Engineering Structures 21 (1999) 557–567

Physical instability and geometric effects in frames

Gabriella Bolzon a, Francis Tin-Loi b,*

a
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale, Politecnico di Milano, 20133 Milano, Italy
b
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia

Received 27 August 1997; accepted 29 December 1997

Abstract

The interaction between physical instability and geometric (2nd-order) effects in plane frames is investigated herein within a
finite element based mathematical programming framework, under the assumptions of quasistatic loading and lumped plasticity.
The sources of physical instability consist of inelastic bending hinges characterized by softening nonholonomic (irreversible) moment
versus rotation constitutive laws. The complex and insightful response spectrum which can arise is illustrated with the aid of simple,
albeit instructive, reference examples. Stability domains are obtained for these examples in the space of the parameters characterizing
the level of member axial force and the amount of hinge softening. Such domains highlight various key features, which are briefly
commented upon, of the interplay between physical and geometric effects.  1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Frames; Lumped plasticity; Geometric nonlinearity; Softening

1. Introduction these nonholonomic constitutive laws in complementar-

The stability of structural systems is an important area
of engineering mechanics (see e.g. [1]) and it has
become almost mandatory in professional practice to
carry out such an evaluation as part of the assessment of
structural safety. However, this is often a difficult task,
especially when interacting influences as those due to
material, geometric and inertia effects are present.
The primary aim of this paper is to investigate, under
the assumptions of quasistatic loading and inviscid
behaviour, the stabilizing or destabilizing contributions
of combined 2nd-order geometric effects and material
properties (hardening or softening). This is carried out
using, as reference examples, frames of very simple
geometry and loading situations but which, nevertheless,
are able to reproduce a wide and complete spectrum of
responses expected of instability phenomena, such as
bifurcation and limit points.
The framework we adopt for carrying out this work
has the following key features: piecewise linear
(hardening or softening) constitution of the assumed
lumped deformability bending hinges; a description of
* Corresponding author. Tel: + 61-2-9385-5062; Fax: + 61-2-9385-
6139; E-mail f.tinloi@unsw.edu.au
ity format, involving the orthogonality of two sign-con-
strained vectors; and finally the obtention of both theor-
etical and numerical results from the analysis of a special
and important class of mathematical programming prob-
lems, called the linear complementarity problem (LCP)
[2]. This powerful and elegant approach is due to Maier
[3–7] who, however, has applied it to a far wider range
of engineering plasticity problems than the one con-
sidered herein. Some key papers directly related to our
work are those by Maier [8] and by Maier and Drucker
[9], where general results concerning the interaction of
large displacements and inelastic behaviour are given.
Maier and Perego [10] and, more recently, Bazant and
Jirásek [11] considered the problem of stability and
bifurcations in dynamics with softening but in the
absence of geometric effects. The same approach as we
adopt herein has been used, within the small displace-
ment context, for limit and elastoplastic analysis under
ductility constraints [12], and for discussing the equilib-
rium branching due to flexural softening [13] of frames.
Operative procedures have also been proposed [14,15]
for inelastic evolutive analysis and for the determination
of the collapse load of elastic perfectly-plastic or harden-
ing frames in the presence of 2nd-order geometric
effects. Numerous other references on mathematical pro-
gramming in structural plasticity can be found, for

0141-0296/99/$—see front matter  1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 0 1 8 - 2
558 G. Bolzon, F. Tin-Loi / Engineering Structures 21 (1999) 557–567

instance, in the volumes [16] and [17], and in the survey

papers [18] and [19].
The organization of this paper is as follows. In the
next section, we introduce the formulation of our prob-
lem in generic rate form. This is carried out for a suitably
discretized structure and is shown to furnish an LCP
which makes it possible to obtain not only useful theor-
etical results, but also numerical response curves for the
structure. Two simple beams and one portal frame are
then used as reference examples to illustrate the complex
and insightful behaviour which can arise under the com-
bined influence of physical and geometric effects. Sig-
nificant features of various instability phenomena are Fig. 2. Constitutive law characterizing the inelastic hinges.
highlighted, with theoretical predictions verified numeri-
cally.

2. Formulation

The equilibrium configurations of suitably discretized

plane frame structures are sought under the assumptions
of both geometric (2nd-order) and material nonlin-
earities. The configuration change of each element can
be described by the six independent degrees of freedom
qi, i = 1,..., 6, shown in Fig. 1 and collected in vector
q. Within this framework, the equilibrium of each linear
elastic member in its deformed configuration results, in Fig. 3. (a) Simply supported beam (SSB) and (b) clamped–clamped
vector form, in the following equation relating forces Q beam (CCB).
to displacements q:

Q = [kE + kG]q
where kE and kG (see Appendix A) respectively rep-
resent the usual linear elastic stiffness matrix, and the
geometric stiffness matrix which accounts for the change
of configuration with loading.
For any frame, the assembly of member equilibrium
equations such as Eq. (1) provides the elastic response
to a given loading condition, and allows us to evaluate
bending moments at the beam ends as functions of the
load parameters, in the absence of inelastic deformatio-
ns.
The positive sign-convention we will use in the fol-
lowing for bending moments and corresponding
rotations is shown in Fig. 2.
For the simply supported beam (SSB) of Fig. 3(a),
discretized by two elements and subjected to the axial
force N = ␣EI/l2 and to the transverse force F = ␤EI/l2,
Fig. 1. Beam element.
(1) the global equilibrium equations give, after some
straightforward manipulations:
EI (48 + ␣)(240 + ␣)
M+B = ␤ (2)
6l 3␣2 + 416␣ + 3840
For the clamped–clamped beam (CCB) of Fig. 3(b),
the moment expressions are:
EI 240 + ␣
M+B = M−A = M−A⬘ = ␤ (3)
24l 40 + ␣
Eq. (2) and Eq. (3), which are linear functions of ␤
in the present context, furnish well-known basic results
when ␣ = 0 (or when no geometric effects are taken
into account). In the presence of axial forces, bending
moments are decreasing functions of ␣, defined for ␣ >
− 9.94 (SSB) and ␣ > − 40 (CCB), values which rep-
resent the fairly good approximations, for the chosen
discretizations, of Euler’s buckling loads (whose exact
values are known to be − ␲2 ⬵ − 9.87 for SSB and −
4␲2 ⬵ − 39.48 for CCB).
Equilibrium can be alternatively expressed directly in
terms of the above bending moments which represent
the so-called generalized (in Prager’s sense) stresses of
the beam, energetically conjugate to the natural
 G. Bolzon, F. Tin-Loi / Engineering Structures 21 (1999) 557–567
(intrinsic) strain parameters represented by the beam end
rotations which, in turn, completely define the beam
strain state when axial and shear deformations can be
neglected, as assumed herein [15]. These intrinsic gen-
eralized stresses and strains, unaffected by rigid body
motions, are used as natural variables for describing the
material nonlinearities which are due to the possible
appearance of irreversible rotations ␪ = ␪± (i.e. either
␪+or ␪−) at the ends of each beam element (see Fig. 2).
Inelastic rotations are related to the corresponding
bending moments by constitutive laws characterized by
a nonholonomic softening (or hardening) irreversible
behaviour. In this paper, the piecewise linear constitutive
law represented in Fig. 2 is used.
In the range 0 ⱕ ␪ ⱕ ␪u, the above referenced law
can be given the following analytical expressions:
␸ = M − Mu + h␪ ⱕ 0, ␪˙ ⱖ 0, ␸␪˙ = 0
where ␸, M and Mu stand for ␸±, M± and M±u respect-
ively, as above introduced for ␪. The condition ␸ = 0
indicates that the activation limit of the rigid-softening
hinge, or its re-activation limit when the hinge has
experienced some inelastic rotation ␪ > 0 before
unloading, has been reached.
For ␪ > ␪u, a reversible behaviour and M = 0 is
assumed.
An alternative rate form of Eq. (4) for hinges which
are at their activation limit (␸ = 0, 0 ⱕ ␪ ⱕ ␪u) is the fol-
lowing:
␸˙ = Ṁ + h␪˙ ⱕ 0, ␪˙ ⱖ 0, ␸˙ ␪˙ = 0
The above relations (5) apply as well to any nonlinear
bending–rotation laws, h being in this case the tangent
slope at the considered M–␪ point.
By following an approach which dates back to Maier’s
work in the early 70s (see e.g. [5]), the inelastic rotations
can be considered as ‘distortions’ (imposed rotations)
induced in an assumed wholly elastic structure. In the
presence of geometric effects, these distortions also
affect the distribution of bending moments in statically
determinate structures. These bending moments can be
related to the imposed rotations by influence functions
Z(␣) which can also be obtained from the solution of
the elastic problem (1).
The total bending moments at the end sections of the
elastic beams, due to both the external loads and the
inelastic distortions, can then be expressed in compact
form as:
M = ␤M1(␣) + Z(␣)⌰
where vector M1(␣) collects those functions which are
given for instance by Eq. (2) and Eq. (3) for the SSB
559
and CCB reference examples, and matrix Z(␣) collects
all influence functions (see Appendix A).
The problem formulation is obtained by coupling Eq.
(6) with relations (4) or (5).
3. Equilibrium paths
All sections of the virgin structure at the beginning of
the first loading process behave in an elastic manner,
with the bending moments at each member end given
by ␤M1 (␣). By increasing the load multiplier, some sec-
tions (one or more) will reach their elastic limits Mu at
some stage during this load application, and inelastic
rotations will usually start to develop. However, these
sections could also experience unloading from their elas-
tic limit during a continual increasing loading process,
(4) as will be shown in our examples.
In the presence of softening, the elastic limit could
represent the load carrying capacity of the structure. To
check when this is the case, the path of reasoning is
as follows.
For the sake of clarity, let us consider first the case
of constant (or almost constant, as is sometimes assumed
in simplified frame analysis) axial force.
The evolution of the inelastic rotations of the set of
potentially active hinges (i.e. those which have reached
their activation or re-activation limits) is governed by
Eq. (5) and Eq. (6) which can be combined to give, under
the above hypothesis:
(5) ⌽̇ = ␤˙ M1(␣) + [Z(␣) + H]⌰
˙ ⱕ 0, ⌰
˙ ⱖ 0, (7)
⌽̇T⌰˙ =0
Vector ⌰ ˙ , in relations (7), collects the inelastic rotation
rates of the set of potentially active hinges, and diagonal
matrix H collects the slopes h.
It is well known that the rate problem (7), which has
the format of a standard LCP once the value of ␣ is
fixed, may admit zero, one, or multiple solutions
depending on the characteristics (in our case on the
definiteness) of the matrix K(␣,h) = − [Z(␣) + H] and
of all its principal minors [4,6,8].
When a hardening hinge behaviour is assumed and
geometric effects are neglected, matrix K is positive
definite, Z and H being both negative definite according
to our assumed sign-convention. Uniqueness of the
structural response is then ensured.
Within a nonlinear geometric framework, matrix Z(␣)
is negative definite for ␣ ⱖ 0, but can change its defi-
niteness for some value of ␣ ⬍ 0 (members undergoing
(6) compression). In the presence of softening, matrix H is
positive definite according to our sign-convention.
Hence in tension, and within some range of compression,
Z and H provide opposite contributions to K, allowing
560 G. Bolzon, F. Tin-Loi / Engineering Structures 21 (1999) 557–567

the problem to admit multiple solutions (i.e. bifurcation
of the equilibrium branches, in the present context) or
no solution at all.
Matrix K characterizes also the stability of the struc-
ture under load control, and again Z and H produce
opposite stabilizing and destabilizing effects respect-
ively, in the presence of tensile forces and softening. In
particular, stability under load control means that prob-
lem (7) admits at least one solution for ␤˙ > 0, i.e. that
irreversible rotations will eventually occur only by
increasing the loading. A limit point (the load carrying
capacity of the structure, or the threshold to snap-
through instability) has been reached if a solution exists
only for ␤˙ ⱕ 0.
To determine the sign of ␤˙ , we can restrict our atten-
tion to the subset of activated hinges, for which ⌰ ˙ >0
and hence for which relation (7) holds as an equality, i.e.
␤˙ M1(␣) = − [Z(␣) + H]⌰
˙ = K(␣,h)⌰
˙ (8)
From (8) we can obtain
⌰˙ TK⌰
˙ corresponding deflection scaled by the beam length.
␤˙ = ˙ T (9)
⌰ M1
and easily see that the sign of ␤˙ depends on the sign-
definiteness of matrix K only since, for our adopted sign-
convention, all the components of vector M1 are posi-
tive.
Let us suppose now that ␣ and ␤ vary together,
according to some given law ␤ = ␤(␣). In this case, the
analytical relations which govern the evolution of the
problem read:
⌽̇ = (␤⬘M1 + ␤M⬘1 + Z⬘⌰)␣˙ + [Z + H]⌰
˙ ⱖ 0, (10)
⌰ ˙ =0
˙ ⱖ 0, ⌽̇T⌰
simple, yet instructive, reference cases represented in
Fig. 3 are identified. We also determine the relevant
stability domains in the space of the dimensionless para-
meters ␣ and h* = hl/EI, which represent respectively
the member axial force and the slope of the moment
versus inelastic rotation relation characterizing the
softening hinges. For the sake of generality, all the
results are given in dimensionless format, and loads and
displacements are also scaled by the corresponding
values at the elastic limit for zero axial force (or no geo-
metric effects).
4.1. Simply supported beam (SSB)
Two beam elements, AB and BA⬘ [see Fig. 3(a)] are
used to model the behaviour of this structure. According
to this model, inelastic rotations can occur at most in
one section, on the symmetry axis, where the linear dis-
tribution of bending moment attains its maximum value.
The case of constant axial force is considered first.
Let ␤0 and ␦0 respectively denote the dimensionless
elastic limit for zero axial force of this structure and the
Then ␤0 = 2Mul/EI and ␦0 = ␤0/24.
In the presence of axial force, the elastic limit ␤¯ is an
increasing function of the axial load parameter ␣:
␤¯ 3840 + 416␣ + 3␣2
=3 (11)
␤0 (240 + ␣)(48 + ␣)
as shown by the dash–dot curve in Fig. 4. The elastic
limit and the load carrying capacity of the structure are
of course reduced to zero at the Euler buckling load (␣E
⬵ − 9.94).
After hinge activation, the behaviour of the structure
depends on both the values of h* and ␣, as shown by Fig.

where a prime denotes differentiation with respect to the

load parameter ␣.
The same arguments as before can be applied to (10)
in the discussion about stability and bifurcation of the
equilibrium paths originating from the current state of
the structure although the vector (␤⬘M1 + ␤M⬘1 + Z⬘⌰)
and the matrix [Z + H], respectively multiplying ␣˙ and
⌰˙ , no longer remain constant but have to be updated
with ␣.

4. Reference examples

We use two simple beams and a frame as reference

examples to clarify the previous theoretical discussions
on the interaction between physical and geometric
effects. Fig. 4. Dimensionless load versus dimensionless displacement of the
In the first instance, the equilibrium path(s) of the two SSB for h* = 3 and different axial forces.
 G. Bolzon, F. Tin-Loi / Engineering Structures 21 (1999) 557–567
Fig. 5. Stability domains of the SSB.
5; Fig. 4 details this behaviour for h* = 3. In particular,
comparison with (9) shows that the response under load
control is stable (i.e. the load can be further increased)
when:
␣(␣ + 48)(␣ + 240)
h* ⱕ
12(3840 + 416␣ + 3␣2)
with the stable and unstable regions being delimited by
the thick line in Fig. 5.
For h* greater than the right hand side of (12), the
load carrying capacity of the structure coincides with its
elastic limit.
For ␣ = 0, the behaviour is stable for any h* ⬍ 0
(hardening hinge); this would be the result, even in the
presence of compression, when no geometric effects are
taken into account.
For h*→ − ⬁, the model simulates an intact elastic
structure and, as expected, Euler’s stability limit is reco-
vered.
When EI/lÀh, h*→0, the critical load of Shanley’s
column [20,21] is obtained in the limit. In this classical
example, the beam reduces to a rigid bar with a very
short (b¿l) elastoplastic link of ideal (sandwich) I cross
section (see Fig. 6). According to this model:
Fig. 6. Shanley column.
561
⑀1 − ⑀2 M 2Ac2 E1E2
␪= b= ,h= (13)
c h b E1 + E2
and the critical load is obtained when Mcr = Ncrl␪/4 =
h␪. Linearization of Eq. (12) as h*→0 and ␣→0 also
gives ␣cr = 4h*, i.e. Ncr = 4h/l.
For high values of h*, the response of the structure
can also be unstable under displacement control (snap-
back instability). This occurs when:
(␣ + 48)(␣ + 240)
h* ⱖ (14)
32(120 + ␣)
The limit for snap-back instability is represented in Fig.
5 by the dash–dot line.
For ␣ = 0, or when no geometric effects are taken into
account, the limiting slope for avoiding the severe snap-
back instability is h* = 3, as also detailed in Fig. 4.
The above limits, given by (12) and (14), apply also
to any inelastic hinge constitutive law, with h* corre-
sponding to the initial tangent modulus of the M–␪
relationship.
(12)
4.2. Clamped–clamped beam (CCB)
According to the assumed CCB beam model [see Fig.
3(b)], potential rigid-softening hinges are placed at mid-
span B and end sections A and A⬘.
The dimensionless elastic limit for this structure and
its corresponding deflection for zero axial force are
respectively ␤0 = 4Mul/EI and ␦0 = ␤0/96.
For different values of axial force, the elastic limit
␤¯ is an increasing function of the axial load parameter
␣ according to the relationship:
␤¯ 40 + ␣
=6 (15)
␤0 240 + ␣
Its value is of course reduced to zero at the Euler buck-
ling load (␣E = − 40).
For any value of ␣, the elastic limit is simultaneously
attained at the three potential hinge locations, but this
does not necessarily imply activation of the correspond-
ing irreversible rotations. The actual inelastic
mechanism(s) and the deformation history of the struc-
ture depend on both ␣ and h* as shown by Fig. 7. In
particular, when
␣ + 48
h* ⱖ (16)
12
the elastic limit corresponds to a bifurcation point; the
structure then admits multiple symmetric equilibrium
paths. For higher values of h*, in particular for
562 G. Bolzon, F. Tin-Loi / Engineering Structures 21 (1999) 557–567
Fig. 7. Inelastic deformation patterns of the CCB depending on
softening (h*) and axial force (␣).
(␣ + 48)(␣ + 240)
h* ⱖ (17)
16(120 + ␣)
unsymmetric paths may be followed as well as the sym-
metric ones. The set of these equilibrium paths corre-
sponds to the solutions of LCP (8), whose characteristics
depend solely on matrix H (i.e. on h*) since we have
assumed ␣ (and hence Z) to be constant.
Most of these mechanisms show instability under load
control (i.e. no solution exists to the rate Eq. (8) for
␤˙ > 0), independently of the value of the axial force.
This kind of instability can be ruled out only for those
(␣, h*) pairs which satisfy the relationship:
40 + ␣ ␣ + 48 − 12h
␣− 24h* + (18)
240 + ␣ ␣ + 48 − 24h*
冉␣−
40 + ␣
240 + ␣ 冊
48h* ⱖ 0
This is a subset of the pairs which allow for a type ‘a’
mechanism (Fig. 7); this limit of stability is represented
by a thick line in Fig. 8.
The complete load–deflection curves for ␣ = 0 (or
when no geometrical effects are taken into account) and
for some meaningful values of h* are drawn in Fig. 9.
When ␣ = 0 the behaviour is unstable under load control
for any h* > 0, and bifurcation of the equilibrium path
into symmetric, and both symmetric and unsymmetric
branches occurs when 4 ⱕ h* ⬍ 6 and h* ⱖ 6 respect-
ively. It is interesting to note that, even for this simple
structure, up to seven different equilibrium branches can
emanate from the bifurcation point.
Again, the above stability and bifurcation conditions,
Fig. 8. Stability domains of the CCB.
relations (18) and (16)–(17) respectively, apply to any
nonlinear M–␪ law where h* is the initial tangent modu-
lus.
4.3. CCB with proportional axial and bending loads
Let us consider now the situation of Fig. 10, namely
a clamped–clamped beam subjected to axial and trans-
verse loads of constant ratio. The elastic solution can
still be represented by Eq. (3) if we set ␤ = r兩␣兩. The
elastic limit is attained when:
240 + ␣
␮(␣) = 兩␣兩 = ␳ (19)
40 + ␣
where ␳ = 24Mul/rEI = 6␤0/r, with ␤0 = 4Mul/EI being
the same reference parameter introduced in the pre-
vious section.
The meaningful solutions ␣¯ of the 2nd-order Eq. (19)
are graphically represented in Fig. 11. Note that when
␳→⬁, the axial load dominates (r→0) and the elastic
limit coincides with Euler’s buckling load.
Stability and bifurcation of the equilibrium paths
emanating from the elastic limit depend on the character-
istics of the matrix governing the rate problem (10). In
the present case, ␤M1(␣) = ␮(␣)I in dimensionless for-
mat, where I represents the 3 × 3 identity matrix. Then,
since ⌰ = 0 at the beginning of the inelastic process,
relations (10) read:
⌽̇ = r␮⬘(␣¯ )␣˙ I − K(␣¯ ,h*)⌰
˙ ⱖ 0, ⌰ ˙ =0
˙ ⱖ 0, ⌽̇T⌰
(20)
where ␮⬘(␣¯ ) obviously represents the derivative, with
respect to ␣, of the function introduced in (19), evaluated
at the elastic limit ␣ = ␣¯ .
Since the sign of function ␮⬘(␣¯ ) does not change
 G. Bolzon, F. Tin-Loi / Engineering Structures 21 (1999) 557–567 563

Fig. 9. Dimensionless load versus dimensionless displacement of the CCB for ␣ = 0 and different softening hinge characteristics. Letters in
parentheses indicate actual deformation patterns, cf. Fig. 7. Continuous lines refer to symmetric solutions; dashed lines to the unsymmetric ones;
dash–dot lines to the envelope of the indicated transition configurations, depending on h*. The symmetric solution sequence for h* ⱖ 6 is the
same as for 4 ⱕ h* ⱕ 6.

Fig. 10. CCB under proportional loading.

either in tension or in compression (␮⬘(␣) > 0,

∀␣ > 0; ␮⬘(␣) ⬍ 0, ∀␣ ⬍ 0), stability depends on the
characteristics of matrix K only, as it did in the previous
case of constant axial load. The conditions for stability
are derived again from Eq. (18), after replacing the gen-
eric ␣ with its value ␣¯ at the elastic limit, which is a
function of ␳. The stability limit in tension and com-
pression, as a function of ␳ and h*, is represented in Fig.
12 by a thick line. The inelastic deformation patterns the
structure follows soon after the elastic limit has been Fig. 11. Elastic limit of the CCB under tension and compression.
reached are also shown in the same drawing; dash–dot
564 G. Bolzon, F. Tin-Loi / Engineering Structures 21 (1999) 557–567
Fig. 12. Stability domains of the CCB under proportional loading.
lines represent the threshold values of ␳ and h* for each
indicated pattern. These results are also obtained, as for
the stability limit, by replacing ␣ with ␣¯ in Eq. (16) and
Eq. (17).
Fig. 13 shows the overall load–displacement behav-
iour of our structure under tensile load for ␳ = 100, i.e.
for ␣¯ ⬵ 24.34. The corresponding limit of stability is
h* ⬵ 2.39 (see Fig. 12), and inelastic deformations start
to develop in all possible locations (i.e. at the mid-span
section B and at the end sections A and A⬘, see Fig. 10)
up to h* ⬵ 3.01.
Within the stability range, the inelastic deformation
rate decreases with the continuously increasing stabiliz-
ing axial force and the inelastic rotations themselves tend
to asymptotic values which are lower than ␪u (see Fig.
14).
When the post-elastic behaviour is unstable, a dis-
placement controlled process will show the inelastic
rotation of the mid-span softening hinge growing fast
Fig. 13. Load multiplier versus dimensionless displacement of the
CCB under proportional loading in tension, for ␳ = 100.
Fig. 14. Load multiplier versus inelastic rotations of the CCB under
proportional loading in tension, for ␳ = 100. Continuous lines refer to
beam end rotations (␪−A − A⬘); dashed lines to mid-span rotation (␪+B).
initially, up to the critical value ␪u, before a stiffening
overall behaviour is observed again. The elastic limit of
this structure hence represents the threshold of a possible
snap-through behaviour with dynamic effects playing a
significant role. Such effects and their interaction with
dissipative hinges deserve proper investigation which,
however, is beyond the scope of the present work.
Finally, when h* is close enough to the threshold
value which corresponds to the next deformation pattern,
which involves inelastic rotations developing at the mid-
span section B only (see Fig. 12), it will happen that,
along a post-elastic displacement-controlled process, the
inelastic rotations at sections A and A⬘ will stop (and the
corresponding bending moments will decrease) at some
stage. The structure will then follow the next defor-
mation pattern but with fixed inelastic distortions of the
beam ends, up to the critical value ␪u of the inelastic
rotation of the softening hinge at B. The load can then
increase again, first to bring the end sections A and A⬘
back to their activation limits and then further on along
an overall stiffening inelastic deformation process.
4.4. Portal frame (PF)
The simple PF of Fig. 15, discretized by beam
elements with softening hinges, has been the subject of
recent investigations [11,22] which showed that a bifur-
cation of the structural response occurs if h* ⱖ 6␬/(3 +
2␬), where ␬ = (E1I1/l1)/(E2I2/l2) and h* = hl2/E2I2, when
geometrical effects are neglected. In this case, in fact,
the same bending moment results in sections B and B⬘
at the elastic limit, ␤ = ␤0 = Mul2/E2I2, and two softening
hinges can simultaneously develop (anti-symmetric
solution) or one section can undergo inelastic rotation
while the other unloads elastically (unsymmetric
solution).
The possibility of multiple equilibrium paths, how-
 G. Bolzon, F. Tin-Loi / Engineering Structures 21 (1999) 557–567 565

Fig. 15. Portal frame (PF).

ever, disappears for this structure (different from the Fig. 16. Elastic limit of the PF.
behaviours presented in the previous sections) when the
analysis is performed within a geometrically nonlinear
framework. This is due to the opposite effect on stiffness increases, then decreases, and changes its sign when ␣
of the axial forces in the columns AB and A⬘B⬘, one of = 12. Since the sign of function ␮⬘B(␣) is always positive,
which is tensile while the other is compressive although, stability of the equilibrium path emanating from the elas-
for equilibrium, their magnitudes are the same. Hence, tic limit depends only on the sign of the function
unequal bending moments result at sections B and B⬘, z(␣¯ ) − h*. The stability domain is represented in Fig. 17
and inelastic rotations localize in one section only. As an in the space of the parameters ␳ and h*.
example, assume beam elongations are negligible. The Finally, the frame response for ␳ = 2 (␣¯ ⬵ 1.786, see
magnitude of the axial forces in both columns is equal Fig. 16), h* = 1 and h* = 3 is represented in Fig. 18,
to ␣E2I2/l22, where ␣ = ␤/r and r = l1/2l2, and if ␬→⬁ where the load multiplier ␣ = ␤/r is plotted versus the
the following bending moments result: dimensionless displacement ␦/r = u/rl2 = 2u/l1. Note that
the structure is quite flexible and hence higher-order
1 M+Bl2
r E2I2
= ␮B(␣) = ␣ 1 + 冉
␣ 1440 − ␣2
6 3600 − 7␣2 冊 (21)
theory would be required to obtain accurate results.
However, the essential role of geometry changes on stab-
ility and bifurcation of the equilibrium paths of the
1 M−B⬘l2
r E2I2
= ␮B⬘(␣) = ␣ 1 +冉␣ 1440 − ␣2
6 3600 − 7␣2 冊 (22)
present structure can be already captured within the
present approach. In particular, observe that the limit of
stability as ␣→0 (when 2nd-order theory is appropriate)
is h* = 1.5 (h* ⬵ 1.475 when ␳ = 2), while the anti-
It can be clearly seen that M+B is greater than M−B⬘ for
symmetric solution one would find disregarding geo-
any value of 0 ⬍ ␣ ⬍ ␣E ⬵ 22.678. The elastic limit is
metric effects is unstable for any h* > 0.
then reached first at section B, where inelastic rotation
localizes. The axial load parameter at the elastic limit
␣¯ , solution of the equation ␮B(␣) = ␳ = ␤0/r, is graphi-
cally represented as a function of ␳ in Fig. 16.
The stability of the only equilibrium path emanating
from the elastic limit depends on the characteristics of
the equation which governs the present rate problem,
i.e.:

␸˙ B = r␮B⬘(␣¯ )␣˙ − [z(␣¯ ) − h*]␪˙ B ⱖ 0, ␪˙ ⱖ 0, ␸˙ B␪˙ B = 0

(23)

where the expression for z(␣) is given in the Appendix

A. Relation (23) follows directly from (10) after appro-
priate substitutions, as already shown in deriving (20).
It can be easily verified that ␮B(␣) is a monotonically
increasing function of ␣, while ␮B⬘(␣) (i.e. the bending
moment at the end of the compressed column A⬘B⬘) first Fig. 17. Stability domain of the PF.
566 G. Bolzon, F. Tin-Loi / Engineering Structures 21 (1999) 557–567

rium path under load, displacement or a combined load-

displacement control.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Professor Maier for contin-

ual encouragement and friendly advice. Dr Bolzon’s
appointment as Visiting Fellow in the School of Civil
and Environmental Engineering at the University of New
South Wales, and support from the Australian Research
Council are also gratefully acknowledged.

Fig. 18. Load multiplier versus dimensionless displacement of the PF

for ␳ = 2 and different softening hinge characteristics. Appendix A

5. Conclusions
Elastic stiffness matrix
The focus and novelty of this paper is on the interac-
tion between material (hardening or softening) and 2nd-
order geometric effects in framed structures, illustrated
by simple models. Our interest is centred primarily on  Al2 

 
the complex manifestations of these two influences at I
the global (structural) level.
0 12 Symmetric
We present the governing relations for the generic sys-
tem in a compact, so called linear complementarity prob- EI 0 6l 4l2
kE  

 
lem (LCP), format. This approach has two main advan- l3
Al2 Al2
tages. First, it enables a computation-oriented framework − 0 0
I I
to be used. Second, and more importantly in our view,
it provides a theoretical tool for the qualification of the 0 − 12 − 6l 0 12
solution response domain. In particular, the governing  0 6l 2l 2
0 − 6l 4l2 
matrix of the LCP, as is well known in mathematical
programming literature, plays a central role (through (A1)
considerations of its sign-definiteness) in obtaining
mechanically meaningful results on the stability of the
structure. Geometric stiffness matrix
Application to two simple beams and to a portal frame
is used to illustrate key features (e.g. bifurcation, limit
points, snap-back and snap-through instabilities) of the
interacting effects of material and geometrical influ- 0 

 
ences. Complete responses are given to corroborate the 6
theoretically obtained predictions for a wide range of 0 Symmetric
5
parameters. The behaviours of classical Euler and Shan-
ley struts can be recovered for the appropriate situations. 1 2 2
0 l l
Extension to large-scale realistic structures appears N 10 15
kG =  

 
possible and conceptually straightforward. However, it l 0 0 0 0
is not easy for problems of large size to capture the mul-
tiplicity of solutions (or even to show that no solution 6 1 6
0 − − l 0
exists) because of the intrinsic combinatorial nature of 5 10 5
the problem. Computational work in this direction would 1 1 2 1 2 2
be a worthwhile research area. A further, possibly more 0 l − l 0 − l l
 10 30 10 15 
important issue to be addressed in the presence of bifur-
cations, is the determination of the most likely equilib- (A2)
 G. Bolzon, F. Tin-Loi / Engineering Structures 21 (1999) 557–567 567

Influence functions Italian); English translation in: Studi e Ricerche Politecnico di

Milano 1986;8:85–117.
[5] Maier G. A matrix structural theory of piecewise linear elastopl-
SSB asticity with interacting yield planes. Meccanica 1970;5:54–66.
[6] Maier G. On stuctural instability due to strain softening. In: Lei-

M±B = Z(␣)␪±B; Z(␣) = −

EI
12l 冋
␣
(48 + ␣)(240 + ␣)
3840 + 416␣ + 3␣2 册 [7]
pholz H, editor. Instability of continuous systems. Berlin:
Springer Verlag, 1971:411–17.
Maier G. Mathematical programming applications to structural
mechanics: some introductory thoughts. Engineering Structures
(A3) 1984;6:2–6.
[8] Maier G. Incremental plastic analysis in the presence of large
CCB displacements and physical instabilizing effects. International
Journal of Solids and Structures 1971;7:345–72.
[9] Maier G, Drucker DC. Effects of geometry changes on essential

冦 冧 冦冧 冤 冥
MA⫿ ␪A⫿ abc features of inelastic behaviour. ASCE Journal Engineering Mech-
EI anics Division 1973;99:819–34.
⫿
MA⬘ = Z(␣) ␪A⬘
⫿
; Z(␣) = − bac (A4) [10] Maier G, Perego U. Effects of softening in elastic–plastic struc-
24l
M ±
B ␪±
B ccd tural dynamics. International Journal of Numerical Methods in
Engineering 1992;34:319–47.
[11] Bazant ZP, Jirásek M. Softening-induced dynamic localization
921600 + 61440␣ + 880␣2 + 3␣3 instability: seismic damage in frames. ASCE Journal of Engineer-
a= ;
2(40 + ␣)(120 + ␣) ing Mechanics 1996;122:1149–58.
[12] De Donato O, Maier G. Mathematical programming methods for
57600 + 960␣ + 13␣2 3840 − 64␣ + ␣2 the inelastic analysis of reinforced concrete frames allowing for
b=−4 c=− ; limited rotation capacity. International Journal of Numerical
(40 + ␣)(120 + ␣) 4(40 + ␣) Methods in Engineering 1972;4:307–29.
3840 + 416␣ + ␣2 [13] Maier G, Zavelani A, Dotreppe JC. Equilibrium branching due
d= to flexural softening. ASCE Journal Engineering Mechanics
4(40 + ␣) Division 1973;99:897–901.
[14] Corradi L. On a stability condition for elastic plastic structures.
PF Meccanica 1977;12:24–37.
[15] Corradi L, De Donato O, Maier G. Inelastic analysis of reinforced

再 冎 再 冎 冋 册
concrete frames. ASCE Journal of Structural Division
M ±
B ␪ ±
B E2I2 z − z 1974;100:1925–42.
= Z(␣) ; Z(␣) = − (A5)
M ⫿
B⬘ ␪ ⫿
B⬘
96l2 − z z [16] Cohn MZ, Maier G, editors. Engineering plasticity by mathemat-
ical programming, Proceedings of NATO ASI, Waterloo. New
(144 − ␣2)(3600 − ␣2) York: Pergamon Press, 1979.
z = z(␣) = [17] Lloyd Smith D, editor. Mathematical programming methods in
(3600 − 7␣2) structural plasticity, CISM courses and lectures No. 299. New
York: Springer-Verlag, 1990.
[18] Maier G, Munro J. Mathematical programming applications to
engineering plastic analysis. Applied Mechanics Reviews
1982;35:1631–43.
References [19] Maier G, Lloyd Smith D. Update to: mathematical programming
applications in engineering plastic analysis. In: Steele CR,
[1] Bazant ZP, Cedolin L. Stability of structures. New York: Oxford Springer GS, editors. Applied Mechanics Update. ASME:377–83.
University Press, 1991. [20] Shanley FR. Inelastic column theory. Journal of Aeronautical
[2] Cottle RW, Pang JS, Stone RE. The linear complementarity prob- Science 1947;14:261–8.
lem. New York: Academic Press, 1992. [21] Von Kármán T. Discussion on: inelastic column theory. Journal
[3] Maier G. Behaviour of elastic–plastic trusses with unstable bars. of Aeronautical Science 1947;14:267–8.
ASCE Journal Engineering Mechanics Division 1966;92:67–91. [22] Jirásek M. Analytical and numerical solutions for frames with
[4] Maier G. On softening flexural behaviour in elastic plastic beams. softening hinges. ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics
Rend. Istituto Lombardo Scienze e Lettere 1968;102:648–77 (in 1997;123:8–14.