Divergence and Flutter Instability of Damped

Laminated Beams Subjected to a Triangular

Distribution of Nonconservative Forces

Nam-Il Kim*
Department of Civil Engineering, Hanyang University, 17 Haengdang-dong,
Seoungdong-gu, Seoul 133-791, South Korea

(Received: 8 February 2010 ; Received revised form: 21 June 2010 ; Accepted: 5 January 2011)

Abstract: The divergence and flutter instability behavior of the damped laminated
beams subjected to a triangular distribution of subtangential forces are investigated
based on the finite element model. The formal engineering approach of the mechanics
for the laminated beam theory is presented and the extended Hamilton’s principle is
employed to obtain the mass, damping, elastic stiffness, geometric stiffness matrices,
and the load correction stiffness matrix due to the nonconservative forces,
respectively. The methods for the evaluation of the divergence and flutter loads of the
nonconservative systems are briefly introduced in case of considering and neglecting
external and internal damping effects. Throughout numerical examples, the influence
of various parameters on the dynamic instability behavior of the laminated beams is
newly investigated: 1) the variation of the divergence and flutter loads due to the
nonconservativeness with respect to the fiber angle change, 2) the influence the
boundary condition of beams on the instability region of the divergence-flutter system,
3) the influence of external and internal damping on the flutter load by analysis of
complex natural frequencies.

Key words: divergence, flutter, laminated beams, nonconservative force, finite element, damping.

1. INTRODUCTION instability can be of divergence, flutter or both of

The elastic systems may be classified into conservative
and nonconservative systems depending on the type
of the acting forces. If the work done by the applied
loads is path-dependent, those are regarded as
nonconservative forces. Some examples of the
distributed nonconservative forces are the friction
forces acting on slender cylinders in axial flow
including flying rockets and missiles and the fluid
forces produced due to leakage through long cracks
along a pipe. The slender systems subjected to the
conservative forces can only lose the stability of their
equilibrium positions by divergence, whereas for
systems subjected to the nonconservative forces, the
them. If the type of instability is divergence, the
critical loads of systems can be determined by the
static approach while for flutter the critical loads
should be determined using the dynamic criterion. The
detailed discussion and the critical comprehensive
literature reviews on this subject are given by of
Langthjem and Sugiyama (2000) and Elishakoff
(2005). Recently Marzani et al. (2008) applied the
generalized differential quadrature (GDQ) method to
solve classical and nonclassical nonconservative stability
problems. In their study, a parametrical study for different
levels of nonconservativeness of the applied load was
carried out for Beck’s, Leipholz’s and Hauger’s column

*Corresponding author. Email address: kni8501@gmail.com; Fax: +82-2-2220-4322; Tel: + 82-2-2220-4154.

Associate Editor. S.S. Law.

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 6 2011 1075

 Divergence and Flutter Instability of Damped Laminated Beams Subjected to a Triangular Distribution of Nonconservative Forces
problems. Marzani and Viola (2003) investigated the
effect of an elastically restrained end on the dynamic
stability of elastic prismatic beams under the triangular
distribution of subtangential forces based on the finite
element procedure. Ryu et al. (2000) employed the
finite element method to perform numerical analyses on
the dynamic stability of a cantilevered column subjected
to the triangular distribution of subtangential forces. The
flutter stability behavior of a prismatic free-free column,
carrying a movable mass and subjected to the action of
follower drag force has been investigated by Prabhakara
et al. (2006). Wang (2002) discussed the effect of the
follower force on the buckling capacities of the beam
structure subjected to the concentrated non-follower
force. Gasparini et al. (1995) studied the transition
between the stability and instability of the cantilevered
beam subjected to the partially follower force and
Imielowski (1993) performed the sensitivity analysis of
a stepped column under the subtangential force
depending on the nonconservativeness parameter and
investigated the influence of joint stiffness, variation of
segment cross-sections and their length.
On the other hand, the destabilizing effect of small
internal damping for the beam structures has been one of
interesting and important topics in nonconservative
stability problems. As there is no physical system in
which damping is not involved in one form or another,
research on the stability of beams subjected to the
nonconservative force will be very meaningful. As
shown in works of many authors (Semler et al. 1998;
Kounadis and Smities 1993; Thomsen 1993; Krätzig
1993; Krätzig et al. 1991; El Naschie 1990; Bolotin and
Zhinzher 1969; Bolotin 1963; Ziegler 1952), the realistic
modeling of any structure must include the damping
effect. Krätzig (1993) found that for the Beck’s column
the critical load decreases about 15% in a damped
system, with dissipation ratios of 3% with respect to the
first two eigen-frequencies, compared to the undamped
one. Bolotin and Zhinzher (1969) and Bolotin (1963)
observed the same behavior for the column of linear
viscoelastic material. Semler et al. (1998) gave the
physical explanation of the destabilizing effect of
damping and discussed the effect on the basis of two-
degree-of-freedom articulated system.
The existing literatures related to the nonconservative
stability of beams reveal that there still has been no
study on the dynamic stability analysis of the laminated
beams subjected to the nonconservative force except for
the study of Xiong and Wang (1987). However, they
considered only the tip tangential follower force and did
not consider the damping effects. Moreover their
numerical studies were restricted to the stability analysis
of beams with rectangular cross-section.
1076
The primary purpose of this study is to investigate the
divergence and flutter instability behavior of damped
laminated beams subjected to the triangular distribution
of nonconservative forces based on the finite element
method by using the extended Hamilton’s principle. The
effects of nonconservativeness parameter, fiber angle
change, boundary condition, and external and internal
damping on the critical loads for divergence and flutter
of the nonconservative systems are fully discussed.
2. STRUCTURAL MODEL OF
LAMINATED BEAMS
2.1. Kinematics
To construct the structural model for this study, a thin-
walled laminated beam with one axis of geometric and
material symmetry is considered. The beam theory
requires two coordinate systems, as shown in Figure 1,
which are mutually interrelated: the first coordinate
system is the orthogonal Cartesian coordinate system
(x, y, z) for which the x axis is parallel to the
longitudinal axis of the beam and the y and z axes lie in
the plane of the cross-section; the second coordinate
system is the local plate coordinate (ni, si, x), wherein
the ni axis is normal to the middle surface of a plate
element, the si axis is tangent to the middle surface and
is directed along the contour line of the cross-section.
In present beam model, the following assumptions are
made: 1) The contour of a cross-section does not
deform in its plane 2) The shear strain γsx of the middle
surface is zero in each element.
z, υ (x)
ni, υ (si, x)
y, u (x)
si, u (si, x)
ψi
x, w (si, x)
x, w (x)
Figure 1. Definitions of coordinate systems for
the laminated beam
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 6 2011
Nam-II Kim

The displacements u– and υ– along the si and ni where

directions, respectively, at a point on the middle surface
of the i th wall, can be expressed in terms of the rigid N
body displacements u(x) and υ (x) in the y and z Aij = ∑ Qijk ( tk − tk −1 ) = taij (7a)
k =1
directions, respectively, according to assumption 1).

u (si , x ) = u( x ) cos ψ i + υ ( x )sin ψ i (1a)

υ (si , x ) = − u( x )sin ψ i + υ ( x ) cos ψ i
where ψi denotes the angle between the tangent to the i th
wall and the y axis as seen in Figure 1. From the Vlasov
assumption 2) for each element middle surface, the out-
– can be found as follows:
of-plane plate displacement w
∂u ∂w
γ sx (s, x ) = + =0
∂x ∂s
After substituting for u– from Eqn 1(a) into Eqn 2 and
considering the following geometric relations,
dy = dsi cos ψ i , dz = dsi sin ψ i
1 N k 3 3
Dij =
3 k =1
( )
∑ Qij tk − tk −1 = t 3dij (7b)
(1b)
In which Aij and Dij are the extensional and bending
–
stiffnesses, respectively; Qij denotes the lamina stiffness
coefficient, tk is the thickness of each lamina; t is the
overall thickness of the plate element.
The appropriate assumptions for the constitutive
relations are essential for a refined laminated beam
(2) theory since the pile in the laminated composites behave
in a highly two-dimensional manner due to the
Poisson’s effect (Smith and Chopra 1991). In this
regard, the zero hoop stress assumption is employed.
Assuming zero hoop stress (σs = 0) leads to Ns = Ms = 0,
(3a,b) then εs and κs can be expressed from Eqn 6 as follows:

Eqn 2 can be integrated with respect to s from the A12 D12

εs = − εx , κs = − κx (8a,b)
origin to the arbitrary point on the contour as follows: A22 D22

∂u ∂υ Then substitution of Eqn 8 into Eqn 6 leads to the

w(s , x ) = w − y− z (4) following axial force and bending moment of the
∂x ∂x
laminate.
In Eqn 4, consideration of symmetrical bending
normal to the y axis results u(x) = 0 and the axial strain  A2   ∂w ∂ 2υ 
εx and the biaxial curvature κx in the middle surface of N x =  A11 − 12   − z (9a)
 A22   ∂x ∂x 2 
the wall can be evaluated as follows:

∂w ∂w ∂ 2υ  D 2  ∂ 2υ
εx = = − z (5a) M x = −  D11 − 12  2 cos ψ i (9b)
∂x ∂x ∂x 2  D22  ∂x

∂ 2υ dy ∂ 2υ Based on the principle of virtual work by Gjelsvik

κx = − = − cos ψ i (5b) (1981), the beam stress resultants are equivalent to the
∂x 2 dsi ∂x 2 distributions of plate stress resultants acting on the
cross-section of beams as follows:
2.2. Strain Energy of Laminated Beams
The constitutive relations (Jones 1999) between the F = ∫s N x ds (10a)
membrane forces, the bending moments, and their
strains and curvatures for a mid-plane symmetric
laminate can be expressed by M = ∫s ( N x z + M x cosψ ) ds (10b)

 Nx   A11 A12 ⋅ ⋅  ε x  where F and M denote the axial force and the bending
N  A A22 ⋅ ⋅   ε s  moment about y axis, respectively, for the laminated
 s  12  
  = (6) beams and by substituting the plate stress resultants in
M
 x  ⋅ ⋅ D111 D12  κ x 
  Eqn 9 into Eqn 10, the axial force and the bending
 M s   ⋅ ⋅ D12 D22  κ s  moment can be expressed as follows:

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 6 2011 1077

 Divergence and Flutter Instability of Damped Laminated Beams Subjected to a Triangular Distribution of Nonconservative Forces

g(x)
∂w ∂ 2υ
F = E11 − E12 2 (11a) gol F q2
∂x ∂x
z
F q1
∂w ∂ 2υ F p2 g Mq
M = E12 − E22 2 (11b)
∂x ∂x
F 1p
υ A
where Mp x

 A2  x dx
E11 = ∫  A11 − 12  ds (12a)
s A22  l
(a) Beam element

 A2  gt C
E12 = ∫  A11 − 12  z ds (12b) α.∂υ/∂ x
s A22 
gc
∂υ/∂ x

2  2  
 A12 2  D12
E22 = ∫s 
 A11 −  z +  D11 −  coss2 ψ  ds (12c) (b) Detail of A

 A22   D22   Figure 2. Laminated beam subjected to the triangular distribution

of nonconservative forces
When the origin of the contour coordinate system
coincides with a principal origin, the stiffness E12 in Eqn
12(b) is zero. Further if all ply angles are to be zero, the From the beam constitutive equations in Eqn 11, the
stiffnesses E11 and E22 are simplified to the following z coordinate of the center of gravity can be defined by
quantities. E12
E11 = EA, E22 = EI (13a, b) zc = − (17)
E11
where E and A are the modulus of elasticity and the area
of cross-section, respectively; I is the area moment of where
inertia with respect to the y axis. Therefore for
laminated beams undergoing extension and bending *
E12 = ∫ A11 z ds (18)
deformations, the strain energy expression is given by s

In which –z denotes the coordinate from the origin.

2
1 l  ∂w ∂ υ The explicit expressions for the laminate stiffnesses E11
∏E = ∫  F
2 o  ∂x
− M 2  dx
∂x 
(14)
and E22 of the mono-symmetric cross-section are given
as follows:
where denotes the entire length of the beam and by
substituting Eqn 11 into Eqn 14, the strain energy of the *f *w
E11 = A11 h + 2 A11 b (19a)
laminated beam can be obtained as follows:

2  b3 
1 l   ∂w 
2
 ∂ 2υ   E22 = ( *f 2
A11 zc + *f
D11 )h + *w
2 A11  + bzc ( b + zc )  (19b)
2 ∫o   ∂x 
∏E =  E11   + E22  2   dx (15)  3 
 ∂x  
 
where the index f and w denote the flange and the web,
Now for the mono-symmetric cross-section as shown respectively; b and h are the width of flange and the
in Figure 2, the center of gravity (yc, zc) is the point of height of web, respectively.
application of the axial force F, which is the resultant of
the axial stress caused by a constant state of strain εx. 3. FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATION
Equating moment with respect to y axis is expressed as Figure 3 shows the laminated beam subjected to the
follows: triangular distribution of nonconservative forces. Let
the axial component per unit length be denoted by gc
F zc = − M (16) and the tangential force per unit length by gt. Letting

1078 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 6 2011

Nam-II Kim

z where le is the length of the finite beam element; ΠM and

ΠG are the kinetic energy and the potential energy
including the work done by the conservative component
0.03 m 0.03 m
of the axial force, respectively; δ ΠNC is the virtual work
by the nonconservative component of the acting force
h = 0.6 m and damping effects; ρ and ω are the mass density and
the circular frequency of the laminated beam,
y respectively; γ1 and γ 2 are the external and internal
C (yc , zc) damping coefficients, respectively; t and δ are the time
zc
and the variation, respectively; F(x) is the axial force at
0.03 m point x and expressed as follows:

b = 0.6 m x
F ( x ) = − F1p − ∫ g( x )dx
Figure 3. Configuration of the cross-section for the o
(22)
laminated beam. x2
= − F1p − Pxp x − ( Pxq − Pxp ) 2le
the α · ∂υ/∂x be the angle between the x axis and the
nonconservative force g, the resultant of gc and gt, one
where P xp and P xq are the values of g(x) at two end points
easily obtains the following relation:
of le. The extend Hamilton’s principle for the
g = gc + gt (20) nonconservative system can be written in the form.

In Figure 3, α is the nonconservativeness parameter t2

and note that the force is conservative for α = 0, while it ∫ t {δ ( ∏ M − ∏ E + ∏G ) + δ ∏ NC } dt
1
= 0 (23)
is nonconservative for α ≠ 0 and is a purely tangential
follower force for α = 1. As can be seen in Figure 3(a), By variation of Eqn 23 with respect to the
g is assumed to be triangularly distributed along the x displacement components w and υ, we can obtain the
axis, g(x) = go(l – x), where gol represents the intensity following equations of motion.
of g at x = 0.
The governing equation of the system can be derived ∂ 2w ∂ 2w
from the energy expressions including nonconservative E11 − ρ A = 0 (24a)
∂x 2 ∂t 2
forces as follows:

2 ∂ 4υ ∂ 2υ ∂ 2  ∂ 2υ  ∂υ
1 le   ∂w 2
  ∂ 2υ   E22 4
+ ρ A 2
− ρ I 2 2 
+ g (1 − α )
∏E = ∑ 2 ∫o  E11   + E22  2   dx (21a) ∂x ∂t ∂x  ∂t  ∂x
 ∂x   ∂x   (24b)
e   ∂ 2υ ∂υ ∂ 4  ∂υ 
+ F 2 + γ1 +γ2 4   = 0
∂x ∂t ∂x  ∂t 
2
1 
2 le   ∂υ  
∏M = ∑ 2 ∫o 
ρω A w 2
+ υ 2
(+ I )
   dx
∂x 
(21b) To construct the finite element formulation for the
nonconservative system, the displacements are expressed
e 
over each element as an one-dimensional Lagrange
interpolation function for the axial displacement w and
2 the third-order Hermitian interpolation function for the
1 le  ∂υ 
∏G = ∑ ∫ F ( x )   dx (21c) vertical displacement υ. By substituting the interpolated
e 2
o  ∂x 
displacements into Eqn 23, the resulting equation of
motion for a single element is obtained in a matrix
form as
le 
 ∂υ ∂ 3υ  ∂ 2υ 
δ ∏ NC = − ∑ ∫ γ 1 δυ + γ 2 2 δ  2 
o
 ∂t ∂x ∂t  ∂x  t2
e
(21d) ∫ t {δ U e Me U e − δ U e Ce U e − δ U e (25)
∂υ  1

+α g( x ) δυ  dx
∂x  (K e + K g − K nc ) U e − δ U e Fe dt = 0 }

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 6 2011 1079

 Divergence and Flutter Instability of Damped Laminated Beams Subjected to a Triangular Distribution of Nonconservative Forces
where Ue and Fe are the nodal displacement and force
vectors, respectively; Me and Ce are the mass and
damping matrices, respectively; Ke and Kg are the
elastic stiffness matrix and the geometric stiffness
matrix due to the axial force, respectively; Knc is the
load correction stiffness matrix due to the directional
change of nonconservative forces and the superscript
‘dot’ means the differentiation with respect to the time.
The detailed results of each matrix are presented in
Appendix. Note that the damping matrix Ce due to the
external and internal damping is represented by linear
combination of mass matrix and the elastic stiffness
matrix and resultantly takes the same form as Rayleigh’s
damping matrix (Clough and Penzien 1975) as follows:
C e = γ 1 Me + γ 2 K e (26)
Using the direct stiffness method, we can get the
equation of motion for the whole laminated beam
structure in a matrix form.
 + C U + ( K + K − K ) U = F
MEU E E G NC (27)
where, ME, CE, and KE are the mass-, the damping-, and
the elastic stiffness matrices, respectively, in the global
coordinate system; KG and KNC are the global
geometric stiffness matrix and the load correction
stiffness matrix due to the nonconservative forces,
respectively.
4. DYNAMIC INSTABILITY ANALYSIS
4.1. Evaluation of Flutter Load Considering
Damping Effect
We consider the dynamic equilibrium state of the
nonconservative system considering the damping
effects. In this case, from Eqn 27, the equation of
motion can be written as follows:
 + C U +  K − λ ( K − K )  U = 0 (28)
MEU E  E G NC 
where λ is the proportionality parameter and the
dynamic instability of the laminated beams depends on
the change of the λ.
·
By putting the nodal velocity vector U as the
independent variable V, Eqn 28 is transformed into
the following two simultaneous differential equations
of the first order.
M E U = M E V (29a)
M E V = − C E V −  K E − λ ( KG − K NC )  U (29b)
1080
Eqn 29 can be expressed as an eigenvalue problem by
putting U = eiω tQ and V = eiω tS.
iω A D = B D (30)
where i = −1 and the matrices A and B and the vector
D are as follows:
 ME 0 
A= ,
 0 M E 
(31a-c)
 0 ME  Q 
B=  , D= 
 − K E + λ ( K G − K NC ) − C E  S 
The frequency ω (= µ ± η i ) becomes complex
conjugate in case of the damped nonconservative system
with small value of λ. Application of Lyapunov’s
stability definition (Bolotin 1963) which is the most used
gives that the vibrations are stable if all real values µ < 0
and unstable if at least one µ > 0. If, µ = 0, it has the
critical flutter load gf of the damped system.
4.2. Evaluation of Divergence and Flutter Loads
Neglecting Damping Effect
For the flutter system neglecting damping effects, Eqn
27 is simplified as follows:
 +  K − λ ( K − K )  U = 0
MEU (32)
 E G NC 
By letting U be eiω tH, Eqn 32 is reduced to the double
eigenvalue problem as follows:
K E − λ ( K G − K NC )  H = ω 2 M E H (33)
As the proportional parameter λ increases, the dynamic
instability behaviors of the undamped nonconservative
system may be traced by constructing the characteristic
curve which shows variation of frequencies ω 2. That is to
say, ω 2 becomes the positive real in case that λ is small.
But as λ increases gradually, the first and the second
frequencies of ω 2 approach each other and the stability is
lost when two consecutive eigenvalues of ω 2 become
equal at a finite critical value of λ . At this point, the
critical flutter load gf occurs. In this study, the 2nd flutter
load as well as the 1st one is evaluated from the
characteristic curve of laminated beams.
On the other hand, in the case of the static
equilibrium state of the nonconservative system without
damping effects, the mass matrix ME, the damping
matrix CE, and the force vector F in Eqn 27 are
eliminated. Resultantly we can consider the following
eigenvalue problem.
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 6 2011
Nam-II Kim
K E U = λ ( K G − K NC ) U
The critical divergence load gd of the system is
determined by calculating the eigenvalue λ of Eqn 34.
5. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
In numerical examples, the fiber angle and the beam’s
geometrical and mechanical properties are assumed to
be uniform throughout the beams and the results are
obtained with 10 finite beam elements. Here, the global
stiffness matrix of the system is asymmetric due to the
effect of nonconservative forces so that the IMSL
(Microsoft 1995) subroutine which can provide the
complex eigenvalue of asymmetric matrix equation is
used in this study.
5.1. Divergence and Flutter Loads for Isotropic
Beams
In order to check the accuracy of the present numerical
method, the laminated beams are treated as an isotropic
material with following geometrical and mechanical
properties: A = 2 × 10–3 m2, I = 1.66666 × 10–8 m4,
l = 1 m, E = 2.1 × 108 kN/m2, ρ = 15700 kg/m3. The 1st
and 2nd divergence loads and the 1st flutter load of
beams subjected to the triangular distribution of
tangential forces (α = 1) are presented in Table 1 with
respect to various boundary conditions. For comparison,
the analytical solutions by Leipholz (1980) who uses a
Table 1. The 1st and 2nd divergence loads and the 1st flutter load of isotropic beams subjected to the triangular
distribution of tangential forces ( α = 1.0)
Boundary condition g *d 1
C-F – –
S-S 61.87
(61.95)
{61.87}
[61.87]
S-C 88.49
(88.53)
C-S – –
C-C – –
( ): Results from Ryu et al. (2000)
{ }: Results from Leipholz (1980)
[ ]: Results from Marzani et al. (2008)
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 6 2011
(34) power series approach, the finite element results using
25 elements by Ryu et al. (2000), and the results
obtained by the generalized quadrature method
(Marzani et al. 2008) using a 51 points Chebyshev-
Gauss-Lobatto grid distribution are presented. In
Table 1, the dimensionless force parameter is defined as
g* = gol 4/EI and the considered boundary conditions are:
the clamped-free (C-F), simple-simple (S-S), simple-
clamped (S-C), clamped-simple (C-S), and clamped-
clamped (C-C) boundary conditions. To compare the
present finite element results with the analytical
solutions, the degree of freedom corresponding to the
longitudinal displacement at right end is released. It
can be found from Table 1 that the present results
agree well with the ones by other researchers.
5.2. Divergence and Flutter Loads for
Laminated Beams
Figure 3 shows the mono-symmetric cross-section of
the laminated beams which has the flange width 0.6 m
and the height of web 0.6 m. The length of beams is
12 m and the total thicknesses of flange and two webs
are assumed to be 0.03 m. All constituent flange and
webs are assumed to be symmetrically laminated with
respect to their mid plane and 4 layers with equal
thickness are considered in flange and webs. The
graphite epoxy (AS4/3501) is used for beams with its
material properties: E1 = 144 GPa, E2 = E3 = 9.65 GPa,
g *d 2 g *f 1
150.68
(150.64)
{150.80}
[150.64]
–
279.31
{279.06}
342.78 –
313.85
(313.82)
{313.60}
[313.50]
375.62
(375.35)
{375.20}
[375.02]
1081
 Divergence and Flutter Instability of Damped Laminated Beams Subjected to a Triangular Distribution of Nonconservative Forces

G12 = G13 = 4.14 GPa, G23 = 3.45 GPa, v12 = v13 = 0.3,
ρ = 1389 kg/m3. Where subscripts ‘1’ and ‘2’, ‘3’
correspond to directions parallel and perpendicular to
fibers, respectively.
For S-S beams with [0]4, [0/90]S, and [45/−45]S lay-
ups, the lowest three natural frequencies obtained from
this study are presented and compared with the
analytical solutions by Cortínez and Piovan (2002) in
Table 2. A good agreement was obtained as shown in
Table 2 for fiber angles under consideration.
Next, for C-F beam with [30/−30]S lay-up subjected
to the triangular distribution of nonconservative
forces, several characteristic curves for the higher
divergence and flutter loads corresponding to different
values of α are plotted in Figure 4. The load becomes
nonconservative as the α takes values other than zero.
In this example, the dimensionless force parameter
g* = gol 4/(E2Ah2) and the dimensionless frequency
parameter Ω = ω(ρl 4/E2h2)1/2 are used. It can be
observed from Figure 4 that when Ω2 > 0, the beam
takes on a harmonic motion. On the other hand, when
Ω2 < 0, it takes on a divergence motion. The value of
the force parameter g* at which a curve intersects the
g* axis (Ω2 = 0) is the divergence limits. In this study,
the frequency parameter Ω is assumed to be a complex
quantity in general and appears as either real or purely
imaginary quantity which corresponds to the
oscillatory motion or to the divergence motion of the
laminated beams, respectively.
To investigate the influence of the fiber angle change
on the critical loads for divergence and flutter, the
characteristic curves for C-F beams with [ψ/−ψ]S lay-up
are plotted in Figures 5 to 8 with respect to various α.
As shown in Figures 5 to 8, for any directional
laminated beams, all values of α ≤ 0.5 lead to the
divergence instability and to the flutter instability
otherwise. It can also be found that the fiber angle plays
a significant role in the divergence and flutter loads of

Table 2. Natural frequencies (Hz) of S-S beams made of graphite-epoxy

Stacking sequence

Methods [0]4 [0/90]S [45/−45]S

This study 22.19 16.25 7.16
88.41 64.74 28.54
197.67 144.74 63.82
Cortínez and Piovan (2002) 22.21 16.22 7.18
88.85 64.89 28.70
199.92 146.00 64.58

400
250
350
225
300
200
250
175
200
150
Frequency, Ω2
Frequency, Ω2

150
α = 1.0 125
100 100
50 75
0.5
0 50
0.3 α = 1.0
−50 0 25
0.3 0.5
−100 0
0 0.3
−150 −25 0
0.3 0 0 0.3
−200 −50
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150
Force parameter, g* Force parameter, g*
(a) Characteristic curves (b) Region of interest

Figure 4. Characteristic curves for the divergence and flutter loads of C-F beams with [30/−30]S lay-up

1082 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 6 2011

Nam-II Kim

24 100

22 90
20
80
18
70
16

Frequency, Ω2
Frequency, Ω2

14 60

12 50
ψ = 0°
10 40
8 15°
30
6
90° 30° 15°
20
4 30° ψ = 0°
10
2
90°
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
Force parameter, g* Force parameter, g*

Figure 5. Characteristic curves for the 1st divergence load and Figure 7. Characteristic curves for the higher divergence and
natural frequency of C-F beams with [ψ /−ψ]S lay-ups subjected to flutter loads of C-F beams with [ψ /−ψ]S lay-ups subjected to the
the conservative forces (α = 0) subtangential forces (α = 0.5)

200 40
175
150 35
125
100 30
75
50 ψ = 0° 25
Frequency, Ω2

15°
Frequency, Ω2

90° 30°
25
ψ = 0°
0 20
−25 15°
−50 15
−75
−100 10
−125 30°
−150 90° 30° 15° 0°
5
−175 90°
−200 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Force parameter, g* Force parameter, g*
Figure 6. Characteristic curves for the higher divergence and Figure 8. Characteristic curves for the higher divergence and
flutter loads of C-F beams with [ψ /−ψ]S lay-ups subjected to the flutter loads of C-F beams with [ψ /−ψ]S lay-ups subjected to the
subtangential forces (α = 0.3) tangential forces (α = 1.0)

beams. As the fiber angle increases, both divergence and
flutter loads decrease. Figure 9 shows the variation of
the 1st divergence and flutter loads with respect to the
fiber angle change ψ. It is interesting to find from
Figure 9 that the 1st divergence load increases as α
increases regardless of ψ, whereas the 1st flutter load
decreases with increase of α. It can also be found from
Figure 9(a) that the 1st divergence load significantly
increases around α = 0.5 and both divergence and
flutter loads sharply decrease down to the fiber angle
ψ = 50° and have the minimum values around ψ = 75°.
This is due to the fact that the value of bending stiffness
E22 of the laminated beams is the smallest around
ψ = 75°. Figures 10 and 11 show the variation of the

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 6 2011 1083

 Divergence and Flutter Instability of Damped Laminated Beams Subjected to a Triangular Distribution of Nonconservative Forces

240 400

220 375
350 α = 0.3
200 α = 0.5 325
0.4
180 300
Critical force parameter, gcr*

Critical force parameter, gcr*

0.5
160 275
250
140
225
0.9
120 200
0.4 1.0
100 175
150
80 0.3
125
0.2
60 0.1 100
0 75
40
50
20
25
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Fiber angle, ψ (degree) Fiber angle,ψ (degree)
(a) The 1st divergence loads (b) The 1st flutter loads

Figure 9. Variation of the 1st divergence and flutter loads of C-F beams with respect to the fiber angle

400 380
0.2 0.1
360
350

340 0.3
300 0.4 0
Critical force parameter, gcr*
Critical force parameter, gcr*

0.4
320
250
300
200 α = 0.5
280
150
260

100 240

50 220
α = 0.5

0 200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 1 2 3 4 5

Fiber angle, ψ (degree) Fiber angle, ψ (degree)

(a) The 2nd divergence loads (b) Region of interest

Figure 10. Variation of the 2nd divergence loads of C-F beams with respect to the fiber angle

2nd divergence and flutter loads, respectively. Contrary suddenly jump at α = 0.5, as can be seen in Figure 11(a),
to the 1st divergence behavior as shown in Figure 9(a), and then decreases with increase of α.
the 2nd divergence load drops significantly around To intensively study the variation of the 1st and 2nd
α = 0.5 and it is the highest at α = 0.2, is followed by divergence and flutter loads with respect to α, the
α = 0.1, α = 0.3 and α = 0. For the 2nd flutter behavior stability diagrams for C-F beams with various lay-ups
of laminated beams, the flutter load increases and are depicted in Figure 12. As seen in these figures, for

1084 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 6 2011

Nam-II Kim

1800 1700

1600 1675

1650 α = 0.5
1400

Critical force parameter, gcr*

Critical force parameter, gcr*

1625
1200 0.6
1600
1000 0.7
1575
800 0.8
1550
600 0.49 0.9
1525
0.4
400 α = 0.3 1500 1.0

200 1475

0 1450
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 1 2 3 4 5
Fiber angle,ψ (degree) Fiber angle,ψ (degree)

(a) The 2nd flutter loads (b) Region of interest

Figure 11. Variation of the 2nd flutter loads of C-F beams with respect to the fiber angle

values of 0.0 ≤ α < 0.279, the instability mechanism jump α = 0.5. It can also be seen from these figure
of the system is the divergence system (DS) and the 1st that the ranges of DFS are 1.537 ≤ α ≤ 1.783 and
and 2nd flutter occur with the divergence at 0.279 ≤ α 1.671 ≤ α ≤ 1.975 for S-S and S-C beams, respectively.
≤ 0.5, which corresponds to the divergence-flutter For C-S and C-C beams, ones are 0.466 ≤ α ≤ 0.793 and
system (DFS). And the pure flutter without divergence 0.499 ≤ α ≤ 0.855, respectively. Accordingly the
which means the flutter system (FS) occurs at α > 0.5 instability range of DFS is the widest for C-C beam, is
for all lay-ups. Also the 1st critical load due to the followed by C-S, S-C, and S-S beams. And it is most
flutter decreases slightly as α increases whereas the narrow for C-F beam.
2nd flutter load increases with increase of α in DFS.
Then the 2nd load discontinuously jumps at α = 0.5 5.3. Flutter Load for Laminated Beams with
where corresponds to the transition point from DFS to Damping Effects
FS and it decreases with in creases of α in FS. This In our final example, the influence of the external and
jumping phenomenon is due to the reason that not internal damping on the flutter behavior of laminated
only the 1st flutter but also the 2nd flutter occurs at the beams subjected to the triangular distribution of
load level in which the 1st and the 2nd frequencies nonconservative forces is investigated. The geometry,
coincide in DFS, while the 2nd flutter occurs when the material and sectional properties of beams are the same
3rd and the 4th frequencies become equal in FS. as those in previous example. Based on the assumption
Now we proceed to study the effect of boundary of Rayleigh damping, the values of external damping γ1
condition on the divergence and flutter behavior of the and internal one γ2 can be evaluated from the modal
laminated beams. Figure 13 shows the stability diagrams decomposition.
for beams with [30/−30]S lay-up with respect to various For [30/−30]S beams with only small internal
boundary conditions. From Figures 13(a) and 13(b) damping γ2 = 0.0001 subjected to the triangular
which show the stability diagrams for S-S and S-C distribution of tangential forces, the decreasing ratio
beams, respectively, it is seen that the 2nd flutter load for the 1st and 2nd flutter loads due to γ 2 is presented
sharply increases with increase of α. Whereas for C-S and in Table 3. Where gfid* is the dimensionless flutter load
C-C beams as shown in Figures 13(c) and 13(d), with internal damping and the considered boundary
respectively, it jumps discontinuously at α = 0.5. conditions are C-F, C-S, and C-C ones. It can be found
Therefore it is judged that when the end boundary from Table 3 that for C-F beam, the flutter loads with
condition of beams where the compressive axial force small internal damping are dramatically dropped to
acts toward is clamped, the 2nd flutter load has a sudden about half of those for the undamped beam regardless

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 6 2011 1085

 Divergence and Flutter Instability of Damped Laminated Beams Subjected to a Triangular Distribution of Nonconservative Forces

2000 1600
(0.5, 1657.2) (0.5, 1331.1)
1800
1400
1600
1200

Critical force parameter, gcr*

Critical force parameter, gcr*

1400

1200 1000
Flutter
Flutter
1000 800
DFS (0.279 ≤ α ≤ 0.5) FS (α > 0.5) DFS (0.279 ≤ α ≤ 0.5)
800 FS (α > 0.5)
600
600 DS(0 ≤ α < 0.279) DS(0 ≤ α < 0.279)
(0.183, 358.22) 400 (0.183, 287.73)
400

200 Divergence 200 Divergence

0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Nonconservativeness parameter, α Nonconservativeness parameter, α
(a) (0)4 lay-up (b) (15/−15)S lay-up

600 130
(0.5, 521.26) (0.5, 111.07)
550 120
500 110
450 100
Critical force parameter, gcr*

Critical force parameter, gcr*

400 90

350 80
Flutter
70 Flutter
300
DFS (0.279 ≤ α ≤ 0.5) FS (α > 0.5) 60
250 DFS (0.279 ≤ α ≤ 0.5)
50 FS (α > 0.5)
200 DS(0 ≤ α < 0.279)
40 DS(0 ≤ α < 0.279)
150 (0.183, 112.67) (0.183, 24.01)
30
100
Divergence 20
50 Divergence
10
0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Nonconservativeness parameter, α Nonconservativeness parameter, α
(c) (30/−30)S lay-up (d) (90/−90)S lay-up

Figure 12. Stability diagrams for C-F beams with various lay-ups

of fiber angle change and the effect of internal the damping force. The detailed description for the
damping on the flutter load decreases as the end physical mechanism of this destabislizing effect of
condition of beam becomes to be restrained. In the damping in nonconservative dissipative systems is
case of Beck’s column, the study from Sugiyama and presented in the study by Sugiyama and Langthjem
Langthjem (2007) indicated that the destabilizing (2007). It can also be seen from Table 3 that the effect
effect of small internal damping may be caused by the of small internal damping on the 1st flutter load is
rapid decrease of the phase angle gradient at the free larger than that on the 2nd flutter load.
end. This implies that the critical flutter load gfid* must Figures 14 and 15 show the stability diagram of C-F
decrease in order to maintain the energy balance with beam with [30/−30]S lay-up considering only internal

1086 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 6 2011

Nam-II Kim

550 650
(2.06, 479.41)
500 600 (2.12, 544.11)

450 550
500
Critical force parameter, gcr*

Critical force parameter, gcr*

400
450
350
Flutter 400 Flutter
300 350
250 DFS (1.537 ≤ α ≤ 1.783) FS (α > 1.783) DFS (1.671≤ α ≤1.975) FS ( α >1.975)
300
DS (0 ≤ α < 1.537) DS (0 ≤ α < 1.671)
200 250 (0.62, 182.76)
(0.69, 149.51)
200
150
150
100 Divergence
Divergence 100
50
50
0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Nonconservativeness parameter, α
Nonconservativeness parameter, α
(a) S-S beams (b) S-C beams

900 1000
(0.5, 777.79) (0.5, 884.38)
800 900

700 800
Critical force parameter, gcr*

Critical force parameter, gcr*

600 700
Flutter Flutter
600
500

FS (α > 0.793) 500

DS (0 ≤ α < 0.499) FS (α > 0.855)
400 DS (0 ≤ α < 0.466)
400 DFS (0.499 ≤ α ≤ 0.855)
DFS (0.466 ≤ α ≤ 0.793)
300 (0.16, 220.22) (0.14, 259.14)
300
200
Divergence 200 Divergence
100
100

0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Nonconservativeness parameter, α Nonconservativeness parameter, α
(c) C-S beams (d) C-C beams
Figure 13. Stability diagrams for beams with [30/−30]S lay-up

Table 3. Decreasing ratio for the 1st and 2nd flutter loads due to only internal damping ( γ 2 = 0.0001) for
[30/−30]s beams subjected to the triangular distribution of tangential forces ( α = 1.0)

Boundary conditions

Decreasing ratio C-F C-S C-C

g idf 1* g*f 1 0.525 0.790 0.843

g idf 2* g*f 2 0.786 0.878 0.903

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 6 2011 1087

 Divergence and Flutter Instability of Damped Laminated Beams Subjected to a Triangular Distribution of Nonconservative Forces

160 160

140 140

120 120
Critical force parameter, gcr*

Critical force parameter, gcr*

γ2 = 0
Flutter, unstable
100
γ 2 = 0.005
100 γ1 = 10
78.47
80 80 78.56
γ 2 = 0.010 γ1 = 1 γ1 = 0.1 71.29
Divergene, unstable
60 55.20 60
γ 2 = 0.015 51.82
47.46
Divergence, unstable
40 γ2 = 0.0001 41.18
42.76 40 γ1 = 0 41.18

20 20

0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Nonconservativeness parameter, α Nonconservativeness parameter, α

Figure 14. Stability diagram for C-F beams with [30/−30]S lay-up Figure 16. Stability diagram for C-F beams with [30/−30]S lay-up
considering only internal damping when γ1 = 0 considering internal and external damping when γ2 = 0.0001

damping and the decreasing ratio of the 1st flutter load on the 1st flutter load increases as α increases. On the
due to this internal damping, respectively. It is other hand, in the case of larger value of internal
interesting to find from Figure 14 that the value of damping (γ2 = 0.015), the effect of internal damping
flutter load decreases as the internal damping increases becomes to be large as α decreases and to be the
when α < 0.5 whereas it increases with increase of the minimum around α = 0.7. Finally under the condition
internal damping when α > 0.5. And the flutter loads of small internal damping γ 2 = 0.0001, the stability
have the same value at α = 0.5 even the value of diagram for C-F beam with [30/−30]S lay-up is
internal damping is different. It can also be found from depicted in Figure 16 with respect to the various values
Figure 15 that the effect of the small internal damping of external damping. As can be seen in Figure 16, as
the external damping increases, the flutter load curve
shifts up. Thus the external damping stabilizes the
0.80 nonconservative system. For beams with other lay-ups,
0.78 the results show similar behavior when compared to
0.76 those with [30/−30]S lay-up.
0.74
6. CONCLUSIONS
Decreasing ratio, gf1 id*/gf1*

0.72
0.70 The finite element procedure based on the extended
0.68 Hamilton’s principle for the mono-symmetric laminated
0.66
beams subjected to the triangular distribution of
0.64
nonconservative forces has been developed. The
influence of the degree of nonconservativeness α of the
0.62
γ 2 (γ1 = 0) load on the critical forces for divergence and flutter is
0.60
0.0001
shown for various fiber angle and boundary conditions.
0.58
0.005 Also the present work regards the effect of the external
0.56 0.010 and internal damping on the dynamic instability of the
0.54 0.015
laminated beams. The distinction drawn from numerical
0.52 example is summarized as follows:
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
(1) In the case of the fiber angle change, both
Nonconservativeness parameter, α
divergence and flutter loads sharply decrease
Figure 15. Decreasing ratio of the 1st flutter load due to the internal down to the fiber angle of 50° and are to be the
damping for C-F beams with [30/−30]S lay-up minimum around the fiber angle of 75°.

1088 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 6 2011

Nam-II Kim
(2) The 1st flutter load decreases continuously as α
increases, whereas the 2nd flutter load increases
up to the maximum value and then decreases
with increase of α.
(3) When the end boundary condition of beams
where the compressive axial force acts toward
is clamped, the 2nd flutter load suddenly jump
α = 0.5.
(4) The instability range of the divergence-flutter
system is the widest for C-C beam, is followed
by C-S, S-C, and S-S beams. It is most narrow
for C-F beam.
(5) As the end condition of beams becomes to be
restrained, the effect of internal damping on the
flutter load decreases. In the case of same
internal damping, its effect on the 1st flutter load
is larger than that on the 2nd flutter load.
(6) When α < 0.5, the flutter load decreases as the
internal damping increases, whereas it
increases with increase of the internal damping
when α > 0.5. The flutter loads have the same
value at α = 0.5
(7) It is clear that the external damping compensates
partly the destabilizing effect of the small
internal damping.
REFERENCES
Bolotin, V.V. (1963). Non-Conservative Problems of the Theory of
Elastic Stability, Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK.
Bolotin, V.V. and Zhinzher, N.I. (1969). “Effects of damping on
stability of elastic system subjected to non- conservative forces”,
International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 5, No. 9,
pp. 965–989.
Clough, R.W. and Penzien, J. (1975). Dynamics of Structures,
McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.
Cortínez, V.H. and Piovan, M.T. (2002). “Vibration and buckling of
composite thin-walled beams with shear deformability”, Journal
of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 258, No. 4, pp. 701–723.
El Naschie, M.S. (1990). Stress, Stability and Chaos in Structural
Engineering: An energy Approach, MaGraw-Hill, New York, USA.
Elishakoff, I. (2005). “Controversy associated with the so-called
‘follower forces’: critical overview”, Applied Mechanics
Reviews, Vol. 58, No. 2, pp. 117–142.
Gasparini, A.M., Saetta, A.V. and Vitaliani, R.V. (1995). “On the
stability and instability regions of non-conservative continuous
system under partially follower forces”, Computer Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 1–2, pp. 63–78.
Gjelsvik, A. (1981). The Theory of Thin-Walled Bars, Wiley, New
York, USA.
Imielowski, Sz. (1993). “Sensitivity analysis of a stepped column
under circulatory load”, ZAMM, Vol. 73, pp. 186–189.
IMSL (1995). Microsoft IMSL Library, Microsoft Corporation.
Jones, R.M. (1999). Mechanics of Composite Material, 2nd Edition,
Taylor & Francis, New York, USA.
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 6 2011
Kounadis, A.N. and Smities, G. J. (1993). “Local (classical) and
global bifurcations in non-linear, non-gradient autonomous
dissipative structural systems”, Journal of Sound and Vibration,
Vol. 160, No. 3, pp. 417–432.
Krätzig, W.B. (1993). Computational Concepts for Kinetic
Instability Problems, Corso CISM, Udine, Italy.
Krätzig, W.B., Li, L.Y. and Nawrotzki, P. (1991). “Stability conditions
for non-conservative dynamical systems”, Computational
Mechanics, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 141–151.
Langthjem, M.A. and Sugiyama, Y. (2000). “Dynamic stability of
columns subjected to follower loads: a survey”, Journal of Sound
and Vibration, Vol. 238, No. 5, pp. 809–851.
Leipholz, H. (1980). Stability of Elastic Systems, Sijthoff &
Noordhoff International Publishers BV, Alphen aan den Rijn, the
Netherlands.
Marzani, A., Tornabene, F. and Viola, E. (2008). “Nonconservative
stability problems via generalized differential quadrature
method”, Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 315, No. 1–2,
pp. 176–196.
Marzani, A. and Viola, E. (2003). “Effect of boundary conditions on
the stability of beams under conservative and non-conservative
forces”, Structural Engineering and Mechanics, Vol. 16, No. 2,
pp. 195–217.
Prabhakara, D.L., Dharshan, M.D. and Uthpal, U.J. (2006).
“Flutter stability behavior of free-free column with a movable
mass subjected to follower drag force”, International Journal of
Structural Stability and Dynamics, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 215–231.
Ryu, B.J., Sugiyama, Y., Yim, K.B. and Lee, G.S. (2000). “Dynamic
stability of an elastically restrained column subjected to
triangulary distributed subtangential forces”, Computers and
Structures, Vol. 76, No. 5, pp. 611–619.
Semler, C., Alighanbari, H. and Païdoussis, M.P. (1998). “A
physical explanation of the destabilizing effect of damping”,
Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 65, No. 3, pp. 642–648.
Smith, E. C. and Chopra, I. (1991). “Formulation and evaluation of
an analytical model for composite box-beams”, American
Helicopter Society, Vol. 36, No. 23, pp. 23–35.
Sugiyama, Y. and Langthjem, M.A. (2007). “Physical mechanism of
the destabilizing effect of damping in continuous non-
conservative dissipative systems”, Non-Linear Mechanics, Vol. 42,
No. 1, pp. 132–145.
Thomsen, J.J. (1993). Chaotic Dynamics of the Partially Follower-
Loaded Elastic Double-Pendulum, Report No. 455, Technical
University of Denmark, Denmark.
Wang, Q. (2002). “Effect of the follower force on the static buckling
of beams”, International Journal of Structural Stability and
Dynamics, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 425–430.
Xiong, Y. and Wang, T. K. (1987). “Stability of a beck-type
laminated column”, Proceedings of the 6th International
Conference on Composite Materials (ICCM VI), New York,
USA, Vol. 5, pp. 38–46.
Ziegler, H. (1952). “Die stagilitätskriterien der Elastomechanik”, Ing
Arch, Vol. 20, pp. 49–56.
1089
 Divergence and Flutter Instability of Damped Laminated Beams Subjected to a Triangular Distribution of Nonconservative Forces

APPENDIX A: DETAILED EXPRESSIONS OF MATRICES Me, Ke, AND Kg

(1) Mass matrix Me

 m1 ⋅ ⋅ m2 ⋅ ⋅ 
 m3 m4 ⋅ m5 m6 
 
 m7 ⋅ − m6 m8 
Me =   (A-1)
 m1 ⋅ ⋅ 
 symm. m3 − m4 
 
 m7 

1 1 39 ρI 11 9 ρI
m1 = ρ Ale , m2 = ρ Ale , m3 = ρ Ale + 1.2 , m4 = ρ Ale2 + 0.1ρ I , m5 = ρ Ale − 1.2 ,
3 6 105 le 210 70 le
(A-2)
13 1 2 1 1
m6 = − ρ Ale2 + 0.1ρ I , m7 = ρ Ale3 + ρ I le , m8 = − ρ Ale3 − ρ I le
420 105 15 140 30

(2) Elastic stiffness matrix Ke

 E11le2 ⋅ ⋅ − E11le2 ⋅ ⋅ 
 
 12 E22 6 E22le ⋅ −12 E22 6 E22le 
 
1 4 E22le2 ⋅ −6 E22le 2 E22le2 
Ke = 3  (A-3)
le  E11le2 ⋅ ⋅ 
 
 symm. 12 E22 −6 E22le 
 
 4 E22le2 

(3) Geometric stiffness matrix due to an axial force Kg

⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ 
 g1 g2 ⋅ − g1 g3 
 
 g4 ⋅ − g2 g5 
Kg =   (A-4)
 ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ 
 symm. g1 − g3 
 
 g6 

1.2 F1p 3Pxp 6( Pxq − Pxp ) F p P pl ( P q − Pxp )le

g1 = − + + , g2 = − 1 + x e + x
le 5 35 10 10 28
F1p ( Pxq − Pxp )le 2 F1ple Pxple2 ( Pxq − Pxp )le (A-5)
g3 = − − , g4 = − + +
10 70 15 30 105
F1ple Pxple2 ( Pxq − Pxp )le2 2 F pl P pl 2 3( Pxq − Pxp )le2
g5 = − − , g6 = − 1 e + x e +
30 60 140 15 10 70

1090 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 6 2011

Nam-II Kim

(4) Load correction stiffness matrix

⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ 
⋅ n n2 ⋅ − n1 n3 
 1 
⋅ n4 n5 ⋅ − n4 n6 
K nc =α   (A-6)
⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ 
⋅ n7 n8 ⋅ − n7 n9 
 
⋅ n10 n11 ⋅ − n10 n12 

Pxp 13( Pxq − Pxp ) P pl ( P q − Pxp )le P pl 11( Pxq − Pxp )le
n1 = + , n2 = − x e + x , n3 = x e +
2 70 10 105 10 420
Pxple 3( Pxq − Pxp )le ( P q − Pxp )le2 P pl 2 ( P q − Pxp )le2
n4 = + , n5 = x , n6 = x e + x ,
10 70 210 60 210
(A-7)
P p 11( Pxq − Pxp ) P pl 31( Pxq − Pxp )le P pl 23( Pxq − Pxp )le
n7 = x + , n8 = x e + , n9 = − x e −
2 35 10 420 10 210
Pxple 2( Pxq − Pxp )le Pxple 5( Pxq − Pxp )le ( Pxq − Pxp )le2
n10 = − − , n11 = − − , n122 =
10 35 60 420 210

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 6 2011 1091