Aerospace Science and Technology 113 (2021) 106634

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Aerospace Science and Technology

www.elsevier.com/locate/aescte

A new model for the eigenvalue buckling analysis with

unknown-but-bounded parameters
Zhiping Qiu ∗ , Xiao Li
Institute of Solid Mechanics, School of Aeronautic Science and Engineering, Beihang University, 100191, PR China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: For the dispersity of material properties, geometry dimensions and other parameters, uncertainty is
Received 5 November 2020 unavoidable introduced into the solution of structural stability problem. The paper presents a new
Received in revised form 18 February 2021 model for the evaluation of structural buckling loads with unknown-but-bounded parameters. Regarding
Accepted 2 March 2021
unknown-but bounded parameters as interval variables, the elastic stiffness matrix, geometric stiffness
Available online 17 March 2021
Communicated by Jang-Kyo Kim
matrix and eigenvalue with uncertain parameters are divided into deterministic part and perturbation
part taking use of perturbation theory. The deterministic part of eigenvalues is calculated by Finite
Keywords: Element method utilizing the deterministic part of elastic stiffness matrix and geometric stiffness
Uncertain buckling matrix. And the interval uncertain part of eigenvalues is derived by interval arithmetic and first order
Interval parameters perturbation theory. Eventually, the upper bound and lower bound of structural buckling eigenvalues then
Eigenvalue buckling can be easily obtained by summing the deterministic part and uncertain part of buckling eigenvalues.
Perturbation theory Comparing the results with traditional Monte Carlo simulation, two numerical examples are given
to demonstrate the accuracy and efficiency of the proposed method for the solution of eigenvalue
buckling problems with unknown-but-bounded parameters. The results also present the coincidence of
the proposed method with probabilistic method.
© 2021 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction certain buckling analysis is to analyze the buckling behavior with

The stability problem has long been investigated in structural
design, and remarkable results have been achieved such as the
buckling of bars, plates and shells [1] and the thermal buckling
analysis of advanced materials [2–7]. Traditional structural stability
analysis provides only the certain expression. However, it is known
to all that uncertainty is inevitably exist in engineering structures
[8–10]. The material properties, geometry dimensions and load
conditions are uncertain in practical engineering and these uncer-
tain parameters will definitely cause the uncertainty of buckling
loads and bucking modes. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider
the impact of uncertainties in the structural parameters on the
structural stability.
The uncertainty analysis always begins with the uncertain
source identification including material properties, geometry di-
mensions and external loads. Then the uncertain parameters shall
be quantified using mathematical model namely probabilistic,
fuzzy or set theory based on the uncertain characteristic. The un-
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: zpqiu@buaa.edu.cn (Z. Qiu).
different kinds of uncertain parameters.
Popular approaches for the uncertain buckling problem are
probabilistic methods utilizing Monte Carlo Simulation, random
perturbation theory and their combination [11–15]. Based on or-
thogonal interpolation function and mean-centered second-order
perturbation technique, Zhang [16] studied the uncertain effect on
structural stability, the obtained probabilistic characteristics of the
buckling load show a good accuracy in comparison to the Monte
Carlo Simulation. Assuming that the elastic parameters are random
variables, Alibrandi, Impollonia and Ricciardi [17] proposed an effi-
cient procedure for the reliability analysis of frame structures with
respect to the buckling limit state. Combining the shifted inverse
iteration method and Monte Carlo simulation, Du and Ellingwood
[18] analyzed the random elastic buckling of stochastic frame
structure, which shows a good accuracy and efficiency. Lin [19] de-
veloped a stochastic finite element method for the buckling analy-
sis of frames with random initial imperfections, uncertain sectional
and material properties, and good agreements were observed com-
pared with results obtained from Monte Carlo simulation. Consid-
ering various aspects of uncertainty modeling of steel plates under
predominantly compressive stresses, Soares [20] studied the effect
that different problem formulations have on the development of

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2021.106634
1270-9638/© 2021 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
Z. Qiu and X. Li
Nomenclature
Ke elastic stiffness matrix
K e0 elastic stiffness matrix of nominal structure
K e uncertain part of elastic stiffness matrix
Ke lower bound of elastic stiffness matrix
Ke upper bound of elastic stiffness matrix
Kg geometric stiffness matrix
qi i-th buckling eigenvalue
the uncertainty models and found that the plate width has negli-
gible influence on the buckling strength uncertainty.
However, as the sufficient information regarding uncertainties is
often difficult to obtain [21–23], many problems exist in the uncer-
tain stability problem using probabilistic theory such as the choice
of uncertainty model, the inaccuracies in the tail of probabilistic
distribution function and so on. Indeed, a small error in proba-
bilistic data may cause a large error in the evaluation of the un-
certainty problems [24,25]. Since the formulation of set-theoretical
models of uncertainty usually requires far less information than
probabilistic models, in order to overcome the shortcomings of
previous probabilistic methods, some non-probabilistic approaches
such as convex model and interval analysis have aroused wide con-
cern as an important complement to the probabilistic theory. Many
achievements have been obtained since the non-probabilistic the-
ory was proposed. Only the bounds of uncertain parameters are
required, the non-probabilistic methods including non-probabilistic
convex models [25] and interval analysis methods [26–28] could
predict the structural response without knowing the probabilistic
distributions of uncertainties.
Based on set-theoretical models, Ben-Haim and Elishakoff [29]
presented a non-probabilistic, set-theoretical treatment of the
buckling of shells with uncertain initial geometrical imperfections.
Lindberg [30] discussed the application of convex models proposed
in Ref. [25] and pointed out that the non-probabilistic unknown-
but-bounded model based on the idea of set membership and
convex modeling is a useful alternative in modeling uncertainty
of imperfections. By the use of convex model, Elishakoff et al.
[31] developed an analytical tool to incorporate the uncertain-
ties in elastic moduli into analysis firstly. Both the upper and
lower bounds of the buckling load are derived in the paper. Pan-
telides [32] examined the bucking and post-buckling behavior of
thin-walled stiffened elements under uniform compression with
geometric and material uncertainties by using convex model to
model the uncertainties in geometry and material properties. Ex-
pressing stiffness properties as an interval quantity, Modares et al.
[33] extended the interval finite element methods (IFEM) to solve
the possible values of loads that will result in structural stability
failure. Based on interval mathematics and Taylor series expansion,
Qiu et al. [34] presented a method performed on interval math-
ematics and Taylor series expansion to solve the buckling load of
composite laminate with uncertainties, the high accuracy and sim-
ple calculation demonstrate that the presented method is easily
accepted and applied in engineering.
In addition to convex models and interval analysis methods,
perturbation method is a relatively simple and efficient means to
deal with non-probabilistic uncertain problems. Utilizing an arti-
ficial small parameter for numerical analysis of complex systems
with unknown-but-bounded parameters, the perturbation method
has been applied to structural static response analysis [35], dy-
namic response problem [36], acoustic field prediction [37] and
structural-acoustic problems [38] with uncertain parameters, but
has been rarely applied in the structural buckling problem with
unknown-but-bounded parameters.
2
Aerospace Science and Technology 113 (2021) 106634
q0i i-th buckling eigenvalue of nominal structure
q lower bound of i-th buckling eigenvalue
i
qi upper bound of i-th buckling eigenvalue
q uncertain part of i-th buckling eigenvalue
ϕi i-th buckling mode
0
ϕ i
i-th buckling mode of nominal structure
Considering the inherent objective existence of uncertainties
and insufficient information, the purpose of this paper is to de-
velop a technique based on perturbation method to analyze the
structural eigenvalue buckling with interval parameters. In sec-
tion 2, the eigenvalue problem of buckling analysis and the per-
turbation method for the eigenvalue are introduced. The technique
for interval analysis of buckling loads with unknown-but-bounded
parameters utilizing perturbation method is proposed in section 3.
To verify the coincidence of interval theory and probabilistic the-
ory, the uncertain buckling analysis using probabilistic method is
introduced in section 4. Section 5 demonstrates three numerical
examples to illustrate the efficiency and accuracy of the proposed
technique, and some conclusions are drowned in the last section.
2. Problem statement
Considering the elastic eigenvalue buckling function as
 
K e − qi K g ϕi = 0 (1)
where K e is n × n elastic stiffness matrix, K g is n × n geomet-
ric stiffness matrix. Eigenvalue q i and eigenvector ϕ i are the i-th
buckling load factor and corresponding buckling mode, respec-
tively. It can be known from finite element theory that the elastic
stiffness matrix K e and geometric stiffness matrix K g are positive
definite [39].
Based on the generalized eigenvalue theory, Eq. (1) has eigen-
value qi , i = 1, 2, · · · , n and their corresponding eigenvector ϕ i ,
i = 1, 2, · · · , n. Taking use of the orthogonality of eigenvector [40],
we can obtain

 T 1, i= j
ϕi K g ϕ j = δi j = (2)
0, i = j
Considering the property of generalized eigenvalue, Eq. (1) is
equivalent to
   
det K e − qi K g =  K e − qi K g  = 0 (3)
In engineering practice, the uncertainties of structural elastic
stiffness matrix K e caused by the uncertain structural parameters
and material properties introduce uncertainty into structural crit-
ical load and corresponding buckling mode. In this condition, the
influence of uncertainties on buckling behavior is necessary to be
studied. The paper mainly deals with the structural elastic eigen-
value buckling problem under interval uncertainty.
With unknown-but-bounded parameters, the elements in struc-
tural elastic stiffness matrix K e are fluctuated in a range and can
be expressed as [41]:
K e ≤ Ke ≤ Ke (4)
where K e and K e are the lower bound and upper bound of elastic
stiffness matrix. K e and K e can be calculated by interval propa-
gation methods such as Taylor expansion method and Polynomial
Chaos Expansion method. Based on interval mathematics [42], the
Z. Qiu and X. Li Aerospace Science and Technology 113 (2021) 106634

structural buckling function Eq. (1) and Eq. (2) then can be trans- be regarded as perturbed system. Then the structural eigenvalue
formed to buckling problem can be solved by perturbation theory. Using per-
 turbation theory, K e can be written as [41]:
( K e ) I − qi K g ϕ i = 0 (5)
K e = K e0 + ε  K e (18)
ϕ iT K g ϕ i = 1 (6)
The constant ε in Eq. (20) is a scalar quantity much less than
where
unity and is called the perturbation factor. The eigenvalue of elastic
stiffness matrix and geometric stiffness matrix after perturbation
( K e ) I = [ K e , K e ]. (7)
K e0 + ε  K e should satisfy
As K e is interval variables, the bucking eigenvalue q i is an in-
 
terval variable. The solution of interval structural buckling problem K e0 + ε  K e − (qi ) K g ϕi = 0 (19)
is the solution of boundary of buckling factor:  T  
 1, i= j

 ϕ 0i Kg ϕ 0j = δi j = , i , j = 1, 2, · · · , n (20)
I
(qi ) = qi , qi (8) 0, i = j

To solve the problem, we mainly study the buckling problem Similarly, the structural buckling load q0i and its corresponding
with the constraint of Eq. (4). The following sections of this paper buckling modes are
derive the bounds of buckling loads.
qi = q0i + ε qi (21)
0
3. The interval perturbation method for eigenvalue buckling ϕ i = ϕ + ε ϕ ii (22)

The structural elastic stiffness matrix K e can be transformed to Substituting Eq. (21), (22) into Eq. (19), we can get
be function of stiffness matrix of nominal stiffness and uncertain

  
K e0 + ε  K e − q0i + ε qi K g ϕ 0i + εϕ i = 0. (23)
stiffness:

K e = K e0 +  K e (9) Consequently, (qi ) I can be written as (see Appendix):

    
where K e0 is nominal elastic stiffness matrix and geometric stiff-  0 T   0 T 
I  0  0
(qi ) = [−qi , qi ] = −  ϕ i  K e ϕ i  ,  ϕ i  K e ϕ i 
ness matrix, respectively.  K e is the uncertainty part of the elastic
stiffness matrix and geometric stiffness matrix, respectively. Then (24)
we can get
which means that
 
 K e = K e − K e0 (10)  0 T 
 0
q =  ϕ i  K e ϕ i  (25)
where
 
 T 
( K e ) I = [− K e ,  K e ]. (11) −q = −  ϕ 0i  K e ϕi0  (26)

As K e and K e0 are all positive definite [39],  K e is semi-positive Substituting Eq. (25) and Eq. (26) into Eq. (17), the upper bound
definite [43]. For nominal structure, its eigenvalue problem can be and lower bound of structural buckling eigenvalue can be calcu-
expressed as: lated by
  
K e0 − q0i K g ϕ 0i = 0, i = 1, 2, · · · , n (12)  T 
 qi = q0i +  ϕ 0i  K e ϕ 0i  (27)
 T 1, i= j
0 0
ϕ K g ϕ = δi j = , i , j = 1, 2, · · · , n (13)
i j 0, i = j and
 
 0 T 
When the elastic stiffness matrix is interval matrix, the eigenvalue qi = q0i  0
−  ϕi K e ϕi  , (28)
also be an interval vector. By means of interval extension of in-
terval mathematics [42], the interval eigenvalue namely interval respectively.
critical load can be expressed as:
4. The uncertain buckling analysis with random variables
(q) I = q0 + (q) I (14)
where Utilizing the probabilistic perturbation method, the mean value
and standard deviation of buckling eigenvalue can be expressed as
(q) I = [q, q], (q) I = [−q, q] (15) [44]:
By virtue of interval operation, we can get
E { p i } = E { p 0i } = p 0i (29)
I 0 0 0
(q) = [q, q] = q + [−q, q] = [q − q, q + q] (16) And
⎛ ⎞
Based on the necessary and sufficient condition for the equal of 
 l  2      
interval, we can get ⎝
ϕi0 n ⎠
Ke 2 2
σ ( pi ) =  σmn ϕi0 m (30)
q = q0 + q, q = q0 − q (17) m,n=1

Taking use of the perturbation theory, structural elastic stiff- where σ ke and σ k g are the standard deviation of elastic stiffness
ness matrix K e0 can be regarded as nominal system, while K e can matrix and geometric stiffness matrix. Let k be a positive integer,

3
Z. Qiu and X. Li Aerospace Science and Technology 113 (2021) 106634

the probabilistic region of k times standard deviations of its mean

value of the buckling eigenvalue is
 I

p 0i = p 0i − kσ ( p i ) , p 0i + kσ ( p i ) (31)

where the probabilistic lower bound is:

p = p 0i − kσ (qi )
i
⎛ ⎞

 l  2       (32)

= p 0i − k⎝ ϕi0 n ⎠
K 2 2
σmne ϕi0 m
m,n=1

and the probabilistic upper bound is

p i = q0i + kσ (qi ) Fig. 1. A plane-frame structure.

⎛ ⎞

 l  2       (33)
 Table 1
= p 0i + k⎝ ϕi0 n ⎠
Ke 2 2
σmn ϕi0 m The nominal value of the plane-frame structure.
m,n=1 Parameters Value
Elasticity modulus of truss 1 and truss 3 (E 1 ) 200 kN/m2
Taking use of Eqs. (32) and (33), we can obtain the proba- Elasticity modulus of truss 2 (E 2 ) 250 × 106 kN/m2
bilistic region of structural buckling eigenvalue. According to the Moment of inertia of truss 1 and truss 3 (I 1 ) 2.5 × 10−8 m4
Tchebycheff’s inequality, it can be known that the probability of Moment of inertia of truss 2 (I 2 ) 2.0 × 10−8 m4
the random variable with finite variance falling within k standard Height (h) 5m
Length (l) 4m
deviations of its mean is at least 1 − 1/k2 , and the bound is in-
dependent of the distribution of the random variable, provided it
has a finite variance. For sufficient large k, in the numerical exam- K e,13 =
ple, when using the probabilistic approach to estimate the upper ⎡ ⎤
12E 1 I 1 /h3 0 −6E 1 I 1 /h2 −12E 1 I 1 /h3 0 −6E 1 I 1 /h2
and lower bound of structural response, the value of k times stan-
⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥
dard deviations in Eqs. (32) and (33) will result in almost a certain ⎢ ⎥
⎢ −6E 1 I 1 /h2 0 4E 1 I 1 /h 6E 1 I 1 /h2 0 2E 1 I 1 /h ⎥
event. ⎢ ⎥
⎢−12E 1 I 1 /h3 0 6E 1 I 1 /h2 12E 1 I 1 /h3 0 6E 1 I 1 /h2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ⎦
5. Numerical examples
−6E 1 I 1 /h2 0 2E 1 I 1 /h 6E 1 I 1 /h2 0 4E 1 I 1 /h
Two examples are given to illustrate the efficiency and accuracy The elastic stiffness matrix of truss 2 can be expressed as
of the interval perturbation method in buckling analysis. The first
one is the buckling problem of a plane-frame structure with in- K e,2 =
terval uncertainties while the second one is a Mindlin plate. The ⎡ ⎤
0 0 0 0 0 0
Monte Carlo simulation is applied to the examples as a reference ⎢ 0 12E 2 I 2 /l3
⎢ 6E 2 I 2 /l2 0 −12E 2 I 2 /l3 6E 2 I 2 /l2 ⎥⎥
approach for validating accuracy and efficiency of the interval per-
⎢0 6E 2 I 2 /l2 4E 2 I 2 /l 0 −6E 2 I 2 /l2 2E 2 I 2 /l ⎥
turbation method in buckling problem. The examples are carried ⎢ ⎥
⎢0 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥
on MATLAB R2015. ⎢ ⎥
⎣ 0 −12E 2 I 2 /l3 −6E 2 I 2 /l2 0 −12E 2 I 2 /l3 −6E 2 I 2 /l2 ⎦
5.1. The uncertain eigenvalue buckling analysis of a plane-frame 0 6E 2 I 2 /l2 2E 2 I 2 /l 0 −6E 2 I 2 /l2 4E 2 I 2 /l
structure Defining n = ( E 2 I 2 /l) / ( E 1 I 1 /h) and removing the zero columns
and rows, the global elastic stiffness matrix can be calculated by
A plane-frame structure with two loads acting on it is shown in !
Fig. 1. The geometry parameters and elastic parameters are given 1,1 1,2
Ke Ke
in Table 1. Ke = 2,1 2,2 (35)
Ke Ke
The elastic modulus of the structure is regarded as unknown-
but-bounded variables which could be expressed as where

 ⎡ ⎤
1,3 12/h2 −6/h −12/h2 0 −6/h
EI = E 1,3 − α E 1,3 , E 1,3 + α E 1,3 , ⎢ −6/h
⎢ 4 6/h 0 2 ⎥ ⎥

 (34)
E 2I = E 2I − α E 2I , E 2I + α E 2I K e1,1 = ⎢
⎢ −12/h
2
6/h 12/h2 0 6/h ⎥ ⎥,
⎣ 0 0 0 12n/l2 6n/l ⎦
where α is uncertain parameters. −6/h 2 6/h 6n/l 4 + 4n
⎡ ⎤
0 0 0 0 0
5.1.1. The elastic stiffness matrix ⎢0 0 0 0 0⎥
⎢ ⎥
In general, the axial deformation is neglected in the stability K e1,2 = ⎢
⎢ 0 0 0 0 0⎥⎥
analysis of plane-frame structure. Then the elastic stiffness matrix ⎣ 0 −12n/l2 6n/l 0 0⎦
of truss 1 and truss 3 could be described expressed as: 0 −6n/l 2n 0 0

4
Z. Qiu and X. Li Aerospace Science and Technology 113 (2021) 106634

⎡ ⎤
0 0 0 0 0 Table 2
⎢0 0 0 −12n/l2 −6n/l ⎥
⎢ ⎥ The eigenvalue under different α.
K e2,1 = ⎢
⎢0 0 0 −6n/l 2n ⎥ ⎥, α q q1
⎣0 0 0 0 0 ⎦
1
Interval Monte Carlo Interval Monte Carlo
0 0 0 0 0 perturbation simulation perturbation simulation
⎡ ⎤
12/h2 0 6/h −12/h2 6/h 0.01 1.205 1.20503 1.22935 1.22933
⎢ 0 12n/l2 −6n/l 0 0 ⎥
0.02 1.19283 1.19285 1.24152 1.2415
⎢ ⎥ 0.03 1.18066 1.18068 1.25369 1.25355
K e2,2 = ⎢
⎢ 6/h −6n/l 4 + 4n −6/h 2 ⎥ ⎥ 0.04 1.16849 1.16856 1.26586 1.26584
⎣ −12/h2 0 −6/h 12/h2 −6/h ⎦ 0.05 1.15632 1.1564 1.27803 1.278
6/h 0 2 −6/h 4 0.06 1.14414 1.14429 1.2902 1.29016
0.07 1.13197 1.13202 1.30238 1.30231
0.08 1.1198 1.11989 1.31455 1.31439
5.1.2. The solution of eigenvalue buckling based on proposed model 0.09 1.10763 1.10767 1.32672 1.32652
Assuming the elastic modulus has perturbation of  E 1 and 0.1 1.09546 1.09563 1.33889 1.33853
 E 2 in E 1 and E 2 respectively, the disturbance of elastic stiffness
matrix and geometric stiffness matrix in Eq. (24) are
 
 K e,1  K e,2 Table 3
K e = (36) The error of the perturbation with different α.
 K e,2  K e,1
  α Error of lower bound (%) Error of upper bound (%)
12 E 1 I 1 /h3 6 E 1 I 1 /h2
where  K e,1 = ,  K e ,2 = 0.01 0.00218 0.0012
6 E 1 I 1 /h2 4 E 1 I 1 /h + 4 E 2 I 2 /l
  0.02 0.00145 0.0016
0 0 0.03 0.00184 0.01125
. 0.04 0.00654 0.00152
0 2 E 2 I 2 /l
0.05 0.00731 0.00242
Submitting Eq. (36) into Eq. (25) and Eq. (26), we can get the
0.06 0.01233 0.0031
lower bound and upper bound of the plane-frame structure which 0.07 0.00398 0.00509
can be expressed as 0.08 0.00787 0.0121
 T 0.09 0.00356 0.01474
 
q = q1,0 +   K e ϕ 1,0 
ϕ 1,0 0.1 0.0162 0.02725
1
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
 −1.4894 T 
   −1.4894 
⎢ 0.2595 ⎥  K e,1  K e,2 ⎢ 0.2595 ⎥
= 1.2172 + ⎢
⎣
⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎦  K e,2  K e,1 ⎣ −1.4894 ⎦
 −1.4894 
 0.2595 0.2595 
and
 T
 
q = q1,0 −   K e ϕ 1,0 
ϕ 1,0
1
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
 −1.4894 T 
   −1.4894 
⎢ 0.2595 ⎥  K e,1  K e,2 ⎢ 0.2595 ⎥
= 1.2172 − ⎢
⎣
⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎦  K e,2  K e,1 ⎣ −1.4894 ⎦
 −1.4894 
 0.2595 0.2595 
Then we can get the upper bound and lower bound of struc-
tural buckling eigenvalue with different uncertain parameter α .
The upper bound and lower bound of buckling eigenvalue with
uncertain parameter from 0.01 to 0.1 calculated by the proposed
method and Monte Carlo Simulation are given in Table 2. 106
samples are implemented in Monte Carlo simulation. In order to
demonstrate the accuracy of the interval perturbation method, the
relative errors are listed in Table 3. In order to investigate the
impact of uncertainty, the bounds of uncertain parameter with dif- Fig. 2. Interval bounds calculated by proposed method and Monte Carlo simulation.
ferent uncertain parameter α are plotted in Fig. 2. (For interpretation of the colors in the figure(s), the reader is referred to the web
It can be seen from Table 1 and Table 2 that the buckling loads version of this article.)
obtained from the proposed method are very close to those ob-
tained from Monte Carlo simulation, the largest error 0.02725%
appears in the upper bound when uncertain parameter α = 0.1, buckling eigenvalue with the proposed method and probabilistic
which means that the interval perturbation has a high accuracy in method. In this paper k is set as 3.
the interval analysis of buckling loads. Besides, it can be known The results obtained by proposed interval method and proba-
from Fig. 2 the interval width between the bounds of buckling bilistic method are plotted in Fig. 3. It can be deduced that the
loads presents an increasing tendency with the increasing of un- width of the buckling eigenvalue obtained by the interval pertur-
certain parameter α . bation method is larger than that by the probabilistic approach
for structures with uncertain-but-bounded structural parameters.
5.1.3. The coincidence verification with probabilistic method This result indicates that the region determined by the interval
In order to verify the coincidence of the interval perturbation perturbation method contains that predicted by the probabilistic
method with probabilistic method, we calculate the interval of perturbation approach.

5
Z. Qiu and X. Li Aerospace Science and Technology 113 (2021) 106634

Fig. 5. The first buckling mode.

Table 5
The lower bound of eigenvalue under different α.
Fig. 3. Interval bounds calculated by interval method and probabilistic method. α q q1
1
Interval Monte Carlo Interval Monte Carlo
perturbation simulation perturbation simulation
0.01 3.995969 3.99597 4.076695 4.076695
0.02 3.955605 3.955607 4.117059 4.117055
0.03 3.915242 3.915245 4.157422 4.157416
0.04 3.874879 3.874882 4.197785 4.197778
0.05 3.834515 3.83452 4.238149 4.238139
0.06 3.794152 3.794157 4.278512 4.2785
0.07 3.753789 3.753795 4.318875 4.318862
0.08 3.713425 3.713432 4.359239 4.359223
0.09 3.673062 3.67307 4.399602 4.399585
0.1 3.632699 3.632708 4.439965 4.439946

where K e and K g are the elastic stiffness matrix and geomet-

ric stiffness matrix respectively. As to Mindlin plate, its geometric
stiffness matrix can be expressed as:
Fig. 4. A Mindlin plate under uniaxial initial stress.
K g = K g ,b + K g ,s (38)
where K g ,b and K g ,s are contribution of bending and shear con-
Table 4
The parameters of the Mindlin plate. tribution respectively. The Mindlin plate is divided into 10 × 10
elements in the analysis, and the first order buckling eigenvalue is
Parameters Value
4.0363e-05 (Fig. 5).
Modulus of elasticity (E) 10920 The elastic modulus is assumed to be unknown-but-bounded
Poisson ratio (ρ ) 0.30
Length (a) 1
parameter whose interval is
Thickness (h) 0.001    
Shear correction factor (k) 5/6 E I = E, E = Ec − α Ec, Ec + α Ec (39)
where α is the uncertain parameter, namely  E = α E . The up- c

5.2. The uncertain eigenvalue buckling analysis of Mindlin plate
Consider a simply-supported square Mindlin plate under uni-
axial initial stress shown in Fig. 4 whose geometry dimension
and elastic parameter are given in Table 4. The buckling loads
of the plate with uncertainty shall be calculated by the proposed
method.
The buckling problem of this structure could be described
as:
per bound and lower bound of buckling load of the Mindlin plate
with different uncertain parameter α calculated by the proposed
method, Monte Carlo simulation and colocation method are given
in Table 5 and plotted in Fig. 6. In order to investigate the accuracy
of the interval perturbation method, the relative errors comparing
with Monte Carlo simulation and colocation method are given in
Table 6.
From the calculation results, it can be seen that the upper
bounds and lower bounds obtained from interval perturbation
method are very close to those of Monte Carlo simulation, while

the computational cost is reduced. The accuracy of the proposed
K e − pi K g ϕ i = 0, i = 1, 2, . . . , n (37) method is higher than that of colocation method. This numerical

6
Z. Qiu and X. Li Aerospace Science and Technology 113 (2021) 106634

Fig. 6. The lower bound and upper bound of different α.

Fig. 7. Interval bounds calculated by interval method and probabilistic method.

Table 6
The upper bound of eigenvalue under different α. Table 7
The parameters of the Mindlin plate.
α Error of lower bound (%) Error of upper bound (%)
Parameters Value
0.01 2.20E-05 1.05E-05
0.02 4.49E-05 9.33E-05 Modulus of elasticity (E) 210 × 109
0.03 6.80E-05 0.000138 Poisson ratio (v) 0.30
0.04 9.17E-05 0.000183 Radius (R) 0.5
0.05 0.000116 0.000226 Radius of crossing section (d) 0.05
0.06 0.000141 0.000269
0.07 0.000166 0.000311
0.08 0.000191 0.000352 Table 8
0.09 0.000218 0.000393 The lower bound of eigenvalue under different α.
0.1 0.000245 0.000432
α q
1
q1
Interval Monte Carlo Interval Monte Carlo
example demonstrates the feasibility of the interval perturbation perturbation simulation perturbation simulation
for solving plate buckling problems with interval uncertain param- 0.001 -100454263.5 -100438193.4 -96045556.27 -96020590.92
eters. 0.002 -102835078.8 -102813488 -93984397.42 -93961846.58
0.003 -105343888.4 -105309136.4 -92023239.89 -91994721.53
5.2.1. The coincidence verification with probabilistic method 0.004 -107987682.7 -107936952.3 -90165606.37 -90114241.25
0.005 -110762483.4 -110703810.4 -88366091.99 -88313986.74
In this example, we also calculate the buckling eigenvalue in-
terval with both interval perturbation method and probabilistic
   
method, the results are plotted in Fig. 7. E I = E, E = Ec − α Ec, Ec + α Ec (40)
From this numerical example, we can see that the region of
the buckling eigenvalue with uncertain-but-bounded parameters and
obtained by the interval analysis method contains that produced  
by the probabilistic approach. In other words, it is seen that the v I = [v , v̄] = v c − α v c , v c + α v c (41)
present interval analysis method yields larger bounds. The lower where α is the uncertain parameter. To verify the accuracy of the
bounds within the present interval analysis method are smaller proposed with different uncertain parameter, we calculate the in-
than those predicted by the probabilistic approach. Likewise, the terval of buckling load when α = 0.001 to α = 0.005. The results
upper bounds furnished by the present interval analysis method are given in Table 8 and plotted in Fig. 8, the relative errors com-
are larger than those yielded by the probabilistic approach. This paring with Monte Carlo simulation and colocation method are
kind of results is coincident with the meaning of the probabilistic given in Table 9.
theory and interval mathematics. It can be seen from the results that the proposed method can
accurately calculate the interval of buckling eigenvalue of ring
5.3. The uncertain eigenvalue buckling analysis of ring beam beam structure. The width of buckling eigenvalue increases with
the increase of uncertain parameter. The accuracy of the proposed
In this example, we calculated the interval of buckling value method decreases with the increase of uncertain parameter.
of a ring beam using Euler beam element using finite element
method. The parameters of the ring beam are given in Table 7. 5.3.1. The coincidence verification with probabilistic method
The ring beam is divided into 160 elements in the analysis. The In this example, we also calculate the buckling eigenvalue in-
elastic modulus and passion ratio are assumed to be unknown- terval with both interval perturbation method and probabilistic
but-bounded parameter whose interval is method, the results are plotted in Fig. 9.

7
Z. Qiu and X. Li Aerospace Science and Technology 113 (2021) 106634

interval perturbation theory and interval mathematics. The pro-

posed model can predict the interval of buckling loads effectively
and precisely. Numerical examples including a plane-frame struc-
ture, a Mindlin plate and a ring beam are illustrated to demon-
strate the efficiency and accuracy of the proposed model in the
solution of buckling problems. The obtained results by proposed
method demonstrated a good agreement with the results calcu-
lated by Monte Carlo simulation, while the computational cost is
much lower.
As we can see the errors in the examples are growing along
with the increasing of uncertain parameter, it should be noted that
the perturbation method utilized in the paper is more suitable to
solve buckling problems with narrow interval parameters because
of the unpredictable effect of the neglected high order terms in
perturbation. In order to obtain high accuracy results for buckling
problems with large interval parameters, the higher order pertur-
bation methods could be utilized but high computational costs
may be required, which will be studied in our future study.
The results obtained by the proposed method and probabilis-
Fig. 8. The lower bound and upper bound of different α.
tic method show that the width of the upper and lower bounds
on the structural dynamical response yielded by the probabilistic
Table 9 approach is tighter than those produced by the interval analysis
The upper bound of eigenvalue under different α. method. This kind of results is coincident with the meaning of the
α Error of lower bound (%) Error of upper bound (%) probabilistic theory and interval mathematics.
It should be noted that the calculation of elastic stiffness ma-
0.001 0.016 0.026
0.002 0.021 0.024 trix is very important to improve the accuracy of the proposed
0.003 0.033 0.031 method. Most finite element method softwires provide the output
0.004 0.047 0.057 of elastic stiffness matrix which can be utilized to the calculation
0.005 0.053 0.059
of elastic stiffness matrix. Therefore, the interval of elastic stiff-
ness matrix can be calculated using interval analysis method. But
for large structures with large uncertainty, the accuracy of the pro-
posed method might not satisfy. The application of high accuracy
interval method in the calculation of interval elastic stiffness ma-
trix can improve the accuracy of the proposed method. Also, for
complex structures, the output and read of elastic stiffness matrix
might be time consuming.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-

cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Beijing Municipal Science and

Technology Commission (No. Z191100004619006), the Defense In-
dustrial Technology Development Program (No. JCKY2018601B001),
and Beijing Advanced Discipline Center for Unmanned Aircraft Sys-
tem.

Appendix

Fig. 9. Interval bounds calculated by interval method and probabilistic method. 1. The solution of (qi ) I using perturbation method.
Based on perturbation theory, the eigenvalue buckling function
can be expressed as
From this numerical example, it is seen that the present inter-
  
val analysis method yields larger bounds, which means that the K e0 + ε  K e0 − q0i + ε q0i K g ϕ 0i + εϕ 0i = 0 (42)
interval perturbation method contains the interval calculated by
probabilistic. which can be expanded as:
 
6. Conclusions
K e0 ϕ 0i + ε  K e0 ϕ 0i − q0i K g ϕ 0i − ε q0i K g ϕ 0i + K e0 ε ϕ 0i

Describing unknown-but-bounded parameters as interval vari- + ε 2  K e0 ϕ 0i − q0i K g ε ϕ 0i 0i − ε 2 q0i K g ϕ 0i = 0
ables, the paper proposed a new model to predict the upper bound
and lower bound of structural buckling load with combination of (43)

8
Z. Qiu and X. Li Aerospace Science and Technology 113 (2021) 106634

Ignoring the second and higher rank terms in Eq. (43), we can get [16] B.E. Jun Zhang, Effects of uncertain material properties on structural stabil-

  ity, J. Struct. Eng. 121 (4) (1995) 705–716, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-

9445(1995)121:4(705).
K e0 − q0i K g ϕ 0i + ε K e0 ϕ 0i − εq0i K g ϕ 0i [17] U. Alibrandi, N. Impollonia, G. Ricciardi, Probabilistic eigenvalue buckling anal-

(44)
+ K e0 − q0i K g ε ϕ 0i = 0
When only first order small quantities are considered, the per-
turbation caused by ε ϕ 0i should be zero, which means that
εϕ 0i = 0. Substituting εϕ 0i = 0, Eq. (12) and Eq. (13) into
Eq. (44), we can get
ysis solved through the ratio of polynomial response surface, Comput. Methods
Appl. Mech. Eng. 199 (9–12) (2010) 450–464, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.
2009.08.015.
[18] S. Du, B. Ellingwood, J. Cox, Efficient numerical analysis of stochastic frame
stability, in: Proceedings of the 8th ASCE Specialty Conference on Probabilistic
Mechanics and Structural Reliability, 2000, pp. 24–26.
[19] S.C. Lin, T.Y. Kam, Buckling analysis of imperfect frames using a stochas-
tic finite element method, Comput. Struct. 42 (6) (1992) 895–901, https://
doi.org/10.1016/0045-7949(92)90101-5.

T [20] C.G. Soares, Uncertainty modeling in plate buckling, Struct. Saf. 5 (1) (1988)
εqi = ϕ 0i (ε  K e ) ϕ 0i (45) 17–34, https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-4730(88)90003-3.
[21] L. Wang, X. Wang, Y. Li, J. Hu, A non-probabilistic time-variant reliable control
method for structural vibration suppression problems with interval uncertain-
Then taking use of Eq. (21), the interval of buckling eigenvalues
ties, Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 115 (2019) 301–322, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
can be obtained. ymssp.2018.05.039.
Sometimes ε is included in  K e , qi and ϕi , which means [22] L. Wang, C. Xiong, X. Wang, M. Xu, Y. Li, A dimension-wise method and its
that the elements in the matrixes are much less than that of nom- improvement for multidisciplinary interval uncertainty analysis, Appl. Math.
Model. 59 (2018) 680–695, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2018.02.022.
inal system. In the discussion below, ε is assumed to be included
[23] X. Wang, Q. Ren, W. Chen, Y. Liu, L. Wang, X. Ding, Structural design opti-
in  K e , qi and ϕi . mization based on the moving baseline strategy, Acta Mech. Solida Sin. (2019),
Consequently, (qi ) I can be written as https://doi.org/10.1007/s10338-019-00144-0.
[24] I. Elishakoff, Essay on uncertainties in elastic and viscoelastic structures: from
 
 

 0 T   0 T  A. M. Freudenthal’s criticisms to modern convex modeling, Comput. Struct.
I  0  0
(qi ) = [−qi , qi ] = −  ϕ i  K e ϕ i  ,  ϕ i  K e ϕ i 
(46)
References
[1] D.O. Brush, B.O. Almroth, J.W. Hutchinson, Buckling of Bars, Plates, and Shells,
McGraw-Hill, 1975.
[2] E. Bagherizadeh, Y. Kiani, M.R. Eslami, Thermal buckling of functionally graded
material cylindrical shells on elastic foundation, AIAA J. 50 (2) (2012) 500–503,
https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J051120.
[3] Y. Kiani, NURBS-based isogeometric thermal postbuckling analysis of tempera-
ture dependent graphene reinforced composite laminated plates, Thin-Walled
Struct. 125 (2018) 211–219, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2018.01.024.
[4] Y. Kiani, Buckling of functionally graded graphene reinforced conical shells un-
der external pressure in thermal environment, Composites, Part B, Eng. 156
(2019) 128–137, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.08.052.
[5] H. Asadi, Y. Kiani, M.M. Aghdam, M. Shakeri, Enhanced thermal buckling of
laminated composite cylindrical shells with shape memory alloy, J. Compos.
Mater. 50 (2) (2015) 243–256, https://doi.org/10.1177/0021998315573287.
[6] Y. Kiani, S. Taheri, M.R. Eslami, Thermal buckling of piezoelectric functionally
graded material beams, J. Therm. Stresses 34 (8) (2011) 835–850, https://doi.
org/10.1080/01495739.2011.586272.
[7] Y. Kiani, Thermal buckling of temperature-dependent FG-CNT-reinforced com-
posite skew plates, J. Therm. Stresses 40 (11) (2017) 1442–1460, https://
doi.org/10.1080/01495739.2017.1336742.
[8] L.-K. Song, G.-C. Bai, C.-W. Fei, Dynamic surrogate modeling approach for prob-
abilistic creep-fatigue life evaluation of turbine disks, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 95
(2019) 105439, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2019.105439.
[9] C. Xiong, L. Wang, G. Liu, Q. Shi, An iterative dimension-by-dimension method
for structural interval response prediction with multidimensional uncertain
variables, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 86 (2019) 572–581, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.
2019.01.032.
[10] C.-W. Fei, C. Lu, R.P. Liem, Decomposed-coordinated surrogate modeling strat-
egy for compound function approximation in a turbine-blisk reliability evalua-
tion, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 95 (2019) 105466, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2019.
105466.
[11] I. Elishakoff, Buckling of a stochastically imperfect finite column on a nonlinear
elastic foundation: a reliability study, J. Appl. Mech. 46 (2) (1979) 411–416.
[12] L. Wang, Y. Liu, A novel method of distributed dynamic load identification
for aircraft structure considering multi-source uncertainties, Struct. Multidis-
cip. Optim. (2019).
[13] X. Wang, Q. Shi, W. Fan, R. Wang, L. Wang, Comparison of the reliability-based
and safety factor methods for structural design, Appl. Math. Model. 72 (2019)
68–84, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2019.03.018.
[14] K. Gao, D.M. Do, R. Li, S. Kitipornchai, J. Yang, Probabilistic stability analysis of
functionally graded graphene reinforced porous beams, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 98
(2020) 105738, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2020.105738.
[15] H.X. Nguyen, T. Duy Hien, J. Lee, H. Nguyen-Xuan, Stochastic buckling be-
haviour of laminated composite structures with uncertain material properties,
Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 66 (2017) 274–283, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2017.01.
028.
9
56 (6) (1995) 871–895, https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7949(94)00499-S.
[25] Yakov Ben-Haim, Convex Models of Uncertainty in Applied Mechanics, Elsevier,
1990.
[26] Z.P. Qiu, S.H. Chen, I. Elishakoff, Natural frequencies of structures with uncer-
tain but nonrandom parameters, J. Optim. Theory Appl. 86 (3) (1995) 669–683,
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02192164.
[27] Z.P. Qiu, I. Elishakoff, Antioptimization of structures with large uncertain-but-
non-random parameters via interval analysis, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech.
Eng. 152 (3) (1998) 361–372, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7825(96)01211-X.
[28] Z. Lyu, Y. Yang, H. Xia, Unknown-but-bounded uncertainty propagation in
spacecraft structural system: interval reduced basis method and its integrated
framework, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 92 (2019) 945–957, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ast.2019.07.001.
[29] Y. Benhaim, I. Elishakoff, Non-probabilistic models of uncertainty in the non-
linear buckling of shells with general imperfections: theoretical estimates of
the knockdown factor, J. Appl. Mech. 56 (2) (1989) 403–410, https://doi.org/10.
1115/1.3176097.
[30] H. Lindberg, Dynamic response and buckling failure measures for struc-
tures with bounded and random imperfections, J. Appl. Mech. 58 (4) (1991)
1092–1095, https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2897690.
[31] I. Elishakoff, Y.W. Li, J.H. Starnes Jr, A deterministic method to predict the effect
of unknown-but-bounded elastic moduli on the buckling of composite struc-
tures, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 111 (1–2) (1994) 155–167, https://
doi.org/10.1016/0045-7825(94)90043-4.
[32] C.P. Pantelides, Buckling and postbuckling of stiffened elements with uncer-
tainty, Thin-Walled Struct. 26 (26) (1996) 1–17, https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-
8231(96)00009-2.
[33] M. Modares, R. Mullen, R.L. Muhanna, H. Zhang, Buckling analysis of structures
with uncertain properties and loads using an interval finite element method,
in: Proceedings of the NSF Workshop on Reliable Engineering, 2004 of Confer-
ence, 2004, pp. 1–11.
[34] Z. Qiu, F. Li, J. Yang, Interval analysis method on the buckling of composite lam-
inate, Chin. J. Aeronaut. 18 (3) (2005) 218–222, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1000-
9361(11)60301-4.
[35] Z.P. Qiu, S.H. Chen, D.T. Song, The displacement bound estimation for structures
with an interval description of uncertain parameters, Commun. Numer. Meth-
ods Eng. 12 (1) (1996) 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0887(199601)
12:1<1::AID-CNM884>3.0.CO;2-N.
[36] J. Chen, B. Wada, Matrix perturbation for structural dynamic analysis, AIAA J.
15 (8) (2012) 1095–1100, https://doi.org/10.2514/3.60759.
[37] B.Z. Xia, D.J. Yu, Modified sub-interval perturbation finite element method for
2D acoustic field prediction with large uncertain-but-bounded parameters, J.
Sound Vib. 331 (16) (2012) 3774–3790, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2012.03.
024.
[38] B.Z. Xia, D.J. Yu, J. Liu, Interval and subinterval perturbation methods for a
structural-acoustic system with interval parameters, J. Fluids Struct. 38 (3)
(2013) 146–163, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2012.12.003.
[39] K.-J. Bathe, Finite element method, in: Wiley Encyclopedia of Computer Science
and Engineering, 2008, pp. 1–12.
[40] A.J. Laub, Matrix Analysis for Scientists and Engineers, Society for Industrial
and Applied Mathematics, 2004.
[41] Z. Qiu, S. Chen, I. Elishakoff, Bounds of eigenvalues for structures with an
interval description of uncertain-but-non-random parameters, Chaos Solitons
Fractals 7 (3) (1996) 425–434, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-014-1116-9.
Z. Qiu and X. Li Aerospace Science and Technology 113 (2021) 106634

[42] G. Goos, J. Hartmanis, K. Nickel, Interval mathematics, Math. Comput. 30 (1976) [44] C. Jiankang, W. Rupeng, Perturbation solution for thermal expansion buck-
894, https://doi.org/10.2307/2005410. ling of no expansion joint slope pavement plate, Appl. Math. Mech. 3 (1993)
[43] E.R. Ziegel, Probability and statistics for engineering and the sciences, Techno- 277–284, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02451412.
metrics 46 (4) (2004) 497–498, https://doi.org/10.1198/tech.2004.s245.

10