B R P I E L: Uckling of Ectangular Lates Under Ntermediate and ND Oads

BUCKLING OF RECTANGULAR PLATES UNDER
INTERMEDIATE AND END LOADS
Chen Yu
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE
2003
BUCKLING OF RECTANGULAR PLATES UNDER
Chen Yu
(B. Eng.)
A THESIS SUBMITTED
FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE
2003
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to express her sincere gratitude to Professor Wang Chien Ming, for
his guidance, patience and invaluable suggestions throughout the course of study. His
extensive knowledge, serious research attitude and enthusiasm have been extremely
valuable to the author.
Also special thanks go to Associate Professor Xiang Yang of University of Western
Sydney, Australia for his valuable discussions.
The author is grateful to the National University of Singapore for providing a
handsome research scholarship during the two-year study.
Finally, the author wishes to express her deep gratitude to her family, for their love and
continuous support during the course of this research.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ii
SUMMARY iv
NOMENCLATURE v
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF FIGURES viii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Literature Review 2
1.2.1 Elastic buckling of rectangular plates 2
1.2.2 Plastic buckling of rectangular plates 8
1.3 Objectives and Scope of Study 12
1.4 Outline of Thesis 13
CHAPTER 2: BUCKLING OF PLATES UNDER END LOADS 15

2.1 Elastic Buckling Theory 15
2.1.1 Derivation of differential equation for elastic buckling 15
2.1.2 Boundary conditions 19
2.2 Plastic Buckling Theory 20
2.2.1 Derivation of constitutive relations based on Hencky’s
deformation theory 20
2.2.2 Derivation of constitutive relations based on Prandtl-
Reuss material 24
2.2.3 Derivation of differential equation for plastic buckling 25
2.2.4 Boundary conditions 27
ii
CHAPTER 3: ELASTIC BUCKLING OF PLATES UNDER
INTERMEDIATE AND END LOADS 31
3.1 Mathematical Modeling 32
3.1.1 Problem definition 32
3.1.2 Method of solution 32
3.2 Results and Discussions 38
3.2.1 SSSS plates 38
3.2.2 CSCS plate 41
3.2.3 FSFS plate 42
3.3 Concluding Remarks 43
CHAPTER 4: PLASTIC BUCKLING OF PLATES UNDER
INTERMEDIATE AND END LOADS 61
4.1 Mathematical Modeling 62
4.1.1 Problem definition 62
4.1.2 Method of solution 62
4.2 Results and Discussions 70
4.2.1 Effect of various aspect ratios a/b 72
4.2.2 Effect of various loading positions χ 74
4.2.3 Effect of various boundary conditions 74
4.2.4 Effect of various material properties 75
4.2.5 Effect of using two different theories 75
4.3 Concluding Remarks 75
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 88

5.1 Conclusions 88
5.2 Recommendations for Future Studies 89
REFERENCES 90
AUTHOR’S LIST OF PUBLICATIONS 95
iii
SUMMARY
This thesis is concerned with the new buckling problem of rectangular plates subjected
to intermediate and end uniaxial loads. The considered plate has two opposite simply
supported edges that are parallel to the load direction and the other remaining edges may
take any combination of free, simply supported or clamped condition. The
aforementioned buckling problem is solved by decomposing the plate into two sub-plates
at the location where the intermediate uniaxial load acts. Each sub-plate buckling
problem is solved exactly using the Levy approach and the two solutions brought
together by matching the continuity equations at the separated edge.
Both elastic and plastic theories have been used to formulate the problem. For the
elastic theory, there exists five possible solutions for each sub-plate. Thus, when we
combine the two sub-plate problems, we need to consider twenty-five possible different
solution combinations. It is found that the stability curves consist of a number of these
combinations depending on the boundary conditions, aspect ratios, and intermediate load
positions. For the plastic buckling part, two competing theories, namely incremental
theory and deformation theory have been adopted to bound the plastic buckling solutions.
Unlike its elastic counterpart, there are eight possible solutions for each sub-plate when
considering plastic buckling. Thus sixty-four possible solution combinations are
considered for the whole plate. The final solution combination depends on various ratios
of the intermediate load to the end load, the intermediate load locations, aspect ratios,
boundary conditions and material properties.
Extensive stability criteria curves were presented to elucidate the buckling behavior of
such loaded rectangular plates. The results will be useful for engineers designing walls or
plates that have to support intermediate floors/loads.
Keywords: Elastic buckling; Plastic buckling; Thin plate theory; Incremental Theory of
Plasticity; Deformation Theory of Plasticity; Rectangular plates; Intermediate load; Levy
method; Stability criteria.
iv
NOMENCLATURE
a length of plates
b width of plates
c dimensionless constant describing the shape of the Ramberg-Osgood

stress-strain relation
D flexural rigidity
E Young’s modulus
G shear modulus
H plastic modulus
h thickness of plates
k horizontal distance between the knee of c = ∞ curve and the intersection

of the c curve with the σ / σ 0 = 1 line in the Ramberg-Osgood stress-strain
relation
M xx , M yy bending moments per unit length on x and y planes
M xy twisting moment per unit length on x plane
m number of half waves of the buckling mode along y direction
n number of half waves of the buckling mode along x direction
N1 end load on sub-plate 1 per unit length
N2 intermediate load on sub-plate 2 per unit length
Nx uniaxial load on x plane
Qx shear force per unit length on x plane
S secant modulus
T tangent modulus
U strain energy
Vx effective shear force per unit length
v
W work done due to uniaxial loads
w transverse deflection of a point on the mid-plane
α, β ,γ , ρ parameters in incremental theory of plasticity and deformation theory of

plasticity
γ xy , γ yz , γ xz shear strain in the xy, yz and xz plane
ε xx , ε yy normal strain in x and y directions
η contraction rate at current stress state
Λ1 end buckling load factor
Λ2 intermediate buckling load factor
ν Poisson’s ratio
∏ potential energy
σ0 nominal yield stress
σ1 end buckling load stress
σ2 intermediate buckling load stress
σ xx , σ yy normal stress on the x and y planes
σ xy shear stress on the x plane and parallel to the y direction
σ effective stress
χ intermediate load position
φie ,ψ ie parameters in elastic solutions
φi p ,ψ ip parameters in plastic solutions
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Twenty-five combinations of solutions 35
Table 3.2 Buckling factors Λ 2 for simply supported rectangular plates

subjected to inplane load in sub-plate 2 only ( N 1 = 0 ) 41
Table 4.1 Types of solutions depending on values of ∆1 , ∆ 2 , ∆ 3 65
Table 4.2 Buckling stresses σ 1 for a simply supported, square plate under
uniaxial end load (i.e. no intermediate load) 71
Table 4.3 Comparison of buckling factors of full plates with uniaxial

intermediate and end loads and their corresponding end loaded
sub-plates with different interfacial edge conditions 73
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
8
Fig. 1.1 Fig. 1.1 Buckling of plates under(a) point loads; (b) partially
distributed loads; (c) patch loads at edge center; (d) patch loads
near corners.
Fig. 2.1 Thin rectangular plate under end uniaxial load 29
Fig. 2.2 Stress resultants on a plate element. 29
Fig. 2.3 Ramberg-Osgood stress-strain relation 30
Fig. 3.1 Geometry and coordinate systems for rectangular plate 45
subjected to intermediate and end uniaxial inplane loads. (a)
Original plate; (b) Sub-plate 1; and (c) Sub-plate 2
Fig. 3.2 Typical stability criterion curves for SSSS plates subjected to 46
end and intermediate inplane loads: (a) plate with integer
aspect ratio a/b, and (b) plate with non-integer aspect ratio a/b.
Fig. 3.3 Stability criteria for SSSS rectangular plates with (a) a/b = 1.0, 48
(b) a/b = 1.5, and (c) a/b = 2.0.
Fig. 3.4 Variations of buckling intermediate load factor Λ 2 with 49
respect to location χ for SSSS square plate (Note that
Λ cr = 4.0000 is the buckling load factor for square SSSS plate
under end load only).
Fig. 3.5 Normalized modal shapes and modal moment distributions in 50
the x-direction for SSSS square plate subjected to intermediate
load N2 (N1 = 0): (a) modal shapes; and (b) modal moment
distributions
Fig. 3.6 Variation of buckling factors Λ2 versus plate aspect ratio a/b 51
for SSSS plates subjected to inplane load in sub-plate 2 only.
Fig. 3.7 Stability criteria for CSCS rectangular plates with plate aspect 53
ratios (a) a/b = 1.0, (b) a/b = 1.5, and (c) a/b = 2.0.
Fig. 3.8 Variations of buckling intermediate load factor Λ 2 with 54
respect to location χ for CSCS square plate
Fig. 3.9 Variations of buckling factors Λ2 versus plate aspect ratio a/b 55
for CSCS rectangular plates subjected to inplane load in sub-
plate 2 only.
Fig. 3.10 Typical stability criterion curve for FSFS rectangular plates 56
subjected to end and intermediate inplane loads.
Fig. 3.11 Stability criteria for FSFS rectangular plates with plate aspect 58
ratios (a) a/b = 1.0, (b) a/b = 1.5, and (c) a/b = 2.0.
viii
Fig. 3.12 Variations of buckling intermediate load factor Λ2 with respect 59
to location χ for FSFS square plate
Fig. 3.13 Variations of buckling factors Λ2 versus plate aspect ratio a/b 60
for FSFS rectangular plates subjected to inplane load in sub-
plate 2 only.
Fig. 4.1 Rectangular plate under intermediate and end uniaxial loads 77
Fig. 4.2 Typical stability criterion curve 77
Fig. 4.3 Stability criteria for SSSS rectangular plates with h/b = 0.04 78
and different aspect ratios a/b = 1, 2, 3 by (a) IT and (b) DT.
The intermediate load is placed at χ = 0.5
Fig. 4.4 Stability criteria for CSCS rectangular plates with h/b = 0.04 79
Fig. 4.5 Stability criteria for FSFS rectangular plates with h/b = 0.04 80
Fig. 4.6 Rectangular plate YSZS and the corresponding sub-plate YSXS 81
under uniaxial load
Fig. 4.7 Variation of buckling factors Λ 2 with respect to χ for 82
rectangular plates with Λ 1 =0 and 2 by (a) IT (b) DT.
Fig. 4.8 Stability criteria for rectangular plates with h/b = 0.04, aspect 83
ratio a/b = 2, intermediate load position χ = 0.5 and different
boundary conditions by (a) IT and (b) DT
Fig. 4.9 Stability criteria for SSSS square plates with h/b = 0.04, χ = 85
E
0.5, for different = (a) 200, (b) 400, (c) 800 by IT
σ0
Fig. 4.10 Stability criteria for SSSS square plates with h/b = 0.04, χ = 86
E
0.5, for different = (a) 200, (b) 400, (c) 800 by DT
σ0
Fig. 4.11 Buckling load factors Λ 2 for SSSS square plates with Λ 1 = 0 87
ix
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Plates are widely used in many engineering structures such as aircraft wings, ships,
buildings, and offshore structures. Most plated structures, although quite capable of
carrying tensile loadings, are poor in resisting compressive forces. Usually, the buckling
phenomena observed in compressed plates take place rather suddenly and may lead to
catastrophic structural failure. Therefore it is important to know the buckling capacities
of the plates in order to avoid premature failure.
The first significant treatment of plate buckling occurred in the 1800s. Based on
Kirchhoff assumptions, the stability equation of rectangular plates was derived by Navier
(1822). Since then, investigations on the buckling of plates with all sorts of shapes,
boundary and loading conditions have been reported in standard texts (e.g. Timoshenko
and Gere 1961, Bulson 1970), research reports (e.g. Batdorf and Houbolt 1946) and
technical papers (e.g. Wang et al. 2001; Xiang et al. 2001). Research on the buckling of
plates may be categorized under elastic buckling and plastic buckling. In the elastic
buckling research, it is assumed that the critical load remains below the elastic limit of
the plate material. However, in practical problems the plate may be stressed beyond the
elastic limit before buckling occurs. Therefore, buckling theories of plasticity are
Chapter 1 Introduction 2
introduced for practical uses. Generally there are two competing plastic theories, namely,
the deformation theory (DT) and the incremental theory (IT) of plasticity.
The buckling of rectangular plates under intermediate and end loads has hitherto not
been treated. The present study tackles such a problem by considering both elastic
buckling and the plastic buckling behavior of these loaded problems.
1.2 Literature Review
In the following, a literature review on the bucking of rectangular plates is presented to
provide the background information for the present investigation. The review focuses on
homogenous, isotropic, thin plates. Studies on sandwich, composite and orthotropic
plates are not covered.
1.2.1 Elastic buckling of rectangular plates
This part is concerned with the research done for the elastic buckling of rectangular
plates under various in-plane loads and boundary conditions for the plate edges.
Navier (1822) derived the basic stability equation for rectangular plates under lateral
load by including the twisting action. The inclusion of the ‘twisting’ term is very
important because the resistance of the plate to twisting can considerably reduce
deflections under lateral load. Saint-Venant (1883) modified the equation by including
axial edge forces and shearing forces. The modified equation formed the basis for much
of the work on plate stability of plates with various loads and boundary conditions.
• Buckling of plates under uniaxial compression
The most basic form of plate buckling problem is a simply supported plate under
uniaxial compression. Bryan (1891) gave the first solution for the problem by using the
energy method to obtain the values of the critical loads. He assumed that the deflection
surface of the buckled plate could be represented by a double Fourier series. Timoshenko
(1925) used another method to solve the problem. He assumed that the plate buckled into
several sinusoidal half waves in the direction of compression. When satisfying the
boundary conditions, the equations formed a matrix problem which upon solving yields
the critical load. The problem was discussed in many standard textbooks such as
Timoshenko and Gere (1961) and Bulson (1970).
Apart from simply supported plates, Timoshenko (1925) explored the buckling of
uniformly compressed rectangular plates that are simply supported along two opposite
sides perpendicular to the direction of compression and having various edges along the
other two sides. The various boundary conditions considered include SSSS, CSCS, FSSS,
FSCS, CSES (S - simply supported edge, F - free edge, C - clamped or built-in edge and
E - elastically restrained edge). The theoretical results were in good agreement with
experimental results obtained by Bridget et al. (1934). Lundquist and Stowell (1942) used
the integration method to solve ESES plates by assuming that the surface deflection was
the sum of a circular arc and a sine curve. They also discussed the critical load of ESFS
plates by both integration method and the energy method by assuming that transverse
deflection was the sum of a straight line and the cantilever deflection curve. Schleicher
(1931) gave the theoretical solution by using the integration method for CSCS plate with
the loaded edges clamped. The earliest accurate solution available is due to Levy (1942)
for the case of CCCC plate with one direction uniaxial compression. He regarded the
plate as simply supported, and then made the edge slopes equal to zero by a suitable
distribution of edge-bending moments. Bleich (1952) obtained the critical load for the
ESES plates with loaded edges elastically restrained. The results are for the symmetric
mode only and values of aspect ratio are less than 1.0.
For the elastic buckling of rectangular plates with linearly varying axial compression
there is no exact analytical solution. For these cases, recourse is made by considering the
energy or similar method, based on an assumed deflected form. The best-known analysis
for simply supported plates is due to Timoshenko and Gere (1961), who employed the
principle of conservation of energy and assumed the buckled form of the plate consisted
of several half-waves in the loading direction. Kollbrunner and Hermann (1948)
examined the CSSS plates. They found when the clamped edge is on the tension side of
the plate, the critical load factors do not differ greatly from those with both edges simply
supported. Schuette and Mcculloch (1947) employed the Lagrangian multiplier to solve
the buckling problem of ESSS plates. Walker (1967) used the Galerkin’s method to give
accurate values of critical load for a number of the edge conditions as mentioned before.
He also studied the case of ESFS plates. Xiang et al. (2001) considered the elastic
buckling of a uniaxially loaded rectangular plate with an internal line hinge. Using the
Levy’s method, they succeeded in presenting the exact solution for many different
boundary conditions such as SSSS, FSFS, CSCS, FSSS and SSCS plates.
• Buckling of plates under biaxial compression
Bryan (1891) first considered the SSSS plates under biaxial compressions by assuming
that the deflection could be written as a double Fourier series. Wang (1953) solved the
same problem by finite-difference method. Timoshenko and Gere (1961) solved the
CCCC plates under two-direction loads by the energy method. Bulson (1970) cited many
research works on the buckling problem of plates under biaxial compressions. One
example is a rigorous analysis for ESFS plates by using the exact solution of the
differential equation of equilibrium. An extra term in the equation of equilibrium was
added to allow for the transverse force. It is found that the effect of a restraint along one
side ranged between simply supported and clamped boundary condition. Another
example is for examining the FSFS plates by using two buckling forms, i.e. symmetric
and anti-symmetric forms. It is worth noting that the buckling loads associated with the
symmetric buckling form were much lower than those of anti-symmetric form.
Xiang et al. (2003) used the Ritz method to solve the buckling problem of rectangular
plates with an internal line hinge under both uniaxial and biaxial loads. The buckling
factors are generated for rectangular plates of various aspect ratios, hinge locations and
support conditions.
• Buckling of plates under in-plane shear forces
Wang (1953) and Timoshenko and Gere (1961) applied the energy method to solve the
buckling problem of SSSS plates under in-plain shear forces. Since it is not possible to
make assumptions about the number of half-waves, Timoshenko assumed that the
deflection surface was taken in the form of infinite series. Timoshenko and Gere (1961)
studied further to consider SSCC plates and also the behavior of an infinitely long plate
subjected to shear forces. Lundquist and Stowell (1942) examined the ESES plates by
employing the energy method, and also the exact analysis to solve the differential
equation of equilibrium. More recently, Reddy (1999) applied the Rayleigh-Ritz
approximation to solve the CCCC plates under shear forces.
• Buckling of plates under combined loads
Batdorf and Stein (1947) evaluated the buckling problem under combined shear and
compression combinations for simply supported plates by adopting the deflection
function in the form of infinite series. Batdorf and Houbolt (1946) gave a solution to the
equation of equilibrium for infinitely long plates with restrained edges under shear and
uniform transverse compression. Johnson and Buchert (1951) used the energy method to
explore the buckling behavior of rectangular plates with compression edge simply
supported or elastically restrained, tension edge simply supported. Researchers who are
interested in this field of research may refer to Bulson (1970), in which many research
papers were cited. More recently, Kang and Leissa (2001) presented exact solutions for
the buckling of rectangular plates having two opposite, simply supported edges subjected
to linearly varying normal stresses causing pure in-plane moments, the other two edges
being free.
• Buckling of plates under body forces
Farvre (1948) is probably the first researcher to work out approximate buckling
solutions of rectangular plates under selfweight and uniform in-plane compressive forces.
However, he treated only plates with all four edges simply supported. Wang and Sussman
(1967) solved the same problem using the Rayleigh-Ritz method and concluded that the
average stress in the plate at buckling is less than that for a plate with uniform
compression at buckling. Both Favre (1948) and Wang and Sussman (1967) did not give
numerical values in their papers. Using the conjugate load-displacement method, Brown
(1991) investigated the buckling of rectangular plates under (a) a uniformly distributed
load, (b) a linearly increasing distributed load and (c) a varying sinusoidal load across the
plate width. The second type of load is equivalent to the plate’s selfweight. In his study,
Brown treated a number of combinations of boundary conditions. More recently, Wang et
al. (2002) considered the buckling problem of vertical plates under body
forces/selfweight. The vertical plate is either clamped or simply supported at its bottom
edge while its top edge is free. The two sides of the plate may either be free, simply
supported or clamped. Xiang et al. (2003) treated yet another new elastic buckling
problem where the buckling capacities of cantilevered, vertical, rectangular plates under
body forces are computed.
• Buckling of plates under other forms of loads
Bulson cited Yamaki’s buckling studies on SSSS, CSCS and CCCC plates under equal
and opposite point loads as shown in Fig. 1.1a. Bulson (1970) also cited Yamaki’s
research on buckling problems of CSCS and SSSS plates under partially distributed
loads which are acted upon the simply supported edges as shown in Fig. 1.1b. Lee et al.
(2001) considered the elastic buckling problem of square EEEE and ESES plates
subjected to in-plane loads of different configurations acting on opposite sides of plates
as shown in Figs 1.1c and 1.1d. The effects of Kinney’s fixity factor (introduced to
describe the support conditions at the edges covering the boundary conditions of simply
supported and fixed edges) and the width factor on critical load factors were treated.
simply
q q supported
q q
(a) (b)
q q/χ q q/χ
0.5χL
L χL
0.5χL
L L
(c)
(d)
Fig. 1.1 Buckling of plates under (a) point loads; (b) partially
distributed loads; (c) patch loads at edge center; (d) patch loads
near corners.
1.2.2 Plastic buckling of rectangular plates
This part is concerned with the development of the plastic stability theories.
Incremental theory of plasticity (IT) and the deformation theory of plasticity (DT) are
considered in detail. As an alternative method, the strip method is also briefly reviewed.
The earliest development of DT is due to Engesser (1895) and Von Karman (1910).
They developed a theory based on the fact that for a fiber which is compressed beyond
the elastic limit, the tangent modulus (i.e. the ratio of the variation of strain to the
corresponding variation of stress) assumes different values depending on whether the
variation of stress constitutes an increase or a relief of the existing compressive stress.

Bleich (1924) and Timoshenko (1936) applied Engesser-Von Karman theory to the
plastic buckling of plates by introducing the “reduced modulus” into the formulas for the
elastic buckling of plates. The results of their theory were obtained in the case of a
narrow rectangular strip with its compressed short edge simply supported and the long
edges free.
Kaufmann (1936) and Ilyushin (1944) developed the basis of deformation theory of
plasticity by presenting another route for application of Engesser-Von Karman theory.
They went back to the considerations by which the reduced modulus was derived and
applied to the case of buckled a plate. Ilyushin (1946) reduced the problem to the solution
of two simultaneous nonlinear partial differential equations of the fourth order in the
deflection and stress function, and in the approximate analysis to a single linear equation.
Solutions were given for the special cases of a rectangular plate buckling into a
cylindrical form, and of an arbitrarily shaped plate under uniform compression. Stowell
(1948) assumed that the plate remained in the purely plastic state during buckling. He
used Ilyushin’s general relations to derive the differential equation of equilibrium of
plates under combined loads. The corresponding energy expressions were also found.
Bijlaard (1949) also used the assumption of “plastic deformation”. He derived the stress-
strain relations by writing the infinitely small excess strains as total differentials and
computing the partial derivatives of the strains with respect to the stresses. The
differential equation for plate buckling was derived and results of its application to
several kinds of loading and boundary conditions were given. El-Ghazaly and Sherbourne
(1986) employed the deformation theory for the elastic-plastic buckling analysis of plates
under non-proportional external loading and non-proportional stresses. Loading,

unloading, and reloading situations were considered. Comparison between experiments
and analysis results showed that the deformation theory of plasticity was applicable in
situations involving plastic buckling under non-proportional loading and non-uniform
stress fields.
The incremental theory of plasticity was first developed in the early work by
Handelman and Prager (1948). They assumed that for a given state of stress there existed
a one-to-one correspondence between the rates of change of stress and strain in such a
manner that the resulting relation between stress and strain cannot be integrated so as to
yield a relation between stress and strain along. Pearson (1950) modified Handelman and
Prager’s assumption of initial loading. His analytical results showed that the incremental
was improved by incorporating Shanley’s concept of continuous loading.
Deformation theory and incremental theory of plasticity are two competing plastic
theories. Consequently much work and comparison studies have been done by using both
of them. Shrivastava (1979) analyzed the inelastic buckling by including the effects of
transverse shear by both theories. Three cases were discussed: (1) for infinitely long
simply supported plates, (2) for square simply supported plates, and (3) for infinitely long
ones simply supported on three sides and free on one unloaded edge. Ore and Durban
(1989) presented a linear buckling analysis for annular elastoplastic plates under shear
loads. They found that deformation theory predicts critical loads which were considerably
below the predictions obtained with the flow theory. Furthermore, comparison with
experimental data for different metals showed a good agreement with the deformation
theory. Tugcu (1991) employed both theories for simply supported plates under biaxial
loads. It was shown that the incremental theory predictions for the critical buckling stress
were susceptible to significant reductions due to a number of factors pertinent to testing,
while the deformation theory analysis was shown to be more or less insensitive to all of
these factors. Durban and Zuckerman (1999) examined the elastoplastic buckling of a
rectangular plate with three sets of boundary conditions (four simply supported
boundaries and the symmetric combinations of clamped/simply supported sides). It was
found that for thicker plates, the deformation theory gives lower critical stresses than
those obtained from the incremental theory.
There is a general agreement among engineers and researchers that (a) deformation
theory is physically less correct than incremental theory, but (b) deformation theory
predicts buckling loads that are smaller than those obtained with incremental theory, and
(c) experimental evidence points in favor of deformation theory results. Onat and
Drucker (1953) through an approximate analysis showed that incremental theory
predictions for the maximum support load of long plates supported on three sides will
come down to the deformation theory bifurcation load if small but unavoidable
imperfections were taken into account. Later, the plate buckling paradox was examined
by Sewell (1963) who obtained somewhat lower flow theory buckling loads by allowing
a variation in the direction of the unit normal. Sewell (1973) in a subsequent study
illustrated that use of Tresca yield surface brings about significant reductions in the
buckling loads obtained using incremental theory. Neale (1975) examined the sensitivity
of maximum support load predictions to initial geometric imperfections, using
incremental theory. A similar study was performed by Needleman and Tvergaard (1976)
which also included the effect of in-plane boundary conditions for square plates under
uniaxial compression. An exhaustive discussion of the buckling paradox in general is

given by Hutchinson (1974). While imperfection sensitivity provided a widely accepted
explanation for the buckling paradox in general, reservations concerning the mode and
amplitude of the imposed imperfections for some buckling problems are not uncommon.
Readers who are interested in plastic buckling of plates may obtain further information
from these published papers: Shrivastava (1995), Betten and Shin (2000), Soh et al.
(2000), Chakrabarty (2000), Wang et al. (2002) and Wang (2003).
From the literature review above, we can see that although much work has been done,
the buckling of rectangular plates subjected to end and intermediate loads remain hitherto
untouched. This has prompted the author to work on this project.
1.3 Objectives and Scope of Study
The buckling of rectangular plates with various plate boundary and load conditions has
been studied extensively and there is an abundance of buckling results in the open
literature. However, a new plate buckling problem where a rectangular plate is subjected
to not only end loads, but also an intermediate uniaxial load remains to be studied.
The aim of the study is to determine the buckling factors of rectangular plates under
intermediate and end loads. The considered plates have two opposite simply supported
edges that are parallel in direction to the applied uniaxial loads while the other two
remaining edges may take any other combinations of clamped, simply supported and free
edge. Both elastic theory and plastic theories including incremental theory (IT) and
deformation theory (DT) are used to explore the problem. Further the study investigates
the effects of various plate aspect ratios, intermediate load positions, boundary conditions,
and material properties on the buckling factors. In the plastic buckling of plates, the
differences between results by IT and DT are examined.
1.4 Outline of Thesis
In this Chapter 1, the background information, literature review, objectives and scope
of the study are presented.
In Chapter 2, the governing equations are derived for both elastic and plastic buckling
of rectangular plates under uniaxial end loads. Equations for various boundary conditions
are also presented.
Chapter 3 is concerned with the elastic buckling of rectangular plates subjected to
intermediate and end uniaxial in-plane loads. The plate has two opposite simply
supported edges that are parallel to the load direction and the other remaining edges may
take any combination of free, simply supported or clamped condition. The buckling
problem is solved by decomposing the plate into two sub-plates at the location where the
intermediate uniaxial load acts. Each sub-plate buckling problem is solved exactly using
the Levy approach and the two solutions brought together by matching the continuity
equations at the interfacial edge. There are five possible solutions for each sub-plate and
consequently there are twenty-five combinations of solutions to be considered. The
effects of various aspect ratios, intermediate load positions and boundary conditions are
investigated.
In Chapter 4 we extend the elastic buckling problem to the more practical plastic
buckling of plates. Both the Incremental Theory of Plasticity and the Deformation Theory
of Plasticity are considered in bounding the plastic behavior of the plate. In contrast to the
five possible solutions for the elastic problem, there exist eight possible solutions for each
sub-plate. Consequently, there are sixty-four combinations of solutions to be considered
for the entire plate. The solution combination depends on the aspect ratios, the
intermediate load positions, the intermediate to end load ratios, the material properties
and the boundary conditions. The effects of the aforementioned parameters and the
adoption of DT and IT on the buckling factors are also investigated.
Finally, Chapter 5 summarizes the main research findings in conclusions. Suggestions
for future investigations are also provided.

Chapter 2
BUCKLING OF PLATES UNDER END LOADS
This chapter presents the governing equations for the elastic buckling and plastic
buckling of thin rectangular plates under uniaxial end loads. For plastic buckling of plates,
we consider two competing theories of plasticity, namely the deformation theory of
plasticity (DT) and the incremental theory of plasticity (IT).
2.1 Elastic Buckling Theory
2.1.1 Derivation of differential equation for elastic buckling
Consider a rectangular thin plate of length a, width b, and thickness h, subjected to
uniaxial compressive loads N x as shown in Fig. 2.1. Adopting the rectangular Cartesian
coordinates x, y, z, where x and y lie in the middle plane of the plate and z is pointing
downward from the middle plane, the uniaxial load N x is parallel to x axis.
The simplest plate theory is that proposed by Kirchhoff (1850). The assumptions for
the Kirchhofff plate theory are:
(a) deflections are small (i.e. less than the thickness of the plate),
(b) the middle plane of the plate does not stretch during bending, and remains a
neutral surface, analogous to the neutral axis of a beam,

Chapter 2 Buckling of Plates under End Loads 16
(c) plane sections rotate during bending to remain normal to the neutral surface, and
do not distort, so that stresses and strains are proportional to their distance from
the neutral surface,
(d) the loads are entirely resisted by bending moments induced in the elements of the
plate and the effect of shearing forces is neglected,
(e) the thickness of the plate is small compared with other dimensions.
Based on the foregoing assumptions, the displacement field could be expressed as
∂w
u ( x, y , z ) = − z , (2.1a)
∂x
∂w
v ( x, y , z ) = − z , (2.1b)
∂y
w ( x , y , z ) = w( x , y ) , (2.1c)
where (u , v , w ) are the displacement components along the (x, y, z) coordinate directions,
respectively, and w is the transverse deflection of a point on the mid-plane (i.e., z = 0).
The non-zero linear strains associated with the displacement field are
∂u ∂2w
ε xx = = −z 2 (2.2a)
∂x ∂x
∂v ∂2w
ε yy = = −z 2 (2.2b)
∂y ∂y
∂u ∂v ∂2w
γ xy = + = −2 z (2.2c)
∂y ∂x ∂x∂y
where (ε xx , ε yy ) are the normal strains and γ xy is the shear strain.
The virtual strain energy U of the Kirchhoff plate theory is given by (see Ugural, 1999)
δU = ∫  ∫ (σ xxδε xx + σ yy δε yy + σ xy δγ xy )dz dxdy

h/2
Ω0  −h / 2 
 ∂ 2δw ∂ 2δw ∂ 2δw 

= − ∫  M xx + M + 2 M dxdy (2.3)
∂x 2 ∂y 2 ∂x∂y 
yy xy
Ω0

where Ω 0 denotes the domain occupied by the mid-plane of the plate, (σ xx , σ yy ) the
normal stresses, σ xy the shear stress, and (M xx , M yy , M xy ) the moments per unit length, as
shown in Fig. 2.2. Note that the virtual strain energy associated with the transverse shear
strains is zero as γ yz = γ xz = 0 in the Kirchhoff plate theory.
The relationship between the moments and stresses are given by
h/2
M xx = ∫ σ xx zdz (2.4a)
−h / 2
h/2
M yy = ∫ σ yy zdz (2.4b)
−h / 2
h/2
M xy = ∫ σ xy zdz . (2.4c)
−h / 2
The work W done by the uniaxial load N x , due to displacement w only, equals (see
Ugural, 1999)
 ∂w 
2
1
W = − ∫ N x   dxdy . (2.5)
2 0  ∂x 
Ω
The virtual work δW due to the uniaxial load N x is given by
∂w ∂δw
δW = ∫ N x dxdy . (2.6)
Ω0 ∂x ∂x
The principle of virtual displacements requires that δ ∏ = δU − δW = 0 , i.e.
 ∂ 2δw ∂ 2δw ∂ 2δw ∂w ∂δw 

δ ∏ = − ∫  M xx + M + 2 M + Nx dxdy = 0 (2.7)
∂x ∂y ∂x∂y ∂x ∂x 
2 yy 2 xy
Ω0

By using the divergence theorem, one obtains
 ∂2w 
δ ∏ = − ∫  M xx , xx + 2 M xy , xy + M yy , yy − N x δwdxdy
Ω0
 ∂x 2 
 ∂δw ∂δw 
− ∫ (M xx n x + M xy n y ) + (M xy n x + M yy n y ) ds
Γ
 ∂x ∂y 
 ∂w  
+ ∫  M xx , x + M xy , y − N x n x + (M yy , y + M xy , x )n y δwds = 0 (2.8)
Γ
 ∂x  
where a comma followed by subscripts denotes differentiation with respect to the
∂M xx
subscripts, i.e., M xx , x = , and so on, (n x , n y ) denote the direction cosines of the unit
∂x
)
normal n on the boundary Γ , and ds denotes the incremental length along boundary. If
)
the unit normal vector n is oriented at an angle θ from the positive x-axis, then
n x = cos θ and n y = sin θ . Since δw is arbitrary in Ω 0 , and it is independent of ∂δw / ∂x ,
and ∂δw / ∂y on the boundary Γ , it follows that
∂ 2 M xx ∂ 2 M xy ∂ 2 M yy ∂2w
+ 2 + − N = 0 in Ω 0 . (2.9)
∂x 2 ∂x∂y ∂y 2 ∂x 2
x
Eq. (2.9) represents the equilibrium equation of the Kirchhoff plate theory for rectangular
plates under uniaxial load N x .
Assuming the material of the plate to be isotropic and obeys Hooke’s law, then the
stress-strain relations are given by
σ xx =
E
(ε xx + νε yy ) (2.10a)
1 −ν 2
σ yy =
E
(ε yy + νε xx ) (2.10b)
1 −ν 2
E
σ xy = Gγ xy = γ xy (2.10c)
2(1 + ν )
where E denote the Young’s modulus, G the shear modulus, and ν the Poisson’s ratio. By
substituting Eqs. (2-10) into Eqs. (2.4) and carrying out the integration over the plate
thickness, one obtains
 ∂2w ∂2w 
∫ (ε + νε yy )zdz = − D  2 + ν 2 
h/2 E h/2
M xx = ∫ σ xx zdz = (2.11a)
1 −ν 2  ∂x ∂y 
xx
−h / 2 −h / 2
 ∂2w ∂2w 
∫ (ε + νε xx )zdz = − D  2 + ν 2 
h/2 E h/2
M yy = ∫ σ yy zdz = (2.11b)
1 −ν 2  ∂y ∂x 
yy
−h / 2 −h / 2
h/2 h/2 ∂2w

M xy = ∫ σ xy zdz = G ∫ γ xy zdz = −(1 − ν ) D (2.11c)
−h / 2 −h / 2 ∂x∂y
Eh 3
where D is the flexural rigidity D = . (2.12)
12(1 − ν 2 )
By substituting Eq. (2.11-13) into Eq. (2.7), the governing equation for buckling of
plate subjected to a uniaxial load is obtained:
 ∂4w ∂4w ∂4w  ∂2w

D 4 + 2 2 2 + 4  + N x 2 = 0 (2.13)
 ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂y  ∂x
2.1.2 Boundary conditions
We take the boundary conditions that apply along the edge x = a of a rectangular plate
with edges parallel to the x and y axes as examples to explain the boundary conditions for
rectangular plates.
Clamped Edge (C)
In this case both the deflection and slope must vanish along the edge x=a, that is
∂w
w = 0 and =0 (2.14a,b)
∂x
Simply Supported Edge (S)
Along the simply supported edge x = a, the deflection and the bending moment are both
zero. Hence
 ∂2w ∂2w 
w = 0 and M xx = − D  2 + ν 2  = 0 (2.15a,b)
 ∂x ∂y 
Free Edge (F)
Such an edge is free of moment and vertical shear force along the edge x=a. That is
 ∂2w ∂2w 
M xx = − D 2 + ν 2  = 0 (2.16a)
 ∂x ∂y 
Because the plate is under axial load N x which is parallel to the x axis, and we assume
that compressive force as positive, the effective vertical shear force along the edge x=a is
∂M xy ∂w
Vx = Q x + − Nx
∂y ∂x
 ∂ 3w ∂ 3w  ∂w
= − D  3 + (2 − ν ) 2
− Nx =0 (2.16b)
 ∂x ∂x∂y  ∂x
2.2 Plastic Buckling Theory
2.2.1 Derivation of constitutive relations based on Hencky’s deformation theory
Consider a thin rectangular plate in which the material is bounded between the planes
h
z=± . The bounding planes are unstressed, while uniform compressive stresses of
2
magnitudes N 1 = σ 1h act in the x- directions, to represent the plastic state. If the

transverse shear rates on the incipient deformation mode at bifurcation are disregarded,
the admissible velocity field may be written as
∂w
u = −z , (2.17a)
∂x
∂w
v = −z , (2.17b)
∂y
w = w, (2.17c)
where (u , v , w ) are the displacement components along the (x, y, z) coordinate directions,
respectively, and w is the transverse deflection of a point on the mid-plane (i.e., z=0).
It is assumed that the relationship between the stress rate and the rate of deformation at
the point of bifurcation is that corresponding to the incremental form of the DT suggested
by Hencky. Since the strain rate vector in that case is not along the normal to the Mises
yield surface in the stress space, the yield surface must be supposed to have locally
changed in shape so that the normality rule still holds. The possibility of the formation of
a corner on the yield surface may also be included. The parameter σ in this modified
theory is simply a measure of the length of the current deviatoric stress vector, rather than
that of the radius of an isotropically expanding Mises cylinder. The incremental form of
the Hencky equation ε ijp = (3ε p / 2σ ) sij is easily found as:
3dσ  dε p ε p  3ε p
dε ijp =  −  sij + dsij (2.18)
2σ  dσ σ  2σ
where sij is the deviatoric stress vector, and dsij is its time incremental, which must be
considered in the Jaumann sense, so that it vanishes in the event of an instantaneous rigid
body rotation. The elastic strain increment, given by the generalized Hooke’s Law, is
1 +ν  1 − 2ν
dε ije =  dsij + δ ij dσ kk (2.19)
 E  3E
where δ ij is the Kronecker delta.
Combining Eq. (2.18) and Eq. (2.19), the rate form of the complete stress-strain
relation is obtained as:
 3E 1 − 2ν  & 1 − 2ν 3σ&  E E 
Eε&ij =  −  sij + δ ijσ& kk +  −  sij . (2.20)
 2S 2  3 2σ  T S 
during the continued loading of a plastically stressed element.. In the above, T is the
tangent modulus equal to dσ / dε , and S is the secant modulus equal to σ / ε , where ε is
the total effective strain which is equal to ε e + ε p .
Let − σ 1 denote the non-zero principal stresses whose directions coincide with the x
axis, at the point of bifurcation. Since the effective σ is given by
σ 2 = σ xx2 − σ xxσ yy + σ yy2 + 3σ xy2 , (2.21)
a straightforward differentiation gives
dσ 2σ 1dσ xx − σ 1dσ yy
=− (2.22)
σ 2σ 2
on setting σ x = −σ 1 , τ xy = 0 , σ y = 0 at bifurcation. The constitutive Eq. (2.20) therefore
furnishes
1  E 1 − 2v  1 − 2v
Eε& xx =  − (2σ& xx − σ& yy ) + (σ& xx + σ& yy ) + σ& xx − 1 σ& yy  (2.23a)
2 S 3  3  2 
1  E 1 − 2v  1 − 2v
Eε& yy =  − (2σ& yy − σ& xx ) + (σ& xx + σ& yy ) + σ& xx − 1 σ& yy  (2.23b)
2S 3  3  2 
1  3E 
Eε& xy =  − (1 − 2v )σ& xy . (2.23c)
2 S 
After some algebraic manipulations, the first two results are reduced to
Tε& xx = σ& xx − ησ& yy (2.24a)
 3 T σ2
Tε& yy = 1 − 1 −  12 σ& yy − ησ& xx (2.24b)
 4 S σ 
where η is the contraction ratio at the current state of stress. On using the expression
σ 12 = σ 2 , the above relations can be inverted to give the constitutive relations in the form
σ& xx = E (αε&xx + βε& yy ) , (2.25a)
σ& yy = E (βε& xx + γε& yy ) , (2.25b)
2 Eε& xy
σ& xy= (2.25c)
[2v + (3E / S − 1)]
where
 T
+ (1 − 2v )2 − (1 − 2ν )  .
3E
ρ= (2.26a)
S  E
1  T 
α=  4 − 31 −  (2.26b)
ρ  S 
1 T
β=  2 − 2(1 − 2ν )  (2.26c)
ρ E
4
γ = (2.26d)
ρ
Assuming that the plate material obeys the Ramberg-Osgood constitutive law,
σ  
c −1
σ 
ε = 1 + k    (2.27)
E
 σ0  
where σ 0 is a nominal yield stress, c is a dimensionless constant that describes the shape
of the stress-strain relationship with c = ∞ for elastic-perfectly plastic response, k the

horizontal distance between the knee of c = ∞ curve and the intersection of the c curve
with the σ / σ 0 = 1 line as shown in Fig. 2.3.
By differentiating both sides of Eq. (2.27), and considering that T is the tangent
modulus equal to dσ / dε , and S is the secant modulus equal to σ / ε , one obtains
c −1
E σ 
= 1 + k   , (2.28a)
S σ0 
c −1
E σ 
= 1 + ck   . (2.28b)
T σ0 
2.2.2 Derivation of constitutive relations based on Prandtl-Reuss material
For a Prandtl-Reuss material, the plastic strain rate vector, in a nine dimensional space,
is directed along the deviator stress vector. Stated mathematically, the flow rule is
3ε&ijp 3σ& 3σ&  1 1 

ε&ijp = sij = sij =  −  sij (2.29)
2σ 2 Hσ 2σ  T E 
1 dε p dε − dε e dε dε e 1 1
since = = = − = − . (2.30)
H dσ dσ dσ dσ T E
The complete Prandtl-Reuss equation relating the stress rate to the strain rate is given
by
 1 − 2ν & 3σ&  E 
Eε&ij = (1 + ν ) s&ij +  σ kk δ ij +  − 1 sij (2.31)
 3  2σ  T 
This equation may be compared with Eq. (2.20), which evidently reduces Eq. (2.31) on
setting S = E in the first and last terms on the right hand side. By using similar method of
derivation of the biaxial constitutive relations that employed in section 2.2.2, we can get
the constitutive relations based on the Prandtl-Reuss material in the form
σ& xx = E (αε&xx + βε& yy ) , (2.32a)
σ& yy = E (βε& xx + γε& yy ) , (2.32b)
Eε& xy
σ& xy= (2.32c)
1 +ν
where
 T
ρ = 3 + (1 − 2v )2 − (1 − 2v )  . (2.33a)
 E
1  T 
α=  4 − 31 −  (2.33b)
ρ  S 
1 T
β=  2 − 2(1 − 2v )  (2.33c)
ρ E
4
γ = (2.33d)
ρ
2.2.3 Derivation of differential equation for plastic buckling
The expression for the stress rates is
τ&ij ε&ij = E (αε& xx2 + 2 βε& xx ε& yy + γε& yy2 ) + 4Gε& xy2 . (2.34)
To obtain the condition for bifurcation of the plate in the elastic/plastic range, consider
the uniqueness criterion in the form
   
 2ε&ij ε& jk − ∂vk ∂vk  dV > 0
∫σ& ij ε
& ij − σ ij  ∂xi ∂x j 
(2.35)
  
Since the only nonzero components of the stress tensor are σ xx = −σ 1 only, which are
small compared to the modulus of elasticity E, the condition for uniqueness becomes
  ∂v  2  ∂w  2  
∫  ij ij 1  ∂x  +  ∂x   dV > 0
σ& ε
& − σ (2.36)
  
In view of Eqs. (2.17a-c), the strain rates and the velocity gradients are given by
∂2w
ε& xx = − z , (2.37a)
∂x 2
∂2w
ε& yy = − z , (2.37b)
∂y 2
∂2w
2ε& xy = −2 z , (2.37c)
∂x∂y
∂v ∂2w
= −z , (2.37d)
∂x ∂x∂y
Inserting Eq. (2.37a-d) into the inequality Eq. (2.36), and integrating through the
thickness of the plate, the condition for uniqueness is given by
h 2   ∂ 2 w   ∂ 2 w  4G  ∂ 2 w  
2 2
∂2w ∂2w
12 ∫∫   ∂x 2 
α   +β 2 + γ  2  +   dxdy
∂x ∂y 2  ∂y  E  ∂x∂y  

 σ  ∂w  2 
− ∫∫  1   dxdy > 0 . (2.38)
 E  ∂x  
All the integrals appearing in the above expression extend over the middle surface of the
plate. The Euler-Langrange differential equation, associated with the minimization with
respect to arbitrary variations of w, is easily shown to be
∂4w ∂4w ∂4w 12 σ 1 ∂ 2 w

α + 2 (β + µ ) + γ = − , (2.39)
∂x 4 ∂x 2 ∂y 2 ∂y 4 h 2 E ∂x 2
where µ = 1 /(1 + ν ) . The solution to the bifurcation problem is therefore reduced to the
solution of the differential equation (2.39) under appropriate boundary conditions. It is
worth noting that Eq. (2.39) is applicable for both DT and IT, with different definition
for α , β , γ , and ρ . When the bifurcation occurs in the elastic range (S = T = E), we
have α = β + µ = γ = 1 /(1 − ν 2 ) , and Eq. (2.39) reduces to the well-known governing
equation for elastic buckling as given in Eq. (2.13).
2.2.4 Boundary conditions
In order to establish the static boundary conditions in terms of w, it is convenient to
take the components of the nominal stress rate s&ij as approximately equal to those of τ&ij .
This is justified by the fact that the stresses at bifurcation will be small compared to the
elastic and plastic moduli. In view of the relation Eqs. (2.25) and Eqs. (2.37), the rates of
change of the resultant bending and twisting moments per unit length are given by
h/2 Eh 3
 ∂2w ∂2w 
M& xx = ∫ σ& xx zdz = −  α 2 + β 2  , (2.40a)
−h / 2 12  ∂x ∂y 
h/2 Eh 3
 ∂2w ∂2w 
M& yy = ∫ σ& yy zdz = −  β 2 + γ , (2.40b)
−h / 2 12  ∂x ∂y 2 
h/2 Eh 3 ∂ 2 w
M& xy = ∫ σ& xy zdz = − . (2.40c)
−h / 2 12(1 + ν ) ∂x∂y
We take the boundary conditions that apply along the edge x=a of a rectangular plate
with edges parallel to the x and y axes as examples to explain the boundary conditions for
rectangular plates.
Clamped Edge (C)
In this case both the deflection and slope must vanish along the edge x=a, that is
∂w
w = 0 and =0 (2.41a,b)
∂x
Simply Supported Edge (S)
Along the simply supported edge x=a, the deflection and the bending moment rate must
vanish. Hence
Eh 3
 ∂2w ∂2w 
w = 0 and M& xx = −  α 2 + β 2  = 0 (2.42a,b)
12  ∂x ∂y 
Free Edge (F)
Such an edge is free of moment and vertical shear force along the edge x=a. That is
Eh 3
 ∂2w ∂2w 
M& xx = −  α 2 + β 2  = 0 (2.43a)
12  ∂x ∂y 
Because the plate under axial stress σ x which is parallel to the x axis, and we assume that
compressive stress as positive, the effective vertical shear force along the edge x=a is
∂M xy ∂w
Vx = Q x − − Nx
∂y ∂x
Eh 3  ∂ 3w ∂ 3w  ∂w
=−  α 3 + (β + 2 µ )  − σ xh
2 
= 0. (2.43b)
12  ∂x ∂x∂y  ∂x
a
x
b
Nx h Nx
y z
Figure 2.1 Thin rectangular plate under end uniaxial load
M yy
Qy N yy
Qx
M xx M xy N yx M xy
x
M nn
M ns
N xx
N xy
N ns N nn
Qn
y z
Qn
N nn M nn
M ns
N ns
M xx
M xy N xx
M yx
M yy N xy
N yx Qx
N yy Qy
Figure 2.2 Stress resultants on a plate element. The in-plane

resultants N xx , N yy and N xy do not enter the equations in the
pure bending case, and they are the specified forces in a
buckling problem.
σ
σo
1.6 c = 2 c = 3 c = 5
1.4
c = 10
1.2 c = 20
c = ∞
1
0.8
0.6 c
σσ σσ  σσ 
C
ε ε== ++ kα Eo 0 σ

 

 E  σ 0 
0.4 E  o
E
0.2
0 Eε
σo
0 1 11+ +
k α 2 3 4
Fig. 2.3 Ramberg-Osgood stress-strain relation

Chapter 3
ELASTIC BUCKLING OF PLATES UNDER
This chapter is concerned with the elastic buckling of rectangular plates subjected to
intermediate and end uniaxial inplane loads, whose direction is parallel to two simply
supported edges. The aforementioned buckling problem is solved by decomposing the
plate into two sub-plates at the location where the intermediate uniaxial load acts. Each
sub-plate buckling problem is solved exactly using the Levy approach and the two
solutions brought together by matching the continuity equations at the interfacial edge. It
is worth noting that there are five possible solutions for each sub-plate and consequently
there are twenty-five combinations of solutions to be considered. For different boundary
conditions, the buckling solutions comprise of different combinations. For each boundary
condition, the correct solution combination depends on the ratio of the intermediate load
to the end load. The exact stability criteria, presented both in tabulated and in graphical
forms, should be useful for engineers designing walls or plates that have to support
intermediate floors/loads.
Chapter 3 Elastic Buckling of Plates under Intermediate and End Loads 32
3.1 Mathematical Modeling
3.1.1 Problem definition
Consider an isotropic, rectangular thin plate with two simply supported edges that are
parallel to the uniaxial inplane load direction as shown in Fig. 3.1. The other two sides of
the plate may take any combination of free, simply supported and clamped edges. The
plate is of length a, width b, thickness h, modulus of elasticity E, and Poisson’s ratio ν .
The plate is subjected to an end uniaxial inplane load N 1 at the edge x = 0 and an
intermediate uniaxial inplane load N 2 at the location x = χa . The problem at hand is to
determine the buckling load for such a loaded plate.
3.1.2 Method of solution
The plate is first divided into two sub-plates. The first sub-plate is to the left of the
vertical line defined by x = χa and the second sub-plate is to the right of this line.
Adopting the coordinate systems as shown in Figs. 3.1b and 3.1c, the governing buckling
equation (see Eq. (2.13)) for each sub-plate based on the thin plate theory may be
canonically written as Eq. (3.1)
∂ 4 wi 2 ∂ wi
4
4 ∂ wi
4
∂ 2 wi
+ 2ξ + ξ + λ = 0, i = 1,2 (3.1)
∂xi4 ∂yi2 ∂xi2 ∂yi4 ∂xi2
i i i
in which
wi =
wi x
, x1 = 1 , x2 =
x2 y
, y i = i , ξ1 =
χa
, ξ2 =
(1 − χ )a ,
b χa (1 − χ )a b b b
(3.2a-h)
χ 2a 2
) (1 − χ ) a
2 2
λ1 = N 1 , λ2 = ( N 1 + N 2
D D
w is the transverse displacement at the midplane of the plate, and D = Eh 3 /[12(1 − ν 2 )]

the flexural rigidity of the plate.
The essential and natural boundary conditions for the two simply supported edges at
y i = 0 and y i = 1 associated with the i-th sub-plate are given by
wi = 0 (3.3)
ν ∂ 2 wi ∂ 2 wi
+ =0 (3.4)
ξ i2 ∂xi2 ∂yi2
By using the Levy approach, the transverse displacement of the i-th sub-plate may be
expressed as
wi ( xi , y i ) = Aim (xi )sin mπy i , i = 1,2 (3.5)
where m (= 1, 2, …, ∞ ) is the number of half waves of the buckling mode in the y
direction. The transverse displacement given in Eq. (3.5) satisfies the boundary
conditions of the two parallel simply supported edges as given by Eqs. (3.3) and (3.4).
In view of Eq. (3.5), the partial differential equations in Eq. (3.1) may be reduced to a
fourth-order ordinary differential equations as
d 4 Aim 2
2 2 2 d Aim d 2 Aim
− 2ξ i m π + ξ i π
4 4 4
m Aim + λi = 0, i = 1,2 (3.6)
dxi4 dxi2 dxi2
Depending on the roots of the characteristics equation of the differential equation,
there are five general solutions to the above fourth order differential equation as given
below.
Solution A (for λi < 0, i = 1,2 )
wi = (sinh φie xi Ci 1 + cosh φie xi Ci 2 + sinhψ ie xi Ci 3 + coshψ ie xi Ci 4 ) sin mπyi (3.7a)

in which
1 1
φie = − (λi − 2ξ i 2 m 2π 2 ) + λi 2 − 4ξ i 2 m 2π 2 λi (3.7b)
2 2
1 1
ψ ie = − (λi − 2ξ i 2 m 2π 2 ) − λi 2 − 4ξ i 2 m 2π 2 λi (3.7c)
2 2
Solution B (for λi = 0, i = 1,2 )
wi = (sinh φie xi Ci1 + xi sinh φie xi Ci 2 + cosh φie xi Ci 3 + xi cosh φie xi Ci 4 ) sin mπyi (3.8a)
in which
φie = ξ i mπ (3.8b)
Solution C (for 0 < λi < 4ξ i m 2π 2 , i = 1,2 )

2
wi = (sinh φie xi cosψ ie xi Ci1 + cosh φie xi cosψ ie xi Ci 2 + sinh φie xi sinψ ie xi Ci 3
+ cosh φie xi sinψ ie xi Ci 4 ) sin mπyi (3.9a)
in which
λi
φie = ξ i 2 m 2π 2 − , ψ ie = λi / 2 (3.9b,c)
4
Solution D (for λi = 4ξ i m 2π 2 , i = 1,2 )

2
wi = (cos φie xi Ci1 + xi cos φie xi Ci 2 + sin φie xi Ci 3 + xi sin φie xi Ci 4 ) sin mπyi (3.10a)
in which
φie = ξ i mπ (3.10b)
Solution E (for λi > 4ξ i m 2π 2 , i = 1,2 )

2
wi = (cos φie xi Ci1 + sin φie xi Ci 2 + cosψ ie xi Ci 3 + sinψ ie xi Ci 4 ) sin mπyi (3.11a)
in which
1 1
φie = (λi − 2ξ i m 2π 2 ) −
2
λi 2 − 4ξ i 2 m 2π 2 λi (3.11b)
2 2
1 1
ψ ie = (λi − 2ξ i m 2π 2 ) +
2
λi 2 − 4ξ i 2 m 2π 2 λi (3.11c)
2 2
To solve the buckling problem of the rectangular plate that consists of two sub-plates,
twenty-five combinations of the solutions must be considered. The designated
combinations of solutions are given in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Twenty-five combinations of solutions
Solution Solutions for Sub-plate 1

Combinations A B C D E
Combination Combination Combination Combination Combination
A
Solutions for Sub-plate 2
1 6 11 16 21
B
2 7 12 17 22
C
3 8 13 18 23
D
4 9 14 19 24
E
5 10 15 20 25
The eight arbitrary constants C i1 , C i 2 , C i 3 , C i 4 ( i = 1,2) in Eqs. (3.7-3.11) are to be
determined by the boundary and interfacial conditions. The essential and natural
boundary conditions of the plate at the edge x1 = 0 and edge x 2 = 1 are defined as
follows.
• For simply supported edges:
wi = 0 ⇒ Aim = 0 , and (3.12a)
1 ∂ 2 wi ∂ 2 wi 1 ∂ 2 Aim
+ ν =0⇒ − νm 2π 2 Aim = 0 , i = 1, 2 (3.12b)
ξ i2 ∂xi2 ∂yi2 ξ i ∂xi
2 2
• For clamped edges:
wi = 0 ⇒ Aim = 0 , and (3.13a)
∂wi dA
= 0 ⇒ im = 0 i = 1, 2 (3.13b)
∂xi dxi
• For free edges:
1 ∂ 2 wi ∂ 2 wi 1 d 2 Aim
+ν =0⇒ 2 − νm 2π 2 Aim = 0 , and (3.14a)
ξ i ∂xi
2 2
∂yi 2
ξ i dxi 2
1 ∂ 3 wi (2 − ν ) ∂ 3 wi λi2 ∂wi
+ + =0
ξ i3 ∂xi3 ξ i ∂xi ∂yi2 ξ i3 ∂xi
1 d 3 Aim (2 − ν )m 2π 2 dAim λi2 dAim

⇒ − + =0 (3.14b)
ξ i3 dxi3 ξi dxi ξ i3 dxi
To ensure displacement continuities and equilibrium conditions at the interface of the
two sub-plates, the following essential and natural conditions must be satisfied
w1 x1 =1
− w2 x2 = 0
= 0 ⇒ A1m x1 =1
− A2 m x2 = 0
= 0, (3.15)
1 ∂w1 1 ∂w2 1 dAim 1 dAim

− =0⇒ − =0 (3.16)
ξ1 ∂x1 x1 =1
ξ 2 ∂x2 x2 = 0
ξ1 dx1 x1 =1
ξ 2 dx 2 x2 = 0
 1 ∂ 2 w1 ∂ 2 w1   1 ∂ 2 w2 ∂ 2 w2 
 2 + ν  −  + ν  =0
 ξ1 ∂x1
2
∂y12  x =1  ξ 22 ∂x22 ∂y 22  x =0
1 2
 1 d 2 Aim   1 d 2 Aim 

⇒ 2 − m π νAim 
2 2
 −  2 − m 2π 2νAim  =0 (3.17)
 ξ1 dx1  x1 =1  ξ 2 dx2
2 2
 x2 = 0
 1 ∂ 3 w1 (2 − ν ) ∂ 3 w1 λ12 ∂w1 
 3 + +  −
 ξ1 ∂x1
3
ξ1 ∂x1∂y12 ξ13 ∂x1  x =1
1
 1 ∂ 3 w2 (2 − ν ) ∂ 3 w2 λ22 ∂w2 
 3 + +  =0
 ξ 2 ∂x2
3
ξ 2 ∂x 2 ∂y 22 ξ 23 ∂x2  x =0
2
 1 d 3 Aim (2 − ν )m 2π 2 dAim λ12 dAim 

 3 − +  −
 ξ1 dx1
3
ξ1 dx1 ξ13 dx1  x =1
⇒ 1
(3.18)
 1 d 3 Aim (2 − ν )m 2π 2 dAim λ22 dAim 
 3 − +  =0
 ξ 2 dx2
3
ξ2 dx2 ξ 23 dx2  x =0
2
When assembling the sub-plates to form the whole plate via the implementation of the
boundary conditions of the plate along the two edges parallel to the y-axis Eqs. (3.12-14)
and the interface conditions between two sub-plates as given by Eqs. (3.15-18), a system
of homogenous equations is obtained:
[K ]{C} = {0} (3.19)
in which {C} = {C11 C12 C13 C14 C 21 C 22 C 23 C 24 } .

T
For a nontrivial solution, the
determinant of [K ] must vanish. Each solution combination for the determinant of [K ] is
examined. The valid solution combinations should satisfy the following requirements:
• The buckling loads satisfy the limits of validity for the solution combinations
which they belong to;
• The buckling load factor is the lowest value among possible solutions; and
• The stability curves are continuous.

3.2 Results and Discussions
The proposed solution procedure is applied to study the buckling behaviour of
rectangular plates subjected to intermediate and end inplane loads. Rectangular plates
with various combinations of edge support conditions and aspect ratios are considered.
The Poisson’s ratio is taken to be ν = 0.3 for all calculations. The buckling factors for the
end and intermediate loads are expressed as Λ1 = N1b2/(π2D) and Λ2 = N2b2/(π2D),
respectively.
3.2.1 SSSS plates
A simply supported rectangular plate (or simply referred to as an SSSS plate) subjected
to intermediate and end inplane loads is first considered. Fig. 3.2 presents the typical
stability criterion curves for SSSS plates with integer and non-integer aspect ratios. It is
found that when the plate aspect ratio a/b is an integer, the typical stability criterion curve
consists of four regimes as shown in Fig. 3.2(a). Regimes I, II, III and IV are defined by
solution combinations 5, 15, 23 and 21, respectively. The critical points P, Q and R that
connect the regimes are defined by the solution combinations 10, 19 and 22, respectively.
Point P represents the loading case in which the inplane load is applied to sub-plate 2
only (N1 = 0). Point R is for the loading case where only sub-plate 1 is loaded (N1 + N2 =
0). Point Q shows the buckling load condition that the plate is subjected to end load only
(N2 = 0). However, when the plate aspect ratio a/b is not an integer (for example a/b =
1.5), the typical stability criterion curve consists of five regimes as shown in Fig. 3.2(b).
Regimes I, II, III, IV and V are defined by solution combinations 5, 15, 25, 23 and 21.
The regimes are connected by critical points P, Q, R and S defined by solution

combinations 10, 20, 24 and 22, respectively. Points P and S are for the loading cases
where only sub-plate 2 or sub-plate 1 is loaded, respectively.
The exact stability criteria for SSSS plates with various aspect ratios (a/b = 1, 1.5, 2)
and intermediate load locations (χ = 0.3, 0.5 and 0.7 ) are presented in Figs. 3.3a to 3.3c.
The critical points P, Q and R for plates with a/b = 1 and 2, and P, Q, R and S for plates
with a/b = 1.5 are marked on the stability curves. We observe that when the intermediate
inplane load is positive (N2 > 0), the buckling factor Λ1 decreases almost linearly as the
buckling factor Λ2 increases for all cases in Fig. 3.3. On the other hand, if the
intermediate inplane load is negative (N2 < 0), the buckling factor Λ1 increases almost
linearly as the value of the buckling factor Λ2 increases. The increase of Λ1 is more
pronounced when the location factor of the intermediate load χ is small. It is evident that
the stability curves for all cases in Fig. 3.3 have a highly nonlinear portion when the
buckling factor Λ2 is close to zero.
The effect of the location χ of the intermediate load on the buckling loads of square
SSSS plates can be observed more clearly in Fig. 3.4. As expected, the buckling factor Λ2
increases with increasing χ values. What are unexpected, however, are the kinks in these
buckling load variations with respect to the intermediate load location χ . These kinks
imply that there are buckling mode switchings. Take the example of the square SSSS
plate that is subjected to only an intermediate inplane load (i.e. end inplane load N1 = 0).
A mode switch is observed when the location of the intermediate load χ is in the vicinity
of 0.5. This can be confirmed by plotting the buckling mode shapes and the modal
bending moment distributions at χ = 0.4, 0.5, and 0.6, as shown in Figs. 3.5(a) and 5(b).
It is evident from the figures that the mode shapes and modal bending moment
distribution for χ = 0.4 are not similar to those for χ = 0.6. There is a portion of
bending moment distribution with a negative sign for the case of χ = 0.4. No negative
bending moment distribution portion is observed for the case of χ = 0.6. The double
curvature mode shape for the case of χ = 0.4 reinforces the fact that the mode shape is
different from the single curvature associated with the case of χ = 0.6.
Fig. 3.6 presents the variations of the buckling factor Λ2 with respect to the aspect ratio
a/b for SSSS plates subjected to inplane load in sub-plate 2 only (i.e. N1 = 0 and χ > 0).
The buckling results in Fig. 3.6 are obtained by using solution combination 10 for both
integer and non-integer aspect ratios a/b. For comparison purposes, the buckling factor
for SSSS plates subjected to end loads only (i.e. χ = 0 ) is also plotted in Fig. 3.6, and the
values in brackets indicate the locations and buckling factors at the kinks in the curve. As
expected, the buckling factors Λ2 for plates subjected to inplane load in sub-plate 2 only
(i.e. χ > 0 ) are always higher than the ones subjected to end inplane load (i.e. χ = 0 ),
especially when the location factor χ of the intermediate load is large. As the aspect
ratio a/b increases, the buckling factors for all cases approach the value of 4 as shown in
Fig. 3.6. For benchmark purposes, Table 3.2 presents the exact buckling factors Λ2 for
SSSS plates subjected to inplane load in sub-plate 2 only (i.e. N1 = 0 and χ > 0 ).
Table 3.2 Buckling factors Λ 2 for simply supported rectangular plates subjected to
inplane load in sub-plate 2 only ( N 1 = 0 )
χ a/b = 1 a/b = 2 a/b = 3 a/b = 4
0.3 5.31343 4.35397 4.15794 4.11248
0.5 6.37793 4.54296 4.32523 4.18006
0.7 6.64427 5.81516 4.71776 4.36124
3.2.2 CSCS plates
We consider a rectangular plate with the two edges parallel to the x-axis simply
supported while the two edges parallel to the y-axis are clamped (this plate is referred to
as a CSCS plate). The typical stability criterion curve for a CSCS plate with an integer or
non-integer aspect ratio a/b subjected to end and intermediate loads is similar to that of
an SSSS plate with a non-integer aspect ratio a/b as shown in Fig. 3.2(b). Regimes I, II,
III, IV and V are defined by solution combinations 5, 15, 25, 23 and 21, respectively. The
critical points P, Q, R and S that connect the regimes can be obtained from the solution
combinations 10, 20, 24 and 22, respectively.
Exact stability criteria for CSCS plates with various aspect ratios (a/b = 1, 1.5 and 2)
and intermediate load locations (χ = 0.3, 0.5 and 0.7 ) are presented in Figs. 3.7(a) to
3.7(c). The stability criterion curves for the CSCS plates show very similar trends as for
SSSS plates. The variations of the buckling factor Λ2 with respect to the intermediate load
location χ for square CSCS plates are presented in Fig. 3.8.

By using the solution combination 25, we can obtain the variations of buckling load
factors versus the aspect ratios a/b for CSCS rectangular plates under end inplane load
only (i.e. N1 = 0 and χ = 0 ), as shown in Fig 3.9. The values in brackets indicate the
locations and buckling factors on the kinks where the number of half waves n of the
buckling mode along the x direction switches. For example, if the plate aspect ratio a/b is
less than 1.732, the number of half waves n = 1. If 1.732 ≤ a/b < 2.828, the number of
half waves n = 2. An interesting relationship is obtained between the number of half
waves n and the coordinates of the points where the mode shape switching occurs. For
the point before which the number of half waves is n and after which the number of half
wave is (n+1), the aspect ratio a/b = n(n + 2) and the buckling factor Λ2 = (2n +
2)2/[n(n + 2)].
Fig. 3.9 also presents the variation of the buckling factor Λ2 against the plate aspect
ratio a/b for CSCS rectangular plates subjected to inplane load in sub-plate 2 only (i.e. N1
= 0 and χ > 0 ). As expected, the buckling factors for plates under such loading a case
are always higher than the ones subjected to end load only, especially when the location
factor χ of the intermediate load is large. Kinks, present in the curves in Fig. 3.9,
indicate mode shape switching at the particular aspect ratio a/b.
3.2.3 FSFS plates
A rectangular plate with the two edges parallel to the x-axis simply supported and the
two edges parallel to the y-axis free is considered (referred from hereon as a FSFS plate).
The typical stability criterion curve of FSFS plates with the location of the intermediate
load χ = 0.3,0.5 and 0.7 is shown in Fig. 3.10. There are only three regimes (I, II, and III)
on the stability criterion curve that are determined by the solution combinations 3, 13 and
11, respectively. The critical points P and Q that connect the regimes are defined by the
solution combinations 8 and 12, respectively.
Exact stability criteria for FSFS plates with various aspect ratios (a/b = 1, 1.5 and 2)
and intermediate load locations ( χ = 0.3, 0.5 and 0.7) are presented in Fig. 3.11. For
rectangular FSFS plates, the stability criterion curves are very close to each other while
the intermediate load location χ varies from 0.3 to 0.5 to 0.7. The variations of the
buckling factor Λ2 versus the intermediate load location χ for square FSFS plates are
presented in Fig. 3.12.
The relationship between the buckling factor Λ2 and the aspect ratio a/b is presented in
Fig. 3.13 for FSFS rectangular plates subjected to inplane load in sub-plate 2 only (N1 =
0). For FSFS plates with the intermediate load acting at χ = 0.1 and 0.3, the buckling
factor increases as the plate aspect ratio increases. For χ = 0.5 to 0.9, the buckling factor
decreases as the plate aspect ratio increases. When the plate aspect ratio is large, the
buckling factor approaches the value 2.437 for all cases as shown in Fig. 3.13.
3.3 Concluding Remarks
This chapter presents an analytical method to investigate the elastic buckling behaviour
of Levy-type plates subjected to the end and intermediate inplane loads. A rectangular
plate is divided into two sub-plates at the location of the intermediate load and the five
feasible exact solutions of the governing differential equation for each sub-plate are
derived. The critical buckling load is determined from one of the twenty-five possible
solution combinations for the two sub-plates. Exact stability criterion curves are
presented for several selected Levy-type plates subjected to the end and intermediate
inplane loads. The influence of the intermediate load locations on the stability criterion
curves of the plates is discussed. The exact buckling solutions are valuable as benchmark
values and for engineers designing walls or plates that have to support intermediate
floors/loads.
simply supported
N1 N2 N1 + N 2
edges b
χa (1 − χ )a
(a) Original Plate
y1 y2
any B.C. any B.C.

N1 N1 + N 2
interface
χa x1 (1 − χ )a x2
(b) Sub-plate 1 (c) Sub-plate 2
Figure 3.1 Geometry and coordinate systems for a rectangular plate subjected to
intermediate and end uniaxial inplane loads. (a) Original plate; (b) Sub-plate 1; and
(c) Sub-plate 2.
Λ1
Regime IV
R Regime III
Q
Regime II
Λ2
P
Compressive Stress State Regime I

Zero Stress State
Tensile Stress State
Figure 3.2 (a) Plate with integer aspect ratio a/b
Λ1
Regime V
Regime IV
Regime III
S
R Regime II
Q
Λ2
P Regime I
Compressive Stress State

Zero Stress State
Figure 3.2 (b) Plate with non-integer aspect ratio a/b
Figure 3.2 Typical stability criterion curves for SSSS plates subjected to end and
intermediate inplane loads: (a) plate with integer aspect ratio a/b, and (b) plate
with non-integer aspect ratio a/b.
Λ1
8
χ = 0.5
χ = 0.3
6
χ = 0.3
4
0 Λ2
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
-2
(a) Square plate (a/b = 1)
Λ1
8
χ = 0.5
χ = 0.3
6
χ = 0.7 4
0 Λ2
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
-2
(b) Rectangular plate with a/b=1.5

Λ1
8
χ = 0.5 χ = 0.3
6
χ = 0.7 4
0 Λ2
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
-2
-4
(c) Rectangular plate with a/b = 2.0
Fig. 3.3 Stability criteria for SSSS rectangular plates with (a) a/b =
1.0, (b) a/b = 1.5, and (c) a/b = 2.0.
7
Buckling Intermediate load Factor Λ2
Λ1 = 0
6
5 Λ1 = 0.5Λ cr
3
Λ1 = 0.8 Λcr
2
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Intermediate Load Location χ
Figure 3.4 Variations of buckling intermediate load factor Λ 2 with respect to location
χ for SSSS square plate (Note that Λ cr = 4.0000 is the buckling load factor for square
SSSS plate under end load only).
0.0
Normalized Modal Shape
-0.2
kχ==0.4
0.4
-0.4 kχ==0.5
0.5
kχ==0.6
0.6
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/a
(a) Modal shapes
1.0
Normalized Modal Bending Moment
0.8
0.6
0.4
kχ ==0.4
0.4
0.2 kχ ==0.5
0.5
χ = 0
k = 0.6.6
0.0
-0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/a
(b) Modal moment distributions
Figure 3.5 Normalized modal shapes and modal moment distributions in the
x-direction for SSSS square plate subjected to intermediate load N2 (N1 = 0):
(a) modal shapes; and (b) modal moment distributions
Λ2
12
10 N2 N2
χ = 0.3
χ = 0.5 χ = 0.7
b
8
χ =0
χa (1 − χ )a
6
(1.414,4.5) (2.449,4.167) (3.464,4.083)

2
0 a/b
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 3.6 Variation of buckling factors Λ2 versus plate aspect ratio a/b
for SSSS plates subjected to inplane load in sub-plate 2 only.
Λ1
χ = 0.5 χ = 0.3
15
10
χ = 0.7
0 Λ2
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
-5
(a) Square plate (a/b = 1.0)
Λ1
15
χ = 0.5
χ = 0.3
10
χ = 0.7 5
0 Λ2
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
-5
(b) Rectangular plate with a/b = 1.5

Λ1
15
χ = 0.3
10
χ = 0.5
χ = 0.7 5
0 Λ2
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
-5
Fig. 3.7 Stability criteria for CSCS rectangular plates with plate aspect ratios
(a) a/b = 1.0, (b) a/b = 1.5, and (c) a/b = 2.0.
20
18
16
14
12
10 Λ1 = 0
8 Λ1 = 0.5Λ cr
4 Λ1 = 0.8 Λ cr
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Figure 3.8 Variations of buckling intermediate load factor Λ 2 with respect to location
χ for CSCS square plate (Note that Λcr = 6.7432 is the buckling load factor for square
CSCS plate under end load only).
Λ2
11
χ =0
10
9 N2 N2
b
8 χa (1 − χ )a
7 χ = 0.3
χ = 0.5 χ = 0.7
6
5
(1.732,5.333)
4 (2.828,4.5)
(3.873,4.267)
(4.899,4.167)(5.916,4.114)
3 a/b
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Figure 3.9 Variations of buckling factors Λ2 versus plate aspect ratio a/b for CSCS
rectangular plates subjected to inplane load in sub-plate 2 only.
Λ1
Regime III
Regime II
Q
Λ2
Compressive Stress State Regime I

Zero Stress State
Figure 3.10 Typical stability criterion curve for FSFS rectangular plates subjected
to end and intermediate inplane loads.
Λ1
4
χ = 0.5 χ = 0.3
χ = 0.7 2
0 Λ2
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
-2
-4
(a) Square plate
Λ1
4
χ = 0.3
χ = 0.5,0.7 2
0 Λ2
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
-2
-4
(b) Rectangular plate with a/b = 1.5

Λ1
4
χ = 0.3,0.5,0.7
2
0 Λ2
-8 -4 0 4 8
-2
-4

Fig. 3.11 Stability criteria for FSFS rectangular plates with
plate aspect ratios (a) a/b = 1.0, (b) a/b = 1.5, and (c) a/b = 2.0.
3.5
3.0
Λ1 = 0
2.5
2.0
Λ1 = 0.5Λcr
1.5
1.0 Λ1 = 0.8Λ cr
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Figure 3.12 Variations of buckling intermediate load factor Λ2 with respect to location
χ for FSFS square plate (Note that Λcr = 2.0429 is the buckling load factor for square
FSFS plate under end load only).
Λ2
16 χ = 0.9
14 S
N2 N2
b
F F
12 S
10 χa (1 − χ )a
χ = 0.7
8
6
χ = 0.5
χ = 0.3
4
2
χ = 0.1 χ =0
0 a/b
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 3.13 Variations of buckling factors Λ2 versus plate aspect ratio a/b for FSFS
rectangular plates subjected to inplane load in sub-plate 2 only.
Chapter 4
PLASTIC BUCKLING OF PLATES UNDER
This chapter is concerned with the plastic buckling of rectangular plates subjected to
both intermediate and end uniaxial loads. The plate has two opposite simply supported
edges that are parallel to the load direction and the other remaining edges may take any
combination of free, simply supported or clamped conditions. Both the Incremental
Theory of Plasticity and the Deformation Theory of Plasticity are considered in bounding
the plastic behavior of the plate. The buckling problem is solved by decomposing the
plate into two sub-plates at the boundary where the intermediate load acts. Each sub-plate
buckling problem is solved exactly using the Levy approach and the two solutions
brought together by the continuity equations at the separated interface. There are eight
possible solutions for each sub-plate and consequently there are sixty-four combinations
of solutions to be considered for the entire plate. The final solution combination depends
on the nature of the ratio of the intermediate load to the end load, the intermediate load
location, aspect ratio, and material properties. Typical plastic stability criteria are
presented in graphical forms which should be useful for engineers designing plated walls
that have to support intermediate floors/loads.

Chapter 4 Plastic Buckling of Plates under Intermediate and End Loads 62
4.1 Mathematical Modeling
4.1.1 Problem definition
Consider an isotropic, rectangular thin plate as shown in Fig. 1a. The plate has length a,
width b, and thickness h and is simply supported along the edges y = 0 and y = b. The
other two edges of the plate may take any combination of free (F), simply supported (S)
and clamped (C) conditions. For convenience, a four-letter symbol is used to denote the
support conditions of the plate. For example, an FSCS plate has a free left edge, a simply
supported bottom edge, a clamped right edge and a simply supported top edge.
The plate is subjected to an end load N 1 = σ 1h (per unit length) at the edge x = 0 and
an intermediate uniaxial load N 2 = σ 2 h (per unit length) at the location x = χa . Thus the
end reaction force at the right edge x = a is N 1 + N 2 = (σ 1 + σ 2 )h as shown in Fig. 4.1.
Note that a positive value of σ implies a compressive load while a negative value implies
a tensile load. The material of the plate is assumed to obey the Ramberg-Osgood
constitutive law. The problem at hand is to determine the plastic buckling load for such a
loaded plate.
4.1.2 Method of solution
The plate is first divided into two sub-plates. The first sub-plate is to the left of the
vertical line defined by x = χa (see Fig. 4.1b) and the second sub-plate is to the right of
this line (see Fig. 4.1c). Adopting the x-y coordinates system as shown in Figs. 4.1b and
4.1c, the governing plastic buckling equation (see Eq. (2.39)) for each sub-plate may be
canonically written as Eq. (4.1)

∂ 4 wi 2( β i + µ )ai ∂ 4 wi ai γ ∂ 4 wi 12σ i ai ∂ 2 wi
2 4 2
αi + + = − , (4.1)
∂xi
4
b2 ∂xi ∂yi
2 2
b 4 ∂yi 4 Eh 2 ∂xi2
in which
wi x y
wi = , xi = i , y i = i , (4.2a-c)
b ai b
where i = 1,2 respectively denotes the sub-plates 1 and 2; a1 = χa , and a 2 = (1 − χ )a .
The parameters α , β , γ , µ are defined as follows:
• Based on Incremental Theory of Plasticity (DT):
E  T
ρ =3 + (1 − 2v) 2 − (1 − 2v)  , (2.26a)
S  E
1  T 
α=  4 − 31 −  (2.26b)
ρ  S 
1 T
β=  2 − 2(1 − 2v)  , (2.26c)
ρ E
4
γ = , (2.26d)
ρ
• Based on Deformation Theory of Plasticity (IT):
T
ρ = (5 − 4v) − (1 − 2v) 2 , (2.33a)
E
1  T 
α=  4 − 31 −  (2.33b)
ρ  S 
1 T
β=  2 − 2(1 − 2v)  , (2.33c)
ρ E
4
γ = , (2.33d)
ρ
where v is the Poisson ratio, and the ratios of the elastic modulus E to the tangential
modulus T and the secant modulus S at the onset of buckling are expressed as
c −1
E σ 
= 1 + k   ; c >1 (2.28a)
S σ0 
c −1
E σ 
= 1 + ck   ; c > 1. (2.28b)
T σ0 
where σ 0 is a nominal yield stress, c a dimensionless constant that describes the shape of
the stress-strain relationship with c = ∞ for elastic-perfectly plastic response, and k the
horizontal distance between the knee of c = ∞ and the intersection of the c curve with the
σ / σ 0 = 1 line as shown in Fig. 2.3.
The essential and natural boundary conditions for the two simply supported edges
at y i = 0 and y i = 1 associated with the i-th sub-plate are given by
wi = 0 (4.3)
α i ∂ 2 wi β i ∂ 2 wi
+ =0 (4.4)
b 2 ∂yi2 ai2 ∂xi2
Based on the Levy approach (Timoshenko and Woinowsky-Krieger 1959), the solution
to the partial differential equation may take the form of
wi ( xi , yi ) = Aim ( xi ) sin mπyi , i = 1,2 (4.5)

In view of Eq. (4.5), the partial differential equation (4.1) may be reduced into an
ordinary differential equation given by
d 4 Aim  12σ i ai 2( β i + µ )m 2π 2 ai  d 2 Aim ai m 4π 4γ i

2 2 4
+  − 
 dx 2 + b 4α = 0. (4.6)
 Eh α i b 2α i
4 2
dxi  i i
Three parameters ∆1 , ∆ 2 , and ∆ 3 are defined as follows:
2
 12σ i ai 2 2( β i + µ )m 2π 2 ai 2  4ai m 4π 4γ i
4

∆1 =  − 
 − , (4.7)
 Eh α i b 2α i b 4α i
2

ai m 4π 4γ i
4
∆2 = , (4.8)
b 4α i
12σ i ai 2( β i + µ )m 2π 2 ai
2 2
∆3 = − . (4.9)
Eh 2α i b 2α i
Depending on the values of ∆1 , ∆ 2 , and ∆ 3 , there are eight possible solutions for the
fourth-order differential equation (4.6). These solutions, designated as Solution A-H (see
Table 4.1), are given below.
Table 4.1 Types of solutions depending on values of ∆1 , ∆ 2 , ∆ 3
∆1 ∆2 ∆3 Solution
>0 >0 A
<0 B
=0 >0 C
>0 <0 D
<0 Any value E
∆ >0 F
2
=0 = 3 <0 G
4
<0 Any value Any value H
Solution A:
Aim = Ci1 cos φi p xi + Ci 2 sin φi p xi + Ci 3 cosψ ip xi + Ci 4 sinψ ip xi , (4.10a)
∆ 3 + ∆1 ∆ 3 − ∆1
in which φi p = , ψ ip = . (4.10b,c)
2 2
Solution B:
Aim = Ci1 cosh φi p xi + Ci 2 sinh φi p xi + Ci 3 coshψ ip xi + Ci 4 sinhψ ip xi , (4.11a)
− ∆ 3 + ∆1 − ∆ 3 − ∆1
in which φi p = , ψ ip = . (4.11b,c)
2 2
Solution C:
Aim = Ci1 cos φi p xi + Ci 2 sin φi p xi + Ci 3 xi + Ci 4 , (4.12a)
in which φi p = ∆ 3 . (4.12b)
Solution D:
Aim = Ci1 cosh φi p xi + Ci 2 sinh φi p xi + Ci 3 xi + Ci 4 , (4.13a)
in which, φi p = − ∆ 3 . (4.13b)
Solution E:
Aim = Ci1 cosh φi p xi + Ci 2 sinh φi p xi + Ci 3 cosψ ip xi + Ci 4 sinψ ip xi , (4.14a)
− ∆ 3 + ∆1 ∆ 3 + ∆1
in which φi p = ,ψ ip = . (4.14b,c)
2 2
Solution F:
Aim = Ci1 cos φi p xi + Ci 2 xi cos φi p xi + Ci 3 sin φi p xi + Ci 4 xi sin φi p xi , (4.15a)
∆3
in which φi p = . (4.15b)
2
Solution G:
Aim = Ci1 cosh φi p xi + Ci 2 xi cosh φi p xi + Ci 3 sinh φi p xi + Ci 4 xi sinh φi p xi , (4.16a)
− ∆3
in which φi p = . (4.16b)
2
Solution H:
Aim = Ci1 cosh φi p xi cosψ ip xi + Ci 2 cosh φi p sinψ ip xi + Ci 3 sinh φi p cosψ ip xi
+ Ci 4 sinh φi p xi sinψ ip xi (4.17a)
1 1
in which φi p = − ∆ 3 + ∆ 3 − ∆1 ,ψ ip = ∆ 3 + ∆ 3 − ∆1
2 2
(4.17b,c)
2 2
The eight constants C1i , C 2i , i = 1,2,3,4 resulting from the solution combination can be
evaluated using the boundary equations at the edges x1 = 0 and x 2 = 1 ,
• For simply supported edges:
wi = 0 ⇒ Aim = 0 , and (4.18a)
α i ∂ 2 wi β i ∂ 2 wi
+ = 0⇒
ai2 ∂xi2 b 2 ∂yi2
α i d 2 Aim β i m 2π 2
− Aim = 0 , i = 1,2 (4.18b)
ai2 dxi2 b2
where µ = 1 /(1 + ν ) .
• For clamped edges:
wi = 0 ⇒ Aim = 0 and (4.19a)
∂wi dAim
= 0⇒ = 0 i = 1, 2 (4.19b)
∂xi dxi
• For free edges:
α i ∂ 2 wi β i − µ ∂ 2 wi α i d 2 Aim β i m 2π 2
+ = 0⇒ − Aim = 0 and (4.20a)
ai2 ∂xi 2 b2 ∂y i2 ai2 dxi 2 b2
α i ∂ 3 wi β i + 2 µ ∂ 3 wi 12σ i b ∂wi
+ + = 0⇒
a ∂xi
3
i
3
ai b 2
∂xi ∂y i
2
Eh 2 ai ∂xi
α i d 3 Aim  12σ i b (β i + 2 µ )m 2π 2  dAim

+  2 −  = 0 , i = 1, 2 (4.20b)
ai3 ∂xi 3  Eh ai ai b 2  dxi
and the continuity equations at the separation interface
w1 x1 =1
− w2 x2 = 0
= 0 ⇒ A1m x1 =1
− A2 m x2 = 0
= 0, (4.21a)
1 ∂w1 1 ∂w2 1 dA1m 1 dA2 m

− = 0⇒ − = 0, (4.21b)
a1 ∂x1 x1 =1
a 2 ∂x 2 x2 = 0
a1 dx1 x1 =1
a 2 dx 2 x2 = 0
 α1 ∂ 2 w1 β1 ∂ 2 w1   α 2 ∂ 2 w2 β 2 ∂ 2 w2 
 2 +  −  + 2  =0
 a1 ∂x1
2
b 2 ∂y12  x =1  a 22 ∂x22 b ∂y 22  x =0
1 2
 α d 2 A1m m 2π 2 β1 
⇒  21 2
− 2
A1m 
 a1 dx1 b  x1 =1
, (4.21c)
 α d 2 A2 m m 2π 2 β 2 
−  22 2
− 2
A2 m  =0
 a 2 dx 2 b  x2 = 0
 α1 ∂3w1 (β1 + 2µ) ∂3w1 12σ1b ∂w1 

 3 3 + + 
 a1 ∂x1 a1b2 ∂x1∂y12 Eh2a1 ∂x1  x =1
1
 α2 ∂3w2 (β2 + 2µ) ∂3w2 12σ 2b ∂w2 

−  3 + +  =0
 a2 ∂x2
3
a2b2 ∂x2∂y22 Eh2a2 ∂x2  x =0
2
α d 3 A1m  12σ b m2π 2 (β1 + 2µ)  dA1m 

⇒  31 3
+  2 1 −  
 a1 dx1  Eh a1 a1b2  dx1  x1 =1
(4.21d)
α2 d 3 A2m  12σ 2b m2π 2 (β2 + 2µ)  dA2m 
− 3 3
+  2 −   =0
 a2 dx2  Eh a2 a2b2  dx2  x2 =0
By substituting the appropriate solutions expressed in Eqs. (4.10) to (4.17) into Eqs.
(4.18) to (4.21), one obtains a set of homogeneous equations which may be expressed in
the following matrix form
[K ]{C} = {0}, (4.22)
in which {C} = {C11 C12 C13 C14 C 21 C 22 C 23 C 24 } . For a nontrivial buckling solution, the
T
determinant of [K ] must vanish. The characteristic equation furnishes the stability
criterion. The valid solution combinations should satisfy the following requirements:
• The buckling load satisfies the limits of validity for the solution combinations
which it belongs to;
• The buckling load is the lowest value among possible solutions; and it was found
that m=1 gives the lowest load for all possible m values for the considered cases.
• The stability curves are continuous.
4.2 Results and Discussions
In order to examine the plastic buckling criteria of rectangular plates, we have adopted
the following material properties: E = 10700 ksi, σ 0 = 61.4 ksi, v = 0.32 and the
Ramberg-Osgood parameters c = 20 and k = 0.3485 . The influences of material
properties including E / σ 0 and c will also be investigated. The buckling factors for the
end and intermediate loads are expressed as Λ 1 = σ 1hb 2 /(π 2 D ) and Λ 2 = σ 2 hb 2 /(π 2 D),
[ (
respectively where the symbol D = Eh 3 / 12 1 − ν 2 )] denotes the flexural rigidity of the
plate.
Table 4.2 presents the buckling stress for a simply supported, square plate under a
uniaxial compressive end load. The results are compared with those obtained by Wang et
al. (2001). We can see that both results are in close agreement. Note that the results from
Wang et al. (2001) are based on the Mindlin shear deformable plate theory. As exapected,
the results from Wang et al. (2001) are slightly smaller than the present results which are
based on the classical thin plate theory.

Table 4.2 Buckling stresses σ 1 for a simply supported, square plate under uniaxial end
load (i.e. no intermediate load)
Buckling Stresses σ 1 (in ksi)
b/h
IT DT
Present study Wang et al. (2001) Present study Wang et al. (2001)
22 71.61 70.84 61.90 60.08
24 61.15 60.71 58.54 57.40
26 54.88 54.60 54.39 53.81
28 49.41 49.11 49.32 48.96
Figure 4.2 presents a typical stability criterion curve for plates subjected to
intermediate and end loads. Note that negative values of Λ i , i = 1,2 denote tensile in-
plane loads. The stability criterion curve consists of various regimes. For example, in
Figure 4.2 we consider the case of a CSCS square plate with thickness to width ratio h/b
= 0.04, intermediate load location χ = 0.5 , there are five Regimes I, II, III, IV and V
which are defined by solution combinations B+A, H+A, A+A, A+H and A+B,
respectively. The critical points P, Q, R and S that connect the regimes are defined by the
solution combinations G+A, F+A, A+F and A+G, respectively. Point P represents the
loading case in which the inplane load is applied to sub-plate 2 only (i.e. N1 = 0) while
Point S for the loading case where only sub-plate 1 is loaded (i.e. N1 + N2 = 0). However,
for different material properties, aspect ratios, intermediate load positions, and boundary
conditions the solution combinations may change somewhat.

4.2.1 Effect of aspect ratios a/b
Figures 4.3 to 4.5 show the stability criterion curves of SSSS, CSCS and FSFS
rectangular plates with aspect ratios a/b = 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0, loading position χ = 0.5,
thickness to width ratio h/b = 0.04 and various end load to intermediate load ratios.
Figures 4.3a, 4.4a and 4.5a show the buckling results using IT while Figs. 4.3b, 4.4b and
4.5b show results using DT. The two plasticity theories furnish somewhat similar results
except for the case of CSCS square plates.
Referring to Figs. 4.3 and 4.4, we can see that for SSSS and CSCS plates, the buckling
factors decrease with the increasing aspect ratios a/b. However, for FSFS plates, the
buckling factors with a/b = 1.0 could be smaller than that of a/b = 2.0 and a/b = 3.0 as
shown in Fig. 4.5. For SSSS and CSCS plates, the differences between the buckling
factors for a/b = 2.0 and a/b = 3.0 are however much smaller than the differences
between those for a/b = 1.0 and a/b = 2.0.
For negative values of the intermediate load factor Λ 2 (i.e. Λ 2 is tensile in nature), the
end buckling factor Λ 1 takes on almost a constant value. This is because sub-plate 2 does
not buckle as it is under a very low compressive stress state or in a tensile stress state. So
the buckling deformation of the plate mainly occurs in sub-plate 1. In order to reinforce
this point, consider a rectangular plate with two opposite edges simply supported,
intermediate load position χ = 0.5 , and is under end and intermediate loads as shown in
Fig. 4.6a. Suppose we let sub-plate 2 under a large tensile stress state, for
example Λ 2 = −50 . Depending on different boundary conditions of the other two edges,
the buckling factors Λ 1 are given in Table 4.3. We now compare the buckling stresses of
rectangular plates whose aspect ratio a / b = 0.5 and same boundary conditions as sub-
plate 1 along three edges, as shown in Fig. 4.6b, but the X edge may be clamped, simply-
supported or free edge. The corresponding buckling factors are given in Table 4.3. Based
on the results presented in Table 4.3 for SSSS, CSCS and FSFS plates, we can conclude
that when sub-plate 2 is under a large tensile stress state, the interface edge may be
regarded as approaching the condition of a clamped edge, except for the FSFS plate with
a/b=2.0, where the interface edge imposes a constraint to the plate similar to the one from
a simply supported edge.
Table 4.3 Comparison of buckling factors of full plates with uniaxial intermediate and
end loads and their corresponding end loaded sub-plates with different interfacial edge
conditions
IT DT IT DT IT DT
Buckling factor Λ 1 for SSSS with a/b=1.0 a/b=2.0 a/b=3.0
Λ 2 = −50 4.470 4.002 3.799 3.712 3.738 3.674
Buckling factors for SSXS Sub-plate a/b = 0.5 a/b = 1.0 a/b = 1.5
X edge takes on a clamped edge 4.543 4.015 3.806 3.717 3.742 3.679
X edge takes on a simply-supported edge 3.893 3.797 3.678 3.605 3.631 3.609
X edge takes on a free edge 1.990 1.990 2.311 2.311 2.253 2.253
Buckling factor Λ 1 for CSCS with a/b=1.0 a/b=2.0 a/b=3.0
Λ 2 = −50 6.214 4.198 4.108 3.878 3.917 3.802
Buckling factors for CSXS Sub-plate a/b = 0.5 a/b = 1.0 a/b = 1.5
Buckling factor Λ 1 for FSFS with a/b=1.0 a/b=2.0 a/b=3.0
Λ 2 = −50 2.451 2.451 2.289 2.289 2.266 2.266
Buckling factors for FSXS Sub-plate a/b = 0.5 a/b = 1.0 a/b = 1.5
4.2.2 Effect of loading positions χ
Based on IT and DT, Figures 4.7a and 4.7b show the variations of the buckling factors
Λ 2 of SSSS rectangular plates with respect to loading positions χ when Λ 1 = 0, 2, a/b =
1, 2, and thickness to width ratio h/b = 0.04 respectively. It can be seen that the buckling
factor Λ 2 increases with the increasing value of χ , albeit gradually for χ < 0.7 and
more steeply for χ ≥ 0.7 . It can be seen that the two theories of plasticity furnish
significantly different buckling values when χ ≥ 0.7 . Generally, buckling factors
associated with IT are higher than their DT counterparts. It is worth noting that the
buckling factors Λ 2 for Λ 1 = 0 differ from their counterparts associated with Λ 1 = 2 by
about 2.
4.2.3 Effect of various boundary conditions
The influence of boundary conditions (such as SSSS, CSCS, FSFS, CSSS, FSSS and
CSFS) on the buckling factors is highlighted in Fig. 4.8. In computing these buckling
factors, we have used the following parameters: aspect ratio a/b = 2.0, thickness to width
ratio h/b = 0.04 and loading position χ = 0.5 . It can be seen from Fig. 4.8 that the
buckling criterion curves merge at some portions even though the rectangular plates have
one of its edge conditions different from the other provided the sub-plate with this edge is
under a high tensile stress state. For example CSFS plate with a high tensile stress state in
sub-plate 2 will behave in a similar manner to a CSCS plate with a high tensile stress state
or a low compressive stress state in sub-plate 2 because the tensile stressed sub-plate does
not buckle at all and thus its edge condition plays no part in the buckling phenomenon.
4.2.4 Effect of various material properties
The buckling factors of SSSS square plates with various material properties E / σ 0 =
200, 400, 800 and c = 2, 3, 20 are given in Figs. 4.9 and 4.10 by using IT and DT,
respectively. A thickness to width ratio h/b = 0.04, and loading position χ = 0.5 were
used in the calculations. It can be seen from Figs. 4.9 and 4.10 that the buckling factors
decrease with increasing values of parameter c, i.e. as the plate material approaches the
perfectly elastic-plastic constitutive relation. Furthermore, the shape of the stability
criterion curve for large c values approach a bilinear curve with a horizontal portion when
Λ 2 is negative and a linear curve when Λ 2 is positive. The slope of the linear portion is
given by Λ*1 / Λ*2 where Λ*1 is Λ 1 value when Λ 2 = 0 (i.e. the case when the plate is
subjected to only end load) and Λ*2 is Λ 2 value when Λ 1 = 0 (i.e the case when the plate
is subjected to only intermediate load).
4.2.5 Effect of using two different theories
The buckling factors of SSSS square plates with various material properties E / σ 0 =
200, 400, 800 and under intermediate load are given in Fig. 4.11 by using IT and DT,
respectively. From Fig. 4.11 we can see the difference between IT and DT increases with
increasing E / σ 0 values. For the same value of E / σ 0 , the differences also increases with
increasing values of parameter c.
4.3 Concluding Remarks
This chapter presents an analytical method to determine the exact plastic buckling
factors of rectangular plates subjected to end and intermediate uniaxial loads and where
two opposite edges (parallel to the loads) are simply supported. In this method, the
rectangular plate is divided into two sub-plates at the intermediate load location. Each
sub-plate buckling problem is then solved using the Levy approach. There are eight
feasible solutions for each sub-plate. The critical buckling load is determined from one of
the sixty-four possible solution combinations for the two sub-plates. The solution
combination depends on the aspect ratio, the intermediate load position, the intermediate
to end load ratio, the material properties and the boundary conditions. The effects of the
aforementioned parameters and the adoption of DT and IT on the buckling factors are
also investigated.
The presented exact buckling solutions should be very useful for engineers designing
plated walls that have to support intermediate floors/loads and they should serve as
benchmark values for checking the convergence, validity and accuracy of numerical
methods for plate buckling analysis.

any B.C.
any B.C.
N1 N2 simply supported N1 + N 2 b
edges
x
χa (1 − χ )a
(a)
y1 y2
interface any B.C.

N1 any B.C. b N1 + N 2 b
χa x1 (1 − χ )a x2
(b) (c)
Fig. 4.1 Rectangular plate under intermediate and end uniaxial loads
Λ1
5
4 Regime III
Regime V Regime IV
S
R 3
Q
Regime II
1
P
0 Λ2
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Compressive Stress State
Zero Stress State -1
Tensile Stress State Regime I
-2
Fig. 4.2 Typical stability criterion curve

Λ1
5
a/b=1
4
3
a/b=2 a/b=3
a/b=1
2
a/b=2
1
a/b=3
Λ2
0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
-1
Results based on IT
-2
(a)
Λ1
5
a/b=1
4
a/b=1
3
a/b=2 a/b=3
2
a/b=2
1 a/b=3
0 Λ2
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
-1
Results based on DT
-2
(b)
Fig. 4.3 Stability criteria for SSSS rectangular plates with h/b= 0.04 and different
aspect ratios a/b = 1,2,3 by (a) IT and (b) DT. The intermediate load is placed at χ =
0.5
Λ1
6
a/b=2
4 a/b=1
a/b=3
0 Λ2
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Results based on IT
-2
(a)
Λ1
5
a/b=2 3
a/b=1
a/b=3
0 Λ2
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
-1
Results based on DT
-2
(b)
Fig. 4.4 Stability criteria for CSCS rectangular plates with h/b = 0.04 and different
aspect ratios a/b = 1, 2, 3 by (a) IT and (b) DT. The intermediate load is placed at
χ = 0.5
Λ1
3
a/b=3
2
a/b=1
1
a/b=2
0
Λ2
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-1
Results based on IT
-2
(a)
Λ1
3
a/b=3
2
a/b=1
a/b=2
1
0 Λ2
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-1
Results based on DT
-2
(b)
Fig. 4.5 Stability criteria for FSFS rectangular plates with h/b = 0.04 and different
aspect ratios a/b = 1, 2, 3 by (a) IT and (b) DT. The intermediate load is placed at η
= 0.5
S
Z edge
Y edge
N1 N2 N1 − N 2 b
S
0.5a 0.5a
(a) Full plate YSZS
Y edge
N N b
0.5a
(b) Sub-plate YSXS
Fig. 4.6 Rectangular plate YSZS and the corresponding sub-

plate YSXS under uniaxial load
Λ2
8
N1 N2 N1 + N 2
7 Λ 1 = N 1b 2 /(π 2 D )
Λ 2 = N 2 b 2 /(π 2 D )
b
6
ηa (1-η )a Λ 1 = 0 , a/b=1
5
Λ 1 = 0 , a/b=2
3 Λ1 = 2 , a/b=1
1 Λ 1 = 2 , a/b=2
Results based on IT
0 η
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
(a)
Λ2
5
Λ 1 = 0 , a/b=1
4
Λ 1 = 0 , a/b=2
3
Λ1 = 2 , a/b=1
2
Λ 1 = 2 , a/b=2
1
Results based on DT
0 η
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
(b)
Fig. 4.7 Variation of buckling factors Λ 2 with respect to χ for rectangular plates
with Λ 1 =0 and 2 by (a) IT (b) DT.
Λ1
5
CSCS, CSFS, CSSS
4
CSCS
SSSS 3 FSSS
CSFS
2 CSSS, FSSS
FSFS, FSSS
1
0
Λ2
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
-1
Results based on IT
FSFS, CSFS
-2
(a)
Λ1
5
CSCS, CSFS, CSSS

4
SSSS 3
FSSS
CSFS
2 CSSS, FSSS
FSFS, FSSS
1 CSCS
0 Λ2
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
-1
Results based on DT
FSFS, CSFS
-2
(b)
Fig. 4.8 Stability criteria for rectangular plates with h/b=0.04, aspect ratio a/b = 2,
intermediate load position χ = 0.5 and different boundary conditions by (a) IT and (b) DT
Λ1
6
E / σ 0 = 200
Results based on IT
4
c=2
2 c=3
c=20
0 Λ2
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
-2
(a)
Λ1
E / σ 0 = 400
Results based on IT
4
c=2
2
c=3
c=20
0 Λ2
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
-2
(b)
Λ1
6
E / σ 0 = 800
Results based on IT
4 c=2
c=20
2
c=3
0 Λ2
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
-2
(c)
Fig. 4.9 Stability criteria for SSSS square plates with h/b = 0.04, χ = 0.5, for
E
different = (a) 200, (b) 400, (c) 800 by IT
σ0
Λ1
6
E / σ 0 = 200
Results based on DT
4
c=2
c=20 2 c=3
Λ2
0
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
-2
-4
(a)
Λ1
6
c=3 E / σ 0 = 400
4 Results based on DT
c=2
2
c=20
0 Λ2
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
-2
-4
(b)
Λ1
6
E / σ 0 = 800
Results based on DT
4
c=3
c=20 2
c=2
0 Λ2
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
-2
-4
(c)
Fig. 4.10 Stability criteria for SSSS square plates with h/b = 0.04, χ = 0.5, for
E
different = (a) 200, (b) 400, (c) 800 by DT
σ0
Λ2
IT
E / σ 0 = 400 , IT DT
5
E / σ 0 = 200 , IT
4
E / σ 0 = 800 , IT
E / σ 0 = 200 , DT
3
E / σ 0 = 400 , DT
2
N2 N2
1 E / σ 0 = 800 , DT
b=a
0.5a 0.5a
0 c
0 5 10 15 20 25
Fig. 4.11 Buckling load factors Λ 2 for SSSS square plates with Λ 1 = 0
Chapter 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusions
The thesis is concerned with the buckling of rectangular plates subjected to
intermediate and end uniaxial inplane loads. The plate has two opposite simply supported
edges that are parallel to the load direction while the other remaining two edges may take
any combination of free, simply supported or clamped condition. The buckling problem
is solved by decomposing the plate into two sub-plates at the location where the
intermediate uniaxial load acts. Each sub-plate buckling problem is solved exactly using
the Levy approach and the two solutions brought together by matching the continuity
equations at the interfacial edge.
We use both elastic and plastic theories to solve this problem. For the elastic buckling
problem, there exist five possible solutions for each sub-plate. Consequently twenty-five
possible solution combinations have to be considered for the whole plate. The buckling
solutions comprise of different solution combinations depending on various boundary
conditions, aspect ratios, and intermediate load positions. The influences of
aforementioned factors are discussed and the stability criterion curves are presented in
graphs. In contrast to its elastic counterpart, the plastic buckling problem has eight
possible solutions for each sub-plate. Consequently sixty-four possible solution

Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations 89
combinations have to be considered for the whole plate. The effect of various aspect
ratios, intermediate load positions, boundary conditions and material properties are
discussed. It is found that deformation theory of plasticity always yields lower buckling
factors than incremental theory of plasticity. Our research should be useful for engineers
designing plated walls that have to support intermediate floors/loads.
5.2 Recommendations for Future Studies
Further studies along this line of investigation could include:
1. Treating the buckling problem of rectangular plates subjected to end and several
intermediate uniaxial loads. This problem has application in plated walls
supporting several intermediate floor loads or shelf loads.
2. Treating plates with various boundary conditions including elastically restricted
edges that simulate practical edge restraints.
3. This study shows that the two competing plastic theories, IT and DT yield
different buckling results. Experiments may be conducted to establish which of
these two plasticity theories predict the buckling factors more accurately.
4. Considering tapered (or varying thickness) plates under end and intermediate
loads which find practical applications in airplane wings.

REFERENCES
Batdorf, S. B. and Houbolt, J. C. (1946). “Critical combinations of shear and transverse
direct stress for an infinitely long flat plate with edges elastically restrained against
rotation.” NACA Rep. 847, 8-12.
Batdorf, S. B. and Stein, M. (1947). “Critical combinations of shear and direct stress for
simply supported rectangular flat plates.” NACA TN. 1223.
Betten, J. and Shin, C. H. (2000). “Elastic-plastic buckling analysis of rectangular plates

subjected to biaxial loads.” Forschung Im Ingenieurwesen-Engineering Research. Vol.
65, 9.
Bijlaard, P. P. (1949) “Theory and tests on the plastic stability of plates and shells.”
Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences, September. 529-541.
Bleich, F. (1924). Theorie und Berechnung der Eisernen Brucken, Julius Springer, Berlin.
Bleich, F. (1952). Buckling Strength of Metal Structures, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Bridget, F. J., Jerome, C. C. and Vosseller, A. B. (1934). “Some new experiments on

buckling of thin-wall construction.” Trans. ASME, Aero. Eng., Vol. 56, 569-578.
Brown, C. J. and Yettram, A. L. (1986). “The elastic stability of stiffened plates using the
conjugate load/displacement method.” Comput. Struct., Vol. 23, 385-391.
Bryan, G. K. (1891). “On the stability of a plane plate under thrusts in its own plane
with application on the ‘buckling’ of the sides of a ship”. Proc. London Math. Soc.,
Vol. 22, p. 54.
Bulson, P. S. (1970). The Stability of Flat Plates, Chatto and Windus, Longdon, U.K.
Brush, Don O. and Almroth, Bo O. (1975). Buckling of Bars, Plates and Shells. McGraw-
Hill, NewYork.
Chakrabarty, J. (2000). Applied Plasticity, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Chakrabarty, J. (2002). “Influence of anisotropy on the plastic buckling of rectangular

plates.” Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Structural Stability and
Dynamics, edited by C.M. Wang, G.R. Liu and K.K. Ang, World Scientific, 16-18
December 2002, Singapore, 448-452.
Durban D. and Zuckerman, Z. (1999). “Elastoplastic buckling of rectangular plates in

biaxial compression/tension.” International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, Vol. 41,
751-765.
90
El-Ghazaly, H. A. and Sherbourne, A. N. (1986). “Deformation theory for elastic-plastic
buckling analysis of plates under non-proportional planar loading.” Computer and
Structures, Vol. 22, No. 2, 131-149.
Favre, H. (1948). “The influence of its own weight on the stability of a rectangular plate.”
Proc. 7th Int. Cong. Appl. Mech. 1, 151-159.
Engesser, F. (1895). Uber knickfragen. Schweizerische Bauzeitung, Bd. 26, Heft 4, 24-26.
Handelman, G. H. and Prager, W. (1948). “Plastic buckling of a rectangular plate under

edge thrusts.” NACA Note No. 1530.
Hencky, H. (1925). “Uber langsame stationare stromungen in plastischen massen mit

rucksicht auf die vorgange beim walzen.” Pressen und Ziehen von Metallen. Z.f.a.M.M.,
Bd. 5, Heft 2, p. 115.
Hutchinson, J. W. (1974). “Plastic Buckling.” Advances in Applied Mechanics, Vol.

14(67).
Ilyushin, A. A. (1944). “Stability of plates and shells stressed beyond the elastic limit.”
Prikl. Mat. I Mekh. Moscow, Vol. 8, no. 5.
Ilyushin, A. A. (1946). “The elasto-plastic stability of plates.” NACA Note No. 1188.
Johnson, A. E. and Buchert, K. P. (1951). “Critical combinations of bending, shear, and

transverse compressive stresses for buckling of infinitely long flat plates.” NACA TN
2536, 41-44.
Kang, J. H. and Leissa, A. W. (2001). “Vibration and buckling of SS-F-SS-F rectangular

plates loaded by in-plane moments.” International Journal of Structural Stability and
Dynamics, Vol. 1, No. 4, 527-543.
Kaufmann, W. (1936). “Uber unelastisches knicken rechtiger platten.” Ing. Archiv. Bd. 7,
Heft 6, p. 156.
Kollbrunner, C. F. and Herrmann, G. (1948). “Elastische beulung von aufeinseitgen

ungleichunbigen druk beanspruchten platen.” Mitte der T.K.V.S.B., H. 1. p. 28, Zurich
Leeman.
Lee, S. G., Kim, S. C. and Song, J. G. (2001). “Critical loads of square plates under
different inplane load configurations on opposite edges.” International Journal of
Structural Stability and Dynamics. Vol. 1, No. 2, 283-291.
Levy, S. (1942). “Bending of rectangular plates with large deflections.” NACA Report
737, 19-22.
91
Lundquist, E. and Stowell, E. Z. (1942). “Critical compressive stress for flat rectangular
plates supported along all edges and elastically restrained against rotation along the
unloaded edges.” NACA Report 733.
Nadai, A. (1931). Plasticity. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Navier, L. (1822). Memoire sur les lois du mouvement des fluids. Mem. Acad. Sci. Inst.
France 6, 389-440.
Neale, K. W. (1975). “Effect of imperfections on the plastic buckling of rectangular

plates.” Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 42. 115-120.
Needleman, A. and Tvergaard, V. (1976). “An analtsis of the imperfection sensitivity of

square elastic-plastic plates under axial compression.” International Journal of Solids
and Structures, Vol. 12, 185-201.
Onat, E. T. and Drucker, D. C. (1953). “Inelastic instability and incremental theories of

plasticity.” Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences, Vol. 20, 181-186.
Ore, E. and Durban, D. (1989). “Elastoplastic buckling of annular plates in pure shear.”
Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 56, 644-651.
Pearson, C. E. (1950). “Bifurcation criterion and plastic buckling of plates and columns.”
Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences, July. 417-424.
Prager, W. (1938). “On isotropic materials with continuous transition from elastic to
plastic state.” Proceeding Fifth International Congress of Applied Mechanics,
Cambridge, Mass.
Prager, W. (1941). “A new mathematical theory of plasticity.” Prikl. Mat. i Mekh.

Moscow, Vol. 5, No. 3, 419-427.
Prager, W. (1942). “Fundamental theorems of a new mathematical theory of plasticity.”

Duke Math. Jour., Vol. 9, No. 1, 228-233. 1942.
Prager, W. (1942). Theory of Plasticity. Brown Univ. mimeographed lecture notes.

Providence, R. I., ch. VII. 1942.
Reddy, J. N. (1999). Theory and Analysis of Elastic Plates. Taylor and Francis,
Philadelphia.
Saint Venant. (1883). Discussion in theorie de l’elasticite des corps solides. Clebsch,
Paris.
Schleicher, F. (1931). “Die knick spannungen von eingespannten rechteckigen platten.”

Mitt. Forschungsanstatt. Gutehoffnungshutte Konzerns, Vol. 1.
92
Schuette, E. H., and McCulloch, J. C. (1947). “Charts for the minimum-weight design of
multiweb wings in bending.” NACA, Tech. Note No. 1323.
Sewell, M. J. (1963). “A gerneral theory of elastic and inelastic plate failure-I.” Journal
of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 11, 377-393.
Sewell, M. J. (1973). “A yield-surface corner lowers the buckling stress of an elastic-

plastic plate under compression.” Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol.
21, 19-45.
Shrivastava, S.C. (1979). “Inelastic analysis of plates including shear effects.”

International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 15, 567-575.
Shrivastava, S.C. (1995). “Inelastic buckling of rectangular sandwich plates.”

International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 15, 567-575.
Soh A. K., Bian L. C. and Chakrabarty, J. (2000). “Elastic/plastic buckling of a

composite flat plate subjected to uniform edge compression.” Thin-walled Structures,
Vol 38, No. 3, 247-265.
Stowell, E. Z. (1948). “A unified theory of plastic buckling of columns and plates.”

NACA Note No. 1556.
Timoshenko, S. (1925). Applied Elasticity, D Van Nostrand Co., Inc., New York.
Timoshenko, S. (1936). Theory of Elastic Stability. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Timoshenko, S. P. and Gere, J. M. (1961). Theory of Elastic Stability. Mc-Graw-Hill,

New York.
Timoshenko, S. and Woinowsky-Krieger, S. (1959). Theory of Plates and Shells.

McGraw-Hill, NewYork.
Tugcu, P. (1991). “Plate buckling in the plastic range.” International Journal of

Mechanics and Science, Vol. 33, No. 1, 1-11.
Ugural, A. C. (1999). Stress in Plates and Shells. McGraw-Hill, NewYork.
Von Karman, Th. (1910). “Untersuchungen uber knickfestigkeit”. Mitteilungen Uber

Forschungsarbeit, Ver. Deut. Ing., Vol. 81, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Walker, A. C. (1967). Thin-Walled Structures. Chatto and Windus, Longdon, p. 208.
Wang, C.M. (2003). “Plastic buckling of simply supported, polygonal Mindlin plates.”
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, in press.
Wang, C. M., Xiang, Y. and Chakrabarty, J. (2001). “Elastic/plastic buckling of thick

plates.” Int. J. Solids and Structures, Vol. 38, 8617-8640.
93
Wang, C.M., Chen, Y. and Xiang, Y. (2002). “Exact buckling solutions for simply
supported, rectangular plates under intermediate and end uniaxial loads.” Proceedings
of the 2nd International Conference on Structural Stability and Dynamics, edited by
C.M. Wang, G.R. Liu and K.K. Ang, World Scientific, 16-18 December 2002,
Singapore, 424-429.
Wang, C. M., Xiang, Y. and Wang, C. Y. (2002). “Buckling of standing vertical plates
under body forces.” International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics, Vol. 2,
No. 2, 151-156.
Wang, C. T. (1953). Applied Elasticity. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Wang, T. M. and Sussman, J. M. (1967). “Elastic stability of a simply supported plate

under linearly variable compressive stresses.” AIAA J. Vol. 5(7), 1362-1364.
Xiang, Y., Wang, C. M. and Wang, C. Y. (2001). “Buckling of rectangular plates with
internal hinge.” International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics, Vol. 1, No.
2, 169-179.
Xiang, Y., Wang, C. M., Wang, C. Y. and Su G. H. (2003). “Ritz buckling of rectangular
plates with internal hinge.” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE. Vol. 129, No. 6,
683-688.
Xiang, Y., Wang, C. M., Kitipornchai, S. and Wang, C. Y. (2003). “The buckling and
spanning capacity of cantilevered vertical plates under body forces.” International
Journal of Computational Structural Engineering, in press.
94
AUTHOR’S LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
Wang, C. M., Chen, Y. and Xiang, Y., (2002). “Exact buckling solutions for
simply supported, rectangular plates under intermediate and end uniaxial loads.”
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Structural Stability and
Dynamics, 424-429, edited by C.M. Wang, G.R. Liu and K.K. Ang, World
Scientific, 16-18 December 2002, Singapore.
Wang, C. M. and Chen, Y. (2002). “Elastic/plastic buckling of simply supported,

rectangular plates under intermediate and end uniaxial loads.” KKCNN
Symposium on Civil Engineering, December 19-20, 2002, Singapore
Wang, C. M., Chen, Y. and Xiang, Y. “Stability criteria for rectangular plates
subjected to intermediate and end inplane loads.” Thin-Walled Structures, in
press
Wang, C. M., Chen, Y. and Xiang, Y. “Plastic buckling of rectangular plates

subjected to intermediate and end inplane loads.” International Journal of
Solids and Structures, submitted.
95

B R P I E L: Uckling of Ectangular Lates Under Ntermediate and ND Oads

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

B R P I E L: Uckling of Ectangular Lates Under Ntermediate and ND Oads

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BUCKLING OF RECTANGULAR PLATES UNDER

INTERMEDIATE AND END LOADS

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE

FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE

valuable to the author.

Also special thanks go to Associate Professor Xiang Yang of University of Western

Sydney, Australia for his valuable discussions.

The author is grateful to the National University of Singapore for providing a

handsome research scholarship during the two-year study.

continuous support during the course of this research.

LIST OF TABLES vii

LIST OF FIGURES viii

CHAPTER 2: BUCKLING OF PLATES UNDER END LOADS 15

2.2.4 Boundary conditions 27

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 88

AUTHOR’S LIST OF PUBLICATIONS 95

c dimensionless constant describing the shape of the Ramberg-Osgood

k horizontal distance between the knee of c = ∞ curve and the intersection

M xx , M yy bending moments per unit length on x and y planes

M xy twisting moment per unit length on x plane

m number of half waves of the buckling mode along y direction

n number of half waves of the buckling mode along x direction

N1 end load on sub-plate 1 per unit length

N2 intermediate load on sub-plate 2 per unit length

Nx uniaxial load on x plane

Qx shear force per unit length on x plane

Vx effective shear force per unit length

w transverse deflection of a point on the mid-plane

α, β ,γ , ρ parameters in incremental theory of plasticity and deformation theory of

γ xy , γ yz , γ xz shear strain in the xy, yz and xz plane

ε xx , ε yy normal strain in x and y directions

η contraction rate at current stress state

Λ1 end buckling load factor

Λ2 intermediate buckling load factor

σ0 nominal yield stress

σ1 end buckling load stress

σ2 intermediate buckling load stress

σ xx , σ yy normal stress on the x and y planes

σ xy shear stress on the x plane and parallel to the y direction

χ intermediate load position

φie ,ψ ie parameters in elastic solutions

φi p ,ψ ip parameters in plastic solutions

Table 3.1 Twenty-five combinations of solutions 35

Table 3.2 Buckling factors Λ 2 for simply supported rectangular plates

Table 4.1 Types of solutions depending on values of ∆1 , ∆ 2 , ∆ 3 65

Table 4.3 Comparison of buckling factors of full plates with uniaxial

catastrophic structural failure. Therefore it is important to know the buckling capacities

of the plates in order to avoid premature failure.

buckling and the plastic buckling behavior of these loaded problems.

1.2 Literature Review

In the following, a literature review on the bucking of rectangular plates is presented to

homogenous, isotropic, thin plates. Studies on sandwich, composite and orthotropic

plates are not covered.

1.2.1 Elastic buckling of rectangular plates

• Buckling of plates under uniaxial compression

Timoshenko and Gere (1961) and Bulson (1970).

of several half-waves in the loading direction. Kollbrunner and Hermann (1948)

• Buckling of plates under biaxial compression

differential equation of equilibrium. An extra term in the equation of equilibrium was

• Buckling of plates under in-plane shear forces

equation of equilibrium. More recently, Reddy (1999) applied the Rayleigh-Ritz