Linear and Nonlinear Buckling in FEA

Posted by: Tony Abbey in Simulate August 3, 2015

Editors Note: Tony Abbey teaches live NAFEMS FEA classes in the U.S., Europe and Asia.
He also teaches NAFEMS e-learning classes globally. Contact him at [email protected]
for details.
Buckling occurs as an instability when a structure can no longer support the existing
compressive load levels. Many structural components are sufficiently stiff that they will never
suffer any form of instability. In Fig. 1 these structures are classically described as short. In
practice it is the relationship between radius of gyration and length that is the deciding factor
and hence long span girders of heavy section could easily be clear of any instability mode. This
type of structure would only fail in compression by local yielding if load levels can reach that
extreme.

Fig. 1: Classical identification of structural types and buckling response.

At the other extreme, structures that are slender could fail at load levels well below what is
required to cause compressive yielding. The failing mode tends to be toward the classic Euler
buckling mode. For long thin rods and struts the Euler buckling calculation can be quite
accurate. The buckling here is of a bifurcation type there is a rapid transition from axial
loading response to a lateral response, which is usually catastrophic.
A very large number of structures fall into the intermediate category where the Euler buckling
calculation is not very accurate and can tend to seriously overestimate the critical buckling load.
The transition to instability is more gradual in this category. The structure is able to carry
increasing loads, with perhaps changes in deformed shape and plasticity, until a maximum (or
limit) load is reached. At this point instability occurs. This may be catastrophic, or the structure
may transition to a new mode shape that can carry further load. Examples include the initial
buckling of a drink can, initial buckling of a thin wing spar shear web, or the light frame of a
screen door.
This article looks at various buckling calculation methods in finite element analysis (FEA).
1

Linear Buckling
The most basic form of buckling analysis in FEA is linear buckling. This is directly related to the
classic Euler type of calculation. A small displacement of a perturbed shape is assumed in each
element that induces a stress dependent stiffening effect. This adds to the linear static stiffness
in the element. Imagine a guitar string tightened the strings total stiffness goes up and
results in a higher pitch. If the string is slackened the total stiffness goes down, and the pitch
corresponds. The stress dependent stiffness is now subtracting from the linear static stiffness
term. This latter effect causes buckling.
In an assembly of elements in an FEA model there will be a subtle interaction between the
original linear stiffness matrix and the stress dependent stiffness matrix. This is analogous to the
linear stiffness matrix and the mass matrix in a normal modes analysis. The same solution
method is used an eigenvalue extraction. For a linear buckling analysis, this will find what
scaling factors applied to the nominal static load will scale the stress stiffening terms to subtract
sufficiently from the linear static terms to give unstable solutions.

Fig. 2: Typical FEA buckling analysis set up, axially loaded cylinder.
Fig. 2 shows a typical analysis setup. An axial load of a nominal 1KN is applied to the top of a
thin-walled cylinder. The constraint systems are shown. A linear buckling analysis is carried out.
The stress stiffening matrix and the linear static stiffness matrix are calculated in the first linear
static step. In the second step the unstable roots are found using the two matrices in an
eigenvalue solution. The user doesnt have to do anything special here because all buckling
solvers are hard-wired to do the two steps.
The result of the analysis is a table of eigenvalues as shown in Fig. 3 and a set of mode
shapes, or eigenvectors. The first mode shape is shown in Fig. 4.

Fig. 3: Table of eigenvalues.

The critical load that will cause the first buckling mode is calculated from the nominal load (1KN)
multiplied by the eigenvalue (2.575E3 from Fig. 3). So the critical load is 2.575E3 KN. We can
see the mode shape in Fig. 4. An important question is: Can we use the deformation values
shown in the figure? The answer is a definite no. Just like a normal modes analysis, all we can
get is the shape of the buckled mode. There is no meaning to the values shown in Fig. 4. The
length of the cylinder is only 1.5 m, so a displacement of 0.8581 m as shown would be well
beyond any sensible result. We are assuming small displacement perturbations or shapes.
We have no way of allocating displacement values.

Fig. 4: First eigenvalue or mode shape.

The second important question is: Can we use the stresses calculated from the mode shape
and often shown in a linear buckling analysis? The answer again is a very definite no for two
reasons. The displacements are arbitrary and therefore the strains and stresses are as well.
The second reason is that the mode shape is only a perturbation normal to the loading axis, so
in fact does not couple with the axial load present just before the buckle. This may seem a bit
surprising so I have shown the effect in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6. A connecting rod is analyzed for linear
buckling and also for nonlinear buckling. We will go into nonlinear buckling shortly, but basically
it allows a continuous load build up and then transition to buckling. Fig. 5 shows a pure bending
distribution across the conrod in the linear buckling solution. Clearly there is no contribution
from the axial loading. The stress result is meaningless. By contrast, Fig. 6 shows a transition of
stress in a nonlinear analysis from purely axial just below buckling, to axial plus bending at
buckling. The stresses and displacements in the nonlinear case are meaningful.

Fig. 5: Linear Buckling mode shape and apparent stresses.

Coming back to our cylinder: What do we get from the linear buckling analysis? An estimate of
the critical buckling load and the likely mode shape that will result at buckling. We do not know
what happens next. Will the cylinder collapse or stiffen? What will the final stresses and
displacements be? It is rather like a freeze frame photo just at the initiation of buckling we
are left in suspense.

Fig. 6: Nonlinear buckling showing stress transition just below and at buckling.
The information we get is very useful in design, but it is more of an indicator than a hard
number. We also have to be aware that if we use linear buckling on a structure that is more like
the intermediate category, then we are likely to get a non-conservative over estimate of the
buckling load. We may also find the mode shape transitions very quickly into something very
different.
The boundary condition assumptions for buckling are also critical. However, if the structure can
be categorized as slender and we can show a good margin over the critical linear buckling
load, then in many cases that is sufficient for design.
Fig. 7 shows the higher order modes shapes associated with eigenvalues 1 to 10. Very often
the default in an FEA solver is to just have the first eigenvalue and mode shape. In fact, the
study of the higher modes is useful.

Fig. 7: Cylinder buckling mode shapes 1 to 10.

We can see that mode 1 and 2 are identical and represent a repeated mode any arbitrary
axial orientation of the fundamental shape is possible. Modes 3 and 4, 5 and 6, and 7 and 8 are
also repeated roots. We can also see a distinction between dimpled shapes that have a low
number of axial lobes and Chinese lantern modes, which have a high number. The range of
eigenvalues is also low and actually defines critical loads of 2.57E3 to 2.85E3 KN. The
implication is that any small variation in boundary condition, component detail or load
eccentricity could cause any of the modes to occur. The modes are completely independent in
the linear analysis; so mode 1 or 2 or 3, etc. could occur. One way to imagine this is if mode 1
and 2 pair were not possible in practice, by snubbing against adjacent components, etc., then
mode 3 and 4 pair could occur.
It is important to assess the families of higher mode shapes and eigenvalues to see if any
practical response implications occur. However often there may be only one dominant first
mode, with the next set of modes completely infeasible and at very high critical loads. These
can be ignored.

Nonlinear Buckling Analysis

If for any reason the results of a linear buckling solution suggest the calculation is not
representing the real response, then a nonlinear buckling analysis is called for. This uses a
nonlinear geometric analysis to progressively evaluate the transition from stable to unstable and
addresses many of the limitations we have seen in linear buckling analysis.
The DE article Moving Into the Nonlinear World with FEA offers more insight on nonlinear
buckling analysis.
Fig. 8 shows the first attempt at a nonlinear buckling analysis. It is very disappointing as all we
see is an axial shortening with no sign of buckling.

Fig. 8: Initial attempt at a nonlinear buckling analysis.

This uncovers another difference between linear and nonlinear buckling. In linear buckling the
small perturbations the structure may see are hard wired into the solution. For nonlinear
analysis, the perturbations have to develop geometrically as part of the solution and are not predefined in any way. The theoretical solution in Fig. 8 totally ignores fundamental facts of nature.
No component can be perfectly straight, have perfect constraint application or perfect load
application. No material content will be absolutely homogeneous. All these factors give rise in
practice to small eccentricities and variations that attract offset axial loading. This in turn starts
to produce offset moments that cause further eccentricity. For a very stable real structure no
buckling will occur, but for an intermediate category real structure the eccentricities will grow
until instability occurs. In a real slender category structure it will happen more quickly, but
probably not as abruptly as the linear Euler solution predicts.
8

How do we overcome this limitation? Some components and loading will have such a large
natural eccentricity that the solution will find instability. However for our stubborn cylinder we
have to introduce an eccentricity. There are several ways of doing this. All methods can benefit
from our understanding of the linear buckling mode. The nonlinear mode may transition through
this, but it is a good starting point. We can either apply a dummy loading to induce the mode
shape, or actually distort the structure very slightly in favor of the mode shape. The first method
is usually easiest, as any sympathetic load will usually work. Pressures are better than point
loads as they avoid local singularities. If possible a sympathetic pressure can be applied in the
same distribution as the normal displaced mode shape from the linear analysis. It can be
captured as a field function and scaled to suit. It is difficult to assess what level of load to apply,
but it should be a lot smaller than the main axial loading.
In the case of the cylinder, I applied a pressure over one quarter vertical strip to give a net
sideways thrust. This dummy static load was set to give a deflection of 3.5e-4 m a very small
wall deflection. The best way to do this is to ramp up the dummy load as the main loading is
applied, and then to ramp it down to zero until 100% main load is achieved. Alternatively, a prestress load case may be possible, which will not get scaled up as the main loading is increased.
The setup will depend on your FEA program. If all else fails you may have to apply a small
dummy load, which will increase with the main load and be there as a small artifact at the end.
The other alternative is to capture the linear buckling mode shape and apply this back to the
structural mesh as an initial distortion. Again this can use a field function from the mode which is
scaled and used as an offset, or the same thing can be done via an Excel export. Your FEA
solver may well have automated ways of handling this. A word of caution here though: if you
make the imperfections too big you will effectively corrugate the structure and stiffen it up. Trial
and error is required.
Fig. 9 shows the results of the nonlinear buckling analysis. The cylinder configuration and the
level of eccentricity assumed result in a very stable structure that resists buckling until a mode
occurs, similar in nature to the linear mode. There is then a transition to a highly localized mode.
The initial buckling occurs at around 63% of the linear estimate for critical load. The maximum
load level achievable before the structure sees a local collapse is about 82% of the linear critical
load.

Figure 9. Progressive stages in nonlinear cylinder buckling

9

The nonlinear method used to track the geometric instability was the Arc Length method. This is
always recommended as it enables the softening response of the structure to be tracked. When
a structure buckles it has less resistance to load. A real-world load controlled test would result in
a runaway collapse. Alternatively, a real-world displacement controlled test would allow us to
monitor the reducing load resistance. The Arc Length method permits this, even though we are
applying load.
Important considerations are: What is the effective critical buckling load level and what is the
post-buckling behavior? I like to use key point plots to investigate this. Fig. 10 shows a shell
element identified as being a good indicator of the changing stress state as instability occurs.
Membrane hoop stress is zero and axial stress is steadily increasing up to the start of instability
at point A. This is a classic linear response. From A to B the hoop stress increases as the
structure distorts. From B to C a second mode occurs with a further instability local to this
element, the axial stress decreases as the structure softens. The overall response in Fig. 9
shows the transition to local dimpling. In fact this region would rapidly exceed yield in practice,
but a linear material model has been used.

Fig. 10: Key point plot; stress response at key element

Fig. 11 shows the radial displacement response of two key nodes, one at an outward moving
lobe, and one at an inward moving lobe. Corresponding points A, B and C correlate well with
Fig. 10 and confirm the onset of instability.

10

Fig. 11: Key point plot; radial displacement response at key nodes.
In practice, the model should now be investigated for sensitivity to initial induced eccentricity
and preferably comparing several forms of induced eccentricity. Effects of constraint and loading
implications can be compared to the real-world conditions by experimenting with DOF (degrees
of freedom) and using boundary spring stiffnesses. The load steps can be adjusted to give finer
results closer to initial instability. Plastic behavior could also be investigated in the transition to
the second instability.
Conclusion
Buckling is a critical failure condition for many classes of structure. Accurate estimates of critical
load and response modes are difficult unless a structure falls well into the slender category.
Linear solutions may suit such structures if loads and boundary conditions are carefully
assessed. However for the majority of instability prone structures a full nonlinear analysis is
required. This type of analysis is very sensitive to assumptions on eccentricity and boundary
conditions. A methodology is required that will deal with structural softening. The key point
method is recommended to help identify the onset of instability and subsequent transitional
modes.

11