Concept

Eigenvalue — where it appears

One of the discrete values at which a set of equilibrium equations goes singular, marking a natural frequency, a buckling load or a mechanism. Its eigenvector is determined only up to a multiplier, which is why a buckling analysis gives a load and never a force in any member.

Named by 30 essays across 4 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

A brace is a stiffness requirement, not a strength one. Critical load against brace stiffness for a pinned column braced at mid-height. The curve climbs from the unbraced Euler load of 9.87EI/L² and flattens at 39.48EI/L², which is the Euler load of the braced segment — past that the column buckles in a shape the brace does not obstruct, and further stiffness buys nothing. The knee is at about 159EI/L³. A stiffness of 60EI/L³ is marked, reaching 21.75EI/L².

The brace that need not be strong

A brace holding a column at mid-height carries almost no force. What it has to be is stiff — and the stiffness required is exact, large, and reached at a knee past which more buys nothing at all.

stability · Effective length
Three modes of a five-storey frame. The first three mode shapes of a five-storey shear frame, from the eigenvalue problem rather than sketched. Mode 1 has a period of 0.6 s, no node and carries 88.0% of the mass; Mode 2 has a period of 0.21 s, one node and carries 8.7% of the mass; Mode 3 has a period of 0.13 s, two nodes and carries 2.4% of the mass. The nth mode crosses the axis n−1 times, which is a theorem rather than a drawing convention.

A structure has more than one period

One mass on one spring has one period. A building with eight floors has eight, each with a shape of its own, and the second one bends the building into a curve nobody drew. They are not harmonics, they do not interfere, and each behaves as though the others were not there.

dynamics · Mode shapes
One restraint, and several times the load. The same portal — the same columns, the same beam, the same steel — buckling with its head held against sway and with its head free to sway. The braced frame's critical load is 16.46 EI/L² and the swaying one's is 5.69 EI/L², a factor of 2.89, and the effective length factor that comes out of each eigenvalue is 0.774 against 1.317. Both are eigenvalues of the assembled frame at a beam-to-column stiffness ratio of G = 1.00; the buckled shapes are the mode vectors themselves, drawn at 18 per cent of the storey height so that the movement can be seen.

Held, and not held

One horizontal restraint at the head of a storey, carrying no vertical load whatever, moves the critical load of the columns beneath it by a factor of 2.89. Effective length is a property of the frame, not of the member.

stability · Sway stability
Four guesses at one buckling mode. A pin-ended column, with four assumed shapes and the load each of them gives. The reference is a ten-term Ritz expansion solved as an eigenvalue problem, at 9.8696 EI/L² — which is π², as it must be. a half sine gives 9.870, its own sag shape gives 9.882, a mid-span sag gives 10.000, a parabola gives 12.000. Every one of them is high and none of them is low, because an assumed shape is a constraint on the column and a constraint can only stiffen it.

Guessing the shape, and getting the load anyway

A column's buckling load can be had from a shape that is wrong everywhere, because the energy criterion is stationary at the true mode. The error in the load is the square of the error in the shape, and it is always high.

stability · Stability energy
The arch does not squash; it leans. The first two buckling modes of the same rib, drawn against its undeformed shape at an exaggeration of a few hundred. The first, at w_cr L³/EI = 49.7, is antisymmetric: one half rises while the other falls and the crown moves sideways. The second, at 117.1, is symmetric — the whole rib settling. The two differ by a factor of 2.36, which is why an arch is braced against sideways movement of its crown rather than against the load it is carrying, and why a tied arch with a single hanger at midspan is doing nothing for the mode that governs it.

The arch that leans instead of squashing

A masonry arch is asked whether a line of thrust fits inside it. A steel rib is asked a different question entirely: it is a column carrying an axial force along its whole length, and the mode it buckles in puts one half up and the other half down while the crown moves sideways.

stability · Arch buckling
A column that has nothing on it but itself. A 30 m column carrying no load except its own weight, with its buckled shape and the axial force that produced it. The force is zero at the top and largest at the base, which is why the answer is not Euler's: the eigenvalue is a load intensity and comes out as q_cr L³/EI = 7.835, a number with no π in it, computed here as the smallest eigenvalue of the same stiffness and geometric-stiffness matrices that give a tip-loaded column its Euler load. It is equivalent to a tip load of 3.18 times as much total weight — a column carries its own weight better than it carries somebody else's, because most of the weight is near the base where the buckle is not. The height limit that follows is a cube root, so a section of radius of gyration 80 mm falls over on its own at 52 m and one of twice that reaches only 82.

Too tall for nothing but itself

Every critical load on this site so far has been applied at the top of a column. A mast carries a load that is zero at the top and largest at the base, the governing equation stops being harmonic, and the answer comes out as a number with no π in it — along with a maximum height that is almost the same for steel, aluminium and wood.

stability · Self-weight buckling
The restraint chooses the buckling length, and it is not the member's. A compression flange 12 m long held sideways not at points but everywhere, by a restraint of 0.35 N/mm per mm of length. Unrestrained it would buckle at 173 kN in a single half-wave, drawn faintly. Restrained it buckles at 1968 kN — 11.4 times as much — in two half-waves, because the sum n²π²EI/L² + kL²/n²π² has its minimum there and every other n is worse. The effective length that answer implies is 3555 mm, which is 0.30 of the member and is a property of the restraint rather than of the span.

Held everywhere, and it forgets its length

A brace at a point divides a member's buckling length. A restraint spread along the whole member does something else — the member chooses its own number of half-waves, and past a few of them the critical load stops depending on the length at all.

stability · Continuous restraint
Not where the two loads meet. How much a column loses below the weaker of its two single-mode capacities, against the ratio of its local critical load to its global one. The received claim is that the worst place is where the two coincide; the arithmetic says otherwise. The erosion is largest at a ratio of 0.47 — 23% — sits within a per cent of that for every ratio below about a half, and at exact coincidence is only 2%. What the curve does say is the useful half of the folk claim: once the plates are stocky enough that the local critical load is twice the global one, the interaction is nothing at all, and the section is worth thickening only up to there.

Two ways of buckling at once

A thin-walled column can bow as a whole or ripple in its plates, and each has its own critical load. The received advice is that the worst arrangement is the one where the two are equal. The arithmetic says the opposite — at coincidence the interaction costs two per cent, and the expensive region is where the plates go first.

stability · Mode interaction
Three ways to apply the same force, and one depth to forget the difference. Three end loads on a member 400 mm deep, all with the same resultant and the same moment: a point load, the same force spread over a fifth of the depth, and the same force split in two. What is plotted is the difference between each of them and the beam-theory answer — the self-equilibrating remainder — as a fraction of the mean stress. The point load starts at 20 times it and is under a tenth of it by 0.77 depths; all three are under one per cent by about 1.18. That distance is the licence every figure in this collection is drawn under, and the exact strip eigenvalue agrees with it: 2.106 + 1.125i, whose real part puts one per cent at 1.09 depths and whose imaginary part means the remainder changes sign on the way out, which no statement of the principle mentions.

How far a wrong load reaches

Every figure in this collection applies a load as a point, a line or a uniform pressure, and no real load is any of those. The licence is Saint-Venant's, it is usually quoted as a principle, and it is really a statement about a wavelength.

internal-forces · Saint-Venant's principle
The length at which a beam stops being a beam. Elastic critical moment against the distance between lateral restraints, with the section's plastic capacity drawn across it. The two cross at 4086 — beyond that length the beam buckles sideways before it reaches the strength its cross-section has, and the capacity is set by the restraints rather than by the steel.

The load that moves with the twist

A beam about to buckle sideways is beginning to rotate, and everything attached to it rotates with it. A load hung from the top flange swings out over the side and drives the rotation on; the same load hung underneath swings back and stops it. Two identical beams, two different capacities, and the only difference is a height.

stability · Load height
The check that everything adds up, and the error it cannot see. Four versions of the same 2-bay, 3-storey frame, with the global equilibrium residual each one produces — the sum of the reactions against the sum of the applied loads, as a fraction of the applied total. It is the first thing every analysis prints and it is worth having: a lost restraint and a load entered in the wrong unit both show up immediately, at 6% and 24%, because both change what the structure is carrying. The fourth bar is the point. A member whose stiffness is wrong by a factor of ten redistributes the internal forces completely — the second bar shows the change in the member forces, 18% — and the global residual is exactly zero, because the wrong answer is still in equilibrium with the same loads. Equilibrium is one equation per degree of freedom of the whole body, and a stiffness error lives entirely in the many equations underneath it. A model can satisfy every equilibrium check ever devised and be a model of a different structure.

The stiffness the load takes away

Buckling is usually taught as an event — a critical load, a bifurcation, a mode. Written as a matrix it stops being an event at all. A compressive load subtracts a stiffness from the structure, the subtraction grows with the load, and the critical load is simply where what is left reaches zero.

stability · Geometric stiffness
One member's stiffness, scattered into the freedoms it touches. A member's own six-by-six stiffness matrix relates the forces at its two ends to the displacements there, and it is written in the member's own axes. Assembly is two operations and no physics: rotate it into the structure's axes, then add each of its thirty-six entries into the row and column of the global freedom that entry belongs to. Every member does the same, and the sum is the structure. The shaded rows and columns are the six freedoms this one member reaches; every other entry it contributes is exactly zero, and that is the whole reason a global stiffness matrix is sparse. Nothing here is an approximation — the result is the same equilibrium and the same compatibility a hand method writes, in an order a machine can follow.

The answer that depends on how it was divided

Every computed answer in this collection came out of a structure chopped into pieces — elements, strips, stations, trial positions. The chopping is invisible in the result and it is not neutral: some divisions give the exact answer, some give one that is always too stiff, and one of them changes nothing but the cost of getting there.

deflection · Discretisation
A broad tank sloshes and a tall one does not. The liquid's division into the part that moves with the wall and the part that sloshes, against the tank's proportion. The convective masses come from the potential-flow solution and the impulsive mass is whatever is left, so the two sum to the liquid's mass exactly at every proportion rather than approximately over part of the range. A tall tank at H/R = 3 is 84% impulsive and behaves almost like a solid; a shallow one at H/R = 0.5 is 72% convective and most of its contents never notice the earthquake. This tank sits at H/R = 1.33, which is 65% impulsive.

The liquid has a period of its own

Shake a tank and its contents do not all go with it. Part of the liquid moves as though it were bolted to the wall and part sloshes at a period fixed by gravity and the radius, which the tank's stiffness has no influence over whatever. The split is decided by one proportion, and the two parts then take entirely different amounts of the earthquake.

dynamics · Sloshing
Two frequencies that meet, and a determinant that never moves. The two natural frequencies of Ziegler's two-bar column against the follower load Pℓ/k, with the determinant of its stiffness matrix drawn along the top. The determinant is k² at every load — it varies over this whole axis by 1.1e-16 of itself, which is round-off — so a static buckling analysis of this structure finds no critical load whatever and reports it as stable everywhere. The frequencies say otherwise: they approach, meet at Pℓ/k = 2.0858, the closed form (7 − 2√2)/2, and become a complex pair, which is oscillation that grows. With no damping that merge is also where the column goes unstable. Adding any internal damping at all drops the load at which that happens to 1.4643, which is 41/28 and 30% below the undamped value; the limit of the damped system is not the undamped system, which is the paradox Ziegler found in 1952 and which was taken for an arithmetic error for a decade.

The load it cannot buckle under

Every stability calculation on this site rests on an assumption nobody states: that the load has a potential, so a critical load is where a total potential energy stops being a minimum. A load that turns with the structure it is pushing has no potential, and the static analysis of such a column returns no critical load at all — a determinant that never vanishes, for a column that fails at a perfectly finite one.

stability · Follower force
The average is not the answer, and it is unsafe. Critical load of a pinned column whose middle third has been given a different stiffness, against the whole-column Euler load, with the two numbers a hand check reaches for beside it. The eigenvalue is taken from K − P·Kg over 24 elements, so nothing here is a formula for a stepped column — it is the same computation the uniform case gets. At a middle third of 0.50 times the rest the true load is 0.612 of Euler's, the arithmetic average says 0.832 and the weakest segment says 0.496. The average is high by 36% and it is high on the unsafe side, because the third of the column it is averaging over is the third where the mode has all its curvature. The weakest-segment answer is safe everywhere and wasteful by about as much.

An average stiffness is not a safe stiffness

Euler's load belongs to a column of one EI. Give the same column two, and the temptation is to average them — which is wrong, and wrong in the unsafe direction by a quarter. Buckling weights stiffness by the square of the curvature of the mode, so the middle of a pinned column decides everything and the ends decide almost nothing.

stability · Stepped column
A buckling load with no compression anywhere in the member. A tube of radius 81.6 mm and wall 5 mm under pure torque — no axial load at all — buckles into a helix at T = 2πEI/L, which for the section drawn is 1877 kNm. Two things are absent from that expression and both are surprising: the length appears to the first power rather than the second, and the shear modulus does not appear at all, so the torsional stiffness of the member has nothing to do with the torque at which it buckles in torsion. The comparison is the torque that yields the same tube, 42.9 kNm — a factor of 43.8 below it. The mode arrives first only past a length of 263 m, which is πE/τ_y = 3219 radii and contains no thickness whatever.

The buckling load with no compression in it

Twist a straight bar hard enough and it snaps into a helix, with no axial load on it anywhere. The load at which that happens is 2πEI/L — first power of the length, and no shear modulus in it at all, so how stiff the bar is in torsion has nothing to do with the torque that buckles it in torsion.

stability · Torque buckling
A stiffener is a boundary condition, and it is bought at a threshold. The buckling stress of a 2400 × 12 mm plate with one longitudinal stiffener, against how rigid that stiffener is. Below γ the stiffener rides on the buckle and the plate takes the whole-width mode; at γ the stiffener stays straight and the plate buckles between stiffeners at 74 N/mm², 4.0 times the bare plate's 18.5. Above γ nothing further happens at all, because the sub-panel mode does not know the stiffener is there. The curve is a ramp and then a horizontal line, so a stiffener at twice γ is exactly as good as one at γ. Here γ = 31.5, which asks for an outstand of 144 mm; the 150 mm one drawn gives γ = 35.5, a margin of 1.13.

The rib that is a boundary condition

A rib on a plate is not a member carrying load. It is a line the buckle is not allowed to cross — and it becomes one at a threshold. Below the required rigidity it rides on the buckle and buys a fraction; at the threshold it stays straight and the plate buckles between stiffeners; above it, nothing further happens at all.

stability · Stiffener rigidity
It is the square of the diagram that destabilises. Four moment diagrams normalised to the same peak, and the buckling factor each one earns. Eliminating the lateral displacement from the coupled buckling equations leaves one functional in the twist, and its destabilising side is ∫M(z)²φ²/EI_z — the SQUARE of the moment, weighted by where the beam wants to twist. A diagram with a peak over a short length has a much smaller weighted square than a flat one of the same maximum, so it buckles at a higher peak: uniform 1.00, uniformly distributed load 1.13, central point load 1.36, cantilever 1.71. The root-mean-square of each diagram, printed beside it, very nearly predicts the order — which is as close to an intuition for C₁ as the subject has.

The shape of the diagram, and not its peak

A beam's lateral-torsional capacity is quoted against uniform moment, which is the one case a beam carrying a load never has. Change the shape of the moment diagram without changing its peak and the buckling moment moves by a factor of nearly three.

stability · Moment gradient

The third root of the cubic

A column has three buckling loads and an Euler calculation finds two of them. The third is a twist about the shear centre, and for a section whose shear centre is not at its centroid the three cannot happen separately — so the answer is the lowest root of a cubic and can be a third below anything the two familiar modes report.

stability · Flexural-torsional

Twice the moment, four times the brace

A lateral brace has to be on the right flange and its demand is very nearly linear in the load. A torsional brace has no flange to be wrong about, and its demand is exactly quadratic — so the restraint that is indifferent to where it is attached is the one that gets expensive fastest.

stability · Beam bracing

The buckle that will not spread out

A compression chord on a continuous restraint chooses its own number of half-waves and forgets how long it is. Give it the force it actually carries — a parabola, largest at midspan — and the number barely moves while the shape changes completely, which is the half that decides where the restraint has to be.

stability · Continuous restraint

The damper that is too near the end

A stay cable has almost no damping of its own, so it is given a damper — and the damper cannot go where the motion is, because the middle of a two-hundred-metre stay is a hundred metres above the road. What it can supply is then decided by one length, and no amount of damper changes it.

dynamics · Cable dynamics

The modes that were left out

Nobody runs every mode a model has, and the rule for how many is a mass count — enough to account for ninety per cent of the structure. The rule is written in the one quantity that converges fastest. On a twenty-storey frame two modes give the base shear to within one per cent and the force in the top storey to within twenty.

dynamics · Mode shapes

The line of ties that stops short

Cross-ties are the one intervention on a stay cable that changes its frequencies rather than damping them, and the usual account says they lift the stays out of the range that excites them. A line of ties that is not anchored to anything cannot lift the first frequency above the shortest stay's own, however stiff the ties are made. What lifts it is carrying the line to the deck.

dynamics · Cable dynamics

Four was never a fact about plates

The coefficient every plate calculation starts from is quoted as 4, derived nowhere and remembered by everyone. It is the minimum of a quantity that has nothing to do with plates in it — and what the plate supplies is not the four but the restriction that produces the scallops around it.

stability · Plate buckling

The damping that belongs to no mode

Give every mode its own damping ratio and throw the rest of the damping matrix away, and an isolated building's periods and damping come out right to within a fifth of a per cent. Its storey drift at the superstructure's frequency comes out six times too small. The bearings' dashpot pushes on both modes at once, and the more of it there is the less extra damping buys: the classical analysis promises the drift keeps falling, and it stops.

dynamics · Mode shapes

Two modes that are really a plane

A building equally stiff in both directions has two translational modes with one period, and they are not a pair of shapes but a whole plane of them. The pair an analysis returns is chosen by asymmetries of a millionth, so any result that depends on the pair — a square-root combination, a comparison with measured modes — inherits a choice the building never made. Damping then decides whether the difference can be seen at all.

dynamics · Mode shapes

What a mode shape notices that a frequency does not

Take a tenth of the stiffness out of one storey of a ten-storey building and its first frequency falls by a per cent at most, and by almost nothing if the storey is near the top. The mode shape looks unchanged, its match to the old one 0.99997. But the mode's storey drift — its curvature — rises by about a tenth in the damaged storey and hardly anywhere else, wherever that storey is. The instrument that sees the damage is the one almost nobody installs.

dynamics · Mode shapes

The modes at zero frequency

A structure held by nothing — a span being launched, a segment on a crane, a pontoon — has a mode in which it moves as one body and stretches nothing, at a frequency of exactly zero. That is a real mode, not a glitch in the stiffness matrix. It carries every kilogram of the structure under a uniform acceleration and leaves the flexible modes none at all. A load that is not uniform is a different matter: pushed suddenly from one end, the structure has no static answer to give, only an acceleration with a vibration riding on it.

dynamics · Mode shapes

The bound from underneath

Rayleigh's quotient turns a guessed shape into a buckling load that is always too high. Divide the same guess differently — use the curvature its bending moment would cause instead of its own — and a parabola that was 21.6 per cent high is 1.3 per cent high. Add one more number that needs no guess at all and the load is caught from below as well, which is the only side of it an amplifier can safely use.

stability · Stability energy

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Critical loadMode shapeEffective lengthBucklingSlendernessBracingBuckled mode shapeDegrees of freedomGeometric stiffnessNatural periodStiffness matrixModal analysis

All concepts