
values went from 0.9858 at the lowest to 0.9980.
For the small-end-fixed condition (Table 4.5), three separate curve fits were also
required per curve to reduce error. As was the case for the fixed-free column fixed at the
small end, the error reduction here was outstanding. The greatest error achieved in these
results is 0.89%. The trendlines provided a very accurate representation of the data. This
91
can also be seen by examining the correlation of the trendlines. The R
2
value went from
0.9904 at its lowest to 0.9987, using three fits per curve.
It should be noted that the error produced by trendlines applied to whole curves
(see Appendix A.2), for both small- and large-end-fixed cases, produced no more than
10.4% error. Thus, for the fixed-pinned condition these equations might be used instead,
given their more compact presentation.
As was the case for the pinned-pinned column case, the trendline applied to the
n=4 case was virtually exact. This case was also solved exactly by Gere and Carter
(1962) (see Table 2.4). The error in the equation is likely a result of the approximations
inherent in the numerical method. However, the results of the numerical method here
validate those produced by Carter and Gere, and vice versa.

5.2.4 Linearly tapered fixed-guided columns
The power curve fits that were applied to the entirety of the curve were not exact
enough to give accurate results for any of the taper cases examined: n = 1, n = 2, n = 3,
n = 4 (see Appendix A). By applying separate trendlines to three sections of each curve
(d
b
/d
a
from 1 to 2, 2 to 5 and 5 to 10), the relative error versus using a single equation
was drastically reduced. Eight equations in Table 4.6 produce error greater than 1.0%,
while without the separate equations the error was as great as 17.8% and greater than
2.0% for all. Also, by using three separate trendlines for each curve, the correlation
values went from 0.9918 at the lowest to 0.9985.


92
5.3 Rate of Convergence and Accuracy
Convergence of the Newmark numerical method is almost guaranteed for the
column end conditions examined here. Newmark (1943) warns of certain cases where
the method may converge very slowly or even diverge and “tricks” may be required to
provide a correct solution. However, Newmark also mentions that these cases are
uncommon. During the course of the research performed here phenomena of divergence
or slow convergence were not observed. In fact, for most of the models examined
iterations on the order of 6 were required to achieve values for the sum of squared errors
between the assumed and derived deflections of less than 10
-10
. This is consistent with
findings provided by Kaewkulchai (1997) and can be observed in Appendix A.4, where
six iterations of the numerical examples provided in Section 3.4 are included.
If the problem of slow convergence of the solutions were encountered, the only
variable affected would be the run time of the Visual Basic script. The number of
iterations is not limited in Excel except if the programmer provides for a limit in the
script. Again, this problem was not encountered during the research performed.
The number of discrete elements used in the member approximation can be
expanded easily to increase the accuracy of the final result. Note that more elements are
required for accuracy in cases of extreme taper or very complex variation in the cross
section. It has been noted by the author, as well as by Newmark (1949), that error
increases as taper increases for a fixed number of discrete elements. By increasing the
number of discrete elements the cross section variation is more accurately represented
and the error due to the approximation of the column is reduced. This reduction in error
for an increased number of elements, as well as the increased error for increased degree
93
of taper, is demonstrated in Table 4.7 for the case of a linearly tapered pinned-pinned
column.
Table 4.7 also provides an analysis of the error of the Newmark method when
compared to the exact solution for the pinned-pinned column. It can be seen in this table
that using only 10 approximating elements results in more than 18% error for the unlikely
case of 10 for the ratio of end diameters. Using 50 approximating elements cuts this error
to less than 0.1%. Newmark (1949) recognized the exceptional degree of accuracy
available by this method but noted mistakes in the many hand calculations required for
such accuracy as a deterrent to the use of many approximating elements. This concern is
moot when a spreadsheet or programming language is used to perform the many
calculations. Thus, an extremely high degree of accuracy may be obtained by using the
Newmark numerical method within a spreadsheet environment.

5.4 Columns with uncommon cross section variations
The analysis performed on the parabolic and crucifix columns adequately
demonstrates the power and versatility of the Newmark method within a spreadsheet
environment. While the geometry of the columns analyzed was described by
mathematical expressions, it is apparent that more freeform shapes could be analyzed as
well.
While they were not the primary goal of this exercise, the results obtained from
the uncommon column analyses are nonetheless interesting. It appears that for the
various end conditions, the behavior of the crucifix column is more similar that for the
94
parabolic column. The behavior varies slightly more for the parabolic column indicating
some optimal level of economy might be found in one end condition versus another.
95
Conclusions and Recommendations
5.5 Conclusions
The literature concerned with tapered column buckling is plentiful. Exact closed
form solutions for a few cases of tapered columns are available. The results presented in
this thesis fill the void that exists by providing relatively simple design equations for
calculating the critical buckling loads of columns with various traditional cross sections,
linear taper, and determinate and one-degree indeterminate end conditions.
Additionally, the research presented in this thesis provides a means to apply
Newmark’s numerical method in a spreadsheet environment where its power and
versatility may be put to practical use. The critical loads and buckled shapes for columns
of virtually any cross section variation may be analyzed easily and quickly with this
method.

5.6 Recommendations for future research
Possibilities for future research include:
- Development of design equations for more and different column
configurations and geometries allowing for wider use of columns with
variable cross section in the world of design.
- Adaptation of the Newmark method to the two-degree indeterminate (fixed-
fixed) case and restrained-restrained cases when complete fixity is not
possible. This would allow for greater application to real world design
problems where the fixed-fixed case is found routinely, but seldom allows for
complete fixity.
96
- Comparison of the Newmark numerical method to finite element models, with
a discussion of required set-up time and effort.
- An inspection of absolute buckling values (i.e. a factor of common variables)
rather than factors of the Euler load might be presented to determine optimal
end conditions. As the results are presented now, this cannot be determined.
- Optimal column geometry might be examined by including the volume of
material within the column in the expression for buckling load (e.g. an
examination of P
cr
/volume versus end-dimension ratio).
97
References

American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA). 1997. National Design Specification
for Wood Construction. AF&PA, Washington, D.C.

American Forest & Paper Association, and American Society of Civil Engineers
(AF&PA/ASCE). 1995. Standard for Load and Resistance Factor Design
(LRFD) for Engineered Wood Construction. ASCE, New York.

American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). 2001. Load and Resistance Factor
Design for Structural Steel Buildings, 3
rd
Ed. AISC, Chicago.

Anderson, M.S. and F.W. Williams. 1987. BUNVIS-RG: Exact Frame Buckling and
Vibration Program, with Repetitive Geometry and Substructuring. Journal of
Spacecraft, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 353-361.

Banerjee, J.R. and F.W. Williams. 1986. Exact Bernoulli-Euler Static Stiffness Matrix
for a Range of Tapered Beam-Columns. International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering, Vol. 23, pp. 1615-1628.

Chen, Y.Z. et al. 1989. Buckling Loads of Columns with Varying Cross Sections.
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 115, No. 3, pp. 662-667.

Column Research Committee of Japan. 1971. Handbook of Structural Stability. Corona
Publishing Company, Ltd., Tokyo.

Criswell, M.E. 1984. Design of Columns. Wood: Engineering Design Concepts. Vol.
IV, Clark C. Heritage Memorial Series on Wood. Forest Products Laboratory.
Materials Education Council, Pennsylvania State University.

Criswell, M.E. 1991. New Design Equations For Tapered Columns. Wood Design
Focus. 2(3):4-7.

Dinnik, A.N. 1929. Design of Columns of Varying Cross-Sections. Transactions,
ASME, Vol. 51, p.105.

Dinnik, A.N. 1932. Design of Columns of Varying Cross-Section. Transactions, ASME,
Vol. 54, p.165.

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1981. “Probability-Based Design of Wood
Transmission Structures,” Volume 3: User’s Manual POLEDA-80, EPRI, Palo
Alto, CA, prepared by M.D. Vanderbilt et al.

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1987. “Reliability-Based Design of
Transmission Line Structures: Final Report, Volume 1: Methods,” Report EL-
98
4793, Research Project 1352-2, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, prepared by M.E. Criswell
and M.D. Vanderbilt.

Ermopoulos, J.C. 1985. Buckling of Tapered Bars Under Stepped Axial Loads. Journal
of Structural Engineering, Vol. 112, No. 6, pp. 1346-1354.

Fogel, C.M. and R.L. Ketter. 1962. Elastic Strength of Tapered Columns. ASCE,
Journal of the Structural Division, Vol. 88, No. 5, p. 67.

Galambos, T.V. 1998. Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures 5
th
Ed.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

Gatewood, B.E. 1954. Buckling Loads for Columns of Variable Cross Section. Journal
of the Aeronautical Sciences, Vol. 21, pp. 287-288.

Gere, J.M. and Carter, W.O. 1962. Critical Buckling Loads for Tapered Columns.
ASCE, Journal of the Structural Division, Vol. 88, No. 1, p. 1.

Godden, W.G. 1965. Numerical Analysis of Beam and Column Structures. Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Hartog, D. 1956. Mechanical Vibrations 4
th
Ed. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New
York, pp. 155-165.

Head, M.C. and J.D. Aristizabal-Ochoa. 1987. Analysis of Prismatic and Linearly
Tapered Reinforced Concrete Columns. Journal of Structural Engineering. Vol.
113, No. 3, pp. 575-589.

Kaewkulchai, Griengsak. 1997. Design-Oriented Equations for Buckling of Slender
Tapered Columns. Master’s Thesis. Department of Civil Engineering. Colorado
State University.

Kim, M.C. et al. 1997. Elastic and Inelastic Buckling Analysis of Thin-Walled Tapered
Members. Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Vol. 123, No. 7, pp. 727-737.

Ku, A.B. 1979. The Buckling of a Nonuniform Column. Conference Proceedings,
Engineering Mechanics, pp. 240-243.

Liew, J.Y.R et al. 1989. Tapered Box Columns Under Biaxial Loading. Journal of
Structural Engineering, Vol. 115, No. 7, pp. 1697-1709.

Lind, N.C. 1962. Discussion of Critical Buckling Loads for Tapered Columns (Gere and
Carter, 1962). ASCE, Journal of the Structural Division. Vol. ?, No. 4, p. 235.

Lind, N.C. 1975. Newmark’s Numerical Method. Solid Mechanics Division Special
Publications, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario.
99

Nakahira, N. et al. 1992. Vibration of Beams with Varying Cross-sections by the
Stodola-Newmark Method. Computers & Structures. Vol. 43, No. 5, pp.999-
1004.

Newmark, N.M. 1943. Numerical Procedure for Computing Deflections, Moments, and
Buckling Loads. ASCE Transactions, Paper No. 2202, Vol. 108, pp. 1161-1234.

Newmark, N.M. 1949. Numerical Methods of Analysis of Bars, Plates and Elastic
Bodies. Numerical Methods of Analysis in Engineering (Edited by L.E. Grinter).
The Macmillan Company, New York, pp. 138-168.

Ram, G. and G. Rao. 1951. Buckling of an N-Section Column. Journal of the
Aeronautical Sciences, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 66-67.

Sechler, E.E. 1952. Elasticity in Engineering. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

Seide, Paul. 1975. Accuracy of Some Numerical Methods for Column Buckling. ASCE,
Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division. Vol. 101, No. EM5, October, pp.
549-560.

Smith, G.W. 1988. Analytic Solutions for Tapered Column Buckling. Computers and
Structures. Vol. 28, No. 5, pp. 677-681.

Stodola, A. 1906. Steam Turbines. D. Van Nostrand Company, New York, pp. 185-186.
(Second revised edition/translation, by Lowenstein, L.C. )

Timoshenko, S.P. and J.M. Gere. 1961. Theory of Elastic Stability 2
nd
Ed. McGraw-Hill
Book Co., Inc., New York.

Williams, F. W. and G. Aston. 1989. Exact or Lower Bound Tapered Column Buckling
Loads. Journal of Structural Engineering. Vol. 115, No. 5, pp. 1088-1100.

Wittrick, W.H. and F.W. Williams. 1973. An Algorithm for Computing Critical
Buckling Loads of Elastic Structures. Journal of Structural Mechanics, Vol. 1,
No. 4, pp. 497-518.





















APPENDIX A.1
GENERATED VALUES OF P* FOR
4 END CONDITIONS AND 4 TAPER GEOMETRIES
101
Table A.1.1. Critical buckling load factor, P*, for a pinned-pinned column with
given taper geometry.
n
d
b
/d
a

1 2 3 4
1 0.999999935 0.999999935 0.999999935 0.999999935
1.1 0.954168578 0.909988604 0.867426018 0.826446248
1.2 0.915346126 0.836347906 0.762788479 0.694444512
1.3 0.881987207 0.775002353 0.678451752 0.591716075
1.4 0.852975648 0.723117888 0.609268386 0.510204202
1.5 0.827484122 0.678664805 0.551656158 0.444444582
1.6 0.804885743 0.640152544 0.503053677 0.390625154
1.7 0.78469638 0.606462558 0.461586205 0.346020931
1.8 0.766535898 0.576739522 0.425853387 0.308642163
1.9 0.750101428 0.55031849 0.39479035 0.277008517
2 0.735148523 0.526674891 0.367574401 0.250000228
2.1 0.7214776 0.505389465 0.343560918 0.22675762
2.2 0.708923999 0.48612317 0.322238356 0.206611847
2.3 0.697350604 0.468598925 0.303196109 0.189036221
2.4 0.686642255 0.452588227 0.286101154 0.173611446
2.5 0.67670148 0.437900534 0.27068083 0.160000367
2.6 0.667445195 0.424376311 0.256709953 0.147929396
2.7 0.658802114 0.411880619 0.244001072 0.13717465
2.8 0.650710706 0.400298637 0.232396998 0.127551498
2.9 0.643117565 0.389532053 0.221765025 0.118906584
3 0.635976097 0.379496203 0.211992411 0.111111674
4 0.582362763 0.306941324 0.145591586 0.062501169
5 0.548235748 0.263288766 0.109648642 0.040001897
6 0.5243782 0.233902497 0.087398738 0.027780605
7 0.506649998 0.212638269 0.072382095 0.020412108
8 0.49289747 0.196456978 0.061617159 0.015630238
9 0.481882453 0.183678838 0.053549241 0.012352376
10 0.47283927 0.173297531 0.047292784 0.010008309

102
Table A.1.2. Critical buckling load factor, P*, for a fixed-free column with given
taper geometry and large end fixed.
n
d
b
/d
a

1 2 3 4
1 0.999999828 0.999999828 0.999999828 1.000000117
1.1 0.970651855 0.941786894 0.91341002 0.892097212
1.2 0.945544465 0.892759874 0.841679582 0.802590015
1.3 0.92378312 0.85085211 0.781301608 0.727225518
1.4 0.904713184 0.814578908 0.72978764 0.662965782
1.5 0.887843693 0.782845349 0.685324048 0.60758278
1.6 0.872798649 0.754825711 0.646558468 0.559405348
1.7 0.859284846 0.729885144 0.612462349 0.51715555
1.8 0.847070008 0.707527263 0.582239789 0.479839026
1.9 0.835967558 0.687358154 0.555265459 0.446671054
2 0.825825771 0.669061081 0.531041357 0.417023741
2.1 0.816519896 0.652378362 0.509166061 0.390388808
2.2 0.807946349 0.637098136 0.489312455 0.366350417
2.3 0.800018347 0.623044545 0.471211341 0.344565096
2.4 0.792662591 0.610070352 0.454639196 0.324746671
2.5 0.785816715 0.598051307 0.439408898 0.306654818
2.6 0.77942729 0.586881795 0.425362625 0.290086254
2.7 0.773448265 0.576471448 0.412366347 0.274867886
2.8 0.767839711 0.566742466 0.400305511 0.260851422
2.9 0.762566833 0.557627492 0.389081639 0.247909104
3 0.75759915 0.549067901 0.378609605 0.235930284
4 0.720058274 0.485213411 0.302679279 0.1527479
5 0.69596488 0.444922752 0.256905304 0.107113549
6 0.679056822 0.416897133 0.226118812 0.079282456
7 0.666473512 0.396128156 0.203885692 0.061041757
8 0.656710238 0.380036375 0.187007225 0.048437931
9 0.648895202 0.367150235 0.173711194 0.039367159
10 0.64248631 0.356565256 0.162935001 0.032623799


103
Table A.1.3. Critical buckling load factor, P*, for a fixed-free column with given
taper geometry and small end fixed.
n
d
a
/d
b

1 2 3 4
1 0.999999862 0.999999838 1.000000103 0.999999828
1.1 0.935710506 0.875132731 0.818089513 0.764410441
1.2 0.881437638 0.775555894 0.681226292 0.597383195
1.3 0.834941014 0.69455671 0.575751604 0.475682444
1.4 0.794608644 0.627559677 0.492800851 0.384917262
1.5 0.759250157 0.571349012 0.426420937 0.315850428
1.6 0.727966713 0.523604563 0.372496646 0.262366535
1.7 0.700066415 0.482614108 0.328111076 0.220307291
1.8 0.675007644 0.447088936 0.291151005 0.186778028
1.9 0.65236011 0.416042156 0.260055714 0.159721442
2 0.631777461 0.388706334 0.23365268 0.137648071
2.1 0.612977624 0.364476464 0.211047484 0.119461533
2.2 0.595728453 0.342869698 0.191548433 0.104342706
2.3 0.579837068 0.323496385 0.174613942 0.091670965
2.4 0.565141824 0.306038903 0.15981516 0.080970666
2.5 0.551506187 0.290235959 0.146809105 0.071872863
2.6 0.538814 0.275870793 0.135318493 0.064088457
2.7 0.526965783 0.262762191 0.12511776 0.057388746
2.8 0.515875824 0.250757759 0.116021596 0.051591197
2.9 0.505469849 0.239727822 0.10787672 0.046548929
3 0.495683465 0.229562327 0.100555469 0.042142849
4 0.422140001 0.159724743 0.055472065 0.018073249
5 0.375104941 0.12126621 0.035034159 0.00934412
6 0.341982438 0.097176193 0.024093054 0.005441618
7 0.317153346 0.080776078 0.01756737 0.003441222
8 0.297706997 0.068940671 0.013367512 0.002311746
9 0.281974034 0.060023074 0.010507349 0.001626358
10 0.268923261 0.053077077 0.008472569 na

104
Table A.1.4. Critical buckling load factor, P*, for a fixed-pinned column with given
taper geometry and large end fixed.
n
d
b
/d
a

1 2 3 4
1 0.999555265 0.999555037 0.99955656 0.99955545
1.1 0.953608587 0.909409775 0.866914492 0.826079371
1.2 0.91446529 0.835388203 0.762040028 0.694136062
1.3 0.880657767 0.773530276 0.677391182 0.591453192
1.4 0.851119302 0.721068209 0.607870947 0.509977505
1.5 0.825053581 0.676011458 0.549922895 0.444247097
1.6 0.801855384 0.636892731 0.500999836 0.390451587
1.7 0.781054759 0.602607217 0.459233651 0.345867195
1.8 0.762281123 0.572307498 0.423226612 0.308505052
1.9 0.745238046 0.545332928 0.391914244 0.276885701
2 0.729685393 0.521160999 0.364473059 0.249889409
2.1 0.715426418 0.49937311 0.340257014 0.226657132
2.2 0.702298279 0.479630017 0.318752874 0.206520317
2.3 0.690164956 0.461653918 0.29954826 0.188952513
2.4 0.67891188 0.445215162 0.282308407 0.173534608
2.5 0.668441816 0.430122273 0.266758997 0.159929598
2.6 0.658671663 0.416214336 0.252673312 0.147864014
2.7 0.649529946 0.403355441 0.239862492 0.137114074
2.8 0.640954828 0.39142892 0.228168068 0.127495228
2.9 0.632892513 0.380335579 0.21745618 0.118854188
3 0.625295968 0.369989617 0.207613047 0.111062778
4 0.56780258 0.295045306 0.140859219 0.062474311
5 0.530720269 0.249853044 0.104898914 0.039985781
6 0.504529934 0.219407063 0.082759262 0.027770901
7 0.484903893 0.197376281 0.067900763 0.020406831
8 0.46956986 0.180619334 0.05730854 0.01562846
9 0.457211727 0.167395777 0.049413359 0.012353644
10 0.447009349 0.156661859 0.043323315 0.010012416

105
Table A.1.5. Critical buckling load factor, P*, for a fixed-pinned column with given
taper geometry and small end fixed.
n
d
a
/d
b

1 2 3 4
1 0.999556319 0.99955656 0.999556119 0.999556115
1.1 0.953605557 0.909408871 0.866916651 0.82607917
1.2 0.914447883 0.835387722 0.762054579 0.694136433
1.3 0.880608557 0.773530147 0.677429603 0.591454048
1.4 0.851018552 0.721068385 0.607942716 0.509978811
1.5 0.824883748 0.67601191 0.550036527 0.444248837
1.6 0.80159929 0.636893439 0.501160844 0.390453758
1.7 0.78069688 0.602608167 0.459445613 0.345869706
1.8 0.761807672 0.57230868 0.423491549 0.308508023
1.9 0.744636913 0.545334337 0.392232981 0.27688891
2 0.728946025 0.521162628 0.364845519 0.2498931
2.1 0.714539676 0.499374956 0.34068246 0.226661301
2.2 0.701256289 0.479632077 0.319230097 0.20652496
2.3 0.688960966 0.461656189 0.30007572 0.188957626
2.4 0.677540126 0.445217643 0.282884346 0.173540186
2.5 0.666897403 0.430124828 0.267381521 0.159935637
2.6 0.656950462 0.416217109 0.253340449 0.147870509
2.7 0.647628496 0.403358132 0.240572244 0.137121019
2.8 0.638870255 0.391431836 0.228918439 0.127502618
2.9 0.630622458 0.380338715 0.218245204 0.118862015
3 0.622838522 0.369992967 0.208438803 0.111071035
4 0.56343287 0.295050462 0.141961421 0.062486333
5 0.524482971 0.249859228 0.106158591 0.04000023
6 0.496531318 0.219413211 0.084105906 0.027786124
7 0.47526117 0.197381049 0.069291628 0.020421136
8 0.458395177 0.180621001 0.058716737 0.015640118
9 0.444607084 0.167392771 0.050821286 0.012361022
10 0.433067283 0.156652255 0.044719012 na

106
Table A.1.6. Critical buckling load factor, P*, for a fixed-guided column with given
taper geometry.
n
d
b
/d
a

1 2 3 4
1 0.999999599 0.999999981 0.999998693 1.000000204
1.1 0.952785763 0.907780767 0.864882404 0.823990032
1.2 0.912462119 0.832516803 0.759506612 0.692821712
1.3 0.877547243 0.769951517 0.67540859 0.592304916
1.4 0.846964726 0.717135448 0.606982635 0.513452132
1.5 0.819911816 0.671961849 0.550386611 0.450351303
1.6 0.795776762 0.632887169 0.502911233 0.398985963
1.7 0.774084587 0.598755462 0.462595921 0.356550351
1.8 0.754460463 0.56868441 0.427992 0.321036223
1.9 0.736603725 0.541989191 0.398008218 0.290975078
2 0.720272356 0.518130352 0.371808613 0.265272365
2.1 0.705266212 0.496677305 0.348743116 0.243098922
2.2 0.691420047 0.47728227 0.328299378 0.223816193
2.3 0.678595717 0.459661333 0.310068669 0.206926129
2.4 0.666676762 0.443580474 0.293721325 0.192035294
2.5 0.655564256 0.428845085 0.278988785 0.178829359
2.6 0.645173582 0.41529203 0.265650257 0.167054585
2.7 0.635431895 0.402783539 0.253522697 0.156504194
2.8 0.626276114 0.391202469 0.242453181 0.147008206
2.9 0.617651318 0.380448592 0.232313036 0.138425758
3 0.609509443 0.370435645 0.222993276 0.130639251
4 0.547331227 0.298455753 0.159607433 0.080585104
5 0.506585079 0.255675519 0.125155868 0.055954098
6 0.477418093 0.227267145 0.103742028 0.041836078
7 0.455311165 0.207020801 0.089253292 0.032912761
8 0.437870018 0.191869916 0.078860286 0.026868831
9 0.423696136 0.180121768 0.071080644 0.022555428
10 0.411911958 0.170763582 0.065065513 0.019346606
























APPENDIX A.2
POWER TRENDLINES FOR 4 END CONDITIONS
WITH END-DIMENSION RATIOS FROM 1 TO 10
108
Table A.2.1. Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation for a
linearly tapering column with both ends pinned.
n Power fit Correlation (R
2
)
Minimum
% Error
Maximum
% Error
1
2996 . 0
9079 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 0.9793 -2.98% 9.21%
2
7264 . 0
8749 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 0.9930 -4.21% 12.51%
3
2995 . 1
9078 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 0.9989 -2.98% 9.22%
4
9997 . 1
9997 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 1.0000 -0.01% 0.04%



Table A.2.2. Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation for a
linearly tapering column with the large end fixed and the small end free.
n Power fit Correlation (R
2
)
Minimum
% Error
Maximum
% Error
1
1735 . 0
9341 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 0.9708 -2.05% 6.59%
2
4200 . 0
8978 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 0.9862 -3.43% 10.22%
3
7633 . 0
9020 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 0.9957 -3.46% 9.80%
4
5330 . 1
2039 . 1 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 0.9966 -20.39% 5.97%

109
Table A.2.3. Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation for a
linearly tapering column with the large end free and the small end fixed.
n Power fit Correlation (R
2
)
Minimum
% Error
Maximum
% Error
1
5511 . 0
9274 . 0 *









=
b
a
d
d
P 0.9960 -2.37% 7.26%
2
2559 . 1
9307 . 0 *









=
b
a
d
d
P 0.9993 -2.22% 6.93%
3
0663 . 2
9792 . 0 *









=
b
a
d
d
P 1.0000 -0.66% 2.08%
4
9400 . 2
0515 . 1 *









=
b
a
d
d
P 1.0000 -5.15% 1.32%



Table A.2.4. Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation for a
linearly tapering column with the large end fixed and the small end pinned.
n Power fit Correlation (R
2
)
Minimum
% Error
Maximum
% Error
1
3275 . 0
9177 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 0.9858 -2.69% 8.19%
2
7766 . 0
8954 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 0.9958 -3.47% 10.42%
3
3431 . 1
9271 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 0.9994 -2.31% 7.25%
4
9994 . 1
9990 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 1.0000 -0.03% 0.09%

110
Table A.2.5. Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation for a
linearly tapering column with the large end pinned and the small end fixed.
n Power fit Correlation (R
2
)
Minimum
% Error
Maximum
% Error
1
3433 . 0
9272 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 0.9904 -2.30% 7.24%
2
7766 . 0
8954 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 0.9958 -3.47% 10.42%
3
3272 . 1
9176 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 0.9991 -2.71% 8.20%
4
9991 . 1
9988 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 1.0000 -0.03% 0.08%



Table A.2.6. Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation for a
linearly tapering column with large end fixed and small end guided.
n Power fit Correlation (R
2
)
Minimum
% Error
Maximum
% Error
1
3669 . 0
9305 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 0.9918 -2.26% 6.95%
2
7317 . 0
8623 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 0.9908 -4.81% 13.77%
3
1389 . 1
8220 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 0.9935 -6.26% 17.80%
4
6705 . 1
8517 . 0 *









=
a
b
d
d
P 0.9983 -4.38% 14.83%























APPENDIX A.3
BUCKLED SHAPES FOR LINEARLY TAPERED COLUMNS
WITH 4 END CONDITIONS AND 4 TAPER GEOMETRIES
Figure A.3.1. Plots of deflected shapes for linearly tapering simply supported columns with given end dimension
ratios.
n=1 n=2
n=3 n=4
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
normalized deflection
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
normalized deflection
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
normalized deflection
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
normalized deflection
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a
Figure A.3.2. Plots of deflected shapes for linearly tapering clamped-free columns with given end dimension
ratios, having large end clamped and small end free.
n=1 n=2
n=3 n=4
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
normalized deflection
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
normalized deflection
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
normalized deflection
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
normalized deflection
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a
Figure A.3.3. Plots of deflected shapes for linearly tapering clamped-simply supported columns with given end
dimension ratios, having large end clamped and small end simply supported.
n=1 n=2
n=3 n=4
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
normalized deflection
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
normalized deflection
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
normalized deflection
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
normalized deflection
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a
Figure A.3.4. Plots of deflected shapes for linearly tapering clamped-guided columns with given end dimension
ratios.
n=1 n=2
n=3 n=4
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
normalized deflection
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
normalized deflection
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
normalized deflection
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
normalized deflection
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a
Figure A.3.5. Plots of deflected shapes for linearly tapering clamped-free columns with given end dimension
ratios, having small end clamped and large end free.
n=1 n=2
n=3 n=4
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
normalized deflection
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
a
/d
b
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
normalized deflection
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
a
/d
b
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
normalized deflection
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
a
/d
b
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
normalized deflection
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
a
/d
b
Figure A.3.6. Plots of deflected shapes for linearly tapering clamped-simply supported columns with given end
dimension ratios, having small end clamped and large end simply supported.
n=1 n=2
n=3 n=4
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
normalized deflection
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
a
/d
b
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
normalized deflection
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
a
/d
b
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
normalized deflection
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
a
/d
b
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
normalized deflection
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
a
/d
b





















APPENDIX A.4
FIRST SIX ITERATIONS OF EXAMPLE SPREADSHEETS
FOR COLUMNS WITH 10 APPROXIMATING ELEMENTS,
4 END CONDITIONS, AND 4 TAPER GEOMETRIES
Table A.4.1.a. First iteration of a pinned-pinned column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d b/da=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia I-ratio Assumed Deflection Moments due to P Curvature Nodal Concentration moment aid Chord Slope Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection %difference Euler Factor P*
Variable: x d(x) I(x) I/Ia yo(x) M(x) M(x)/EI(x) θ yd yn P*
Factor: 1 1 1 1 a aP
aP/EIa aPh/12EIa 1
aPh/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa 1
EIa/L
2
π
2
EIa/L
2
Pinned 0 10 490.8738521 1 0 0 0 -0.136602691 8.5941834 0 0
0.1 11 718.6884069 1.464 0.2 -0.2 -0.1366 -1.558928145 -1.4030353 7.03525525 8.594183397 0.379490254 47.2977243% 27.92586438 2.82948163
0.2 12 1017.87602 2.074 0.4 -0.4 -0.1929 -2.275691715 -1.8205534 4.75956354 15.62943865 0.690143481 42.0410377% 30.71127574 3.11170281
0.3 13 1401.984809 2.856 0.6 -0.6 -0.21008 -2.501914578 -1.7513402 2.25764896 20.38900219 0.90030981 33.3562743% 35.31315527 3.57797069
0.4 14 1885.74099 3.842 0.8 -0.8 -0.20825 -2.490073182 -1.4940439 -0.2324242 22.64665115 1 20.0000000% 42.39037347 4.29504282
0.5 15 2485.048876 5.063 1 -1 -0.19753 -2.305625518 -1.1528128 -2.5380497 22.41422692 0.989736927 -1.0369495% 53.53742532 5.4244753
0.6 16 3216.990877 6.554 0.8 -0.8 -0.12207 -1.49007221 -0.5960289 -4.028122 19.87617718 0.877665181 8.8490671% 48.29902608 4.89371449
0.7 17 4099.8275 8.352 0.6 -0.6 -0.07184 -0.878556463 -0.2635669 -4.9066784 15.84805523 0.699796854 14.2608321% 45.43144187 4.60316747
0.8 18 5152.99735 10.5 0.4 -0.4 -0.0381 -0.468224417 -0.0936449 -5.3749028 10.94137682 0.483134427 17.2073075% 43.87016443 4.44497699
0.9 19 6397.117128 13.03 0.2 -0.2 -0.01535 -0.191571155 -0.0191571 -5.566474 5.566473986 0.245796783 18.6319699% 43.11526481 4.36848966
Pinned 1 20 7853.981634 16 0 0 0 -0.015346721 -1.5099E-14 -6.66723E-16
Sum of squares: 0.644315893
Table A.4.1.b. Second iteration of a pinned-pinned column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d b/da=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia I-ratio Assumed Deflection Moments due to P Curvature Nodal Concentration moment aid Chord Slope Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection %difference Euler Factor P*
Variable: x d(x) I(x) I/Ia yo(x) M(x) M(x)/EI(x) θ yd yn P*
Factor: 1 1 1 1 a aP
aP/EIa aPh/12EIa 1
aPh/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa 1
EIa/L
2
π
2
EIa/L
2
Pinned 0 10 490.8738521 1 0 0 0 -0.25919695 12.5078999 0 0
0.1 11 718.6884069 1.464 0.379490254 -0.379490254 -0.2592 -2.924793321 -2.632314 9.58310659 12.50789991 0.421048761 9.8702360% 36.40805476 3.6889072
0.2 12 1017.87602 2.074 0.690143481 -0.690143481 -0.33282 -3.902658676 -3.1221269 5.68044791 22.0910065 0.743641297 7.1940351% 37.48911019 3.79844102
0.3 13 1401.984809 2.856 0.90030981 -0.90030981 -0.31522 -3.745366929 -2.6217569 1.93508099 27.77145442 0.934860092 3.6957703% 38.90223953 3.94162096
0.4 14 1885.74099 3.842 1 -1 -0.26031 -3.11380913 -1.8682855 -1.1787281 29.7065354 1 0.0000000% 40.39515156 4.09288457
0.5 15 2485.048876 5.063 0.989736927 -0.989736927 -0.1955 -2.34926519 -1.1746326 -3.5279933 28.52780726 0.960320915 -3.0631440% 41.63251323 4.21825552
0.6 16 3216.990877 6.554 0.877665181 -0.877665181 -0.13392 -1.618501312 -0.6474005 -5.1464946 24.99981392 0.841559394 -4.2903433% 42.12824226 4.26848337
0.7 17 4099.8275 8.352 0.699796854 -0.699796854 -0.08379 -1.017813744 -0.3053441 -6.1643084 19.85331928 0.668314868 -4.7106518% 42.29802651 4.28568611
0.8 18 5152.99735 10.5 0.483134427 -0.483134427 -0.04602 -0.562881029 -0.1125762 -6.7271894 13.68901089 0.460808058 -4.8450474% 42.35231579 4.29118677
0.9 19 6397.117128 13.03 0.245796783 -0.245796783 -0.01886 -0.234632052 -0.0234632 -6.9618215 6.96182147 0.234353195 -4.8830518% 42.36766775 4.29274224
Pinned 1 20 7853.981634 16 -6.66723E-16 6.66723E-16 4.17E-17 -0.018860873 3.19744E-14 1.07634E-15
Sum of squares: 0.026013324
Table A.4.1.c. Third iteration of a pinned-pinned column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d b/da=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia I-ratio Assumed Deflection Moments due to P Curvature Nodal Concentration moment aid Chord Slope Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection %difference Euler Factor P*
Variable: x d(x) I(x) I/Ia yo(x) M(x) M(x)/EI(x) θ yd yn P*
Factor: 1 1 1 1 a aP
aP/EIa aPh/12EIa 1
aPh/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa 1
EIa/L
2
π
2
EIa/L
2
Pinned 0 10 490.8738521 1 0 0 0 -0.287581969 13.0543273 0 0
0.1 11 718.6884069 1.464 0.421048761 -0.421048761 -0.28758 -3.234442999 -2.9109987 9.81988428 13.05432727 0.431982528 2.5310670% 38.70429338 3.92156482
0.2 12 1017.87602 2.074 0.743641297 -0.743641297 -0.35862 -4.201135577 -3.3609085 5.6187487 22.87421155 0.756933661 1.7560804% 39.01203562 3.95274563
0.3 13 1401.984809 2.856 0.934860092 -0.934860092 -0.32732 -3.892136557 -2.7244956 1.72661214 28.49296025 0.942864442 0.8489396% 39.37225548 3.98924353
0.4 14 1885.74099 3.842 1 -1 -0.26031 -3.120095574 -1.8720573 -1.3934834 30.21957239 1 0.0000000% 39.709364 4.02339976
0.5 15 2485.048876 5.063 0.960320915 -0.960320915 -0.18969 -2.28565018 -1.1428251 -3.6791336 28.82608896 0.953888049 -0.6743837% 39.97715748 4.05053291
0.6 16 3216.990877 6.554 0.841559394 -0.841559394 -0.12841 -1.553828332 -0.6215313 -5.2329619 25.14695535 0.832141336 -1.1317858% 40.15878895 4.06893603
0.7 17 4099.8275 8.352 0.668314868 -0.668314868 -0.08002 -0.972484133 -0.2917452 -6.2054461 19.9139934 0.658976677 -1.4170745% 40.27207527 4.08041433
0.8 18 5152.99735 10.5 0.460808058 -0.460808058 -0.0439 -0.536965502 -0.1073931 -6.7424116 13.70854733 0.453631413 -1.5820432% 40.3375833 4.08705168
0.9 19 6397.117128 13.03 0.234353195 -0.234353195 -0.01798 -0.223724167 -0.0223724 -6.9661357 6.966135746 0.23051735 -1.6640155% 40.37013399 4.09034976
Pinned 1 20 7853.981634 16 1.07634E-15 -1.07634E-15 -6.7E-17 -0.017982765 1.59872E-14 5.29035E-16
Sum of squares: 0.001922646
Table A.4.1.d. Fourth iteration of a pinned-pinned column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d b/da=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia I-ratio Assumed Deflection Moments due to P Curvature Nodal Concentration moment aid Chord Slope Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection %difference Euler Factor P*
Variable: x d(x) I(x) I/Ia yo(x) M(x) M(x)/EI(x) θ yd yn P*
Factor: 1 1 1 1 a aP
aP/EIa aPh/12EIa 1
aPh/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa 1
EIa/L
2
π
2
EIa/L
2
Pinned 0 10 490.8738521 1 0 0 0 -0.295049879 13.1920518 0 0
0.1 11 718.6884069 1.464 0.431982528 -0.431982528 -0.29505 -3.315532385 -2.9839791 9.87651939 13.19205178 0.434749641 0.6364843% 39.29479979 3.98139563
0.2 12 1017.87602 2.074 0.756933661 -0.756933661 -0.36503 -4.275508869 -3.4204071 5.60101053 23.06857117 0.760234512 0.4341885% 39.37480071 3.98950141
0.3 13 1401.984809 2.856 0.942864442 -0.942864442 -0.33012 -3.926572294 -2.7486006 1.67443823 28.6695817 0.94481818 0.2067846% 39.46473101 3.99861326
0.4 14 1885.74099 3.842 1 -1 -0.26031 -3.121627429 -1.8729765 -1.4471892 30.34401993 1 0.0000000% 39.54650711 4.00689891
0.5 15 2485.048876 5.063 0.953888049 -0.953888049 -0.18842 -2.271506203 -1.1357531 -3.7186954 28.89683073 0.952307268 -0.1659948% 39.61215227 4.01355015
0.6 16 3216.990877 6.554 0.832141336 -0.832141336 -0.12697 -1.537068762 -0.6148275 -5.2557642 25.17813533 0.82975609 -0.2874635% 39.6601889 4.01841728
0.7 17 4099.8275 8.352 0.658976677 -0.658976677 -0.0789 -0.959182756 -0.2877548 -6.2149469 19.92237117 0.656550161 -0.3695858% 39.6926654 4.02170784
0.8 18 5152.99735 10.5 0.453631413 -0.453631413 -0.04321 -0.528716636 -0.1057433 -6.7436636 13.70742425 0.451733959 -0.4200380% 39.71261747 4.02372941
0.9 19 6397.117128 13.03 0.23051735 -0.23051735 -0.01769 -0.220097139 -0.0220097 -6.9637607 6.963760694 0.229493677 -0.4460574% 39.72290723 4.02477198
Pinned 1 20 7853.981634 16 5.29035E-16 -5.29035E-16 -3.3E-17 -0.017688427 0 0
Sum of squares: 0.000125857
Table A.4.1.e. Fifth iteration of a pinned-pinned column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d b/da=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia I-ratio Assumed Deflection Moments due to P Curvature Nodal Concentration moment aid Chord Slope Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection %difference Euler Factor P*
Variable: x d(x) I(x) I/Ia yo(x) M(x) M(x)/EI(x) θ yd yn P*
Factor: 1 1 1 1 a aP
aP/EIa aPh/12EIa 1
aPh/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa 1
EIa/L
2
π
2
EIa/L
2
Pinned 0 10 490.8738521 1 0 0 0 -0.296939855 13.2264069 0 0
0.1 11 718.6884069 1.464 0.434749641 -0.434749641 -0.29694 -3.336023987 -3.0024216 9.89038287 13.22640686 0.435443742 0.1594008% 39.44378659 3.99649114
0.2 12 1017.87602 2.074 0.760234512 -0.760234512 -0.36663 -4.294001359 -3.4352011 5.59638151 23.11678973 0.7610579 0.1081899% 39.46401834 3.99854105
0.3 13 1401.984809 2.856 0.94481818 -0.94481818 -0.33081 -3.935004722 -2.7545033 1.66137679 28.71317125 0.945303654 0.0513563% 39.48647144 4.00081602
0.4 14 1885.74099 3.842 1 -1 -0.26031 -3.121999235 -1.8731995 -1.4606224 30.37454804 1 0.0000000% 39.50676067 4.00287175
0.5 15 2485.048876 5.063 0.952307268 -0.952307268 -0.18811 -2.268019714 -1.1340099 -3.7286422 28.9139256 0.951912949 -0.0414239% 39.52312591 4.0045299
0.6 16 3216.990877 6.554 0.82975609 -0.82975609 -0.12661 -1.532826385 -0.6131306 -5.2614685 25.18528344 0.829157471 -0.0721960% 39.53528299 4.00576167
0.7 17 4099.8275 8.352 0.656550161 -0.656550161 -0.07861 -0.955732768 -0.2867198 -6.2172013 19.9238149 0.655937823 -0.0933531% 39.54364146 4.00660856
0.8 18 5152.99735 10.5 0.451733959 -0.451733959 -0.04303 -0.526540046 -0.105308 -6.7437414 13.70661359 0.451253252 -0.1065270% 39.54884603 4.00713589
0.9 19 6397.117128 13.03 0.229493677 -0.229493677 -0.01761 -0.219130887 -0.0219131 -6.9628722 6.96287224 0.229233773 -0.1133794% 39.5515532 4.00741018
Pinned 1 20 7853.981634 16 0 0 0 -0.017609877 -2.84217E-14 -9.35708E-16
Sum of squares: 7.9597E-06
Table A.4.1.f. Sixth iteration of a pinned-pinned column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d b/da=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia I-ratio Assumed Deflection Moments due to P Curvature Nodal Concentration moment aid Chord Slope Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection %difference Euler Factor P*
Variable: x d(x) I(x) I/Ia yo(x) M(x) M(x)/EI(x) θ yd yn P*
Factor: 1 1 1 1 a aP
aP/EIa aPh/12EIa 1
aPh/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa 1
EIa/L
2
π
2
EIa/L
2
Pinned 0 10 490.8738521 1 0 0 0 -0.297413935 13.2349891 0 0
0.1 11 718.6884069 1.464 0.435443742 -0.435443742 -0.29741 -3.341161869 -3.0070457 9.89382722 13.23498909 0.435617456 0.0398776% 39.48114252 4.00027609
0.2 12 1017.87602 2.074 0.7610579 -0.7610579 -0.36702 -4.298616231 -3.438893 5.59521099 23.12881631 0.761263651 0.0270276% 39.48621786 4.00079033
0.3 13 1401.984809 2.856 0.945303654 -0.945303654 -0.33098 -3.937101581 -2.7559711 1.65810941 28.72402729 0.945424859 0.0128201% 39.49182937 4.0013589
0.4 14 1885.74099 3.842 1 -1 -0.26031 -3.122091322 -1.8732548 -1.4639819 30.3821367 1 0.0000000% 39.49689292 4.00187194
0.5 15 2485.048876 5.063 0.951912949 -0.951912949 -0.18803 -2.267149469 -1.1335747 -3.7311314 28.91815479 0.951814386 -0.0103553% 39.50098293 4.00228635
0.6 16 3216.990877 6.554 0.829157471 -0.829157471 -0.12652 -1.531761759 -0.6127047 -5.2628931 25.1870234 0.829007639 -0.0180737% 39.50403148 4.00259523
0.7 17 4099.8275 8.352 0.655937823 -0.655937823 -0.07854 -0.954862479 -0.2864587 -6.2177556 19.92413026 0.655784366 -0.0234004% 39.50613536 4.0028084
0.8 18 5152.99735 10.5 0.451253252 -0.451253252 -0.04299 -0.525988867 -0.1051978 -6.7437445 13.70637464 0.451132676 -0.0267274% 39.50744943 4.00294154
0.9 19 6397.117128 13.03 0.229233773 -0.229233773 -0.01759 -0.218885661 -0.0218886 -6.9626301 6.962630149 0.229168548 -0.0284615% 39.50813433 4.00301093
Pinned 1 20 7853.981634 16 -9.35708E-16 9.35708E-16 5.85E-17 -0.017589934 2.39808E-14 7.89306E-16
Sum of squares: 4.99095E-07
Table A.4.2.a. First iteration of a fixed-free column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d b/da=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia I-ratio Assumed Deflection Moments due to P Curvature Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection %difference Euler Factor P*
Variable: x d(x) I(x) I/Ia yo(x) M(x) M(x)/EI(x) θ yd yn P*
Factor: 1 1 1 1 a aP
aP/EIa aPh/12EIa aPh/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa 1
EIa/L
2
π
2
EIa/4L
2
Pinned 0 10 490.8738521 1 0 0 0 9.83269895 0 0
(Free) 0.1 11 718.6884069 1.4641 0.1 -0.1 -0.068301 -0.779464073 9.05323487 9.832698946 0.196668821 49.1530993% 12.2041772 4.94617
0.2 12 1017.87602 2.0736 0.2 -0.2 -0.096451 -1.137845857 7.91538902 18.88593382 0.377747183 47.0545357% 12.7078704 5.15031
0.3 13 1401.984809 2.8561 0.3 -0.3 -0.105038 -1.250957289 6.66443173 26.80132284 0.536066911 44.0368369% 13.4321728 5.44385
0.4 14 1885.74099 3.8416 0.4 -0.4 -0.104123 -1.245036591 5.41939514 33.46575456 0.669365605 40.2419251% 14.3430204 5.81301
0.5 15 2485.048876 5.0625 0.5 -0.5 -0.098765 -1.183330337 4.2360648 38.8851497 0.777761688 35.7129558% 15.430055 6.25357
0.6 16 3216.990877 6.5536 0.6 -0.6 -0.091553 -1.098104033 3.13796077 43.1212145 0.862489378 30.4339259% 16.6971178 6.76709
0.7 17 4099.8275 8.3521 0.7 -0.7 -0.083811 -1.0058732 2.13208757 46.25917526 0.92525333 24.3450440% 18.1585598 7.35939
0.8 18 5152.99735 10.4976 0.8 -0.8 -0.076208 -0.914950452 1.21713711 48.39126283 0.967898299 17.3466881% 19.838292 8.04016
(Fixed) 0.9 19 6397.117128 13.0321 0.9 -0.9 -0.06906 -0.829310331 0.38782678 49.60839994 0.992242879 9.2964012% 21.7705066 8.82325
Guided 1 20 7853.981634 16 1 -1 -0.0625 -0.387826783 0 49.99622672 1 0.0000000% 24.0018113 9.72757
Sum of squares: 1.137046292
Table A.4.2.b. Second iteration of a fixed-free column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d b/da=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia I-ratio Assumed Deflection Moments due to P Curvature Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection %difference Euler Factor P*
Variable: x d(x) I(x) I/Ia yo(x) M(x) M(x)/EI(x) θ yd yn P*
Factor: 1 1 1 1 a aP
aP/EIa aPh/12EIa aPh/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa 1
EIa/L
2
π
2
EIa/4L
2
Pinned 0 10 490.8738521 1 0 0 0 15.1665665 0 0
(Free) 0.1 11 718.6884069 1.4641 0.196668821 -0.196668821 -0.134327 -1.525444252 13.6411223 15.16656652 0.21669717 9.2425524% 15.5607127 6.30652
0.2 12 1017.87602 2.0736 0.377747183 -0.377747183 -0.18217 -2.143716827 11.4974054 28.80768878 0.411599068 8.2244804% 15.7352651 6.37726
0.3 13 1401.984809 2.8561 0.536066911 -0.536066911 -0.187692 -2.233330369 9.26407507 40.30509421 0.575871926 6.9121297% 15.9602727 6.46845
0.4 14 1885.74099 3.8416 0.669365605 -0.669365605 -0.174241 -2.083737456 7.18033761 49.56916928 0.708235361 5.4882541% 16.2044016 6.5674
0.5 15 2485.048876 5.0625 0.777761688 -0.777761688 -0.153632 -1.842166178 5.33817143 56.74950689 0.810826732 4.0779419% 16.446205 6.6654
0.6 16 3216.990877 6.5536 0.862489378 -0.862489378 -0.131605 -1.580467208 3.75770422 62.08767832 0.887097563 2.7740111% 16.669769 6.756
0.7 17 4099.8275 8.3521 0.92525333 -0.92525333 -0.110781 -1.33161651 2.42608771 65.84538255 0.940786964 1.6511320% 16.8622909 6.83403
0.8 18 5152.99735 10.4976 0.967898299 -0.967898299 -0.092202 -1.108937944 1.31714977 68.27147026 0.975450469 0.7742237% 17.0126402 6.89496
(Fixed) 0.9 19 6397.117128 13.0321 0.992242879 -0.992242879 -0.076138 -0.916085586 0.40106418 69.58862003 0.994269667 0.2038469% 17.1104335 6.9346
Guided 1 20 7853.981634 16 1 -1 -0.0625 -0.401064184 0 69.98968421 1 0.0000000% 17.1453838 6.94876
Sum of squares: 0.025865728
Table A.4.2.c. Third iteration of a fixed-free column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d b/da=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia I-ratio Assumed Deflection Moments due to P Curvature Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection %difference Euler Factor P*
Variable: x d(x) I(x) I/Ia yo(x) M(x) M(x)/EI(x) θ yd yn P*
Factor: 1 1 1 1 a aP
aP/EIa aPh/12EIa aPh/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa 1
EIa/L
2
π
2
EIa/4L
2
Pinned 0 10 490.8738521 1 0 0 0 15.9578082 0 0
(Free) 0.1 11 718.6884069 1.4641 0.21669717 -0.21669717 -0.148007 -1.678565751 14.2792425 15.95780822 0.220299507 1.6351996% 16.2952581 6.60422
0.2 12 1017.87602 2.0736 0.411599068 -0.411599068 -0.198495 -2.33458506 11.9446574 30.23705068 0.417426207 1.3959686% 16.3348895 6.62028
0.3 13 1401.984809 2.8561 0.575871926 -0.575871926 -0.201629 -2.399142081 9.54551533 42.18170809 0.582323673 1.1079315% 16.3826062 6.63962
0.4 14 1885.74099 3.8416 0.708235361 -0.708235361 -0.184359 -2.205386829 7.3401285 51.72722342 0.714100687 0.8213583% 16.4300803 6.65886
0.5 15 2485.048876 5.0625 0.810826732 -0.810826732 -0.160163 -1.921352871 5.41877563 59.06735192 0.815432064 0.5647721% 16.4725867 6.67609
0.6 16 3216.990877 6.5536 0.887097563 -0.887097563 -0.13536 -1.626407533 3.79236809 64.48612754 0.890238929 0.3528677% 16.5076911 6.69032
0.7 17 4099.8275 8.3521 0.940786964 -0.940786964 -0.112641 -1.354689317 2.43767878 68.27849564 0.942593037 0.1916068% 16.5344058 6.70114
0.8 18 5152.99735 10.4976 0.975450469 -0.975450469 -0.092921 -1.118147501 1.31953128 70.71617441 0.976245493 0.0814369% 16.5526568 6.70854
(Fixed) 0.9 19 6397.117128 13.0321 0.994269667 -0.994269667 -0.076294 -0.918360232 0.40117104 72.03570569 0.994461784 0.0193187% 16.5629474 6.71271
Guided 1 20 7853.981634 16 1 -1 -0.0625 -0.401171043 0 72.43687673 1 0.0000000% 16.5661477 6.71401
Sum of squares: 0.000701195
Table A.4.2.d. Fourth iteration of a fixed-free column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d b/da=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia I-ratio Assumed Deflection Moments due to P Curvature Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection %difference Euler Factor P*
Variable: x d(x) I(x) I/Ia yo(x) M(x) M(x)/EI(x) θ yd yn P*
Factor: 1 1 1 1 a aP
aP/EIa aPh/12EIa aPh/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa 1
EIa/L
2
π
2
EIa/4L
2
Pinned 0 10 490.8738521 1 0 0 0 16.0843643 0 0
(Free) 0.1 11 718.6884069 1.4641 0.220299507 -0.220299507 -0.150468 -1.70598035 14.3783839 16.0843643 0.220925443 0.2833247% 16.4358008 6.66118
0.2 12 1017.87602 2.0736 0.417426207 -0.417426207 -0.201305 -2.367405998 12.010978 30.46274825 0.418418536 0.2371618% 16.4434096 6.66426
0.3 13 1401.984809 2.8561 0.582323673 -0.582323673 -0.203888 -2.426068389 9.58490956 42.4737262 0.583394321 0.1835205% 16.4522511 6.66785
0.4 14 1885.74099 3.8416 0.714100687 -0.714100687 -0.185886 -2.223823384 7.36108618 52.05863576 0.715047046 0.1323492% 16.4606854 6.67126
0.5 15 2485.048876 5.0625 0.815432064 -0.815432064 -0.161073 -1.932455952 5.42863023 59.41972194 0.81615463 0.0885330% 16.4679074 6.67419
0.6 16 3216.990877 6.5536 0.890238929 -0.890238929 -0.13584 -1.632326814 3.79630341 64.84835216 0.890719128 0.0539114% 16.4736139 6.6765
0.7 17 4099.8275 8.3521 0.942593037 -0.942593037 -0.112857 -1.357406803 2.43889661 68.64465557 0.942862936 0.0286255% 16.4777816 6.67819
0.8 18 5152.99735 10.4976 0.976245493 -0.976245493 -0.092997 -1.119135824 1.31976079 71.08355218 0.976362197 0.0119530% 16.4805297 6.67931
(Fixed) 0.9 19 6397.117128 13.0321 0.994461784 -0.994461784 -0.076309 -0.918583385 0.4011774 72.40331297 0.994489661 0.0028031% 16.4820378 6.67992
Guided 1 20 7853.981634 16 1 -1 -0.0625 -0.401177401 0 72.80449037 1 0.0000000% 16.4824998 6.68011
Sum of squares: 1.99429E-05
Table A.4.2.e. Fifth iteration of a fixed-free column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d b/da=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia I-ratio Assumed Deflection Moments due to P Curvature Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection %difference Euler Factor P*
Variable: x d(x) I(x) I/Ia yo(x) M(x) M(x)/EI(x) θ yd yn P*
Factor: 1 1 1 1 a aP
aP/EIa aPh/12EIa aPh/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa 1
EIa/L
2
π
2
EIa/4L
2
Pinned 0 10 490.8738521 1 0 0 0 16.1054018 0 0
(Free) 0.1 11 718.6884069 1.4641 0.220925443 -0.220925443 -0.150895 -1.710734133 14.3946677 16.1054018 0.221032928 0.0486283% 16.4609698 6.67138
0.2 12 1017.87602 2.0736 0.418418536 -0.418418536 -0.201784 -2.37299392 12.0216737 30.50006946 0.418587486 0.0403620% 16.4623311 6.67193
0.3 13 1401.984809 2.8561 0.583394321 -0.583394321 -0.204263 -2.430541924 9.59113182 42.5217432 0.583574723 0.0309133% 16.4638872 6.67256
0.4 14 1885.74099 3.8416 0.715047046 -0.715047046 -0.186133 -2.226804427 7.36432739 52.11287502 0.715204841 0.0220630% 16.4653448 6.67315
0.5 15 2485.048876 5.0625 0.81615463 -0.81615463 -0.161216 -1.934202861 5.43012453 59.47720241 0.816273965 0.0146194% 16.4665707 6.67365
0.6 16 3216.990877 6.5536 0.890719128 -0.890719128 -0.135913 -1.633234584 3.79688995 64.90732694 0.890797801 0.0088318% 16.4675238 6.67404
0.7 17 4099.8275 8.3521 0.942862936 -0.942862936 -0.112889 -1.357814344 2.4390756 68.70421689 0.942906883 0.0046607% 16.4682108 6.67431
0.8 18 5152.99735 10.4976 0.976362197 -0.976362197 -0.093008 -1.119281451 1.31979415 71.14329249 0.976381119 0.0019379% 16.4686592 6.6745
(Fixed) 0.9 19 6397.117128 13.0321 0.994489661 -0.994489661 -0.076311 -0.918615893 0.40117826 72.46308664 0.99449417 0.0004534% 16.4689037 6.6746
Guided 1 20 7853.981634 16 1 -1 -0.0625 -0.40117826 0 72.8642649 1 0.0000000% 16.4689783 6.67463
Sum of squares: 5.75362E-07
Table A.4.2.f. Sixth iteration of a fixed-free column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d b/da=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia I-ratio Assumed Deflection Moments due to P Curvature Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection %difference Euler Factor P*
Variable: x d(x) I(x) I/Ia yo(x) M(x) M(x)/EI(x) θ yd yn P*
Factor: 1 1 1 1 a aP
aP/EIa aPh/12EIa aPh/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa 1
EIa/L
2
π
2
EIa/4L
2
Pinned 0 10 490.8738521 1 0 0 0 16.1089536 0 0
(Free) 0.1 11 718.6884069 1.4641 0.221032928 -0.221032928 -0.150968 -1.711549744 14.3974038 16.10895357 0.221051302 0.0083124% 16.4653472 6.67315
0.2 12 1017.87602 2.0736 0.418587486 -0.418587486 -0.201865 -2.373945266 12.0234586 30.5063574 0.418616268 0.0068756% 16.4655838 6.67325
0.3 13 1401.984809 2.8561 0.583574723 -0.583574723 -0.204326 -2.431296114 9.59216245 42.52981596 0.583605333 0.0052449% 16.4658523 6.67336
0.4 14 1885.74099 3.8416 0.715204841 -0.715204841 -0.186174 -2.227301917 7.36486053 52.1219784 0.715231511 0.0037289% 16.4661019 6.67346
0.5 15 2485.048876 5.0625 0.816273965 -0.816273965 -0.161239 -1.934491663 5.43036887 59.48683893 0.816294067 0.0024626% 16.4663105 6.67354
0.6 16 3216.990877 6.5536 0.890797801 -0.890797801 -0.135925 -1.633383463 3.7969854 64.9172078 0.890811018 0.0014837% 16.4664716 6.67361
0.7 17 4099.8275 8.3521 0.942906883 -0.942906883 -0.112895 -1.357880768 2.43910463 68.7141932 0.942914251 0.0007815% 16.4665873 6.67366
0.8 18 5152.99735 10.4976 0.976381119 -0.976381119 -0.09301 -1.119305083 1.31979955 71.15329784 0.976384287 0.0003245% 16.4666625 6.67369
(Fixed) 0.9 19 6397.117128 13.0321 0.99449417 -0.99449417 -0.076311 -0.918621155 0.4011784 72.47309739 0.994494924 0.0000759% 16.4667035 6.6737
Guided 1 20 7853.981634 16 1 -1 -0.0625 -0.401178397 0 72.87427578 1 0.0000000% 16.466716 6.67371
Sum of squares: 1.66772E-08
Table A.4.3.a. First iteration of a fixed-pinned column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d b/da=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia I-ratio Assumed Deflection Moments due to P Curvature Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Derived Deflection Redundant Moment
Variable: x d(x) I(x) I/Ib yo(x) M(x) M(x)/EI(x) θ yd Mr
Factor: 1 1 1 1 a aP
aP/EIb aPh/12EIb aPh/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aP
Pinned 0 10 490.8738521 0.0625 0 0 0 -69.679146 -95.01432037 0
0.1 11 718.6884069 0.09150625 0.2 -0.1 -1.092821529 -12.47142516 -57.2077209 -25.33517435 1
0.2 12 1017.87602 0.1296 0.4 -0.2 -1.543209877 -18.20553372 -39.0021871 31.8725465 2
0.3 13 1401.984809 0.17850625 0.6 -0.3 -1.680613424 -20.01531663 -18.9868705 70.87473364 3
0.4 14 1885.74099 0.2401 0.8 -0.4 -1.665972511 -19.92058545 0.933714941 89.86160415 4
0.5 15 2485.048876 0.31640625 1 -0.5 -1.580246914 -17.9567229 18.89043784 88.92788921 5
0.6 16 3216.990877 0.4096 0.8 -0.2 -0.48828125 -6.271490826 25.16192866 70.03745137 6
0.7 17 4099.8275 0.52200625 0.6 0.1 0.191568588 2.037067787 23.12486088 44.87552271 7
0.8 18 5152.99735 0.6561 0.4 0.4 0.609663161 7.147616563 15.97724432 21.75066183 8
0.9 19 6397.117128 0.81450625 0.2 0.7 0.859416364 10.2038268 5.773417512 5.773417512 9
Fixed 1 20 7853.981634 1 0 1 1 5.773417512 0 0 10
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Redundant Curvature Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Redundant Deflection Scaled Redundant Deflection Deflection Correction Adjusted Deflection Scaled Deflection %difference Euler Factor P*
(Mr/EI) yn P*
aP/EIb aPh/12EIb aPh/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb 1
EIb/L
2
20.1997EIb/L
3
0 25.06859647 1573.231831 7999.396276 1 95.01432037 0 0
10.92821529 124.7142516 1448.51758 6426.164445 0.803331179 76.32796604 50.99279169 0.420466842 0.524338235 4.706547574 0.233000865
15.43209877 182.0553372 1266.462243 4977.646865 0.622252817 59.12292848 90.99547498 0.750313499 46.6889506% 5.274987576 0.261141877
16.80613424 200.1531663 1066.309076 3711.184622 0.463933089 44.08028712 114.9550208 0.947874649 36.7004909% 6.263319298 0.310069917
16.65972511 199.2058545 867.1032218 2644.875546 0.330634395 31.41500231 121.2766065 1 20.0000000% 7.915788774 0.391876551
15.80246914 189.332854 677.7703678 1777.772324 0.222238312 21.11582216 110.0437114 0.907377891 ########### 10.90475762 0.539847504
14.6484375 175.6966453 502.0737225 1100.001957 0.137510622 13.06547828 83.10292965 0.685234623 ########### 11.55193931 0.571886677
13.40980113 160.939712 341.1340105 597.928234 0.07474667 7.102004055 51.97752676 0.428586586 ########### 13.85214043 0.685759711
12.19326322 146.3920723 194.7419382 256.7942235 0.032101701 3.050121257 24.80078308 0.204497667 ########### 19.35422758 0.958144308
11.04963897 132.6896529 62.05228529 62.05228529 0.007757121 0.737037585 6.510455097 0.053682695 ########### 36.86378239 1.824966826
10 62.05228529 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sum of squares: 9.208869727
Table A.4.3.b. Second iteration of a fixed-pinned column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d b/da=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia I-ratio Assumed Deflection Moments due to P Curvature Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Derived Deflection Redundant Moment
Variable: x d(x) I(x) I/Ib yo(x) M(x) M(x)/EI(x) θ yd Mr
Factor: 1 1 1 1 a aP
aP/EIb aPh/12EIb aPh/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aP
Pinned 0 10 490.8738521 0.0625 0 0 0 -145.242313 -183.5087608 0
0.1 11 718.6884069 0.09150625 0.420466842 -0.320466842 -3.502130638 -39.26755252 -105.97476 -38.26644802 1
0.2 12 1017.87602 0.1296 0.750313499 -0.550313499 -4.246246137 -49.59401478 -56.3807455 67.70831222 2
0.3 13 1401.984809 0.17850625 0.947874649 -0.647874649 -3.629422773 -43.03943263 -13.3413128 124.0890577 3
0.4 14 1885.74099 0.2401 1 -0.6 -2.498958767 -29.90652575 16.56521294 137.4303705 4
0.5 15 2485.048876 0.31640625 0.907377891 -0.407377891 -1.287515309 -15.5822042 32.14741714 120.8651575 5
0.6 16 3216.990877 0.4096 0.685234623 -0.085234623 -0.20809234 -2.848495868 34.995913 88.71774041 6
0.7 17 4099.8275 0.52200625 0.428586586 0.271413414 0.519942843 5.898975677 29.09693733 53.72182741 7
0.8 18 5152.99735 0.6561 0.204497667 0.595502333 0.907639587 10.63539434 18.46154298 24.62489008 8
0.9 19 6397.117128 0.81450625 0.053682695 0.846317305 1.03905563 12.29819589 6.163347097 6.163347097 9
Fixed 1 20 7853.981634 1 0 1 1 6.163347097 0 0 10
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Redundant Curvature Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Redundant Deflection Scaled Redundant Deflection Deflection Correction Adjusted Deflection Scaled Deflection %difference Euler Factor P*
(Mr/EI) yn P*
aP/EIb aPh/12EIb aPh/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb 1
EIb/L
2
20.1997EIb/L
3
0 25.06859647 1573.231831 7999.396276 1 183.5087608 0 0
10.92821529 124.7142516 1448.51758 6426.164445 0.803331179 147.4183092 109.1518612 0.521696464 0.194039311 4.622552511 0.228842632
15.43209877 182.0553372 1266.462243 4977.646865 0.622252817 114.1888433 181.8971555 0.869386026 13.6961629% 4.949919073 0.245049138
16.80613424 200.1531663 1066.309076 3711.184622 0.463933089 85.13578619 209.2248439 1 5.2125351% 5.436493858 0.269137356
16.65972511 199.2058545 867.1032218 2644.875546 0.330634395 60.67430805 198.1046785 0.946850646 -5.6132775% 6.057403636 0.299875921
15.80246914 189.332854 677.7703678 1777.772324 0.222238312 40.7826772 161.6478348 0.772603443 ########### 6.735960742 0.333468356
14.6484375 175.6966453 502.0737225 1100.001957 0.137510622 25.23440381 113.9521442 0.544639643 ########### 7.216025224 0.357234277
13.40980113 160.939712 341.1340105 597.928234 0.07474667 13.71666879 67.4384962 0.32232547 ########### 7.626265895 0.377543523
12.19326322 146.3920723 194.7419382 256.7942235 0.032101701 5.890943279 30.51583336 0.145851863 ########### 8.041635223 0.398106666
11.04963897 132.6896529 62.05228529 62.05228529 0.007757121 1.423499672 7.586846769 0.036261692 -48.042446% 8.490910148 0.420348329
10 62.05228529 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sum of squares: 0.660513301
Table A.4.3.c. Third iteration of a fixed-pinned column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d b/da=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia I-ratio Assumed Deflection Moments due to P Curvature Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Derived Deflection Redundant Moment
Variable: x d(x) I(x) I/Ib yo(x) M(x) M(x)/EI(x) θ yd Mr
Factor: 1 1 1 1 a aP
aP/EIb aPh/12EIb aPh/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aP
Pinned 0 10 490.8738521 0.0625 0 0 0 -156.283573 -140.4789317 0
0.1 11 718.6884069 0.09150625 0.521696464 -0.421696464 -4.608389742 -51.24891305 -105.03466 15.80464181 1
0.2 12 1017.87602 0.1296 0.869386026 -0.669386026 -5.165015631 -60.17997737 -44.854683 120.8393022 2
0.3 13 1401.984809 0.17850625 1 -0.7 -3.921431322 -46.65692421 1.802241169 165.6939853 3
0.4 14 1885.74099 0.2401 0.946850646 -0.546850646 -2.27759536 -27.55894642 29.36118759 163.8917441 4
0.5 15 2485.048876 0.31640625 0.772603443 -0.272603443 -0.861561499 -10.75805323 40.11924082 134.5305565 5
0.6 16 3216.990877 0.4096 0.544639643 0.055360357 0.135157122 1.213515483 38.90572533 94.41131571 6
0.7 17 4099.8275 0.52200625 0.32232547 0.37767453 0.723505762 8.367239794 30.53848554 55.50559038 7
0.8 18 5152.99735 0.6561 0.145851863 0.654148137 0.997025052 11.75420033 18.78428521 24.96710484 8
0.9 19 6397.117128 0.81450625 0.036261692 0.863738308 1.060444052 12.60146557 6.182819631 6.182819631 9
Fixed 1 20 7853.981634 1 0 1 1 6.182819631 0 0 10
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Redundant Curvature Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Redundant Deflection Scaled Redundant Deflection Deflection Correction Adjusted Deflection Scaled Deflection %difference Euler Factor P*
(Mr/EI) yn P*
aP/EIb aPh/12EIb aPh/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb 1
EIb/L
2
20.1997EIb/L
3
0 25.06859647 1573.231831 7999.396276 1 140.4789317 0 0
10.92821529 124.7142516 1448.51758 6426.164445 0.803331179 112.8511058 128.6557477 0.557272601 0.063839739 4.865975815 0.240893469
15.43209877 182.0553372 1266.462243 4977.646865 0.622252817 87.41341092 208.2527132 0.902046999 3.6207618% 5.009602109 0.248003788
16.80613424 200.1531663 1066.309076 3711.184622 0.463933089 65.17282467 230.8668099 1 0.0000000% 5.197802145 0.257320759
16.65972511 199.2058545 867.1032218 2644.875546 0.330634395 46.44716655 210.3389107 0.911083368 -3.9257964% 5.401857276 0.267422649
15.80246914 189.332854 677.7703678 1777.772324 0.222238312 31.21980063 165.7503571 0.717947968 -7.6127348% 5.593497038 0.276909906
14.6484375 175.6966453 502.0737225 1100.001957 0.137510622 19.31734525 113.728661 0.492615898 ########### 5.746727042 0.284495663
13.40980113 160.939712 341.1340105 597.928234 0.07474667 10.50033235 66.00592273 0.285904772 ########### 5.859937236 0.290100211
12.19326322 146.3920723 194.7419382 256.7942235 0.032101701 4.509612592 29.47671743 0.127678454 ########### 5.937643382 0.293947107
11.04963897 132.6896529 62.05228529 62.05228529 0.007757121 1.089712079 7.27253171 0.031500984 -15.112885% 5.98334001 0.29620935
10 62.05228529 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sum of squares: 0.083203349
Table A.4.3.d. Fourth iteration of a fixed-pinned column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d b/da=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia I-ratio Assumed Deflection Moments due to P Curvature Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Derived Deflection Redundant Moment
Variable: x d(x) I(x) I/Ib ya M(x) M(x)/EI(x) θ yd Mr
Factor: 1 1 1 1 a aP
aP/EIb aPh/12EIb aPh/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aP
Pinned 0 10 490.8738521 0.0625 0 0 0 -156.96213 -115.4035905 0
0.1 11 718.6884069 0.09150625 0.557272601 -0.457272601 -4.997173428 -55.38876359 -101.573367 41.55853985 1
0.2 12 1017.87602 0.1296 0.902046999 -0.702046999 -5.417029316 -63.08889791 -38.4844689 143.1319066 2
0.3 13 1401.984809 0.17850625 1 -0.7 -3.921431322 -46.75996964 8.275500789 181.6163755 3
0.4 14 1885.74099 0.2401 0.911083368 -0.511083368 -2.128627103 -25.89652556 34.17202635 173.3408747 4
0.5 15 2485.048876 0.31640625 0.717947968 -0.217947968 -0.688823208 -8.754690971 42.92671732 139.1688483 5
0.6 16 3216.990877 0.4096 0.492615898 0.107384102 0.262168217 2.726135342 40.20058198 96.242131 6
0.7 17 4099.8275 0.52200625 0.285904772 0.414095228 0.793276379 9.219656202 30.98092578 56.04154902 7
0.8 18 5152.99735 0.6561 0.127678454 0.672321546 1.024724197 12.1068073 18.87411848 25.06062324 8
0.9 19 6397.117128 0.81450625 0.031500984 0.868499016 1.066288952 12.68761372 6.186504758 6.186504758 9
Fixed 1 20 7853.981634 1 0 1 1 6.186504758 0 0 10
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Redundant Curvature Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Redundant Deflection Scaled Redundant Deflection Deflection Correction Adjusted Deflection Scaled Deflection %difference Euler Factor P*
(Mr/EI) yn P*
aP/EIb aPh/12EIb aPh/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb 1
EIb/L
2
20.1997EIb/L
3
0 25.06859647 1573.231831 7999.396276 1 115.4035905 0 0
10.92821529 124.7142516 1448.51758 6426.164445 0.803331179 92.70730246 134.2658423 0.570965181 0.023981463 4.980619863 0.246569002
15.43209877 182.0553372 1266.462243 4977.646865 0.622252817 71.81020925 214.9421159 0.914040846 1.3121785% 5.036036771 0.249312454
16.80613424 200.1531663 1066.309076 3711.184622 0.463933089 53.53954419 235.1559197 1 0.0000000% 5.102997202 0.252627376
16.65972511 199.2058545 867.1032218 2644.875546 0.330634395 38.1563963 211.497271 0.899391652 -1.2999582% 5.169334034 0.255911426
15.80246914 189.332854 677.7703678 1777.772324 0.222238312 25.64709914 164.8159475 0.700879432 -2.4353027% 5.227270633 0.258779617
14.6484375 175.6966453 502.0737225 1100.001957 0.137510622 15.8692195 112.1113505 0.476753257 -3.3272225% 5.272785274 0.261032851
13.40980113 160.939712 341.1340105 597.928234 0.07474667 8.626034102 64.66758312 0.274998746 -3.9658457% 5.305374195 0.262646188
12.19326322 146.3920723 194.7419382 256.7942235 0.032101701 3.7046515 28.76527474 0.122324264 -4.3770470% 5.326357787 0.263684995
11.04963897 132.6896529 62.05228529 62.05228529 0.007757121 0.895199622 7.08170438 0.030114931 -4.602543% 5.337864855 0.26425466
10 62.05228529 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sum of squares: 0.00822338
Table A.4.3.e. Fifth iteration of a fixed-pinned column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d b/da=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia I-ratio Assumed Deflection Moments due to P Curvature Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Derived Deflection Redundant Moment
Variable: x d(x) I(x) I/Ib ya M(x) M(x)/EI(x) θ yd Mr
Factor: 1 1 1 1 a aP
aP/EIb aPh/12EIb aPh/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aP
Pinned 0 10 490.8738521 0.0625 0 0 0 -157.653872 -108.3424666 0
0.1 11 718.6884069 0.09150625 0.570965181 -0.470965181 -5.146808894 -56.97766337 -100.676209 49.31140571 1
0.2 12 1017.87602 0.1296 0.914040846 -0.714040846 -5.509574433 -64.16398454 -36.5122244 149.9876146 2
0.3 13 1401.984809 0.17850625 1 -0.7 -3.921431322 -46.80381957 10.29159521 186.499839 3
0.4 14 1885.74099 0.2401 0.899391652 -0.499391652 -2.07993191 -25.35562863 35.64722384 176.2082438 4
0.5 15 2485.048876 0.31640625 0.700879432 -0.200879432 -0.634878206 -8.127818597 43.77504244 140.5610199 5
0.6 16 3216.990877 0.4096 0.476753257 0.123246743 0.30089537 3.18824439 40.58679805 96.78597749 6
0.7 17 4099.8275 0.52200625 0.274998746 0.425001254 0.814168899 9.475469184 31.11132886 56.19917944 7
0.8 18 5152.99735 0.6561 0.122324264 0.677675736 1.032884829 12.21100785 18.90032101 25.08785058 8
0.9 19 6397.117128 0.81450625 0.030114931 0.869885069 1.067990661 12.71279144 6.18752957 6.18752957 9
Fixed 1 20 7853.981634 1 0 1 1 6.18752957 0 0 10
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Redundant Curvature Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Redundant Deflection Scaled Redundant Deflection Deflection Correction Adjusted Deflection Scaled Deflection %difference Euler Factor P*
(Mr/EI) yn P*
aP/EIb aPh/12EIb aPh/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb 1
EIb/L
2
20.1997EIb/L
3
0 25.06859647 1573.231831 7999.396276 1 108.3424666 0 0
10.92821529 124.7142516 1448.51758 6426.164445 0.803331179 87.03488144 136.3462872 0.575875464 0.008526641 5.025132931 0.248772652
15.43209877 182.0553372 1266.462243 4977.646865 0.622252817 67.41640499 217.4040196 0.918232857 0.4565302% 5.045210377 0.249766599
16.80613424 200.1531663 1066.309076 3711.184622 0.463933089 50.26365515 236.7634941 1 0.0000000% 5.068348921 0.250912089
16.65972511 199.2058545 867.1032218 2644.875546 0.330634395 35.82174586 212.0299896 0.895534974 -0.4306563% 5.090176083 0.251992657
15.80246914 189.332854 677.7703678 1777.772324 0.222238312 24.07784687 164.6388668 0.695372686 -0.7919130% 5.108485834 0.252899094
14.6484375 175.6966453 502.0737225 1100.001957 0.137510622 14.89823995 111.6842174 0.471712152 -1.0686823% 5.122513467 0.253593542
13.40980113 160.939712 341.1340105 597.928234 0.07474667 8.0982386 64.29741804 0.271568124 -1.2632638% 5.132375541 0.254081771
12.19326322 146.3920723 194.7419382 256.7942235 0.032101701 3.477977414 28.565828 0.12065132 -1.3865942% 5.138626351 0.254391221
11.04963897 132.6896529 62.05228529 62.05228529 0.007757121 0.840425629 7.027955198 0.029683441 -1.453640% 5.142024474 0.254559448
10 62.05228529 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sum of squares: 0.000852168
Table A.4.3.f. Sixth iteration of a fixed-pinned column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d b/da=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia I-ratio Assumed Deflection Moments due to P Curvature Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Derived Deflection Redundant Moment
Variable: x d(x) I(x) I/Ib ya M(x) M(x)/EI(x) θ yd Mr
Factor: 1 1 1 1 a aP
aP/EIb aPh/12EIb aPh/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aP
Pinned 0 10 490.8738521 0.0625 0 0 0 -157.967394 -106.2094132 0
0.1 11 718.6884069 0.09150625 0.575875464 -0.475875464 -5.200469525 -57.54661544 -100.420779 51.7579809 1
0.2 12 1017.87602 0.1296 0.918232857 -0.718232857 -5.541920192 -64.54110276 -35.8796759 152.1787596 2
0.3 13 1401.984809 0.17850625 1 -0.7 -3.921431322 -46.82010253 10.94042661 188.0584355 3
0.4 14 1885.74099 0.2401 0.895534974 -0.495534974 -2.063869114 -25.17759663 36.11802324 177.1180089 4
0.5 15 2485.048876 0.31640625 0.695372686 -0.195372686 -0.617474167 -7.925408034 44.04343127 140.9999857 5
0.6 16 3216.990877 0.4096 0.471712152 0.128287848 0.313202753 3.335294253 40.70813702 96.95655439 6
0.7 17 4099.8275 0.52200625 0.271568124 0.428431876 0.820740893 9.556046338 31.15209068 56.24841737 7
0.8 18 5152.99735 0.6561 0.12065132 0.67934868 1.03543466 12.24360791 18.90848277 25.09632669 8
0.9 19 6397.117128 0.81450625 0.029683441 0.870316559 1.068520418 12.72063884 6.187843925 6.187843925 9
Fixed 1 20 7853.981634 1 0 1 1 6.187843925 0 0 10
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Redundant Curvature Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Redundant Deflection Scaled Redundant Deflection Deflection Correction Adjusted Deflection Scaled Deflection %difference Euler Factor P*
(Mr/EI) yn P*
aP/EIb aPh/12EIb aPh/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb 1
EIb/L
2
20.1997EIb/L
3
0 25.06859647 1573.231831 7999.396276 1 106.2094132 0 0
10.92821529 124.7142516 1448.51758 6426.164445 0.803331179 85.32133319 137.0793141 0.582929464 0.012100948 5.041246099 0.249570345
15.43209877 182.0553372 1266.462243 4977.646865 0.622252817 66.08910655 218.2678661 0.928183592 1.0720654% 5.048289736 0.249919045
16.80613424 200.1531663 1066.309076 3711.184622 0.463933089 49.27406113 237.3324966 1.009255889 0.9171003% 5.0561976 0.250310529
16.65972511 199.2058545 867.1032218 2644.875546 0.330634395 35.11648506 212.234494 0.902526691 0.7746825% 5.063465175 0.250670316
15.80246914 189.332854 677.7703678 1777.772324 0.222238312 23.6038007 164.6037864 0.699977218 0.6578117% 5.06942909 0.250965563
14.6484375 175.6966453 502.0737225 1100.001957 0.137510622 14.60492246 111.5614769 0.47441492 0.5697055% 5.073925148 0.251188144
13.40980113 160.939712 341.1340105 597.928234 0.07474667 7.938799967 64.18721734 0.272955992 0.5084584% 5.077050585 0.251342871
12.19326322 146.3920723 194.7419382 256.7942235 0.032101701 3.409502775 28.50582947 0.121220973 0.4699300% 5.079016685 0.251440204
11.04963897 132.6896529 62.05228529 62.05228529 0.007757121 0.823879276 7.011723201 0.029817337 0.449053% 5.080082046 0.251492945
10 62.05228529 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sum of squares: 0.000549315
Table A.4.4.a. First iteration of a fixed-guided column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d
b
/d
a
=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia I-ratio Assumed Deflection Moments due to P Curvature Nodal Concentration of M/EI Chord Slope Redundant Moment Redundant Curvature
Variable: x d(x) I(x) I/I
b
y
o
(x) M(x) M(x)/EI(x) θ M
r
(M
r
/EI)
Factor: 1 1 1 1 a aP aP/EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b aP aP/EI
b
Fixed 0 10 490.8738521 0.0625 0 -0.5 -8 -39.95645094 -117.85376 10 160
0.1 11 718.6884069 0.09150625 0.1 -0.4 -4.371286114 -54.02767596 -77.897307 10 109.2821529
0.2 12 1017.87602 0.1296 0.2 -0.3 -2.314814815 -28.63984321 -23.869631 10 77.16049383
0.3 13 1401.984809 0.17850625 0.3 -0.2 -1.120408949 -13.93539744 4.77021204 10 56.02044746
0.4 14 1885.74099 0.2401 0.4 -0.1 -0.416493128 -5.285340228 18.7056095 10 41.64931279
0.5 15 2485.048876 0.31640625 0.5 0 0 -0.172352503 23.9909497 10 31.60493827
0.6 16 3216.990877 0.4096 0.6 0.1 0.244140625 2.824543425 24.1633022 10 24.4140625
0.7 17 4099.8275 0.52200625 0.7 0.2 0.383137175 4.532759747 21.3387588 10 19.15685875
0.8 18 5152.99735 0.6561 0.8 0.3 0.457247371 5.446705949 16.805999 10 15.24157903
0.9 19 6397.117128 0.81450625 0.9 0.4 0.491095065 5.868198023 11.3592931 10 12.27737663
Guided 1 20 7853.981634 1 1 0.5 0.5 5.491095065 5.49109507 10 10
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Scaled Redundant Rotation Rotation Correction Adjusted Rotation Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection %difference Euler Factor P*
y
d
y
n
P*
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh
2
/12EI
b
aPh
2
/12EI
b 1 EI
b
/L^2 π
2
EI
b
/L
3
849.2662117 5603.60469 1 -117.8537581 0 0 0
1329.982022 4754.33848 0.848442876 -99.99218141 22.09487429 22.09487429 0.06113928 -0.635609718 5.43112391 0.550287903
936.9075386 3424.35645 0.611098863 -72.02029756 48.15066639 70.24554068 0.194378194 -0.028922 3.41658698 0.346172637
679.0142812 2487.44892 0.443901569 -52.31546816 57.08568021 127.3312209 0.352341408 0.1485531 2.82727204 0.286462549
504.1185136 1808.43463 0.322727019 -38.03459196 56.74020144 184.0714223 0.50934864 0.214683286 2.60768344 0.264213573
382.112758 1304.31612 0.232763764 -27.43208436 51.42303406 235.4944564 0.651642605 0.232708242 2.54783068 0.25814922
294.902422 922.203362 0.164573237 -19.39557446 43.55887667 279.0533331 0.772175463 0.222974532 2.58015194 0.261424049
231.2242291 627.30094 0.111945966 -13.19325281 34.53201159 313.5853446 0.867729856 0.193297321 2.67869661 0.271408711
183.8500257 396.076711 0.070682486 -8.330196635 25.13619567 338.7215403 0.937284852 0.14647079 2.83418645 0.287163126
148.0153453 212.226686 0.037873244 -4.463504095 15.82279718 354.5443375 0.98106851 0.082632874 3.04616344 0.308640886
64.21134038 64.2113404 0.011458935 -1.350478522 6.841573587 361.3859111 1 0 3.32055004 0.33644206
Sum of squares: 0.642509639
Table A.4.4.b. Second iteration of a fixed-guided column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d
b
/d
a
=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia I-ratio Assumed Deflection Moments due to P Curvature Nodal Concentration of M/EI Chord Slope Redundant Moment Redundant Curvature
Variable: x d(x) I(x) I/I
b
y
o
(x) M(x) M(x)/EI(x) θ M
r
(M
r
/EI)
Factor: 1 1 1 1 a aP aP/EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b aP aP/EI
b
Fixed 0 10 490.8738521 0.0625 0 -0.5 -8 -41.20879682 -96.957824 10 160
0.1 11 718.6884069 0.09150625 0.06113928 -0.43886072 -4.795964432 -58.31783727 -55.749027 10 109.2821529
0.2 12 1017.87602 0.1296 0.194378194 -0.305621806 -2.358192949 -29.20508396 2.5688105 10 77.16049383
0.3 13 1401.984809 0.17850625 0.352341408 -0.147658592 -0.827190037 -10.59115688 31.7738945 10 56.02044746
0.4 14 1885.74099 0.2401 0.50934864 0.00934864 0.038936443 0.04143991 42.3650513 10 41.64931279
0.5 15 2485.048876 0.31640625 0.651642605 0.151642605 0.479265516 5.496082478 42.3236114 10 31.60493827
0.6 16 3216.990877 0.4096 0.772175463 0.272175463 0.664490875 7.828629161 36.827529 10 24.4140625
0.7 17 4099.8275 0.52200625 0.867729856 0.367729856 0.704454891 8.375530953 28.9988998 10 19.15685875
0.8 18 5152.99735 0.6561 0.937284852 0.437284852 0.666491163 7.959992455 20.6233688 10 15.24157903
0.9 19 6397.117128 0.81450625 0.98106851 0.48106851 0.590625929 7.072750452 12.6633764 10 12.27737663
Guided 1 20 7853.981634 1 1 0.5 0.5 5.590625929 5.59062593 10 10
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Scaled Redundant Rotation Rotation Correction Adjusted Rotation Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection %difference Euler Factor P*
y
d
y
n
P*
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh
2
/12EI
b
aPh
2
/12EI
b 1 EI
b
/L^2 π
2
EI
b
/L
3
849.2662117 5603.60469 1 -96.95782359 0 0 0
1329.982022 4754.33848 0.848442876 -82.26317468 26.51414791 26.51414791 0.059602968 -0.025775755 2.76709385 0.280365224
936.9075386 3424.35645 0.611098863 -59.25081576 61.81962626 88.33377417 0.198571538 0.021117549 2.64059625 0.267548337
679.0142812 2487.44892 0.443901569 -43.03973006 74.81362452 163.1473987 0.366750206 0.03928777 2.59158095 0.262582049
504.1185136 1808.43463 0.322727019 -31.29090933 73.65596067 236.8033594 0.532326482 0.043164943 2.58112203 0.261522339
382.112758 1304.31612 0.232763764 -22.56826799 64.89187942 301.6952388 0.678201381 0.039160604 2.59192399 0.262616806
294.902422 922.203362 0.164573237 -15.95666288 52.78419183 354.4794306 0.796858579 0.030975529 2.61400373 0.264853952
231.2242291 627.30094 0.111945966 -10.85403723 39.85293702 394.3323676 0.886446724 0.021114487 2.64060451 0.267549174
183.8500257 396.076711 0.070682486 -6.853220034 27.47658887 421.8089565 0.948213229 0.011525231 2.66647212 0.270170111
148.0153453 212.226686 0.037873244 -3.672107278 16.33548366 438.1444402 0.984934881 0.003925509 2.68697284 0.272247269
64.21134038 64.2113404 0.011458935 -1.111033372 6.701659301 444.8460995 1 0 2.69756215 0.27332019
Sum of squares: 0.00760418
Table A.4.4.c. Third iteration of a fixed-guided column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d
b
/d
a
=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia I-ratio Assumed Deflection Moments due to P Curvature Nodal Concentration of M/EI Chord Slope Redundant Moment Redundant Curvature
Variable: x d(x) I(x) I/I
b
y
o
(x) M(x) M(x)/EI(x) θ M
r
(M
r
/EI)
Factor: 1 1 1 1 a aP aP/EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b aP aP/EI
b
Fixed 0 10 490.8738521 0.0625 0 -0.5 -8 -41.27534228 -92.286225 10 160
0.1 11 718.6884069 0.09150625 0.059602968 -0.440397032 -4.812753575 -58.45337265 -51.010883 10 109.2821529
0.2 12 1017.87602 0.1296 0.198571538 -0.301428462 -2.325836898 -28.81759386 7.44248984 10 77.16049383
0.3 13 1401.984809 0.17850625 0.366750206 -0.133249794 -0.746471307 -9.655912395 36.2600837 10 56.02044746
0.4 14 1885.74099 0.2401 0.532326482 0.032326482 0.134637578 1.163108835 45.9159961 10 41.64931279
0.5 15 2485.048876 0.31640625 0.678201381 0.178201381 0.563204363 6.491433599 44.7528873 10 31.60493827
0.6 16 3216.990877 0.4096 0.796858579 0.296858579 0.72475239 8.551038791 38.2614537 10 24.4140625
0.7 17 4099.8275 0.52200625 0.886446724 0.386446724 0.740310531 8.811005436 29.7104149 10 19.15685875
0.8 18 5152.99735 0.6561 0.948213229 0.448213229 0.683147736 8.167160704 20.8994094 10 15.24157903
0.9 19 6397.117128 0.81450625 0.984934881 0.484934881 0.595372818 7.136875915 12.7322487 10 12.27737663
Guided 1 20 7853.981634 1 1 0.5 0.5 5.595372818 5.59537282 10 10
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Scaled Redundant Rotation Rotation Correction Adjusted Rotation Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection %difference Euler Factor P*
y
d
y
n
P*
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh
2
/12EI
b
aPh
2
/12EI
b 1 EI
b
/L^2 π
2
EI
b
/L
3
849.2662117 5603.60469 1 -92.28622508 0 0 0
1329.982022 4754.33848 0.848442876 -78.2995902 27.2887074 27.2887074 0.060096717 0.008215911 2.62099486 0.265562301
936.9075386 3424.35645 0.611098863 -56.39600722 63.83849707 91.12720447 0.200685426 0.010533339 2.61487058 0.264941782
679.0142812 2487.44892 0.443901569 -40.96600015 77.22608385 168.3532883 0.370757026 0.010807132 2.61414702 0.264868471
504.1185136 1808.43463 0.322727019 -29.78325827 75.69925437 244.0525427 0.537466157 0.009562788 2.61743546 0.265201659
382.112758 1304.31612 0.232763764 -21.48088914 66.2337764 310.2863191 0.683329884 0.007505165 2.62287315 0.265752613
294.902422 922.203362 0.164573237 -15.18784279 53.44929646 363.7356155 0.801038913 0.005218641 2.62891577 0.266364857
231.2242291 627.30094 0.111945966 -10.33107062 40.0414855 403.777101 0.889220512 0.003119348 2.63446358 0.266926969
183.8500257 396.076711 0.070682486 -6.523019836 27.42242927 431.1995303 0.949611719 0.001472697 2.6388152 0.26736788
148.0153453 212.226686 0.037873244 -3.495178689 16.22742742 447.4269577 0.985348667 0.000419939 2.64159733 0.267649768
64.21134038 64.2113404 0.011458935 -1.05750183 6.652874648 454.0798324 1 0 2.64270711 0.267762212
Sum of squares: 0.000482331
Table A.4.4.d. Fourth iteration of a fixed-guided column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d
b
/d
a
=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia I-ratio Assumed Deflection Moments due to P Curvature Nodal Concentration of M/EI Chord Slope Redundant Moment Redundant Curvature
Variable: x d(x) I(x) I/I
b
y
o
(x) M(x) M(x)/EI(x) θ M
r
(M
r
/EI)
Factor: 1 1 1 1 a aP aP/EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b aP aP/EI
b
Fixed 0 10 490.8738521 0.0625 0 -0.5 -8 -41.26731031 -91.084463 10 160
0.1 11 718.6884069 0.09150625 0.060096717 -0.439903283 -4.807357776 -58.3831038 -49.817152 10 109.2821529
0.2 12 1017.87602 0.1296 0.200685426 -0.299314574 -2.309526036 -28.62664306 8.56595139 10 77.16049383
0.3 13 1401.984809 0.17850625 0.370757026 -0.129242974 -0.724024922 -9.393731288 37.1925945 10 56.02044746
0.4 14 1885.74099 0.2401 0.537466157 0.037466157 0.156043971 1.415827754 46.5863257 10 41.64931279
0.5 15 2485.048876 0.31640625 0.683329884 0.183329884 0.579412966 6.685131916 45.170498 10 31.60493827
0.6 16 3216.990877 0.4096 0.801038913 0.301038913 0.734958285 8.674620051 38.4853661 10 24.4140625
0.7 17 4099.8275 0.52200625 0.889220512 0.389220512 0.745624237 8.876479912 29.810746 10 19.15685875
0.8 18 5152.99735 0.6561 0.949611719 0.449611719 0.685279255 8.194297627 20.9342661 10 15.24157903
0.9 19 6397.117128 0.81450625 0.985348667 0.485348667 0.595880839 7.144087642 12.7399685 10 12.27737663
Guided 1 20 7853.981634 1 1 0.5 0.5 5.595880839 5.59588084 10 10
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Scaled Redundant Rotation Rotation Correction Adjusted Rotation Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection %difference Euler Factor P*
y
d
y
n
P*
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh
2
/12EI
b
aPh
2
/12EI
b 1 EI
b
/L^2 π
2
EI
b
/L
3
849.2662117 5603.60469 1 -91.08446272 0 0 0
1329.982022 4754.33848 0.848442876 -77.27996349 27.46281108 27.46281108 0.060311008 0.003553092 2.62595336 0.266064702
936.9075386 3424.35645 0.611098863 -55.66161161 64.227563 91.69037408 0.201360992 0.003355002 2.62647539 0.266117595
679.0142812 2487.44892 0.443901569 -40.43253595 77.6251304 169.3155045 0.371833339 0.002894612 2.62768866 0.266240525
504.1185136 1808.43463 0.322727019 -29.39541709 75.98174283 245.2972473 0.538696647 0.002284198 2.6292973 0.266403514
382.112758 1304.31612 0.232763764 -21.20116241 66.37166039 311.6689077 0.684455278 0.001644219 2.63098384 0.266574397
294.902422 922.203362 0.164573237 -14.99006487 53.47543094 365.1443387 0.801892533 0.001064506 2.63251157 0.266729188
231.2242291 627.30094 0.111945966 -10.19653818 40.0072842 405.1516228 0.889752426 0.000597822 2.63374143 0.266853799
183.8500257 396.076711 0.070682486 -6.438076285 27.37234239 432.5239652 0.949864756 0.000266392 2.63461485 0.266942295
148.0153453 212.226686 0.037873244 -3.44966405 16.18963253 448.7135978 0.985418766 7.11357E-05 2.63512942 0.266994431
64.21134038 64.2113404 0.011458935 -1.043730913 6.639611752 455.3532095 1 0 2.63531688 0.267013426
Sum of squares: 4.17469E-05
Table A.4.4.e. Fifth iteration of a fixed-guided column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d
b
/d
a
=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia I-ratio Assumed Deflection Moments due to P Curvature Nodal Concentration of M/EI Chord Slope Redundant Moment Redundant Curvature
Variable: x d(x) I(x) I/I
b
y
o
(x) M(x) M(x)/EI(x) θ M
r
(M
r
/EI)
Factor: 1 1 1 1 a aP aP/EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b aP aP/EI
b
Fixed 0 10 490.8738521 0.0625 0 -0.5 -8 -41.26289122 -90.772299 10 160
0.1 11 718.6884069 0.09150625 0.060311008 -0.439688992 -4.805015963 -58.35447296 -49.509408 10 109.2821529
0.2 12 1017.87602 0.1296 0.201360992 -0.298639008 -2.304313332 -28.56614465 8.84506502 10 77.16049383
0.3 13 1401.984809 0.17850625 0.371833339 -0.128166661 -0.717995368 -9.323098134 37.4112097 10 56.02044746
0.4 14 1885.74099 0.2401 0.538696647 0.038696647 0.161168877 1.476663168 46.7343078 10 41.64931279
0.5 15 2485.048876 0.31640625 0.684455278 0.184455278 0.582969768 6.727908876 45.2576446 10 31.60493827
0.6 16 3216.990877 0.4096 0.801892533 0.301892533 0.737042317 8.700036157 38.5297358 10 24.4140625
0.7 17 4099.8275 0.52200625 0.889752426 0.389752426 0.746643217 8.889139414 29.8296996 10 19.15685875
0.8 18 5152.99735 0.6561 0.949864756 0.449864756 0.685664923 8.199259348 20.9405602 10 15.24157903
0.9 19 6397.117128 0.81450625 0.985418766 0.485418766 0.595966901 7.145333936 12.7413008 10 12.27737663
Guided 1 20 7853.981634 1 1 0.5 0.5 5.595966901 5.5959669 10 10
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Scaled Redundant Rotation Rotation Correction Adjusted Rotation Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection %difference Euler Factor P*
y
d
y
n
P*
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh
2
/12EI
b
aPh
2
/12EI
b 1 EI
b
/L^2 π
2
EI
b
/L
3
849.2662117 5603.60469 1 -90.77229916 0 0 0
1329.982022 4754.33848 0.848442876 -77.01511055 27.5057026 27.5057026 0.060375997 0.0010764 2.63120745 0.266597053
936.9075386 3424.35645 0.611098863 -55.47084882 64.31591384 91.82161644 0.201551718 0.000946287 2.63155017 0.266631778
679.0142812 2487.44892 0.443901569 -40.29396606 77.70517572 169.5267922 0.372117346 0.000763218 2.63203239 0.266680637
504.1185136 1808.43463 0.322727019 -29.29467348 76.02898128 245.5557734 0.539003667 0.000569607 2.63254237 0.266732309
382.112758 1304.31612 0.232763764 -21.12850204 66.38614667 311.9419201 0.684723624 0.000391903 2.63301044 0.266779735
294.902422 922.203362 0.164573237 -14.93869111 53.46842686 365.410347 0.802088725 0.000244601 2.63339845 0.266819048
231.2242291 627.30094 0.111945966 -10.16159273 39.99129232 405.4016393 0.889871036 0.000133288 2.63369165 0.266848755
183.8500257 396.076711 0.070682486 -6.416011789 27.35657197 432.7582113 0.949919685 5.78252E-05 2.63389042 0.266868895
148.0153453 212.226686 0.037873244 -3.437841404 16.17914224 448.9373535 0.985433479 1.49302E-05 2.63400341 0.266880343
64.21134038 64.2113404 0.011458935 -1.040153852 6.636120753 455.5734743 1 0 2.63404273 0.266884328
Sum of squares: 3.1958E-06
Table A.4.4.f. Sixth iteration of a fixed-guided column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d
b
/d
a
=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia I-ratio Assumed Deflection Moments due to P Curvature Nodal Concentration of M/EI Chord Slope Redundant Moment Redundant Curvature
Variable: x d(x) I(x) I/I
b
y
o
(x) M(x) M(x)/EI(x) θ M
r
(M
r
/EI)
Factor: 1 1 1 1 a aP aP/EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b aP aP/EI
b
Fixed 0 10 490.8738521 0.0625 0 -0.5 -8 -41.26149642 -90.691122 10 160
0.1 11 718.6884069 0.09150625 0.060375997 -0.439624003 -4.804305752 -58.3458992 -49.429626 10 109.2821529
0.2 12 1017.87602 0.1296 0.201551718 -0.298448282 -2.302841682 -28.54912692 8.91627329 10 77.16049383
0.3 13 1401.984809 0.17850625 0.372117346 -0.127882654 -0.71640435 -9.304437585 37.4654002 10 56.02044746
0.4 14 1885.74099 0.2401 0.539003667 0.039003667 0.162447595 1.491889469 46.7698378 10 41.64931279
0.5 15 2485.048876 0.31640625 0.684723624 0.184723624 0.583817872 6.738147616 45.2779483 10 31.60493827
0.6 16 3216.990877 0.4096 0.802088725 0.302088725 0.737521301 8.705901313 38.5398007 10 24.4140625
0.7 17 4099.8275 0.52200625 0.889871036 0.389871036 0.746870436 8.891974304 29.8338994 10 19.15685875
0.8 18 5152.99735 0.6561 0.949919685 0.449919685 0.685748644 8.200341839 20.9419251 10 15.24157903
0.9 19 6397.117128 0.81450625 0.985433479 0.485433479 0.595984965 7.14559829 12.7415833 10 12.27737663
Guided 1 20 7853.981634 1 1 0.5 0.5 5.595984965 5.59598496 10 10
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Scaled Redundant Rotation Rotation Correction Adjusted Rotation Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection %difference Euler Factor P*
y
d
y
n
P*
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh
2
/12EI
b
aPh
2
/12EI
b 1 EI
b
/L^2 π
2
EI
b
/L
3
849.2662117 5603.60469 1 -90.69112233 0 0 0
1329.982022 4754.33848 0.848442876 -76.94623664 27.51661073 27.51661073 0.060393955 0.00029736 2.63299855 0.266778529
936.9075386 3424.35645 0.611098863 -55.42124174 64.33751504 91.85412576 0.201603099 0.00025486 2.63311049 0.266789871
679.0142812 2487.44892 0.443901569 -40.25793153 77.72333174 169.5774575 0.372191674 0.000199705 2.63325575 0.26680459
504.1185136 1808.43463 0.322727019 -29.26847552 76.03831331 245.6157708 0.539081941 0.000145199 2.63339931 0.266819135
382.112758 1304.31612 0.232763764 -21.10960702 66.38755534 312.0033262 0.68479055 9.77328E-05 2.63352432 0.266831802
294.902422 922.203362 0.164573237 -14.92533157 53.46513228 365.4684584 0.802136791 5.99223E-05 2.63362391 0.266841892
231.2242291 627.30094 0.111945966 -10.15250531 39.9864047 405.4548632 0.889899676 3.21836E-05 2.63369697 0.266849294
183.8500257 396.076711 0.070682486 -6.410274008 27.3521991 432.8070623 0.949932778 1.37824E-05 2.63374543 0.266854204
148.0153453 212.226686 0.037873244 -3.434766974 16.17635023 448.9834125 0.985436924 3.49627E-06 2.63377252 0.266856949
64.21134038 64.2113404 0.011458935 -1.039223651 6.635208616 455.6186211 1 0 2.63378173 0.266857882
Sum of squares: 2.28721E-07

COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY

May 20, 2003 WE HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE THESIS PREPARED UNDER OUR SUPERVISION BY CHARLES RILEY ENTITLED ELASTIC BUCKLING LOADS OF SLENDER COLUMNS BY THE NEWMARK METHOD BE ACCEPTED AS FULLFILING IN PART REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE. Committee on Graduate Work (Please print name under signature)

Adviser

Department Head/Director

ii

ABSTRACT OF THESIS ELASTIC BUCKLING LOADS OF SLENDER COLUMNS WITH VARIABLE CROSS SECTION BY THE NEWMARK METHOD

Determining the critical buckling load for columns with variable cross section presents a unique design problem for engineers. Exact solutions for certain column geometries and end conditions exist, but no concise design equations have been presented that cover the broad range of potential column configurations. This thesis provides an exhaustive literature review to put the research presented here in context and point the way towards further research. This thesis utilizes the Excel spreadsheet environment with the Newmark iterative procedure to perform buckling analyses on determinate (pinned-pinned and fixed-free) and one-degree indeterminate (fixed-pinned and fixed-guided) columns. The critical buckling loads of columns with variation of the moment of inertia between powers of one and four, corresponding to linear tapering of common cross section shapes, are calculated to a high degree of accuracy and presented in the form of design curves and closed-form equations based on curve fitting. The process of developing the Newmark numerical method within the Excel spreadsheet environment is presented in detail to provide a powerful tool for engineers to use when designing unique columns that have no available solution. A round column with parabolic variation of its diameter and crucifix column with linear variation from its

iii

CO 80523 Summer 2003 iv .ends to the middle are examined to demonstrate the capabilities of the Newmark method in this regard. Riley Department of Civil Engineering Colorado State University Fort Collins. Charles E.

Dr. Their unique skills and knowledge were the perfect resource as my research was completed.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Dr. Fontane’s assistance and suggestions were invaluable and are thus acknowledged. Paul R. I would also like to thank my committee members. My friends and family deserve huge thanks for their support during the more difficult days of research and writing. Pat Pellicane for accepting a position on my committee on very short notice. Fontane for help with Excel and Visual Basic. Many trips were paid to the office of Dr. I would specifically like to thank Fernando Ramirez. Darrell G. Heyliger and Dr. His willingness to take on another advisee in the midst of his already busy schedule was very much appreciated. v . Criswell for his assistance and encouragement during the entire thesis process. Dr. for their assistance with the odds and ends of my work. I would also like to thank Dr. and my parents Fran and Keith Smith for all of their support. Marvin E. Smith. Frederick W.

4 Members of varying cross section 1. Background 2.4.1.2 Closed-form solutions of the governing equation Other numerical methods 2.6 Organization of the thesis 2.1. Introduction 1.4.1 2.2 2.5 Buckling load determination for tapered members in code-based structural design vi .3 2.3 Inelastic buckling 1.5 Objectives of the research 1.1 Buckling behavior 1.1 2.2 2.TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1.2 Euler buckling problems 1.4 Buckling load for a prismatic pin-ended column Buckling load for a prismatic fixed-free column Page 1 1 3 5 5 6 9 11 11 11 14 17 19 21 21 25 28 Effective length factors Buckling loads of tapered columns by the Newmark numerical method Buckling loads of tapered columns by other methods 2.1 Euler buckling loads 2.

1 Buckling loads of pinned-pinned columns 4.4.5.5.2 3.1 2.4 Spreadsheet development for determinate and one-degree indeterminate tapered column buckling analysis 3.1.5.2 2.5 Rate of convergence and accuracy 4.4 Buckling loads of fixed-guided columns 4.5.5.4. LRFD code for steel Concrete Code Analysis Procedures 3.3 3.4.6 Columns with uncommon cross section variations vii .2 Buckling loads of fixed-free (pinned-guided) columns 4.3 Buckling loads of fixed-pinned columns 4.1 3.3 Characterization of column taper 3.1.5 Spreadsheet modification for more complex column geometry 4.4 A pinned-pinned column A fixed-free (pinned-guided) column A fixed-pinned column A fixed-guided column 3.2 Concentrated loads from ordinates of a distributed load 3.4. Results 4.2 2.1 Conjugate beam method 3.2.1 Wood Codes ASD Code for wood LRFD Code for wood 28 28 30 30 31 32 32 33 35 38 38 46 52 61 69 71 71 73 78 81 84 85 2.3 3.

6.3 5.1 4.6.2.1 Conclusions 6. 4 end conditions. Discussion Parabolic variation of the radius Tapered crucifix cross section 85 85 87 87 88 89 89 90 91 92 93 95 95 95 97 5.1 Excel as applied to the Newmark numerical method 5.2 5.3 Buckled shapes for linearly tapered columns with 4 end conditions and 4 taper geometries A.2.2 5. Conclusions and Recommendations 6.4 First six iterations of example spreadsheets for columns with 10 approximating elements. and 4 taper geometries 100 107 111 118 viii .2 Recommendations for future research References Appendix A.2.2 Power trendlines for end conditions with end-dimension ratios from 1 to 10 A.2.1 Generated values of P* for 4 end conditions and 4 taper geometries A.4.4 Linearly tapered pinned-pinned columns Linearly tapered fixed-free columns Linearly tapered fixed-pinned columns Linearly tapered fixed-guided columns 5.1 5.4 Columns with uncommon cross section variations 6.2 Tapered column data and trends 5.3 Rate of convergence and accuracy 5.

2 Figure 4. n=4 Buckling load factor versus the ratio of end dimensions for a fixed-pinned column with given taper geometry and large end fixed 2 2 11 14 33 34 36 54 63 69 70 72 72 74 76 76 78 ix .7 Figure 4.5 Figure 4.1 Figure 4.6 Figure 3. Buckling load factor versus the ratio of end dimensions for a fixed-free column with given taper geometry and small end fixed Normalized buckled shapes for the fixed-free column where (a) the small end is fixed and (b) the large end is fixed.1 Figure 1. n=4 Buckling load factor versus the ratio of end dimensions for a fixed-free column with given taper geometry and large end fixed.3 Figure 3.4 Figure 4.2 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 4.5 Figure 3.LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.4 Figure 3.6 Graphical depiction of bifurcation buckling Snap-through problem for a two-bar truss Pin-ended Euler column Fixed-free (cantilever) Euler column End conditions paired with their conjugate equivalents Concentration formulae for two cases of a parabolic distributed load Notation used to characterize tapered column geometry Thrust line concept for a fixed-pinned column Thrust line concept for a fixed-guided column Details of a round column with parabolic variation of the radius Details of a cruciform column with linear variation from the ends to the middle Buckling load factor versus the ratio of end dimensions for a pinned-pinned column with given taper geometry Normalized buckled shapes for the pinned-pinned column.

9 Figure 4.10 Figure 4. n=4 Euler buckling load factor.11 86 Figure 4. as a function of middle-to-end dimension ratio for a crucifix column varying linearly from its ends to its middle 80 80 82 84 Figure 4. n=4 Buckling load factor versus the ratio of end dimensions for a fixed-guided column with given taper geometry Normalized buckled shapes for the pinned-pinned column. as a function of middle-to-end diameter ratio for a round column with parabolic variation of the cross section Euler buckling load factor.Figure 4. P*.8 Figure 4. P*.7 Buckling load factor versus the ratio of end dimensions for a fixed-pinned column with given taper geometry and small end fixed Normalized buckled shapes for the fixed-free column where (a) the small end is fixed and (b) the large end is fixed.12 86 x .

1962) Various cross sections and their associated shape factors based on Equation 3.4 Table 3.1 First three buckled modes and buckling loads for a pinned-pinned prismatic column First three buckled modes and buckling loads for a cantilevered prismatic column Critical loads and effective length factors for prismatic columns with given end conditions (Kaewkulchai.2 (Gere and Carter.2 Table 3. db/da = 2 Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation and end-dimension ratio for a linearly tapering pinned-pinned column Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation for a linearly tapering column with the large end fixed and the small end free Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation for a linearly tapering column with the large end free and the small end fixed Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation for a linearly tapering column with the large end fixed and the small end pinned 14 17 18 23 37 45 51 60 68 73 Table 4.2 75 Table 4.3 Table 2.LIST OF TABLES Page Table 2. 1997) Exact buckling loads for linearly tapering solid columns of circular or square cross section (Gere and Carter. 1962) First three iterations for a pinned-pinned column approximated by ten elements.1 Table 3.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3. db/da = 2 First three iterations for a fixed-free column approximated by ten elements.3 Table 3.3 77 Table 4.4 Table 3. db/da = 2 First iteration for a fixed-guided column approximated by ten elements.4 79 xi .5 Table 4. db/da = 2 First iteration for a fixed-pinned column approximated by ten elements.

5 Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation for a linearly tapering column with the large end pinned and the small end fixed Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation for a linearly tapering column with large end fixed and small end guided Comparison to the exact solution of P* for linearly tapered pinnedpinned columns.7 84 xii .6 83 Table 4. of shape factor n=4. obtained using the Newmark numerical method using 10 and 50 elements 81 Table 4.Table 4.

This phenomenon. Introduction 1. is depicted graphically in Figure 1. Structures can fail when members or the entire structure reach yield or ultimate strength. it is equally likely to buckle in at least two directions. or the point at which the deviation from the original geometry first occurs. While elastic buckling is commonly examined by analyzing long slender compression members. is also called the critical load or bifurcation load. In this case. not commonly considered to be a separate limit state. Buckling of members. or when fracture of members or collapse occurs. although the geometry and possible restraint conditions make the solutions more complicated. presents a stability issue that resembles a limit state in that it limits the resistance that can be developed by the member. exceed a specified maximum deflection. it generally refers to an event whereby a structural element in compression deviates from a behavior of elastic shortening within the original geometry and undergoes large deformations involving a change in member shape for a very small increase in load. elastic buckling can also occur in plates and shells. While buckling is a broad term that describes a range of mechanical behaviors. and load. or conditions for which a structure can be deemed unusable and can be considered to have failed. section resistance. If the proportional limit has not been reached at any point in the member before the critical load is reached. the basic buckling phenomenon is the same. When the member has symmetry of section geometry. 1 .1 Buckling behavior There are a number of limit states. more specifically called bifurcation buckling.1. The buckling load. the buckling is termed elastic buckling.1.

There are many other forms of instability that are generally also referred to as buckling.2. as opposed to a single member. any small addition in load will cause hinge C to snap through and elements AC and CB.2. will go into tension as hinge C moves to a position below Points A and B. At the limit load of this system.Another form of buckling exists that is called limit-load buckling. Under lateral-torsional buckling of a 2 . Load Post-buckling resistance Buckling Load Deflection Figure 1. previously in compression. that drastically changes geometry during elastic deformation. The point at which this change in geometry occurs is called the limit load.1. A classical example of limit-load buckling is the snap-through problem depicted in Figure 1. This form of buckling generally refers to a structural system. P Original position Snap-through position B A C Figure 1. Lateral-torsional buckling is a phenomenon common in slender laterally unsupported steel beams that can affect any laterally unbraced beam segment with a section height significantly greater than its width. Graphical depiction of bifurcation buckling. The snap-through problem for a two-bar truss.

laterally unbraced beam under positive moments from vertical loads. This generally causes twisting of the beam section because the tension flange stays straight rather than moving laterally with the compression flange. To solve for the buckling load of an Euler column. the assumptions to which it is held are usually very difficult to satisfy exactly when actual structural members are analyzed. The Euler column is a straight. The Euler column equation provides a meaningful way to analyze buckling problems. Solutions to Euler columns with various end conditions are covered in detail in Section 2. unless manufacturing flaws and initial 3 . originally formulated for a pinned-pinned column. 1. pin-ended element with slenderness sufficient that it can buckle without stresses in the cross section exceeding the proportional limit (Galambos 1998). can be modified for other end conditions. which is then solved via traditional mathematical techniques. both lateral and torsional stiffnesses must be considered when designing against this phenomenon. prismatic. the top portion of the beam reaches a critical load in compression and buckles laterally. Thus. While the Euler column allows for a mathematically elegant problem. centrally loaded. the governing differential equation of the element is set up as an eigenvalue problem. The Euler column also utilizes the assumption that deformations of the member are small enough that the curvature may be approximated by the second derivative of the deflection with respect to position along the member.1. Thus. The basic Euler buckling equation.2 Euler buckling problems The basic Euler buckling equations are restricted to members that meet the definition of the Euler column.

the Euler buckling load is an unconservative (i. In these cases. The relationship shown in Figure 1. The elastica begins as a compression member and. For column and column-like member areas (such as laterally unbraced compression flanges of beams). which is the elastic buckling of a pin-ended bar with an allowance for large deformations. Euler was the first to investigate a problem called the elastica. rather than the equation that approximates the curvature of the member by d2y/dx2. there is little increase in resistance after the buckling load is reached. Thus. Numerous equilibrium positions allowing for multiple loops were discovered and feasible mathematical solutions exist for many.eccentricities in loading are taken into account. the direction of buckling is determined by the eccentricities involved and a bifurcation load does not exist.1 is then an upper bound on the behavior of the member. but it illustrates the capabilities of the elastica. The post-buckling resistance then decreases. Analytical results are available for such conditions as initial member curvature and end load eccentricities. This is only one such scenario. rather than increasing slightly in the post-buckling stage as the elastic buckling curve indicates. while providing an 4 . the critical buckling load is a usable maximum resistance for practical columns and columnlike members. A small additional loading results in enough lateral (buckling) motion that the member curvature causes flexural yielding.e. upper bound) estimate of the actual buckling load of a member. often requiring elliptic integrals to quantify. loops over onto itself until it becomes a tension member. after initial elastic buckling. Solutions for the elastica. A solution to this problem is possible when the exact differential equation governing buckling is used.

but more complex. this would often be the case for a column that has a length less than 20 to 25 times its diameter. For usual material properties. or large structures may (and often do) take full advantage of the structural efficiency tapered members offer by reducing the amount of material required while strategically stiffening certain parts of a member. however. For small projects. economy often requires the use of standard members because these members are relatively inexpensive and easy to obtain. If residual stresses are a factor. a condition often reached at the tips or corners of wide flange steel columns. using tapered members may both increase structural efficiency and be economical.interesting mathematical exercise. thereby increasing the overall performance of the structure. 1. Columns meeting this criterion will generally buckle inelastically.4 Members of varying cross section Structures are generally designed on the basis of economy and safety. unique. For common structures.3 Inelastic buckling Inelastic buckling includes any buckling phenomenon during which the proportional limit of the material is exceeded somewhere within the cross section before buckling occurs. inelastic buckling can occur when the compressive stress due to applied load plus the local residual compressive stress locally exceeds the material proportional limit. 1. For many structures. have little practical application in the world of engineering. this may not translate into overall economy. meaning permanent deformations will occur upon reaching the critical buckling load. 5 .

6 . In this type of structure. Thus. the most notable of which may be wood pole members. Beam and beam-column members with varying cross section may often be found in frame structures. farthest from the hinges. the depth of the cross section follows the general magnitude of the moment and coincident axial force that will be carried. 1. the cross section is shallower at the hinges and it grows to a maximum depth at the knee of the frame. often govern the design of this type of structure. such that their potential for use in buckling analyses of columns with variable cross section may be fully realized. This is only one example of a structure that employs members of variable cross section to increase efficiency. 2) To generate designer-friendly information in the form of compact equations and design curves to both demonstrate the behavior of tapered columns and facilitate their design.5 Objectives of the research The objectives of this research are: 1) To adapt the powerful Newmark Method procedures to a widely available spreadsheet format. Because bending and axial force. not shear. Thus. it is prudent to understand how to design with members of varying cross section. specifically those employing a three-hinge frame.Material weight can be especially critical in some types of structures (such as aircraft) and a few types of structural members are tapered by their nature. And. a frame sits on two pinned or hinged connections and has a hinge in the center of the horizontal beam or roof element.

The goal of this thesis is to use Newmark’s method within a widely available spreadsheet environment to provide a straightforward simple approach to the analysis of columns 7 .The Newmark method is a modeling and computational technique that approximates the deflection of a continuous system by the deflection at the nodes of a system with a discrete number of prismatic elements with constant properties. this was done with computer programs prepared using a language such as FORTRAN. but the relatively difficult nature of their analysis leads many design engineers to simply opt for a prismatic column or to make often very approximate and usually conservative simplifying assumptions. However. concessions were made to limit the number of elements. with the advent of personal computers. Columns of this type may be used in all manner of structures. often to around 5. Before the development of spreadsheets. Thus. which was previously used for its ease of calculation and rapid convergence to the solution. This thesis deals specifically with columns of varying cross section. Before the common use of computers. and the number of iterations. Its many applications include buckling problems. often to one or two. can be used to obtain an extremely accurate and precise value of the critical buckling load for a column of virtually any configuration. which allowed the critical buckling load to be bounded sufficiently for most designs. this same method. The computation procedure for Newmark’s method as it applies to tapered column buckling is easily translated into spreadsheet format since it involves iterative trials at many locations along a member. the degree of accuracy practically available by the Newmark method was limited by the number of elements (and therefore calculations) and iterations (and therefore repetition of those same calculations) that the engineer could physically and mentally withstand.

as well as most other problems in structural engineering and mechanics. such as the finite element and finite difference methods. which takes the form of an eigenvalue problem. These methods allow for virtually any structural system or element under 8 . Additionally. not for general use). the Newmark method of discretizing a continuous structural member. the differential equations for which there are exact solutions will primarily utilize Bessel functions to solve. However. these problems are regularly employed in the undergraduate engineering curriculum to introduce the student to both column buckling and the eigenvalue problem. Approximate solutions for the buckling problem. exact and approximate solutions of the buckling problem. when the column in question is tapered along its length. By employing small angle approximations. which is used exclusively here.with virtually any variation in their cross section using tools that recent civil engineering graduates will have encountered in their undergraduate curriculum or can easily understand. replacement of a distributed load with statically equivalent concentrations. Previous research in the realm of columns of varying cross section has resided in two areas. These tools are the conjugate beam method (which is required only for understanding of the method. the number of combinations of taper and end conditions for which there is an exact solution drops dramatically. and a spreadsheet program like Excel. are plentiful. Indeed. to flourish. The development of computer technology has allowed more calculation-intensive methods. The middle of the twentieth century was dominated by the introduction of numerical methods that allowed for practical hand calculations. exact solutions to the buckling problem. are readily available for prismatic columns with common end conditions.

6 Organization of the Thesis The thesis is organized such that a reader with limited knowledge of buckling in general. such as the conjugate beam method. other concepts. and. computation time. and characterization of column taper. and buckling of tapered members specifically. these methods have become the most powerful general tool available to the structural engineer. Numerical examples utilizing 9 . most importantly. However. are provided to allow the reader to understand and use the Newmark numerical method with confidence. designer effort may be reduced by either using Newmark’s method in the Excel spreadsheet environment. Finally. certain less general methods retain their individual applicability for special problems. in Chapter 3. step-by-step instructions are provided for developing spreadsheet-based programs for tapered column analysis of determinate and one-degree indeterminate column cases. 1. The overall purpose of the work reported in this thesis is to describe situations when computational precision. Thus. will be able to understand both of these concepts via the background information provided. development of resultant loads from ordinates of a distributed load. or design aids generated from numerical studies using this tool. Then. In Chapter 2. an intensive review of past and current literature is provided along with the current state of tapered column design in various material codes to provide a context for the research later presented.arbitrary loading conditions to be analyzed to an incredible degree of numerical accuracy. Prismatic members and Euler buckling loads are discussed to provide a reasonable background. to analyze the buckling load of a column with many types of varying cross section shapes.

fixed-fixed) was deemed beyond the scope of this paper. and perhaps beyond the capabilities of the basic Newmark numerical method. include design plots relating a critical buckling load factor to end dimension ratios for various powers of variation of the section moment of inertia. in part to confirm work by past researchers. but more to provide a comprehensive and simplified set of design equations for a wide range of cross section shapes and variations. and raw data. Also included are some demonstrations of the method’s ability to address general column geometries not able to be analyzed by closed form techniques. Finally. Results of the thesis.ten prismatic elements are provided as an aid to these instructions. The two-degree indeterminate column case (i. given in Chapter 4. Fitted curves are further applied to these results. Normalized buckled shapes are provided as an additional design aid and visualization of tapered column buckling behavior. appendices are provided with extensive numerical examples. deflected shapes.e. Further adaptations of the method may prove its potential in this area. 10 . Chapter 5 provides a discussion of the results and recommendations for future work.

Because of symmetry.1 Euler buckling loads 2.1.1. P y P M x P Figure 2.1) 11 . geometry of the column. the mechanics of bending.2. Pin-ended Euler column. 2. there is no horizontal shear at the support or cut section of the deflected column. and material properties within the initial linear range. The moment at any section located a distance x from the base of the column is M ( x) = − EI d2y dx 2 (Eq. The basic geometry and a free body diagram of a portion near one end of the column is shown in Figure 2. Background 2.1 Buckling load for a prismatic pin-ended column The mathematical expression for the Euler buckling load of an ideal column follows from consideration of equilibrium.1.

2.1 and 2. 2. 2. 2. The bending moment at any cross section is M ( x) = Py (Eq. 2. leaving y = A sin kx (Eq.5) Constants A and B can be evaluated by introducing boundary conditions: y = 0 at x = 0 y = 0 at x = L The first condition requires that B=0. 2. Equation 2.6 under the second boundary condition yields A sin kL = 0 (Eq.4) d2y + k2y = 0 dx 2 The general solution for this homogeneous linear differential equation is y = A sin kx + B cos kx (Eq.6) Evaluating equation 2.2 gives the governing differential equation for the pinned-pinned Euler column: EI d2y + Py = 0 dx 2 (Eq.3) By introducing the notation k 2 = P .3 may be written as EI (Eq.d2y utilizing the approximate curvature of in place of the exact expression of dx 2 d2y dx 2   dy   1 +      dx     2 3 2 .2) Combining equations 2.7) 12 .

6 yields the mode shape equation: y = A sin nπx L (Eq. or Euler load.1. It should be noted that the amplitude of the deflected shape is not defined as d2y to approximate the curvature. 2. Substituting Equation 2.1.8 into Equation 2.8) where n = 1. Thus sin kL = 0 or kL = nπ (Eq. 2.3 yields the buckling load equation: Pn = n 2π 2 EI L2 (Eq. This can be shown by examining the mode shape of the buckled column. can be evaluated with n=1 as this is the smallest load for which instability will occur: Pcr = π 2 EI L2 (Eq.In order to obtain a result that is not trivial. 13 .1 displays the first three a result of using dx 2 buckling modes of the pinned-pinned Euler column along with the buckling loads. the Equation 2.3… Substituting Equation 2.11) Equation 2.2.9 may be used to calculate higher mode buckling loads.8 into Equation 2. member is unlikely to buckling in these modes unless it is forced to do so.9) The critical buckling load.11 can be evaluated for any buckling mode and defines the geometry of the bent shape. the critical buckling load of a pinned-pinned column may be effectively quadrupled if lateral deflection is held at zero at the center of the column. 2. Table 2. A must be non-zero.10) However. Thus. 2.

8264 2 2 L L Buckling load for a prismatic fixed-free column For the fixed-free “flag pole” problem.Table 2. 14 . First three buckled modes and buckling loads for a pinned-pinned prismatic column. the expression for the buckling load of the ideal column is similar to that for the pinned-pinned case. Mode 1 2 3 Mode Shape Critical buckling load 2.4784 2 2 L L 9π 2 EI EI ≈ 88. The equations of equilibrium and boundary conditions are changed based on the different geometric conditions shown in Figure 2.1.8696 2 2 L L 4π 2 EI EI ≈ 39.2 π2 EI EI ≈ 9.2.2.1. P y P x M P Figure 2. Fixed-free (cantilever) Euler column.

approximated by the second derivative. 2.14 may be written as EI (Eq. 2.12 and 2.14) P .13 gives the governing differential equation for the fixed-free Euler column: EI d2y + P (δ − y ) = 0 dx 2 (Eq. 2. will be used: d2y M ( x) = − EI 2 dx (Eq. 2.15) Introducing the notation k 2 = d2y + k 2 y = k 2δ 2 dx The general solution for this homogeneous linear differential equation is y = A sin kx + B cos kx + δ (Eq.12) The bending moment at any cross section at any section located a distance x from the base of the column is M ( x) = P(δ − y ) (Eq.17) 15 . Equation 2. the relationship between bending moment and curvature.16) Constants A and B can be evaluated by introducing boundary conditions: y= dy =0 dx at x = 0 These conditions can be satisfied by A = 0 and B = −δ Thus y = δ (1 − cos kx) The condition at the free end of the column requires that (Eq. 2. 2.Again.13) Equating Equations 2.

It should be noted that equivalent results may be 16 .2 displays the first three buckling modes of the pinned-pinned Euler column along with the buckling loads.y = δ at x = L This condition is satisfied if δ cos kL = 0 (Eq.20) The critical buckling load will be obtained when n = 1: Pcr = π 2 EI 4L2 (Eq. As was the case for the pinned-pinned column. If δ = 0 . k 2 = π P = (2n − 1) kL = L 2 EI π 2 EI 4 L2 (Eq. 2. the amplitude of the deflected shape is not defined as a result of using d2y to approximate the curvature. this equation becomes EI or P = (2n − 1) 2 (Eq. then there is no deflection at the free end of the column and consequently no buckling.18) Equation 2. dx 2 Table 2.19 into equation 2.19) By reintroducing. 2. cos kL must equal zero and the following relation must be true: kL = (2n − 1) π 2 where: n=1.18 may be satisfied if either δ = 0 or cos kL = 0 .22) Equation 2. 2. Thus. 2.17 yields the mode shape equation:   (2n − 1)πx  y = δ 1 − cos  2L    (Eq.2.22 can be evaluated for any buckling mode and defines the geometry of the buckled shape. 2.3… P .21) Substituting equation 2.

kL.2066 2 2 4L L 25π 2 δ EI EI ≈ 61. First three buckled modes and buckling loads for a cantilevered prismatic column.obtained by analyzing a guided-pinned column. buckling loads of columns for different end conditions are given based on the effective length of the column. because Pcr = π 2 EI L2 .6850 2 2 4L L π2 EI EI ≈ 2. Mode 1 2 3 Mode Shape δ Critical buckling load δ 9π 2 EI EI ≈ 22. for a pinned-pinned prismatic column (the basic case discussed in Section 2.2 Effective length factors For ease of computation in most design manuals. The effective length of a column is simply the length a column with given end conditions would require to fit into the Euler buckling load equation: Pcr = π 2 EI (kL )2 (Eq.1. 2. The guided-pinned and fixed-free columns buckle in exactly the same shape and at the same load for a given mode.4674 2 2 4L L 2.2. Table 2. k = 1. which is easily computed for common cases involving prismatic columns.1). The effective length is determined based on the effective length factor.23) Thus. For a cantilevered prismatic column (the basic case 17 . k.

3.3 shows the critical loads and effective length factors for prismatic columns with various end conditions. For the cantilevered column. Table 2. reflecting the practical difficulties in achieving fully fixed and other theoretical boundary conditions. This can be seen graphically in Table 2. Pcr = π 2 EI 4L2 and k = 2. The effective length factor is equivalent to the inverse of the number of half sine waves that occur in the buckled shape.000 2.000 0.699 1. Table 2.1. Critical loads and effective length factors for prismatic columns with given end conditions (Kaewkulchai.3. End Conditions Critical Load k Deflected Shape Simple Support– Simple Support Fixed-Free Simple SupportGuided Fixed-Simple Support Fixed-Guided Fixed-Fixed π 2 EI L2 1.000 0. The effective length factor takes on a more physical meaning when it is applied to the buckling mode shape. 1997).2).6997 L) 2 π 2 EI L2 4π 2 EI L2 18 . For design purposes.discussed in Section 2. k = 1. some of these effective length factores are reduced. for the pinned-pinned column.000 2.500 π 2 EI 4L2 π 2 EI 4L2 π 2 EI (0. so the buckled mode shape is one quarter wavelength. k = 2. Thus. so there is one half wavelength over the buckled column length.

The study also presented the natural frequencies of cantilever beams with arbitrarily varying cross section when placed in either air or water. 1943).” This paper thoroughly outlined a procedure by which the value of a function of a single variable is calculated so long as the second derivative of the function is known. In his Mechanical Vibrations text. and others (Newmark. Newmark’s unique contribution to the field was in his treatment of specific problems and 19 . Stodola (1906) applied a method of successive approximations similar to Vianello’s to the rotation of turbine shafts where it is called Stodola’s method. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate that convergence to the exact solution is possible with a relatively small number of sections approximating the tapered beam. 1943). identified similar procedures for use in determining the buckling loads of bars (Newmark. Vianello and Engesser. Methods for obtaining greater accuracy with numerical methods had been developed prior to Newmark’s work by Niles. Southwell. Nathan M. Nakahira et al (1992) used what they called the StodolaNewmark method (a combination of the Newmark numerical method and Stodola’s iterative process) to determine the natural frequencies of cantilever beams of varying cross-section. Moments and Buckling Loads. The procedure is an adaptation of the general mathematical method of successive approximations.3 Buckling loads of tapered columns by the Newmark numerical method In 1943. around 1900.2. However. Newmark published a paper in the Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) entitled “Numerical Procedure for Computing Deflections. Hartog (1956) provides a treatment of Stodola’s method as it applies to the problem of finding the natural frequency of a rotor.

generalization of the procedure to a wide range of problems while providing for increased accuracy. Newmark expounded on this work first reported in 1943 in later publications, including a book devoted to numerical solution techniques and published in honor Hardy Cross, father of numerical methods in engineering (Newmark, 1949). In this publication, his chapter, “Numerical Methods of Analysis of Bar, Plates, and Elastic Bodies,” presents in general what he calls “iterative” and “step-by-step” methods. He illustrates the

application of these methods to systems as complex as membrane structures and provides a discussion of convergence rates and accuracy. Newmark’s work was furthered by William G. Godden, who had been a visiting staff member at the University of Illinois in 1954. In 1965, Godden published a book called Numerical Analysis of Beam and Column Structures, which Newmark praised for its practical and easily understood examples as well as its new applications of his methods. Godden’s discussion of the Newmark method is the most complete, beginning with a derivation of the principles and moving through applications to common energy principles, influence lines, buckling and eccentric loading of struts, beam analysis with various support conditions, and into vibration analysis of free and forced spring-mass systems. As an examination of the power of the Newmark method, Godden’s book is extremely complete. Newmark’s method of successive approximations as it applies to column buckling is also given adequate treatment in Timoshenko’s Theory of Elastic Stability, 2nd Ed (Timoshenko and Gere, 1961) and Sechler’s Elasticity in Engineering (Sechler, 1952).

20

Newmark’s method was used by Criswell (1991) to obtain buckling capacities of tapered wood members as a step in developing design expressions for the basic column cases included in the National Design Specification for Wood Construction (AF&PA, 1997) and the LRFD Standard for Engineered Wood Construction (AF&PA/ASCE, 1995). Kaewkulchai (1997) provided an extension of work performed by Criswell (see Section 2.5.1.1) to determine design equations for columns with indeterminate end conditions and more complex cross-sectional variations. His work utilized an equivalent section approach, such that buckling loads for end dimension ratios greater than three could be determined with a reasonable degree of accuracy. However, a conclusion made in his thesis that closed form solutions are not generally available in the literature is false. The closed form equations presented by Gere and Carter (1962) could easily be included in the wood codes, as they are relatively simple and specifically include members with double linear taper, such as round section poles and piles. Kaewkulchai’s work extended and revised a basic FORTRAN program that had previously been developed by Criswell. However, the nature of the problem lends itself to analysis by the spreadsheet software now available. This fact and Criswell’s continued interest in the buckling problem for columns of general nonprismatic shapes provided the impetus for this thesis.

2.4 Buckling loads of tapered columns by other methods 2.4.1 Closed-form solutions of the governing equation

Prior to numerical methods, analysis of nonprismatic columns was limited to certain situations where closed form equations were available using the tools of

21

mechanics. Thus, tapered columns with fixity conditions that did not allow for a closedform solution were designed by various “rules of thumb.” These early designs used an equivalent prismatic column, the cross-section of which was based on the cross-section at a given point of the tapered column (e.g. the cross-section at ½ or 2/3 of the length from the small end). James M. Gere and Winfred O. Carter (1962) published a paper in the ASCE Journal of the Structural Division that provided equations and design curves for calculating the critical buckling loads of columns with many different cross sections and four different fixity conditions: pinned-pinned, fixed-free, fixed-pinned, and fixed-fixed. This greatly enhanced the information that had previously been available for nonprismatic column design, particularly for tapered wide flange sections. Gere and Carter used methods developed by Timoshenko (solution of the differential equation of the deflection curve) and Newmark (method of successive approximations of the deflection curve), along with an innovative shape factor to account for the cross-sectional variation along the column, to ultimately provide a relatively concise set of equations to calculate the critical buckling load. Many of the situations that were analyzed could be solved in closed form, but required a difficult solution process based on Bessel functions with many related variables. However, for columns with a linear taper, circular cross section, and pinned-pinned, fixed-pinned, or fixed-fixed end conditions, the resulting equation is simply the product of the square of the ratio of end diameters and the critical buckling load of a prismatic column for the given end conditions (Table 2.4). Fogel and Ketter (1962) provided a treatment of the tapered-column problem similar to that in the Gere and Carter paper in the same edition of the ASCE Journal of

22

6997 L )2  d   a db     2 Fixed-Pinned da Fixed-Fixed db  4π 2 EI a Pcr =   L2   d b   d  a     2 A subsequent discussion of Gere and Carter’s paper by N.the Structural Division. 1962). End Conditions Schematic Buckling Load da Pinned-Pinned db  π 2 EI a Pcr =   L2   d b   d  a     2 da  π 2 EI a  d b  Pcr =   (0.4. Lind (1962) examined the previously employed “rules of thumb” as compared to the equations 23 . While the solution procedure is more complete in this paper. Tapered web wide flange sections and tapered box sections are examined under axial load as well as applied end moments. the results are not nearly as extensive as those presented by Gere and Carter. Table 2.C. Exact buckling loads for linearly tapering solid columns of circular or square cross section (Gere and Carter.

For cases other than linearly tapered round 24 . the error in his calculations is small. By his analysis. Very early in tapered column analysis. His procedures are very straightforward and his design curves are presented neatly.presented by Gere and Carter. he shows that for small taper ratios. the half-point and third-point rules (from the small end) give non-conservative results with up to 15% to 20% error for the critical buckling load. Later. While these papers were originally written and published in Russian in 1914 and 1916. Gatewood (1954) extended some of Timoshenko’s (1961) work and published design curves for all taper ratios and variation of the moment of inertia between the zero and sixth power for a fixed-free column. which allows for virtually any variation of the cross-section along the length of the member. effective cross sections should be located at the 4/10-point for the pinned-pinned condition and the 6/10-point for the fixed-free condition to give conservative results with errors less than 7%. By comparing to results provided by Dinnik (1929). he produced a paper including many example problems and solutions using his previously published material (Dinnik. Dinnik (1929) used Bessel functions to solve for the buckling loads of linearly tapered members symmetric about their halflength. Lind found that for the fairly narrow ranges of end diameter ratios and shape factors usually used in design. but increases as the taper becomes more severe and the trigonometric assumption for the deflected shape becomes more approximate. Smith (1988) provides an analytic solution to the tapered-column buckling problem. 1932). His primary example is a fixed-free column with moment of inertia varying by the power of 4 along the length of the member. they were later translated and published in the United States.

like the Ritz and finite element methods. In most cases. The governing differential equations for an axially loaded prismatic column are provided as an example along with the statement of total potential energy.2 Other numerical methods Rivello (1969) provided a short treatment of the finite-difference method as it can be applied to determinate tapered column buckling problems. finite element approximations of a structure underestimate the stiffness of the structure and thus err on the side of conservatism. the finite 25 . However. He then goes on to discuss weighted-residual and variational formulations of the problem. which must then be solved.and square sections. Rivello (1969) also provided a treatment of tapered column analysis using the Rayleigh-Ritz Method. It is the computationally expensive nature of these methods (when sufficiently small mesh sizes are used) that makes the Newmark method more appropriate for the study of tapered column buckling. they can be significantly inaccurate unless fine meshes are used. Galambos (1998) gave a general introduction to the use of the finite element method to conduct stability analyses. his analytic expressions quickly become very cumbersome for hand calculations.4. He recommends the use of symbolic analysis software to handle these expressions. For the buckling of slender column or beam members. such as inelastic buckling and second-order analyses. produces a set of homogeneous simultaneous linear equations. 2. Coverage of higher-order analyses is provided briefly and extensive recommendations for finite element software are given. The versatility of the finite element method allows for the study of more complex problems. This method.

26 . Thus. This approximation requires only 6 elements to achieve an accuracy of 0. It is uncertain how tapering of the section would affect Seide’s findings. Column buckling was considered for solid section tapered members and plate buckling considerations were made when examining lateral-torsional and inelastic buckling behavior. Kim et al (1997) employ the finite-element method to thin-walled tapered beamcolumns. his analysis of the number of nodes required for a reasonably accurate solution is pertinent to this discussion. the buckling problem comprises only a small portion of the paper. It is difficult to assess how precise there numbers are for the purposes of comparing to this study as the buckling load factor is only reported to two decimal places. Seide (1975) provides a comparison of the finite difference method applied to the buckling of a prismatic column to the finite element method based on the principle of minimum potential energy and a mixed variational principle. they achieve deviations of less than 3% using only six elements. Comparing their solution for the critical buckling load of a singletapered rectangular section to theoretical solutions developed by Timoshenko and Gere (1961).element method adds unnecessary complexity to a problem that can be solved by simpler and more computationally economical means. The crux of their paper is the development of stiffness matrices for tapered elements. Less accurate approximations are provided for comparision.01%. The most accurate approximation he considered uses the finite element method based on the principle of minimum potential energy where the lateral deflection is a cubic function of the distance along the column length. While Seide’s findings are only for a prismatic column.

Additional numerical solution methods for nonprismatic columns are presented by Ram and Rao (1951). M. torsion. This analysis program considered the large deformation behavior of nonprismatic restrained-free (fixed or specified rotational spring modeling foundation conditions) cantilever members with axial loads and moments introduced at specified locations along the pole length. they show member stiffnesses can be 27 .In 1981. and Ku (1979). developed using the Newmark numerical technique for single-pole utility structures (EPRI. POLEDA-80. Tapered column buckling under stepped axial loads was researched by Ermopoulos and analyzed using numerical integration and a discretized column made up of prismatic sections. 1987). Chen et al (1987). Some recent research in tapered column buckling loads addresses ever more complex variations in cross section and applied loading. With an adequate number of elements (400 or more). flexure. and vibration analyses of tapered beam-columns to be performed. Vanderbilt and his coworkers at Colorado State University reported on analysis program. Tapered box columns under biaxial loading were analyzed by Liew et al (1989) using momentcurvature-thrust relationships and Horne’s stability criteria. 1989). Banerjee and Williams (1986) produced a set of tapered element stiffness matrices for input into a finite element program that allowed for the buckling. Buckling loads for the one end condition (restrained-free) could be obtained using POLEDA-80. 1981 and EPRI.D. Researchers at the University of Wales in Cardiff have incorporated many of the exact solutions developed using Bessel functions into design curves that qualify the buckling trends for linearly tapered columns with uniform compressive force applied along all or part of their length (Williams and Aston.

The equations used to determine the equivalent prismatic section of the tapered column were developed by Criswell (1984). According to the most recent version of the NDS: For design of a column with rectangular cross section.approximated to seven-figure accuracy. for each face of the column shall be derived as follows: 28 . Hollow or built-up columns are not taken into account.7.5. In its Section 3.1 Wood Codes 2.5 Buckling load determination for tapered members in code-based design 2. 2. They also include a very complete discussion of past research in tapered columns and they provide excellent references for Bessel functions and solution of complex differential equations. d.5. the representative dimension. a FORTRAN program employing the matrix stiffness method to calculate critical load factors and natural frequencies of vibration (Anderson and Williams. and only rectangular and circular cross sections are considered.2. 1987).1 ASD Code for Wood The National Design Specification (NDS) for Wood Construction provides an allowable strength design procedure for the design of most wood structural members (AF&PA 1997).1. the NDS uses an equivalent prismatic section approach to the design of tapered columns and piles. Many of the equations that these more recent analyses use are based on initial work performed by Wittrick and Williams (1973) that extended work in computing natural frequencies of structures to determination of buckling loads. tapered at one or both ends. The bulk of the research by Williams is presented in a culminating paper describing the capabilities of BUNVIS-RG.

It is obvious to the author that the current NDS allows for reasonable efficiency and ample conservatism. fixedpinned.15(1-dmin/dmax)] where (3. Previous versions of the NDS had relied on this third-point method exclusively. support conditions not explicitly defined here still rely on the more conservative third-point rule (i.50 a = 0.7-2) dmin = the minimum dimension for that face of the column dmax = the maximum dimension for that face of the column Support Conditions Large end fixed. but Criswell’s improvements made the design of columns with pinned-pinned.7-3) and d = dmin + (dmax – dmin)(1/3) The design of a column of round cross section shall be based on the design calculations for a square column of the same cross-sectional area and having the same degree of taper. While the design equations for tapered columns with pinned-pinned. It should be noted that the NDS equations are very good for small end dimension ratios (dmax/dmin>3) but that conservatism is increased as the column becomes more tapered.d = dmin + (dmax – dmin)[a – 0. assume a prismatic column with section taken at one-third of the tapered member length from the small end) for determining the equivalent prismatic section.70 (3. large end unsupported or pinned Both ends pinned: Tapered toward one end Tapered toward both ends For all other support conditions: a = 0.e. but 29 . small end unsupported or pinned Small end fixed. and fixed-free support conditions are an improvement over the earlier versions of the code. or fixed-free support conditions more efficient.70 a = 0.30 a = 0. fixedpinned.

fixed-pinned. but the research behind the equations is the same.for a more complete and efficient design the methods provided in this thesis should be employed. The LRFD manual also uses an equivalent prismatic section method for the design of tapered columns and piles. The equations used to determine the equivalent prismatic section are modified slightly from the NDS code equations to accommodate the LRFD notation. rectangular columns tapered along one or both faces of the column are considered. be the same for these two documents. The content of these two design documents is intentionally and actively coordinated.5. And again. more exact equations for pinned-pinned. and only rectangular and circular cross sections are considered. as are columns with circular cross section. As in the NDS. 2. This similarity between the ASD and LRFD design documents reflects the wood industry’s philosophy that the basic behavioral equations can. and fixed-free support conditions are provided while other support conditions require the use of the third-point rule.5.2 LRFD Code for Wood The Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Manual for Engineered Wood Construction provides a load and resistance factor design procedure for the design of most wood structural members (AF&PA/ASCE 1995).1. 2. and should.2 LRFD Code for Steel The Load and Resistance Factor Design version of the Manual of Steel Construction by the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC. 2001) provides provisions for web-tapered members that must conform to three requirements: 30 .

2. Nonprismatic columns are not addressed. 1998). Compression members meeting these requirements may be designed by standard methods with weak axis buckling remaining the same and strong axis buckling modified only by a different effective length factor (Kγ). This is partly because concrete columns seldom are loaded in compression only (rather than acting as beam-columns). Long column effects are based on a moment-multiplier concept. 31 . Head and Aristizabal-Ochoa provide an algorithm and design procedures for concrete columns with linear taper (Head and Aristizabal-Ochoa. Much of the research on web-tapered steel compression members has been conducted by C.5. 3) The depth of the web must vary linearly.1) The member shall possess one axis of symmetry that is perpendicular to the plane of bending. The Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures (Galambos.3 Concrete Code The ACI 318-02 does not specifically address tapered members. which shall be “determined by a rational analysis” (AISC.G. 2001). 2) The flanges must have equal and constant area along the member length. Lee and his associates at the University of New York at Buffalo and is discussed in the excellent reference. 1987). However. leaving the analysis of nonprismatic members for flexure and combined axial load plus bending largely up to the designer.

Thus. Accordingly. According to these rules. if the beam stiffness varies along its length. a beam of equivalent dimensions and cross-sectional variation that has different end conditions. then its conjugate beam must be able to develop a moment at its left end. if the original beam were free at its left end.3. if the original beam is able to undergo a rotation at its left end. then its conjugate beam must be able to develop a shear at its left end. The conjugate beam is then loaded with the magnitude of the 32 . Figure 3. the conjugate beam method uses moment and stiffness response of the beam (or column) in question to load what is called the conjugate beam. Conjugate beams must also be adjusted for internal hinges and other discontinuities. Once the original and conjugate beams are formulated. The end conditions of the conjugate beam are chosen according to set rules based on ?. Similar to the moment area method. the theory holds that the moment distribution of the original beam shall be calculated and then divided by EI along its length. respectively. Analysis Procedures 3. Shear and moment response in the conjugate beam correspond to the deflections and section rotations of the original beam. then the conjugate beam would be fixed at its left end. but they will not be discussed here as all of the columns to be examined will be continuous. sufficient background should be had in the conjugate beam method. These situations may be analyzed by following the general rules for the conjugate beam. if the original beam is able to undergo a deflection at its left end. Hence. this can be taken into account in the analysis.1 provides original beam end conditions and their conjugate equivalents.1 Conjugate beam method Prior to using Newmark’s method to calculate buckling loads of tapered columns.

column) of varying cross section.1. the conjugate beam method ultimately allows for the rapid calculation of deflections and rotations in a beam (or in the case of this thesis. for the original beam. Just as the shear and moment diagrams represent the first two integrations of the loading diagram subject to specified shear and moment boundary conditions. the conjugate beam includes the two integrations of the curvature values subject to known rotation and deflection boundary conditions to obtain the rotations and deflections. Shears and moments may then be calculated along the length of the conjugate beam. End conditions paired with their conjugate equivalents.2 Concentrated loads from ordinates of a distributed load Background will be provided here concerning the concentration formulae used to discretize a distributed load at the node points based on the pattern of values (ordinates) 33 . M/EI. Original Beam End Condition Conjugate Beam End Condition Simple Support y=0 θ≠0 Guided Support y≠0 θ=0 Fixed Support y=0 θ=0 Free End y≠0 θ≠0 Simple Support y=0 θ≠0 Guided Support y≠0 θ=0 Free End y≠0 θ≠0 Fixed Support y=0 θ=0 Figure 3.approximate curvature. These values correspond to rotation and deflection at each section of the original beam. Thus. 3. respectively.

a non-uniform distributed load reflecting the usual pattern of the M/EI values must be concentrated at the nodal points between each element.of this distributed load. Newmark (1943) provides the derivation for these curves. For uniform or linearly varying distributed loads. when the ordinates at the node in question and the adjacent nodes are known (RB). 1943). In order to use Newmark’s method for calculating the critical buckling loads of columns. 34 . By using a power series to approximate the distributed load. Concentration formulae for two cases of a parabolic distributed load (Newmark. a common shape for a moment diagram and thus for the M/EI loading. These equations are shown schematically in Figure 3.2 for the two resultant values that are pertinent to this thesis: the first. when the ordinates at the node in question and the two nodes in one direction from the node in question are known (RA). the value that would be RC has the same form as RA. these equations are easy to develop. a b c RA = d (7 a + 6b − c) 24 (a) RA d RB d RB = d (a + 10b + c) 12 (b) Figure 3. while Godden (1965) develops more of these equations to account for distributed and concentrated loads.2. and the second. accurate equations have been produced to calculate the concentrated loads based on the ordinates of the distributed load at adjacent points. The most effective equations are very often those used to approximate a parabolic curve. By symmetry.

and n is the shape factor given by the equation Ib Ia n= d log b da log (Eq.3). 3. respectively. then the shape factor is often based on the variation of some cross-sectional dimension along the length of the member. Ia is the moment of inertia at the small end of the column. a shape factor is generally devised that is based on the variation of the moment of inertia along the length of the member.3. If more complex taper scenarios are required. For example. For linearly tapering members of various cross section.3 Characterization of column taper The research on tapered columns has yielded a great number of ways to characterize the taper of a given member. one can deduce that for linear variation of the diameter.2) This allows for the shape factor to be determined for any given cross section.1) where I(x) is the moment of inertia at any distance x from the small end of the column (end a as defined in Figure 3. 35 . da and db are the general dimensions at the small and large ends of the column. for most simple shapes. n may be evaluated by inspection. the moment of inertia will vary by the power of 4. 3. knowing that I=πd4/64 for a circular cross section. Gere and Carter (1962) provide the most general expression for the variation of the moment of inertia for a linearly tapering column:  d  x I ( x) = I a 1 +  b − 1  L      da n (Eq. However.

3 provides the notation used for this thesis. The shape factor for these shapes must be evaluated on an individual basis. and varying depth have a shape factor between 2. a = smaller end dimension y L b = larger end dimension x Figure 3.1 and 2. While design equations are not provided for these cases. constant width.6.1 gives crosssectional shapes.Figure 3. Notation used to characterize tapered column geometry.3. while Table 3. taper conditions. Wide flange and closed box sections with constant web thickness. 36 . constant flange thickness. and shape factors discussed in this thesis. they are obviously bounded by the n=2 (no web thickness) and n=3 (web thickness equals flange width = rectangular section) cases and can be estimated by the equations provided.

d d d 1 d 2 Open-web section Constant dimensions b.1. d d 4 Solid square section Varying dimension. d Buckling about horizontal axis tf tf d 2 b 37 . Various cross sections and their associated shape factors based on Equation 3. b Varying depth.2 for linear tapers (Gere and Carter. b Varying depth. Shape Shape factor. d Buckling about vertical axis b Tower Section Constant areas concentrated near corners Varying dimension. d d Solid rectangular section Constant width.Table 3. n Solid circular section Varying diameter. tf Varying depth. 1962). d Buckling about horizontal axis b d 4 d 3 Solid rectangular section Constant width.

the cell 38 . A table follows the procedure for each set of end conditions.4. With the first cell containing a zero. which contains a numerical example using 10 approximating elements for a column of circular cross section with an end diameter ratio of 2.4. fixed-free.4 Spreadsheet development for determinate and one-degree indeterminate tapered column buckling analysis Excel is a commonly available and widely used spreadsheet program capable of many operations involving tabularized data. 1) The first spreadsheet column is set up as the ratio of the distance from the top of the column to the column length. This step-by-step development both illustrates the steps in the Newmark method.1 A pinned-pinned column Table 3. and the implementation of this method in a spreadsheet computing environment. by specific programs prepared for its use. although several other spreadsheet programs have similar capabilities and operational features. Then. details will be given that relate specifically to a linearly tapering round column. Each step will include the general method.3. L. The procedure for using Excel to calculate the critical buckling loads and mode shapes for tapered columns with pinnedpinned. and fixed-guided end conditions will be presented in a stepwise manner. For these reasons. fixed-pinned.2. applicable for any column configuration. it was chosen as the computational environment for this study. The steps in the following processes correspond to the spreadsheet column numbers provided in the table. whether it is carried out by hand. located at the end of this section. contains a numerical example for a round pinned-pinned column with 10 approximating elements and end diameter ratio of 2. 3. The first six iterations of this example are included in Appendix A. or by spreadsheets.

I.da). in the case of a linearly tapering round column. By scaling the moment of inertia. respectively. Thus. This distance will henceforth be referred to as x. denoted yo. for the linearly tapering round column. This formula should be dragged down N-1 cells until a cell results in the number 1. 2) The second column provides a representative dimension on which the calculation of the moment of inertia may be based. where N is the number of equal-length elements (h = element length = L/N) approximating the column.below should contain a formula adding 1/N to the previous cell. 4) The fourth column creates a ratio of I to Ia. respectively. The factor a is retained and will be used later in the final calculation of the buckling 39 . I = πd4/64. 3) The third column is defined to be the moment of inertia. and are fixed. to account for scaling and units. the computations required of Excel are more precise and the equations on the screen are easier to examine. a. Thus. It is given a common factor. As for the diameter. the column diameter at the top of the column. at any location x along the column length. the first column represents the distance from the top of the column as a fraction of the total length. 5) The fifth column is provided for the assumed lateral deflection of the column. The first cell in this column is equal to da. the dimension d is used to represent the diameter at any point x along the column length. which is often a very large number. Thus. The second cell should contain the formula d = da + x(db . Ia and Ib refer to the moments of inertia at the top and bottom of the column. where da and db are the column diameters at the top and bottom of the column.

this will become the applied load at the nodal points for the conjugate column. the common factor for this column 40 .load. M = (-P)(yo) and is simply –1 times the previous column. the column internal moment. the assumed shape may be required to be more exact for more complex end conditions. the common factor for this column is aP. By the procedure of the conjugate beam method. which is a quantity that is distributed along the length of the column. 7) The seventh column contains computations of the curvature. If formulae are used initially in this column. If the assumed shape is greatly different from the true solution shape. a parabolic curve varying from 0 at the ends to 1 at the middle of the column is appropriate. an initial deflected shape varying linearly from 0 at the ends to 1 in the middle will converge to the anticipated solution. convergence may not occur or convergence to a high mode buckled shape may occur. Thus. For the pinned-pinned case. Thus. M. The calculation of this column simply divides column 6. they will be overwritten as the iterations progress and a final solution is found. It should be noted that the assumed deflection should resemble the exact deflection to such an extent that the solution will converge on the critical buckling load and shape. However. M/EI. To account for the compressive load. The user may begin the Newmark iterative procedure with whatever deflected shape is desired and use any method to generate the assumed deflections. the ratio of section moment of inertia to end moment of inertia. that occurs at each section of the column. In this case. 6) The sixth column represents the moment. by column 3.

E. The calculation is simply the nodal concentrations times the distance from the bottom end: (nodal M/EI)(1-x) where 1-x is the proportion of the nodal load that contributes to the reaction at the top of the conjugate column. in the original column). This column utilizes the equations given in Figure 3. while Equation (b) is used to calculate the nodal concentration for each internal node.becomes aP/EIa. which may be systematically calculated by subtracting the nodal concentration at that node from the shear in the previous node. the section rotations for each element in the original beam can be calculated. common to both equations. 9) The ninth column is an aid that allows the shear at the top end of the column to be calculated by summing the moments due to the nodal concentrations of M/EI about the bottom end of the column (italics will be used when referring to shear or moment in the conjugate column. 10) The tenth column is the shear at each node. noting that these equate to rotation and deflection. not a variable with length. The modulus of elasticity. Thus. are left as common factors and pulled out. and 1/12. Note that the shear at the top of the column is the sum of 41 .1 as appropriate. h. These values are then summed in the tenth column to provide a starting point for the shear calculation at each node. respectively. 8) The eighth column is the nodal concentrations of the distributed M/EI. If the distance between the nodes. the common factor for this column becomes ahP/12EIa. is assumed to be constant. Equation (a) in that figure is used to calculate the nodal concentration at the top and bottom nodes.

The Euler factor is calculated by equating the assumed and derived deflections. the sum of the squares of the values in this column will be driven toward zero to determine the approximated buckled shape. to the moment in the previous node. h. 11) The eleventh column is the deflection in the original column. or moment. Setting the deflection at the top of the column to zero and systematically calculating the moments by adding the shear times the distance to the next node. 12) The twelfth column is the normalized deflection that can then be used as the assumed deflection in the next iteration. the boundary conditions of the column are used as a starting point. For the analyses performed for this research a value of 10-10 was used to indicate a reasonable degree of convergence. the common factor for the column becomes ah2P/12EIa. obtained by the solution’s convergence to an acceptable error. the deflection. Ultimately. By retaining h as a common factor. These values differ slightly for the individual elements as they bound the exact buckling load. 13) The thirteenth column is the percent difference of the assumed deflection from the derived deflection. At this point. 14) The fourteenth column is the Euler factor for each point along the beam. at both ends is zero. The common factor for this column remains ahP/12EIa. including their factors: 42 . This column is calculated by dividing each value of the eleventh column by the absolute maximum value in that column.the values in the ninth column divided by –1. Because this is a pinned-pinned column. the deflections are easily obtained. which equates to the moment in the conjugate column.

which contains the percent difference between the assumed and scaled deflections. of the buckling load for a prismatic column with pinned-pinned end conditions. is used as the assumed deflection. a number of final steps were followed. P*.6) To facilitate a rapid solution within the spreadsheet. First. This value is an indicator of the degree to which the assumed and derived deflections match. 3.  π 2 EI a Pcr = (P *)  L2      (Eq.4) 15) Equation 3. P*.3) (Eq. Thus. that multiplies the Euler buckling load for a pinned-pinned column. 3. 3.5) where y P* =  o y  d  12 N 2  2  π  (Eq. 3.aPh 2 yo a = y d 12 EI a Thus. Pcr becomes some multiple. as the normalized derived deflection. By the nature of the solution. a cell was created which calculates the sum of the squares of the thirteenth column. ya.4 can be manipulated to give a factor. yn. substituting h = L/N and solving for P yields Pcr: y Pcr =  o y  d  EI 12 N 2 2a  L  (Eq. A Visual Basic program was written to achieve the necessary number of iterations by copying the normalized derived deflections (column 12) into the assumed deflection column (column 5) and then repeating the remaining calculations until a sufficient degree 43 . the buckled shape becomes more exact with each iteration and the sum of the squares of the thirteenth column is driven to some chosen small error value (for the research presented here it was 10-10).

of accuracy (based on the sum of the squares of the thirteenth column) was achieved.Value ‘reads in new sumerror value’ Loop ‘closes loop’ Range("F6"). SkipBlanks:= _ False.Copy Range("F6"). Transpose:=False ‘pastes the values of the normalized derived deflections into the assumed deflections’ sumerror = Range("N57").Select ‘selects the first cell in the column of assumed deflections’ Selection.Select ‘puts focus on cell F6’ Application.0000000001) ‘performs calculations within loop until the sumerror is less than 1x10-10’ Range("M6:M56"). Operation:=xlNone. This program is as follows: Sub ss_iterate() sumerror = Range("N57").Select ‘selects the normalized derived deflections’ Selection.CutCopyMode = False ‘removes copy selection box’ End Sub 44 .PasteSpecial Paste:=xlValues.Value ‘gives the variable sumerror the value of the sum of the squares of the percent difference between the normalized derived deflections and the assumed deflections’ Do Until (sumerror < 0.

45 .

The second cell should contain the formula d = da + x(db . the dimension d is used to represent the diameter at any point x along the column length. they are presented here as one case.4. This formula should be dragged down N-1 cells until a cell results in the number 1. and are fixed. the cell below should contain a formula adding 1/N to the previous cell. where da and db are the column diameters at the top and bottom of the column. As 46 . The first cell in this column is equal to da.3. 2) The second column provides a representative dimension on which the calculation of the moment of inertia may be based. 1) The first spreadsheet column is set up as the ratio of the distance from the top of the column to the column length.2 A fixed-free (pinned-guided) column The deflected shape and buckling load are the same for a fixed-free and a guidedpinned column.4. in the case of a linearly tapering round column. Thus. located at the end of this section. the column diameter at the top of the column. the first column represents the distance from the top of the column as a fraction of the total length. Thus. 3) The third column is defined to be the moment of inertia. where N is the number of equal-length elements (h = element length = L/N) approximating the column. Thus. I. Table 3. Thus. This distance will henceforth be referred to as x. With the first cell containing a zero. respectively. contains a numerical example for a round fixed-free column with 10 approximating elements and end diameter ratio of 2. at any location x along the column length.3. for the linearly tapering round column.da). I = πd4/64. L. The first six iterations of this example are included in Appendix A.

a. However. It should be noted that the assumed deflection should resemble the exact deflection to such an extent that the solution will converge on the critical buckling load and shape. Ia and Ib refer to the moments of inertia at the top and bottom of the column. The factor a is retained and will be used later in the final calculation of the buckling load. If formulae are used initially to characterize the assumed deflected shape. By scaling the moment of inertia. It is given a common factor. In this case. an initial deflected shape varying linearly from 0 at the fixed end to 1 at the free end will converge to the anticipated solution. The user may begin the Newmark numerical procedure with whatever deflected shape is desired and use any method to generate the assumed deflections. the assumed shape may be required to be more exact for more complex end conditions or cross section variation. the computations required of Excel are more precise and the equations on the screen are easier to examine. 47 . denoted yo. convergence may not occur or convergence to a high mode buckled shape may occur. they will be overwritten as the iterations progress and a final solution is found. For the fixed-free case. which is often a very large number. 4) The fourth column creates a ratio of I to Ia. to account for scaling and units. If the assumed shape is greatly different from the true solution shape.for the diameter. 5) The fifth column is provided for the assumed lateral deflection of the column. a linear variation from 0 at the fixed end to 1 at the free end is an appropriate starting shape. respectively.

and 1/12. To account for the compressive load. For the guided-pinned case. 7) The seventh column should contain computations of the curvature. 9) The ninth column is the shear at each node. this will become the applied load at the nodal points for the conjugate column. the column internal moment. which is a quantity that is distributed along the length of the column.6) The sixth column represents the moment.1 as appropriate. If the distance between the nodes. that occurs at each section of the column. M/EI. E. is assumed to be constant. the common factor for this column becomes aP/EIa. by column 3. M = (-P)(yo) and is simply –1 times the previous column. The modulus of elasticity. the rotation at the guided 48 . Equation (a) in that figure is used to calculate the nodal concentration at the top and bottom nodes. the ratio of section moment of inertia to end moment of inertia. the common factor for this column is aP. Thus. Thus. not a variable with length. the common factor for this column becomes ahP/12EIa. the section rotations for each element in the original beam can be calculated. are left as common factors and pulled out. 8) The eighth column is the nodal concentrations of the distributed M/EI. Thus. M. common to both equations. This column utilizes the equations given in Figure 3. By the procedure of the conjugate beam method. while Equation (b) is used to calculate the nodal concentration for each internal node. The calculation of this column simply divides column 6. h. which may be systematically calculated by subtracting the nodal concentration at that node from the shear in the previous node.

that can then be used as the assumed deflection in the next iteration. Setting the deflection at the top of the column to zero and systematically calculating the moments by adding the shear times the distance to the next node. the boundary conditions of the column are used as a starting point. or moment. including their factors: 49 . yn. 12) The twelfth column is the percent difference of the assumed deflection from the derived deflection. Ultimately. The Euler factor is calculated by equating the assumed and derived deflections. At this point. For the analyses performed for this research a value of 10-10 was used to indicate a reasonable degree of convergence. 13) The thirteenth column is the Euler factor for each point along the beam. to the moment in the previous node. h. the sum of the squares of the values in this column will be driven toward zero to determine the approximated buckled shape obtained by the solution’s convergence to an acceptable error. (yn-yo)/yn. at the pinned end is zero. which equates to the moment in the conjugate column. 10) The tenth column is the deflection in the original column. the common factor for the column becomes ah2P/12EIa. 11) The eleventh column is the normalized deflection. Because this is a guided-pinned column. By retaining h as a common factor. the deflection.end is set to zero and the section rotations are calculated from that starting point. The common factor for this column remains ahP/12EIa. These values differ slightly for the individual elements as they bound the exact buckling load. This column is calculated by dividing each value of the eleventh column by the absolute maximum value in that column. the deflections are easily obtained.

7) (Eq. P*. ya. 3. substituting h = L/N and solving for P yields Pcr: y Pcr =  o y  d  EI 12 N 2 2a  L  (Eq. yn. Thus. Pcr becomes some multiple. A Visual Basic program identical to that used for the pinned-pinned case was written to rapidly perform the iterations for the fixed-free case. 50 . the buckled shape becomes more exact with each iteration and the sum of the squares of the thirteenth column is driven to some chosen small error value (for the research presented here it was 10-10). which contains the percent difference between the assumed and scaled deflections. a number of final steps were followed.9) where y P* =  o y  d  48 N 2   π2  (Eq. 3. of the buckling load for a prismatic column with guided-pinned end conditions. 3. By the nature of the solution. 3.  π 2 EI a Pcr = (P *)  4 L2      (Eq.8) 14) Equation 3. is used as the assumed deflection.8 can be manipulated to give a factor. This value is an indicator of the degree to which the assumed and derived deflections match.10) To facilitate a rapid solution within the spreadsheet. P*. that multiplies the Euler buckling load for a guided-pinned column. First. as the normalized derived deflection.aPh 2 yo a = y d 12 EI a Thus. a cell was created which calculates the sum of the squares of the thirteenth column.

51 .

at any location x along the column length. Ia and Ib refer to the moments of inertia at the top and bottom of the column. As for the diameter. the cell below should contain a formula adding 1/N to the previous cell. This formula should be dragged down N-1 cells until a cell results in the number 1. The first cell in this column is equal to da. the dimension d is used to represent the diameter at any point x along the column length. The first six iterations of this example are included in Appendix A.3 A fixed-pinned column Table 3.4. located at the end of this section. for the linearly tapering round column. the first column represents the distance from the top of the column as a fraction of the total length. in the case of a linearly tapering round column.3. 3) The third column is defined to be the moment of inertia. respectively. and are fixed. L. Thus. With the first cell containing a zero.4. Thus.4. Thus. I. where da and db are the column diameters at the top and bottom of the column.da). This distance will henceforth be referred to as x. respectively. 2) The second column should provide a representative dimension on which the calculation of the moment of inertia may be based. contains a numerical example for a round fixed-pinned column with 10 approximating elements and end diameter ratio of 2. The second cell should contain the formula d = da + x(db . 1) The first spreadsheet column is set up as the ratio of the distance from the top of the column to the column length. I = πd4/64. where N is the number of equal-length elements (h = element length = L/N) approximating the column. the column diameter at the top of the column. 52 .

4) The fourth column should create a ratio of I to Ib. which is often a very large number. 6) The sixth column represents the moment. The user may begin the Newmark iterative procedure with whatever deflected shape is desired and use any method to generate the assumed deflections. they will be overwritten as the iterations progress and a final solution is found. the computations required of Excel are more precise and the equations on the screen are easier to examine. a thrust line concept is used. an initial deflected shape varying linearly from 0 at the ends to 1 at the middle will converge to the anticipated solution. It should be noted that the assumed deflection should resemble the exact deflection to such an extent that the solution will converge on the critical buckling load and shape. M. to account for scaling and units. In this case. For both indeterminate cases. If the assumed shape is greatly different from the true solution shape. the one-degree indeterminate cases have one 53 . a. The factor a is retained and will be used later in the final calculation of the buckling load. the assumed shape may be required to be more exact for more complex end conditions or cross section variation. convergence may not occur or convergence to a high mode buckled shape may occur. For the fixed-pinned case. It is given a common factor. 5) The fifth column is provided for the assumed lateral deflection of the column. However. By scaling the moment of inertia. denoted yo. a linear variation from 0 at the ends to 1 at the middle is an appropriate starting shape. If formulae are used initially to characterize the assumed deflected shape. that occurs at each section of the column. While the determinate columns may have no points of inflection of the deflected shape (and therefore the moment diagram).

M/EI. A correction is applied later to account for any difference. which is a quantity that is distributed along the length of the column. The first step in determining the true moment in the column is to estimate the position of this thrust line. the expression for calculating moment derived in the two previous cases still applies. representing the distance from the top of the column may be used as the initial position of the thrust line. Because the value of yt at the fixed end is arbitrary. Thus.point of inflection along their length. making the common factor for this column aP. Thrust line concept for a fixed-pinned column. any value for the unknown at the fixed end can be used. an existing column of data is used to provide the linear variation. P.4. 7) The seventh column should contain computations of the curvature. Thus. P deflected shape thrust line Figure 3. Column 1. where yt is the distance from the thrust line to the deflected shape.4). The compressive load. By the procedure of 54 . however now M = (-P)(yt). The thrust line is the path the load would take from either end of the column through the point of inflection (see Figure 3. is common to all terms and is retained. Because the thrust line is linear from the pinned end through the inflection point to some unknown point at the fixed end. the calculation within this column is x-yo.

For the fixed-pinned case. are left as common factors and pulled out. 8) The eighth column is the nodal concentrations of the distributed M/EI. Thus. 10) The tenth column is the deflection in the original column. the section rotations for each element in the original beam can be calculated. is assumed to be constant. the ratio of section moment of inertia to end moment of inertia. or moment. If the distance between the nodes. 9) The ninth column is the shear at each node. Equation (a) in that figure is used to calculate the nodal concentration at the fixed end. the column internal moment. common to both equations. Setting the deflection at the bottom of the column to zero and systematically calculating the moments by 55 . The common factor for this column remains ahP/12EIb. the rotation at the fixed end is set to zero and the section rotations are calculated from that starting point. while Equation (b) is used to calculate the nodal concentration for each internal node. this will become the applied load at the nodal points for the conjugate column. h. which may be systematically calculated by subtracting the nodal concentration at that node from the shear in the previous node. This column utilizes the equations given in Figure 3. not a variable with length.the conjugate beam method. The modulus of elasticity. Because this is a fixed-pinned column. and 1/12. the deflection. the common factor for this column becomes aP/EIb. Thus. The calculation of this column simply divides column 6.1 as appropriate. E. the common factor for this column becomes ahP/12EIb. by column 3. which equates to the moment in the conjugate column. at the fixed end is zero.

adding the shear times the distance to the next node. the deflections are easily obtained. Thus. the eleventh column varies linearly from some arbitrary value (10 is used in this case) at the fixed end to zero at the pinned end. maximum at the fixed end and zero at the pinned end. 11) The eleventh column begins a new series of columns required to account for the error in the initial estimation of the thrust line. This redundant moment will move through the same manipulations as the moments due to the assumed deflection would. the common factor for the column becomes ah2P/12EIb. so any additional moment required to correct this would produce a linear moment diagram.1 for the fixed end and Equation (b) from the same figure for the internal nodes. 12) The twelfth column is the redundant moment divided by EI. with the common factor aP/EIb. The common factor becomes aPh/12EIb. to the moment in the previous node. By retaining h as a common factor. This accounts for the effect the taper in the column has on the redundant moment. 14) The fourteenth column is the slope of each element in the original column due to the effect of the redundant moment and is calculated in the same way as the ninth column. h. The common factor is aPh/12EIb. 56 . 13) The thirteenth column is the nodal concentration of the redundant moment curvatures computed as before using Equation (a) from Figure 3. The error will be based on the moment in the conjugate column at the fixed end.

18) The eighteenth column is the adjusted deflection. Ultimately. The common factor is aPh2/12EIb. 16) The sixteenth column is the scaled deflection as a result of the redundant moment. the sum of the squares of the values in this column will be driven toward zero to determine the approximated buckled shape. The common factor is aPh2/12EIb. (yn-yo)/yn. This takes the derived deflections of the tenth column and adds the correction produced in the seventeenth column. The common factor is aPh2/12EIb. This column is calculated by dividing each value of the eighteenth column by the absolute maximum value in that column. The common factor is aPh2/12EIb. 57 . The scaling factor is the value of undesired deflection at the pinned end of the column produced in the tenth column. that can then be used as the assumed deflection in the next iteration. 20) The twentieth column is the percent difference of the assumed deflection from the derived deflection. For the analyses performed for this research a value of 10-10 was used to indicate a reasonable degree of convergence. yn.15) The fifteenth column is the deflection in the original column due to the effect of the redundant moment and is calculated in the same way as the tenth column. 19) The nineteenth column is the normalized deflection. The redundant deflections are normalized to allow for scaling based on the error produced in the first cell of the tenth column. 17) The seventeenth column is the correction to be applied to the deflections calculated in the tenth column. The common factor is aPh2/12EIb.

1997 EI b  Pcr = (P *)  L2   where y P* =  o y  d  12 N 2   20. The Euler factor is calculated by equating the assumed and derived deflections. P*.12) 22) Equation 3.11) Thus. the buckled shape becomes more exact with each iteration and the sum of the squares 58 .  20. yn. a cell was created which calculates the sum of the squares of the thirteenth column.14) To facilitate a rapid solution within the spreadsheet. that multiplies the Euler buckling load for a fixed-pinned column. is used as the assumed deflection. which contains the percent difference between the assumed and scaled deflections. Pcr becomes some multiple. of the buckling load for a prismatic column with fixed-pinned end conditions.21) The twenty-first column is the Euler factor for each point along the beam. By the nature of the solution. P*. substituting h = L/N and solving for P yields Pcr: y  EI Pcr =  o 12 N 2 2b y  L  d (Eq.19997  (Eq. This value is an indicator of the degree to which the assumed and derived deflections match.12 can be manipulated to give a factor. First. These values differ slightly for the individual elements as they bound the exact buckling load. 3. as the normalized derived deflection. Thus. a number of final steps were followed.13) (Eq. 3. 3. ya. 3. including their factors: yo a = y d aPh 2 12 EI b (Eq.

A Visual Basic program identical to that used for the pinned-pinned case was written to rapidly perform the iterations for the fixed-free case.of the thirteenth column is driven to some chosen small error value (for the research presented here it was 10-10). 59 .

60 .

61 .4 A fixed-guided column Table 3.5. I. for the linearly tapering round column. Thus. and are fixed values. The first six iterations of this example are included in Appendix A. respectively. 3) The third column is the moment of inertia. Thus. located at the end of this section. respectively. 2) The second column should provide a representative dimension on which the calculation of the moment of inertia may be based.4. With the first cell containing a zero. The second cell should contain the formula d = da + x(db . the column diameter at the top of the column. The first cell in this column is equal to da.da). contains a numerical example for a round fixed-guided column with 10 approximating elements and end diameter ratio of 2. I = πd4/64. where da and db are the column diameters at the top and bottom of the column. the cell below should contain a formula adding 1/N to the previous cell. the first column represents the distance from the top of the column as a fraction of the total length. where N is the number of equal-length elements (h = element length = L/N) approximating the column. at any location x along the column length. 1) The first spreadsheet column is set up as the ratio of the distance from the top of the column to the column length. This formula should be dragged down N-1 cells until a cell results in the number 1. Ia and Ib refer to the moments of inertia at the top and bottom of the column. the dimension d is used to represent the diameter at any point x along the column length.3.4. in the case of a linearly tapering round column. Thus. This distance will henceforth be referred to as x. L.

While the determinate columns may have no points of inflection of the deflected shape (and therefore the moment diagram). However. If formulae are used initially to characterize the assumed deflected shape. an initial deflected shape varying linearly from 0 at the ends to 1 at the middle will converge to the anticipated solution. In this case. M. the assumed shape may be required to be more exact for more complex end conditions or cross section variation. they will be overwritten as the iterations progress and a final solution is found. the computations required of Excel are more precise and the values on the screen are easier to examine. If the assumed shape is greatly different from the true solution shape. convergence may not occur or convergence to a high mode buckled shape may occur. that occurs at each section of the column.4) The fourth column should create a ratio of I to Ib. It should be noted that the assumed deflection should resemble the exact deflection to such an extent that the solution will converge on the critical buckling load and shape. a linear variation from 0 at the ends to 1 at the middle is an appropriate starting shape. denoted yo. 6) The sixth column represents the moment. For the fixed-guided case. which is often a very large number. For both indeterminate cases. a. It is given a common factor. 5) The fifth column is the assumed lateral deflection of the column. The user may begin the Newmark iterative procedure with whatever deflected shape is desired and use any method to generate the assumed deflections. The factor a is retained and will be used later in the final calculation of the buckling load. By scaling the moment of inertia. to account for scaling and units. the one-degree indeterminate cases have one 62 . a thrust line concept is used.

By the procedure of 63 . Thrust line concept for a fixed-guided column. making the common factor for this column aP. A correction is applied later to account for any difference between this assumption and the true position.5. it is simply a line parallel to the length of the column but offset some amount between the end deflections. M/EI. Because the thrust line must be parallel to the deflected shape at both the fixed and guided end.point of inflection along their length. where yt is the distance from the thrust line to the deflected shape. the thrust line is assumed to be positioned directly between the two at 0.5. The first step in determining the true moment in the column is to estimate the position of this thrust line. P deflected shape thrust line Figure 3. The compressive load. In this case. The thrust line is the path the load would take from either end of the column through the point of inflection (see Figure 3. 7) The seventh column should contain computations of the curvature. is common to all terms and is retained.5). The expression for calculating the moment derived for the fixed-pinned case applies here as well: M = (-P)(yt). P. Because the deflections at the column ends are 0 and 1 by the design of the solution. which is a quantity that is distributed along the length of the column. the calculation within this column is yt = x-yo.

and 1/12. This value may be systematically calculated by subtracting the nodal concentration at that node from the shear in the previous node. not a variable with length. The modulus of elasticity. For the fixed-guided case. so any additional moment required to 64 . Equation (a) in that figure is used to calculate the nodal concentration at the fixed and guided ends. 10) The tenth column begins a new series of columns required to account for the error in the initial estimation of the thrust line. are left as common factors and pulled out.1 as appropriate. If the distance between the nodes. The common factor for this column remains ahP/12EIb. 8) The eighth column is the nodal concentrations of the distributed M/EI. is assumed to be constant.the conjugate beam method. the common factor for this column becomes ahP/12EIb. which equates to the section rotation in the original column. The error will be based on the moment in the conjugate column at the guided end. Thus. h. by column 3. Thus. the section rotations for each element in the original beam can be calculated. the rotation at the fixed end is set to zero and the section rotations are calculated from that starting point. the column internal moment. the ratio of section moment of inertia to end moment of inertia. while Equation (b) is used to calculate the nodal concentration for each internal node. This column utilizes the equations given in Figure 3. E.2. 9) The ninth column is the shear at each node. the common factor for this column becomes aP/EIb. common to both equations. this will become the applied load at the nodal points for the conjugate column. The calculation of this column simply divides column 6.

This redundant moment will move through the same manipulations as the moments due to the assumed deflection would. This accounts for the effect the taper in the column has on the redundant moment. The scaling factor is the value of undesired rotation at the guided end of the column produced in the ninth column. The common factor becomes aPh/12EIb. with the common factor aP/EIb. The common factor is aPh/12EIb. the tenth column is constant (10 is used in this case) along the length of the column. The common factor is aPh/12EIb. 11) The eleventh column is the redundant moment divided by EI.1 for the ends and Equation (b) from the same figure for the internal nodes. 14) The fourteenth column is the scaled rotation as a result of the redundant moment. 12) The twelfth column is the nodal concentration of the redundant moment curvatures computed as before using Equation (a) from Figure 3.correct this would produce a uniform moment diagram. 15) The fifteenth column is the correction to be applied to the rotations calculated in the ninth column. 13) The thirteenth column is the slope of each element in the original column due to the effect of the redundant moment and is calculated in the same way as the ninth column. The redundant deflections are normalized to allow for scaling based on the error produced in the first cell of the ninth column. Thus. The common factor is aPh/12EIb. 65 .

16) The sixteenth column is the adjusted rotation. 19) The nineteenth column is the percent difference of the assumed deflection from the derived deflection. The Euler factor is calculated by equating the assumed and derived deflections. The next cell may be calculated by adding the rotation calculated for that particular section to the deflection from the previous cell. substituting h = L/N and solving for P yields Pcr: (Eq. the sum of the squares of the values in this column will be driven toward zero to determine the approximated buckled shape. yn.15) 66 . These values differ slightly for the individual elements as they bound the exact buckling load. This takes the derived rotations of the ninth column and adds the correction produced in the fifteenth column. 3. The common factor is aPh/12EIb. The common factor is aPh2/12EIb. The common factor is aPh2/12EIb. including their factors: aPh 2 yo a = y d 12 EI a Thus. 17) The seventeenth column is the derived deflection calculated from the boundary condition at the fixed end where deflection is zero. For the analyses performed for this research a value of 10-10 was used to indicate a reasonable degree of convergence. 20) The twenty-first column is the Euler factor for each point along the beam. 18) The eighteenth column is the normalized deflection. that can then be used as the assumed deflection in the next iteration. This column is calculated by dividing each value of the seventeenth column by the absolute maximum value in that column. (yn-yo)/yn. Ultimately.

First. a number of final steps were followed. which contains the percent difference between the assumed and scaled deflections. P*.18) To facilitate a rapid solution within the spreadsheet.17) (Eq. ya. of the buckling load for a prismatic column with fixed-guided end conditions. This value is an indicator of the degree to which the assumed and derived deflections match. that multiplies the Euler buckling load for a fixed-guided column. a cell was created which calculates the sum of the squares of the thirteenth column. as the normalized derived deflection. P*.16 can be manipulated to give a factor. 67 . 3. 3. the buckled shape becomes more exact with each iteration and the sum of the squares of the thirteenth column is driven to some chosen small error value (for the research presented here it was 10-10). A Visual Basic program identical to that used for the pinned-pinned case was written to rapidly perform the iterations for the fixed-free case. Pcr becomes some multiple. yn. 3. Thus. Pcr = P * where y P* =  o y  d  12 N 2  2  π  π 2 EI a L2 (Eq. By the nature of the solution.16) 21) Equation 3. is used as the assumed deflection.y  EI Pcr =  o 12 N 2 2a y  L  d (Eq.

68 .

but their more complex variation provides an example of the power of the Newmark numerical method to calculate the critical buckling load for all manner of nonprismatic columns.6) requires both manipulation of the characteristic dimension and the moment of inertia. Columns such as those shown in Figures 3. Architectural concerns often require structural engineers to push the limits of the usual requirements of safety and economy.6 are examples of potential columns that a designer might face. The rest of the spreadsheet remains intact.5 and 3.3. The cruciform column (Figure 3. The round column with parabolic variation of the radius (Figure 3.6. but moment of inertia calculations remain relatively simple. concerns will have an impact on the shape of a column member. Details of a round column with parabolic variation of the radius. The equations required to characterize the columns in these figures are given. These columns are still relatively easy to characterize.5) requires a more complex variation of the diameter to characterize. 69 . The characteristic dimension and moment of inertia data are the only numbers that require manipulation.5 Spreadsheet modification for more complex column geometry Architectural. da y d ( x ) = − 2( d m − d a ) x 2 + 2( d m − d a ) x + d a db = da x dm db Figure 3. as well as structural.

5) from x = L/2 to L db = da dm dm db db 1 I =   d (d a ) 3 + d a (d ) 3 − (d a ) 4  12  ( ) d Figure 3. Details of a cruciform column with linear variation from the ends to the middle.7.y da x da d = d a + 2(d m − d a ) x from x = 0 to L/2 d = d m − 2(d m − d a )( x − 0. 70 .

5 and discussed later.2.1.3. thus it is always greater than one.1 Buckling loads of pinned-pinned columns A plot of design curves according to variation of the moment of inertia as defined in Section 3. Design equations based on power curve trendlines applied to the design curves are presented in Table 4. The numerical results of the spreadsheet analyses for each column are presented in Appendix A.1. 2. The critical buckling load is listed as a multiple. The design equations are organized based on the variation of the moment of inertia and the ratio of end dimensions. or 4. Therefore. This concern is addressed in Section 4. The Newmark numerical method as presented in Section 3. of the Euler buckling load based on the moment of inertia of the large end for the given end conditions. Results The buckling loads of tapered columns are presented here in the same way for each column. the buckling load provided here will always begin at P* = 1 for the prismatic column and be reduced as the column becomes more tapered.4 was used with 50 approximating elements to produce the following results. 3.1 along with correlation values for the trendlines and error values between the trendline approximation and the data. such that the buckling load may be found for any slender column with pinned-pinned end conditions and linear taper of a section with moment of inertia that varies as the power of 1. The ratio of end dimensions is always given as the large dimension divided by the small dimension. 4. Plots of buckled shapes for all of the cases examined are included in Appendix A. P*.4. 71 . There is also a certain degree of error associated with the numerical data.3 is provided in Figure 4. A plot of buckled shapes for the case when n = 4 is presented in Figure 4.

3 normalized length 0.8 0.9 0.6 0. n=4.4 0.2. Buckling load factor versus the ratio of end dimensions for a pinned-pinned column with given taper geometry.9 1 db/da 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.7 0.6 P* 0.5 Figure 4. Normalized buckled shapes for the pinned-pinned column.2 0.7 0.4 0.1 0 0 2 4 db/da 6 8 10 da db Pcr = (P *) π 2 EI b L2 n=4 n=3 n=2 n=1 Figure 4. normalized deflection 0 0 0.5 1 1.1. 72 .1 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.1 0.

4426 1 −1.48% -0.39% -0.3 is provided in Figures 4.49% 0.5.48% -0.9999 0.1 −1.62% 1.3.7473 2.01% 0.3133 2 5 10 2 5 10 2 5 10 10 0.9995 0.02% 0.24% -0.67% -0.9938 b d  a d P* = 0.Table 4.8675 b d  a d P* = 0.62% 1.34% -0.9999 1.9010 b d  a d P* = 0.9997 1 4.9997 b d  a                                         −0.39% -0.9998 0. Minimum Maximum Correlation n Power fit db/da 2 % Error % Error (R ) 1 d P* = 0.0000 -0.74% 0.02% 0.83% 1.4426 1 −0.2101 5.1 −1. Plots of buckled shapes for all of the cases examined are included in Appendix A.9993 0.2104 5. Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation and enddimension ratio for a linearly tapering pinned-pinned column.1 −0.6844 b d  a d P* = 0.9010 b d  a d P* = 0.9938 b d  a d P* = 0.9987 0.52% -0. A plot of buckled shapes for the case when n = 4 is presented in Figure 4. Design equations based on power curve 73 .1 −0.9990 0.1.9233 1 −0.23% -0.9917 b d  a d P* = 0.50% 0.4.1 −1.41% 0.3 and 4.1 −0.7647 b d  a d P* = 0.2 Buckling loads of fixed-free (pinned-guided) columns A plot of design curves according to variation of the moment of inertia as defined in Section 3.5990 5.3133 2.9971 0.04% 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 2.9976 0.7644 b d  a d P* = 0.

trendlines applied to the design curves are presented in Tables 4. 2.3.2 and 4. or 4.9 0. The design equations are organized based on the variation of the moment of inertia and the ratio of end dimensions.3 along with correlation values for the trendlines and error values between the trendline approximation and the data.4 0. This concern is addressed in Section 4. 74 . 1 0.7 0.8 0. There is also a certain degree of error associated with the numerical data.5 0. such that the buckling load may be found for any slender column with fixed-free or guided-pinned end conditions and linear taper of a section with moment of inertia that varies as the power of 1. Buckling load factor versus the ratio of end dimensions for a fixed-free column with given taper geometry and large end fixed. 3.5 and discussed later.2 0.6 P* 0.1 0 0 2 4 db/da 6 8 10 db da Pcr = (P *) π 2 EI b 4 L2 n=4 n=3 n=2 n=1 Figure 4.3 0.

5786 1 −0.29% -0.1 −0. Minimum Maximum Correlation (R2) n Power fit db/da % Error % Error 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 d P* = 0.29% -0.54% 1.7222 5.7343 b d  a d P* = 0.31% -0.85% -2.71% 0.6529 5.9997 0.56% -0.40% -0.1133 5.9936 b d  a d P* = 0. Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation for a linearly tapering column with the large end fixed and the small end free.2627 2.9995 0.Table 4.9994 0.48% 2.0085 b d  a d P* = 1.9966 0.9992 0.9015 b d  a d P* = 0.1 −0.7854 2.49% 1.03% 0.14% 0.9998 0.1 −0.1818 2 5 10 2 5 10 2 5 10 2 5 10 0.7338 b d  a                                                 −0.2.8923 b d  a d P* = 0.06% 0.9278 b d  a d P* = 0.31% 0.9981 0.9959 0.1 −0.1 −0.17% -1.1 1 −1.70% 0.2751 1 −0.64% 1.2110 b d  a d P* = 1.7287 b d  a d P* = 1.9124 1 −0.1 75 .4969 −1.15% -0.9998 -0.1 −1.9953 b d  a d P* = 0.9951 b d  a d P* = 0.15% 0.9982 0.34% -0.3157 5.9984 0.55% -0.9994 0.33% -0.47% 0.4377 2.8321 b d  a d P* = 0.60% 0.

9 0.1 0. Normalized buckled shapes for the fixed-free column where (a) the small end is fixed and (b) the large end is fixed.5 0.3 normalized length 0.6 0.5 0. normalized deflection 0 0 0.6 0.1 0 0 2 4 da/db 6 8 10 db da Pcr = (P *) π 2 EI a 4 L2 n=4 n=3 n=2 n=1 Figure 4.3 normalized length 0.9 1 0 normalized deflection 0. n=4.4 0.8 0.2 0.5 0 0.7 0.4.7 0.8 0.2 0.5.1 0.9 1 da/db 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.5 0.5 1 1.5 1 1.6 P* 0. Buckling load factor versus the ratio of end dimensions for a fixed-free column with given taper geometry and small end fixed.5 db/da 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (b) (a) Figure 4.7 0.4 0.8 0. 76 .2 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.

8626 2.9994 0.05% -0.5637 2 5 10 2 5 10 2 5 10 2 5 10 0.1 −2.32% 0.36% -0.07% -0.0471 5.8193 b d  a d P* = 0.9773 5.0053 b d  a d P* = 1.1 −2.1 −1.28% -0.17% 0.0000 1.0693 2.12% 0.0000 1.9988 b d  a d P* = 0.28% -0.6616 1 −0.0974 1 −2.1897 5. Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation for a linearly tapering column with the large end free and the small end fixed.1 −2.36% 0.9953 b d  a d P* = 0.9238 b d  a d P* = 0.2661 2.08% 0.9996 0.0000 1.47% 0.9999 0.9254 b d  a d P* = 0.1 77 .1 −0.1283 b d  a                                                 −0.11% -0.0000 1.9955 b d  a d P* = 0.9997 0. Minimum Maximum Correlation (R2) n Power fit da/db % Error % Error 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 d P* = 0.9439 b d  a d P* = 1.09% 2.0000 1.1 1 −2.18% -0.9775 b d  a d P* = 0.1 −1.38% -0.3623 1 −1.Table 4.43% 0.8048 b d  a d P* = 0.0625 b d  a d P* = 1.9393 −2.9999 1.0000 1.45% 0.62% -0.21% -0.53% -0.59% 0.0000 -0.20% 0.3.61% 0.4775 5.16% 0.

3. such that the buckling load may be found for any slender column with fixed-pinned end conditions and linear taper of a section with moment of inertia that varies as the power of 1. There is also a certain degree of error associated with the numerical data.4 0. 2.8 0.8.6 0.5 and discussed later.5 0.7 0.9 0.3 Buckling loads of fixed-pinned columns A plot of design curves according to variation of the moment of inertia as defined in Section 3. The design equations are organized based on the variation of the moment of inertia and the ratio of end dimensions.3.6.2 0.6 and 4. 1 0. This concern is addressed in Section 4. Buckling load factor versus the ratio of end dimensions for a fixed-pinned column with given taper geometry and large end fixed.1 0 0 2 4 db/da 6 8 10 P* db da Pcr = (P *) (0. 78 .4 and 4. Plots of buckled shapes for all of the cases examined are included in Appendix A.4.3 is provided in Figures 4.3 0.7.699 L )2 π 2 EI b n=4 n=3 n=2 n=1 Figure 4. or 4. A plot of buckled shapes for the case when n = 4 is presented in Figure 4.5 along with correlation values for the trendlines and error values between the trendline approximation and the data. Design equations based on power curve trendlines applied to the design curves are presented in Tables 4.

9944 b d  a d P* = 0.40% 0.Table 4.7824 b d  a d P* = 0.56% -0.9980 0.2734 5.9999 1.1 −1.32% -0.1 −1.1 −0.50% 0.4544 1 −1.6697 5.9999 0.9382 1 −0.3415 2 5 10 2 5 10 2 5 10 10 0.21% -0.16% 0.9133 b d  a d P* = 0.9994 0.79% 0.52% 0. Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation for a linearly tapering column with the large end fixed and the small end pinned.1 79 .30% -0.4530 1 −0.91% 0.1 −1.8106 b d  a                                     −0.0000 1.9928 b d  a d P* = 0.9992 0.1 −0.09% 2.3539 2.63% 0.9997 0.50% 0.37% -0.9982 0. Minimum Maximum db/da n Power fit Correlation (R2) % Error % Error 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 d P* = 0.68% 1.2448 5.4.7947 2.41% -0.7287 b d  a d P* = 0.9218 b d  a d P* = 0.8901 b d  a d P* = 0.03% 0.31% -0.19% -0.9996 0.9990 b d  a     5.0000 -0.43% -0.9946 b d  a d P* = 0.1 −0.9994 d P* = 0.

8.5 0.1 0 normalized deflection 0.2 0.9 0. 80 .699 L )2 π 2 EI a Figure 4.5 1 1.9 1 da/db 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.4 0.5 db/da 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (a) (b) Figure 4.2 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.2 0. normalized deflection 0 0 0.6 0.7 0.7.8 0.8 0.7 0.1 0 0 2 4 da/db 6 8 10 da db Pcr = (P *) n=4 n=3 n=2 n=1 (0.5 1 1.5 0. n=4.6 P* 0.3 0.6 0.5 0 0.1 0.3 normalized length 0. Buckling load factor versus the ratio of end dimensions for a fixed-pinned column with given taper geometry and small end fixed.3 normalized length 0.9 1 0. Normalized buckled shapes for the fixed-free column where (a) the small end is fixed and (b) the large end is fixed.5 0.7 0.1 0.

64% 0.9132 a d  b d P* = 0. Minimum Maximum da/db n Power fit Correlation (R2) % Error % Error 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 d P* = 0.9999 0.3413 2.7820 a d  b d P* = 0.9928 a d  b d P* = 0.18% -0.9946 a d  b d P* = 0.52% 0.9996 0.4 Buckling loads of fixed-guided columns A plot of design curves according to variation of the moment of inertia as defined in Section 3.9218 a d  b d P* = 0.9988 a d  b                                         −0.23% -0.2739 5.9991 0.1 −1.9.7947 2.7288 a d  b d P* = 0.3539 2 5 10 2 5 10 2 5 10 10 0.Table 4.9991 1 4.1 −0.3 is provided in Figure 4.9999 1.39% 0.1 −1.03% 0. Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation for a linearly tapering column with the large end pinned and the small end fixed.08% 2.9997 0.9993 0.1 −0.64% 0.9944 a d  b d P* = 0.10.6 along with correlation values for the 81 .3.1 −0.1 −1.2443 5.6698 5.8901 a d  b d P* = 0.32% -0.9382 1 −0.48% 0.37% -0.68% 0.9987 0.4544 1 −0.44% -0.8113 a d  b d P* = 0.30% -0.56% -0.68% 0.41% -0.5.0000 -0.9994 0.9999 0.50% 0. Design equations based on power curve trendlines applied to the design curves are presented in Table 4. A plot of buckled shapes for the case when n = 4 is presented in Figure 4.89% 0. Plots of buckled shapes for all of the cases examined are included in Appendix A.30% -0.4530 1 −1.

9.7 0.3 0. 2. 82 .5 and discussed later. There is also a certain degree of error associated with the numerical data. The design equations are organized based on the variation of the moment of inertia and the ratio of end dimensions.9 0.8 0.5 0.6 0. This concern is addressed in Section 4. 1 0. Buckling load factor versus the ratio of end dimensions for a fixed-guided column with given taper geometry. or 4.2 0.4 0. such that the buckling load may be found for any slender column with fixed-guided end conditions and linear taper of a section that varies as the power of 1. 3.1 0 0 2 4 db/da 6 8 10 P* da db 4π 2 EI b Pcr = (P *) L2 n=4 n=3 n=2 n=1 Figure 4.trendlines and error values between the trendline approximation and the data.

9914 b d  a d P* = 0.44% 0.3791 2 5 10 2 5 10 2 5 10 2 5 10 0.9995 0.1 −1.9273 b d  a d P* = 0.61% -0.9468 1 −0.5271 5.1 −1.1 −0.8116 b d  a d P* = 0.9956 b d  a d P* = 0.9989 0.75% 0.68% -0.8179 b d  a d P* = 0.53% 1.9989 0.9998 0.43% 0.9878 b d  a d P* = 0.91% -0.7611 2.53% -0.9992 0.22% 1.2960 5.95% 1.8602 b d  a d P* = 0.Table 4.9988 0. Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation for a linearly tapering column with large end fixed and small end guided.9102 1 −1.9370 5.04% 2.1 −1.49% 0.4725 1 −0.96% -0.50% -0.74% -0.21% -0.1755 2.1 −0.77% -0.6456 b d  a                                                 −0.32% 1.04% 1.39% 1.27% -0.9995 0.4246 1 −1.9995 0.6887 2.9998 -0.6. Minimum Maximum Correlation (R2) n Power fit da/db % Error % Error 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 d P* = 0.8397 b d  a d P* = 0.9853 b d  a d P* = 0.86% 1.9985 0.47% 1.9990 0.1 −0.5563 b d  a d P* = 0.5769 5.1 −0.9996 0.1 83 .37% -0.6392 b d  a d P* = 0.

Table 4.7 0.000000 49. Normalized buckled shapes for the pinned-pinned column.1 0.000% 0.354% 0.000% 1. for a pinned-pinned column based on models employing 10 approximating elements and 50 approximating elements were compared to the exact values of the buckling load for a given taper ratio.083% 84 .000000 9. 4.7.8 0.000% 0.009422 70.5 1 1.043882 118.000000 36.582708 36.853376 100.588415 25.411% 0.000043 16.001160 37. of shape factor n=4.7.297% 0.normalized deflection 0 0 0.672686 81. Comparison to the exact solution of P* for linearly tapered pinned-pinned columns.708148 64.019% 10.000000 4. P*.003630 52.000002 9.009% 0.000000 Percent Difference N=10 N=50 -0.000000 64.001540 4.481% 0.999959 1.5 Rate of convergence and accuracy Values of the buckling load factor.010% 7. n=4.000000 100.4 0.004% 0.054% 18.000000 25.000000 4.161502 16.000000 16.021405 92.123% 0.002% 2.000281 25.083025 exact 1.038% 0. db/da 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Pinned-Pinned Column N=10 N=50 0.6 0.026722 9. The results of this comparison are presented in Table 4.396% 0.10.000000 81.033% 14.5 0.9 1 db/da 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.853% 0. obtained using the Newmark numerical method using 10 and 50 elements.490270 49.2 0.3 normalized length 0.5 Figure 4.005% 4.

The method developed in this thesis was used to examine a number of uncommon column shapes. 4.12. The resulting curves displaying the factor of the Euler buckling load for the given end conditions versus the ratio of middle dimension to end dimension are provided in Figure 4. and often times these will have very unusual crosssectional variation.6 and the resulting curves displaying the factor of the Euler buckling load for the given end conditions versus the ratio of middle diameter to end diameter are provided in Figure 4.11.2 Tapered crucifix cross section A tapered crucifix cross section with linear variation of its radius from the end to the middle was analyzed to determine its buckling load factor for four end conditions. The details of the column are provided in Section 3.6. Their analysis is equally as important as any other column. 4.1 Parabolic variation of the radius A round column with parabolic variation of the radius was analyzed to determine its buckling load factor for four end conditions.6 Columns with uncommon cross section variations Columns with uncommon variation of the cross section can be found in many already constructed structures. The details of the column are provided in Section 3.6.4. Structures that require a certain architectural style may utilize non-prismatic columns. but perhaps more difficult. more to show that it can be done than to draw conclusions for design purposes.6. 85 .

P*.2 0 1 2 3 dm/da 4 5 Pinned-Pinned Fixed-Free Fixed-Pinned Fixed-Guided Figure 4. Euler buckling load factor. as a function of middle-to-end diameter ratio for a round column with parabolic variation of the cross section.6 0. P*.2 0 1 2 3 dm /da 4 5 Pinned-Pinned Fixed-Free Fixed-Pinned Fixed-Guided Figure 4. Euler buckling load factor.6 0. as a function of middle-to-end dimension ratio for a crucifix column varying linearly from its ends to its middle.11.4 0.2 1 0. 86 .1.2 1 0.4 0.12. 1.8 P* 0.8 P* 0.

5. it is worthy of note here. And. The analysis of any cross section variation is possible by substituting into the characteristic dimension or moment of inertia columns. Inserting equations and dragging them facilitates a fast development of the initial model. Discussion 5.1 Excel as applied to the Newmark numerical method Newmark’s numerical method is easily adapted to the Excel spreadsheet environment. Thus. Visual Basic allows repetitive tasks to be coded into a loop. once a model for simple end conditions is formulated. The need for both FORTRAN code and spreadsheet analysis of the data for presentation and plotting is reduced to a single tool. checking for errors is far easier than debugging long lines of code. Members with highly non-uniform cross section may be rapidly integrated into the tool and modified as part of a subroutine to optimize for small variations in column geometry. While this will be discussed further in Section 5. Adding more approximating elements becomes an easy task once a spreadsheet is set up for any number of elements. With the results appearing immediately. that model may be copied and modified to analyze other end conditions. many more column 87 .4. Visualization of results is nearly immediate with the plotting and printing capabilities of Excel. Producing large tables of values for all end conditions and taper ratios would be extremely tedious if not for the options available through Visual Basic scripting. Visual Basic is integrated into the software to provide the capabilities of traditional computer programming languages when necessary. This provides an easy way to produce precisely formatted tables of data.

conditions can be analyzed easily with this tool. The method could conceivably be converted into Visual Basic code entirely. However, the visual nature of the spreadsheet environment makes it more applicable to the problem and producing results directly as they will be presented is another timesaving feature of the tool as it now exists.

5.2 Tapered column data and trends

The data generated for the four column cases shows the basic trend of decreased buckling load as the column becomes more tapered. This trend is attenuated, as one might expect, when the power of the variation of the moment of inertia is lower (i.e. n=1) and is more pronounced when that variation is greater (i.e. n=4). This apparent decrease in buckling load is due entirely to the choice of notation for the buckling load. The critical buckling load is given as a fraction of the Euler buckling load for a prismatic column with moment of inertia defined to be the moment of inertia for the large end of the tapered column. Thus, the buckling load for a tapered column given this notation will always be less than the prismatic. The variation of the buckling load with increased end dimension ratio follows the general trend of a negative power. While this is not exact for all cases, it is still accurate enough to be used for design purposes, and it is exact for those cases already noted by Gere and Carter (1962). The compact nature of the equations produced in this format also makes them potentially useful in design manuals where tabulated coefficients for design equations are common.

88

5.2.1

Linearly tapered pinned-pinned columns

The power curve fits that were applied to the entirety of the curve were not exact enough to give accurate results for cases n = 1, n = 2, and n = 3 (see Appendix A.2). By applying separate trendlines to three sections of the curve (db/da from 1 to 2, 2 to 5 and 5 to 10), the relative error for each equation was drastically reduced. Only one equation in Table 4.1 produces error greater than 1.0%, while without the separate equations the error was as great as 12.5% and greater than 1.0% for all. Also, by using three separate trendlines for each curve, the correlation values went from 0.9793 at the lowest to 0.9971. The trendline applied to the n = 4 case was virtually exact. This case was solved exactly by Gere and Carter (1962) (see Table 2.4). The error in the equation presented in Table 4.1 is likely a result of the approximations inherent in the numerical method. However, the results of the numerical method here validate those produced by Gere and Carter, and vice versa.
5.2.2 Linearly tapered fixed-free columns

For the large-end-fixed condition, the power curve fits that were applied to the entirety of the curve were not exact enough to give accurate results for any of the taper cases examined: n = 1, n = 2, n = 3, n = 4 (see Appendix A.2). By applying separate trendlines to three sections of each curve (db/da from 1 to 2, 2 to 5 and 5 to 10), the relative error versus using a single equation was drastically reduced. Only four equations in Table 4.2 produce error greater than 1.0%, while without the separate equations the error was as great as 20.4% and greater than 2.0% for all. Also, by using three separate trendlines for each curve, the correlation values went from 0.9708 at the lowest to 0.9959.

89

For the small-end-fixed condition (Table 4.3), three separate curve fits were also required per curve to reduce error. outstanding. In this case, however, the error reduction was

The greatest error achieved in these results is 0.62%, so the power

trendlines match the experimental data very closely. This can also be seen by examining the correlation of the trendlines. The R2 value went from 0.9960 at its lowest to 0.9994, using three fits per curve. It should be noted that the error produced by trendlines applied to whole curves (see Appendix A.2) produced no more than 7.3% error. Thus, for the small-end-fixed condition these equations might be used instead, given their more compact presentation.
5.2.3 Linearly tapered fixed-pinned columns

For the large-end-fixed condition, the power curve fits that were applied to the entirety of the curve were not exact enough to give accurate results for cases n = 1, n = 2, and n = 3 (see Appendix A.2). By applying separate trendlines to three sections of the curve (db/da from 1 to 2, 2 to 5 and 5 to 10), the relative error for each equation was drastically reduced. Only one equation in Table 4.4 produces error greater than 1.0%, while without the separate equations the error was as great as 10.4% and greater than 1.0% for all. Also, by using three separate trendlines for each curve, the correlation values went from 0.9858 at the lowest to 0.9980. For the small-end-fixed condition (Table 4.5), three separate curve fits were also required per curve to reduce error. As was the case for the fixed-free column fixed at the small end, the error reduction here was outstanding. The greatest error achieved in these results is 0.89%. The trendlines provided a very accurate representation of the data. This

90

can also be seen by examining the correlation of the trendlines. The R2 value went from 0.9904 at its lowest to 0.9987, using three fits per curve. It should be noted that the error produced by trendlines applied to whole curves (see Appendix A.2), for both small- and large-end-fixed cases, produced no more than 10.4% error. Thus, for the fixed-pinned condition these equations might be used instead, given their more compact presentation. As was the case for the pinned-pinned column case, the trendline applied to the n=4 case was virtually exact. This case was also solved exactly by Gere and Carter (1962) (see Table 2.4). The error in the equation is likely a result of the approximations inherent in the numerical method. However, the results of the numerical method here validate those produced by Carter and Gere, and vice versa.

5.2.4

Linearly tapered fixed-guided columns

The power curve fits that were applied to the entirety of the curve were not exact enough to give accurate results for any of the taper cases examined: n = 1, n = 2, n = 3, n = 4 (see Appendix A). By applying separate trendlines to three sections of each curve (db/da from 1 to 2, 2 to 5 and 5 to 10), the relative error versus using a single equation was drastically reduced. Eight equations in Table 4.6 produce error greater than 1.0%, while without the separate equations the error was as great as 17.8% and greater than 2.0% for all. Also, by using three separate trendlines for each curve, the correlation values went from 0.9918 at the lowest to 0.9985.

91

5.3 Rate of Convergence and Accuracy

Convergence of the Newmark numerical method is almost guaranteed for the column end conditions examined here. Newmark (1943) warns of certain cases where the method may converge very slowly or even diverge and “tricks” may be required to provide a correct solution. However, Newmark also mentions that these cases are

uncommon. During the course of the research performed here phenomena of divergence or slow convergence were not observed. In fact, for most of the models examined iterations on the order of 6 were required to achieve values for the sum of squared errors between the assumed and derived deflections of less than 10-10. This is consistent with findings provided by Kaewkulchai (1997) and can be observed in Appendix A.4, where six iterations of the numerical examples provided in Section 3.4 are included. If the problem of slow convergence of the solutions were encountered, the only variable affected would be the run time of the Visual Basic script. The number of iterations is not limited in Excel except if the programmer provides for a limit in the script. Again, this problem was not encountered during the research performed. The number of discrete elements used in the member approximation can be expanded easily to increase the accuracy of the final result. Note that more elements are required for accuracy in cases of extreme taper or very complex variation in the cross section. It has been noted by the author, as well as by Newmark (1949), that error increases as taper increases for a fixed number of discrete elements. By increasing the number of discrete elements the cross section variation is more accurately represented and the error due to the approximation of the column is reduced. This reduction in error for an increased number of elements, as well as the increased error for increased degree

92

Newmark (1949) recognized the exceptional degree of accuracy available by this method but noted mistakes in the many hand calculations required for such accuracy as a deterrent to the use of many approximating elements.4 Columns with uncommon cross section variations The analysis performed on the parabolic and crucifix columns adequately demonstrates the power and versatility of the Newmark method within a spreadsheet environment. the behavior of the crucifix column is more similar that for the 93 . This concern is moot when a spreadsheet or programming language is used to perform the many calculations. is demonstrated in Table 4.7 for the case of a linearly tapered pinned-pinned column. Table 4.1%. an extremely high degree of accuracy may be obtained by using the Newmark numerical method within a spreadsheet environment. While the geometry of the columns analyzed was described by mathematical expressions. It appears that for the various end conditions. It can be seen in this table that using only 10 approximating elements results in more than 18% error for the unlikely case of 10 for the ratio of end diameters.of taper. it is apparent that more freeform shapes could be analyzed as well. 5. Using 50 approximating elements cuts this error to less than 0. Thus.7 also provides an analysis of the error of the Newmark method when compared to the exact solution for the pinned-pinned column. the results obtained from the uncommon column analyses are nonetheless interesting. While they were not the primary goal of this exercise.

94 . The behavior varies slightly more for the parabolic column indicating some optimal level of economy might be found in one end condition versus another.parabolic column.

the research presented in this thesis provides a means to apply Newmark’s numerical method in a spreadsheet environment where its power and versatility may be put to practical use. This would allow for greater application to real world design problems where the fixed-fixed case is found routinely. linear taper.5 Conclusions The literature concerned with tapered column buckling is plentiful. The results presented in this thesis fill the void that exists by providing relatively simple design equations for calculating the critical buckling loads of columns with various traditional cross sections. but seldom allows for complete fixity. 95 . and determinate and one-degree indeterminate end conditions. 5.6 Recommendations for future research Possibilities for future research include: Development of design equations for more and different column configurations and geometries allowing for wider use of columns with variable cross section in the world of design.Conclusions and Recommendations 5. Exact closed form solutions for a few cases of tapered columns are available. Adaptation of the Newmark method to the two-degree indeterminate (fixedfixed) case and restrained-restrained cases when complete fixity is not possible. Additionally. The critical loads and buckled shapes for columns of virtually any cross section variation may be analyzed easily and quickly with this method.

- Optimal column geometry might be examined by including the volume of material within the column in the expression for buckling load (e. - An inspection of absolute buckling values (i. a factor of common variables) rather than factors of the Euler load might be presented to determine optimal end conditions.g. this cannot be determined.e. As the results are presented now. an examination of Pcr/volume versus end-dimension ratio). with a discussion of required set-up time and effort.- Comparison of the Newmark numerical method to finite element models. 96 .

24. with Repetitive Geometry and Substructuring.W. Palo Alto. and F. Design of Columns of Varying Cross-Section.Z.R. Banerjee. et al. A. Dinnik. and F.” Volume 3: User’s Manual POLEDA-80. 54. Forest Products Laboratory. 353-361. Dinnik. 23. No.W. pp. M.E.N.E. 3rd Ed. 1971.N. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). M. prepared by M. Handbook of Structural Stability. Chen. ASME. “Reliability-Based Design of Transmission Line Structures: Final Report.165.” Report EL- 97 . p. Washington. Chicago. Exact Bernoulli-Euler Static Stiffness Matrix for a Range of Tapered Beam-Columns. 1984. Column Research Committee of Japan. Design of Columns of Varying Cross-Sections.References American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA). Williams. Criswell. AISC. National Design Specification for Wood Construction. 2(3):4-7. 3. Heritage Memorial Series on Wood. Buckling Loads of Columns with Varying Cross Sections. Volume 1: Methods. Vanderbilt et al. No. 115. Y. 1989. EPRI. Transactions. Vol. Wood: Engineering Design Concepts. 4. Vol. Vol. D. 1997. 1615-1628. 51. 1986. CA. AF&PA. M. 1932. 1929. Ltd. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). Williams. “Probability-Based Design of Wood Transmission Structures.C.D. New Design Equations For Tapered Columns. 1987. Vol. Design of Columns. 662-667. Vol. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). Materials Education Council. Pennsylvania State University. 1981. ASCE. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering. Corona Publishing Company. pp. A. J. American Forest & Paper Association. Transactions.105. Criswell. and American Society of Civil Engineers (AF&PA/ASCE). pp.S. Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Standard for Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for Engineered Wood Construction. p. BUNVIS-RG: Exact Frame Buckling and Vibration Program. Vol. 2001. Load and Resistance Factor Design for Structural Steel Buildings. ASME. 1991. Wood Design Focus.. Journal of Spacecraft. Tokyo. Anderson. IV. Clark C. New York. 1995. 1987.

E. Fogel. Kim. 88. Engineering Mechanics. Galambos. Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences. Ontario. 112. and Carter. pp. Ketter.O.C. Vol. 115. Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures 5th Ed. Research Project 1352-2. Solid Mechanics Division Special Publications. 123.D. 1962. prepared by M. PrenticeHall. pp. Waterloo. Colorado State University. N. Vanderbilt. Vol. and J. No. Master’s Thesis. J. Ermopoulos. Journal of the Structural Division. Liew.B. Inc. J. No. ASCE.. 1962. T. Vol. CA. Vol. Vol.. 1998. Gere. Critical Buckling Loads for Tapered Columns. 1987. Tapered Box Columns Under Biaxial Loading. A. Godden. Ku. B.V. 98 . W. Vol. p. 113. 1954. 1346-1354. 1956. McGraw-Hill Book Co. p. No. Inc. EPRI. 1989. N. 7. 67. 1997. 4. Journal of the Structural Division. No. ?. J. Buckling of Tapered Bars Under Stepped Axial Loads. pp. Journal of the Structural Division. New York. 1985. ASCE. W.M. No. pp. Discussion of Critical Buckling Loads for Tapered Columns (Gere and Carter. Design-Oriented Equations for Buckling of Slender Tapered Columns. D. 1979.C. pp. pp. Hartog. 1697-1709.M.D. 3. C.4793. Lind. pp..G. 1962). 88. Department of Civil Engineering. Journal of Structural Engineering. 155-165. and R. Numerical Analysis of Beam and Column Structures. 575-589. No.C. 235. Buckling Loads for Columns of Variable Cross Section. Analysis of Prismatic and Linearly Tapered Reinforced Concrete Columns. 1997. 5. Gatewood. 1965. 1962. Palo Alto. Vol. 6.R et al. Kaewkulchai. New York. No. Journal of Structural Engineering. Head. NJ. Aristizabal-Ochoa. Vol. Elastic Strength of Tapered Columns.C. 1. 240-243. Journal of Engineering Mechanics.C. Mechanical Vibrations 4th Ed.Y. 7.E. 1. 287-288. John Wiley & Sons. Newmark’s Numerical Method.L. M. 21. M. ASCE. 1975. Elastic and Inelastic Buckling Analysis of Thin-Walled Tapered Members. Conference Proceedings. Journal of Structural Engineering. University of Waterloo. et al. Englewood Cliffs. Criswell and M. p. 727-737. Griengsak. Lind. The Buckling of a Nonuniform Column.

Newmark. pp. pp. Steam Turbines. Inc.W.M. Computers & Structures. et al. Smith.E. (Second revised edition/translation. 1949. Numerical Methods of Analysis of Bars. New York. McGraw-Hill Book Co. 1. and G. John Wiley & Sons. Gere. ) Timoshenko. pp. F.H. Buckling of an N-Section Column. Vol. Inc. 19. A. 115.E. L. Vol. 1961. 2202. 549-560.. No. No. 99 . Paper No. 5. 497-518.. No. by Lowenstein. Vol. pp. ASCE Transactions. Vol. New York. October. pp. and J. N. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division. Theory of Elastic Stability 2nd Ed. 1906. New York.Nakahira. 1992. 1161-1234.M. and G. Rao. 1952. Van Nostrand Company. Vol. 1088-1100. No. Computers and Structures. Seide. 185-186. Stodola. 5. Journal of Structural Mechanics. Plates and Elastic Bodies.C. Grinter). pp. The Macmillan Company. E. No. 138-168. 43. Aston. Numerical Procedure for Computing Deflections. Paul. W. 66-67. and Buckling Loads. D. Numerical Methods of Analysis in Engineering (Edited by L. 1973. Aeronautical Sciences. pp. Journal of the Sechler. 1951. Vol. Exact or Lower Bound Tapered Column Buckling Loads. Vol.9991004. No. 1989. and F. ASCE. EM5. Analytic Solutions for Tapered Column Buckling. pp. S. N. 108. 677-681.. Vibration of Beams with Varying Cross-sections by the Stodola-Newmark Method. N. 5. Moments. 1943.P. 1988.M. Journal of Structural Engineering. 1975. 1. Accuracy of Some Numerical Methods for Column Buckling. New York. Williams. pp. An Algorithm for Computing Critical Buckling Loads of Elastic Structures. 4. Newmark. Elasticity in Engineering. Williams. G. 28. Ram.W. G. 101. Wittrick. W.

APPENDIX A.1 GENERATED VALUES OF P* FOR 4 END CONDITIONS AND 4 TAPER GEOMETRIES .

087398738 0.053549241 0.48612317 0.881987207 0.766535898 0.072382095 0.461586205 0.22675762 0.379496203 0.367574401 0.468598925 0.503053677 0.827484122 0.13717465 0.9 2 2.118906584 0.221765025 0.127551498 0.551656158 0.39479035 0.040001897 0.015630238 0.1.762788479 0.250000228 0.7 1.609268386 0.852975648 0.775002353 0.3 1.3 2.686642255 0.047292784 4 0.4 2.5243782 0.437900534 0.6 1.400298637 0.145591586 0.012352376 0.867426018 0.109648642 0.548235748 0.444444582 0.606462558 0.999999935 0.1.211992411 0.206611847 0.111111674 0.582362763 0.2 2.27068083 0.212638269 0.678664805 0.7 2.286101154 0.263288766 0.5 2.67670148 0.999999935 0.836347906 0.697350604 0.061617159 0.1 1.576739522 0.Table A.55031849 0.303196109 0. for a pinned-pinned column with given taper geometry.506649998 0.909988604 0.452588227 0.1 2.708923999 0.915346126 0.147929396 0.390625154 0.526674891 0.505389465 0.999999935 0.8 1.346020931 0.173297531 3 0.643117565 0. db/da 1 1.78469638 0.5 1.277008517 0.411880619 0.826446248 0.256709953 0.389532053 0.232396998 0.678451752 0.49289747 0.591716075 0.9 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 n 1 0.6 2.47283927 2 0.425853387 0.160000367 0.244001072 0.481882453 0.183678838 0.640152544 0.233902497 0.804885743 0.650710706 0. P*.954168578 0.306941324 0.322238356 0.020412108 0.510204202 0.7214776 0.658802114 0.723117888 0.2 1.062501169 0.343560918 0.189036221 0.635976097 0.196456978 0.027780605 0.4 1.8 2.999999935 0.667445195 0.750101428 0.424376311 0.735148523 0.010008309 101 .694444512 0.308642163 0.173611446 0. Critical buckling load factor.

247909104 0.72978764 0.727225518 0.306654818 0.8 1.9 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 n 1 0.7 1.559405348 0.945544465 0.814578908 0.69596488 0.039367159 0.51715555 0.471211341 0.762566833 0. db/da 1 1.754825711 0.173711194 0.366350417 0.555265459 0.367150235 0.048437931 0. for a fixed-free column with given taper geometry and large end fixed.904713184 0.887843693 0.2 1.767839711 0.256905304 0.549067901 0.610070352 0.637098136 0.859284846 0.999999828 0.1.9 2 2.841679582 0.785816715 0.656710238 0.598051307 0.802590015 0.446671054 0.302679279 0.999999828 0.324746671 0.162935001 4 1.107113549 0.825825771 0.652378362 0.557627492 0.64248631 2 0.999999828 0.75759915 0.6 2.892097212 0.612462349 0.416897133 0.77942729 0.687358154 0.509166061 0.412366347 0.479839026 0.274867886 0.666473512 0.356565256 3 0.781301608 0.92378312 0.835967558 0.079282456 0.941786894 0.773448265 0.032623799 102 .85085211 0.485213411 0.662965782 0.203885692 0.061041757 0.235930284 0.8 2.582239789 0.400305511 0.576471448 0.679056822 0.807946349 0.892759874 0.6 1.5 1.425362625 0.380036375 0.378609605 0.648895202 0.531041357 0.290086254 0.3 1.7 2.816519896 0.390388808 0.60758278 0.800018347 0.417023741 0. P*.623044545 0.000000117 0.91341002 0.439408898 0.396128156 0.4 1.2 2.847070008 0.970651855 0.344565096 0.707527263 0.872798649 0.720058274 0.1527479 0.566742466 0.187007225 0.1 2.444922752 0.3 2. Critical buckling load factor.729885144 0.260851422 0.685324048 0.646558468 0.226118812 0.792662591 0.389081639 0.Table A.5 2.489312455 0.1 1.4 2.2.669061081 0.586881795 0.454639196 0.782845349 0.

290235959 0.055472065 0.818089513 0.627559677 0.159721442 0.388706334 0.794608644 0.492800851 0.727966713 0.759250157 0.875132731 0.186778028 0.116021596 0.001626358 na 103 .1 1.505469849 0.01756737 0.046548929 0.315850428 0.281974034 0.239727822 0.159724743 0.447088936 0.005441618 0.565141824 0.7 1.7 2.65236011 0.6 1.681226292 0. da/db 1 1.4 2.999999862 0.515875824 0.060023074 0.2 2.024093054 0.341982438 0.002311746 0.700066415 0.091670965 0.137648071 0.000000103 0.317153346 0.097176193 0.523604563 0.69455671 0.229562327 0.008472569 4 0.5 2.268923261 2 0.297706997 0.4 1.Table A.999999838 0.064088457 0.12511776 0.010507349 0.375104941 0.051591197 0.174613942 0.191548433 0.275870793 0.372496646 0.999999828 0. P*.262366535 0.053077077 3 1.10787672 0.146809105 0.291151005 0.9 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 n 1 0.935710506 0.575751604 0.080776078 0.595728453 0.422140001 0.538814 0.571349012 0.211047484 0.5 1.1 2.881437638 0.384917262 0.3 2.426420937 0.475682444 0.260055714 0. Critical buckling load factor.080970666 0.068940671 0.1.8 2.135318493 0.3.6 2.495683465 0.071872863 0.00934412 0.612977624 0.342869698 0.551506187 0.328111076 0.042142849 0.104342706 0.416042156 0.018073249 0.262762191 0. for a fixed-free column with given taper geometry and small end fixed.035034159 0.119461533 0.250757759 0.482614108 0.15981516 0.526965783 0.775555894 0.23365268 0.323496385 0.3 1.12126621 0.579837068 0.013367512 0.306038903 0.834941014 0.631777461 0.057388746 0.675007644 0.8 1.764410441 0.597383195 0.003441222 0.100555469 0.9 2 2.2 1.220307291 0.364476464 0.

039985781 0.05730854 0.649529946 0.295045306 0.173534608 0.509977505 0.545332928 0.29954826 0.219407063 0.340257014 0.999555037 0.2 2.1 1.632892513 0.835388203 0.3 2.745238046 0.602607217 0.010012416 104 .801855384 0.677391182 0.91446529 0.909409775 0.020406831 0.668441816 0.266758997 0.484903893 0.249853044 0.01562846 0.715426418 0.459233651 0.444247097 0. Critical buckling load factor.156661859 3 0.447009349 2 0.276885701 0.228168068 0.9 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 n 1 0.364473059 0.380335579 0.012353644 0.308505052 0.082759262 0.866914492 0.826079371 0.159929598 0.999555265 0.043323315 4 0.773530276 0.430122273 0.762040028 0.4 2.640954828 0.8 2.118854188 0.607870947 0.111062778 0.721068209 0.880657767 0.1.49937311 0.676011458 0.239862492 0.99955545 0. db/da 1 1.572307498 0.369989617 0.781054759 0.825053581 0.521160999 0.207613047 0.188952513 0.067900763 0.4 1.167395777 0.56780258 0.7 1.690164956 0.423226612 0.530720269 0.500999836 0.729685393 0.461653918 0.390451587 0.445215162 0.625295968 0.7 2.6 2.2 1.249889409 0.180619334 0.5 1.226657132 0.46956986 0. for a fixed-pinned column with given taper geometry and large end fixed.702298279 0.282308407 0.21745618 0.104898914 0.504529934 0.147864014 0.318752874 0.197376281 0. P*.062474311 0.049413359 0.206520317 0.Table A.345867195 0.4.3 1.5 2.636892731 0.252673312 0.479630017 0.953608587 0.6 1.8 1.391914244 0.39142892 0.137114074 0.127495228 0.67891188 0.694136062 0.9 2 2.416214336 0.027770901 0.140859219 0.457211727 0.658671663 0.99955656 0.762281123 0.403355441 0.851119302 0.549922895 0.1 2.591453192 0.

8 1.499374956 0.80159929 0.167392771 0.391431836 0.240572244 0.069291628 0.2 1.728946025 0.197381049 0.7 1.6 1.714539676 0.721068385 0.866916651 0. da/db 1 1.012361022 na 105 .677540126 0.180621001 0.9 2 2.050821286 0.909408871 0.137121019 0.521162628 0.1 1.8 2.688960966 0.044719012 4 0.30007572 0.380338715 0.062486333 0.218245204 0.5 1.9 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 n 1 0.3 2.602608167 0.058716737 0.369992967 0. P*.824883748 0.208438803 0.550036527 0.141961421 0.253340449 0.458395177 0.57230868 0.835387722 0.999556119 0.027786124 0.219413211 0.27688891 0.880608557 0.188957626 0.228918439 0.04000023 0.1 2.78069688 0.622838522 0.147870509 0.496531318 0.111071035 0.914447883 0.509978811 0.545334337 0.345869706 0.282884346 0.647628496 0. for a fixed-pinned column with given taper geometry and small end fixed.99955656 0.34068246 0.084105906 0.591454048 0.159935637 0.4 1.295050462 0.744636913 0.501160844 0.173540186 0.3 1.433067283 2 0.127502618 0.694136433 0.5 2.445217643 0.67601191 0.638870255 0.226661301 0.461656189 0.7 2.106158591 0.6 2.444248837 0.403358132 0.20652496 0.999556115 0.459445613 0.630622458 0.953605557 0.364845519 0.156652255 3 0.118862015 0.47526117 0.430124828 0.524482971 0.82607917 0.677429603 0.762054579 0.392232981 0.656950462 0.4 2.319230097 0.Table A.5.607942716 0.267381521 0.416217109 0.308508023 0.1.444607084 0.999556319 0.636893439 0.701256289 0. Critical buckling load factor.015640118 0.56343287 0.020421136 0.423491549 0.249859228 0.390453758 0.2498931 0.2 2.666897403 0.851018552 0.773530147 0.761807672 0.479632077 0.

138425758 0. for a fixed-guided column with given taper geometry.645173582 0.5 2.Table A.206926129 0.000000204 0.774084587 0.293721325 0.606982635 0.2 1.547331227 0.455311165 0.1.242453181 0.518130352 0.159607433 0.223816193 0.222993276 0.720272356 0.877547243 0.736603725 0.328299378 0.5 1. P*.310068669 0.428845085 0.541989191 0.678595717 0.999999981 0.371808613 0.626276114 0.4 1.253522697 0.795776762 0.502911233 0.290975078 0.864882404 0. db/da 1 1.103742028 0.411911958 2 0.178829359 0.459661333 0.999999599 0.180121768 0.167054585 0.423696136 0.617651318 0.265272365 0.232313036 0.348743116 0.370435645 0.191869916 0.769951517 0.7 1.598755462 0.443580474 0.207020801 0.759506612 0.754460463 0.321036223 0.041836078 0.089253292 0.055954098 0.635431895 0.080585104 0.243098922 0.513452132 0.462595921 0.56868441 0.477418093 0.609509443 0.356550351 0.298455753 0.278988785 0.156504194 0.47728227 0.227267145 0.705266212 0.4 2.691420047 0.170763582 3 0.3 2.912462119 0.6 1.022555428 0.7 2.67540859 0.999998693 0.506585079 0.632887169 0.9 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 n 1 0.6 2.6.8 1.130639251 0.380448592 0.147008206 0.2 2.450351303 0.3 1.125155868 0.391202469 0.666676762 0.819911816 0.832516803 0.1 1.071080644 0.265650257 0.427992 0.550386611 0.823990032 0.41529203 0.026868831 0.192035294 0.717135448 0.398985963 0.692821712 0.032912761 0.907780767 0.655564256 0.065065513 4 1.846964726 0.255675519 0.402783539 0.019346606 106 .437870018 0.078860286 0.952785763 0.671961849 0.592304916 0.9 2 2.496677305 0.398008218 0.1 2.8 2. Critical buckling load factor.

2 POWER TRENDLINES FOR 4 END CONDITIONS WITH END-DIMENSION RATIOS FROM 1 TO 10 .APPENDIX A.

22% 0.2995 0.0000 Table A.9966 108 . Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation for a linearly tapering column with the large end fixed and the small end free.21% 12.2.59% 10.4200 -2.98% -4.43% -3.80% 5.9957 −1.9989 −1.9341 b d  a d P* = 0.7264 -2.8978 b d  a d P* = 0.39% 6.1735 0.5330 0.9997 1.04% 2 3 4 0.9930 −1.2996 0. Minimum Maximum n Power fit Correlation (R2) % Error % Error 1 2 3 4 d P* = 0.1.2.05% -3.9997 b d  a                 −0.9862 −0.9020 b d  a d P* = 1.2.51% 9.22% 9.9793 −0.Table A.21% -2.9078 b d  a d P* = 0. Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation for a linearly tapering column with both ends pinned.7633 0.9079 b d  a d P* = 0.97% 0.9708 −0.98% -0.46% -20.01% 9.8749 b d  a d P* = 0.2039 b d  a                 −0. Minimum Maximum n Power fit Correlation (R2) % Error % Error 1 d P* = 0.

26% 6.0000 109 .42% 7. Minimum Maximum n Power fit Correlation (R2) % Error % Error 1 2 3 4 d P* = 0.47% -2.08% 1.9177 b d  a d P* = 0.0000 Table A.3.9990 b d  a                 −0.69% -3.0515 a d  b                 −0.9994 −1.2.8954 b d  a d P* = 0.0000 −2.9271 b d  a d P* = 0.3431 0.2.9994 1.9958 −1.22% -0.9792 a d  b d P* = 1.Table A.9274 a d  b d P* = 0. Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation for a linearly tapering column with the large end fixed and the small end pinned.7766 -2.31% -0.37% -2.9307 a d  b d P* = 0.2559 -2.03% 8.4.25% 0.09% 0.93% 2.66% -5.9400 1.19% 10. Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation for a linearly tapering column with the large end free and the small end fixed. Minimum Maximum n Power fit Correlation (R2) % Error % Error 1 2 3 4 d P* = 0.9960 −1.9993 −2.15% 7.9858 −0.3275 0.32% 0.5511 0.0663 1.

95% 13. Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation for a linearly tapering column with the large end pinned and the small end fixed.9918 −0.9988 b d  a                 −0.8220 b d  a d P* = 0.2.9991 1.7766 -2.5.8954 b d  a d P* = 0.9904 −0.24% 10.47% -2.9958 −1.20% 0.9176 b d  a d P* = 0.1389 0.3272 0.9272 b d  a d P* = 0.3433 0.30% -3.6. Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation for a linearly tapering column with large end fixed and small end guided.71% -0.8623 b d  a d P* = 0.42% 8.9908 −1.08% 0. Minimum Maximum n Power fit Correlation (R2) % Error % Error 1 2 3 4 d P* = 0.9305 b d  a d P* = 0.83% 0.2.0000 Table A.81% -6.26% -4.80% 14.9935 −1.9983 110 .6705 0.26% -4.9991 −1.3669 0.Table A.03% 7. Minimum Maximum n Power fit Correlation (R2) % Error % Error 1 2 3 4 d P* = 0.7317 -2.38% 6.77% 17.8517 b d  a                 −0.

3 BUCKLED SHAPES FOR LINEARLY TAPERED COLUMNS WITH 4 END CONDITIONS AND 4 TAPER GEOMETRIES .APPENDIX A.

8 0.5 1 1.5 db/da 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 n=2 normalized deflection 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.5 1 1.2 0.4 0.6 0.5 0 0.3. Plots of deflected shapes for linearly tapering simply supported columns with given end dimension ratios.1 0 normalized deflection 0.5 db/da 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 n=4 Figure A.9 1 0 1 2 normalized length 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.2 0.7 0.5 1 1. .9 1 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.2 0.5 0.9 1 n=1 normalized deflection 0 0 0.4 0.1 db/da 0.3 normalized length 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.1.normalized deflection 0 0 0.7 0.1 0.8 0.9 1 n=3 db/da 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.5 0.3 normalized length 0.3 0.1 0.3 normalized length 0.7 0.

3 normalized length 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.7 0.8 0.5 1 1.4 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.5 1 1.6 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.5 1 1.5 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.5 1 1.1 0.9 1 n=3 db/da 1 2 normalized length 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.5 db/da 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 n=4 Figure A.5 0 0. .7 0.4 0.3 normalized length 0.3 0.5 0 0.2.5 db/da 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 n=2 normalized deflection 0.8 0.7 0.9 1 0 db/da 1 2 normalized length 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.2 0.9 1 n=1 normalized deflection 0 0 0.8 0. Plots of deflected shapes for linearly tapering clamped-free columns with given end dimension ratios.3.normalized deflection 0 0 0.3 0. having large end clamped and small end free.4 0.5 0.9 1 0 normalized deflection 0.5 0.

8 0. Plots of deflected shapes for linearly tapering clamped-simply supported columns with given end dimension ratios.5 0.8 0.9 1 n=1 normalized deflection 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.3.6 0.3 normalized length 0.5 db/da 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 n=4 Figure A.2 0.5 0 0.2 0.3 0.5 1 1.7 0.4 0.4 0. .6 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.normalized deflection 0 0 0.5 0 0.9 1 0 normalized deflection 0.9 1 n=3 db/da 1 2 normalized length 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.3 normalized length 0.5 db/da 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 n=2 normalized deflection 0.7 0.5 1 1.4 0.5 1 1.3.5 0.6 0. having large end clamped and small end simply supported.5 0.5 1 1.9 1 0 db/da 1 2 normalized length 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.

normalized deflection 0 0 0.5 0 0.3 normalized length 0.5 0. Plots of deflected shapes for linearly tapering clamped-guided columns with given end dimension ratios.8 0.8 0.5 db/da 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 n=4 Figure A.1 0.4.3.3 0.5 0.1 0 normalized deflection 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.5 db/da 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 n=2 normalized deflection 0.5 1 1.1 0.9 1 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.5 1 1.7 0. .8 0.4 0.5 1 1.6 0.6 0.7 0.2 0.6 0.1 db/da 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.9 1 n=3 db/da 1 2 normalized length 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.5 0 0.4 0.9 1 0 1 2 normalized length 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.5 1 1.3 normalized length 0.9 1 n=1 normalized deflection 0 0 0.

4 0.5 1 1.2 0.7 0.1 0.normalized deflection 0 0 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.9 1 0 normalized deflection 0.1 0.1 0.3 normalized length 0.9 1 0 da/db 1 2 normalized length 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0. .9 1 n=1 normalized deflection 0 0 0.5 0 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.5 1 1.8 0.9 1 n=3 da/db 1 2 normalized length 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.3 normalized length 0. Plots of deflected shapes for linearly tapering clamped-free columns with given end dimension ratios.8 0.5 0.5.3.5 1 1.1 0.5 da/db 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 n=4 Figure A.6 0.7 0.2 0.4 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.6 0. having small end clamped and large end free.6 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.5 da/db 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 n=2 normalized deflection 0.7 0.

having small end clamped and large end simply supported.9 1 n=3 0.9 1 n=1 normalized deflection 0 0 0.6 0.7 0.3 normalized length 0.5 0.5 1 1.8 0.5 0.3 normalized length 0.5 0 0.8 0.4 0.5 1 1.5 0.7 0.8 0.5 da/db 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 n=2 normalized deflection 0.5 0 0.3 normalized length 0.6 0.6 0.normalized deflection 0 0 0.7 0.6.1 0.4 0.2 0.5 1 1.8 0.4 0.1 0.4 0. .2 0.6 0.5 1 1.9 1 0 normalized deflection 0.1 0.3 0.3.2 0.9 1 0 da/db 1 2 normalized length 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.2 0.7 0.5 0. Plots of deflected shapes for linearly tapering clamped-simply supported columns with given end dimension ratios.1 0.5 da/db 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 da/db 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 n=4 Figure A.

APPENDIX A. 4 END CONDITIONS. AND 4 TAPER GEOMETRIES .4 FIRST SIX ITERATIONS OF EXAMPLE SPREADSHEETS FOR COLUMNS WITH 10 APPROXIMATING ELEMENTS.

352 0.38900219 22.07634E-15 -1.48911019 38.6957703% 0.3609085 -2. d b/d a=2.37225548 39.7271894 -6.699796854 0.972484133 -0.04602 -0.5 0.017813744 -0.0439 -0.03525525 4.44497699 4.05432727 22.89371449 4.32732 -0.09034976 38.453631413 0.1955 -0.9 19 6397.0936449 -0.981634 16 1.37013399 .09288457 4.50789991 22.431982528 0.001922646 14 Euler Factor EIa/L 2 7 8 9 10 11 12 Curvature Nodal Concentration moment aid Chord Slope Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection yd yn M(x)/EI(x) θ 2 2 aPh/12EIa aPh /12EIa aPh /12EIa aP/EIa aPh/12EIa 1 0 -0.01535 0 -0.b.01798 -6.9139934 13.01886 4.3749028 -5.6791336 -5.0369495% 8.11526481 14 Euler Factor EIa/L 2 15 P* P* 2 2 π EIa/L 3.29035E-16 Sum of squares: 15 P* P* π2EIa/L2 3.8682855 -1.074 0.39515156 41.379490254 0.4 14 1885.77145442 29.99735 10.1221269 -2.554 0.117128 13.03 0.8490671% 14.8450474% -4.63251323 42.464 0.2592 -0.39037347 53.953888049 0.989736927 -0.1317858% -1.063 1 -1 0.62943865 20.352 0.15878895 40.26031 -0.048876 5.699796854 0.28758 -0.87602 2.1643084 -6.05053291 4.5820432% -1.892136557 -3.960320915 -0.4 -0.99981392 19.934860092 -0.6 16 3216.743641297 0.4.7244956 -1.1929 -0.3053441 -0.2 Pinned 1 20 7853.275691715 -2.43144187 43.960320915 0. First iteration of a pinned-pinned column approximated by 10 elements.a.6743837% -1.8738521 1 0 0 0.658976677 0.08041433 4.018860873 -2.7065354 28.379490254 -0.841559394 0.08002 -0.984809 2.25919695 -2.03 16 0 0.8 0.483134427 -0.6187487 1.5 13.87617718 15.902658676 -3.048876 5.8275 5152.93508099 -1.1.2073075% 18.35231579 42.2 12 1017.644315893 14 Euler Factor EIa/L 2 15 P* P* 2 2 π EIa/L 2.558928145 -2.5 15 2485.12841 -0.483134427 0.842 1 -1 0.0234632 12.690143481 -0.6215313 -0.2 -0.28565018 -1.668314868 -0.5099E-14 0 0.4170745% -1.52780726 24.2 0.460808058 0.8 -0.25764896 -0.026013324 13 %difference 1 2.21957239 28.483134427 0.4 -0.8 18 5152.464 2.234353195 1.201135577 -3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia I-ratio Assumed Deflection Moments due to P Curvature Nodal Concentration moment aid Chord Slope Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection I/Ia yo(x) yd yn Variable: x d(x) I(x) M(x) M(x)/EI(x) θ 2 2 aPh/12EIa aPh /12EIa aPh /12EIa aPh/12EIa aP/EIa Factor: 1 1 1 1 a aP 1 Pinned 0 0.942864442 1 0.1 11 718.11170281 3.709364 39.40805476 37.21008 -0.245796783 -6.566474 0 8.6 0.c.6 16 3216.58310659 5.934860092 1 0.72661214 -1.6884069 1.12824226 42.594183397 15.460808058 0.117128 7853.29902608 45.49007221 -0.5380497 -4.26031 -0.4 0.1125762 -0.3 13 1401.074 0.2917452 -0.6889072 3.4 14 1885.421048761 -0.981634 16 0 0 Table A.7560804% 0.14695535 19.690143481 0.85331928 13.305625518 -1.70429338 39.191571155 -0.36848966 27. n=4.6884069 1017.68901089 6.41422692 19.6640155% 0.0410377% 33.87421155 28.245796783 6.2 12 1017.08379 -0.5 0.07634E-15 Sum of squares: 13 %difference 1 9.66723E-16 0 -0.877665181 -0.618501312 -1.234353195 -0.990877 6.856 0. n=4.2329619 -6.234632052 -0.668314868 0. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia I-ratio Assumed Deflection Moments due to P I/Ia yo(x) Variable: x d(x) I(x) M(x) Factor: 1 1 1 1 a aP Pinned 0 10 490.0543273 9.5310670% 1.3 0.1366 -0.2 -0.1464946 -6.017982765 -2.7106518% -4.2054461 -6. d b/d a=2.8738521 1 0 0 0.2 0.6 0.421048761 0.29118677 4.4.6 -0.048876 3216.8275 8.21825552 4.08705168 4.07184 -0.19753 -0.90030981 1 0.223724167 -0.31522 -0.8720573 -1.82948163 3.6 0.8275 8.352 10.120095574 -2.990877 4099.984809 2.02339976 4.3934834 -3.1.4.1746326 -0.35862 -0.9109987 -3.0000000% -1.5 0.70854733 6.745366929 -3.856 3.27207527 40.6319699% 0.82608896 25.699796854 -0.468224417 -0.68044791 1.71127574 35.501914578 -2.9618215 0 12.2608321% 17.29504282 5.53742532 48.99735 6397.690143481 0.96182147 3.2977243% 42.1 0.832141336 0.756933661 0.12207 -0.66723E-16 Sum of squares: 13 %difference 1 47.8830518% 0.6474005 -0.5279933 -5.668314868 0.1428251 -0.01203562 39.554 0.063 0.0631440% -4.66723E-16 0 -0.924793321 -3.11380913 -2.4244753 4.7E-17 -0.90223953 40.29802651 42.7513402 -1.33282 -0.6 -0.0910065 27. Third iteration of a pinned-pinned column approximated by 10 elements.20825 -0. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia I-ratio Assumed Deflection Moments due to P I/Ia yo(x) Variable: x d(x) I(x) M(x) Factor: 1 1 1 1 a aP Pinned 0 10 490.877665181 0.5960289 -0.0000000% -3.03 0.97715748 40.7 17 4099.856 0.234442999 -4.99735 10.59872E-14 0 0.842 0.Table A.553828332 -0.9661357 0 13.19744E-14 0 0.1940351% 3.842 5.989736927 0.7424116 -6.26848337 4.5941834 7.34926519 -1.17E-17 -0.028122 -4.74099 2485.1. d b/d a=2.841559394 0.1528128 -0.562881029 -0.23051735 5.379490254 0.3562743% 20.554 8.984809 1885.063 6.2324242 -2.0000000% -0.87016443 43.117128 13.6217569 -1.8205534 -1.536965502 -0.92586438 30.990877 6.95274563 3.84805523 10.4940439 -1.015346721 -1.57797069 4.934860092 0.460808058 -0.5078999 9.8 -0.81988428 5.4 0.9 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 490.8738521 718.60316747 4.3 13 1401.878556463 -0.75956354 2.7 0.1 11 718.92156482 3. Second iteration of a pinned-pinned column approximated by 10 elements.234353195 Pinned 1 20 7853.9 19 6397.0381 -0.87602 1401.1073931 -0.74099 3.49296025 30.2903433% -4.9066784 -5.64665115 22.8 0. n=4.13392 -0.6884069 1.06893603 4.90030981 -1 -0.5 15 2485.94137682 5.421048761 0.4030353 -1.28568611 4.74099 3.981634 1 1.8489396% 0.0191571 8.136602691 -1.632314 -3.94162096 4.960320915 0.2635669 -0.31315527 42.3375833 40.98924353 4.8702360% 7.87602 2.07634E-15 7 8 9 10 11 12 Curvature Nodal Concentration moment aid Chord Slope Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection yd yn M(x)/EI(x) θ aPh/12EIa aPh2/12EIa aPh2/12EIa aPh/12EIa aP/EIa 1 0 -0.90030981 1 0.743641297 0.7 17 4099.8 18 5152.966135746 1.1787281 -3.18969 -0.074 2.79844102 3.287581969 -3.877665181 0.36766775 Pinned Table A.4 0.566473986 -1.490073182 -2.841559394 -0.29274224 36.8 0.989736927 0.464 0.743641297 -0.0223724 13.245796783 -6.

1 11 718.6 16 3216.65810941 -1.00079033 4.048876 5.451132676 0.435443742 0.70742425 6.952307268 0.229233773 Pinned 1 20 7853.9238149 13.268019714 -1.50098293 39.959182756 -0.656550161 0.48114252 39.29035E-16 -5.122091322 -2.29741 -0.04321 -0.8275 8.1065270% -0.0028084 4.67443823 -1.2867198 -0.990877 6.03 0.926572294 -3.229233773 -9.49689292 39.60101053 1.937101581 -3.554 0.464 0.453631413 -0.92413026 13.98950141 3.71317125 30.0070457 -3.063 0.352 0.8732548 -1.71261747 39.4 14 1885.760234512 0.89683073 25.229493677 0 0 -0.9628722 0 13.2874635% -0.7 17 4099.29035E-16 Table A.952307268 -0.99861326 4.4460574% 0.03 16 0 0.532826385 -0.84217E-14 0 0.074 0.33012 -0.01769 -3.99854105 4.2067846% 0.07854 -0.50613536 39.464 0.99735 6397.954862479 -0.218885661 -0.2172013 -6.074 0.017609877 -3.952307268 0.0933531% -0.1870234 19.07861 -0.8738521 718.2864587 -0.99095E-07 14 Euler Factor EIa/L 2 7 8 9 10 11 12 Curvature Nodal Concentration moment aid Chord Slope Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection yd yn M(x)/EI(x) θ 2 2 aPh/12EIa aPh /12EIa aPh /12EIa aP/EIa aPh/12EIa 1 0 -0.35708E-16 9.0180737% -0.829157471 -0.5515532 Pinned Table A.1659948% -0.219130887 -0.82975609 0.89382722 5.d.3821367 28.0414239% -0.22640686 23.4.2557642 -6.12697 -0.85E-17 -0.54650711 39.1920518 9.0103553% -0.5 15 2485.1051978 -0.8 18 5152.00741018 39.017688427 -2.0128201% 0.0218886 13.8738521 1 0 0 0.2 0. n=4.8 18 5152.6884069 1.3 0.6131306 -0.990877 4099.29505 -0.9139256 25.35708E-16 7 8 9 10 11 12 Curvature Nodal Concentration moment aid Chord Slope Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection yd yn M(x)/EI(x) θ aPh/12EIa aPh2/12EIa aPh2/12EIa aPh/12EIa aP/EIa 1 0 -0.1081899% 0.451733959 0.451253252 0.341161869 -4.12881631 28.842 1 -1 0.52312591 39.275508869 -3.3E-17 -0.36702 -0.4 0.000125857 14 Euler Factor EIa/L 2 15 P* P* 2 2 π EIa/L 3.8275 5152.5 0.98139563 3.981634 16 -9.951912949 0.00259523 4.50744943 39.18803 -0.12661 -0.121999235 -2.29694 -0. Fifth iteration of a pinned-pinned column approximated by 10 elements.984809 2.0721960% -0.431982528 -0.945303654 -0.18528344 19.61215227 39. n=4.945424859 1 0.656550161 0.0398776% 0.2 12 1017.962630149 2.832141336 0.02477198 39.451253252 -0.2877548 -0.91815479 25.0267274% -0.984809 2.74099 3.942864442 0.5 0.761263651 0.8 0.063 0.842 5.981634 1 1.03 0.220097139 -0.01841728 4.4.Table A.117128 7853.87602 1401.955732768 -0.0284615% 4.54364146 39.434749641 -0.295049879 -3.756933661 0.2349891 9.9626301 0 13.537068762 -0.4341885% 0. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia I-ratio Assumed Deflection Moments due to P I/Ia yo(x) Variable: x d(x) I(x) M(x) Factor: 1 1 1 1 a aP Pinned 0 10 490. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia I-ratio Assumed Deflection Moments due to P Curvature Nodal Concentration moment aid Chord Slope Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection I/Ia yo(x) yd yn Variable: x d(x) I(x) M(x) M(x)/EI(x) θ 2 2 aPh/12EIa aPh /12EIa aPh /12EIa aPh/12EIa aP/EIa Factor: 1 1 1 1 a aP 1 Pinned 0 0. d b/d a=2.35708E-16 Sum of squares: 13 %difference 1 0. d b/d a=2.87602 2.00660856 4.2 12 1017.431982528 0.856 0.0219131 13.8738521 1 0 0 0.063 6.01761 0 -0.829157471 0.4.99649114 3.271506203 -1.7545033 -1.655784366 0.7610579 -0.105308 -0.70661359 6.1335747 -0.18842 -0.554 0.229493677 0 Sum of squares: 13 %difference 1 0.655937823 0.4200380% -0.4606224 -3.00228635 4. Sixth iteration of a pinned-pinned column approximated by 10 elements.94481818 1 0.760234512 -0.37454804 28.11678973 28.37480071 39.06857117 28.229168548 7.984809 1885.50676067 39.8275 8.0000000% -0.7610579 0.1133794% 7.72402729 30.117128 13.26031 -0.528716636 -0.6148275 -0.990877 6.9 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 490.435443742 -0.6601889 39.50813433 .298616231 -3.e.6926654 39.36663 -0.435443742 0.2177556 -6.945303654 0.87651939 5.1340099 -0.7 17 4099.951814386 0.53528299 39.33081 -0.70637464 6.0045299 4.5 13.352 0.00576167 4.19205178 23.117128 13.655937823 -0.953888049 0.6 16 3216.951912949 -0.94481818 1 0.7436636 -6.2628931 -6.89306E-16 Sum of squares: 15 P* P* π2EIa/L2 4.82975609 -0.4639819 -3.0220097 13.1 11 718.6695817 30.1357531 -0.352 10.267149469 -1.74099 2485.464 2.942864442 -0.01759 5.525988867 -0.0024216 -3.00713589 4.7186954 -5.294001359 -3.935004722 -3.526540046 -0.3 13 1401.756933661 -0.963760694 0 0 0.5 15 2485.44378659 39.1.832141336 -0.2614685 -6.7311314 -5.33098 -0.7559711 -1.842 1 -1 0.0000000% -0.49182937 39.59521099 1.229233773 -0.00187194 4.7437445 -6.9597E-06 13 %difference 1 0.7 0.7286422 -5.856 3.1.7610579 0.00081602 4.434749641 0.760234512 0.531761759 -0.6 0.434749641 0.99735 10.1594008% 0.00689891 4.26031 -0.296939855 -3.6884069 1.0000000% -0.4 14 1885. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia I-ratio Assumed Deflection Moments due to P I/Ia yo(x) Variable: x d(x) I(x) M(x) Factor: 1 1 1 1 a aP Pinned 0 10 490.074 2.297413935 -3.0270276% 0.951912949 0.02170784 4.7437414 -6.4204071 -2.72290723 14 Euler Factor EIa/L 2 15 P* P* 2 2 π EIa/L 3.66137679 -1.8729765 -1.856 0.3 13 1401.451253252 0.87602 2.94481818 -1 -0.1057433 -0.18811 -0.9839791 -3.829157471 0.04299 -0.5 0.54884603 39.6127047 -0.048876 5.336023987 -4.017589934 -3.02372941 4.26031 -0.451733959 0.2264069 9.89038287 5.953888049 -0.658976677 -0.01355015 4.29479979 39.96287224 -2. d b/d a=2. n=4.23498909 23.92237117 13.00287175 4.48647144 39.658976677 0.9 19 6397.656550161 -0.8731995 -1.48621786 39.00294154 4.121627429 -2.46401834 39.0234004% -0.6884069 1017.315532385 -4.435617456 0.554 8.0789 -0.981634 16 5.0013589 4.4352011 -2.74099 3.6364843% 0.655937823 0.f.438893 -2. Fourth iteration of a pinned-pinned column approximated by 10 elements.34401993 28.945303654 1 0.04303 -0.00301093 39.1 0.9 19 6397.3695858% -0.2149469 -6.39808E-14 0 0.23051735 Pinned 1 20 7853.50403148 39.1.23051735 -0.451733959 -0.12652 -0.36503 -0.59638151 1.229493677 0 0 -0.46473101 39.048876 3216.7486006 -1.82975609 0.00027609 4.0513563% 0.17813533 19.829007639 0.9637607 0 13.99735 10.453631413 0.4471892 -3.

4.1 0.669769 16.8416 5.377747183 0.6351996% 1.15031 5.6 0.842166178 -1.79236809 2.0736 2.8561 3.0736 2. d b/d a=2.7078704 13.187692 -0.9602727 16.196668821 0. d b/d a=2.829310331 -0.9 1 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 490.0018113 Table A.8738521 718.0545357% 44.887097563 0.38782678 0 0 9.7129558% 30.6511320% 0.27849564 70.33458506 -2.104123 -0.076138 -0.03570569 72.5536 8.832698946 18.27147026 69.4.0625 8 Nodal Concentration aPh/12EIa -1.46845 6.2 0.8561 3.8738521 718.756 6.3348895 16.198495 -0.975450469 -0.076294 -0.4 -0.083737456 -1.60422 6.714100687 0.092921 -0.83269895 9.3450440% 17.4974054 9.1079315% 0.4 0.13208757 1.0368369% 40.8213583% 0.1 0.33817143 3.940786964 -0.117128 7853.430055 16.84538255 68.26407507 7.0058732 -0.21713711 0.137845857 -1.71617441 72.678565751 -2.56916928 56.65886 6.1 -0.99735 6397.5344058 16.096451 -0.810826732 -0.74099 2485.60839994 49.2044016 16.3401285 5.580467208 -1.4725867 16.92525333 0.18033761 5.117128 7853.3528677% 0.21669717 -0.87602 1401.6 0.3521 10.88593382 26.4882541% 4.2419251% 35.5674 6.708235361 -0.6884069 1017.70114 6.71271 6.108937944 -0.777761688 0.6 -0.575871926 0.250957289 -1.984809 1885.5661477 .0321 16 5 6 Assumed Deflection Moments due to P yo(x) M(x) a aP 0 0 0.2425524% 8.918360232 -0.9578082 14.4976 13.914950452 -0.5526568 16.9346 6.6884069 1017.098104033 -1.1665665 13.23705068 42.06906 -0.74099 2485.18217 -0.981634 4 I-ratio I/Ia 1 1 1.3959686% 1.21669717 0.35939 8.777761688 0.33161651 -1.992242879 1 0 -0.779464073 -1.105038 -0.0193187% 0.7705066 24.2 0.183330337 -1.8416 5.220299507 0.82325 9.4641 2.5 0.3 0.708235361 0.201629 -0.13536 -0.890238929 0.196668821 0.74099 2485.7 0.981634 4 I-ratio I/Ia 1 1 1.984809 1885.068301 -0.89496 6.83403 6.4300803 16. n=4.2.95780822 30. n=4.06735192 64.838292 21.7 0. 1 2 3 Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia x d(x) I(x) 1 0 0.94876 Variable: Factor: Pinned (Free) (Fixed) Guided 15.72757 Variable: Factor: Pinned (Free) (Fixed) Guided 12.205386829 -1.536066911 0.8 0.2041772 12.5607127 15.70854 6.2 0.4 0.25917526 48.417426207 0.8 0.99622672 0 0.67609 6.1 0.8 0.048876 3216.2.411599068 0.99735 6397.2038469% 0. First iteration of a fixed-free column approximated by 10 elements.39126283 49.153632 -0.184359 -0.0814369% 0.72722342 59.387826783 9 10 11 Chord Slope Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection yd yn θ 2 2 aPh/12EIa aPh /12EIa aPh /12EIa 9.6884069 1017.399142081 -2.54551533 7.2.8275 5152.575871926 0.0126402 17.092202 -0.69032 6.411599068 0.942593037 0.31953128 0.0625 8 Nodal Concentration aPh/12EIa -0.536066911 -0.994461784 1 Sum of squares: 13 Euler Factor EIa/L 2 14 P* P* π2EIa/4L2 6.46575456 38.990877 4099.091553 -0.4321728 14.99735 6397.112641 -0.4976 13.42608771 1.71401 Variable: Factor: Pinned (Free) (Fixed) Guided 16.2964012% 0.30509421 49.5629474 16.174241 -0.4339259% 24.921352871 -1.05323487 7.62028 6. 1 2 3 Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia x d(x) I(x) 1 0 0.9 1 -1 7 Curvature M(x)/EI(x) aP/EIa 0 -0.575871926 -0.975450469 0.5536 8.1212145 46.74950689 62.9446574 9.8 0.08767832 65.87602 1401.25357 6.41939514 4.92525333 0.048876 3216.377747183 0.76709 7.7742237% 0.0000000% 1.810826732 0.887097563 -0.1 0.7740111% 1.810826732 0.8416 5.18170809 51.967898299 -0.233330369 -2.6411223 11.990877 4099.981634 4 I-ratio I/Ia 1 1 1.3 -0.967898299 0.990877 4099.0321 16 5 6 7 Assumed Deflection Moments due to P Curvature yo(x) M(x) M(x)/EI(x) aP/EIa a aP 0 0.1916068% 0.44385 5.9 -0.43767878 1.582323673 0.0000000% 0.862489378 0.80768878 40.7 0.8275 5152.30652 6.9 1 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 490.13796077 2.0625 8 Nodal Concentration aPh/12EIa -1.1530993% 47.887097563 0.2952581 16.6654 6.3 0.Table A.9 1 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 490.401064184 9 10 11 Chord Slope Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection yd yn θ 2 2 aPh/12EIa aPh /12EIa aPh /12EIa 15.117128 7853.5536 8.992242879 1 Sum of squares: 12 %difference 1 49.7352651 15.777761688 -0.994269667 -0.0736 2.4 0.098765 -0.21669717 0.940786964 0.8622909 17.3521 10.04016 8.994269667 1 Sum of squares: 13 Euler Factor EIa/L 2 14 P* P* 2 2 π EIa/4L 6. Second iteration of a fixed-free column approximated by 10 elements.3 0.66443173 5.0321 16 5 6 Assumed Deflection Moments due to P yo(x) M(x) a aP 0 0 0.669365605 0.984809 1885.8738521 718.143716827 -2. d b/d a=2.2792425 11.708235361 0.994269667 1 -1 7 Curvature M(x)/EI(x) aP/EIa 0 -0.377747183 -0.92525333 -0.b.8 -0.110781 -0.87602 1401. 1 2 3 Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia x d(x) I(x) 1 0 0.6971178 18.c.4641 2.3 0.076208 -0.975450469 0.669365605 -0.2 0.2360648 3.1104335 17.992242879 -1 0 -0.025865728 12 %difference 1 1.148007 -0.3466881% 9.0625 6.41877563 3.8561 3.4 0.a.5 0. n=4.80132284 33.160163 -0.940786964 0.0779419% 2.5076911 16.862489378 0.1585598 19.048876 3216.3521 10.40106418 0 0 15.446205 16.000701195 13 Euler Factor EIa/L 2 14 P* P* 2 2 π EIa/4L 4.525444252 -2.669365605 0.7 0.48612754 68.4641 2.16656652 28.58862003 69.1453838 Table A.6 0.81301 6.5 0.94617 5.245036591 -1.626407533 -1.6 0.862489378 -0.916085586 -0.8851497 43.9121297% 5.75770422 2.43687673 0 0.134327 -0.3826062 16.196668821 -0.7 -0.40117104 0 0 15.815432064 0.5 0.2244804% 6.536066911 0.4.0000000% 0.98968421 0 0. Third iteration of a fixed-free column approximated by 10 elements.967898299 0.354689317 -1.63962 6.2 -0.31714977 0.0625 6.3430204 15.91538902 6.0625 6.8275 5152.4976 13.5647721% 0.411599068 -0.401171043 9 10 11 Chord Slope Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection yd yn θ aPh/12EIa aPh2/12EIa aPh2/12EIa 15.976245493 0.5 -0.37726 6.137046292 12 %difference 1 9.083811 -0.118147501 -0.131605 -0.

633234584 -1.9 1 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 490.633383463 -1.7 0.87602 1401.6745 6.976384287 0.357406803 -1.715231511 0.3783839 12.52981596 52.4655838 16.67325 6.932455952 -1.47309739 72.67819 6.70598035 -2.4609698 16.990877 4099.8561 3.8 0.0403620% 0.976381119 -0.1054018 14.8738521 718.119135824 -0.67419 6. 1 2 3 Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia x d(x) I(x) 1 0 0.048876 3216.0119530% 0.976381119 0.112895 -0.715047046 0.981634 4 I-ratio I/Ia 1 1 1.201784 -0.31976079 0.3974038 12.4522511 16.3 0.4390756 1.81615463 -0.0321 16 5 6 7 Assumed Deflection Moments due to P Curvature yo(x) M(x) M(x)/EI(x) aP/EIa a aP 0 0.4011784 0 0 16.3 0.f.934491663 -1.583574723 -0.67354 6.417426207 0.357814344 -1.67463 Variable: Factor: Pinned (Free) (Fixed) Guided 16.2 0.119281451 -0.715047046 -0.112889 -0.220925443 -0.0037289% 0.67315 6.092997 -0.0088318% 0.583394321 -0.75362E-07 12 %difference 1 0.076311 -0.4689783 Table A.14329249 72.6 0. n=4.e.890797801 0.3521 10.0625 8 Nodal Concentration aPh/12EIa -1.976362197 -0.8561 3.67315 6.0052449% 0.994489661 1 Sum of squares: 12 %difference 1 0.8642649 0 0.4820378 16.0146194% 0.816294067 0.227301917 -1.99429E-05 12 %difference 1 0.976381119 0.918583385 -0.4641 2.0321 16 5 6 Assumed Deflection Moments due to P yo(x) M(x) a aP 0 0 0.0000000% 5.994489661 -1 0 -0.7969854 2.3 0.0004534% 0.150968 -0.87602 1401.942914251 0.203888 -0.6884069 1017.4664716 16.583574723 0.42863023 3.64465557 71.226804427 -1.890797801 0.0736 2.8 0.79688995 2.582323673 -0.5536 8.0234586 9.1219784 59.418418536 -0.0736 2.58490956 7.36432739 5.4663105 16.0286255% 0.0625 6.80449037 0 0.8275 5152.161073 -0.43036887 3.890719128 0.890238929 0.4666625 16. 1 2 3 Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia x d(x) I(x) 1 0 0.67361 6.90732694 68.0843643 14.9 1 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 490.4824998 Table A.74099 2485.59113182 7.4623311 16.2.942906883 -0.0083124% 0.150895 -0.6 0.8 0.43910463 1.1 0.0625 6.3521 10.67369 6.161216 -0.5 0.66785 6.976245493 0.0625 8 Nodal Concentration aPh/12EIa -1.715204841 0.08355218 72.43889661 1.8275 5152.46274825 42.70421689 71.4 0.076309 -0.984809 1885.5 0.984809 1885.048876 3216.942906883 0.31979955 0.4606854 16.6884069 1017.112857 -0.09301 -0.0736 2.67346 6.0028031% 0.0000000% 1. d b/d a=2.204326 -0.67366 6.117128 7853.186174 -0.990877 4099.815432064 0.8275 5152. n=4.67992 6.67138 6.66426 6.9 1 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 490.0014837% 0.4686592 16.99449417 1 Sum of squares: 13 Euler Factor EIa/L 2 14 P* P* 2 2 π EIa/4L 6.48683893 64.74099 2485.1835205% 0. n=4.5 0.119305083 -0.0068756% 0. d b/d a=2.418616268 0.8738521 718.942862936 0.221032928 -0.976362197 0.583394321 0.220299507 -0.67371 Variable: Factor: Pinned (Free) (Fixed) Guided 16.40117826 0 0 16.4358008 16.67404 6.583394321 0.3946677 12.99735 6397.43012453 3.918621155 -0.4679074 16.6746 6.990877 4099.4682108 16.135925 -0.67336 6.10895357 30.0019379% 0.9172078 68.4675238 16.890797801 -0.0885330% 0.67193 6.220299507 0. d b/d a=2.976245493 -0.418587486 -0.4661019 16.994461784 -0.2 0.74099 2485.4805297 16.135913 -0.4011774 0 0 16.711549744 -2.99449417 1 -1 7 Curvature M(x)/EI(x) aP/EIa 0 -0.161239 -0.4.430541924 -2.7 0.942906883 0.582323673 0.4777816 16.47720241 64.0007815% 0.201305 -0.59216245 7.417426207 -0.87602 1401.0216737 9.934202861 -1.890719128 0.2833247% 0.1 0.185886 -0.0000000% 1.890238929 -0.418587486 0.0220630% 0.357880768 -1.7141932 71.981634 4 I-ratio I/Ia 1 1 1.010978 9.67365 6.0046607% 0.186133 -0.632326814 -1.117128 7853.401178397 9 10 11 Chord Slope Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection yd yn θ aPh/12EIa aPh2/12EIa aPh2/12EIa 16.714100687 -0.5536 8.66118 6.0321 16 5 6 Assumed Deflection Moments due to P yo(x) M(x) a aP 0 0 0.984809 1885.715204841 0.918615893 -0.8561 3.6765 6.4434096 16.37299392 -2.66772E-08 13 Euler Factor EIa/L 2 14 P* P* 2 2 π EIa/4L 6.223823384 -1.418418536 0.8416 5.99449417 -0.0309133% 0.4 0.8416 5.4665707 16.4 0.13584 -0.0486283% 0. 1 2 3 Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia x d(x) I(x) 1 0 0.201865 -0.2371618% 0.816273965 0.50006946 42.1054018 30.4976 13. Sixth iteration of a fixed-free column approximated by 10 elements.81615463 0.367405998 -2.4641 2.1089536 14.418587486 0.4.4665873 16.40331297 72.41972194 64.4638872 16.431296114 -2.204263 -0.994489661 1 0 -0.0024626% 0.890719128 -0.583605333 0.4641 2.942593037 -0.81615463 0.994494924 1 Sum of squares: 13 Euler Factor EIa/L 2 14 P* P* π2EIa/4L2 6.6737 6.5536 8.6884069 1017.4653472 16.Table A.373945266 -2.6 0.981634 4 I-ratio I/Ia 1 1 1.2 0.99735 6397.4976 13.36486053 5.4689037 16.942862936 -0.426068389 -2.4737262 52.4653448 16.0000759% 0.67431 6.076311 -0.3521 10.4976 13.093008 -0.994461784 1 -1 7 Curvature M(x)/EI(x) aP/EIa 0 -0.8738521 718.67126 6.8416 5.99735 6397.715047046 0.418418536 0.117128 7853.4667035 16.221051302 0.942593037 0.31979415 0.220925443 0.401177401 9 10 11 Chord Slope Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection yd yn θ 2 2 aPh/12EIa aPh /12EIa aPh /12EIa 16.15329784 72.048876 3216. Fourth iteration of a fixed-free column approximated by 10 elements.68011 Variable: Factor: Pinned (Free) (Fixed) Guided 16.79630341 2.1 0.4.976362197 0. Fifth iteration of a fixed-free column approximated by 10 elements.5063574 42.2.714100687 0.816273965 -0.67256 6.4736139 16.5217432 52.816273965 0.0003245% 0.40117826 9 10 11 Chord Slope Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection yd yn θ 2 2 aPh/12EIa aPh /12EIa aPh /12EIa 16.815432064 -0.583574723 0.7 0.715204841 -0.05863576 59.710734133 -2.150468 -0.2.221032928 0.221032928 0.67931 6.0539114% 0.11287502 59.0625 6.4658523 16.0843643 30.87427578 0 0.0625 8 Nodal Concentration aPh/12EIa -1.d.1323492% 0.466716 .84835216 68.942862936 0.36108618 5.46308664 72.220925443 0.890811018 0.

6966453 160.208869727 21 Euler Factor EIb/L 2 Variable: Factor: Pinned Fixed 12 13 Redundant Curvature Nodal Concentration (Mr/EI) aPh/12EIb aP/EIb 0 10.99547498 114.571886677 0.706547574 5.92788921 5 -6.463933089 0.80246914 14.5 -0.86160415 4 -17.2 -0.1997EIb/L3 0.6 0.137510622 0.510455097 0 22 P* P* 20.32796604 59.032101701 0.3 -0.7703678 502.2038268 5.87602 1401.75066183 8 10.7 1 7 Curvature M(x)/EI(x) aP/EIb 0 -1.6884069 1017.2077209 -25.20553372 -39.092821529 -1.981634 14 Chord Slope aPh/12EIb 1573.231831 1448.7004909% 20.261141877 0.773417512 9 5.04963897 10 25.263319298 7.580246914 -0.6 0.875546 1777.462243 1066.396276 6426.117128 7853. 1 Distance from top x 1 0 0.06859647 124.1296 0.6889506% 36.7 0.679146 -95.274987576 6.9868705 70.87552271 7 7.773417512 5.2401 0.524338235 46.1032218 677.80078308 6.332854 175.824966826 4.907377891 0.99279169 90.80613424 16.609663161 0.428586586 0.2058545 189.7142516 182.05228529 0 4 I-ratio I/Ib 1 0.55193931 13.310069917 0.928234 256.19326322 11. First iteration of a fixed-pinned column approximated by 10 elements.07474667 0.01531663 -18.06547828 7.947874649 1 0.680613424 -1.2766065 110.102004055 3.037067787 23.539847504 0.3920723 132.8 0.859416364 1 8 9 10 11 Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Derived Deflection Redundant Moment yd Mr θ 2 aPh/12EIb aPh/12EIb aPh /12EIb aP -69.a.12486088 44.271490826 25.17850625 0.47142516 -57.87473364 3 -19.92058545 0.01432037 76.750313499 0.8 1 0.03745137 6 2.772324 1100.2 0 6 Moments due to P M(x) aP 0 -0.0021871 31.74099 2485.3.622252817 0.147616563 15.01432037 0 -12.309076 867.4 0.222238312 0.09150625 0.420466842 0.0437114 83.5 0.001957 597.10292965 51.11582216 13.1 -0.773417512 0 0 10 19 Scaled Deflection yn aPh2/12EIb 0 0.40980113 12.391876551 0.4 -0.646865 3711.92821529 15.6561 0.3 0.990877 4099. n=4.933714941 89.4.2 0.99735 6397.31640625 0.33517435 1 -18.52200625 0.43209877 16.48828125 0.0737225 341.8738521 718.9567229 18.233000865 0.6896529 62.9550208 121.053682695 0 Sum of squares: 20 %difference 1 0.0553372 200.2 0.6 0.86378239 .90475762 11.0000000% ########### ########### ########### ########### ########### 9.191568588 0.543209877 -1.1531663 199.65972511 15.984809 1885.16192866 70.4096 0.51758 1266.958144308 1.050121257 0.97752676 24.685759711 0.184622 2644.81450625 1 5 Assumed Deflection yo(x) a 0 0.164445 4977.685234623 0.939712 146.8725465 2 -20.7419382 62.4 0.1 0.8275 5152.1 0.330634395 0.2 0.204497667 0.08028712 31.05228529 15 16 17 18 Redundant Deflection Scaled Redundant Deflection Deflection Correction Adjusted Deflection aPh2/12EIb 7999.35422758 36.915788774 10.048876 3216.737037585 0 aPh2/12EIb 0 50.9 1 2 Diameter d(x) 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 3 Moment of Inertia I(x) 1 490.05228529 0 aPh2/12EIb 1 0.6484375 13.12292848 44.7942235 62.1340105 194.4 0.803331179 0.41500231 21.89043784 88.8 0.665972511 -1.97724432 21.007757121 0 aPh2/12EIb 95.4 0.85214043 19.Table A.0625 0. d b/d a=2.

03943263 -13.194039311 13.5087608 0 -39.990877 4099.750313499 0.907377891 0.29819589 6.036261692 0 Sum of squares: 20 %difference 1 0.420348329 4.6961629% 5.8971555 209.31640625 0.05228529 0 4 I-ratio I/Ib 1 0.164445 4977.398106666 0.06859647 124.502130638 -4.875546 1777.184622 2644.772603443 0.4303705 4 -15.2248439 198.3 0.46154298 24.19326322 11.333468356 0.320466842 -0.947874649 1 0.053682695 0 6 Moments due to P M(x) aP 0 -0.231831 1448.622552511 4.6484375 13.13578619 60.4183092 114.309076 867.5822042 32.519942843 0.890943279 1.92821529 15.0737225 341.67430805 40.6132775% ########### ########### ########### ########### -48.981634 14 Chord Slope aPh/12EIb 1573.048876 3216.1032218 677.1518612 181.032101701 0.09150625 0.423499672 0 aPh2/12EIb 0 109.898975677 29. Second iteration of a fixed-pinned column approximated by 10 elements.287515309 -0.7826772 25.3807455 67.90652575 16.242313 -183.869386026 1 0.1340105 194.2 0.3920723 132.204497667 0.949919073 5.04963897 10 25.436493858 6.0890577 3 -29.407377891 -0. n=4.246246137 -3.1 0.8738521 718.43209877 16.26644802 1 -49.17850625 0.51758 1266.660513301 21 Euler Factor EIb/L 2 Variable: Factor: Pinned Fixed 12 13 Redundant Curvature Nodal Concentration (Mr/EI) aPh/12EIb aP/EIb 0 10.137510622 0.939712 146.163347097 0 0 10 19 Scaled Deflection yn aPh2/12EIb 0 0.9 1 2 Diameter d(x) 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 3 Moment of Inertia I(x) 1 490.9521442 67.1888433 85.2058545 189.1046785 161.71774041 6 5.7703678 502.463933089 0.222238312 0.07474667 0.803331179 0.14741714 120.6 0.586846769 0 22 P* P* 20.685234623 0.772324 1100.Table A.6896529 62.72182741 7 10.117128 7853.001957 597.1296 0.995913 88.05228529 0 aPh2/12EIb 1 0.80246914 14.145851863 0.907639587 1.498958767 -1.245049138 0.1997EIb/L3 0.3413128 124.057403636 6.b.042446% 0.56521294 137.396276 6426.87602 1401.52200625 0.59401478 -56.007757121 0 aPh2/12EIb 183.2401 0.490910148 .62489008 8 12.7942235 62.65972511 15.3.299875921 0.0553372 200.4096 0.357234277 0.1531663 199. 1 Distance from top x 1 0 0. d b/d a=2.629422773 -2.4 0.163347097 9 6.041635223 8.646865 3711.63539434 18.622252817 0.26755252 -105.626265895 8.085234623 0.330634395 0.2125351% -5.928234 256.6966453 160.05228529 15 16 17 18 Redundant Deflection Scaled Redundant Deflection Deflection Correction Adjusted Deflection aPh2/12EIb 7999.03905563 1 8 9 10 11 Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Derived Deflection Redundant Moment yd Mr θ 2 aPh/12EIb aPh/12EIb aPh /12EIb aP -145.6884069 1017.946850646 0.40980113 12.09693733 53.81450625 1 5 Assumed Deflection yo(x) a 0 0.8651575 5 -2.97476 -38.7142516 182.7419382 62.271413414 0.6 -0.80613424 16.23440381 13.71666879 5.550313499 -0.521696464 0.544639643 0.20809234 0.8 0.216025224 7.32232547 0.848495868 34.99735 6397.332854 175.846317305 1 7 Curvature M(x)/EI(x) aP/EIb 0 -3.6561 0.228842632 0.5 0.735960742 7.70831222 2 -43.7 0.462243 1066.647874649 -0.4384962 30.377543523 0.51583336 7.0625 0.269137356 0.74099 2485.8275 5152.420466842 0.6478348 113.595502333 0.5087608 147.163347097 6.428586586 0.984809 1885.4.

9257964% -7.5 0.1531663 199.197802145 5.717947968 0.31640625 0.7503571 113.6884069 1017.861561499 0.001957 597.248003788 0.875546 1777.367239794 30.29620935 4.063839739 3.47671743 7.911083368 0.3.7942235 62.869386026 1 0.81450625 1 5 Assumed Deflection yo(x) a 0 0.09150625 0.937643382 5.96710484 8 12.1340105 194.0737225 341.5305565 5 1.182819631 9 6.05228529 0 aPh2/12EIb 1 0.112885% 0.184622 2644.8738521 718.608389742 -5.544639643 0.213515483 38.52200625 0.8 0.3 0.7703678 502.330634395 0.6127348% ########### ########### ########### -15.032101701 0.060444052 1 8 9 10 11 Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Derived Deflection Redundant Moment yd Mr θ 2 aPh/12EIb aPh/12EIb aPh /12EIb aP -156.11924082 134. Third iteration of a fixed-pinned column approximated by 10 elements.990877 4099.43209877 16.285904772 0.240893469 0.17850625 0.557272601 0.165015631 -3.290100211 0.41341092 65.997025052 1.928234 256.863738308 1 7 Curvature M(x)/EI(x) aP/EIb 0 -4.6966453 160.182819631 6.6561 0.65692421 1.182819631 0 0 10 19 Scaled Deflection yn aPh2/12EIb 0 0.98334001 .145851863 0.723505762 0.51758 1266.32232547 0.37767453 0.50033235 4.492615898 0.06859647 124.309076 867.981634 14 Chord Slope aPh/12EIb 1573.92821529 15.17282467 46.902046999 1 0.462243 1066.267422649 0.Table A.75420033 18.272603443 0.41131571 6 8.53848554 55.2527132 230.90572533 94.78428521 24.009602109 5.6939853 3 -27.401857276 5.865975815 5.421696464 -0.99735 6397.746727042 5.0000000% -3.7419382 62.6484375 13.75805323 40.231831 1448.802241169 165.0625 0.127678454 0.8917441 4 -10.622252817 0.07474667 0.593497038 5.276909906 0.164445 4977.1296 0.031500984 0 Sum of squares: 20 %difference 1 0.6896529 62.946850646 0.546850646 -0.0553372 200.9 1 2 Diameter d(x) 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 3 Moment of Inertia I(x) 1 490.24891305 -105.50559038 7 11.521696464 0.87602 1401.939712 146.283573 -140.4789317 0 -51.859937236 5.27253171 0 22 P* P* 20.293947107 0.669386026 -0.80246914 14.257320759 0.19326322 11.21980063 19.1 0.00592273 29.222238312 0.2 0.7142516 182.55894642 29.31734525 10.4096 0.40980113 12. d b/d a=2.05228529 0 4 I-ratio I/Ib 1 0.854683 120.646865 3711. 1 Distance from top x 1 0 0.2401 0.17997737 -44.74099 2485.921431322 -2.396276 6426.463933089 0.8511058 87.4789317 112.3920723 132.04963897 10 25.089712079 0 aPh2/12EIb 0 128.44716655 31.083203349 21 Euler Factor EIb/L 2 Variable: Factor: Pinned Fixed 12 13 Redundant Curvature Nodal Concentration (Mr/EI) aPh/12EIb aP/EIb 0 10.05228529 15 16 17 18 Redundant Deflection Scaled Redundant Deflection Deflection Correction Adjusted Deflection aPh2/12EIb 7999.007757121 0 aPh2/12EIb 140.137510622 0.8275 5152.332854 175.654148137 0.80613424 16.7 -0.6207618% 0.728661 66.055360357 0.1997EIb/L3 0.60146557 6.036261692 0 6 Moments due to P M(x) aP 0 -0.1032218 677.2058545 189.135157122 0.6557477 208.509612592 1.117128 7853.6 0.048876 3216.8668099 210.803331179 0.7 0.c.984809 1885.8393022 2 -46.36118759 163.4.65972511 15.772324 1100. n=4.80464181 1 -60.772603443 0.03466 15.27759536 -0.284495663 0.3389107 165.4 0.

023981463 1.Table A.2999582% -2.396276 6426.285904772 0.4035905 92.74099 2485.249312454 0.05228529 15 16 17 18 Redundant Deflection Scaled Redundant Deflection Deflection Correction Adjusted Deflection aPh2/12EIb 7999.2 0.4096 0.92821529 15.337864855 .80246914 14.242131 6 9.990877 4099.573367 41.19326322 11.20058198 96.87411848 25.00822338 21 Euler Factor EIb/L 2 Variable: Factor: Pinned Fixed 12 13 Redundant Curvature Nodal Concentration (Mr/EI) aPh/12EIb aP/EIb 0 10.06062324 8 12.1559197 211.89652556 34.05228529 0 4 I-ratio I/Ib 1 0.7142516 182.38876359 -101.252627376 0.d.43209877 16.31640625 0.066288952 1 8 9 10 11 Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Derived Deflection Redundant Moment Mr yd θ 2 aPh/12EIb aPh/12EIb aPh /12EIb aP -156.984809 1885.457272601 -0.262168217 0.08889791 -38.09150625 0.497271 164.672321546 0.17202635 173.1531663 199.275500789 181. n=4.3920723 132.4844689 143.08170438 0 22 P* P* 20.1 0.309076 867.007757121 0 aPh2/12EIb 115.6896529 62.6884069 1017.2401 0.68761372 6.9421159 235.1319066 2 -46.04154902 7 12.6484375 13.231831 1448. Fourth iteration of a fixed-pinned column approximated by 10 elements.895199622 0 aPh2/12EIb 0 134.6561 0.92671732 139.75996964 8.4353027% -3.4035905 0 -55.8159475 112.803331179 0.164445 4977.462243 1066.754690971 42.99735 6397.024724197 1.127678454 0.8275 5152.137510622 0.414095228 0.602543% 0.2058545 189.030114931 0 Sum of squares: 20 %difference 1 0.622252817 0.001957 597.700879432 0.122324264 0.875546 1777.263684995 0.305374195 5.911083368 0.1997EIb/L3 0.186504758 6.902046999 1 0.117128 7853.05228529 0 aPh2/12EIb 1 0.0625 0.330634395 0.186504758 0 0 10 19 Scaled Deflection yn aPh2/12EIb 0 0.868499016 1 7 Curvature M(x)/EI(x) aP/EIb 0 -4.128627103 -0.258779617 0.1113505 64.6 0.65972511 15.107384102 0.66758312 28.981634 14 Chord Slope aPh/12EIb 1573.557272601 0.04963897 10 25.102997202 5.7703678 502.272785274 5.1563963 25.64709914 15.51758 1266.81020925 53.222238312 0.81450625 1 5 Assumed Deflection ya a 0 0.96213 -115.217947968 0.476753257 0.274998746 0.169334034 5.1068073 18.8738521 718.184622 2644.997173428 -5.048876 3216.06859647 124.570965181 0.4 0.726135342 40.40980113 12.492615898 0.1032218 677.626034102 3.793276379 1.9 1 2 Diameter d(x) 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 3 Moment of Inertia I(x) 1 490.186504758 9 6.036036771 5.921431322 -2.9658457% -4.4.26425466 4.55853985 1 -63.1688483 5 2.928234 256.326357787 5.332854 175.17850625 0.262646188 0.5 0.3.0000000% -1.3272225% -3.87602 1401.3 0.717947968 0.3408747 4 -8.246569002 0.6163755 3 -25.7419382 62. d b/d a=2.702046999 -0.7 0.914040846 1 0.772324 1100.219656202 30.2658423 214.8 0.463933089 0.7942235 62.3121785% 0.52200625 0.7 -0.980619863 5.7046515 0.227270633 5.899391652 0.255911426 0.53954419 38.6966453 160.688823208 0.261032851 0.417029316 -3.032101701 0. 1 Distance from top x 1 0 0.1340105 194.0737225 341.1296 0.511083368 -0.70730246 71.8692195 8.031500984 0 6 Moments due to P M(x) aP 0 -0.07474667 0.80613424 16.3770470% -4.646865 3711.939712 146.76527474 7.0553372 200.98092578 56.

254559448 5.99735 6397.7142516 182.939712 146.122324264 0.222238312 0.252899094 0. d b/d a=2.875546 1777.3462872 217.81450625 1 5 Assumed Deflection ya a 0 0.18824439 40.471712152 0.7634941 212.6896529 62.772324 1100.250912089 0.249766599 0.4096 0.21100785 18.0625 0.032884829 1.78597749 6 9.803331179 0.16398454 -36.476753257 0.253593542 0.7703678 502.89823995 8.11132886 56.52200625 0.007757121 0 aPh2/12EIb 108.274998746 0.700879432 0.117128 7853.122513467 5.271568124 0.04963897 10 25.4306563% -0.3.254391221 0.045210377 5.123246743 0.646865 3711.463933089 0.138626351 5.068348921 5.2401 0.51758 1266. n=4.82174586 24.067990661 1 8 9 10 11 Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Derived Deflection Redundant Moment Mr yd θ 2 aPh/12EIb aPh/12EIb aPh /12EIb aP -157.0737225 341.814168899 1.1531663 199.80246914 14.8 0.97766337 -100.6484375 13.254081771 0.184622 2644.19326322 11.3424666 0 -56.3865942% -1.869885069 1 7 Curvature M(x)/EI(x) aP/EIb 0 -5.990877 4099.0553372 200.9 1 2 Diameter d(x) 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 3 Moment of Inertia I(x) 1 490.6 0.2058545 189.07784687 14.1997EIb/L3 0.895534974 0.200879432 0. 1 Distance from top x 1 0 0.43209877 16.7419382 62.18752957 6.396276 6426.41640499 50.6388668 111.1 0.475469184 31.0000000% -0.695372686 0.05228529 15 16 17 18 Redundant Deflection Scaled Redundant Deflection Deflection Correction Adjusted Deflection aPh2/12EIb 7999.26365515 35.6842174 64.29159521 186.3424666 87.18752957 9 6.8738521 718.2632638% -1.08785058 8 12.29741804 28.918232857 1 0.332854 175.1032218 677.499391652 -0.2082438 4 -8.164445 4977.18752957 0 0 10 19 Scaled Deflection yn aPh2/12EIb 0 0.5610199 5 3.3 0.06859647 124.71279144 6.008526641 0.090176083 5.6561 0.74099 2485.7919130% -1.80381957 10.4040196 236.3920723 132.676209 49.17850625 0.e.309076 867.248772652 0.7 0.58679805 96.03488144 67.231831 1448.30089537 0.07993191 -0.40980113 12.Table A. Fifth iteration of a fixed-pinned column approximated by 10 elements.251992657 0.137510622 0.09150625 0.575875464 0.0982386 3.31140571 1 -64.984809 1885.653872 -108.1296 0.1340105 194.0299896 164.87602 1401.64722384 176.31640625 0.8275 5152.35562863 35.9876146 2 -46.4 0.899391652 0.048876 3216.027955198 0 22 P* P* 20.77504244 140.000852168 21 Euler Factor EIb/L 2 Variable: Factor: Pinned Fixed 12 13 Redundant Curvature Nodal Concentration (Mr/EI) aPh/12EIb aP/EIb 0 10.5 0.146808894 -5.477977414 0.330634395 0.90032101 25.981634 14 Chord Slope aPh/12EIb 1573.634878206 0.5122244 149.565828 7.108485834 5.142024474 .80613424 16.921431322 -2.425001254 0.462243 1066.570965181 0.032101701 0.6966453 160.92821529 15.840425629 0 aPh2/12EIb 0 136.4.65972511 15.07474667 0.001957 597.622252817 0.05228529 0 4 I-ratio I/Ib 1 0.677675736 0.132375541 5.6884069 1017.2 0.499839 3 -25.4565302% 0.928234 256.914040846 1 0.714040846 -0.470965181 -0.509574433 -3.7 -0.05228529 0 aPh2/12EIb 1 0.0686823% -1.19917944 7 12.453640% 0.025132931 5.029683441 0 Sum of squares: 20 %difference 1 0.12065132 0.030114931 0 6 Moments due to P M(x) aP 0 -0.7942235 62.127818597 43.

47441492 0.332854 175.2 0.15209068 56.068520418 1 8 9 10 11 Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Derived Deflection Redundant Moment Mr yd θ 2 aPh/12EIb aPh/12EIb aPh /12EIb aP -157.009255889 0.222238312 0.699977218 0.1032218 677.313202753 0.396276 6426.05228529 0 aPh2/12EIb 1 0.271568124 0.74099 2485.1180089 4 -7.9 1 2 Diameter d(x) 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 3 Moment of Inertia I(x) 1 490.7942235 62.8275 5152.981634 14 Chord Slope aPh/12EIb 1573.05228529 15 16 17 18 Redundant Deflection Scaled Redundant Deflection Deflection Correction Adjusted Deflection aPh2/12EIb 7999.622252817 0.449053% 0.250965563 0.117128 7853.695372686 0.2401 0.2094132 85.1340105 194.6578117% 0.8738521 718.250310529 0.7 0.250670316 0.079016685 5.1787596 2 -46.195372686 0.939712 146.70813702 96.164445 4977.471712152 0.0793141 218.495534974 -0.27406113 35.875546 1777.938799967 3.6037864 111.8796759 152.7746825% 0.7703678 502.063465175 5.029817337 0 Sum of squares: 20 %difference 1 0.1997EIb/L3 0.928234 256.54661544 -100.4.967394 -106.6884069 1017.3324966 212.420779 51.1 0.1296 0.05228529 0 4 I-ratio I/Ib 1 0.895534974 0.330634395 0.048876 3216.001957 597.187843925 6.6966453 160.9171003% 0.95655439 6 9.048289736 5.09632669 8 12.6896529 62.09150625 0.54110276 -35.06942909 5.928183592 1.92821529 15.428431876 0.0584355 3 -25.24841737 7 12.137510622 0.032101701 0.012100948 1.72063884 6.6484375 13.7579809 1 -64.029683441 0 6 Moments due to P M(x) aP 0 -0.3.67934868 0.921431322 -2. d b/d a=2. n=4.409502775 0.063869114 -0.8 0.60492246 7.582929464 0.81450625 1 5 Assumed Deflection ya a 0 0.11648506 23.87602 1401.007757121 0 aPh2/12EIb 106.24360791 18.03543466 1.06859647 124.43209877 16.Table A.1531663 199.31640625 0.6038007 14.011723201 0 22 P* P* 20.4096 0.7 -0.2678661 237.80246914 14.251342871 0.984809 1885.335294253 40.251440204 0.077050585 5.7142516 182.2094132 0 -57.5 0.820740893 1.08910655 49.17759663 36.4 0.617474167 0.19326322 11.04963897 10 25.128287848 0.51758 1266.184622 2644.463933089 0.5614769 64.50582947 7.803331179 0.646865 3711.249919045 0.0561976 5.231831 1448.000549315 21 Euler Factor EIb/L 2 Variable: Factor: Pinned Fixed 12 13 Redundant Curvature Nodal Concentration (Mr/EI) aPh/12EIb aP/EIb 0 10.080082046 .251188144 0.249570345 0.541920192 -3.65972511 15.187843925 9 6.575875464 0.251492945 5.5084584% 0.99735 6397.18721734 28.918232857 1 0. Sixth iteration of a fixed-pinned column approximated by 10 elements.925408034 44.5697055% 0.0625 0.462243 1066.82010253 10.07474667 0.309076 867.9999857 5 3.52200625 0.80613424 16.200469525 -5.556046338 31.990877 4099.073925148 5.7419382 62. 1 Distance from top x 1 0 0.04343127 140.3 0.187843925 0 0 10 19 Scaled Deflection yn aPh2/12EIb 0 0.0553372 200.718232857 -0.2058545 189.870316559 1 7 Curvature M(x)/EI(x) aP/EIb 0 -5.6 0.0720654% 0.17850625 0.121220973 0.6561 0.4699300% 0.234494 164.272955992 0.823879276 0 aPh2/12EIb 0 137.475875464 -0.90848277 25.902526691 0.40980113 12.11802324 177.94042661 188.12065132 0.32133319 66.3920723 132.0737225 341.772324 1100.f.041246099 5.

0625 0.81450625 1 5 Assumed Deflection yo(x) a 0 0.77021204 18.60768344 2.64931279 31.416493128 0 0.635609718 -0.a.117128 7853.82727204 2.2662117 1329.5443375 361.03459196 -27.Table A.642509639 20 Euler Factor EIb/L^2 5.3 0.848442876 0.4 0.33848 3424.1185136 382.27737663 10 Guided 12 13 14 Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Scaled Redundant Rotation aPh/12EIb 849.09150625 0.30094 396.5 0.037873244 0.446705949 5.193297321 0.99735 6397.13619567 15.028922 0.8537581 -99.532759747 5.4096 0.31612 922.314814815 -1.1 0.74099 2485.120408949 -0.3 0.350478522 16 Adjusted Rotation aPh/12EIb 0 22.172352503 2.87602 1401.8738521 718.83418645 3.42303406 43.2821529 77.3387588 16.25814922 0.491095065 θ aPh/12EIb -117.287163126 0.981634 4 I-ratio I/Ib 1 0.383137175 0.897307 -23.02767596 -28.611098863 0.8 0.9909497 24.824543425 4.93539744 -5.7 0.867729856 0.99218141 -72.16049383 56.841573587 17 18 Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection yd aPh2/12EIb 0 22.082632874 0 0.286462549 0.1 0.35645 2487.0714223 235.4 0.44892 1808.308640886 0.5 -0.60469 4754.1485531 0.9075386 679.2 0.222974532 0.43112391 3.3 0.990877 4099.1633022 21.491095065 0.24157903 12.06113928 0.463504095 -1.772175463 0.9 1 2 Diameter d(x) 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 3 Moment of Inertia I(x) 1 490.0533331 313.95645094 -54.98106851 1 Sum of squares: 19 %difference 1 -0.82279718 6.02044746 41.3592931 5.41658698 2.048876 3216.7056095 23.4 -0.232708242 0.6561 0.08568021 56.52200625 0.55887667 34.1 0 0. 1 Distance from top Variable: Factor: Fixed x 1 0 0.32055004 21 P* P* π2EIb/L3 0.2 0.443901569 0.111945966 0.6 0. n=4.2 0.194378194 0.50934864 0.271408711 0.371286114 -2.14647079 0.457247371 0.24554068 127.0142812 504.550287903 0.60493827 24.4.5 7 Curvature M(x)/EI(x) aP/EIb -8 -4.2113404 aPh/12EIb 1 0.322727019 0.070682486 0.203362 627.74020144 51.984809 1885.261424049 0.7 0.982022 936.3 -0.346172637 0.330196635 -4.5 0.232763764 0.1 0.2 -0.869631 4.33644206 .805999 11.31546816 -38.214683286 0.19325281 -8.3859111 yn aPh2/12EIb 0 0.04616344 3. d b/da=2.8500257 148. First iteration of a fixed-guided column approximated by 10 elements.1296 0.17850625 0.02029756 -52.937284852 0.63984321 -13.43208436 -19.49109507 Mr aP 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 (Mr/EI) aP/EIb 160 109.164573237 0.868198023 5.09487429 70.6884069 1017.2401 0.58015194 2.15685875 15.076711 212.9 1 6 Moments due to P M(x) aP -0.67869661 2.4 0.85376 -77.352341408 0.8275 5152.7215403 354.264213573 0.112758 294.4140625 19.902422 231.2242291 183.39557446 -13.21134038 aPh/12EIb 5603.43463 1304.8 0.226686 64.244140625 0.3312209 184.53201159 25.4.5853446 338.651642605 0.09487429 48.285340228 -0.5 8 9 10 11 Nodal Concentration of M/EI Chord Slope Redundant Moment Redundant Curvature aPh/12EIb -39.6 0.31640625 0.0153453 64.011458935 15 Rotation Correction aPh/12EIb -117.15066639 57.4944564 279.54783068 2.

78419183 39.3323676 421.3236114 36.990877 4099.58112203 2.0625 0.021117549 0. d b/da=2.025775755 0.06113928 0.8460995 yn aPh2/12EIb 0 0.358192949 -0.59062593 Mr aP 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 (Mr/EI) aP/EIb 160 109. Second iteration of a fixed-guided column approximated by 10 elements.959992455 7.886446724 0.69756215 21 P* P* π2EIb/L3 0.27737663 10 Guided 12 13 14 Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Scaled Redundant Rotation aPh/12EIb 849.4.651642605 0.701659301 17 18 Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection yd aPh2/12EIb 0 26.33377417 163.5688105 31.29090933 -22.305621806 -0.20508396 -10.590625929 θ aPh/12EIb -96.6233688 12.35645 2487.948213229 0.5 8 9 10 11 Nodal Concentration of M/EI Chord Slope Redundant Moment Redundant Curvature aPh/12EIb -41.9 1 2 Diameter d(x) 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 3 Moment of Inertia I(x) 1 490.982022 936.03973006 -31. n=4.272247269 0.147658592 0.957824 -55.81962626 74.2401 0.5 7 Curvature M(x)/EI(x) aP/EIb -8 -4.15685875 15.164573237 0.74099 2485.039160604 0. 1 Distance from top Variable: Factor: Fixed x 1 0 0.984809 1885.2662117 1329.1 0.59192399 2.070682486 0.6633764 5.4096 0.848442876 0.038936443 0.64931279 31.56826799 -15.27332019 .66647212 2.89187942 52.85403723 -6.00934864 0.672107278 -1.2113404 aPh/12EIb 1 0.796858579 0.198571538 0.003925509 0 0.117128 7853.03928777 0.20879682 -58.59158095 2.262616806 0.b.352341408 0.937284852 0.262582049 0.31640625 0.26317468 -59.981634 4 I-ratio I/Ib 1 0.666491163 0.772175463 0.194378194 0.590625929 0.8033594 301.076711 212.51414791 88.5 0.52200625 0.203362 627.98106851 1 6 Moments due to P M(x) aP -0.8275 5152.749027 2.65596067 64.112758 294.9075386 679.8089565 438.51414791 61.60493827 24.072750452 5.151642605 0.267548337 0.0153453 64.31783727 -29.1444402 444.264853952 0.280365224 0.Table A.30094 396.59115688 0.4794306 394.8 0.111945966 0.09150625 0.0142812 504.030975529 0.902422 231.375530953 7.7738945 42.5 -0.64059625 2.68697284 2.99735 6397.00760418 20 Euler Factor EIb/L^2 2.9988998 20.6952388 354.1473987 236.828629161 8.95782359 -82.8500257 148.31612 922.853220034 -3.17850625 0.33848 3424.21134038 aPh/12EIb 5603.2 0.496082478 7.2242291 183.704454891 0.479265516 0.1296 0.226686 64.7 0.4140625 19.81450625 1 5 Assumed Deflection yo(x) a 0 0.011525231 0.678201381 0.85293702 27.267549174 0.48106851 0.44892 1808.4.8738521 718.61400373 2.76709385 2.4 0.261522339 0.1185136 382.827190037 0.322727019 0.437284852 0.043164943 0.24157903 12.270170111 0.984934881 1 Sum of squares: 19 %difference 1 -0.60469 4754.6 0.366750206 0.021114487 0.232763764 0.25081576 -43.6561 0.011458935 15 Rotation Correction aPh/12EIb -96.43886072 -0.50934864 0.532326482 0.6884069 1017.16049383 56.43463 1304.33548366 6.367729856 0.443901569 0.048876 3216.272175463 0.3650513 42.47658887 16.664490875 0.81362452 73.95666288 -10.827529 28.611098863 0.3 0.87602 1401.64060451 2.795964432 -2.867729856 0.04143991 5.02044746 41.059602968 0.111033372 16 Adjusted Rotation aPh/12EIb 0 26.2821529 77.037873244 0.

266364857 0.595372818 θ aPh/12EIb -92.001472697 0.537466157 0.31640625 0.3 0.985348667 1 Sum of squares: 19 %difference 1 0.05750183 16 Adjusted Rotation aPh/12EIb 0 27.495178689 -1.112758 294.1995303 447.0625 0.9075386 679.2337764 53.35645 2487.117128 7853.448213229 0.61414702 2.27534228 -58.09150625 0.134637578 0.990877 4099.2863191 363.44929646 40.83849707 77.003119348 0.200685426 0.48088914 -15.264868471 0.22608385 75.655912395 1.164573237 0.5 7 Curvature M(x)/EI(x) aP/EIb -8 -4.007505165 0.33107062 -6.1185136 382.8500257 148.78325827 -21.2887074 63.265562301 0.2242291 183.81450625 1 5 Assumed Deflection yo(x) a 0 0.7528873 38.076711 212.81759386 -9. n=4.523019836 -3.2600837 45.059602968 0.203362 627.63446358 2.163108835 6.60469 4754.1 0.22742742 6.0153453 64.4140625 19.265201659 0.28622508 -78.16049383 56.21134038 aPh/12EIb 5603.611098863 0.31612 922.7322487 5.198571538 0.4 0.2821529 77.4.264941782 0.301428462 -0.777101 431.678201381 0.491433599 8.178201381 0.24157903 12.62891577 2.62099486 2.949611719 0.9159961 44.111945966 0.0414855 27.27737663 10 Guided 12 13 14 Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Scaled Redundant Rotation aPh/12EIb 849. Third iteration of a fixed-guided column approximated by 10 elements.0798324 yn aPh2/12EIb 0 0.266926969 0.6388152 2.801038913 0.6561 0.886446724 0.2614537 29.61487058 2.7 0.984809 1885.02044746 41.902422 231.5 0.740310531 0.746471307 0.563204363 0.9 1 2 Diameter d(x) 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 3 Moment of Inertia I(x) 1 490.12720447 168.009562788 0.167160704 7.981634 4 I-ratio I/Ib 1 0.010807132 0.61743546 2.322727019 0.848442876 0.2995902 -56.5 -0.070682486 0.889220512 0.440397032 -0.000419939 0 0.8994094 12.232763764 0.64270711 21 P* P* π2EIb/L3 0.33848 3424.72475239 0.26736788 0.c.286225 -51.267649768 0.15685875 15.18784279 -10.52200625 0.64159733 2.4269577 454.048876 3216.011458935 15 Rotation Correction aPh/12EIb -92.000482331 20 Euler Factor EIb/L^2 2.69925437 66.032326482 0.008215911 0.2887074 91.366750206 0.796858579 0.30094 396.44248984 36.0525427 310.811005436 8.267762212 .5 8 9 10 11 Nodal Concentration of M/EI Chord Slope Redundant Moment Redundant Curvature aPh/12EIb -41.17850625 0.683147736 0.010533339 0.45337265 -28.370757026 0.1296 0.4096 0.484934881 0.443901569 0.948213229 0.7104149 20.8 0.2 0.99735 6397.8275 5152.44892 1808.2113404 aPh/12EIb 1 0.59537282 Mr aP 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 (Mr/EI) aP/EIb 160 109.136875915 5.7356155 403.532326482 0.551038791 8.060096717 0.683329884 0.62287315 2.2662117 1329.8738521 718.386446724 0.74099 2485.39600722 -40.2401 0.812753575 -2.652874648 17 18 Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection yd aPh2/12EIb 0 27.64931279 31.3532883 244.010883 7.43463 1304.42242927 16.595372818 0.87602 1401.982022 936.Table A.6884069 1017.226686 64. d b/da=2.6 0.60493827 24.133249794 0.4. 1 Distance from top Variable: Factor: Fixed x 1 0 0.0142812 504.005218641 0.265752613 0.984934881 1 6 Moments due to P M(x) aP -0.296858579 0.325836898 -0.96600015 -29.037873244 0.

33848 3424.002284198 0.0153453 64.81450625 1 5 Assumed Deflection yo(x) a 0 0.62768866 2.7399685 5.037873244 0.0072842 27.3155045 245.98174283 66.048876 3216.001064506 0.9075386 679.810746 20.674620051 8.579412966 0.87602 1401.982022 936.595880839 0.201360992 0.6561 0.7 0.443901569 0.99735 6397.62595336 2.639611752 17 18 Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection yd aPh2/12EIb 0 27.985418766 1 Sum of squares: 19 %difference 1 0.5 0.9342661 12.1185136 382.5 7 Curvature M(x)/EI(x) aP/EIb -8 -4.807357776 -2.46281108 64.44966405 -1.4.537466157 0.4853661 29.129242974 0.848442876 0.3532095 yn aPh2/12EIb 0 0.734958285 0.99006487 -10.52200625 0.2401 0.18963253 6.301038913 0.63251157 2.076711 212.0142812 504.003553092 0.37234239 16.724024922 0.801892533 0.69037408 169.26731031 -58.226686 64.232763764 0.21134038 aPh/12EIb 5603.5863257 45.4 0.2113404 aPh/12EIb 1 0.002894612 0.5 8 9 10 11 Nodal Concentration of M/EI Chord Slope Redundant Moment Redundant Curvature aPh/12EIb -41.889752426 0. d b/da=2.685131916 8.266403514 0.011458935 15 Rotation Correction aPh/12EIb -91.183329884 0.5 -0.227563 77.000597822 0.070682486 0.194297627 7.2972473 311.1516228 432.08446272 -77.d.037466157 0.43253595 -29.981634 4 I-ratio I/Ib 1 0.63374143 2. n=4.3 0.266942295 0.299314574 -0.46281108 91.156043971 0.1925945 46.60469 4754.949611719 0.6689077 365.17469E-05 20 Euler Factor EIb/L^2 2.611098863 0.267013426 .266240525 0.438076285 -3.203362 627.112758 294.266729188 0.2821529 77.16049383 56.164573237 0.62664306 -9.20116241 -14.17850625 0. Fourth iteration of a fixed-guided column approximated by 10 elements.990877 4099.389220512 0.876479912 8.4140625 19.6251304 75.43463 1304.27996349 -55.144087642 5.309526036 -0.683329884 0.66161161 -40.817152 8.19653818 -6.56595139 37.1443387 405.200685426 0.7135978 455.266853799 0.902422 231.266994431 0.4096 0.1296 0.2662117 1329.6884069 1017.266064702 0.003355002 0.15685875 15.370757026 0.3831038 -28.043730913 16 Adjusted Rotation aPh/12EIb 0 27.060311008 0.02044746 41.2 0.266574397 0.984809 1885.949864756 0.449611719 0.4.74099 2485.62647539 2.485348667 0.60493827 24.595880839 θ aPh/12EIb -91.1 0.8275 5152.24157903 12.37166039 53.6 0.000266392 7.889220512 0.5239652 448.44892 1808.170498 38.985348667 1 6 Moments due to P M(x) aP -0.001644219 0.8500257 148. 1 Distance from top Variable: Factor: Fixed x 1 0 0.63461485 2.47543094 40.09150625 0.393731288 1.439903283 -0.35645 2487.31612 922.084463 -49.538696647 0.63098384 2.745624237 0.31640625 0.30094 396.060096717 0.39541709 -21.117128 7853.684455278 0.8 0.27737663 10 Guided 12 13 14 Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Scaled Redundant Rotation aPh/12EIb 849.63512942 2.2242291 183.11357E-05 0 4.Table A.59588084 Mr aP 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 (Mr/EI) aP/EIb 160 109.8738521 718.64931279 31.371833339 0.6292973 2.685279255 0.0625 0.801038913 0.111945966 0.415827754 6.9 1 2 Diameter d(x) 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 3 Moment of Inertia I(x) 1 490.322727019 0.266117595 0.63531688 21 P* P* π2EIb/L3 0.

410347 405.9405602 12.439688992 -0.266631778 0.60493827 24.700036157 8.5057026 64.35657197 16.5267922 245.82161644 169.12850204 -14.2576446 38.26289122 -58.443901569 0.29396606 -29.717995368 0.70517572 76.201360992 0.048876 3216.184455278 0.63301044 2.5 0.117128 7853.902422 231.037873244 0.7 0.77229916 -77.31612 922.266868895 0.2401 0.49302E-05 0 3.31640625 0.164573237 0.266732309 0.9075386 679.63120745 2.5297358 29.538696647 0.128166661 0.000946287 0.485418766 0.984809 1885.7413008 5.070682486 0.5 8 9 10 11 Nodal Concentration of M/EI Chord Slope Redundant Moment Redundant Curvature aPh/12EIb -41.060311008 0.389752426 0.2242291 183.266597053 0.2662117 1329.31591384 77.112758 294.145333936 5.949864756 0.7582113 448.595966901 θ aPh/12EIb -90.304313332 -0.801892533 0.9373535 455.17914224 6.772299 -49.000391903 0.46842686 39.63254237 2.4112097 46.4.805015963 -2.5 -0.802088725 0.9 1 2 Diameter d(x) 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 3 Moment of Inertia I(x) 1 490.44892 1808.449864756 0.47084882 -40.5057026 91.5 7 Curvature M(x)/EI(x) aP/EIb -8 -4.24157903 12.15685875 15.6 0.539003667 0.266848755 0.17850625 0.1296 0.02898128 66.161168877 0.8296996 20.35645 2487.09150625 0.5959669 Mr aP 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 (Mr/EI) aP/EIb 160 109. Fifth iteration of a fixed-guided column approximated by 10 elements.990877 4099.63389042 2.01511055 -55.0142812 504.266779735 0.99735 6397.6561 0.7343078 45.99129232 27.266884328 .16049383 56.63155017 2.27737663 10 Guided 12 13 14 Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Scaled Redundant Rotation aPh/12EIb 849.74099 2485.8738521 718.2 0.199259348 7.33848 3424.8275 5152.582969768 0.2821529 77.000569607 0.509408 8.727908876 8.000244601 0.1958E-06 20 Euler Factor EIb/L^2 2.8500257 148.416011789 -3. 1 Distance from top Variable: Factor: Fixed x 1 0 0.011458935 15 Rotation Correction aPh/12EIb -90.232763764 0.4016393 432.30094 396.322727019 0.0625 0.63400341 2.2113404 aPh/12EIb 1 0.226686 64.611098863 0.949919685 0.323098134 1.0153453 64. n=4.889139414 8.038696647 0.3 0.848442876 0.63203239 2.56614465 -9.4.78252E-05 1.29467348 -21.476663168 6.000133288 5.685664923 0.5734743 yn aPh2/12EIb 0 0.985433479 1 Sum of squares: 19 %difference 1 0.298639008 -0.372117346 0.4140625 19.371833339 0.000763218 0.040153852 16 Adjusted Rotation aPh/12EIb 0 27.84506502 37.746643217 0.02044746 41.301892533 0.684455278 0.1 0.63369165 2.266880343 0.266680637 0.81450625 1 5 Assumed Deflection yo(x) a 0 0.63339845 2.737042317 0.982022 936. d b/da=2.63404273 21 P* P* π2EIb/L3 0.35447296 -28.060375997 0.5557734 311.636120753 17 18 Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection yd aPh2/12EIb 0 27.93869111 -10.e.595966901 0.1185136 382.38614667 53.076711 212.43463 1304.111945966 0.21134038 aPh/12EIb 5603.437841404 -1.203362 627.266819048 0.889871036 0.64931279 31.16159273 -6.981634 4 I-ratio I/Ib 1 0.684723624 0.60469 4754.985418766 1 6 Moments due to P M(x) aP -0.8 0.52200625 0.889752426 0.4096 0.87602 1401.9419201 365.4 0.201551718 0.0010764 0.6884069 1017.Table A.

6561 0.63325575 2.039223651 16 Adjusted Rotation aPh/12EIb 0 27.184723624 0.434766974 -1.232763764 0.595984965 θ aPh/12EIb -90.685748644 0.7 0.5398007 29.16049383 56.15250531 -6.5 0.117128 7853.684723624 0.802136791 0.304437585 1.111945966 0.51661073 91.439624003 -0.266778529 0.63362391 2.72333174 76.2401 0.00025486 0.91627329 37.8500257 148.635208616 17 18 Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection yd aPh2/12EIb 0 27.31640625 0.112758 294.52200625 0.85412576 169.984809 1885.15685875 15.746870436 0.63378173 21 P* P* π2EIb/L3 0.92533157 -10.990877 4099.69112233 -76.410274008 -3.2 0.201603099 0.7415833 5.201551718 0. Sixth iteration of a fixed-guided column approximated by 10 elements.039003667 0.60469 4754.000199705 0.4684584 405.02044746 41.3458992 -28.37824E-05 3.63374543 2.64931279 31.9 1 2 Diameter d(x) 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 3 Moment of Inertia I(x) 1 490.63369697 2.162447595 0.127882654 0.266854204 0.011458935 15 Rotation Correction aPh/12EIb -90.0153453 64.5 7 Curvature M(x)/EI(x) aP/EIb -8 -4.44892 1808.9864047 27.2779483 38.81450625 1 5 Assumed Deflection yo(x) a 0 0.31612 922.804305752 -2.2821529 77.2113404 aPh/12EIb 1 0.070682486 0.048876 3216.21134038 aPh/12EIb 5603.266857882 . 1 Distance from top Variable: Factor: Fixed x 1 0 0.03831331 66.51661073 64.63352432 2.4.f.71640435 0.33751504 77.949919685 0.266819135 0.226686 64.63299855 2.848442876 0.0625 0.5 -0.8 0.802088725 0.9834125 455.6 0.68479055 0.87602 1401.35645 2487.3 0.9419251 12.266849294 0.4096 0.74099 2485.63339931 2.889871036 0.485433479 0.63311049 2.902422 231.49627E-06 0 2.982022 936.200341839 7.4654002 46.203362 627.372191674 0.443901569 0.10960702 -14.43463 1304.4548632 432.4.266841892 0.99223E-05 3.7698378 45.738147616 8.8338994 20.691122 -49.59598496 Mr aP 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 (Mr/EI) aP/EIb 160 109.0033262 365.266856949 0.Table A.266831802 0.583817872 0.2662117 1329.8738521 718.5 8 9 10 11 Nodal Concentration of M/EI Chord Slope Redundant Moment Redundant Curvature aPh/12EIb -41.14559829 5.060375997 0.037873244 0.4 0.28721E-07 20 Euler Factor EIb/L^2 2.266789871 0.33848 3424.46513228 39.705901313 8.302841682 -0.94623664 -55. d b/da=2.30094 396.076711 212.060393955 0.60493827 24.6186211 yn aPh2/12EIb 0 0.99735 6397.491889469 6.6157708 312.38755534 53.5774575 245.26149642 -58.8070623 448.595984965 0.539003667 0.389871036 0.429626 8.8275 5152.25793153 -29.17850625 0.539081941 0.4140625 19.77328E-05 5.891974304 8.63377252 2.949932778 0.0142812 504.9075386 679.6884069 1017.611098863 0.985433479 1 6 Moments due to P M(x) aP -0.54912692 -9.298448282 -0. n=4.09150625 0.27737663 10 Guided 12 13 14 Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Scaled Redundant Rotation aPh/12EIb 849.737521301 0.302088725 0.889899676 0.00029736 0.164573237 0.26847552 -21.26680459 0.981634 4 I-ratio I/Ib 1 0.3521991 16.372117346 0.21836E-05 1.42124174 -40.000145199 9.24157903 12.2242291 183.1296 0.1185136 382.449919685 0.985436924 1 Sum of squares: 19 %difference 1 0.322727019 0.17635023 6.1 0.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful