Com,wrrrs dr Sm,rrures Vol. 53. No. 6, pp. 1357-1371.

1994
Copyright 0 1994 Elsevier Science Ltd
Pergamon 0045-7949(94)E025fM Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0045-7949/94 $7.00 + 0.00

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF LATERAL BUCKLING

FOR BEAM STRUCTURES

Haengsoo Lee, Dong-Won Jung, Jin-Ho Jeong and Seyoung Imt

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology,
Science Town, Taejon, 305-701, Republic of Korea

(Received 7 June 1993)

Abstract-The application of finite element analysis to lateral buckling problems, locating the critical
points and tracing the postbifurcation path, is treated on the basis of a geometrically nonlinear
formulation for a beam with small elastic strain but with possibly large rotations. The existing finite
element formulations for thin beams are examined in the aspect of application to bifurcation problems,
such as lateral buckling, and the choice of an appropriate rotation parameter for representing incremental
or variational rotations in finite element formulations is discussed in relation to locating bifurcation points.
This is illustrated through several numerical examples and followed by appropriate discussion,

1. INTRODUCTION so-called conformal rotation vector for rotational

Large deformations for beam or frame structures
have gained substantial attention in the applied
mechanics community, particularly in association
with increasing applications of flexible structures, as
in the space industry. Flexible structures in general
undergo large displacements and rotations with small
elastic strains-hence geometrically nonlinear defor-
mations. Among this class of nonlinear problems is
the lateral buckling of a beam structure, including the
postbuckling behavior. This involves fully three di-
mensional deformations, and the calculation of the
lateral buckling points, without mentioning the calcu-
lation of the postbifurcation path, often requires a
numerical technique, like a finite element method,
when the prebuckling deformations are not small or
when structures and loadings are not simple.
For analysis of such geometrically nonlinear defor-
mations of beam structures, many finite element
formulations of the total Lagrangian type have been
reported in the literature: to cite a few, but not
limited to, Argyris et al. [l], Simo and Vu-Quoc [2],
Cardona and Geradin [3], Iura and Atluri [4] and,
recently, Crisfield [5]. Firstly, Argyris et al. [I]
adopted a formulation based upon the concept of
semitangential rotation introduced by Ziegler [6].
Simo and Vu-Quoc [2] employed an incremental ro-
tation vector, which is the axial vector of a skew-sym-
metric tensor for incremental rotation, and relied
upon the so called exponential map for updating
rotations. Cardona and Geradin [3] used the incre-
ment of the finite rotation vector, which makes it
simple to update the rotation variables, for represent-
ing incremental rotations. Iura and Atluri [4] took the
t Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
variables. Crisfield [5] relied upon the so-called co-ro-
tational formulation, in which strains from small
deformation beam theory are embedded in a continu-
ously rotating frame. It is noted that the same beam
kinematics is used in all of [l-3]; among the afore-
mentioned works, however, the expressions for the
geometric tangent stiffness are different one another,
due to different choices of incremental (or vari-
ational) variables. The formulation of Simo and
Vu-Quoc [2] is most simple for linearization and it
ends up with nonsymmetric geometric tangent
stiffness, which becomes symmetric for an equi-
librium configuration under a conservative loading.
Conversely. the choice of the finite rotation vec-
tor increment [3] or the conformal rotation vector
increment [4] for incremental rotation leads to
symmetric geometric tangent stiffness, but the lin-
earization is very complicated [3]. Indeed, Cardona
and Geradin [3], even if their formulation is complete
and consistent, omitted some term in their expression
for the geometric tangent stiffness, because of its
extreme complexity. Crisfield [S] mentioned a need
for studying the geometric tangent stiffness matrix, in
order to discover which terms may be reasonably
neglected. The role of the geometric tangent stiffness
will be particularly prominent in bifurcation prob-
lems, like lateral buckling, and these finite element
formulations for large deformations of beam struc-
tures have not been discussed in the aspect of appli-
cation to such bifurcation type problems, although
the aforementioned references are very successful in
formulation itself.
Our concern in this paper is about applying the
finite element methods to the lateral buckling of
slender beam structures, which is complicated bifur-
cation problem because it involves fully three

I357
1358 Haengsoo Lee ef al.

dimensional deformations related to torsion as well
as bending, so that the effect of geometric tangent
stiffness will be most significant.
We follow the line adopted in the finite element
formulation of Simo and Vu-Quoc [2] and Cardona
and Geradin [3], but we assess these formulations
together with lura and Atluri [4] from the viewpoint
of applying them to the lateral buckling of conserva-
tive beam structures in conjunction with the energy
criterion upon the stability limit. We rely upon the
so-called ‘branch switching’ to calculate the accurate
postbifurcation path without introducing any imper-
fection in geometry or in loading.
The content of the paper is outlined as follows. The
lateral buckling of a cantilever beam under a vertical
end load is treated in detail in Section 2. The govern-
ing equations of a tapered cantilever beam are de-
rived and a shooting method is applied to find the
form cantilever beam under transverse shear force. In
this section, we examine the lateral buckling of a
tapered cantilever beam under transverse shear force
and obtain the buckling load by solving the linearized
eigenvalue problem by use of the shooting method;
the resulting solution is then employed in the sub-
sequent chapter to confirm the finite element solution.
2.1. Equilibrium equations
In the absence of forces or couples acting upon the
beam, except at the ends, we have the following forms
of equilibrium equations [B. 91:
dN,
dX-N2~,+N,~,=0
3
dN,
z- N3~, + N,K,=O
3

buckling load accurately, which will be the reference

solution on the basis of which the finite element dN3
dX-N,~,+N,~,=O (2.1)
solution will be assessed later. For finite element 3

formulation in Section 3, we begin with a new

kinematics for beam deformations, which reduces to dM,
d~-&K,+hf,~~=&
the kinematics employed in [2] and [3] when the 3

cross-sectional warpings are neglected. Following the

line adopted by Simo and Vu-Quoc [2] and Cardona ~-M3~,+h4,~3= -N,
and Geradin [3], we briefly sketch the finite element 3

formulation for large deformations of beams. In

Section 4, we discuss the energy criterion upon the dM3
d~-hf,K~+h&K,=o, (2.2)
stability limit and postbifurcation paths and discuss 3

the application of the foregoing finite element method

to a bifurcation type problem, like the aforemen- where N,, N, are shearing-forces and N3 is the axial
tioned lateral buckling. In Section 5, we choose the force; M,, M, are flexural couples and M3 is the
three numerical examples: the first example is the torsional couple; the curvatures in the plane of
lateral buckling of a cantilever beam subjected to a principal axes are denoted by K~ and K~, the twist
vertical end load, discussed in Section 2; the second along the axial direction by kj (Fig. l), where X3 is the
is the lateral buckling of a right-angled frame under coordinate along the undeformed central line. The
an end load; the last example is the lateral buckling stress-couples are connected with the curvature and
of a hinged right-angle frame subjected to fixed end twist of the rod by equations of the form
moments. All these examples demonstrate the validity
and accuracy of the finite element formulation M,=A,K,, M,=A?K?, M3=A3~3, (2.3)
adopted in [2] in application to a bifurcation type
problem like lateral buckling. Relevant conclusions where A, and A, are bending stiffness associated with
will be drawn from the preceding development and the moments M, and M,, respectively, and A, is the
torsional stiffness. The strict derivation of this consti-
numerical examples in Section 6.
tutive equation from the viewpoint of finite elasticity
is discussed in [9].
2. GOVERNINGEQUATIONS FOR LATERAL BUCKLING
OF A CANTILEVER BEAM UNDER SHEAR FORCE

In this section we briefly discuss lateral buckling of

a cantilever beam under shear force. This is one of the
simplest examples for lateral buckling and has re-
ceived significant attention in the structural mech-
anics community since Timoshenko and Gere
discussed this problem in their book, Theory of
Elastic Stability in 1961 [7]. However, the correct
solution for lateral buckling of a uniform cantilever
beam was only reported in 1975 by Hodges and
Peters [B]; they corrected the wrong solutions in the Fig. I. Kinematic description of the deformed cantilever
previous literature for the lateral buckling of a uni- beam.
 Analysis of lateral buckling 1359

Substituting eqn (2.3) into eqn (2.2), we eliminate We thus have the six buckling equations in the six
M,, MI and M, and obtain the following: unknowns NZO,N,,, K,“, N,, K~ and K,. From force
equilibrium, it follows that
A,~+K,~-(A~-A~)K*K,=N~
3 3 N,, = P sin c,, N2”= P cos i,, (2.7)

where c, is the rotation angle of beam cross-section

A,~+K~~+(A,-A~)K,K~= -N,
3 3 in the prebuckling configuration (Fig. 2).
By use of these relations, eqn (2.5) is simplified as
~4,$$ + K, t$ - (A, - AZ)K, K2 = 0, (2.4) d21
3 3
d-$+pcos:O=F!$ with K,“= -g (2.8)
3 I I 3 3
where the variation of stiffness A,, A, and A, along
the length is taken into account. Now we have the six Noting that the beam is fixed at X3 = 0 and is free
governing equations, given by eqns (2.1) and (2.4) in from the bending moment at X3 = L, we have the end
the six unknowns K,, K~, K~, N,, N, and N3. conditions:

2.2. The buckling equations i,(O)=&)=O. (2.9)

3
We assume that the tapered beam is loaded in the
plane of greatest flexural rigidity with the transverse
Thus we have the four equations [eqn (2.6) and eqn
buckling load P (Fig. 2). In the prebuckling configur-
(2.8)] for the four unknowns N,, K~, K) and [, in
ation (just prior to buckling), we will have
addition to the eigenvalue P. Eliminating N, in the
N,, = ~~~ = K~, = 0, where the subsctipt ‘0’ indicates
first two equations of (2.6) we rewrite eqn (2.6) as
the values of the variables evaluated in the nrebuck-
ling configuration. For the remaining three variables dZK
Z A,-2A, P cos io_(ArAz)(A~ -A3) K; K2
N,,, N,, and K,” in the prebuckling configuration,
from eqns (2.1) and (2.4) it follows that dX; A, A, A,A, ’

dN,o
do - N3o’b = 0
3

dN3,
do + N2o’%o
=0
3

A,-A3dA3
‘ho dA,
4dX,=N,o-K~oc. (2.5) +A,A,z K1°K3

The linearized perturbation equations for N,, ~~ dK3 _ Al - A2 K3 dA3

%K2 -A,%’ (2.10)
and K) are now obtained as dX3 A3

dN, The end conditions for ~~ and K~, resulting from

do - N2,ic3 + N30~2 = 0
3
M,(L) = M,(O) = M3(L) = 0, are given as

K3(L) = K2(L) = K2(0) = 0. (2.11)

A,~+K2~+(A,-A3)~,o~3+N,=0
3 3
Now we solve the two points boundary value
problem eqns (2.8) and (2.10) subjected to the
A,~+K~~-(A,-A~)K,,,K~=O. (2.6)
3 3 end conditions (2.9) and (2.1 I), using a numerical

Fig. 2. Force equilibrium on an end element for the plane problem.

1360
integration scheme combined with the shooting
method, which will yield almost exact values for the
buckling load P. The numerical results will be dis-
cussed together with the FEM solution in Section 5,
wherein the solution obtained from this section will
be used to confirm the finite element solution.
3. FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATION FOR
DEFORMATIONS OF A SLENDER BEAM
WITH SMALL ELASTIC STRAINS
For versatile analysis of lateral buckling for general
beam structures, it is desirable to employ finite el-
ement analysis. However, to treat lateral buckling
problems, one needs a fully three dimensional finite
element model for a structure. Moreover, buckling in
general involves finite rotations for a slender struc-
ture, even when the elastic strains involved remain
small: if the prebuckling deformations are not small,
to evaluate the accurate stability limit as well as the
postbuckling behavior, one has to consider finite
rotations or geometric nonlinearity in deformations
of a beam and calculate the accurate tangent stiff-
ness, including the geometric stiffness and the initial
displacement stiffness in addition to the constant
linear stiffness (in the case of the total Lagrangian
approach).
Because of complexity in the postbuckling prob-
lem, more often than not, many authors prefer to use
the so called imperfection approach, wherein a small
perturbation of loading or geometry is introduced to
switch the bifurcation type problem into the limit
point type problem [l, 2, 51. However, one needs the
correct behavior of a perfect structure, in order to
evaluate the imperfection sensitivity, and sometimes
one may encounter a case wherein the imperfection
approach yields less accurate results, depending upon
the nature of a problem. In this section, we introduce
a total Lagrangian finite element formulation of
beam structures within small elastic strains with
possibly large rotations, which enables us to analyze
the correct stability limit, as well as the postbuckling
behavior, regardless of the magnitude of prebuckling
deformations, as long as the strains remain small. The
reason we limit ourselves to small strain deformations
is that the elastic constitutive relation (2.3) is not
I t, //
I
A53
El
Fig. 3. Definition of various bases.
Haengsoo Lee et al.
applicable once the strains increase beyond the pro-
portional limit, or once the strains become sufficiently
large that the second order terms are not negligible
anymore [3]. In the total Lagrangian finite element
formulation of beams we follow the line taken by
Simo and Vu-Quoc[2] and by Cardona and
Geradin [3] and, moreover, we critically assess these
and other FEM formulations for large deformations
of beams, such as those of Iura and Atluri [4], from
the view point of applying them to a bifurcation
problem like lateral buckling.
3.1. Deformations of slender beams and representation
of rotations
Let R denote the rotation operator mapping a
material frame {E,(X,)},,,,2,,, fixed in space, into a
body-attached moving frame {t,(.X’,)},= ,,2,3(Fig. 3):
t,(x,) = RW,)E,(X,) I= 1,293, (3.1)
where t, and E, are unit orthogonal base vectors. The
deformed position X,E R3 of the centroid of the
cross-section is defined by the map 4,:
x, = 4,(X3). (3.2)
An arbitrary deformed configuration of the beam
is now specified by the mapping of the central line
4,(X,) and the rotation of a cross-section R(X,):
4(x3) = (4,@‘3), W’3)). (3.3)
Let !P denote the finite rotation angle of the
rotation tensor R and let e,, e, denote orthonormal
vectors perpendicular to the axis of R. Then, the axial
vector e, of R is given as
e, = e, x e2 and Re, = e3, (3.4)
where ‘x’ indicates the cross-product. The finite
rotation vector representing R may be written as
Y = ]P]e,. (3.5)
Moreover, the rotation tensor R may be written as
R=cosIPl(e,Oe,+e,Oe,)
+ sin IPl(e,Oe, -e, Oe,) + e30e3, (3.6)
where ‘0’ denotes the dyadic product. Another way
of representing the rotation tensor R is to use the
exponential map,
R = exp( I), (3.7)
where 9 is the skew-symmetric tensor associated with
the finite rotation vector Y, defined by
qv=‘P xv VVER’. (3.8)
 Analysis of lateral buckling
Suppose a beam in the current configuration,
whose orientation is represented in terms oft, in eqn
(3.1), undergoes an incremental deformation so that
t, takes a new orientation t;. Let R’ denote a new total
rotation from E, to t;, such that
t; = R’E, . (3.9)
Moreover, let A0 and Afi denote the incremental
spatial rotation vector from t, to tj and the corre-
sponding skew-symmetric tensor, respectively, and
A@, A& the corresponding material rotation vector
and skew-symmetric tensor representing the same
incremental rotation. We then have the relation [3]
A0 = RAQ
Ae= RAdRT (3.10)
and have the following ways of representing the new
(total) rotation R’:
(i) R’ = exp(l + Alp) (3.11)
(ii) R’ = exp(A@R # exp(A8 + P)
unless A& is coaxial with p (3.12a)
R’ = R exp(A@) # exp(l + A&)
unless Ad is coaxial with p (3.12b)
where AP is the skew-symmetric tensor of the incre-
ment AY. Note that both of p and AY belong to the
same vector space, the tangent space to a nonlinear
manifold, the so-called special orthogonal Lie group
at the identity, so that the interpolation is allowed for
‘P and A’P (see [3] for detail).
The representation (i), used by Cardona and
Geradin [3] for finite element formulation, makes it
possible to update R easily, but it is extremely difficult
to obtain the full linearization of an internal force
when applying this representation to finite element
formulation for deformations of a slender beam,
although the resulting tangent stiffness will always
remain symmetric for a conservative system. Cardona
and Geradin [3] indeed omitted some term in their
geometric tangent stiffness because of its complexity,
but this does not give rise to any problems in tracing
a loadclisplacement curve. For locating a precise
bifurcation point, or for branch-switching for a con-
servative system, however, an exact expression for the
tangent stiffness, which is precisely connected with
the second variation of the total potential energy, is
needed so that the energy criterion on the stability of
a conservative system may be applicable. Iura and
Atluri [4] introduced the conformal rotation vector,
defined by
8*=4tanmY//lp[. (3.13)
4 finally, a translation of the section brings the centroid
TAS5316H
1361
The use of this conformal vector makes the full
linearization of the equilibrium equation feasible, and
the exact expression for the tangent stiffness is ob-
tained, but it still remains rather complex.
In contrast, the finite element formulation by use
of the representation (ii), used by Simo and Vu-
Quoc [2], yields an unsymmetric tangent stiffness
during equilibrium correction but the tangent stiff-
ness becomes symmetric for a conservative system
once equilibrium is reached. Moreover, the symmet-
ric tangent stiffness at an equilibrium configuration is
precisely related to the second variation of the total
potential energy for a conservative system, so that the
energy criterion on the stability limit is applicable.
Moreover, the linearization leading to the tangent
stiffness is relatively simple. For this reason, we adopt
the representation (ii) for finite element formulation.
Deformation for rods or beams was discussed in
detail by Love [9]. He described Kirchhoff’s theory of
thin rods as being largely kinematical and gave an
alternative description of the nature of the strain in
the deformation of a thin rod, in order to relate the
moments applied to a section of a rod to the curva-
ture and twist ([9], pp. 389-393). Some writers have
used finite elasticity theory to discuss deformations of
a rod more rigorously; for example, Parker [lo],
Shield [1 l] and Shield and Im [12]. Others propose
useful technical theories; for example, Danielson and
Hodges [ 131 and references cited therein. For kin-
ematics of deformations, to clarify some points, we
begin with Shield and Im [12], wherein a consistent
formulation from the viewpoint of finite elasticity
theory is proposed for the analysis of elastic struc-
tures without a prior assumption about the magni-
tude of the deformations, apart from the assumption
that strains are small. However, it is not the purpose
of the present work to proceed to employ this kin-
ematics in the subsequent finite element formulation,
but our attention is given to the point that this yields
a complete first order theory for deformations of a
beam that accounts for cross-sectional warping, so
that it may be conceived of as an extension of the
kinematics with neglect of the warping displacement
in finite element formulation.
Let X indicate the undeformed position vector for
a particle in a beam and X, the undeformed central
line. We suppose that the beam is initially aligned
with E,, so that
X = X,, + X,E, (c( = 1,2, sum on do). (3.14)
The small strain deformation of a beam can be
thought of as effected by imposing the following three
sequential deformations: first, particles are given
small displacements II* which vanish on the line of
centroid; next, a section X, = const. is given a ro-
tation R about the point (0,0, X,) which rotates line
elements to their orientation in the deformed state;
I362 Haengsoo Lee et al.

to its deformed location x,. Thus the deformation can 3.2. Variational principle and finite element formu-
be written as lation
Based upon the basic kinematics for deformations
x=x,,+R<, <=X-X,+u*=X,E,+u*, (3.15) of a beam in the foregoing section, we here discuss the
variational formulation for the finite element analysis
where R is a function of the X, coordinate alone and for a beam under conservative loading. The principle
u* is a displacement associated with local cross-sec- of virtual work states that for an arbitrary virtual
tional warping. The magnitude of u* is at most II O(c) displacement,
where a is the cross-sectional dimension and O(c)
represents the order of magnitude of the strain in a SW,-bW,.=O, (3.22)
beam. Because of complexity, ultimately the warping
displacement u* is not to be included in the finite where SW, and SW, are the internal and external
element formulation to follow, but we state this for virtual work, respectively.
completeness of formulation regarding the kin- Let S,, denote the components of the second
ematics of beam deformations. Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor S. Then, the expression
Let e denote the extensional strain of the central for the internal virtual work 6 W, is written as
line. Then the tangent vector t along the central line
may be written as
(3.23)
I dx,
t=---. (3.16)
1 +edX, Employing the expressions (3.20) for the Green
strain components for deformations of a beam, we
The tangent vector t is, in general, not in agreement can show that, up to O(t),
with the unit vector t, attached to the cross-section
because of the shear strain and the warping. The
curvature resulting from bending is related to the rate 6wi= $+gx(x-x,,)
7 3
of rotation R, with respect to distance along the
undeformed central line, and the curvature tensor C
is defined as -68 X 2 I dA,dX,
3
dR

ss
ri’ =-RR’. (3.17) L
dX,
+ &K~ekdAdJ’3, (3.24)
0 AlI
The curvature vector K, which is the axial vector of
li, is then given as where X, = 0 and X3 = L denote both ends of the
dt beam and T, is the traction vector per unit unde-
K =ft, XL. (3.18) formed area on the cross-section, which had the
dX,
outward normal m = E, in the undeformed configur-
Note that K is related to K’as ation, i.e. T, = E3SFr where F is a deformation
gradient. Note that the first term in the expression
above agrees with the result obtained in the absence
Rv=K XV VVER’. (3.19)
of the cross-sectional warping [2, 31 and the second
term represents the work resulting from the virtual
Now the Green strain components for the beam
cross-sectional warping displacement 6u*.
deformation (3.15) can be obtained up to O(c) as
The consideration of the cross-sectional warping in
the formulation of the large deflection of a beam has
K,, = es (&B=l,2) been treated in a different context by Simo and
Vu-Quoc [14]. Their formulation is rather compli-
E,,=e,*,+i(l +a,,)[~ x R(X-X,)lt,+6,,e cated, but the numerical results do not yield a
significant difference from the results obtained with
(no sum on Z, I = 1, 2, 3), (3.20) neglect of the warping.
The inclusion of the warping term in eqn (3.24)
where e& is the strain related to the warping displace- would yield an extremely complex finite element
ment u* and is given by formulation because the expressions for u* in Appen-
dix A are not simple. We therefore do not try this, but
simply state that the contribution of virtual work
from the cross-sectional warping, which is given in
the form of the second term in eqn (3.24), is neglected
The detail of u* may be found in Shield and Im [12] when only the first term is retained in eqn (3.24).
(or see Appendix A). Retaining only the first term with neglect of the
 Analysis of lateral buckling 1363

warping displacement u* and introducing the stress where b, and /I2are shear correction factors, GA is the
resultant n and the stress couple m: shear stiffness and EA is the axial stiffness of the rod.
In the absence of body forces and distributed
tractions on the lateral surface of a beam, the external
n=n(X,)= T,(X,) d&, virtual work by a prescribed traction T, may be
s A”
written as
m=m(X,)= (x - x,) x T,(X,) dA, (3.25)
s A” cSW<=[~~o’P3~hxdAo]+-

A”{6x,x3
and the deformation measure y, the corotational rate
of which is conjugate to n, = T,

dxo
U
=L
1
Y =dX;-t3,
+sR(X -X0)} dA, (3.34)
X, =cl
we have
In terms of 60, we may write this as
SW,= L(n,cfy +m.&c)dX3, (3.27)
s II SW,= T, .6x, dA, + {(x - x,,)
where the corotational variation gy and &, which is [S A” j A”
the variation taken by an observer moving along the Xx=L
deformed central line, are given as [3] XT,}.60 dA,
1 X, =II

=[ii~6x,+iii~Se]~I,L, (3.35)

(3.28) where ii and rir indicate the resultant force and stress
couple vectors resulting from the prescribed traction
Setting T,, i.e. a prescribed force and moment. We can easily
show that the principle of virtual work, eqn (3.22)
with the aid of eqns (3.24) and (3.35), yields the weak
form as given by

6K = Rr& = R’g (3.29)

3

and introducing the material resultant force and

moment
-[(m-tit).t%]~:~=O for arbitrary 6x, and 60,
N=nR, M=mR, (3.30)
(3.36)
we have
where it has been assumed that there are no body
forces and that the lateral surface of a beam is free
SW,= L(N.ST+M.6K)dzY3. (3.31)
s0 of traction. The first term in the above equation yields
six equations of force and moment equilibrium,
Note that the material deformation measures f and which are given by eqns (2.1) and (2.2) in terms of
K are given as N = R*n and M = Rrm. Note that we need to employ
the following relation for this:
r=Rry E&&E,,
3
$(I fe)txtst, up to O(1)
3

(3.32)
because the shear strains involved in deformation of
a beam are O(E) at most. We remark that the strong
In addition to the stress couplecurvature relation form, eqns (2.1) and (2.2), the six equilibrium
(2.3), we introduce the constitutive relation for the equations of resultant forces and moments are noth-
resultant forces on the cross-section, ing but equations obtained from integration of the
local equilibrium equation (3.36) multiplied by some
N,=BrGArl, N2=/&GAr2, N3 = EAT,, (3.33) weight factors [lo].
I364 Haengsoo Lee et al.

For the present beam model to be applicable with A0 of eqn (3.12a) to represent the incremental
no end effects, i.e. no boundary layers near the ends rotation and update the rotation vector according
of a beam, the traction condition on the end cross- to this equation and similarly use 60 to represent the
section has to be satisfied pointwise. The normal variation of rotation 6R.
traction component from bending stress is normal to The weak form for the equilibrium equation is now
the end cross-section and the corresponding traction obtained by making the first variation of the total
has to be applied normal to the cross-section, so that potential energy vanish. From eqn (3.40) we can
the applied traction, within the beam model, is obtain the weak form as
configuration dependent under large rotations, and in
general not conservative in the local sense. In the
global sense, however, it may be conservative under
special circumstances [ 151. When the traction con-
dition is satisfied pointwise, i.e. T, = E,T = Tj,e,, the
applied moment rir is configuration dependent. More-
over, the axial vector of dRR’, which we may write
as 68, is not an exact differential. Hence the moment
term rir. 60 in eqn (3.35) has no potential, i.e. = L(N4- +M.?!K)dX,
s0
lil 68 # s[a 01. (3.37)
-[ii'6x,p;=o, (3.41)
Argyris et al. [I] and Simo and Vu-Quoc [2] also
pointed out that an applied moment about an axis where 6f and 6K are given by eqn (3.29) and thus
fixed in space is not a conservative force in general. directly related to &#I = (Sx,), 6R) or, equivalently,
As discussed by Simo and Vu-Quoc [2], the applied s4 =(6x0,68).
moment may be conservative only when the following Assuming that an equilibrium configuration is
condition is met: reached at a time step t’“), the solution for the
subsequent time step t In+‘) is calculated through
m (~30x A0) = 0. (3.38) linearization:

This indicates that the three vectors tir, 60 and A0

are on one plane. Particularly when rir and A0 are
parallel to each other, this relation is satisfied. +DF(4”“, @)A+(“+‘, = 0, (3.42)
For linearization of this weak form, eqn (3.22) we
limit ourselves to the cases wherein the applied where F(4(“‘, 64; T$‘+ ‘j) represents the work done by
traction results in only the resultant forces without the unbalanced force at the time step t(” + ‘) and the
resultant moments or stress couples. Only a special Frechet derivative DF(Q (“),64) represents the tan-
case of applied moments will be discussed in the gent stiffness, which is independent of the applied
numerical examples in the next chapter. traction T, in the absence of applied moment 51.
Defining the material stiffness C and e as The Frechet differential DF(t$, &$)A$ is obtained
from linearization of the internal and external virtual
work, eqn (3.41). Noting that 6r and 6K are depen-
dent upon configuration, i.e. 4 =(x,,, R), we have
and
D(N.fiF+M.6K)A4=(6I- .DN+GK.DM)
~=A,E,oE,+A,E,oE,+A,E,oE,, (3.39)
A4 + [N . (DW) + M. (DbK)]AQ, (3.43)
we can write the total potential energy in the absence
of the applied moment rir, as
where the first term gives rise to the material stiffness
I. and the second term corresponds to the geometric
H(4)= $(I- .Cf +K?K)dX,-[ii.x,]f::& stiffness. Noting that Af and AK are related to At&
s0 just as 6r and 6K are to S#J in eqn (3.29), we can
(3.40)
easily linearize N and M and we can write the
where 4 = {x,, R} and r and K are given in terms of material stiffness term as
x, and R by eqn (3.32).
In representing the rotation R, we have a lot of (6r .DN+hK.DM).A$
latitude-the finite rotation vector Y [3], the confor-
mal rotation vector 0 * [4], or the quaternion [2], and
it does not matter which is to be employed in
programming, but what makes a difference is what to
d68 - ,dAB
use for the variable for the incremental rotation. As +=*RCR a’ (3.44)
pointed out in the preceding development, we employ
 Analysis of lateral buckling 1365

The symmetry of the material stiffn_essis now appar- Taken together, the tangent stiffness is now given
ent from the symmetry of c and C. as the summation of the material stiffness, eqn (3.44)
To calculate the geometric stiffness term in eqn and the geometric stiffness, eqn (3.48). If we are
(3.43), we first linearize 6r and 6K as concerned only with calculating equilibrium paths in
the load-deflection space, we may neglect relatively
d6x, unimportant terms in the expressions for the tangent
DsrA.9 =(A0 xR)~ =-68 x2 stiffness, or take an approximation to the tangent
3 3>
stiffness during equilibrium iterations in nonlinear
finite element analysis; we can still enforce the sol-
-Rr(&? ~2) ution to converge to equilibrium configuration by
updating the internal force correctly. With a view to
applying the energy criterion for locating the critical
DbKA4 = (A0 x R)‘$ (3.45) points, however, we have to calculate the tangent
3
stiffness accurately to assess the vanishing of the
second variation of the total potential energy strictly.
Substituting these in the geometric stiffness term and
This point will be discussed again in relation to the
employing n = RN and m = RM, we have
choice of the variable for representing incremental
rotation AR.
[N (DW) + M. (D6K)]A4
Let N,(X,) denote a shape function that takes 1 at
the node I. Then the vectors 4 = (x,, R), representing
= -s.(n x At’) a configuration, may be interpolated as
3

x,, = c N,(X,b,,,, !P = c N,(X,Y,, (3.49)

I I

where it is recalled that we use the finite rotation

vector Y with the aid of eqn (3.6) for representing the
current rotation R. For incremental (or variational)
rotations, we use A8 (or Se), so that

A8 = 1 N,(X,)A8,. (3.50)
I
+g. (m x A0). (3.46)
3
As pointed by Cardona and Geradin [3], the interp-
olation (3.50) is not allowed in a strict sense because
To write this in matrix form, we introduce the different points in an element will take in general
following matrix D, as in Simo and Vu-Quoc [2], different rotations and therefore each of the corre-
sponding incremental rotations A0 belongs to a
different vector space, so that the interpolation is not
allowed. However, the difference of rotations in one
0 0
D= (3.47) element is small in practice and there are no
e 0 difficulties in the interpolation.
We may employ the incremental finite rotation
vector AY for representing rotations, as in Cardona
when ii and I are the axisymmetric tensors whose and Geradin [3]. For this, we rely upon the relation
axial vectors are n and m, respectively. Then, we can between AY and AB
recast the geometric stiffness into
A0 =RTAY or 68 =RTS’P, (3.51)
[N.(D~~)+M.(D~K)].AI$ = $,$%I
3 3 where T = T(Y), derived by Cardona and Geradin
[3], is given in Appendix B. We first express 6fI in
dAx, dA8 terms of 6Y’, not in terms of 60, and then linearize the
D. - ~ A8 . (3.48)
dX3 ’ dX,’ resulting weak form 6lI = 0 to reach the incremental
relation, such as eqn (3.42). During this process,
Since the matrix D is not symmetric, the geometric however, the second derivative of T(Y), which would
stiffness is generally nonsymmetric. As shown by be extremely complicated to calculate, is involved in
Simo and Vu-Quoc [2], however, the geometric stiff- the tangent stiffness. In [3], this second derivative was
ness for conservative loadings recovers the symmetry indeed omitted in calculating the tangent stiffness,
for most of the typical end conditions when the owing to its enormous complexity. As discussed
equilibrium configuration is reached. earlier, there are no difficulties in calculating an
 I366 Haengsoo Lee er al.

equilibrium path in the configuration space, although For a proportional loading, the equilibrium
some minor terms in the tangent stiffness are neg- equation or the weak form, like the type of eqn (3.41),
lected or some approximation to the exact tangent may be recast into
stiffness is taken for equilibrium iterations. However,
accurate values of tangent stiffness are required for F(q, 6q, L) = 0 for an arbitrary 6q
locating the bifurcation points on an equilibrium
path in the present work. This is why we choose A0 *f(q, I) = iP, -g(q) = 0,
for representing an incremental rotation, rather than
A’P, and this point will be manifested via the numeri- where i is a scalar loading parameter and P,> is a
cal example in Section 5.1. reference load vector.
Linearizing this equilibrium equation about a state
(4, I), we obtain the incremental equation of type
4. THE ENERGY CRITERION ON THE STABILITY AND A (3.42) as
POST BIFURCATION EQUILIBRIUM PATH

For a conservative system, the change of the total f(iYj+ Aq, 2 + An), = f(ij, 2)
potential energy An due to an admissible variation
+DfAl +DfAq+....
SI$ may be written as

= f(Q, 2) + Ai P,>
An(4,64) = ol-I&#~ + D(Dl-I6~)@ +. ..
-KAq+....=O

(=sn+D(6rIpfj+~~..) (4.1) KAq = ;iP,, - g(4) + A/TP,, (4.5)

The first variation Dn@ = 6l-I vanishes for an If (&I) is a state on an equilibrium path, this reduces
equilibrium configuration and the sign of AII(+, 64) to
just depends upon the next dominant term KAq = Ai P,, (4.6)
D(DID+)&$, unless D(DIIc?#)&#J happens to be
zero. The energy criterion on the stability limit of a For the existence of solution for eqn (4.6) at a critical
conservative system is now stated as: the stability point, characterized by eqn (4.3), we have the follow-
limit (or a critical point) on an equilibrium path is ing consistency relation [ 161,
reached at the instant that the second variation of the
total potential energy D(DII&$)&$ ceases to be AE.v P, = 0. (4.7)
positive definite.
Let q = (q,, q2, ) denote the nodal degrees of To meet this condition, we have
freedom corresponding to the vector 4 = (x,, R) =
(x,, Ip), which represents the configuration. In terms A>. = 0 or v. P,, = 0. (4.8)
of the tangent stiffness, the condition for stability
The first condition corresponds to a limit point and
may then be written as
the second condition to a bifurcation point. The
critical points, whether they are limit points or bifur-
D(DI-I&$)@ = K,,Sq,Sq, > 0 cation points, are detected by eqn (4.4).
For implementing eqn (4.4) in finite element analy-
sis, we employ Newton type iterations in conjunction
for an admissible 6q, (4.2)
with the arc-length method [17]. Let s”” denote an arc
length when convergence is reached for time step
where K,, is the tangent stiffness. It is recalled that K,, (loading step) n in a load-displacement space and
become symmetric at an equilibrium configuration suppose that a sequence of pre-critical points of a
under conservative loading [2]. Hence the stability primary path has been computed. Then the updated
limit is reached at the point where the symmetric new guess for the arc length, s”‘+ ‘I corresponding to
tangent stiffness K,, ceases to be positive definite, i.e. a critical point is given as
at the point that one or more eigenvalues of K,,
become zero first. That is,

Kv=O. (4.3) where D”” is the value of the determinant of tangent

stiffness at the time step n. As will be demonstrated
The condition for the existence of nontrivial solutions in the subsequent numerical examples, this scheme
is given as gives considerably precise critical points for the
lateral buckling, even with large prebuckling
det[K] = 0. (4.4) deformations.
 Analysis of lateral buckling
For the lateral buckling, the critical point is of a
bifurcation type, unless an imperfection in geometry
or in loading is introduced. In the present paper, we
are concerned with accurate calculation of the buck-
ling points for beam structures with no imperfections
in geometry or in loading. For bifurcation type
buckling, a finite element solution for postbifurcation
path in general is supposed to trace the symmetry
preserving (or the primary) path, which is unstable on
the postbifurcation region, unless an appropriate
branch switching scheme is implemented. For switch-
ing the finite element solution path to the symmetry
breaking (or the secondary) path, which structures
will actually follow for loadings beyond the buckling
point, we impose a constraint such that the incremen-
tal nodal vector be orthogonal to the primary
path [16, 181. Then this will restrict the solution path
traced in finite element analysis and will prevent it
from returning to the primary path.
Let Aqp denote the incremental nodal vector at the
bifurcation point along the primary path, and v the
eigenvector associated with the zero eigenvalue of the
tangent stiffness matrix at the critical point, i.e. the
eigenvector defined by eqn (4.3). We then let the trial
increment of nodal vector Aqs along the secondary
path be given as [ 161
Aqs = a(AqP + bv). (4.10)
As stated earlier, Aqs is constructed such that it is
orthogonal to the primary path:
Aqs Aqp = 0. (4.11)
From this and eqn (4.10), it follows that
(4.12)
The constant a is now determined from the prescribed
arc length introduced in the arc-length method.
AqS Aqs = Aqp. Aqp = I’, (4.13)
where 1 is a prescribed arc length.
When the eigenvector v is orthogonal to the pri-
mary path at the bifurcation point, eqn (4.12) fails
because b goes to infinity. In this case, we can simply
take Aqs as
Aqs = av. (4.14)
For all examples of lateral buckling in the next
section, the eigenvector v is orthogonal to the primary
path and this equation successfully switches the sol-
ution branch to the secondary path at the bifurcation
point. We add that this estimate is also successful for
asymmetric bifurcation points, since the eigenvector
is often close to the tangent vector on the secondary
path. Note that the subsequent iterations follow the
1367
arc-length method, until convergence to a point on
the secondary path is reached.
5. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
In this section, we take several numerical examples
to determine the validity of the foregoing finite
element formulation in application to the lateral
buckling of beam structures. We first consider the
lateral buckling of a cantilever beam under shear
force, which has been discussed in Section 2, and the
critical points from the finite element solution are
compared with those obtained from the shooting
method in Section 2. Moreover, the postbifurcation
path will be obtained for this problem. Next we
consider the lateral buckling of a cantilever right-
angled frame under end loads and the lateral buckling
of a hinged right-angle frame. The postbifurcation
solutions obtained through the branch switching are
compared with those reported earlier [I, 2, 51, which
were obtained by imposing small imperfection upon
loading.
In all of the three numerical examples, we employ
the quadratic beam element and uniformly reduced
two point Gaussian integrations to avoid the shear
locking.
5.1. Lateral buckling of a cantiletier frame under
vertical end load
This problem has been described in detail in
Section 2 and it is depicted in Fig. 1 and 4. Young’s
modulus and Poisson’s ratio used in the numerical
example are 200GPa and 0.3, respectively, and 20
quadratic beam elements are employed, regardless of
the beam geometry.
Because the cantilever beam under a vertical end
load is a conservative system, there are no difficulties
in applying the buckling criterion, eqn (4.4). The
buckling loads for uniform cantilever beams are first
calculated and compared with those reported by
Hodges and Peters [8], who employed the shooting
method as in Section 2. The results are plotted in Fig.
5. The agreement between the two solutions is excel-
lent even for a large value of AZ/A,, which represents
the aspect ratio of a beam cross-section. Note that
prebuckling deformations become large as the value
of Al/A, increases. The buckling points for uniform
Fig. 4. A cantilever beam subject to an end load
I368 Haengsoo Lee ef al.

ho= 40126

&=PLZ
as
7

‘*
0 Present Solution
C>\ --- Shooting Method
\ \
k = b/he
‘,j,

Y
k = 15 (tapered)
?$,A
\
\ ‘>
b‘
k = 1 0 (urnform)

0 1 7
0 50 0
1 0

UZ

Fig. 7. Load vs lateral tip displacement for a uniform

slender cantilever beam.

Fig. 5. The bifurcation load vs the aspect ratio for uniform Al/A, increase, the prebuckling deformations will
and tapered cantilever beams. become large and then the transformation tensor
T(Y), which reduces to identify tensor as Y goes to
cantilever beams are calculated also by employing zero, i.e. as the prebuckling deformations come to
AY (or 6Y) for representing the incremental (or disappear, will be away from the identity tensor and
variational) rotations. As discussed in Section 3.2, its second derivative will not be negligible any more.
this involves the second derivative of T(P) in eqn This example clearly illustrates that the formulation
(3.51), but this is neglected, as in Cardona and of employing AY (or 6Y) is not appropriate for
Geradin [3], because of its complexity. The results are application to locating the critical points.
shown in Fig. 6 and compared with the aforemen- For tapered beams with k = I .5, which is the ratio
tioned results. As seen in this figure, the predicted of the heights at the two end cross-sections, the finite
buckling points for small values of AZ/A,, for which element solution is again compared with the results
the prebuckling deformations will be small, is in good obtained from the shooting method in Section 2 in
agreement with the results in Fig. 5. However, the Fig. 5. We notice that the two solutions are in good
results obtained by employing A’P (or glp) deviate agreement, except for minor differences for very small
away from the shooting solution as the value of AJA, values of A,/A, or short beams, for which discretiza-
increases, in contrast with the results obtained from tion for tapered beam sectional properties involves
the present A0 (or 80) formulation. As the values of relatively large errors compared with slender beams.
For the tapered beams, the average values of A,, A2
and A, at both ends are employed for the plot in
Fig. 5.

1
A F. E M
(T(+) neglected in

08
Cardona & Geradln[3]:
‘I Primary path /
0 present Solution
k/6 h /
-\ -~ Shooting Method ,,’
‘\
06 \ ,/“
‘\ /
/’

Fig. 6. The bifurcation load vs the aspect ratio for a Fig. 8. Load vs vertical tip displacement for a uniform
uniform cantilever beam. slender cantilever beam.
 Analysis of lateral buckling
Fig. 9. Initial and deformed geometries for a right-angle
frame.
Figure 7 shows the plot of the vertical end force P
vs the lateral displacement. This curve is obtained
from driving the solution process to the secondary
path with the aid of eqn (4.14). Note that the vertical
axis, corresponding to I+ = 0, represents the primary
(symmetry preserving) path, which is unstable above
the critical point. The plot of P vs -u, is shown in
Fig. 8. From the preceding two figures, it follows that
the postbifurcation (or secondary) path is stable, but
the structural stiffness is greatly reduced after the
bifurcation.
5.2. Lateral buckling of a cantilever right-angled
frame under an end load
We consider the lateral buckling of a cantilever
right-angled frame under the end load force, as
depicted in Fig. 9. This example was previously
analyzed by several authors, such as Argyris et al. [l],
Tip displacement
Fig. 10. Load vs lateral tip displacement of the free end for
a right-angle frame.
1369
Section A-A
Fig. 11. Initial geometry for a hinged right-angle frame.
Simo and Vu-Quoc [2] and Crisfield [5], wherein a
small perturbation of loading was imposed for trac-
ing the secondary path. We rely upon eqn (4.14) for
switching the branch to the secondary path, as in the
preceding example.
The structure comprises 20 finite elements with 10
elements in each leg. The value of Young’s modulus
is 71,240 Pa and Poisson’s ratio is taken to be 0.31.
The lateral tip displacement corresponding to the
applied load is shown in Fig. 10, where the present
solution is compared with the results obtained from
the imperfection method by the aforementioned
authors. The present result is in close agreement with
Crisfield’s result [5], which was obtained by imposing
a relatively smaller perturbation load than Simo and
Vu-Quoc [2]. We obtained the value of 1.084 for the
critical load PC, while PC= 1.09 was reported by Simo
and Vu-Quoc]~]. The final deformed central line,
corresponding to the lateral tip displacement of 60, is
depicted as a dotted line in Fig. 9.
5.3. Lateral buckling of a hinged right-angle frame
We finally examine the behavior of a hinged right-
angle frame subjected to in-plane end moments, as in
2 400
“E
200
2 i
-600-j Simo and V
Hinge-End Displacement
Fig. 12. End moment vs abscissa of left hinged end for a
hinged right-angle frame.
1370 Haengsoo Lee et al.

shows that its postbifurcation behavior is

600
stable and the buckling load will therefore not
3
be sensitive to imperfection.
(ii) The postbifurcation paths, as well as the criti-
cal points in the lateral buckling of a conserva-
tive beam structure with no imperfections in
geometry or in loading, can be accurately
predicted from the finite element scheme pro-
posed by Simo and Vu-Quoc [2], wherein At?
(or se), the axial vector of ARR*, for repre-
~ P-esent Solution senting incremental (or variational) rotations
Slmo and Vu-Quoc is employed. Moreover, this formulation has
an advantage over the formulations by means
I I
I I / I of the finite rotation vector increments AY [3]
-i50-100 -50 0 50 100 150
or the conformal rotation vector increments
Vertex Lateral Displacement AQ* [4] when applied to bifurcation type
Fig. 13. End moment vs lateral displacement of the vertex problems, for it involves a relatively simple
for a hinged right-angle frame. expression for the tangent stiffness compared
with the latter two formulations.
(iii) The use of finite rotation vector increments
Fig. Il. This example has also been analyzed by
AY [3] is not appropriate for application to
Argyris ef al. [l] and Simo and Vu-Quoc [2] by impos-
bifurcation problems involving large prebuck-
ing a small perturbation of load.
The degrees of freedom active at the hinged ends ling deformations, in that the omission of
some stiffness term involving the second de-
of the frame include translation in the X,-direction
rivatives of the transformation matrix T(Y),
and rotation about the X,-direction, and the remain-
which will be extremely complicated for calcu-
ing degrees of freedom at the ends are constrained to
lation, makes it impossible to predict bifur-
be zero. Note that we have only to model the right
cation points in the presence of large pre-
or left half of the frame due to symmetry. Like in
buckling deformations, as shown in Section
Simo and Vu-Quoc [2], we employ 10 finite elements
5.1.
for modeling. The material properties are taken to be
the same as those in Section 5.2.
Since the condition (3.38) is met, it follows that for REFERENCES
the present problem the applied moment is incremen-
1. J. H. Argyris, H. Balmer, J. St. Doltsinis, P. C. Dunne.
tally conservative, i.e. in the sense that the tangent M. Kleiber, G. A. Malejannakis, H. P. Mlejnek. M.
stiffness becomes symmetric [ 151. Therefore we can Miiller and D. W. Scharpf, Finite element method--the
apply the energy criterion upon the stability limit to natural approach. Compur. Mcth. Appl. Mech. Engng
17/l& l-106 (1979).
this problem. After the bifurcation point is calculated
2. J. C. Simo and L. Vu-Quoc, A three-dimensional finite-
from eqn (4.4), the complete postbifurcation path is strain rod model. Part II: Computational aspects. Corn-
traced until the frame returns to the initial position. put. Meth. Appt. Mech. Engng 58, 79-I 16 (1986).
The plot of the end moments vs the left hinged end 3. A. Cardona and M. Geradin, A beam finite element
displacement is shown in Fig. 12 and the moment vs non-linear theory with finite rotations. Ini. J. Numer.
Merh. Engng 26, 2403-2438 (1988).
lateral vertex displacement plot is shown in Fig. 13.
4. M. Iura and S. N. Atluri, Dynamic analysis of finitely
The present results are very close to Simo and stretched and rotated three-dimensional space-curved
Vu-Quoc’s [2]. Due to the absence of a perturbation beams. Comput. Srrucr. 29, 8755889 (1988).
load, however, the applied end moment at the hinged 5. M. A. Crisfield, A consistent co-rotational formulation
for non-linear, three-dimensional, beam-elements.
ends recovers the initial buckling moment, t?~,=
Compuf. Merh. Appl. Mech. En,gn,g 81, 131-150 (1990).
618.3, after the complete revolution in the present 6. H. Ziegler, Prim&/es of’ Srructk~i S/ahili/y, 2nd Edn.
analysis, while Simo and Vu-Quoc [2] reported an Birkhiuser, Base1 (1977).
initial moment of 615.5 and a maximum moment of 7. S. P. Timoshenko and J. M. Gere, Theorv o/ E/auk
626 after the complete revolution. Smbiliry, 2nd Edn. McGraw-Hill, New Y&k (1961).
8. D. H. Hodges and D. A. Peters. On the lateral buckling
of uniform slender cantilever beams. In/. /. Solid.c
6. CONCLUSIONS
Struct. 11, 1269-1280 (1975).
From the foregoing development and discussion, 9. A. E. H. Love, A Treurise on the Mulhemuricul Theory,
we may draw the following conclusions for the lateral of Elasticity, 4th Edn. Dover Publications. New York
(1944).
buckling of a beam structure and the application of
IO. D. F. Parker, On the derivation of nonlinear rod
finite element analysis to this class of bifurcation theories from three-dimensional elasticity. J. Appl.
problems: M&h. Phys. (ZAMP) 35, 833-847 (1984).
II. R. T. Shield, A consistent theory for elastic defor-
(i) The postbifurcation path for the lateral buck- mations with small strains. J. Appl. Mech. 51, 717-723
ling of a cantilever beam under an end load (1984).
 Analysis of lateral buckling 1371

12. R. T. Shield and S. Im, Small strain deformations 0(X,, I’,) is the warping function of the St Venant solutions
of elastic beams and rods including large deflections. (v is Poisson’s ratio). The functions are harmonic in the
J. Appl. Math. Phys. (ZAMP) 37, 491-513 (1986). cross-section of the rod and satisfy the conditions
13. D. A. Danielson and D. H. Hodges, A beam theory for
large global rotation, moderate local rotation and small
rotation. J. Appl. Mech. 55, 179-184 (1988). gn, +$n,= -{X:+fv(Xy-$)jn,
14. J. C. Simo and L. Vu-Quoc, Rod model incorporating
shear and torsion-warping. In!. J. Solids Struct. 27,
-(2 + v)X, X,n,
371-393 (1991).
15. K. Schweizerhof and E. Ramm, Displacement depen-
dent pressure loads in nonlinear finite element analysis. gn,+$n,= -{X:++v(X:-Xi)}n,
Compw. Strucr. 18, 1099-l 114 (1984). 2 2
16. E. Riks, An incremental approach to the solution of
snapping and buckling problems. Inf. J. Solids Strucf. -(2 + v)X,X,n,
15, 5299551 (1979).
17. M. A. Crisfield, A fast incremental/iterative solution do do
-n,+-nn,=X2n,-X,n,
procedure that handles ‘snap-through’. Comput. Struct. ax, ax,
13, 55-62 (1981).
18. R. Kouhia and M. Mikkola, Tracing the equilibrium on the boundary of the cross-section; n, is the unit outward
path beyond simple critical points. Int. J. Numer. Meth. normal to the surface.
Engng 28, 2923-2941 (1989).

APPENDIX B
APPENDIX A
The linear transformation T(P) is defined by
Guided by the St. Venant solution for flexture of a beam,
we now assume that

u,= -veX,+fK2V(X:--X:)--,vX,X2
where
u2= -veX,+fK,v(X:-_X:)+h.2vX,X2
‘p
~,=~.;(X,+X,X:)-K;(X~+X,X:)~K,~.
(R.1)
64.1) e=Wi

Here a prime denotes differentiation with respect to X,, From this equation, it is clearly seen that T(P) reduces to
x,(X,, X,) and xI(X,, X,) are the flexure functions, and the identity tensor as P goes to zero.