Variable Section Buckling

THESIS
ELASTIC BUCKLING LOADS OF SLENDER COLUMNS

WITH VARIABLE CROSS SECTION BY THE NEWMARK METHOD

Submitted by
Charles E. Riley
Department of Civil Engineering

In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the Degree of Master of Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado
Summer 2003
ii

COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY

May 20, 2003
WE HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE THESIS PREPARED UNDER OUR
SUPERVISION BY CHARLES RILEY ENTITLED ELASTIC BUCKLING LOADS
OF SLENDER COLUMNS BY THE NEWMARK METHOD BE ACCEPTED AS
FULLFILING IN PART REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF
SCIENCE.
Committee on Graduate Work
(Please print name under signature)

Adviser

Department Head/Director
iii

ABSTRACT OF THESIS
ELASTIC BUCKLING LOADS OF SLENDER COLUMNS
WITH VARIABLE CROSS SECTION BY THE NEWMARK METHOD

Determining the critical buckling load for columns with variable cross section
presents a unique design problem for engineers. Exact solutions for certain column
geometries and end conditions exist, but no concise design equations have been presented
that cover the broad range of potential column configurations. This thesis provides an
exhaustive literature review to put the research presented here in context and point the
way towards further research.
This thesis utilizes the Excel spreadsheet environment with the Newmark iterative
procedure to perform buckling analyses on determinate (pinned-pinned and fixed-free)
and one-degree indeterminate (fixed-pinned and fixed-guided) columns. The critical
buckling loads of columns with variation of the moment of inertia between powers of one
and four, corresponding to linear tapering of common cross section shapes, are calculated
to a high degree of accuracy and presented in the form of design curves and closed-form
equations based on curve fitting.
The process of developing the Newmark numerical method within the Excel
spreadsheet environment is presented in detail to provide a powerful tool for engineers to
use when designing unique columns that have no available solution. A round column
with parabolic variation of its diameter and crucifix column with linear variation from its
iv
ends to the middle are examined to demonstrate the capabilities of the Newmark method
in this regard.

Charles E. Riley
Department of Civil Engineering
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
Summer 2003
v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. Marvin E. Criswell for his assistance and encouragement
during the entire thesis process. His willingness to take on another advisee in the midst
of his already busy schedule was very much appreciated.
I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Paul R. Heyliger and Dr.
Frederick W. Smith, for their assistance with the odds and ends of my work. Their
unique skills and knowledge were the perfect resource as my research was completed. I
would also like to thank Dr. Pat Pellicane for accepting a position on my committee on
very short notice. Many trips were paid to the office of Dr. Darrell G. Fontane for help
with Excel and Visual Basic. Dr. Fontanes assistance and suggestions were invaluable
and are thus acknowledged.
My friends and family deserve huge thanks for their support during the more
difficult days of research and writing. I would specifically like to thank Fernando
Ramirez, and my parents Fran and Keith Smith for all of their support.
vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
1. Introduction
1.1 Buckling behavior
1.2 Euler buckling problems
1.3 Inelastic buckling
1.4 Members of varying cross section
1.5 Objectives of the research
1.6 Organization of the thesis
2. Background
2.1 Euler buckling loads
2.1.1 Buckling load for a prismatic pin-ended column
2.1.2 Buckling load for a prismatic fixed-free column
2.2 Effective length factors
2.3 Buckling loads of tapered columns by the Newmark numerical
method

2.4 Buckling loads of tapered columns by other methods

2.4.1 Closed-form solutions of the governing equation

2.4.2 Other numerical methods
2.5 Buckling load determination for tapered members in code-based
structural design

1
1
3
5
5
6
9
11
11
11
14
17

19

21

21

25

28

vii
2.5.1 Wood Codes
2.5.1.1 ASD Code for wood
2.5.1.2 LRFD Code for wood
2.5.2 LRFD code for steel
2.5.3 Concrete Code
3. Analysis Procedures
3.1 Conjugate beam method
3.2 Concentrated loads from ordinates of a distributed load
3.3 Characterization of column taper
3.4 Spreadsheet development for determinate and one-degree
indeterminate tapered column buckling analysis

3.4.1 A pinned-pinned column
3.4.2 A fixed-free (pinned-guided) column
3.4.3 A fixed-pinned column
3.4.4 A fixed-guided column
3.5 Spreadsheet modification for more complex column geometry
4. Results
4.1 Buckling loads of pinned-pinned columns
4.2 Buckling loads of fixed-free (pinned-guided) columns
4.3 Buckling loads of fixed-pinned columns
4.4 Buckling loads of fixed-guided columns
4.5 Rate of convergence and accuracy
4.6 Columns with uncommon cross section variations
28

28

30

30

31

32

32

33

35

38

38

46

52

61

69

71

71

73

78

81

84

85

viii
4.6.1 Parabolic variation of the radius
4.6.2 Tapered crucifix cross section
5. Discussion
5.1 Excel as applied to the Newmark numerical method
5.2 Tapered column data and trends
5.2.1 Linearly tapered pinned-pinned columns
5.2.2 Linearly tapered fixed-free columns
5.2.3 Linearly tapered fixed-pinned columns
5.2.4 Linearly tapered fixed-guided columns
6. Conclusions and Recommendations
6.1 Conclusions
6.2 Recommendations for future research
References
Appendix
A.1 Generated values of P* for 4 end conditions and 4 taper geometries

A.2 Power trendlines for end conditions with end-dimension ratios
from 1 to 10

A.3 Buckled shapes for linearly tapered columns with 4 end conditions
and 4 taper geometries

A.4 First six iterations of example spreadsheets for columns with 10
approximating elements, 4 end conditions, and 4 taper geometries
85

85

87

87

88

89

89

90

91

92

93

95

95

95

97

100

107

111

118
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1.1

Figure 1.2

Figure 2.1

Figure 2.2

Figure 3.1

Figure 3.2

Figure 3.3

Figure 3.4

Figure 3.5

Figure 3.6

Figure 3.7

Figure 4.1

Figure 4.2

Figure 4.3

Figure 4.4

Figure 4.5

Figure 4.6

Graphical depiction of bifurcation buckling

Snap-through problem for a two-bar truss

Pin-ended Euler column

Fixed-free (cantilever) Euler column

End conditions paired with their conjugate equivalents

Concentration formulae for two cases of a parabolic distributed
load

Notation used to characterize tapered column geometry

Thrust line concept for a fixed-pinned column

Thrust line concept for a fixed-guided column

Details of a round column with parabolic variation of the radius

Details of a cruciform column with linear variation from the ends
to the middle

Buckling load factor versus the ratio of end dimensions for a
pinned-pinned column with given taper geometry

Normalized buckled shapes for the pinned-pinned column, n=4

fixed-free column with given taper geometry and large end fixed.

fixed-free column with given taper geometry and small end fixed

Normalized buckled shapes for the fixed-free column where (a)
the small end is fixed and (b) the large end is fixed, n=4

fixed-pinned column with given taper geometry and large end
fixed

2

2

11

14

33

34

36

54

63

69

70

72

72

74

76

76

78

x
Figure 4.7

Figure 4.8

Figure 4.9

Figure 4.10

Figure 4.11

Figure 4.12

fixed-pinned column with given taper geometry and small end
fixed

Normalized buckled shapes for the fixed-free column where (a)
the small end is fixed and (b) the large end is fixed, n=4

fixed-guided column with given taper geometry

Normalized buckled shapes for the pinned-pinned column, n=4

Euler buckling load factor, P*, as a function of middle-to-end
diameter ratio for a round column with parabolic variation of the
cross section

Euler buckling load factor, P*, as a function of middle-to-end
dimension ratio for a crucifix column varying linearly from its
ends to its middle

80

80

82

84

86

86

xi
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1

Table 2.2

Table 2.3

Table 2.4

Table 3.1

Table 3.2

Table 3.3

Table 3.4

Table 3.5

Table 4.1

Table 4.2

Table 4.3

Table 4.4

First three buckled modes and buckling loads for a pinned-pinned
prismatic column

First three buckled modes and buckling loads for a cantilevered
prismatic column

Critical loads and effective length factors for prismatic columns
with given end conditions (Kaewkulchai, 1997)

Exact buckling loads for linearly tapering solid columns of circular
or square cross section (Gere and Carter, 1962)

Various cross sections and their associated shape factors based on
Equation 3.3.2 (Gere and Carter, 1962)

First three iterations for a pinned-pinned column approximated by
ten elements, d
b
/d
a
= 2

First three iterations for a fixed-free column approximated by ten
elements, d
b
/d
a
= 2

First iteration for a fixed-pinned column approximated by ten
elements, d
b
/d
a
= 2

First iteration for a fixed-guided column approximated by ten
elements, d
b
/d
a
= 2

Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation
and end-dimension ratio for a linearly tapering pinned-pinned
column

for a linearly tapering column with the large end fixed and the
small end free

for a linearly tapering column with the large end free and the small
end fixed

for a linearly tapering column with the large end fixed and the
small end pinned

14

17

18

23

37

45

51

60

68

73

75

77

79
xii
Table 4.5

Table 4.6

Table 4.7
for a linearly tapering column with the large end pinned and the
small end fixed

for a linearly tapering column with large end fixed and small end
guided

Comparison to the exact solution of P* for linearly tapered pinned-
pinned columns, of shape factor n=4, obtained using the Newmark
numerical method using 10 and 50 elements

81

83

84

1
1. Introduction
1.1 Buckling behavior
There are a number of limit states, or conditions for which a structure can be
deemed unusable and can be considered to have failed. Structures can fail when
members or the entire structure reach yield or ultimate strength, exceed a specified
maximum deflection, or when fracture of members or collapse occurs. Buckling of
members, not commonly considered to be a separate limit state, presents a stability issue
that resembles a limit state in that it limits the resistance that can be developed by the
member.
While buckling is a broad term that describes a range of mechanical behaviors, it
generally refers to an event whereby a structural element in compression deviates from a
behavior of elastic shortening within the original geometry and undergoes large
deformations involving a change in member shape for a very small increase in load.
When the member has symmetry of section geometry, section resistance, and load, it is
equally likely to buckle in at least two directions. This phenomenon, more specifically
called bifurcation buckling, is depicted graphically in Figure 1.1. The buckling load, or
the point at which the deviation from the original geometry first occurs, is also called the
critical load or bifurcation load. If the proportional limit has not been reached at any
point in the member before the critical load is reached, the buckling is termed elastic
buckling. While elastic buckling is commonly examined by analyzing long slender
compression members, elastic buckling can also occur in plates and shells. In this case,
the basic buckling phenomenon is the same, although the geometry and possible restraint
conditions make the solutions more complicated.
2
Another form of buckling exists that is called limit-load buckling. This form of
buckling generally refers to a structural system, as opposed to a single member, that
drastically changes geometry during elastic deformation. The point at which this change
in geometry occurs is called the limit load. A classical example of limit-load buckling is
the snap-through problem depicted in Figure 1.2. At the limit load of this system, any
small addition in load will cause hinge C to snap through and elements AC and CB,
previously in compression, will go into tension as hinge C moves to a position below
Points A and B.

Figure 1.1. Graphical depiction of bifurcation buckling.

Figure 1.2. The snap-through problem for a two-bar truss.

There are many other forms of instability that are generally also referred to as
buckling. Lateral-torsional buckling is a phenomenon common in slender laterally
unsupported steel beams that can affect any laterally unbraced beam segment with a
section height significantly greater than its width. Under lateral-torsional buckling of a
Load
Deflection
Buckling Load
Post-buckling resistance
A B
C
P
Original position
Snap-through position
3
laterally unbraced beam under positive moments from vertical loads, the top portion of
the beam reaches a critical load in compression and buckles laterally. This generally
causes twisting of the beam section because the tension flange stays straight rather than
moving laterally with the compression flange. Thus, both lateral and torsional stiffnesses
must be considered when designing against this phenomenon.

1.2 Euler buckling problems
The basic Euler buckling equations are restricted to members that meet the
definition of the Euler column. The Euler column is a straight, prismatic, centrally
loaded, pin-ended element with slenderness sufficient that it can buckle without stresses
in the cross section exceeding the proportional limit (Galambos 1998). The Euler column
also utilizes the assumption that deformations of the member are small enough that the
curvature may be approximated by the second derivative of the deflection with respect to
position along the member. The basic Euler buckling equation, originally formulated for
a pinned-pinned column, can be modified for other end conditions.
The Euler column equation provides a meaningful way to analyze buckling
problems. To solve for the buckling load of an Euler column, the governing differential
equation of the element is set up as an eigenvalue problem, which is then solved via
traditional mathematical techniques. Solutions to Euler columns with various end
conditions are covered in detail in Section 2.1.
While the Euler column allows for a mathematically elegant problem, the
assumptions to which it is held are usually very difficult to satisfy exactly when actual
structural members are analyzed. Thus, unless manufacturing flaws and initial
4
eccentricities in loading are taken into account, the Euler buckling load is an
unconservative (i.e. upper bound) estimate of the actual buckling load of a member.
Analytical results are available for such conditions as initial member curvature and end
load eccentricities. In these cases, the direction of buckling is determined by the
eccentricities involved and a bifurcation load does not exist. The relationship shown in
Figure 1.1 is then an upper bound on the behavior of the member. For column and
column-like member areas (such as laterally unbraced compression flanges of beams),
there is little increase in resistance after the buckling load is reached. A small additional
loading results in enough lateral (buckling) motion that the member curvature causes
flexural yielding. The post-buckling resistance then decreases, rather than increasing
slightly in the post-buckling stage as the elastic buckling curve indicates. Thus, the
critical buckling load is a usable maximum resistance for practical columns and column-
like members.
Euler was the first to investigate a problem called the elastica, which is the elastic
buckling of a pin-ended bar with an allowance for large deformations. A solution to this
problem is possible when the exact differential equation governing buckling is used,
rather than the equation that approximates the curvature of the member by d
2
y/dx
2
. The
elastica begins as a compression member and, after initial elastic buckling, loops over
onto itself until it becomes a tension member. This is only one such scenario, but it
illustrates the capabilities of the elastica. Numerous equilibrium positions allowing for
multiple loops were discovered and feasible mathematical solutions exist for many, often
requiring elliptic integrals to quantify. Solutions for the elastica, while providing an
5
interesting mathematical exercise, have little practical application in the world of
engineering.

1.3 Inelastic buckling
Inelastic buckling includes any buckling phenomenon during which the
proportional limit of the material is exceeded somewhere within the cross section before
buckling occurs. For usual material properties, this would often be the case for a column
that has a length less than 20 to 25 times its diameter. Columns meeting this criterion
will generally buckle inelastically, meaning permanent deformations will occur upon
reaching the critical buckling load. If residual stresses are a factor, inelastic buckling can
occur when the compressive stress due to applied load plus the local residual compressive
stress locally exceeds the material proportional limit, a condition often reached at the tips
or corners of wide flange steel columns.

1.4 Members of varying cross section
Structures are generally designed on the basis of economy and safety. For
common structures, economy often requires the use of standard members because these
members are relatively inexpensive and easy to obtain. For many structures, however,
using tapered members may both increase structural efficiency and be economical. For
small projects, this may not translate into overall economy, but more complex, unique, or
large structures may (and often do) take full advantage of the structural efficiency tapered
members offer by reducing the amount of material required while strategically stiffening
certain parts of a member, thereby increasing the overall performance of the structure.
6
Material weight can be especially critical in some types of structures (such as aircraft)
and a few types of structural members are tapered by their nature, the most notable of
which may be wood pole members. Thus, it is prudent to understand how to design with
members of varying cross section.
Beam and beam-column members with varying cross section may often be found
in frame structures, specifically those employing a three-hinge frame. In this type of
structure, a frame sits on two pinned or hinged connections and has a hinge in the center
of the horizontal beam or roof element. Because bending and axial force, not shear, often
govern the design of this type of structure, the depth of the cross section follows the
general magnitude of the moment and coincident axial force that will be carried. Thus,
the cross section is shallower at the hinges and it grows to a maximum depth at the knee
of the frame, farthest from the hinges. This is only one example of a structure that
employs members of variable cross section to increase efficiency.

1.5 Objectives of the research
The objectives of this research are:
1) To adapt the powerful Newmark Method procedures to a widely available
spreadsheet format, such that their potential for use in buckling analyses of
columns with variable cross section may be fully realized. And,
2) To generate designer-friendly information in the form of compact equations and
design curves to both demonstrate the behavior of tapered columns and facilitate
their design.
7
The Newmark method is a modeling and computational technique that
approximates the deflection of a continuous system by the deflection at the nodes of a
system with a discrete number of prismatic elements with constant properties. Its many
applications include buckling problems. The computation procedure for Newmarks
method as it applies to tapered column buckling is easily translated into spreadsheet
format since it involves iterative trials at many locations along a member. Before the
common use of computers, the degree of accuracy practically available by the Newmark
method was limited by the number of elements (and therefore calculations) and iterations
(and therefore repetition of those same calculations) that the engineer could physically
and mentally withstand. Thus, concessions were made to limit the number of elements,
often to around 5, and the number of iterations, often to one or two, which allowed the
critical buckling load to be bounded sufficiently for most designs. However, with the
advent of personal computers, this same method, which was previously used for its ease
of calculation and rapid convergence to the solution, can be used to obtain an extremely
accurate and precise value of the critical buckling load for a column of virtually any
configuration. Before the development of spreadsheets, this was done with computer
programs prepared using a language such as FORTRAN.
This thesis deals specifically with columns of varying cross section. Columns of
this type may be used in all manner of structures, but the relatively difficult nature of
their analysis leads many design engineers to simply opt for a prismatic column or to
make often very approximate and usually conservative simplifying assumptions. The
goal of this thesis is to use Newmarks method within a widely available spreadsheet
environment to provide a straightforward simple approach to the analysis of columns
8
with virtually any variation in their cross section using tools that recent civil engineering
graduates will have encountered in their undergraduate curriculum or can easily
understand. These tools are the conjugate beam method (which is required only for
understanding of the method, not for general use), the Newmark method of discretizing a
continuous structural member, replacement of a distributed load with statically equivalent
concentrations, and a spreadsheet program like Excel, which is used exclusively here.
Previous research in the realm of columns of varying cross section has resided in
two areas, exact and approximate solutions of the buckling problem.
By employing small angle approximations, exact solutions to the buckling
problem, which takes the form of an eigenvalue problem, are readily available for
prismatic columns with common end conditions. Indeed, these problems are regularly
employed in the undergraduate engineering curriculum to introduce the student to both
column buckling and the eigenvalue problem. However, when the column in question is
tapered along its length, the number of combinations of taper and end conditions for
which there is an exact solution drops dramatically. Additionally, the differential
equations for which there are exact solutions will primarily utilize Bessel functions to
solve.
Approximate solutions for the buckling problem, as well as most other problems
in structural engineering and mechanics, are plentiful. The middle of the twentieth
century was dominated by the introduction of numerical methods that allowed for
practical hand calculations. The development of computer technology has allowed more
calculation-intensive methods, such as the finite element and finite difference methods, to
flourish. These methods allow for virtually any structural system or element under
9
arbitrary loading conditions to be analyzed to an incredible degree of numerical accuracy.
Thus, these methods have become the most powerful general tool available to the
structural engineer. However, certain less general methods retain their individual
applicability for special problems.
The overall purpose of the work reported in this thesis is to describe situations
when computational precision, computation time, and, most importantly, designer effort
may be reduced by either using Newmarks method in the Excel spreadsheet
environment, or design aids generated from numerical studies using this tool, to analyze
the buckling load of a column with many types of varying cross section shapes.

1.6 Organization of the Thesis
The thesis is organized such that a reader with limited knowledge of buckling in
general, and buckling of tapered members specifically, will be able to understand both of
these concepts via the background information provided. In Chapter 2, an intensive
review of past and current literature is provided along with the current state of tapered
column design in various material codes to provide a context for the research later
presented. Prismatic members and Euler buckling loads are discussed to provide a
reasonable background. Then, other concepts, such as the conjugate beam method,
development of resultant loads from ordinates of a distributed load, and characterization
of column taper, are provided to allow the reader to understand and use the Newmark
numerical method with confidence. Finally, in Chapter 3, step-by-step instructions are
provided for developing spreadsheet-based programs for tapered column analysis of
determinate and one-degree indeterminate column cases. Numerical examples utilizing
10
ten prismatic elements are provided as an aid to these instructions. The two-degree
indeterminate column case (i.e. fixed-fixed) was deemed beyond the scope of this paper,
and perhaps beyond the capabilities of the basic Newmark numerical method. Further
adaptations of the method may prove its potential in this area.
Results of the thesis, given in Chapter 4, include design plots relating a critical
buckling load factor to end dimension ratios for various powers of variation of the section
moment of inertia. Fitted curves are further applied to these results, in part to confirm
work by past researchers, but more to provide a comprehensive and simplified set of
design equations for a wide range of cross section shapes and variations. Normalized
buckled shapes are provided as an additional design aid and visualization of tapered
column buckling behavior. Also included are some demonstrations of the methods
ability to address general column geometries not able to be analyzed by closed form
techniques.
Chapter 5 provides a discussion of the results and recommendations for future
work. Finally, appendices are provided with extensive numerical examples, deflected
shapes, and raw data.

11
2. Background
2.1 Euler buckling loads
2.1.1 Buckling load for a prismatic pin-ended column
The mathematical expression for the Euler buckling load of an ideal column
follows from consideration of equilibrium, the mechanics of bending, geometry of the
column, and material properties within the initial linear range. The basic geometry and a
free body diagram of a portion near one end of the column is shown in Figure 2.1.
Because of symmetry, there is no horizontal shear at the support or cut section of the
deflected column.

Figure 2.1. Pin-ended Euler column.

The moment at any section located a distance x from the base of the column is
2
2
) (
dx
y d
EI x M = (Eq. 2.1)
M
P
P
x
y
P
12
utilizing the approximate curvature of
2
2
dx
y d
in place of the exact expression of
2
3
2
2
2
1
(
(
|
.
|
\
|
+
dx
dy
dx
y d
.
The bending moment at any cross section is
Py x M = ) ( (Eq. 2.2)
Combining equations 2.1 and 2.2 gives the governing differential equation for the
pinned-pinned Euler column:
0
2
2
= + Py
dx
y d
EI (Eq. 2.3)
By introducing the notation
EI
P
k =
2
, Equation 2.3 may be written as
0
2
2
2
= + y k
dx
y d
(Eq. 2.4)
The general solution for this homogeneous linear differential equation is
kx B kx A y cos sin + = (Eq. 2.5)
Constants A and B can be evaluated by introducing boundary conditions:
0 = y at 0 = x
0 = y at L x =
The first condition requires that B=0, leaving
kx A y sin = (Eq. 2.6)
Evaluating equation 2.6 under the second boundary condition yields
0 sin = kL A (Eq. 2.7)
13
In order to obtain a result that is not trivial, A must be non-zero. Thus
0 sin = kL or n kL = (Eq. 2.8)
where n = 1,2,3
Substituting Equation 2.8 into Equation 2.3 yields the buckling load equation:

2
2 2
L
EI
n P
n
= (Eq. 2.9)
The critical buckling load, or Euler load, can be evaluated with n=1 as this is the
smallest load for which instability will occur:

2
2
L
EI
P
cr

= (Eq. 2.10)
Equation 2.9 may be used to calculate higher mode buckling loads. However, the
member is unlikely to buckling in these modes unless it is forced to do so. Thus, the
critical buckling load of a pinned-pinned column may be effectively quadrupled if lateral
deflection is held at zero at the center of the column. This can be shown by examining
the mode shape of the buckled column.
Substituting Equation 2.1.1.8 into Equation 2.6 yields the mode shape equation:

L
x n
A y

sin = (Eq. 2.11)
Equation 2.11 can be evaluated for any buckling mode and defines the geometry of the
bent shape. It should be noted that the amplitude of the deflected shape is not defined as
a result of using
2
2
dx
y d
to approximate the curvature. Table 2.1 displays the first three
buckling modes of the pinned-pinned Euler column along with the buckling loads.

14
Table 2.1. First three buckled modes and buckling loads for a pinned-pinned prismatic
column.
Mode 1 2 3
Mode
Shape

Critical
buckling
load
2 2
2
8696 . 9
L
EI
L
EI

2 2
2
4784 . 39 4
L
EI
L
EI

2 2
2
8264 . 88 9
L
EI
L
EI

2.1.2 Buckling load for a prismatic fixed-free column
For the fixed-free flag pole problem, the expression for the buckling load of the
ideal column is similar to that for the pinned-pinned case. The equations of equilibrium
and boundary conditions are changed based on the different geometric conditions shown
in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2. Fixed-free (cantilever) Euler column.

P
P
M
P
x
y
15
Again, the relationship between bending moment and curvature, approximated by
the second derivative, will be used:
2
2
) (
dx
y d
EI x M = (Eq. 2.12)
The bending moment at any cross section at any section located a distance x from
the base of the column is
) ( ) ( y P x M = (Eq. 2.13)
Equating Equations 2.12 and 2.13 gives the governing differential equation for the
fixed-free Euler column:
0 ) (
2
2
= + y P
dx
y d
EI (Eq. 2.14)
Introducing the notation
EI
P
k =
2
, Equation 2.14 may be written as
2 2
2
2
k y k
dx
y d
= + (Eq. 2.15)
The general solution for this homogeneous linear differential equation is
+ + = kx B kx A y cos sin (Eq. 2.16)
Constants A and B can be evaluated by introducing boundary conditions:
0 = =
dx
dy
y at 0 = x
These conditions can be satisfied by
0 = A and = B
Thus
) cos 1 ( kx y = (Eq. 2.17)
The condition at the free end of the column requires that
16
= y at L x =
This condition is satisfied if
0 cos = kL (Eq. 2.18)
Equation 2.18 may be satisfied if either 0 = or 0 cos = kL . If 0 = , then there
is no deflection at the free end of the column and consequently no buckling. Thus, cos kL
must equal zero and the following relation must be true:
( )
2
1 2

= n kL where: n=1,2,3 (Eq. 2.19)
By reintroducing,
EI
P
k =
2
, this equation becomes
( )
2
1 2

= = n
EI
P
L kL or ( )
2
2
2
4
1 2
L
EI
n P

= (Eq. 2.20)
The critical buckling load will be obtained when n = 1:

2
2
4L
EI
P
cr

= (Eq. 2.21)
Substituting equation 2.19 into equation 2.17 yields the mode shape equation:

(
|
.
|
\
|
=
L
x n
y
2
) 1 2 (
cos 1

(Eq. 2.22)
Equation 2.22 can be evaluated for any buckling mode and defines the geometry of the
buckled shape. As was the case for the pinned-pinned column, the amplitude of the
deflected shape is not defined as a result of using
2
2
dx
y d
to approximate the curvature.
Table 2.2 displays the first three buckling modes of the pinned-pinned Euler
column along with the buckling loads. It should be noted that equivalent results may be
17
obtained by analyzing a guided-pinned column. The guided-pinned and fixed-free
columns buckle in exactly the same shape and at the same load for a given mode.

Table 2.2. First three buckled modes and buckling loads for a cantilevered prismatic
column.
Mode 1 2 3
Mode
Shape

Critical
buckling
load
2 2
2
4674 . 2
4 L
EI
L
EI

2 2
2
2066 . 22
4
9
L
EI
L
EI

2 2
2
6850 . 61
4
25
L
EI
L
EI

2.2 Effective length factors
For ease of computation in most design manuals, buckling loads of columns for
different end conditions are given based on the effective length of the column, kL. The
effective length is determined based on the effective length factor, k, which is easily
computed for common cases involving prismatic columns. The effective length of a
column is simply the length a column with given end conditions would require to fit into
the Euler buckling load equation:

( )
2
2
kL
EI
P
cr

= (Eq. 2.23)
Thus, for a pinned-pinned prismatic column (the basic case discussed in Section 2.1.1),
because
2
2
L
EI
P
cr

= , k = 1. For a cantilevered prismatic column (the basic case

18
discussed in Section 2.1.2),
2
2
4L
EI
P
cr

= and k = 2. Table 2.3 shows the critical loads and
effective length factors for prismatic columns with various end conditions.
The effective length factor takes on a more physical meaning when it is applied to
the buckling mode shape. The effective length factor is equivalent to the inverse of the
number of half sine waves that occur in the buckled shape. Thus, for the pinned-pinned
column, k = 1, so there is one half wavelength over the buckled column length. For the
cantilevered column, k = 2, so the buckled mode shape is one quarter wavelength. This
can be seen graphically in Table 2.3. For design purposes, some of these effective length
factores are reduced, reflecting the practical difficulties in achieving fully fixed and other
theoretical boundary conditions.

Table 2.3. Critical loads and effective length factors for prismatic columns with given
end conditions (Kaewkulchai, 1997).
End Conditions Critical Load k Deflected Shape
Simple Support
Simple Support
2
2
L
EI
1.000

Fixed-Free
2
2
4L
EI
2.000

Simple Support-
Guided
2
2
4L
EI
2.000

Fixed-Simple
Support
2
2
) 6997 . 0 ( L
EI

0.699

Fixed-Guided
2
2
L
EI
1.000

Fixed-Fixed
2
2
4
L
EI
0.500

19
2.3 Buckling loads of tapered columns by the Newmark numerical method
In 1943, Nathan M. Newmark published a paper in the Transactions of the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) entitled Numerical Procedure for
Computing Deflections, Moments and Buckling Loads. This paper thoroughly outlined
a procedure by which the value of a function of a single variable is calculated so long as
the second derivative of the function is known. The procedure is an adaptation of the
general mathematical method of successive approximations.
Vianello and Engesser, around 1900, identified similar procedures for use in
determining the buckling loads of bars (Newmark, 1943). Stodola (1906) applied a
method of successive approximations similar to Vianellos to the rotation of turbine
shafts where it is called Stodolas method. In his Mechanical Vibrations text, Hartog
(1956) provides a treatment of Stodolas method as it applies to the problem of finding
the natural frequency of a rotor. Nakahira et al (1992) used what they called the Stodola-
Newmark method (a combination of the Newmark numerical method and Stodolas
iterative process) to determine the natural frequencies of cantilever beams of varying
cross-section. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate that convergence to the
exact solution is possible with a relatively small number of sections approximating the
tapered beam. The study also presented the natural frequencies of cantilever beams with
arbitrarily varying cross section when placed in either air or water. Methods for
obtaining greater accuracy with numerical methods had been developed prior to
Newmarks work by Niles, Southwell, and others (Newmark, 1943). However,
Newmarks unique contribution to the field was in his treatment of specific problems and
20
generalization of the procedure to a wide range of problems while providing for increased
accuracy.
Newmark expounded on this work first reported in 1943 in later publications,
including a book devoted to numerical solution techniques and published in honor Hardy
Cross, father of numerical methods in engineering (Newmark, 1949). In this publication,
his chapter, Numerical Methods of Analysis of Bar, Plates, and Elastic Bodies, presents
in general what he calls iterative and step-by-step methods. He illustrates the
application of these methods to systems as complex as membrane structures and provides
a discussion of convergence rates and accuracy.
Newmarks work was furthered by William G. Godden, who had been a visiting
staff member at the University of Illinois in 1954. In 1965, Godden published a book
called Numerical Analysis of Beam and Column Structures, which Newmark praised for
its practical and easily understood examples as well as its new applications of his
methods. Goddens discussion of the Newmark method is the most complete, beginning
with a derivation of the principles and moving through applications to common energy
principles, influence lines, buckling and eccentric loading of struts, beam analysis with
various support conditions, and into vibration analysis of free and forced spring-mass
systems. As an examination of the power of the Newmark method, Goddens book is
extremely complete. Newmarks method of successive approximations as it applies to
column buckling is also given adequate treatment in Timoshenkos Theory of Elastic
Stability, 2
nd
Ed (Timoshenko and Gere, 1961) and Sechlers Elasticity in Engineering
(Sechler, 1952).
21
Newmarks method was used by Criswell (1991) to obtain buckling capacities of
tapered wood members as a step in developing design expressions for the basic column
cases included in the National Design Specification for Wood Construction (AF&PA,
1997) and the LRFD Standard for Engineered Wood Construction (AF&PA/ASCE,
1995).
Kaewkulchai (1997) provided an extension of work performed by Criswell (see
Section 2.5.1.1) to determine design equations for columns with indeterminate end
conditions and more complex cross-sectional variations. His work utilized an equivalent
section approach, such that buckling loads for end dimension ratios greater than three
could be determined with a reasonable degree of accuracy. However, a conclusion made
in his thesis that closed form solutions are not generally available in the literature is false.
The closed form equations presented by Gere and Carter (1962) could easily be included
in the wood codes, as they are relatively simple and specifically include members with
double linear taper, such as round section poles and piles. Kaewkulchais work extended
and revised a basic FORTRAN program that had previously been developed by Criswell.
However, the nature of the problem lends itself to analysis by the spreadsheet software
now available. This fact and Criswells continued interest in the buckling problem for
columns of general nonprismatic shapes provided the impetus for this thesis.

2.4 Buckling loads of tapered columns by other methods
2.4.1 Closed-form solutions of the governing equation

Prior to numerical methods, analysis of nonprismatic columns was limited to
certain situations where closed form equations were available using the tools of
22
mechanics. Thus, tapered columns with fixity conditions that did not allow for a closed-
form solution were designed by various rules of thumb. These early designs used an
equivalent prismatic column, the cross-section of which was based on the cross-section at
a given point of the tapered column (e.g. the cross-section at or 2/3 of the length from
the small end).
James M. Gere and Winfred O. Carter (1962) published a paper in the ASCE
Journal of the Structural Division that provided equations and design curves for
calculating the critical buckling loads of columns with many different cross sections and
four different fixity conditions: pinned-pinned, fixed-free, fixed-pinned, and fixed-fixed.
This greatly enhanced the information that had previously been available for
nonprismatic column design, particularly for tapered wide flange sections. Gere and
Carter used methods developed by Timoshenko (solution of the differential equation of
the deflection curve) and Newmark (method of successive approximations of the
deflection curve), along with an innovative shape factor to account for the cross-sectional
variation along the column, to ultimately provide a relatively concise set of equations to
calculate the critical buckling load. Many of the situations that were analyzed could be
solved in closed form, but required a difficult solution process based on Bessel functions
with many related variables. However, for columns with a linear taper, circular cross
section, and pinned-pinned, fixed-pinned, or fixed-fixed end conditions, the resulting
equation is simply the product of the square of the ratio of end diameters and the critical
buckling load of a prismatic column for the given end conditions (Table 2.4).
Fogel and Ketter (1962) provided a treatment of the tapered-column problem
similar to that in the Gere and Carter paper in the same edition of the ASCE Journal of
23
the Structural Division. While the solution procedure is more complete in this paper, the
results are not nearly as extensive as those presented by Gere and Carter. Tapered web
wide flange sections and tapered box sections are examined under axial load as well as
applied end moments.

Table 2.4. Exact buckling loads for linearly tapering solid columns of circular or square
cross section (Gere and Carter, 1962).
End Conditions Schematic Buckling Load
Pinned-Pinned

2
2
2
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
a
b a
cr
d
d
L
EI
P

Fixed-Pinned

( )
2
2
2
6997 . 0
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
a
b a
cr
d
d
L
EI
P

Fixed-Fixed

2
2
2
4
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
a
b a
cr
d
d
L
EI
P

A subsequent discussion of Gere and Carters paper by N.C. Lind (1962)
examined the previously employed rules of thumb as compared to the equations
d
a
d
b
d
a
d
b
d
a
d
b
24
presented by Gere and Carter. Lind found that for the fairly narrow ranges of end
diameter ratios and shape factors usually used in design, the half-point and third-point
rules (from the small end) give non-conservative results with up to 15% to 20% error for
the critical buckling load. By his analysis, effective cross sections should be located at
the 4/10-point for the pinned-pinned condition and the 6/10-point for the fixed-free
condition to give conservative results with errors less than 7%.
Very early in tapered column analysis, Dinnik (1929) used Bessel functions to
solve for the buckling loads of linearly tapered members symmetric about their half-
length. His procedures are very straightforward and his design curves are presented
neatly. Later, he produced a paper including many example problems and solutions using
his previously published material (Dinnik, 1932). While these papers were originally
written and published in Russian in 1914 and 1916, they were later translated and
published in the United States.
Gatewood (1954) extended some of Timoshenkos (1961) work and published
design curves for all taper ratios and variation of the moment of inertia between the zero
and sixth power for a fixed-free column.
Smith (1988) provides an analytic solution to the tapered-column buckling
problem, which allows for virtually any variation of the cross-section along the length of
the member. His primary example is a fixed-free column with moment of inertia varying
by the power of 4 along the length of the member. By comparing to results provided by
Dinnik (1929), he shows that for small taper ratios, the error in his calculations is small,
but increases as the taper becomes more severe and the trigonometric assumption for the
deflected shape becomes more approximate. For cases other than linearly tapered round
25
and square sections, his analytic expressions quickly become very cumbersome for hand
calculations. He recommends the use of symbolic analysis software to handle these
expressions.

2.4.2 Other numerical methods
Rivello (1969) provided a short treatment of the finite-difference method as it can
be applied to determinate tapered column buckling problems. This method, like the Ritz
and finite element methods, produces a set of homogeneous simultaneous linear
equations, which must then be solved. It is the computationally expensive nature of these
methods (when sufficiently small mesh sizes are used) that makes the Newmark method
more appropriate for the study of tapered column buckling. Rivello (1969) also provided
a treatment of tapered column analysis using the Rayleigh-Ritz Method.
Galambos (1998) gave a general introduction to the use of the finite element
method to conduct stability analyses. The governing differential equations for an axially
loaded prismatic column are provided as an example along with the statement of total
potential energy. He then goes on to discuss weighted-residual and variational
formulations of the problem. Coverage of higher-order analyses is provided briefly and
extensive recommendations for finite element software are given.
In most cases, finite element approximations of a structure underestimate the
stiffness of the structure and thus err on the side of conservatism. However, they can be
significantly inaccurate unless fine meshes are used. The versatility of the finite element
method allows for the study of more complex problems, such as inelastic buckling and
second-order analyses. For the buckling of slender column or beam members, the finite
26
element method adds unnecessary complexity to a problem that can be solved by simpler
and more computationally economical means.
Seide (1975) provides a comparison of the finite difference method applied to the
buckling of a prismatic column to the finite element method based on the principle of
minimum potential energy and a mixed variational principle. While Seides findings are
only for a prismatic column, his analysis of the number of nodes required for a
reasonably accurate solution is pertinent to this discussion. The most accurate
approximation he considered uses the finite element method based on the principle of
minimum potential energy where the lateral deflection is a cubic function of the distance
along the column length. This approximation requires only 6 elements to achieve an
accuracy of 0.01%. Less accurate approximations are provided for comparision. It is
uncertain how tapering of the section would affect Seides findings.
Kim et al (1997) employ the finite-element method to thin-walled tapered beam-
columns. Column buckling was considered for solid section tapered members and plate
buckling considerations were made when examining lateral-torsional and inelastic
buckling behavior. Comparing their solution for the critical buckling load of a single-
tapered rectangular section to theoretical solutions developed by Timoshenko and Gere
(1961), they achieve deviations of less than 3% using only six elements. It is difficult to
assess how precise there numbers are for the purposes of comparing to this study as the
buckling load factor is only reported to two decimal places. The crux of their paper is the
development of stiffness matrices for tapered elements. Thus, the buckling problem
comprises only a small portion of the paper.
27
In 1981, M.D. Vanderbilt and his coworkers at Colorado State University reported
on analysis program, POLEDA-80, developed using the Newmark numerical technique
for single-pole utility structures (EPRI, 1981 and EPRI, 1987). This analysis program
considered the large deformation behavior of nonprismatic restrained-free (fixed or
specified rotational spring modeling foundation conditions) cantilever members with
axial loads and moments introduced at specified locations along the pole length.
Buckling loads for the one end condition (restrained-free) could be obtained using
POLEDA-80.
Additional numerical solution methods for nonprismatic columns are presented by
Ram and Rao (1951), Chen et al (1987), and Ku (1979). Tapered column buckling under
stepped axial loads was researched by Ermopoulos and analyzed using numerical
integration and a discretized column made up of prismatic sections. Tapered box
columns under biaxial loading were analyzed by Liew et al (1989) using moment-
curvature-thrust relationships and Hornes stability criteria.
Some recent research in tapered column buckling loads addresses ever more
complex variations in cross section and applied loading. Researchers at the University of
Wales in Cardiff have incorporated many of the exact solutions developed using Bessel
functions into design curves that qualify the buckling trends for linearly tapered columns
with uniform compressive force applied along all or part of their length (Williams and
Aston, 1989). Banerjee and Williams (1986) produced a set of tapered element stiffness
matrices for input into a finite element program that allowed for the buckling, torsion,
flexure, and vibration analyses of tapered beam-columns to be performed. With an
adequate number of elements (400 or more), they show member stiffnesses can be
28
approximated to seven-figure accuracy. They also include a very complete discussion of
past research in tapered columns and they provide excellent references for Bessel
functions and solution of complex differential equations. Many of the equations that
these more recent analyses use are based on initial work performed by Wittrick and
Williams (1973) that extended work in computing natural frequencies of structures to
determination of buckling loads. The bulk of the research by Williams is presented in a
culminating paper describing the capabilities of BUNVIS-RG, a FORTRAN program
employing the matrix stiffness method to calculate critical load factors and natural
frequencies of vibration (Anderson and Williams, 1987).

2.5 Buckling load determination for tapered members in code-based design
2.5.1 Wood Codes
2.5.1.1 ASD Code for Wood
The National Design Specification (NDS) for Wood Construction provides an
allowable strength design procedure for the design of most wood structural members
(AF&PA 1997). In its Section 3.7.2, the NDS uses an equivalent prismatic section
approach to the design of tapered columns and piles, and only rectangular and circular
cross sections are considered. Hollow or built-up columns are not taken into account.
The equations used to determine the equivalent prismatic section of the tapered column
were developed by Criswell (1984).
According to the most recent version of the NDS:

For design of a column with rectangular cross section, tapered at one or both
ends, the representative dimension, d, for each face of the column shall be
derived as follows:
29

d = d
min
+ (d
max
d
min
)[a 0.15(1-d
min
/d
max
)] (3.7-2)

where

d
min
= the minimum dimension for that face of the column
d
max
= the maximum dimension for that face of the column

Support Conditions
Large end fixed, small end unsupported or pinned a = 0.70
Small end fixed, large end unsupported or pinned a = 0.30
Both ends pinned:
Tapered toward one end a = 0.50
Tapered toward both ends a = 0.70
For all other support conditions:

d = d
min
+ (d
max
d
min
)(1/3) (3.7-3)
and

The design of a column of round cross section shall be based on the design
calculations for a square column of the same cross-sectional area and having the
same degree of taper.

While the design equations for tapered columns with pinned-pinned, fixed-
pinned, and fixed-free support conditions are an improvement over the earlier versions of
the code, support conditions not explicitly defined here still rely on the more conservative
third-point rule (i.e. assume a prismatic column with section taken at one-third of the
tapered member length from the small end) for determining the equivalent prismatic
section. Previous versions of the NDS had relied on this third-point method exclusively,
but Criswells improvements made the design of columns with pinned-pinned, fixed-
pinned, or fixed-free support conditions more efficient. It should be noted that the NDS
equations are very good for small end dimension ratios (d
max
/d
min
>3) but that
conservatism is increased as the column becomes more tapered. It is obvious to the
author that the current NDS allows for reasonable efficiency and ample conservatism, but
30
for a more complete and efficient design the methods provided in this thesis should be
employed.

2.5.1.2 LRFD Code for Wood
The Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Manual for Engineered Wood
Construction provides a load and resistance factor design procedure for the design of
most wood structural members (AF&PA/ASCE 1995). The LRFD manual also uses an
equivalent prismatic section method for the design of tapered columns and piles, and only
rectangular and circular cross sections are considered. The equations used to determine
the equivalent prismatic section are modified slightly from the NDS code equations to
accommodate the LRFD notation, but the research behind the equations is the same. As
in the NDS, rectangular columns tapered along one or both faces of the column are
considered, as are columns with circular cross section. And again, more exact equations
for pinned-pinned, fixed-pinned, and fixed-free support conditions are provided while
other support conditions require the use of the third-point rule. This similarity between
the ASD and LRFD design documents reflects the wood industrys philosophy that the
basic behavioral equations can, and should, be the same for these two documents. The
content of these two design documents is intentionally and actively coordinated.

2.5.2 LRFD Code for Steel
The Load and Resistance Factor Design version of the Manual of Steel
Construction by the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC, 2001) provides
provisions for web-tapered members that must conform to three requirements:
31
1) The member shall possess one axis of symmetry that is perpendicular to
the plane of bending.
2) The flanges must have equal and constant area along the member
length.
3) The depth of the web must vary linearly.
Compression members meeting these requirements may be designed by standard
methods with weak axis buckling remaining the same and strong axis buckling modified
only by a different effective length factor (K
), which shall be determined by a rational

analysis (AISC, 2001). Much of the research on web-tapered steel compression
members has been conducted by C.G. Lee and his associates at the University of New
York at Buffalo and is discussed in the excellent reference, The Guide to Stability Design
Criteria for Metal Structures (Galambos, 1998).

2.5.3 Concrete Code
The ACI 318-02 does not specifically address tapered members, leaving the
analysis of nonprismatic members for flexure and combined axial load plus bending
largely up to the designer. This is partly because concrete columns seldom are loaded in
compression only (rather than acting as beam-columns). Long column effects are based
on a moment-multiplier concept. Nonprismatic columns are not addressed. However,
Head and Aristizabal-Ochoa provide an algorithm and design procedures for concrete
columns with linear taper (Head and Aristizabal-Ochoa, 1987).

32
3. Analysis Procedures
3.1 Conjugate beam method
Prior to using Newmarks method to calculate buckling loads of tapered columns,
sufficient background should be had in the conjugate beam method. Similar to the
moment area method, the conjugate beam method uses moment and stiffness response of
the beam (or column) in question to load what is called the conjugate beam, a beam of
equivalent dimensions and cross-sectional variation that has different end conditions.
Shear and moment response in the conjugate beam correspond to the deflections and
section rotations of the original beam, respectively. The end conditions of the conjugate
beam are chosen according to set rules based on ?. According to these rules, if the
original beam is able to undergo a rotation at its left end, then its conjugate beam must be
able to develop a shear at its left end. Accordingly, if the original beam is able to
undergo a deflection at its left end, then its conjugate beam must be able to develop a
moment at its left end. Thus, if the original beam were free at its left end, then the
conjugate beam would be fixed at its left end. Figure 3.1 provides original beam end
conditions and their conjugate equivalents. Conjugate beams must also be adjusted for
internal hinges and other discontinuities. These situations may be analyzed by following
the general rules for the conjugate beam, but they will not be discussed here as all of the
columns to be examined will be continuous.
Once the original and conjugate beams are formulated, the theory holds that the
moment distribution of the original beam shall be calculated and then divided by EI along
its length. Hence, if the beam stiffness varies along its length, this can be taken into
account in the analysis. The conjugate beam is then loaded with the magnitude of the
33
approximate curvature, M/EI, for the original beam. Shears and moments may then be
calculated along the length of the conjugate beam. These values correspond to rotation
and deflection at each section of the original beam, respectively. Just as the shear and
moment diagrams represent the first two integrations of the loading diagram subject to
specified shear and moment boundary conditions, the conjugate beam includes the two
integrations of the curvature values subject to known rotation and deflection boundary
conditions to obtain the rotations and deflections. Thus, the conjugate beam method
ultimately allows for the rapid calculation of deflections and rotations in a beam (or in the
case of this thesis, column) of varying cross section.

Original Beam End Condition Conjugate Beam End Condition
Simple Support
y = 0
0

Simple Support
y = 0
0

Guided Support
y 0
= 0

Guided Support
y 0
= 0

Fixed Support
y = 0
= 0

Free End
y 0
0

Free End
y 0
0

Fixed Support
y = 0
= 0

Figure 3.1. End conditions paired with their conjugate equivalents.

3.2 Concentrated loads from ordinates of a distributed load
Background will be provided here concerning the concentration formulae used to
discretize a distributed load at the node points based on the pattern of values (ordinates)
34
of this distributed load. In order to use Newmarks method for calculating the critical
buckling loads of columns, a non-uniform distributed load reflecting the usual pattern of
the M/EI values must be concentrated at the nodal points between each element. By
using a power series to approximate the distributed load, accurate equations have been
produced to calculate the concentrated loads based on the ordinates of the distributed load
at adjacent points. For uniform or linearly varying distributed loads, these equations are
easy to develop. Newmark (1943) provides the derivation for these curves, while
Godden (1965) develops more of these equations to account for distributed and
concentrated loads. The most effective equations are very often those used to
approximate a parabolic curve, a common shape for a moment diagram and thus for the
M/EI loading. These equations are shown schematically in Figure 3.2 for the two
resultant values that are pertinent to this thesis: the first, when the ordinates at the node in
question and the adjacent nodes are known (R
B
), and the second, when the ordinates at
the node in question and the two nodes in one direction from the node in question are
known (R
A
). By symmetry, the value that would be R
C
has the same form as R
A
.

24
) 6 7 ( c b a d
R
A
+
= (a)

12
) 10 ( c b a d
R
B
+ +
= (b)
Figure 3.2. Concentration formulae for two cases of a parabolic distributed load
(Newmark, 1943).

a b c
d d
R
A
R
B
35
3.3 Characterization of column taper
The research on tapered columns has yielded a great number of ways to
characterize the taper of a given member. For linearly tapering members of various cross
section, a shape factor is generally devised that is based on the variation of the moment of
inertia along the length of the member. If more complex taper scenarios are required,
then the shape factor is often based on the variation of some cross-sectional dimension
along the length of the member.
Gere and Carter (1962) provide the most general expression for the variation of
the moment of inertia for a linearly tapering column:

n
a
b
a
L
x
d
d
I x I
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ = 1 1 ) ( (Eq. 3.1)
where I(x) is the moment of inertia at any distance x from the small end of the column
(end a as defined in Figure 3.3), I
a
is the moment of inertia at the small end of the
column, d
a
and d
b
are the general dimensions at the small and large ends of the column,
respectively, and n is the shape factor given by the equation

a
b
a
b
d
d
I
I
n
log
log
= (Eq. 3.2)
This allows for the shape factor to be determined for any given cross section. However,
for most simple shapes, n may be evaluated by inspection. For example, knowing that
I=d
4
/64 for a circular cross section, one can deduce that for linear variation of the
diameter, the moment of inertia will vary by the power of 4.
36
Figure 3.3 provides the notation used for this thesis, while Table 3.1 gives cross-
sectional shapes, taper conditions, and shape factors discussed in this thesis. Wide flange
and closed box sections with constant web thickness, constant flange thickness, constant
width, and varying depth have a shape factor between 2.1 and 2.6. The shape factor for
these shapes must be evaluated on an individual basis. While design equations are not
provided for these cases, they are obviously bounded by the n=2 (no web thickness) and
n=3 (web thickness equals flange width = rectangular section) cases and can be estimated
by the equations provided.

Figure 3.3. Notation used to characterize tapered column geometry.
x
y
a = smaller end dimension
b = larger end dimension
L
37
Table 3.1. Various cross sections and their associated shape factors based on Equation
3.2 for linear tapers (Gere and Carter, 1962).
Shape Shape factor, n

Solid circular section
Varying diameter, d

4

Solid square section
Varying dimension, d

4

Solid rectangular section
Constant width, b
Varying depth, d
Buckling about horizontal axis

3

Solid rectangular section
Constant width, b
Varying depth, d
Buckling about vertical axis

1

Tower Section
Constant areas concentrated
near corners
Varying dimension, d

2

Open-web section
Constant dimensions b, t
f

Varying depth, d
Buckling about horizontal axis

2
d
d
d
b
d
b
d
d
d
b
d
t
f

t
f

38
3.4 Spreadsheet development for determinate and one-degree indeterminate
tapered column buckling analysis

Excel is a commonly available and widely used spreadsheet program capable of
many operations involving tabularized data. For these reasons, it was chosen as the
computational environment for this study, although several other spreadsheet programs
have similar capabilities and operational features. The procedure for using Excel to
calculate the critical buckling loads and mode shapes for tapered columns with pinned-
pinned, fixed-free, fixed-pinned, and fixed-guided end conditions will be presented in a
stepwise manner. Each step will include the general method, applicable for any column
configuration. Then, details will be given that relate specifically to a linearly tapering
round column. This step-by-step development both illustrates the steps in the Newmark
method, whether it is carried out by hand, by specific programs prepared for its use, or by
spreadsheets, and the implementation of this method in a spreadsheet computing
environment. A table follows the procedure for each set of end conditions, which
contains a numerical example using 10 approximating elements for a column of circular
cross section with an end diameter ratio of 2. The steps in the following processes
correspond to the spreadsheet column numbers provided in the table.

3.4.1 A pinned-pinned column
Table 3.2, located at the end of this section, contains a numerical example for a
round pinned-pinned column with 10 approximating elements and end diameter ratio of
2. The first six iterations of this example are included in Appendix A.4.
1) The first spreadsheet column is set up as the ratio of the distance from the top of
the column to the column length, L. With the first cell containing a zero, the cell
39
below should contain a formula adding 1/N to the previous cell, where N is the
number of equal-length elements (h = element length = L/N) approximating the
column. This formula should be dragged down N-1 cells until a cell results in the
number 1. Thus, the first column represents the distance from the top of the
column as a fraction of the total length. This distance will henceforth be referred
to as x.
2) The second column provides a representative dimension on which the calculation
of the moment of inertia may be based. Thus, in the case of a linearly tapering
round column, the dimension d is used to represent the diameter at any point x
along the column length. The first cell in this column is equal to d
a
, the column
diameter at the top of the column. The second cell should contain the formula d =
d
a
+ x(d
b
- d
a
), where d
a
and d
b
are the column diameters at the top and bottom of
the column, respectively, and are fixed.
3) The third column is defined to be the moment of inertia, I, at any location x along
the column length. Thus, for the linearly tapering round column, I = d
4
/64. As
for the diameter, I
a
and I
b
refer to the moments of inertia at the top and bottom of
the column, respectively.
4) The fourth column creates a ratio of I to I
a
. By scaling the moment of inertia,
which is often a very large number, the computations required of Excel are more
precise and the equations on the screen are easier to examine.
5) The fifth column is provided for the assumed lateral deflection of the column,
denoted y
o
. It is given a common factor, a, to account for scaling and units. The
factor a is retained and will be used later in the final calculation of the buckling
40
load. For the pinned-pinned case, a parabolic curve varying from 0 at the ends to
1 at the middle of the column is appropriate. The user may begin the Newmark
iterative procedure with whatever deflected shape is desired and use any method
to generate the assumed deflections. If formulae are used initially in this column,
they will be overwritten as the iterations progress and a final solution is found. It
should be noted that the assumed deflection should resemble the exact deflection
to such an extent that the solution will converge on the critical buckling load and
shape. In this case, an initial deflected shape varying linearly from 0 at the ends
to 1 in the middle will converge to the anticipated solution. However, the
assumed shape may be required to be more exact for more complex end
conditions. If the assumed shape is greatly different from the true solution shape,
convergence may not occur or convergence to a high mode buckled shape may
occur.
6) The sixth column represents the moment, M, that occurs at each section of the
column. Thus, M = (-P)(y
o
) and is simply 1 times the previous column. To
account for the compressive load, the common factor for this column is aP.
7) The seventh column contains computations of the curvature, M/EI, which is a
quantity that is distributed along the length of the column. By the procedure of
the conjugate beam method, this will become the applied load at the nodal points
for the conjugate column. The calculation of this column simply divides column
6, the column internal moment, by column 3, the ratio of section moment of
inertia to end moment of inertia. Thus, the common factor for this column
41
becomes aP/EI
a
. The modulus of elasticity, E, is assumed to be constant, not a
variable with length.
8) The eighth column is the nodal concentrations of the distributed M/EI. This
column utilizes the equations given in Figure 3.1 as appropriate. Equation (a) in
that figure is used to calculate the nodal concentration at the top and bottom
nodes, while Equation (b) is used to calculate the nodal concentration for each
internal node. If the distance between the nodes, h, and 1/12, common to both
equations, are left as common factors and pulled out, the common factor for this
column becomes ahP/12EI
a
.
9) The ninth column is an aid that allows the shear at the top end of the column to be
calculated by summing the moments due to the nodal concentrations of M/EI
about the bottom end of the column (italics will be used when referring to shear or
moment in the conjugate column, noting that these equate to rotation and
deflection, respectively, in the original column). The calculation is simply the
nodal concentrations times the distance from the bottom end: (nodal M/EI)(1-x)
where 1-x is the proportion of the nodal load that contributes to the reaction at the
top of the conjugate column. These values are then summed in the tenth column
to provide a starting point for the shear calculation at each node.
10) The tenth column is the shear at each node, which may be systematically
calculated by subtracting the nodal concentration at that node from the shear in
the previous node. Thus, the section rotations for each element in the original
beam can be calculated. Note that the shear at the top of the column is the sum of
42
the values in the ninth column divided by 1. The common factor for this column
remains ahP/12EI
a
.
11) The eleventh column is the deflection in the original column, which equates to the
moment in the conjugate column. At this point, the boundary conditions of the
column are used as a starting point. Because this is a pinned-pinned column, the
deflection, or moment, at both ends is zero. Setting the deflection at the top of the
column to zero and systematically calculating the moments by adding the shear
times the distance to the next node, h, to the moment in the previous node, the
deflections are easily obtained. By retaining h as a common factor, the common
factor for the column becomes ah
2
P/12EI
a
.
12) The twelfth column is the normalized deflection that can then be used as the
assumed deflection in the next iteration. This column is calculated by dividing
each value of the eleventh column by the absolute maximum value in that column.
13) The thirteenth column is the percent difference of the assumed deflection from the
derived deflection. Ultimately, the sum of the squares of the values in this
column will be driven toward zero to determine the approximated buckled shape,
obtained by the solutions convergence to an acceptable error. For the analyses
performed for this research a value of 10
-10
was used to indicate a reasonable
degree of convergence.
14) The fourteenth column is the Euler factor for each point along the beam. These
values differ slightly for the individual elements as they bound the exact buckling
load. The Euler factor is calculated by equating the assumed and derived
deflections, including their factors:
43

a
d o
EI
aPh
y a y
12
2
= (Eq. 3.3)
Thus, substituting h = L/N and solving for P yields P
cr
:

2
2
12
L
EI
N
y
y
P
a
d
o
cr
|
|
.
|
\
|
= (Eq. 3.4)
15) Equation 3.4 can be manipulated to give a factor, P*, that multiplies the Euler
buckling load for a pinned-pinned column. P
cr
becomes some multiple, P*, of the
buckling load for a prismatic column with pinned-pinned end conditions. Thus,
( )
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
2
2
*
L
EI
P P
a
cr

(Eq. 3.5)
where

2
2
12
*
N
y
y
P
d
o
|
|
.
|
\
|
= (Eq. 3.6)
To facilitate a rapid solution within the spreadsheet, a number of final steps were
followed. First, a cell was created which calculates the sum of the squares of the
thirteenth column, which contains the percent difference between the assumed and scaled
deflections. This value is an indicator of the degree to which the assumed and derived
deflections match. By the nature of the solution, as the normalized derived deflection, y
n
,
is used as the assumed deflection, y
a
, the buckled shape becomes more exact with each
iteration and the sum of the squares of the thirteenth column is driven to some chosen
small error value (for the research presented here it was 10
-10
).
A Visual Basic program was written to achieve the necessary number of iterations
by copying the normalized derived deflections (column 12) into the assumed deflection
column (column 5) and then repeating the remaining calculations until a sufficient degree
44
of accuracy (based on the sum of the squares of the thirteenth column) was achieved.
This program is as follows:
Sub ss_iterate()
sumerror = Range("N57").Value gives the variable sumerror the value of
the sum of the squares of the percent difference between the normalized
derived deflections and the assumed deflections
Do Until (sumerror < 0.0000000001) performs calculations within loop
until the sumerror is less than 1x10
-10

Range("M6:M56").Select selects the normalized derived deflections
Selection.Copy
Range("F6").Select selects the first cell in the column of assumed
deflections
Selection.PasteSpecial Paste:=xlValues, Operation:=xlNone,
SkipBlanks:= _
False, Transpose:=False pastes the values of the normalized derived
deflections into the assumed deflections
sumerror = Range("N57").Value reads in new sumerror value
Loop closes loop
Range("F6").Select puts focus on cell F6
Application.CutCopyMode = False removes copy selection box
End Sub

45
46
3.4.2 A fixed-free (pinned-guided) column
The deflected shape and buckling load are the same for a fixed-free and a guided-
pinned column. Thus, they are presented here as one case. Table 3.3, located at the end
of this section, contains a numerical example for a round fixed-free column with 10
approximating elements and end diameter ratio of 2. The first six iterations of this
example are included in Appendix A.4.
to as x.
2) The second column provides a representative dimension on which the calculation
of the moment of inertia may be based. Thus, in the case of a linearly tapering
round column, the dimension d is used to represent the diameter at any point x
along the column length. The first cell in this column is equal to d
a
, the column
diameter at the top of the column. The second cell should contain the formula d =
d
a
+ x(d
b
- d
a
), where d
a
and d
b
are the column diameters at the top and bottom of
the column, respectively, and are fixed.
4
/64. As
47
for the diameter, I
a
and I
b
4) The fourth column creates a ratio of I to I
a
. By scaling the moment of inertia,
which is often a very large number, the computations required of Excel are more
precise and the equations on the screen are easier to examine.
denoted y
o
load. For the fixed-free case, a linear variation from 0 at the fixed end to 1 at the
free end is an appropriate starting shape. The user may begin the Newmark
numerical procedure with whatever deflected shape is desired and use any method
to generate the assumed deflections. If formulae are used initially to characterize
the assumed deflected shape, they will be overwritten as the iterations progress
and a final solution is found. It should be noted that the assumed deflection
should resemble the exact deflection to such an extent that the solution will
converge on the critical buckling load and shape. In this case, an initial deflected
shape varying linearly from 0 at the fixed end to 1 at the free end will converge to
the anticipated solution. However, the assumed shape may be required to be more
exact for more complex end conditions or cross section variation. If the assumed
shape is greatly different from the true solution shape, convergence may not occur
or convergence to a high mode buckled shape may occur.
48
column. Thus, M = (-P)(y
o
) and is simply 1 times the previous column. To
account for the compressive load, the common factor for this column is aP.
7) The seventh column should contain computations of the curvature, M/EI, which is
a quantity that is distributed along the length of the column. By the procedure of
becomes aP/EI
a
that figure is used to calculate the nodal concentration at the top and bottom
nodes, while Equation (b) is used to calculate the nodal concentration for each
a
.
9) The ninth column is the shear at each node, which may be systematically
beam can be calculated. For the guided-pinned case, the rotation at the guided
49
end is set to zero and the section rotations are calculated from that starting point.
The common factor for this column remains ahP/12EI
a
.
10) The tenth column is the deflection in the original column, which equates to the
moment in the conjugate column. At this point, the boundary conditions of the
column are used as a starting point. Because this is a guided-pinned column, the
deflection, or moment, at the pinned end is zero. Setting the deflection at the top
of the column to zero and systematically calculating the moments by adding the
shear times the distance to the next node, h, to the moment in the previous node,
the deflections are easily obtained. By retaining h as a common factor, the
common factor for the column becomes ah
2
P/12EI
a
.
11) The eleventh column is the normalized deflection, y
n
, that can then be used as the
assumed deflection in the next iteration. This column is calculated by dividing
each value of the eleventh column by the absolute maximum value in that column.
12) The twelfth column is the percent difference of the assumed deflection from the
derived deflection, (y
n
-y
o
)/y
n
. Ultimately, the sum of the squares of the values in
this column will be driven toward zero to determine the approximated buckled
shape obtained by the solutions convergence to an acceptable error. For the
analyses performed for this research a value of 10
-10
was used to indicate a
reasonable degree of convergence.
13) The thirteenth column is the Euler factor for each point along the beam. These
50

a
d o
EI
aPh
y a y
12
2
= (Eq. 3.7)
cr
:

2
2
12
L
EI
N
y
y
P
a
d
o
cr
|
|
.
|
\
|
= (Eq. 3.8)
buckling load for a guided-pinned column. P
cr
buckling load for a prismatic column with guided-pinned end conditions. Thus,
( )
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
2
2
4
*
L
EI
P P
a
cr

(Eq. 3.9)
where
2
2
48
*
N
y
y
P
d
o
|
|
.
|
\
|
= (Eq. 3.10)
n
,
a
-10
). A Visual Basic program
identical to that used for the pinned-pinned case was written to rapidly perform the
iterations for the fixed-free case.
51

52
3.4.3 A fixed-pinned column
round fixed-pinned column with 10 approximating elements and end diameter ratio of 2.
The first six iterations of this example are included in Appendix A.4.
to as x.
2) The second column should provide a representative dimension on which the
calculation of the moment of inertia may be based. Thus, in the case of a linearly
tapering round column, the dimension d is used to represent the diameter at any
point x along the column length. The first cell in this column is equal to d
a
, the
column diameter at the top of the column. The second cell should contain the
formula d = d
a
+ x(d
b
- d
a
), where d
a
and d
b
are the column diameters at the top
and bottom of the column, respectively, and are fixed.
4
/64. As
for the diameter, I
a
and I
b
53
4) The fourth column should create a ratio of I to I
b
. By scaling the moment of
inertia, which is often a very large number, the computations required of Excel
are more precise and the equations on the screen are easier to examine.
denoted y
o
load. For the fixed-pinned case, a linear variation from 0 at the ends to 1 at the
middle is an appropriate starting shape. The user may begin the Newmark
iterative procedure with whatever deflected shape is desired and use any method
to generate the assumed deflections. If formulae are used initially to characterize
the assumed deflected shape, they will be overwritten as the iterations progress
and a final solution is found. It should be noted that the assumed deflection
should resemble the exact deflection to such an extent that the solution will
converge on the critical buckling load and shape. In this case, an initial deflected
shape varying linearly from 0 at the ends to 1 at the middle will converge to the
anticipated solution. However, the assumed shape may be required to be more
exact for more complex end conditions or cross section variation. If the assumed
shape is greatly different from the true solution shape, convergence may not occur
or convergence to a high mode buckled shape may occur.
column. For both indeterminate cases, a thrust line concept is used. While the
determinate columns may have no points of inflection of the deflected shape (and
therefore the moment diagram), the one-degree indeterminate cases have one
54
point of inflection along their length. The thrust line is the path the load would
take from either end of the column through the point of inflection (see Figure 3.4).
The first step in determining the true moment in the column is to estimate the
position of this thrust line. Because the thrust line is linear from the pinned end
through the inflection point to some unknown point at the fixed end, any value for
the unknown at the fixed end can be used. A correction is applied later to account
for any difference. Thus, the expression for calculating moment derived in the
two previous cases still applies, however now M = (-P)(y
t
), where y
t
is the
distance from the thrust line to the deflected shape. Because the value of y
t
at the
fixed end is arbitrary, an existing column of data is used to provide the linear
variation. Column 1, representing the distance from the top of the column may be
used as the initial position of the thrust line. Thus, the calculation within this
column is x-y
o
. The compressive load, P, is common to all terms and is retained,
making the common factor for this column aP.

Figure 3.4. Thrust line concept for a fixed-pinned column.

P
thrust line
deflected shape
55
becomes aP/EI
b
that figure is used to calculate the nodal concentration at the fixed end, while
Equation (b) is used to calculate the nodal concentration for each internal node. If
the distance between the nodes, h, and 1/12, common to both equations, are left as
common factors and pulled out, the common factor for this column becomes
ahP/12EI
b
.
9) The ninth column is the shear at each node, which may be systematically
beam can be calculated. For the fixed-pinned case, the rotation at the fixed end is
set to zero and the section rotations are calculated from that starting point. The
common factor for this column remains ahP/12EI
b
.
10) The tenth column is the deflection in the original column, which equates to the
moment in the conjugate column. Because this is a fixed-pinned column, the
deflection, or moment, at the fixed end is zero. Setting the deflection at the
bottom of the column to zero and systematically calculating the moments by
56
adding the shear times the distance to the next node, h, to the moment in the
previous node, the deflections are easily obtained. By retaining h as a common
factor, the common factor for the column becomes ah
2
P/12EI
b
.
11) The eleventh column begins a new series of columns required to account for the
error in the initial estimation of the thrust line. The error will be based on the
moment in the conjugate column at the fixed end, so any additional moment
required to correct this would produce a linear moment diagram, maximum at the
fixed end and zero at the pinned end. Thus, the eleventh column varies linearly
from some arbitrary value (10 is used in this case) at the fixed end to zero at the
pinned end. This redundant moment will move through the same manipulations
as the moments due to the assumed deflection would. This accounts for the effect
the taper in the column has on the redundant moment.
12) The twelfth column is the redundant moment divided by EI, with the common
factor aP/EI
b
.
13) The thirteenth column is the nodal concentration of the redundant moment
curvatures computed as before using Equation (a) from Figure 3.1 for the fixed
end and Equation (b) from the same figure for the internal nodes. The common
factor becomes aPh/12EI
b
.
14) The fourteenth column is the slope of each element in the original column due to
the effect of the redundant moment and is calculated in the same way as the ninth
column. The common factor is aPh/12EI
b
.
57
15) The fifteenth column is the deflection in the original column due to the effect of
the redundant moment and is calculated in the same way as the tenth column. The
common factor is aPh
2
/12EI
b
.
16) The sixteenth column is the scaled deflection as a result of the redundant moment.
The redundant deflections are normalized to allow for scaling based on the error
produced in the first cell of the tenth column. The common factor is aPh
2
/12EI
b
.
17) The seventeenth column is the correction to be applied to the deflections
calculated in the tenth column. The scaling factor is the value of undesired
deflection at the pinned end of the column produced in the tenth column. The
common factor is aPh
2
/12EI
b
.
18) The eighteenth column is the adjusted deflection. This takes the derived
deflections of the tenth column and adds the correction produced in the
seventeenth column. The common factor is aPh
2
/12EI
b
.
19) The nineteenth column is the normalized deflection, y
n
, that can then be used as
the assumed deflection in the next iteration. This column is calculated by
dividing each value of the eighteenth column by the absolute maximum value in
that column. The common factor is aPh
2
/12EI
b
.
20) The twentieth column is the percent difference of the assumed deflection from the
derived deflection, (y
n
-y
o
)/y
n
. Ultimately, the sum of the squares of the values in
this column will be driven toward zero to determine the approximated buckled
shape. For the analyses performed for this research a value of 10
-10
was used to
indicate a reasonable degree of convergence.
58
21) The twenty-first column is the Euler factor for each point along the beam. These

b
d o
EI
aPh
y a y
12
2
= (Eq. 3.11)
cr
:

2
2
12
L
EI
N
y
y
P
b
d
o
cr
|
|
.
|
\
|
= (Eq. 3.12)
buckling load for a fixed-pinned column. P
cr
buckling load for a prismatic column with fixed-pinned end conditions. Thus,
( ) |
.
|
\
|
=
2
1997 . 20
*
L
EI
P P
b
cr
(Eq. 3.13)
where
19997 . 20
12
*
2
N
y
y
P
d
o
|
|
.
|
\
|
= (Eq. 3.14)
To facilitate a rapid solution within the spreadsheet, a number of final
steps were followed. First, a cell was created which calculates the sum of the
squares of the thirteenth column, which contains the percent difference between
the assumed and scaled deflections. This value is an indicator of the degree to
which the assumed and derived deflections match. By the nature of the solution,
as the normalized derived deflection, y
n
, is used as the assumed deflection, y
a
, the
buckled shape becomes more exact with each iteration and the sum of the squares
59
of the thirteenth column is driven to some chosen small error value (for the
research presented here it was 10
-10
). A Visual Basic program identical to that
used for the pinned-pinned case was written to rapidly perform the iterations for
the fixed-free case.
60
61
3.4.4 A fixed-guided column
round fixed-guided column with 10 approximating elements and end diameter ratio of 2.
The first six iterations of this example are included in Appendix A.4.
to as x.
2) The second column should provide a representative dimension on which the
calculation of the moment of inertia may be based. Thus, in the case of a linearly
tapering round column, the dimension d is used to represent the diameter at any
point x along the column length. The first cell in this column is equal to d
a
, the
column diameter at the top of the column. The second cell should contain the
formula d = d
a
+ x(d
b
- d
a
), where d
a
and d
b
are the column diameters at the top
and bottom of the column, respectively, and are fixed values.
3) The third column is the moment of inertia, I, at any location x along the column
length. Thus, for the linearly tapering round column, I = d
4
/64. I
a
and I
b
refer to
the moments of inertia at the top and bottom of the column, respectively.
62
4) The fourth column should create a ratio of I to I
b
. By scaling the moment of
inertia, which is often a very large number, the computations required of Excel
are more precise and the values on the screen are easier to examine.
5) The fifth column is the assumed lateral deflection of the column, denoted y
o
. It is
given a common factor, a, to account for scaling and units. The factor a is
retained and will be used later in the final calculation of the buckling load. For
the fixed-guided case, a linear variation from 0 at the ends to 1 at the middle is an
appropriate starting shape. The user may begin the Newmark iterative procedure
with whatever deflected shape is desired and use any method to generate the
assumed deflections. If formulae are used initially to characterize the assumed
deflected shape, they will be overwritten as the iterations progress and a final
solution is found. It should be noted that the assumed deflection should resemble
the exact deflection to such an extent that the solution will converge on the critical
buckling load and shape. In this case, an initial deflected shape varying linearly
from 0 at the ends to 1 at the middle will converge to the anticipated solution.
However, the assumed shape may be required to be more exact for more complex
end conditions or cross section variation. If the assumed shape is greatly different
from the true solution shape, convergence may not occur or convergence to a high
mode buckled shape may occur.
column. For both indeterminate cases, a thrust line concept is used. While the
determinate columns may have no points of inflection of the deflected shape (and
therefore the moment diagram), the one-degree indeterminate cases have one
63
point of inflection along their length. The thrust line is the path the load would
take from either end of the column through the point of inflection (see Figure 3.5).
The first step in determining the true moment in the column is to estimate the
position of this thrust line. Because the thrust line must be parallel to the
deflected shape at both the fixed and guided end, it is simply a line parallel to the
length of the column but offset some amount between the end deflections.
Because the deflections at the column ends are 0 and 1 by the design of the
solution, the thrust line is assumed to be positioned directly between the two at
0.5. A correction is applied later to account for any difference between this
assumption and the true position. The expression for calculating the moment
derived for the fixed-pinned case applies here as well: M = (-P)(y
t
), where y
t
is the
distance from the thrust line to the deflected shape. In this case, the calculation
within this column is y
t
= x-y
o
. The compressive load, P, is common to all terms
and is retained, making the common factor for this column aP.

Figure 3.5. Thrust line concept for a fixed-guided column.

P
thrust line
deflected shape
64
becomes aP/EI
b
column utilizes the equations given in Figure 3.2.1 as appropriate. Equation (a) in
that figure is used to calculate the nodal concentration at the fixed and guided
ends, while Equation (b) is used to calculate the nodal concentration for each
b
.
9) The ninth column is the shear at each node, which equates to the section rotation
in the original column. This value may be systematically calculated by
subtracting the nodal concentration at that node from the shear in the previous
node. Thus, the section rotations for each element in the original beam can be
calculated. For the fixed-guided case, the rotation at the fixed end is set to zero
and the section rotations are calculated from that starting point. The common
factor for this column remains ahP/12EI
b
.
10) The tenth column begins a new series of columns required to account for the error
in the initial estimation of the thrust line. The error will be based on the moment
in the conjugate column at the guided end, so any additional moment required to
65
correct this would produce a uniform moment diagram. Thus, the tenth column is
constant (10 is used in this case) along the length of the column. This redundant
moment will move through the same manipulations as the moments due to the
assumed deflection would. This accounts for the effect the taper in the column
has on the redundant moment.
11) The eleventh column is the redundant moment divided by EI, with the common
factor aP/EI
b
.
12) The twelfth column is the nodal concentration of the redundant moment
curvatures computed as before using Equation (a) from Figure 3.1 for the ends
and Equation (b) from the same figure for the internal nodes. The common factor
becomes aPh/12EI
b
.
13) The thirteenth column is the slope of each element in the original column due to
the effect of the redundant moment and is calculated in the same way as the ninth
column. The common factor is aPh/12EI
b
.
14) The fourteenth column is the scaled rotation as a result of the redundant moment.
The redundant deflections are normalized to allow for scaling based on the error
produced in the first cell of the ninth column. The common factor is aPh/12EI
b
.
15) The fifteenth column is the correction to be applied to the rotations calculated in
the ninth column. The scaling factor is the value of undesired rotation at the
guided end of the column produced in the ninth column. The common factor is
aPh/12EI
b
.
66
16) The sixteenth column is the adjusted rotation. This takes the derived rotations of
the ninth column and adds the correction produced in the fifteenth column. The
common factor is aPh/12EI
b
.
17) The seventeenth column is the derived deflection calculated from the boundary
condition at the fixed end where deflection is zero. The next cell may be
calculated by adding the rotation calculated for that particular section to the
deflection from the previous cell. The common factor is aPh
2
/12EI
b
.
18) The eighteenth column is the normalized deflection, y
n
, that can then be used as
the assumed deflection in the next iteration. This column is calculated by
dividing each value of the seventeenth column by the absolute maximum value in
that column. The common factor is aPh
2
/12EI
b
.
19) The nineteenth column is the percent difference of the assumed deflection from
the derived deflection, (y
n
-y
o
)/y
n
. Ultimately, the sum of the squares of the values
in this column will be driven toward zero to determine the approximated buckled
shape. For the analyses performed for this research a value of 10
-10
was used to
indicate a reasonable degree of convergence.
20) The twenty-first column is the Euler factor for each point along the beam. These

a
d o
EI
aPh
y a y
12
2
= (Eq. 3.15)
cr
:
67

2
2
12
L
EI
N
y
y
P
a
d
o
cr
|
|
.
|
\
|
= (Eq. 3.16)
buckling load for a fixed-guided column. P
cr
buckling load for a prismatic column with fixed-guided end conditions. Thus,

2
2
*
L
EI
P P
a
cr

= (Eq. 3.17)
where
2
2
12
*
N
y
y
P
d
o
|
|
.
|
\
|
= (Eq. 3.18)
n
,
a
-10
). A Visual Basic program
identical to that used for the pinned-pinned case was written to rapidly perform the
iterations for the fixed-free case.
68
69
3.5 Spreadsheet modification for more complex column geometry
Architectural, as well as structural, concerns will have an impact on the shape of a
column member. Architectural concerns often require structural engineers to push the
limits of the usual requirements of safety and economy. Columns such as those shown in
Figures 3.5 and 3.6 are examples of potential columns that a designer might face. The
equations required to characterize the columns in these figures are given. The round
column with parabolic variation of the radius (Figure 3.5) requires a more complex
variation of the diameter to characterize, but moment of inertia calculations remain
relatively simple. The cruciform column (Figure 3.6) requires both manipulation of the
characteristic dimension and the moment of inertia. These columns are still relatively
easy to characterize, but their more complex variation provides an example of the power
of the Newmark numerical method to calculate the critical buckling load for all manner
of nonprismatic columns. The characteristic dimension and moment of inertia data are
the only numbers that require manipulation. The rest of the spreadsheet remains intact.

a b
a a m a m
d d
d x d d x d d x d
=
+ + = ) ( 2 ) ( 2 ) (
2

Figure 3.6. Details of a round column with parabolic variation of the radius.

d
b

d
m

d
a

x
y
70
x d d d d
a m a
) ( 2 + = from x = 0 to L/2
) 5 . 0 )( ( 2 = x d d d d
a m m
from x = L/2 to L

a b
d d =

( )
4 3 3
) ( ) ( ) (
12
1
a a a
d d d d d I + |
.
|
\
|
=

Figure 3.7. Details of a cruciform column with linear variation from the ends to the
middle.

d
b

d
b

d
m

d
m

d
a

d
a

x
y
d
71
4. Results
The buckling loads of tapered columns are presented here in the same way for
each column. The ratio of end dimensions is always given as the large dimension divided
by the small dimension, thus it is always greater than one. The critical buckling load is
listed as a multiple, P*, of the Euler buckling load based on the moment of inertia of the
large end for the given end conditions. Therefore, the buckling load provided here will
always begin at P* = 1 for the prismatic column and be reduced as the column becomes
more tapered. The Newmark numerical method as presented in Section 3.4 was used
with 50 approximating elements to produce the following results. The numerical results
of the spreadsheet analyses for each column are presented in Appendix A.1.

4.1 Buckling loads of pinned-pinned columns

A plot of design curves according to variation of the moment of inertia as defined
in Section 3.3 is provided in Figure 4.1. A plot of buckled shapes for the case when n = 4
is presented in Figure 4.2. Plots of buckled shapes for all of the cases examined are
included in Appendix A.3. Design equations based on power curve trendlines applied to
the design curves are presented in Table 4.1 along with correlation values for the
trendlines and error values between the trendline approximation and the data. The design
equations are organized based on the variation of the moment of inertia and the ratio of
end dimensions, such that the buckling load may be found for any slender column with
pinned-pinned end conditions and linear taper of a section with moment of inertia that
varies as the power of 1, 2, 3, or 4. There is also a certain degree of error associated with
the numerical data. This concern is addressed in Section 4.5 and discussed later.
72
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 2 4 6 8 10
d
b
/d
a
P
*
n=4
n=3
n=2
n=1
d
a
d
b
( )
2
2
*
L
EI
P P
b
cr

=

Figure 4.1. Buckling load factor versus the ratio of end dimensions for a pinned-pinned
column with given taper geometry.

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
normalized deflection
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a

Figure 4.2. Normalized buckled shapes for the pinned-pinned column, n=4.

73
Table 4.1. Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation and end-
dimension ratio for a linearly tapering pinned-pinned column.
n Power fit d
b
/d
a

Correlation
(R
2
)
Minimum
% Error
Maximum
% Error
1
4426 . 0
9938 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 1 2 0.9987 -0.39% 0.62%
1
3133 . 0
9010 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 2.1 5 0.9971 -0.48% 1.02%
1
2104 . 0
7647 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 10 0.9976 -0.23% 0.50%
2
9233 . 0
9917 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 1 2 0.9995 -0.52% 0.83%
2
7473 . 0
8675 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 2.1 5 0.9990 -0.67% 1.41%
2
5990 . 0
6844 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 10 0.9993 -0.34% 0.74%
3
4426 . 1
9938 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 1 2 0.9999 -0.39% 0.62%
3
3133 . 1
9010 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 2.1 5 0.9998 -0.48% 1.02%
3
2101 . 1
7644 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 10 0.9999 -0.24% 0.49%
4
9997 . 1
9997 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 1 10 1.0000 -0.01% 0.04%

4.2 Buckling loads of fixed-free (pinned-guided) columns

in Section 3.3 is provided in Figures 4.3 and 4.4. A plot of buckled shapes for the case
when n = 4 is presented in Figure 4.5. Plots of buckled shapes for all of the cases
examined are included in Appendix A.3. Design equations based on power curve
74
trendlines applied to the design curves are presented in Tables 4.2 and 4.3 along with
correlation values for the trendlines and error values between the trendline approximation
and the data. The design equations are organized based on the variation of the moment of
inertia and the ratio of end dimensions, such that the buckling load may be found for any
slender column with fixed-free or guided-pinned end conditions and linear taper of a
section with moment of inertia that varies as the power of 1, 2, 3, or 4. There is also a
certain degree of error associated with the numerical data. This concern is addressed in
Section 4.5 and discussed later.

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 2 4 6 8 10
d
b
/d
a
P
*
n=4
n=3
n=2
n=1
d
a
d
b
( )
2
2
4
*
L
EI
P P
b
cr

=

Figure 4.3. Buckling load factor versus the ratio of end dimensions for a fixed-free
column with given taper geometry and large end fixed.

75

Table 4.2. Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation for a
linearly tapering column with the large end fixed and the small end free.
n Power fit d
b
/d
a
Correlation (R
2
)
Minimum
% Error
Maximum
% Error
1
2751 . 0
9953 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 1 2 0.9982 -0.29% 0.47%
1
1818 . 0
9278 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 2.1 5 0.9959 -0.34% 0.71%
1
1133 . 0
8321 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 10 0.9966 -0.15% 0.31%
2
5786 . 0
9936 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 1 2 0.9992 -0.40% 0.64%
2
4377 . 0
8923 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 2.1 5 0.9981 -0.55% 1.15%
2
3157 . 0
7343 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 10 0.9984 -0.29% 0.60%
3
9124 . 0
9951 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 1 2 0.9998 -0.31% 0.49%
3
7854 . 0
9015 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 2.1 5 0.9994 -0.56% 1.14%
3
6529 . 0
7287 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 10 0.9995 -0.33% 0.70%
4
2627 . 1
0085 . 1 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 1 2 0.9997 -0.85% 0.54%
4
4969 . 1
2110 . 1 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 2.1 5 0.9994 -2.17% 1.03%
4
7222 . 1
7338 . 1 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 10 0.9998 -1.06% 0.48%

76
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 2 4 6 8 10
d
a
/d
b
P
*
n=4
n=3
n=2
n=1
d
a
d
b
( )
2
2
4
*
L
EI
P P
a
cr

=

Figure 4.4. Buckling load factor versus the ratio of end dimensions for a fixed-free
column with given taper geometry and small end fixed.

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
a
/d
b
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a

(a) (b)
Figure 4.5. Normalized buckled shapes for the fixed-free column where (a) the small
end is fixed and (b) the large end is fixed, n=4.

77
linearly tapering column with the large end free and the small end fixed.
n Power fit d
a
/d
b
Correlation (R
2
)
Minimum
% Error
Maximum
% Error
1
6616 . 0
9955 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 1 2 0.9997 -0.28% 0.45%
1
5637 . 0
9238 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 2.1 5 0.9994 -0.38% 0.59%
1
4775 . 0
8048 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 10 0.9996 -0.21% 0.43%
2
3623 . 1
9953 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 1 2 0.9999 -0.28% 0.47%
2
2661 . 1
9254 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 2.1 5 0.9999 -0.36% 0.61%
2
1897 . 1
8193 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 10 1.0000 -0.18% 0.36%
3
0974 . 2
9988 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 1 2 1.0000 -0.07% 0.12%
3
0693 . 2
9775 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 2.1 5 1.0000 -0.11% 0.17%
3
0471 . 2
9439 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 10 1.0000 -0.05% 0.08%
4
8626 . 2
0053 . 1 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 1 2 1.0000 -0.53% 0.32%
4
9393 . 2
0625 . 1 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 2.1 5 1.0000 -0.62% 0.20%
4
9773 . 2
1283 . 1 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 10 1.0000 -0.16% 0.09%

78
4.3 Buckling loads of fixed-pinned columns

in Section 3.3 is provided in Figures 4.6 and 4.7. A plot of buckled shapes for the case
when n = 4 is presented in Figure 4.8. Plots of buckled shapes for all of the cases
examined are included in Appendix A.3. Design equations based on power curve
trendlines applied to the design curves are presented in Tables 4.4 and 4.5 along with
correlation values for the trendlines and error values between the trendline approximation
and the data. The design equations are organized based on the variation of the moment of
inertia and the ratio of end dimensions, such that the buckling load may be found for any
slender column with fixed-pinned end conditions and linear taper of a section with
moment of inertia that varies as the power of 1, 2, 3, or 4. There is also a certain degree
of error associated with the numerical data. This concern is addressed in Section 4.5 and
discussed later.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 2 4 6 8 10
d
b
/d
a
P
*
n=4
n=3
n=2
n=1
d
a
d
b
( )
( )
2
2
699 . 0
*
L
EI
P P
b
cr

=

Figure 4.6. Buckling load factor versus the ratio of end dimensions for a fixed-pinned
column with given taper geometry and large end fixed.

79
linearly tapering column with the large end fixed and the small end pinned.
n Power fit
d
b
/d
a

Correlation (R
2
)
Minimum
% Error
Maximum
% Error
1
4530 . 0
9944 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 1 2 0.9992 -0.32% 0.52%
1
3415 . 0
9133 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 2.1 5 0.9980 -0.43% 0.91%
1
2448 . 0
7824 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 10 0.9982 -0.21% 0.50%
2
9382 . 0
9928 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 1 2 0.9997 -0.41% 0.68%
2
7947 . 0
8901 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 2.1 5 0.9994 -0.56% 1.16%
2
6697 . 0
7287 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 10 0.9996 -0.31% 0.63%
3
4544 . 1
9946 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 1 2 0.9999 -0.30% 0.50%
3
3539 . 1
9218 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 2.1 5 0.9999 -0.37% 0.79%
3
2734 . 1
8106 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 10 1.0000 -0.19% 0.40%
4
9994 . 1
9990 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 10 1.0000 -0.03% 0.09%

80
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 2 4 6 8 10
d
a
/d
b
P
*
n=4
n=3
n=2
n=1
d
a
d
b
( )
( )
2
2
699 . 0
*
L
EI
P P
a
cr

=

Figure 4.7. Buckling load factor versus the ratio of end dimensions for a fixed-pinned
column with given taper geometry and small end fixed.

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
a
/d
b
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a

(a) (b)
Figure 4.8. Normalized buckled shapes for the fixed-free column where (a) the small
end is fixed and (b) the large end is fixed, n=4.

81
linearly tapering column with the large end pinned and the small end fixed.
n Power fit
d
a
/d
b

Correlation (R
2
)
Minimum
% Error
Maximum
% Error
1
4544 . 0
9946 . 0 *

=
b
a
d
d
P 1 2 0.9993 -0.30% 0.50%
1
3539 . 0
9218 . 0 *

=
b
a
d
d
P 2.1 5 0.9987 -0.37% 0.64%
1
2739 . 0
8113 . 0 *

=
b
a
d
d
P 5.1 10 0.9991 -0.18% 0.39%
2
9382 . 0
9928 . 0 *

=
b
a
d
d
P 1 2 0.9997 -0.41% 0.68%
2
7947 . 0
8901 . 0 *

=
b
a
d
d
P 2.1 5 0.9994 -0.56% 0.89%
2
6698 . 0
7288 . 0 *

=
b
a
d
d
P 5.1 10 0.9996 -0.30% 0.64%
3
4530 . 1
9944 . 0 *

=
b
a
d
d
P 1 2 0.9999 -0.32% 0.52%
3
3413 . 1
9132 . 0 *

=
b
a
d
d
P 2.1 5 0.9999 -0.44% 0.68%
3
2443 . 1
7820 . 0 *

=
b
a
d
d
P 5.1 10 0.9999 -0.23% 0.48%
4
9991 . 1
9988 . 0 *

=
b
a
d
d
P 1 10 1.0000 -0.03% 0.08%

4.4 Buckling loads of fixed-guided columns

in Section 3.3 is provided in Figure 4.9. A plot of buckled shapes for the case when n = 4
is presented in Figure 4.10. Plots of buckled shapes for all of the cases examined are
included in Appendix A.3. Design equations based on power curve trendlines applied to
the design curves are presented in Table 4.6 along with correlation values for the
82
trendlines and error values between the trendline approximation and the data. The design
equations are organized based on the variation of the moment of inertia and the ratio of
end dimensions, such that the buckling load may be found for any slender column with
fixed-guided end conditions and linear taper of a section that varies as the power of 1, 2,
3, or 4. There is also a certain degree of error associated with the numerical data. This
concern is addressed in Section 4.5 and discussed later.

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 2 4 6 8 10
d
b
/d
a
P
*
n=4
n=3
n=2
n=1
d
a
d
b
( )
2
2
4
*
L
EI
P P
b
cr

=

Figure 4.9. Buckling load factor versus the ratio of end dimensions for a fixed-guided
column with given taper geometry.

83

linearly tapering column with large end fixed and small end guided.
n Power fit d
a
/d
b
Correlation (R
2
)
Minimum
% Error
Maximum
% Error
1
4725 . 0
9956 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 1 2 0.9995 -0.27% 0.44%
1
3791 . 0
9273 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 2.1 5 0.9989 -0.37% 0.75%
1
2960 . 0
8116 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 10 0.9990 -0.21% 0.43%
2
9468 . 0
9914 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 1 2 0.9995 -0.53% 0.86%
2
7611 . 0
8602 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 2.1 5 0.9988 -0.74% 1.53%
2
5769 . 0
6392 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 10 0.9985 -0.50% 1.04%
3
4246 . 1
9878 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 1 2 0.9995 -0.77% 1.22%
3
1755 . 1
8179 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 2.1 5 0.9992 -0.96% 1.95%
3
9370 . 0
5563 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 10 0.9989 -0.68% 1.39%
4
9102 . 1
9853 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 1 2 0.9996 -0.91% 1.47%
4
6887 . 1
8397 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 2.1 5 0.9998 -0.61% 1.32%
4
5271 . 1
6456 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 5.1 10 0.9998 -0.49% 1.04%

84
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a

Figure 4.10. Normalized buckled shapes for the pinned-pinned column, n=4.


Values of the buckling load factor, P*, for a pinned-pinned column based on
models employing 10 approximating elements and 50 approximating elements were
compared to the exact values of the buckling load for a given taper ratio. The results of
this comparison are presented in Table 4.7.
Table 4.7. Comparison to the exact solution of P* for linearly tapered pinned-pinned
columns, of shape factor n=4, obtained using the Newmark numerical method using 10
and 50 elements.
Pinned-Pinned Column Percent Difference
d
b
/d
a

N=10 N=50 exact N=10 N=50
1 0.999959 1.000000 1.000000 -0.004% 0.000%
2 4.001540 4.000002 4.000000 0.038% 0.000%
3 9.026722 9.000043 9.000000 0.297% 0.000%
4 16.161502 16.000281 16.000000 1.009% 0.002%
5 25.588415 25.001160 25.000000 2.354% 0.005%
6 37.582708 36.003630 36.000000 4.396% 0.010%
7 52.490270 49.009422 49.000000 7.123% 0.019%
8 70.708148 64.021405 64.000000 10.481% 0.033%
9 92.672686 81.043882 81.000000 14.411% 0.054%
10 118.853376 100.083025 100.000000 18.853% 0.083%
85
Columns with uncommon variation of the cross section can be found in many
already constructed structures. Structures that require a certain architectural style may
utilize non-prismatic columns, and often times these will have very unusual cross-
sectional variation. Their analysis is equally as important as any other column, but
perhaps more difficult. The method developed in this thesis was used to examine a
number of uncommon column shapes, more to show that it can be done than to draw
conclusions for design purposes.

4.6.1 Parabolic variation of the radius
A round column with parabolic variation of the radius was analyzed to determine
its buckling load factor for four end conditions. The details of the column are provided in
Section 3.6 and the resulting curves displaying the factor of the Euler buckling load for
the given end conditions versus the ratio of middle diameter to end diameter are provided
in Figure 4.11.

4.6.2 Tapered crucifix cross section

A tapered crucifix cross section with linear variation of its radius from the end to
the middle was analyzed to determine its buckling load factor for four end conditions.
The details of the column are provided in Section 3.6. The resulting curves displaying
the factor of the Euler buckling load for the given end conditions versus the ratio of
middle dimension to end dimension are provided in Figure 4.12.
86
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1 2 3 4 5
d
m
/d
a
P*
Pinned-Pinned
Fixed-Free
Fixed-Pinned
Fixed-Guided

Figure 4.11. Euler buckling load factor, P*, as a function of middle-to-end diameter
ratio for a round column with parabolic variation of the cross section.

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1 2 3 4 5
d
m
/d
a
P*
Pinned-Pinned
Fixed-Free
Fixed-Pinned
Fixed-Guided

Figure 4.12. Euler buckling load factor, P*, as a function of middle-to-end dimension
ratio for a crucifix column varying linearly from its ends to its middle.

87
5. Discussion
5.1 Excel as applied to the Newmark numerical method
Newmarks numerical method is easily adapted to the Excel spreadsheet
environment. Inserting equations and dragging them facilitates a fast development of the
initial model. With the results appearing immediately, checking for errors is far easier
than debugging long lines of code. Adding more approximating elements becomes an
easy task once a spreadsheet is set up for any number of elements. And, once a model for
simple end conditions is formulated, that model may be copied and modified to analyze
other end conditions.
The analysis of any cross section variation is possible by substituting into the
characteristic dimension or moment of inertia columns. While this will be discussed
further in Section 5.4, it is worthy of note here. Members with highly non-uniform cross
section may be rapidly integrated into the tool and modified as part of a subroutine to
optimize for small variations in column geometry.
The need for both FORTRAN code and spreadsheet analysis of the data for
presentation and plotting is reduced to a single tool. Visual Basic is integrated into the
software to provide the capabilities of traditional computer programming languages when
necessary.
Visualization of results is nearly immediate with the plotting and printing
capabilities of Excel. Producing large tables of values for all end conditions and taper
ratios would be extremely tedious if not for the options available through Visual Basic
scripting. Visual Basic allows repetitive tasks to be coded into a loop. This provides an
easy way to produce precisely formatted tables of data. Thus, many more column
88
conditions can be analyzed easily with this tool. The method could conceivably be
converted into Visual Basic code entirely. However, the visual nature of the spreadsheet
environment makes it more applicable to the problem and producing results directly as
they will be presented is another timesaving feature of the tool as it now exists.

5.2 Tapered column data and trends
The data generated for the four column cases shows the basic trend of decreased
buckling load as the column becomes more tapered. This trend is attenuated, as one
might expect, when the power of the variation of the moment of inertia is lower (i.e. n=1)
and is more pronounced when that variation is greater (i.e. n=4). This apparent decrease
in buckling load is due entirely to the choice of notation for the buckling load. The
critical buckling load is given as a fraction of the Euler buckling load for a prismatic
column with moment of inertia defined to be the moment of inertia for the large end of
the tapered column. Thus, the buckling load for a tapered column given this notation will
always be less than the prismatic.
The variation of the buckling load with increased end dimension ratio follows the
general trend of a negative power. While this is not exact for all cases, it is still accurate
enough to be used for design purposes, and it is exact for those cases already noted by
Gere and Carter (1962). The compact nature of the equations produced in this format
also makes them potentially useful in design manuals where tabulated coefficients for
design equations are common.

89
5.2.1 Linearly tapered pinned-pinned columns
The power curve fits that were applied to the entirety of the curve were not exact
enough to give accurate results for cases n = 1, n = 2, and n = 3 (see Appendix A.2). By
applying separate trendlines to three sections of the curve (d
b
/d
a
from 1 to 2, 2 to 5 and 5
to 10), the relative error for each equation was drastically reduced. Only one equation in
Table 4.1 produces error greater than 1.0%, while without the separate equations the error
was as great as 12.5% and greater than 1.0% for all. Also, by using three separate
trendlines for each curve, the correlation values went from 0.9793 at the lowest to 0.9971.
The trendline applied to the n = 4 case was virtually exact. This case was solved
exactly by Gere and Carter (1962) (see Table 2.4). The error in the equation presented in
Table 4.1 is likely a result of the approximations inherent in the numerical method.
However, the results of the numerical method here validate those produced by Gere and
Carter, and vice versa.
5.2.2 Linearly tapered fixed-free columns
For the large-end-fixed condition, the power curve fits that were applied to the
entirety of the curve were not exact enough to give accurate results for any of the taper
cases examined: n = 1, n = 2, n = 3, n = 4 (see Appendix A.2). By applying separate
trendlines to three sections of each curve (d
b
/d
a
from 1 to 2, 2 to 5 and 5 to 10), the
relative error versus using a single equation was drastically reduced. Only four equations
in Table 4.2 produce error greater than 1.0%, while without the separate equations the
error was as great as 20.4% and greater than 2.0% for all. Also, by using three separate
trendlines for each curve, the correlation values went from 0.9708 at the lowest to 0.9959.
90
For the small-end-fixed condition (Table 4.3), three separate curve fits were also
required per curve to reduce error. In this case, however, the error reduction was
outstanding. The greatest error achieved in these results is 0.62%, so the power
trendlines match the experimental data very closely. This can also be seen by examining
the correlation of the trendlines. The R
2
value went from 0.9960 at its lowest to 0.9994,
using three fits per curve. It should be noted that the error produced by trendlines applied
to whole curves (see Appendix A.2) produced no more than 7.3% error. Thus, for the
small-end-fixed condition these equations might be used instead, given their more
compact presentation.
5.2.3 Linearly tapered fixed-pinned columns
For the large-end-fixed condition, the power curve fits that were applied to the
entirety of the curve were not exact enough to give accurate results for cases n = 1, n = 2,
and n = 3 (see Appendix A.2). By applying separate trendlines to three sections of the
curve (d
b
/d
a
from 1 to 2, 2 to 5 and 5 to 10), the relative error for each equation was
drastically reduced. Only one equation in Table 4.4 produces error greater than 1.0%,
while without the separate equations the error was as great as 10.4% and greater than
1.0% for all. Also, by using three separate trendlines for each curve, the correlation
values went from 0.9858 at the lowest to 0.9980.
For the small-end-fixed condition (Table 4.5), three separate curve fits were also
required per curve to reduce error. As was the case for the fixed-free column fixed at the
small end, the error reduction here was outstanding. The greatest error achieved in these
results is 0.89%. The trendlines provided a very accurate representation of the data. This
91
can also be seen by examining the correlation of the trendlines. The R
2
value went from
0.9904 at its lowest to 0.9987, using three fits per curve.
It should be noted that the error produced by trendlines applied to whole curves
(see Appendix A.2), for both small- and large-end-fixed cases, produced no more than
10.4% error. Thus, for the fixed-pinned condition these equations might be used instead,
given their more compact presentation.
As was the case for the pinned-pinned column case, the trendline applied to the
n=4 case was virtually exact. This case was also solved exactly by Gere and Carter
(1962) (see Table 2.4). The error in the equation is likely a result of the approximations
inherent in the numerical method. However, the results of the numerical method here
validate those produced by Carter and Gere, and vice versa.

5.2.4 Linearly tapered fixed-guided columns
The power curve fits that were applied to the entirety of the curve were not exact
enough to give accurate results for any of the taper cases examined: n = 1, n = 2, n = 3,
n = 4 (see Appendix A). By applying separate trendlines to three sections of each curve
(d
b
/d
a
from 1 to 2, 2 to 5 and 5 to 10), the relative error versus using a single equation
was drastically reduced. Eight equations in Table 4.6 produce error greater than 1.0%,
while without the separate equations the error was as great as 17.8% and greater than
2.0% for all. Also, by using three separate trendlines for each curve, the correlation
values went from 0.9918 at the lowest to 0.9985.

92
5.3 Rate of Convergence and Accuracy
Convergence of the Newmark numerical method is almost guaranteed for the
column end conditions examined here. Newmark (1943) warns of certain cases where
the method may converge very slowly or even diverge and tricks may be required to
provide a correct solution. However, Newmark also mentions that these cases are
uncommon. During the course of the research performed here phenomena of divergence
or slow convergence were not observed. In fact, for most of the models examined
iterations on the order of 6 were required to achieve values for the sum of squared errors
between the assumed and derived deflections of less than 10
-10
. This is consistent with
findings provided by Kaewkulchai (1997) and can be observed in Appendix A.4, where
six iterations of the numerical examples provided in Section 3.4 are included.
If the problem of slow convergence of the solutions were encountered, the only
variable affected would be the run time of the Visual Basic script. The number of
iterations is not limited in Excel except if the programmer provides for a limit in the
script. Again, this problem was not encountered during the research performed.
The number of discrete elements used in the member approximation can be
expanded easily to increase the accuracy of the final result. Note that more elements are
required for accuracy in cases of extreme taper or very complex variation in the cross
section. It has been noted by the author, as well as by Newmark (1949), that error
increases as taper increases for a fixed number of discrete elements. By increasing the
number of discrete elements the cross section variation is more accurately represented
and the error due to the approximation of the column is reduced. This reduction in error
for an increased number of elements, as well as the increased error for increased degree
93
of taper, is demonstrated in Table 4.7 for the case of a linearly tapered pinned-pinned
column.
Table 4.7 also provides an analysis of the error of the Newmark method when
compared to the exact solution for the pinned-pinned column. It can be seen in this table
that using only 10 approximating elements results in more than 18% error for the unlikely
case of 10 for the ratio of end diameters. Using 50 approximating elements cuts this error
to less than 0.1%. Newmark (1949) recognized the exceptional degree of accuracy
available by this method but noted mistakes in the many hand calculations required for
such accuracy as a deterrent to the use of many approximating elements. This concern is
moot when a spreadsheet or programming language is used to perform the many
calculations. Thus, an extremely high degree of accuracy may be obtained by using the
Newmark numerical method within a spreadsheet environment.

The analysis performed on the parabolic and crucifix columns adequately
demonstrates the power and versatility of the Newmark method within a spreadsheet
environment. While the geometry of the columns analyzed was described by
mathematical expressions, it is apparent that more freeform shapes could be analyzed as
well.
While they were not the primary goal of this exercise, the results obtained from
the uncommon column analyses are nonetheless interesting. It appears that for the
various end conditions, the behavior of the crucifix column is more similar that for the
94
parabolic column. The behavior varies slightly more for the parabolic column indicating
some optimal level of economy might be found in one end condition versus another.
95
Conclusions and Recommendations
5.5 Conclusions
The literature concerned with tapered column buckling is plentiful. Exact closed
form solutions for a few cases of tapered columns are available. The results presented in
this thesis fill the void that exists by providing relatively simple design equations for
calculating the critical buckling loads of columns with various traditional cross sections,
linear taper, and determinate and one-degree indeterminate end conditions.
Additionally, the research presented in this thesis provides a means to apply
Newmarks numerical method in a spreadsheet environment where its power and
versatility may be put to practical use. The critical loads and buckled shapes for columns
of virtually any cross section variation may be analyzed easily and quickly with this
method.

5.6 Recommendations for future research
Possibilities for future research include:
- Development of design equations for more and different column
configurations and geometries allowing for wider use of columns with
variable cross section in the world of design.
- Adaptation of the Newmark method to the two-degree indeterminate (fixed-
fixed) case and restrained-restrained cases when complete fixity is not
possible. This would allow for greater application to real world design
problems where the fixed-fixed case is found routinely, but seldom allows for
complete fixity.
96
- Comparison of the Newmark numerical method to finite element models, with
a discussion of required set-up time and effort.
- An inspection of absolute buckling values (i.e. a factor of common variables)
rather than factors of the Euler load might be presented to determine optimal
end conditions. As the results are presented now, this cannot be determined.
- Optimal column geometry might be examined by including the volume of
material within the column in the expression for buckling load (e.g. an
examination of P
cr
/volume versus end-dimension ratio).
97
References

American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA). 1997. National Design Specification
for Wood Construction. AF&PA, Washington, D.C.

American Forest & Paper Association, and American Society of Civil Engineers
(AF&PA/ASCE). 1995. Standard for Load and Resistance Factor Design
(LRFD) for Engineered Wood Construction. ASCE, New York.

American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). 2001. Load and Resistance Factor
Design for Structural Steel Buildings, 3
rd
Ed. AISC, Chicago.

Anderson, M.S. and F.W. Williams. 1987. BUNVIS-RG: Exact Frame Buckling and
Vibration Program, with Repetitive Geometry and Substructuring. Journal of
Spacecraft, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 353-361.

Banerjee, J.R. and F.W. Williams. 1986. Exact Bernoulli-Euler Static Stiffness Matrix
for a Range of Tapered Beam-Columns. International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering, Vol. 23, pp. 1615-1628.

Chen, Y.Z. et al. 1989. Buckling Loads of Columns with Varying Cross Sections.
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 115, No. 3, pp. 662-667.

Column Research Committee of Japan. 1971. Handbook of Structural Stability. Corona
Publishing Company, Ltd., Tokyo.

Criswell, M.E. 1984. Design of Columns. Wood: Engineering Design Concepts. Vol.
IV, Clark C. Heritage Memorial Series on Wood. Forest Products Laboratory.
Materials Education Council, Pennsylvania State University.

Criswell, M.E. 1991. New Design Equations For Tapered Columns. Wood Design
Focus. 2(3):4-7.

Dinnik, A.N. 1929. Design of Columns of Varying Cross-Sections. Transactions,
ASME, Vol. 51, p.105.

Dinnik, A.N. 1932. Design of Columns of Varying Cross-Section. Transactions, ASME,
Vol. 54, p.165.

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1981. Probability-Based Design of Wood
Transmission Structures, Volume 3: Users Manual POLEDA-80, EPRI, Palo
Alto, CA, prepared by M.D. Vanderbilt et al.

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1987. Reliability-Based Design of
Transmission Line Structures: Final Report, Volume 1: Methods, Report EL-
98
4793, Research Project 1352-2, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, prepared by M.E. Criswell
and M.D. Vanderbilt.

Ermopoulos, J.C. 1985. Buckling of Tapered Bars Under Stepped Axial Loads. Journal
of Structural Engineering, Vol. 112, No. 6, pp. 1346-1354.

Fogel, C.M. and R.L. Ketter. 1962. Elastic Strength of Tapered Columns. ASCE,
Journal of the Structural Division, Vol. 88, No. 5, p. 67.

Galambos, T.V. 1998. Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures 5
th
Ed.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

Gatewood, B.E. 1954. Buckling Loads for Columns of Variable Cross Section. Journal
of the Aeronautical Sciences, Vol. 21, pp. 287-288.

Gere, J.M. and Carter, W.O. 1962. Critical Buckling Loads for Tapered Columns.
ASCE, Journal of the Structural Division, Vol. 88, No. 1, p. 1.

Godden, W.G. 1965. Numerical Analysis of Beam and Column Structures. Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Hartog, D. 1956. Mechanical Vibrations 4
th
Ed. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New
York, pp. 155-165.

Head, M.C. and J.D. Aristizabal-Ochoa. 1987. Analysis of Prismatic and Linearly
Tapered Reinforced Concrete Columns. Journal of Structural Engineering. Vol.
113, No. 3, pp. 575-589.

Kaewkulchai, Griengsak. 1997. Design-Oriented Equations for Buckling of Slender
Tapered Columns. Masters Thesis. Department of Civil Engineering. Colorado
State University.

Kim, M.C. et al. 1997. Elastic and Inelastic Buckling Analysis of Thin-Walled Tapered
Members. Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Vol. 123, No. 7, pp. 727-737.

Ku, A.B. 1979. The Buckling of a Nonuniform Column. Conference Proceedings,
Engineering Mechanics, pp. 240-243.

Liew, J.Y.R et al. 1989. Tapered Box Columns Under Biaxial Loading. Journal of
Structural Engineering, Vol. 115, No. 7, pp. 1697-1709.

Lind, N.C. 1962. Discussion of Critical Buckling Loads for Tapered Columns (Gere and
Carter, 1962). ASCE, Journal of the Structural Division. Vol. ?, No. 4, p. 235.

Lind, N.C. 1975. Newmarks Numerical Method. Solid Mechanics Division Special
Publications, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario.
99

Nakahira, N. et al. 1992. Vibration of Beams with Varying Cross-sections by the
Stodola-Newmark Method. Computers & Structures. Vol. 43, No. 5, pp.999-
1004.

Newmark, N.M. 1943. Numerical Procedure for Computing Deflections, Moments, and
Buckling Loads. ASCE Transactions, Paper No. 2202, Vol. 108, pp. 1161-1234.

Newmark, N.M. 1949. Numerical Methods of Analysis of Bars, Plates and Elastic
Bodies. Numerical Methods of Analysis in Engineering (Edited by L.E. Grinter).
The Macmillan Company, New York, pp. 138-168.

Ram, G. and G. Rao. 1951. Buckling of an N-Section Column. Journal of the
Aeronautical Sciences, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 66-67.

Sechler, E.E. 1952. Elasticity in Engineering. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

Seide, Paul. 1975. Accuracy of Some Numerical Methods for Column Buckling. ASCE,
Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division. Vol. 101, No. EM5, October, pp.
549-560.

Smith, G.W. 1988. Analytic Solutions for Tapered Column Buckling. Computers and
Structures. Vol. 28, No. 5, pp. 677-681.

Stodola, A. 1906. Steam Turbines. D. Van Nostrand Company, New York, pp. 185-186.
(Second revised edition/translation, by Lowenstein, L.C. )

Timoshenko, S.P. and J.M. Gere. 1961. Theory of Elastic Stability 2
nd
Ed. McGraw-Hill
Book Co., Inc., New York.

Williams, F. W. and G. Aston. 1989. Exact or Lower Bound Tapered Column Buckling
Loads. Journal of Structural Engineering. Vol. 115, No. 5, pp. 1088-1100.

Wittrick, W.H. and F.W. Williams. 1973. An Algorithm for Computing Critical
Buckling Loads of Elastic Structures. Journal of Structural Mechanics, Vol. 1,
No. 4, pp. 497-518.

APPENDIX A.1
GENERATED VALUES OF P* FOR
4 END CONDITIONS AND 4 TAPER GEOMETRIES
101
Table A.1.1. Critical buckling load factor, P*, for a pinned-pinned column with
given taper geometry.
n
d
b
/d
a

1 2 3 4
1 0.999999935 0.999999935 0.999999935 0.999999935
1.1 0.954168578 0.909988604 0.867426018 0.826446248
1.2 0.915346126 0.836347906 0.762788479 0.694444512
1.3 0.881987207 0.775002353 0.678451752 0.591716075
1.4 0.852975648 0.723117888 0.609268386 0.510204202
1.5 0.827484122 0.678664805 0.551656158 0.444444582
1.6 0.804885743 0.640152544 0.503053677 0.390625154
1.7 0.78469638 0.606462558 0.461586205 0.346020931
1.8 0.766535898 0.576739522 0.425853387 0.308642163
1.9 0.750101428 0.55031849 0.39479035 0.277008517
2 0.735148523 0.526674891 0.367574401 0.250000228
2.1 0.7214776 0.505389465 0.343560918 0.22675762
2.2 0.708923999 0.48612317 0.322238356 0.206611847
2.3 0.697350604 0.468598925 0.303196109 0.189036221
2.4 0.686642255 0.452588227 0.286101154 0.173611446
2.5 0.67670148 0.437900534 0.27068083 0.160000367
2.6 0.667445195 0.424376311 0.256709953 0.147929396
2.7 0.658802114 0.411880619 0.244001072 0.13717465
2.8 0.650710706 0.400298637 0.232396998 0.127551498
2.9 0.643117565 0.389532053 0.221765025 0.118906584
3 0.635976097 0.379496203 0.211992411 0.111111674
4 0.582362763 0.306941324 0.145591586 0.062501169
5 0.548235748 0.263288766 0.109648642 0.040001897
6 0.5243782 0.233902497 0.087398738 0.027780605
7 0.506649998 0.212638269 0.072382095 0.020412108
8 0.49289747 0.196456978 0.061617159 0.015630238
9 0.481882453 0.183678838 0.053549241 0.012352376
10 0.47283927 0.173297531 0.047292784 0.010008309

102
Table A.1.2. Critical buckling load factor, P*, for a fixed-free column with given
taper geometry and large end fixed.
n
d
b
/d
a

1 2 3 4
1 0.999999828 0.999999828 0.999999828 1.000000117
1.1 0.970651855 0.941786894 0.91341002 0.892097212
1.2 0.945544465 0.892759874 0.841679582 0.802590015
1.3 0.92378312 0.85085211 0.781301608 0.727225518
1.4 0.904713184 0.814578908 0.72978764 0.662965782
1.5 0.887843693 0.782845349 0.685324048 0.60758278
1.6 0.872798649 0.754825711 0.646558468 0.559405348
1.7 0.859284846 0.729885144 0.612462349 0.51715555
1.8 0.847070008 0.707527263 0.582239789 0.479839026
1.9 0.835967558 0.687358154 0.555265459 0.446671054
2 0.825825771 0.669061081 0.531041357 0.417023741
2.1 0.816519896 0.652378362 0.509166061 0.390388808
2.2 0.807946349 0.637098136 0.489312455 0.366350417
2.3 0.800018347 0.623044545 0.471211341 0.344565096
2.4 0.792662591 0.610070352 0.454639196 0.324746671
2.5 0.785816715 0.598051307 0.439408898 0.306654818
2.6 0.77942729 0.586881795 0.425362625 0.290086254
2.7 0.773448265 0.576471448 0.412366347 0.274867886
2.8 0.767839711 0.566742466 0.400305511 0.260851422
2.9 0.762566833 0.557627492 0.389081639 0.247909104
3 0.75759915 0.549067901 0.378609605 0.235930284
4 0.720058274 0.485213411 0.302679279 0.1527479
5 0.69596488 0.444922752 0.256905304 0.107113549
6 0.679056822 0.416897133 0.226118812 0.079282456
7 0.666473512 0.396128156 0.203885692 0.061041757
8 0.656710238 0.380036375 0.187007225 0.048437931
9 0.648895202 0.367150235 0.173711194 0.039367159
10 0.64248631 0.356565256 0.162935001 0.032623799

103
Table A.1.3. Critical buckling load factor, P*, for a fixed-free column with given
taper geometry and small end fixed.
n
d
a
/d
b

1 2 3 4
1 0.999999862 0.999999838 1.000000103 0.999999828
1.1 0.935710506 0.875132731 0.818089513 0.764410441
1.2 0.881437638 0.775555894 0.681226292 0.597383195
1.3 0.834941014 0.69455671 0.575751604 0.475682444
1.4 0.794608644 0.627559677 0.492800851 0.384917262
1.5 0.759250157 0.571349012 0.426420937 0.315850428
1.6 0.727966713 0.523604563 0.372496646 0.262366535
1.7 0.700066415 0.482614108 0.328111076 0.220307291
1.8 0.675007644 0.447088936 0.291151005 0.186778028
1.9 0.65236011 0.416042156 0.260055714 0.159721442
2 0.631777461 0.388706334 0.23365268 0.137648071
2.1 0.612977624 0.364476464 0.211047484 0.119461533
2.2 0.595728453 0.342869698 0.191548433 0.104342706
2.3 0.579837068 0.323496385 0.174613942 0.091670965
2.4 0.565141824 0.306038903 0.15981516 0.080970666
2.5 0.551506187 0.290235959 0.146809105 0.071872863
2.6 0.538814 0.275870793 0.135318493 0.064088457
2.7 0.526965783 0.262762191 0.12511776 0.057388746
2.8 0.515875824 0.250757759 0.116021596 0.051591197
2.9 0.505469849 0.239727822 0.10787672 0.046548929
3 0.495683465 0.229562327 0.100555469 0.042142849
4 0.422140001 0.159724743 0.055472065 0.018073249
5 0.375104941 0.12126621 0.035034159 0.00934412
6 0.341982438 0.097176193 0.024093054 0.005441618
7 0.317153346 0.080776078 0.01756737 0.003441222
8 0.297706997 0.068940671 0.013367512 0.002311746
9 0.281974034 0.060023074 0.010507349 0.001626358
10 0.268923261 0.053077077 0.008472569 na

104
Table A.1.4. Critical buckling load factor, P*, for a fixed-pinned column with given
taper geometry and large end fixed.
n
d
b
/d
a

1 2 3 4
1 0.999555265 0.999555037 0.99955656 0.99955545
1.1 0.953608587 0.909409775 0.866914492 0.826079371
1.2 0.91446529 0.835388203 0.762040028 0.694136062
1.3 0.880657767 0.773530276 0.677391182 0.591453192
1.4 0.851119302 0.721068209 0.607870947 0.509977505
1.5 0.825053581 0.676011458 0.549922895 0.444247097
1.6 0.801855384 0.636892731 0.500999836 0.390451587
1.7 0.781054759 0.602607217 0.459233651 0.345867195
1.8 0.762281123 0.572307498 0.423226612 0.308505052
1.9 0.745238046 0.545332928 0.391914244 0.276885701
2 0.729685393 0.521160999 0.364473059 0.249889409
2.1 0.715426418 0.49937311 0.340257014 0.226657132
2.2 0.702298279 0.479630017 0.318752874 0.206520317
2.3 0.690164956 0.461653918 0.29954826 0.188952513
2.4 0.67891188 0.445215162 0.282308407 0.173534608
2.5 0.668441816 0.430122273 0.266758997 0.159929598
2.6 0.658671663 0.416214336 0.252673312 0.147864014
2.7 0.649529946 0.403355441 0.239862492 0.137114074
2.8 0.640954828 0.39142892 0.228168068 0.127495228
2.9 0.632892513 0.380335579 0.21745618 0.118854188
3 0.625295968 0.369989617 0.207613047 0.111062778
4 0.56780258 0.295045306 0.140859219 0.062474311
5 0.530720269 0.249853044 0.104898914 0.039985781
6 0.504529934 0.219407063 0.082759262 0.027770901
7 0.484903893 0.197376281 0.067900763 0.020406831
8 0.46956986 0.180619334 0.05730854 0.01562846
9 0.457211727 0.167395777 0.049413359 0.012353644
10 0.447009349 0.156661859 0.043323315 0.010012416

105
Table A.1.5. Critical buckling load factor, P*, for a fixed-pinned column with given
taper geometry and small end fixed.
n
d
a
/d
b

1 2 3 4
1 0.999556319 0.99955656 0.999556119 0.999556115
1.1 0.953605557 0.909408871 0.866916651 0.82607917
1.2 0.914447883 0.835387722 0.762054579 0.694136433
1.3 0.880608557 0.773530147 0.677429603 0.591454048
1.4 0.851018552 0.721068385 0.607942716 0.509978811
1.5 0.824883748 0.67601191 0.550036527 0.444248837
1.6 0.80159929 0.636893439 0.501160844 0.390453758
1.7 0.78069688 0.602608167 0.459445613 0.345869706
1.8 0.761807672 0.57230868 0.423491549 0.308508023
1.9 0.744636913 0.545334337 0.392232981 0.27688891
2 0.728946025 0.521162628 0.364845519 0.2498931
2.1 0.714539676 0.499374956 0.34068246 0.226661301
2.2 0.701256289 0.479632077 0.319230097 0.20652496
2.3 0.688960966 0.461656189 0.30007572 0.188957626
2.4 0.677540126 0.445217643 0.282884346 0.173540186
2.5 0.666897403 0.430124828 0.267381521 0.159935637
2.6 0.656950462 0.416217109 0.253340449 0.147870509
2.7 0.647628496 0.403358132 0.240572244 0.137121019
2.8 0.638870255 0.391431836 0.228918439 0.127502618
2.9 0.630622458 0.380338715 0.218245204 0.118862015
3 0.622838522 0.369992967 0.208438803 0.111071035
4 0.56343287 0.295050462 0.141961421 0.062486333
5 0.524482971 0.249859228 0.106158591 0.04000023
6 0.496531318 0.219413211 0.084105906 0.027786124
7 0.47526117 0.197381049 0.069291628 0.020421136
8 0.458395177 0.180621001 0.058716737 0.015640118
9 0.444607084 0.167392771 0.050821286 0.012361022
10 0.433067283 0.156652255 0.044719012 na

106
Table A.1.6. Critical buckling load factor, P*, for a fixed-guided column with given
taper geometry.
n
d
b
/d
a

1 2 3 4
1 0.999999599 0.999999981 0.999998693 1.000000204
1.1 0.952785763 0.907780767 0.864882404 0.823990032
1.2 0.912462119 0.832516803 0.759506612 0.692821712
1.3 0.877547243 0.769951517 0.67540859 0.592304916
1.4 0.846964726 0.717135448 0.606982635 0.513452132
1.5 0.819911816 0.671961849 0.550386611 0.450351303
1.6 0.795776762 0.632887169 0.502911233 0.398985963
1.7 0.774084587 0.598755462 0.462595921 0.356550351
1.8 0.754460463 0.56868441 0.427992 0.321036223
1.9 0.736603725 0.541989191 0.398008218 0.290975078
2 0.720272356 0.518130352 0.371808613 0.265272365
2.1 0.705266212 0.496677305 0.348743116 0.243098922
2.2 0.691420047 0.47728227 0.328299378 0.223816193
2.3 0.678595717 0.459661333 0.310068669 0.206926129
2.4 0.666676762 0.443580474 0.293721325 0.192035294
2.5 0.655564256 0.428845085 0.278988785 0.178829359
2.6 0.645173582 0.41529203 0.265650257 0.167054585
2.7 0.635431895 0.402783539 0.253522697 0.156504194
2.8 0.626276114 0.391202469 0.242453181 0.147008206
2.9 0.617651318 0.380448592 0.232313036 0.138425758
3 0.609509443 0.370435645 0.222993276 0.130639251
4 0.547331227 0.298455753 0.159607433 0.080585104
5 0.506585079 0.255675519 0.125155868 0.055954098
6 0.477418093 0.227267145 0.103742028 0.041836078
7 0.455311165 0.207020801 0.089253292 0.032912761
8 0.437870018 0.191869916 0.078860286 0.026868831
9 0.423696136 0.180121768 0.071080644 0.022555428
10 0.411911958 0.170763582 0.065065513 0.019346606

APPENDIX A.2
POWER TRENDLINES FOR 4 END CONDITIONS
WITH END-DIMENSION RATIOS FROM 1 TO 10
108
Table A.2.1. Trendline equations for given values of moment of inertia variation for a
linearly tapering column with both ends pinned.
n Power fit Correlation (R
2
)
Minimum
% Error
Maximum
% Error
1
2996 . 0
9079 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 0.9793 -2.98% 9.21%
2
7264 . 0
8749 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 0.9930 -4.21% 12.51%
3
2995 . 1
9078 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 0.9989 -2.98% 9.22%
4
9997 . 1
9997 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 1.0000 -0.01% 0.04%

linearly tapering column with the large end fixed and the small end free.
2
)
Minimum
% Error
Maximum
% Error
1
1735 . 0
9341 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 0.9708 -2.05% 6.59%
2
4200 . 0
8978 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 0.9862 -3.43% 10.22%
3
7633 . 0
9020 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 0.9957 -3.46% 9.80%
4
5330 . 1
2039 . 1 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 0.9966 -20.39% 5.97%

109
linearly tapering column with the large end free and the small end fixed.
2
)
Minimum
% Error
Maximum
% Error
1
5511 . 0
9274 . 0 *

=
b
a
d
d
P 0.9960 -2.37% 7.26%
2
2559 . 1
9307 . 0 *

=
b
a
d
d
P 0.9993 -2.22% 6.93%
3
0663 . 2
9792 . 0 *

=
b
a
d
d
P 1.0000 -0.66% 2.08%
4
9400 . 2
0515 . 1 *

=
b
a
d
d
P 1.0000 -5.15% 1.32%

linearly tapering column with the large end fixed and the small end pinned.
2
)
Minimum
% Error
Maximum
% Error
1
3275 . 0
9177 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 0.9858 -2.69% 8.19%
2
7766 . 0
8954 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 0.9958 -3.47% 10.42%
3
3431 . 1
9271 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 0.9994 -2.31% 7.25%
4
9994 . 1
9990 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 1.0000 -0.03% 0.09%

110
linearly tapering column with the large end pinned and the small end fixed.
2
)
Minimum
% Error
Maximum
% Error
1
3433 . 0
9272 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 0.9904 -2.30% 7.24%
2
7766 . 0
8954 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 0.9958 -3.47% 10.42%
3
3272 . 1
9176 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 0.9991 -2.71% 8.20%
4
9991 . 1
9988 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 1.0000 -0.03% 0.08%

linearly tapering column with large end fixed and small end guided.
2
)
Minimum
% Error
Maximum
% Error
1
3669 . 0
9305 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 0.9918 -2.26% 6.95%
2
7317 . 0
8623 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 0.9908 -4.81% 13.77%
3
1389 . 1
8220 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 0.9935 -6.26% 17.80%
4
6705 . 1
8517 . 0 *

=
a
b
d
d
P 0.9983 -4.38% 14.83%

APPENDIX A.3
BUCKLED SHAPES FOR LINEARLY TAPERED COLUMNS
WITH 4 END CONDITIONS AND 4 TAPER GEOMETRIES
Figure A.3.1. Plots of deflected shapes for linearly tapering simply supported columns with given end dimension
ratios.
n=1 n=2
n=3 n=4
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a
Figure A.3.2. Plots of deflected shapes for linearly tapering clamped-free columns with given end dimension
ratios, having large end clamped and small end free.
n=1 n=2
n=3 n=4
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a
Figure A.3.3. Plots of deflected shapes for linearly tapering clamped-simply supported columns with given end
dimension ratios, having large end clamped and small end simply supported.
n=1 n=2
n=3 n=4
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a
Figure A.3.4. Plots of deflected shapes for linearly tapering clamped-guided columns with given end dimension
ratios.
n=1 n=2
n=3 n=4
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
b
/d
a
Figure A.3.5. Plots of deflected shapes for linearly tapering clamped-free columns with given end dimension
ratios, having small end clamped and large end free.
n=1 n=2
n=3 n=4
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
a
/d
b
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
a
/d
b
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
a
/d
b
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
a
/d
b
Figure A.3.6. Plots of deflected shapes for linearly tapering clamped-simply supported columns with given end
dimension ratios, having small end clamped and large end simply supported.
n=1 n=2
n=3 n=4
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
a
/d
b
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
a
/d
b
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
a
/d
b
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.5 1 1.5
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

l
e
n
g
t
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
d
a
/d
b

APPENDIX A.4
FIRST SIX ITERATIONS OF EXAMPLE SPREADSHEETS
FOR COLUMNS WITH 10 APPROXIMATING ELEMENTS,
4 END CONDITIONS, AND 4 TAPER GEOMETRIES
Table A.4.1.a. First iteration of a pinned-pinned column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d b/da=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia I-ratio Assumed Deflection Moments due to P Curvature Nodal Concentration moment aid Chord Slope Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection %difference Euler Factor P*
Variable: x d(x) I(x) I/Ia yo(x) M(x) M(x)/EI(x) yd yn P*
Factor: 1 1 1 1 a aP
aP/EIa aPh/12EIa 1
aPh/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa 1
EIa/L
2
2
EIa/L
2
Pinned 0 10 490.8738521 1 0 0 0 -0.136602691 8.5941834 0 0
0.1 11 718.6884069 1.464 0.2 -0.2 -0.1366 -1.558928145 -1.4030353 7.03525525 8.594183397 0.379490254 47.2977243% 27.92586438 2.82948163
0.2 12 1017.87602 2.074 0.4 -0.4 -0.1929 -2.275691715 -1.8205534 4.75956354 15.62943865 0.690143481 42.0410377% 30.71127574 3.11170281
0.3 13 1401.984809 2.856 0.6 -0.6 -0.21008 -2.501914578 -1.7513402 2.25764896 20.38900219 0.90030981 33.3562743% 35.31315527 3.57797069
0.4 14 1885.74099 3.842 0.8 -0.8 -0.20825 -2.490073182 -1.4940439 -0.2324242 22.64665115 1 20.0000000% 42.39037347 4.29504282
0.5 15 2485.048876 5.063 1 -1 -0.19753 -2.305625518 -1.1528128 -2.5380497 22.41422692 0.989736927 -1.0369495% 53.53742532 5.4244753
0.6 16 3216.990877 6.554 0.8 -0.8 -0.12207 -1.49007221 -0.5960289 -4.028122 19.87617718 0.877665181 8.8490671% 48.29902608 4.89371449
0.7 17 4099.8275 8.352 0.6 -0.6 -0.07184 -0.878556463 -0.2635669 -4.9066784 15.84805523 0.699796854 14.2608321% 45.43144187 4.60316747
0.8 18 5152.99735 10.5 0.4 -0.4 -0.0381 -0.468224417 -0.0936449 -5.3749028 10.94137682 0.483134427 17.2073075% 43.87016443 4.44497699
0.9 19 6397.117128 13.03 0.2 -0.2 -0.01535 -0.191571155 -0.0191571 -5.566474 5.566473986 0.245796783 18.6319699% 43.11526481 4.36848966
Pinned 1 20 7853.981634 16 0 0 0 -0.015346721 -1.5099E-14 -6.66723E-16
Sum of squares: 0.644315893
Table A.4.1.b. Second iteration of a pinned-pinned column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d b/da=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
aP/EIa aPh/12EIa 1
aPh/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa 1
EIa/L
2
2
EIa/L
2
Pinned 0 10 490.8738521 1 0 0 0 -0.25919695 12.5078999 0 0
0.1 11 718.6884069 1.464 0.379490254 -0.379490254 -0.2592 -2.924793321 -2.632314 9.58310659 12.50789991 0.421048761 9.8702360% 36.40805476 3.6889072
0.2 12 1017.87602 2.074 0.690143481 -0.690143481 -0.33282 -3.902658676 -3.1221269 5.68044791 22.0910065 0.743641297 7.1940351% 37.48911019 3.79844102
0.3 13 1401.984809 2.856 0.90030981 -0.90030981 -0.31522 -3.745366929 -2.6217569 1.93508099 27.77145442 0.934860092 3.6957703% 38.90223953 3.94162096
0.4 14 1885.74099 3.842 1 -1 -0.26031 -3.11380913 -1.8682855 -1.1787281 29.7065354 1 0.0000000% 40.39515156 4.09288457
0.5 15 2485.048876 5.063 0.989736927 -0.989736927 -0.1955 -2.34926519 -1.1746326 -3.5279933 28.52780726 0.960320915 -3.0631440% 41.63251323 4.21825552
0.6 16 3216.990877 6.554 0.877665181 -0.877665181 -0.13392 -1.618501312 -0.6474005 -5.1464946 24.99981392 0.841559394 -4.2903433% 42.12824226 4.26848337
0.7 17 4099.8275 8.352 0.699796854 -0.699796854 -0.08379 -1.017813744 -0.3053441 -6.1643084 19.85331928 0.668314868 -4.7106518% 42.29802651 4.28568611
0.8 18 5152.99735 10.5 0.483134427 -0.483134427 -0.04602 -0.562881029 -0.1125762 -6.7271894 13.68901089 0.460808058 -4.8450474% 42.35231579 4.29118677
0.9 19 6397.117128 13.03 0.245796783 -0.245796783 -0.01886 -0.234632052 -0.0234632 -6.9618215 6.96182147 0.234353195 -4.8830518% 42.36766775 4.29274224
Pinned 1 20 7853.981634 16 -6.66723E-16 6.66723E-16 4.17E-17 -0.018860873 3.19744E-14 1.07634E-15
Table A.4.1.c. Third iteration of a pinned-pinned column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d b/da=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
aP/EIa aPh/12EIa 1
aPh/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa 1
EIa/L
2
2
EIa/L
2
Pinned 0 10 490.8738521 1 0 0 0 -0.287581969 13.0543273 0 0
0.1 11 718.6884069 1.464 0.421048761 -0.421048761 -0.28758 -3.234442999 -2.9109987 9.81988428 13.05432727 0.431982528 2.5310670% 38.70429338 3.92156482
0.2 12 1017.87602 2.074 0.743641297 -0.743641297 -0.35862 -4.201135577 -3.3609085 5.6187487 22.87421155 0.756933661 1.7560804% 39.01203562 3.95274563
0.3 13 1401.984809 2.856 0.934860092 -0.934860092 -0.32732 -3.892136557 -2.7244956 1.72661214 28.49296025 0.942864442 0.8489396% 39.37225548 3.98924353
0.4 14 1885.74099 3.842 1 -1 -0.26031 -3.120095574 -1.8720573 -1.3934834 30.21957239 1 0.0000000% 39.709364 4.02339976
0.5 15 2485.048876 5.063 0.960320915 -0.960320915 -0.18969 -2.28565018 -1.1428251 -3.6791336 28.82608896 0.953888049 -0.6743837% 39.97715748 4.05053291
0.6 16 3216.990877 6.554 0.841559394 -0.841559394 -0.12841 -1.553828332 -0.6215313 -5.2329619 25.14695535 0.832141336 -1.1317858% 40.15878895 4.06893603
0.7 17 4099.8275 8.352 0.668314868 -0.668314868 -0.08002 -0.972484133 -0.2917452 -6.2054461 19.9139934 0.658976677 -1.4170745% 40.27207527 4.08041433
0.8 18 5152.99735 10.5 0.460808058 -0.460808058 -0.0439 -0.536965502 -0.1073931 -6.7424116 13.70854733 0.453631413 -1.5820432% 40.3375833 4.08705168
0.9 19 6397.117128 13.03 0.234353195 -0.234353195 -0.01798 -0.223724167 -0.0223724 -6.9661357 6.966135746 0.23051735 -1.6640155% 40.37013399 4.09034976
Pinned 1 20 7853.981634 16 1.07634E-15 -1.07634E-15 -6.7E-17 -0.017982765 1.59872E-14 5.29035E-16
Table A.4.1.d. Fourth iteration of a pinned-pinned column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d b/da=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
aP/EIa aPh/12EIa 1
aPh/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa 1
EIa/L
2
2
EIa/L
2
Pinned 0 10 490.8738521 1 0 0 0 -0.295049879 13.1920518 0 0
0.1 11 718.6884069 1.464 0.431982528 -0.431982528 -0.29505 -3.315532385 -2.9839791 9.87651939 13.19205178 0.434749641 0.6364843% 39.29479979 3.98139563
0.2 12 1017.87602 2.074 0.756933661 -0.756933661 -0.36503 -4.275508869 -3.4204071 5.60101053 23.06857117 0.760234512 0.4341885% 39.37480071 3.98950141
0.3 13 1401.984809 2.856 0.942864442 -0.942864442 -0.33012 -3.926572294 -2.7486006 1.67443823 28.6695817 0.94481818 0.2067846% 39.46473101 3.99861326
0.4 14 1885.74099 3.842 1 -1 -0.26031 -3.121627429 -1.8729765 -1.4471892 30.34401993 1 0.0000000% 39.54650711 4.00689891
0.5 15 2485.048876 5.063 0.953888049 -0.953888049 -0.18842 -2.271506203 -1.1357531 -3.7186954 28.89683073 0.952307268 -0.1659948% 39.61215227 4.01355015
0.6 16 3216.990877 6.554 0.832141336 -0.832141336 -0.12697 -1.537068762 -0.6148275 -5.2557642 25.17813533 0.82975609 -0.2874635% 39.6601889 4.01841728
0.7 17 4099.8275 8.352 0.658976677 -0.658976677 -0.0789 -0.959182756 -0.2877548 -6.2149469 19.92237117 0.656550161 -0.3695858% 39.6926654 4.02170784
0.8 18 5152.99735 10.5 0.453631413 -0.453631413 -0.04321 -0.528716636 -0.1057433 -6.7436636 13.70742425 0.451733959 -0.4200380% 39.71261747 4.02372941
0.9 19 6397.117128 13.03 0.23051735 -0.23051735 -0.01769 -0.220097139 -0.0220097 -6.9637607 6.963760694 0.229493677 -0.4460574% 39.72290723 4.02477198
Pinned 1 20 7853.981634 16 5.29035E-16 -5.29035E-16 -3.3E-17 -0.017688427 0 0
Table A.4.1.e. Fifth iteration of a pinned-pinned column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d b/da=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
aP/EIa aPh/12EIa 1
aPh/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa 1
EIa/L
2
2
EIa/L
2
Pinned 0 10 490.8738521 1 0 0 0 -0.296939855 13.2264069 0 0
0.1 11 718.6884069 1.464 0.434749641 -0.434749641 -0.29694 -3.336023987 -3.0024216 9.89038287 13.22640686 0.435443742 0.1594008% 39.44378659 3.99649114
0.2 12 1017.87602 2.074 0.760234512 -0.760234512 -0.36663 -4.294001359 -3.4352011 5.59638151 23.11678973 0.7610579 0.1081899% 39.46401834 3.99854105
0.3 13 1401.984809 2.856 0.94481818 -0.94481818 -0.33081 -3.935004722 -2.7545033 1.66137679 28.71317125 0.945303654 0.0513563% 39.48647144 4.00081602
0.4 14 1885.74099 3.842 1 -1 -0.26031 -3.121999235 -1.8731995 -1.4606224 30.37454804 1 0.0000000% 39.50676067 4.00287175
0.5 15 2485.048876 5.063 0.952307268 -0.952307268 -0.18811 -2.268019714 -1.1340099 -3.7286422 28.9139256 0.951912949 -0.0414239% 39.52312591 4.0045299
0.6 16 3216.990877 6.554 0.82975609 -0.82975609 -0.12661 -1.532826385 -0.6131306 -5.2614685 25.18528344 0.829157471 -0.0721960% 39.53528299 4.00576167
0.7 17 4099.8275 8.352 0.656550161 -0.656550161 -0.07861 -0.955732768 -0.2867198 -6.2172013 19.9238149 0.655937823 -0.0933531% 39.54364146 4.00660856
0.8 18 5152.99735 10.5 0.451733959 -0.451733959 -0.04303 -0.526540046 -0.105308 -6.7437414 13.70661359 0.451253252 -0.1065270% 39.54884603 4.00713589
0.9 19 6397.117128 13.03 0.229493677 -0.229493677 -0.01761 -0.219130887 -0.0219131 -6.9628722 6.96287224 0.229233773 -0.1133794% 39.5515532 4.00741018
Pinned 1 20 7853.981634 16 0 0 0 -0.017609877 -2.84217E-14 -9.35708E-16
Sum of squares: 7.9597E-06
Table A.4.1.f. Sixth iteration of a pinned-pinned column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d b/da=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
aP/EIa aPh/12EIa 1
aPh/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa 1
EIa/L
2
2
EIa/L
2
Pinned 0 10 490.8738521 1 0 0 0 -0.297413935 13.2349891 0 0
0.1 11 718.6884069 1.464 0.435443742 -0.435443742 -0.29741 -3.341161869 -3.0070457 9.89382722 13.23498909 0.435617456 0.0398776% 39.48114252 4.00027609
0.2 12 1017.87602 2.074 0.7610579 -0.7610579 -0.36702 -4.298616231 -3.438893 5.59521099 23.12881631 0.761263651 0.0270276% 39.48621786 4.00079033
0.3 13 1401.984809 2.856 0.945303654 -0.945303654 -0.33098 -3.937101581 -2.7559711 1.65810941 28.72402729 0.945424859 0.0128201% 39.49182937 4.0013589
0.4 14 1885.74099 3.842 1 -1 -0.26031 -3.122091322 -1.8732548 -1.4639819 30.3821367 1 0.0000000% 39.49689292 4.00187194
0.5 15 2485.048876 5.063 0.951912949 -0.951912949 -0.18803 -2.267149469 -1.1335747 -3.7311314 28.91815479 0.951814386 -0.0103553% 39.50098293 4.00228635
0.6 16 3216.990877 6.554 0.829157471 -0.829157471 -0.12652 -1.531761759 -0.6127047 -5.2628931 25.1870234 0.829007639 -0.0180737% 39.50403148 4.00259523
0.7 17 4099.8275 8.352 0.655937823 -0.655937823 -0.07854 -0.954862479 -0.2864587 -6.2177556 19.92413026 0.655784366 -0.0234004% 39.50613536 4.0028084
0.8 18 5152.99735 10.5 0.451253252 -0.451253252 -0.04299 -0.525988867 -0.1051978 -6.7437445 13.70637464 0.451132676 -0.0267274% 39.50744943 4.00294154
0.9 19 6397.117128 13.03 0.229233773 -0.229233773 -0.01759 -0.218885661 -0.0218886 -6.9626301 6.962630149 0.229168548 -0.0284615% 39.50813433 4.00301093
Pinned 1 20 7853.981634 16 -9.35708E-16 9.35708E-16 5.85E-17 -0.017589934 2.39808E-14 7.89306E-16
Table A.4.2.a. First iteration of a fixed-free column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d b/da=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia I-ratio Assumed Deflection Moments due to P Curvature Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection %difference Euler Factor P*
aP/EIa aPh/12EIa aPh/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa 1
EIa/L
2
2
EIa/4L
2
Pinned 0 10 490.8738521 1 0 0 0 9.83269895 0 0
(Free) 0.1 11 718.6884069 1.4641 0.1 -0.1 -0.068301 -0.779464073 9.05323487 9.832698946 0.196668821 49.1530993% 12.2041772 4.94617
0.2 12 1017.87602 2.0736 0.2 -0.2 -0.096451 -1.137845857 7.91538902 18.88593382 0.377747183 47.0545357% 12.7078704 5.15031
0.3 13 1401.984809 2.8561 0.3 -0.3 -0.105038 -1.250957289 6.66443173 26.80132284 0.536066911 44.0368369% 13.4321728 5.44385
0.4 14 1885.74099 3.8416 0.4 -0.4 -0.104123 -1.245036591 5.41939514 33.46575456 0.669365605 40.2419251% 14.3430204 5.81301
0.5 15 2485.048876 5.0625 0.5 -0.5 -0.098765 -1.183330337 4.2360648 38.8851497 0.777761688 35.7129558% 15.430055 6.25357
0.6 16 3216.990877 6.5536 0.6 -0.6 -0.091553 -1.098104033 3.13796077 43.1212145 0.862489378 30.4339259% 16.6971178 6.76709
0.7 17 4099.8275 8.3521 0.7 -0.7 -0.083811 -1.0058732 2.13208757 46.25917526 0.92525333 24.3450440% 18.1585598 7.35939
0.8 18 5152.99735 10.4976 0.8 -0.8 -0.076208 -0.914950452 1.21713711 48.39126283 0.967898299 17.3466881% 19.838292 8.04016
(Fixed) 0.9 19 6397.117128 13.0321 0.9 -0.9 -0.06906 -0.829310331 0.38782678 49.60839994 0.992242879 9.2964012% 21.7705066 8.82325
Guided 1 20 7853.981634 16 1 -1 -0.0625 -0.387826783 0 49.99622672 1 0.0000000% 24.0018113 9.72757
Table A.4.2.b. Second iteration of a fixed-free column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d b/da=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
2
/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa 1
EIa/L
2
2
EIa/4L
2
Pinned 0 10 490.8738521 1 0 0 0 15.1665665 0 0
(Free) 0.1 11 718.6884069 1.4641 0.196668821 -0.196668821 -0.134327 -1.525444252 13.6411223 15.16656652 0.21669717 9.2425524% 15.5607127 6.30652
0.2 12 1017.87602 2.0736 0.377747183 -0.377747183 -0.18217 -2.143716827 11.4974054 28.80768878 0.411599068 8.2244804% 15.7352651 6.37726
0.3 13 1401.984809 2.8561 0.536066911 -0.536066911 -0.187692 -2.233330369 9.26407507 40.30509421 0.575871926 6.9121297% 15.9602727 6.46845
0.4 14 1885.74099 3.8416 0.669365605 -0.669365605 -0.174241 -2.083737456 7.18033761 49.56916928 0.708235361 5.4882541% 16.2044016 6.5674
0.5 15 2485.048876 5.0625 0.777761688 -0.777761688 -0.153632 -1.842166178 5.33817143 56.74950689 0.810826732 4.0779419% 16.446205 6.6654
0.6 16 3216.990877 6.5536 0.862489378 -0.862489378 -0.131605 -1.580467208 3.75770422 62.08767832 0.887097563 2.7740111% 16.669769 6.756
0.7 17 4099.8275 8.3521 0.92525333 -0.92525333 -0.110781 -1.33161651 2.42608771 65.84538255 0.940786964 1.6511320% 16.8622909 6.83403
0.8 18 5152.99735 10.4976 0.967898299 -0.967898299 -0.092202 -1.108937944 1.31714977 68.27147026 0.975450469 0.7742237% 17.0126402 6.89496
(Fixed) 0.9 19 6397.117128 13.0321 0.992242879 -0.992242879 -0.076138 -0.916085586 0.40106418 69.58862003 0.994269667 0.2038469% 17.1104335 6.9346
Guided 1 20 7853.981634 16 1 -1 -0.0625 -0.401064184 0 69.98968421 1 0.0000000% 17.1453838 6.94876
Table A.4.2.c. Third iteration of a fixed-free column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d b/da=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
2
/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa 1
EIa/L
2
2
EIa/4L
2
Pinned 0 10 490.8738521 1 0 0 0 15.9578082 0 0
(Free) 0.1 11 718.6884069 1.4641 0.21669717 -0.21669717 -0.148007 -1.678565751 14.2792425 15.95780822 0.220299507 1.6351996% 16.2952581 6.60422
0.2 12 1017.87602 2.0736 0.411599068 -0.411599068 -0.198495 -2.33458506 11.9446574 30.23705068 0.417426207 1.3959686% 16.3348895 6.62028
0.3 13 1401.984809 2.8561 0.575871926 -0.575871926 -0.201629 -2.399142081 9.54551533 42.18170809 0.582323673 1.1079315% 16.3826062 6.63962
0.4 14 1885.74099 3.8416 0.708235361 -0.708235361 -0.184359 -2.205386829 7.3401285 51.72722342 0.714100687 0.8213583% 16.4300803 6.65886
0.5 15 2485.048876 5.0625 0.810826732 -0.810826732 -0.160163 -1.921352871 5.41877563 59.06735192 0.815432064 0.5647721% 16.4725867 6.67609
0.6 16 3216.990877 6.5536 0.887097563 -0.887097563 -0.13536 -1.626407533 3.79236809 64.48612754 0.890238929 0.3528677% 16.5076911 6.69032
0.7 17 4099.8275 8.3521 0.940786964 -0.940786964 -0.112641 -1.354689317 2.43767878 68.27849564 0.942593037 0.1916068% 16.5344058 6.70114
0.8 18 5152.99735 10.4976 0.975450469 -0.975450469 -0.092921 -1.118147501 1.31953128 70.71617441 0.976245493 0.0814369% 16.5526568 6.70854
(Fixed) 0.9 19 6397.117128 13.0321 0.994269667 -0.994269667 -0.076294 -0.918360232 0.40117104 72.03570569 0.994461784 0.0193187% 16.5629474 6.71271
Guided 1 20 7853.981634 16 1 -1 -0.0625 -0.401171043 0 72.43687673 1 0.0000000% 16.5661477 6.71401
Table A.4.2.d. Fourth iteration of a fixed-free column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d b/da=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
2
/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa 1
EIa/L
2
2
EIa/4L
2
Pinned 0 10 490.8738521 1 0 0 0 16.0843643 0 0
(Free) 0.1 11 718.6884069 1.4641 0.220299507 -0.220299507 -0.150468 -1.70598035 14.3783839 16.0843643 0.220925443 0.2833247% 16.4358008 6.66118
0.2 12 1017.87602 2.0736 0.417426207 -0.417426207 -0.201305 -2.367405998 12.010978 30.46274825 0.418418536 0.2371618% 16.4434096 6.66426
0.3 13 1401.984809 2.8561 0.582323673 -0.582323673 -0.203888 -2.426068389 9.58490956 42.4737262 0.583394321 0.1835205% 16.4522511 6.66785
0.4 14 1885.74099 3.8416 0.714100687 -0.714100687 -0.185886 -2.223823384 7.36108618 52.05863576 0.715047046 0.1323492% 16.4606854 6.67126
0.5 15 2485.048876 5.0625 0.815432064 -0.815432064 -0.161073 -1.932455952 5.42863023 59.41972194 0.81615463 0.0885330% 16.4679074 6.67419
0.6 16 3216.990877 6.5536 0.890238929 -0.890238929 -0.13584 -1.632326814 3.79630341 64.84835216 0.890719128 0.0539114% 16.4736139 6.6765
0.7 17 4099.8275 8.3521 0.942593037 -0.942593037 -0.112857 -1.357406803 2.43889661 68.64465557 0.942862936 0.0286255% 16.4777816 6.67819
0.8 18 5152.99735 10.4976 0.976245493 -0.976245493 -0.092997 -1.119135824 1.31976079 71.08355218 0.976362197 0.0119530% 16.4805297 6.67931
(Fixed) 0.9 19 6397.117128 13.0321 0.994461784 -0.994461784 -0.076309 -0.918583385 0.4011774 72.40331297 0.994489661 0.0028031% 16.4820378 6.67992
Guided 1 20 7853.981634 16 1 -1 -0.0625 -0.401177401 0 72.80449037 1 0.0000000% 16.4824998 6.68011
Table A.4.2.e. Fifth iteration of a fixed-free column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d b/da=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
2
/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa 1
EIa/L
2
2
EIa/4L
2
Pinned 0 10 490.8738521 1 0 0 0 16.1054018 0 0
(Free) 0.1 11 718.6884069 1.4641 0.220925443 -0.220925443 -0.150895 -1.710734133 14.3946677 16.1054018 0.221032928 0.0486283% 16.4609698 6.67138
0.2 12 1017.87602 2.0736 0.418418536 -0.418418536 -0.201784 -2.37299392 12.0216737 30.50006946 0.418587486 0.0403620% 16.4623311 6.67193
0.3 13 1401.984809 2.8561 0.583394321 -0.583394321 -0.204263 -2.430541924 9.59113182 42.5217432 0.583574723 0.0309133% 16.4638872 6.67256
0.4 14 1885.74099 3.8416 0.715047046 -0.715047046 -0.186133 -2.226804427 7.36432739 52.11287502 0.715204841 0.0220630% 16.4653448 6.67315
0.5 15 2485.048876 5.0625 0.81615463 -0.81615463 -0.161216 -1.934202861 5.43012453 59.47720241 0.816273965 0.0146194% 16.4665707 6.67365
0.6 16 3216.990877 6.5536 0.890719128 -0.890719128 -0.135913 -1.633234584 3.79688995 64.90732694 0.890797801 0.0088318% 16.4675238 6.67404
0.7 17 4099.8275 8.3521 0.942862936 -0.942862936 -0.112889 -1.357814344 2.4390756 68.70421689 0.942906883 0.0046607% 16.4682108 6.67431
0.8 18 5152.99735 10.4976 0.976362197 -0.976362197 -0.093008 -1.119281451 1.31979415 71.14329249 0.976381119 0.0019379% 16.4686592 6.6745
(Fixed) 0.9 19 6397.117128 13.0321 0.994489661 -0.994489661 -0.076311 -0.918615893 0.40117826 72.46308664 0.99449417 0.0004534% 16.4689037 6.6746
Guided 1 20 7853.981634 16 1 -1 -0.0625 -0.40117826 0 72.8642649 1 0.0000000% 16.4689783 6.67463
Table A.4.2.f. Sixth iteration of a fixed-free column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d b/da=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
2
/12EIa aPh
2
/12EIa 1
EIa/L
2
2
EIa/4L
2
Pinned 0 10 490.8738521 1 0 0 0 16.1089536 0 0
(Free) 0.1 11 718.6884069 1.4641 0.221032928 -0.221032928 -0.150968 -1.711549744 14.3974038 16.10895357 0.221051302 0.0083124% 16.4653472 6.67315
0.2 12 1017.87602 2.0736 0.418587486 -0.418587486 -0.201865 -2.373945266 12.0234586 30.5063574 0.418616268 0.0068756% 16.4655838 6.67325
0.3 13 1401.984809 2.8561 0.583574723 -0.583574723 -0.204326 -2.431296114 9.59216245 42.52981596 0.583605333 0.0052449% 16.4658523 6.67336
0.4 14 1885.74099 3.8416 0.715204841 -0.715204841 -0.186174 -2.227301917 7.36486053 52.1219784 0.715231511 0.0037289% 16.4661019 6.67346
0.5 15 2485.048876 5.0625 0.816273965 -0.816273965 -0.161239 -1.934491663 5.43036887 59.48683893 0.816294067 0.0024626% 16.4663105 6.67354
0.6 16 3216.990877 6.5536 0.890797801 -0.890797801 -0.135925 -1.633383463 3.7969854 64.9172078 0.890811018 0.0014837% 16.4664716 6.67361
0.7 17 4099.8275 8.3521 0.942906883 -0.942906883 -0.112895 -1.357880768 2.43910463 68.7141932 0.942914251 0.0007815% 16.4665873 6.67366
0.8 18 5152.99735 10.4976 0.976381119 -0.976381119 -0.09301 -1.119305083 1.31979955 71.15329784 0.976384287 0.0003245% 16.4666625 6.67369
(Fixed) 0.9 19 6397.117128 13.0321 0.99449417 -0.99449417 -0.076311 -0.918621155 0.4011784 72.47309739 0.994494924 0.0000759% 16.4667035 6.6737
Guided 1 20 7853.981634 16 1 -1 -0.0625 -0.401178397 0 72.87427578 1 0.0000000% 16.466716 6.67371
Table A.4.3.a. First iteration of a fixed-pinned column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d b/da=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia I-ratio Assumed Deflection Moments due to P Curvature Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Derived Deflection Redundant Moment
Variable: x d(x) I(x) I/Ib yo(x) M(x) M(x)/EI(x) yd Mr
aP/EIb aPh/12EIb aPh/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aP
Pinned 0 10 490.8738521 0.0625 0 0 0 -69.679146 -95.01432037 0
0.1 11 718.6884069 0.09150625 0.2 -0.1 -1.092821529 -12.47142516 -57.2077209 -25.33517435 1
0.2 12 1017.87602 0.1296 0.4 -0.2 -1.543209877 -18.20553372 -39.0021871 31.8725465 2
0.3 13 1401.984809 0.17850625 0.6 -0.3 -1.680613424 -20.01531663 -18.9868705 70.87473364 3
0.4 14 1885.74099 0.2401 0.8 -0.4 -1.665972511 -19.92058545 0.933714941 89.86160415 4
0.5 15 2485.048876 0.31640625 1 -0.5 -1.580246914 -17.9567229 18.89043784 88.92788921 5
0.6 16 3216.990877 0.4096 0.8 -0.2 -0.48828125 -6.271490826 25.16192866 70.03745137 6
0.7 17 4099.8275 0.52200625 0.6 0.1 0.191568588 2.037067787 23.12486088 44.87552271 7
0.8 18 5152.99735 0.6561 0.4 0.4 0.609663161 7.147616563 15.97724432 21.75066183 8
0.9 19 6397.117128 0.81450625 0.2 0.7 0.859416364 10.2038268 5.773417512 5.773417512 9
Fixed 1 20 7853.981634 1 0 1 1 5.773417512 0 0 10
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Redundant Curvature Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Redundant Deflection Scaled Redundant Deflection Deflection Correction Adjusted Deflection Scaled Deflection %difference Euler Factor P*
(Mr/EI) yn P*
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb 1
EIb/L
2
20.1997EIb/L
3
0 25.06859647 1573.231831 7999.396276 1 95.01432037 0 0
10.92821529 124.7142516 1448.51758 6426.164445 0.803331179 76.32796604 50.99279169 0.420466842 0.524338235 4.706547574 0.233000865
15.43209877 182.0553372 1266.462243 4977.646865 0.622252817 59.12292848 90.99547498 0.750313499 46.6889506% 5.274987576 0.261141877
16.80613424 200.1531663 1066.309076 3711.184622 0.463933089 44.08028712 114.9550208 0.947874649 36.7004909% 6.263319298 0.310069917
16.65972511 199.2058545 867.1032218 2644.875546 0.330634395 31.41500231 121.2766065 1 20.0000000% 7.915788774 0.391876551
15.80246914 189.332854 677.7703678 1777.772324 0.222238312 21.11582216 110.0437114 0.907377891 ########### 10.90475762 0.539847504
14.6484375 175.6966453 502.0737225 1100.001957 0.137510622 13.06547828 83.10292965 0.685234623 ########### 11.55193931 0.571886677
13.40980113 160.939712 341.1340105 597.928234 0.07474667 7.102004055 51.97752676 0.428586586 ########### 13.85214043 0.685759711
12.19326322 146.3920723 194.7419382 256.7942235 0.032101701 3.050121257 24.80078308 0.204497667 ########### 19.35422758 0.958144308
11.04963897 132.6896529 62.05228529 62.05228529 0.007757121 0.737037585 6.510455097 0.053682695 ########### 36.86378239 1.824966826
10 62.05228529 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table A.4.3.b. Second iteration of a fixed-pinned column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d b/da=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
2
/12EIb aP
Pinned 0 10 490.8738521 0.0625 0 0 0 -145.242313 -183.5087608 0
0.1 11 718.6884069 0.09150625 0.420466842 -0.320466842 -3.502130638 -39.26755252 -105.97476 -38.26644802 1
0.2 12 1017.87602 0.1296 0.750313499 -0.550313499 -4.246246137 -49.59401478 -56.3807455 67.70831222 2
0.3 13 1401.984809 0.17850625 0.947874649 -0.647874649 -3.629422773 -43.03943263 -13.3413128 124.0890577 3
0.4 14 1885.74099 0.2401 1 -0.6 -2.498958767 -29.90652575 16.56521294 137.4303705 4
0.5 15 2485.048876 0.31640625 0.907377891 -0.407377891 -1.287515309 -15.5822042 32.14741714 120.8651575 5
0.6 16 3216.990877 0.4096 0.685234623 -0.085234623 -0.20809234 -2.848495868 34.995913 88.71774041 6
0.7 17 4099.8275 0.52200625 0.428586586 0.271413414 0.519942843 5.898975677 29.09693733 53.72182741 7
0.8 18 5152.99735 0.6561 0.204497667 0.595502333 0.907639587 10.63539434 18.46154298 24.62489008 8
0.9 19 6397.117128 0.81450625 0.053682695 0.846317305 1.03905563 12.29819589 6.163347097 6.163347097 9
Fixed 1 20 7853.981634 1 0 1 1 6.163347097 0 0 10
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
(Mr/EI) yn P*
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb 1
EIb/L
2
20.1997EIb/L
3
0 25.06859647 1573.231831 7999.396276 1 183.5087608 0 0
10.92821529 124.7142516 1448.51758 6426.164445 0.803331179 147.4183092 109.1518612 0.521696464 0.194039311 4.622552511 0.228842632
15.43209877 182.0553372 1266.462243 4977.646865 0.622252817 114.1888433 181.8971555 0.869386026 13.6961629% 4.949919073 0.245049138
16.80613424 200.1531663 1066.309076 3711.184622 0.463933089 85.13578619 209.2248439 1 5.2125351% 5.436493858 0.269137356
16.65972511 199.2058545 867.1032218 2644.875546 0.330634395 60.67430805 198.1046785 0.946850646 -5.6132775% 6.057403636 0.299875921
15.80246914 189.332854 677.7703678 1777.772324 0.222238312 40.7826772 161.6478348 0.772603443 ########### 6.735960742 0.333468356
14.6484375 175.6966453 502.0737225 1100.001957 0.137510622 25.23440381 113.9521442 0.544639643 ########### 7.216025224 0.357234277
13.40980113 160.939712 341.1340105 597.928234 0.07474667 13.71666879 67.4384962 0.32232547 ########### 7.626265895 0.377543523
12.19326322 146.3920723 194.7419382 256.7942235 0.032101701 5.890943279 30.51583336 0.145851863 ########### 8.041635223 0.398106666
11.04963897 132.6896529 62.05228529 62.05228529 0.007757121 1.423499672 7.586846769 0.036261692 -48.042446% 8.490910148 0.420348329
10 62.05228529 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table A.4.3.c. Third iteration of a fixed-pinned column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d b/da=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
2
/12EIb aP
Pinned 0 10 490.8738521 0.0625 0 0 0 -156.283573 -140.4789317 0
0.1 11 718.6884069 0.09150625 0.521696464 -0.421696464 -4.608389742 -51.24891305 -105.03466 15.80464181 1
0.2 12 1017.87602 0.1296 0.869386026 -0.669386026 -5.165015631 -60.17997737 -44.854683 120.8393022 2
0.3 13 1401.984809 0.17850625 1 -0.7 -3.921431322 -46.65692421 1.802241169 165.6939853 3
0.4 14 1885.74099 0.2401 0.946850646 -0.546850646 -2.27759536 -27.55894642 29.36118759 163.8917441 4
0.5 15 2485.048876 0.31640625 0.772603443 -0.272603443 -0.861561499 -10.75805323 40.11924082 134.5305565 5
0.6 16 3216.990877 0.4096 0.544639643 0.055360357 0.135157122 1.213515483 38.90572533 94.41131571 6
0.7 17 4099.8275 0.52200625 0.32232547 0.37767453 0.723505762 8.367239794 30.53848554 55.50559038 7
0.8 18 5152.99735 0.6561 0.145851863 0.654148137 0.997025052 11.75420033 18.78428521 24.96710484 8
0.9 19 6397.117128 0.81450625 0.036261692 0.863738308 1.060444052 12.60146557 6.182819631 6.182819631 9
Fixed 1 20 7853.981634 1 0 1 1 6.182819631 0 0 10
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
(Mr/EI) yn P*
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb 1
EIb/L
2
20.1997EIb/L
3
0 25.06859647 1573.231831 7999.396276 1 140.4789317 0 0
10.92821529 124.7142516 1448.51758 6426.164445 0.803331179 112.8511058 128.6557477 0.557272601 0.063839739 4.865975815 0.240893469
15.43209877 182.0553372 1266.462243 4977.646865 0.622252817 87.41341092 208.2527132 0.902046999 3.6207618% 5.009602109 0.248003788
16.80613424 200.1531663 1066.309076 3711.184622 0.463933089 65.17282467 230.8668099 1 0.0000000% 5.197802145 0.257320759
16.65972511 199.2058545 867.1032218 2644.875546 0.330634395 46.44716655 210.3389107 0.911083368 -3.9257964% 5.401857276 0.267422649
15.80246914 189.332854 677.7703678 1777.772324 0.222238312 31.21980063 165.7503571 0.717947968 -7.6127348% 5.593497038 0.276909906
14.6484375 175.6966453 502.0737225 1100.001957 0.137510622 19.31734525 113.728661 0.492615898 ########### 5.746727042 0.284495663
13.40980113 160.939712 341.1340105 597.928234 0.07474667 10.50033235 66.00592273 0.285904772 ########### 5.859937236 0.290100211
12.19326322 146.3920723 194.7419382 256.7942235 0.032101701 4.509612592 29.47671743 0.127678454 ########### 5.937643382 0.293947107
11.04963897 132.6896529 62.05228529 62.05228529 0.007757121 1.089712079 7.27253171 0.031500984 -15.112885% 5.98334001 0.29620935
10 62.05228529 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table A.4.3.d. Fourth iteration of a fixed-pinned column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d b/da=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Variable: x d(x) I(x) I/Ib ya M(x) M(x)/EI(x) yd Mr
2
/12EIb aP
Pinned 0 10 490.8738521 0.0625 0 0 0 -156.96213 -115.4035905 0
0.1 11 718.6884069 0.09150625 0.557272601 -0.457272601 -4.997173428 -55.38876359 -101.573367 41.55853985 1
0.2 12 1017.87602 0.1296 0.902046999 -0.702046999 -5.417029316 -63.08889791 -38.4844689 143.1319066 2
0.3 13 1401.984809 0.17850625 1 -0.7 -3.921431322 -46.75996964 8.275500789 181.6163755 3
0.4 14 1885.74099 0.2401 0.911083368 -0.511083368 -2.128627103 -25.89652556 34.17202635 173.3408747 4
0.5 15 2485.048876 0.31640625 0.717947968 -0.217947968 -0.688823208 -8.754690971 42.92671732 139.1688483 5
0.6 16 3216.990877 0.4096 0.492615898 0.107384102 0.262168217 2.726135342 40.20058198 96.242131 6
0.7 17 4099.8275 0.52200625 0.285904772 0.414095228 0.793276379 9.219656202 30.98092578 56.04154902 7
0.8 18 5152.99735 0.6561 0.127678454 0.672321546 1.024724197 12.1068073 18.87411848 25.06062324 8
0.9 19 6397.117128 0.81450625 0.031500984 0.868499016 1.066288952 12.68761372 6.186504758 6.186504758 9
Fixed 1 20 7853.981634 1 0 1 1 6.186504758 0 0 10
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
(Mr/EI) yn P*
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb 1
EIb/L
2
20.1997EIb/L
3
0 25.06859647 1573.231831 7999.396276 1 115.4035905 0 0
10.92821529 124.7142516 1448.51758 6426.164445 0.803331179 92.70730246 134.2658423 0.570965181 0.023981463 4.980619863 0.246569002
15.43209877 182.0553372 1266.462243 4977.646865 0.622252817 71.81020925 214.9421159 0.914040846 1.3121785% 5.036036771 0.249312454
16.80613424 200.1531663 1066.309076 3711.184622 0.463933089 53.53954419 235.1559197 1 0.0000000% 5.102997202 0.252627376
16.65972511 199.2058545 867.1032218 2644.875546 0.330634395 38.1563963 211.497271 0.899391652 -1.2999582% 5.169334034 0.255911426
15.80246914 189.332854 677.7703678 1777.772324 0.222238312 25.64709914 164.8159475 0.700879432 -2.4353027% 5.227270633 0.258779617
14.6484375 175.6966453 502.0737225 1100.001957 0.137510622 15.8692195 112.1113505 0.476753257 -3.3272225% 5.272785274 0.261032851
13.40980113 160.939712 341.1340105 597.928234 0.07474667 8.626034102 64.66758312 0.274998746 -3.9658457% 5.305374195 0.262646188
12.19326322 146.3920723 194.7419382 256.7942235 0.032101701 3.7046515 28.76527474 0.122324264 -4.3770470% 5.326357787 0.263684995
11.04963897 132.6896529 62.05228529 62.05228529 0.007757121 0.895199622 7.08170438 0.030114931 -4.602543% 5.337864855 0.26425466
10 62.05228529 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table A.4.3.e. Fifth iteration of a fixed-pinned column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d b/da=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
2
/12EIb aP
Pinned 0 10 490.8738521 0.0625 0 0 0 -157.653872 -108.3424666 0
0.1 11 718.6884069 0.09150625 0.570965181 -0.470965181 -5.146808894 -56.97766337 -100.676209 49.31140571 1
0.2 12 1017.87602 0.1296 0.914040846 -0.714040846 -5.509574433 -64.16398454 -36.5122244 149.9876146 2
0.3 13 1401.984809 0.17850625 1 -0.7 -3.921431322 -46.80381957 10.29159521 186.499839 3
0.4 14 1885.74099 0.2401 0.899391652 -0.499391652 -2.07993191 -25.35562863 35.64722384 176.2082438 4
0.5 15 2485.048876 0.31640625 0.700879432 -0.200879432 -0.634878206 -8.127818597 43.77504244 140.5610199 5
0.6 16 3216.990877 0.4096 0.476753257 0.123246743 0.30089537 3.18824439 40.58679805 96.78597749 6
0.7 17 4099.8275 0.52200625 0.274998746 0.425001254 0.814168899 9.475469184 31.11132886 56.19917944 7
0.8 18 5152.99735 0.6561 0.122324264 0.677675736 1.032884829 12.21100785 18.90032101 25.08785058 8
0.9 19 6397.117128 0.81450625 0.030114931 0.869885069 1.067990661 12.71279144 6.18752957 6.18752957 9
Fixed 1 20 7853.981634 1 0 1 1 6.18752957 0 0 10
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
(Mr/EI) yn P*
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb 1
EIb/L
2
20.1997EIb/L
3
0 25.06859647 1573.231831 7999.396276 1 108.3424666 0 0
10.92821529 124.7142516 1448.51758 6426.164445 0.803331179 87.03488144 136.3462872 0.575875464 0.008526641 5.025132931 0.248772652
15.43209877 182.0553372 1266.462243 4977.646865 0.622252817 67.41640499 217.4040196 0.918232857 0.4565302% 5.045210377 0.249766599
16.80613424 200.1531663 1066.309076 3711.184622 0.463933089 50.26365515 236.7634941 1 0.0000000% 5.068348921 0.250912089
16.65972511 199.2058545 867.1032218 2644.875546 0.330634395 35.82174586 212.0299896 0.895534974 -0.4306563% 5.090176083 0.251992657
15.80246914 189.332854 677.7703678 1777.772324 0.222238312 24.07784687 164.6388668 0.695372686 -0.7919130% 5.108485834 0.252899094
14.6484375 175.6966453 502.0737225 1100.001957 0.137510622 14.89823995 111.6842174 0.471712152 -1.0686823% 5.122513467 0.253593542
13.40980113 160.939712 341.1340105 597.928234 0.07474667 8.0982386 64.29741804 0.271568124 -1.2632638% 5.132375541 0.254081771
12.19326322 146.3920723 194.7419382 256.7942235 0.032101701 3.477977414 28.565828 0.12065132 -1.3865942% 5.138626351 0.254391221
11.04963897 132.6896529 62.05228529 62.05228529 0.007757121 0.840425629 7.027955198 0.029683441 -1.453640% 5.142024474 0.254559448
10 62.05228529 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table A.4.3.f. Sixth iteration of a fixed-pinned column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d b/da=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
2
/12EIb aP
Pinned 0 10 490.8738521 0.0625 0 0 0 -157.967394 -106.2094132 0
0.1 11 718.6884069 0.09150625 0.575875464 -0.475875464 -5.200469525 -57.54661544 -100.420779 51.7579809 1
0.2 12 1017.87602 0.1296 0.918232857 -0.718232857 -5.541920192 -64.54110276 -35.8796759 152.1787596 2
0.3 13 1401.984809 0.17850625 1 -0.7 -3.921431322 -46.82010253 10.94042661 188.0584355 3
0.4 14 1885.74099 0.2401 0.895534974 -0.495534974 -2.063869114 -25.17759663 36.11802324 177.1180089 4
0.5 15 2485.048876 0.31640625 0.695372686 -0.195372686 -0.617474167 -7.925408034 44.04343127 140.9999857 5
0.6 16 3216.990877 0.4096 0.471712152 0.128287848 0.313202753 3.335294253 40.70813702 96.95655439 6
0.7 17 4099.8275 0.52200625 0.271568124 0.428431876 0.820740893 9.556046338 31.15209068 56.24841737 7
0.8 18 5152.99735 0.6561 0.12065132 0.67934868 1.03543466 12.24360791 18.90848277 25.09632669 8
0.9 19 6397.117128 0.81450625 0.029683441 0.870316559 1.068520418 12.72063884 6.187843925 6.187843925 9
Fixed 1 20 7853.981634 1 0 1 1 6.187843925 0 0 10
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
(Mr/EI) yn P*
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb aPh
2
/12EIb 1
EIb/L
2
20.1997EIb/L
3
0 25.06859647 1573.231831 7999.396276 1 106.2094132 0 0
10.92821529 124.7142516 1448.51758 6426.164445 0.803331179 85.32133319 137.0793141 0.582929464 0.012100948 5.041246099 0.249570345
15.43209877 182.0553372 1266.462243 4977.646865 0.622252817 66.08910655 218.2678661 0.928183592 1.0720654% 5.048289736 0.249919045
16.80613424 200.1531663 1066.309076 3711.184622 0.463933089 49.27406113 237.3324966 1.009255889 0.9171003% 5.0561976 0.250310529
16.65972511 199.2058545 867.1032218 2644.875546 0.330634395 35.11648506 212.234494 0.902526691 0.7746825% 5.063465175 0.250670316
15.80246914 189.332854 677.7703678 1777.772324 0.222238312 23.6038007 164.6037864 0.699977218 0.6578117% 5.06942909 0.250965563
14.6484375 175.6966453 502.0737225 1100.001957 0.137510622 14.60492246 111.5614769 0.47441492 0.5697055% 5.073925148 0.251188144
13.40980113 160.939712 341.1340105 597.928234 0.07474667 7.938799967 64.18721734 0.272955992 0.5084584% 5.077050585 0.251342871
12.19326322 146.3920723 194.7419382 256.7942235 0.032101701 3.409502775 28.50582947 0.121220973 0.4699300% 5.079016685 0.251440204
11.04963897 132.6896529 62.05228529 62.05228529 0.007757121 0.823879276 7.011723201 0.029817337 0.449053% 5.080082046 0.251492945
10 62.05228529 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table A.4.4.a. First iteration of a fixed-guided column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d
b
/d
a
=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Distance from top Diameter Moment of Inertia I-ratio Assumed Deflection Moments due to P Curvature Nodal Concentration of M/EI Chord Slope Redundant Moment Redundant Curvature
Variable: x d(x) I(x) I/I
b
y
o
(x) M(x) M(x)/EI(x) M
r
(M
r
/EI)
Factor: 1 1 1 1 a aP aP/EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b aP aP/EI
b
Fixed 0 10 490.8738521 0.0625 0 -0.5 -8 -39.95645094 -117.85376 10 160
0.1 11 718.6884069 0.09150625 0.1 -0.4 -4.371286114 -54.02767596 -77.897307 10 109.2821529
0.2 12 1017.87602 0.1296 0.2 -0.3 -2.314814815 -28.63984321 -23.869631 10 77.16049383
0.3 13 1401.984809 0.17850625 0.3 -0.2 -1.120408949 -13.93539744 4.77021204 10 56.02044746
0.4 14 1885.74099 0.2401 0.4 -0.1 -0.416493128 -5.285340228 18.7056095 10 41.64931279
0.5 15 2485.048876 0.31640625 0.5 0 0 -0.172352503 23.9909497 10 31.60493827
0.6 16 3216.990877 0.4096 0.6 0.1 0.244140625 2.824543425 24.1633022 10 24.4140625
0.7 17 4099.8275 0.52200625 0.7 0.2 0.383137175 4.532759747 21.3387588 10 19.15685875
0.8 18 5152.99735 0.6561 0.8 0.3 0.457247371 5.446705949 16.805999 10 15.24157903
0.9 19 6397.117128 0.81450625 0.9 0.4 0.491095065 5.868198023 11.3592931 10 12.27737663
Guided 1 20 7853.981634 1 1 0.5 0.5 5.491095065 5.49109507 10 10
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Nodal Concentration Chord Slope Scaled Redundant Rotation Rotation Correction Adjusted Rotation Derived Deflection Scaled Deflection %difference Euler Factor P*
y
d
y
n
P*
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh
2
/12EI
b
aPh
2
/12EI
b 1 EI
b
/L^2
2
EI
b
/L
3
849.2662117 5603.60469 1 -117.8537581 0 0 0
1329.982022 4754.33848 0.848442876 -99.99218141 22.09487429 22.09487429 0.06113928 -0.635609718 5.43112391 0.550287903
936.9075386 3424.35645 0.611098863 -72.02029756 48.15066639 70.24554068 0.194378194 -0.028922 3.41658698 0.346172637
679.0142812 2487.44892 0.443901569 -52.31546816 57.08568021 127.3312209 0.352341408 0.1485531 2.82727204 0.286462549
504.1185136 1808.43463 0.322727019 -38.03459196 56.74020144 184.0714223 0.50934864 0.214683286 2.60768344 0.264213573
382.112758 1304.31612 0.232763764 -27.43208436 51.42303406 235.4944564 0.651642605 0.232708242 2.54783068 0.25814922
294.902422 922.203362 0.164573237 -19.39557446 43.55887667 279.0533331 0.772175463 0.222974532 2.58015194 0.261424049
231.2242291 627.30094 0.111945966 -13.19325281 34.53201159 313.5853446 0.867729856 0.193297321 2.67869661 0.271408711
183.8500257 396.076711 0.070682486 -8.330196635 25.13619567 338.7215403 0.937284852 0.14647079 2.83418645 0.287163126
148.0153453 212.226686 0.037873244 -4.463504095 15.82279718 354.5443375 0.98106851 0.082632874 3.04616344 0.308640886
64.21134038 64.2113404 0.011458935 -1.350478522 6.841573587 361.3859111 1 0 3.32055004 0.33644206
Table A.4.4.b. Second iteration of a fixed-guided column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d
b
/d
a
=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
b
y
o
r
(M
r
/EI)
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b aP aP/EI
b
Fixed 0 10 490.8738521 0.0625 0 -0.5 -8 -41.20879682 -96.957824 10 160
0.1 11 718.6884069 0.09150625 0.06113928 -0.43886072 -4.795964432 -58.31783727 -55.749027 10 109.2821529
0.2 12 1017.87602 0.1296 0.194378194 -0.305621806 -2.358192949 -29.20508396 2.5688105 10 77.16049383
0.3 13 1401.984809 0.17850625 0.352341408 -0.147658592 -0.827190037 -10.59115688 31.7738945 10 56.02044746
0.4 14 1885.74099 0.2401 0.50934864 0.00934864 0.038936443 0.04143991 42.3650513 10 41.64931279
0.5 15 2485.048876 0.31640625 0.651642605 0.151642605 0.479265516 5.496082478 42.3236114 10 31.60493827
0.6 16 3216.990877 0.4096 0.772175463 0.272175463 0.664490875 7.828629161 36.827529 10 24.4140625
0.7 17 4099.8275 0.52200625 0.867729856 0.367729856 0.704454891 8.375530953 28.9988998 10 19.15685875
0.8 18 5152.99735 0.6561 0.937284852 0.437284852 0.666491163 7.959992455 20.6233688 10 15.24157903
0.9 19 6397.117128 0.81450625 0.98106851 0.48106851 0.590625929 7.072750452 12.6633764 10 12.27737663
Guided 1 20 7853.981634 1 1 0.5 0.5 5.590625929 5.59062593 10 10
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
y
d
y
n
P*
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh
2
/12EI
b
aPh
2
/12EI
b 1 EI
b
/L^2
2
EI
b
/L
3
849.2662117 5603.60469 1 -96.95782359 0 0 0
1329.982022 4754.33848 0.848442876 -82.26317468 26.51414791 26.51414791 0.059602968 -0.025775755 2.76709385 0.280365224
936.9075386 3424.35645 0.611098863 -59.25081576 61.81962626 88.33377417 0.198571538 0.021117549 2.64059625 0.267548337
679.0142812 2487.44892 0.443901569 -43.03973006 74.81362452 163.1473987 0.366750206 0.03928777 2.59158095 0.262582049
504.1185136 1808.43463 0.322727019 -31.29090933 73.65596067 236.8033594 0.532326482 0.043164943 2.58112203 0.261522339
382.112758 1304.31612 0.232763764 -22.56826799 64.89187942 301.6952388 0.678201381 0.039160604 2.59192399 0.262616806
294.902422 922.203362 0.164573237 -15.95666288 52.78419183 354.4794306 0.796858579 0.030975529 2.61400373 0.264853952
231.2242291 627.30094 0.111945966 -10.85403723 39.85293702 394.3323676 0.886446724 0.021114487 2.64060451 0.267549174
183.8500257 396.076711 0.070682486 -6.853220034 27.47658887 421.8089565 0.948213229 0.011525231 2.66647212 0.270170111
148.0153453 212.226686 0.037873244 -3.672107278 16.33548366 438.1444402 0.984934881 0.003925509 2.68697284 0.272247269
64.21134038 64.2113404 0.011458935 -1.111033372 6.701659301 444.8460995 1 0 2.69756215 0.27332019
Table A.4.4.c. Third iteration of a fixed-guided column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d
b
/d
a
=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
b
y
o
r
(M
r
/EI)
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b aP aP/EI
b
Fixed 0 10 490.8738521 0.0625 0 -0.5 -8 -41.27534228 -92.286225 10 160
0.1 11 718.6884069 0.09150625 0.059602968 -0.440397032 -4.812753575 -58.45337265 -51.010883 10 109.2821529
0.2 12 1017.87602 0.1296 0.198571538 -0.301428462 -2.325836898 -28.81759386 7.44248984 10 77.16049383
0.3 13 1401.984809 0.17850625 0.366750206 -0.133249794 -0.746471307 -9.655912395 36.2600837 10 56.02044746
0.4 14 1885.74099 0.2401 0.532326482 0.032326482 0.134637578 1.163108835 45.9159961 10 41.64931279
0.5 15 2485.048876 0.31640625 0.678201381 0.178201381 0.563204363 6.491433599 44.7528873 10 31.60493827
0.6 16 3216.990877 0.4096 0.796858579 0.296858579 0.72475239 8.551038791 38.2614537 10 24.4140625
0.7 17 4099.8275 0.52200625 0.886446724 0.386446724 0.740310531 8.811005436 29.7104149 10 19.15685875
0.8 18 5152.99735 0.6561 0.948213229 0.448213229 0.683147736 8.167160704 20.8994094 10 15.24157903
0.9 19 6397.117128 0.81450625 0.984934881 0.484934881 0.595372818 7.136875915 12.7322487 10 12.27737663
Guided 1 20 7853.981634 1 1 0.5 0.5 5.595372818 5.59537282 10 10
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
y
d
y
n
P*
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh
2
/12EI
b
aPh
2
/12EI
b 1 EI
b
/L^2
2
EI
b
/L
3
849.2662117 5603.60469 1 -92.28622508 0 0 0
1329.982022 4754.33848 0.848442876 -78.2995902 27.2887074 27.2887074 0.060096717 0.008215911 2.62099486 0.265562301
936.9075386 3424.35645 0.611098863 -56.39600722 63.83849707 91.12720447 0.200685426 0.010533339 2.61487058 0.264941782
679.0142812 2487.44892 0.443901569 -40.96600015 77.22608385 168.3532883 0.370757026 0.010807132 2.61414702 0.264868471
504.1185136 1808.43463 0.322727019 -29.78325827 75.69925437 244.0525427 0.537466157 0.009562788 2.61743546 0.265201659
382.112758 1304.31612 0.232763764 -21.48088914 66.2337764 310.2863191 0.683329884 0.007505165 2.62287315 0.265752613
294.902422 922.203362 0.164573237 -15.18784279 53.44929646 363.7356155 0.801038913 0.005218641 2.62891577 0.266364857
231.2242291 627.30094 0.111945966 -10.33107062 40.0414855 403.777101 0.889220512 0.003119348 2.63446358 0.266926969
183.8500257 396.076711 0.070682486 -6.523019836 27.42242927 431.1995303 0.949611719 0.001472697 2.6388152 0.26736788
148.0153453 212.226686 0.037873244 -3.495178689 16.22742742 447.4269577 0.985348667 0.000419939 2.64159733 0.267649768
64.21134038 64.2113404 0.011458935 -1.05750183 6.652874648 454.0798324 1 0 2.64270711 0.267762212
Table A.4.4.d. Fourth iteration of a fixed-guided column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d
b
/d
a
=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
b
y
o
r
(M
r
/EI)
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b aP aP/EI
b
Fixed 0 10 490.8738521 0.0625 0 -0.5 -8 -41.26731031 -91.084463 10 160
0.1 11 718.6884069 0.09150625 0.060096717 -0.439903283 -4.807357776 -58.3831038 -49.817152 10 109.2821529
0.2 12 1017.87602 0.1296 0.200685426 -0.299314574 -2.309526036 -28.62664306 8.56595139 10 77.16049383
0.3 13 1401.984809 0.17850625 0.370757026 -0.129242974 -0.724024922 -9.393731288 37.1925945 10 56.02044746
0.4 14 1885.74099 0.2401 0.537466157 0.037466157 0.156043971 1.415827754 46.5863257 10 41.64931279
0.5 15 2485.048876 0.31640625 0.683329884 0.183329884 0.579412966 6.685131916 45.170498 10 31.60493827
0.6 16 3216.990877 0.4096 0.801038913 0.301038913 0.734958285 8.674620051 38.4853661 10 24.4140625
0.7 17 4099.8275 0.52200625 0.889220512 0.389220512 0.745624237 8.876479912 29.810746 10 19.15685875
0.8 18 5152.99735 0.6561 0.949611719 0.449611719 0.685279255 8.194297627 20.9342661 10 15.24157903
0.9 19 6397.117128 0.81450625 0.985348667 0.485348667 0.595880839 7.144087642 12.7399685 10 12.27737663
Guided 1 20 7853.981634 1 1 0.5 0.5 5.595880839 5.59588084 10 10
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
y
d
y
n
P*
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh
2
/12EI
b
aPh
2
/12EI
b 1 EI
b
/L^2
2
EI
b
/L
3
849.2662117 5603.60469 1 -91.08446272 0 0 0
1329.982022 4754.33848 0.848442876 -77.27996349 27.46281108 27.46281108 0.060311008 0.003553092 2.62595336 0.266064702
936.9075386 3424.35645 0.611098863 -55.66161161 64.227563 91.69037408 0.201360992 0.003355002 2.62647539 0.266117595
679.0142812 2487.44892 0.443901569 -40.43253595 77.6251304 169.3155045 0.371833339 0.002894612 2.62768866 0.266240525
504.1185136 1808.43463 0.322727019 -29.39541709 75.98174283 245.2972473 0.538696647 0.002284198 2.6292973 0.266403514
382.112758 1304.31612 0.232763764 -21.20116241 66.37166039 311.6689077 0.684455278 0.001644219 2.63098384 0.266574397
294.902422 922.203362 0.164573237 -14.99006487 53.47543094 365.1443387 0.801892533 0.001064506 2.63251157 0.266729188
231.2242291 627.30094 0.111945966 -10.19653818 40.0072842 405.1516228 0.889752426 0.000597822 2.63374143 0.266853799
183.8500257 396.076711 0.070682486 -6.438076285 27.37234239 432.5239652 0.949864756 0.000266392 2.63461485 0.266942295
148.0153453 212.226686 0.037873244 -3.44966405 16.18963253 448.7135978 0.985418766 7.11357E-05 2.63512942 0.266994431
64.21134038 64.2113404 0.011458935 -1.043730913 6.639611752 455.3532095 1 0 2.63531688 0.267013426
Table A.4.4.e. Fifth iteration of a fixed-guided column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d
b
/d
a
=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
b
y
o
r
(M
r
/EI)
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b aP aP/EI
b
Fixed 0 10 490.8738521 0.0625 0 -0.5 -8 -41.26289122 -90.772299 10 160
0.1 11 718.6884069 0.09150625 0.060311008 -0.439688992 -4.805015963 -58.35447296 -49.509408 10 109.2821529
0.2 12 1017.87602 0.1296 0.201360992 -0.298639008 -2.304313332 -28.56614465 8.84506502 10 77.16049383
0.3 13 1401.984809 0.17850625 0.371833339 -0.128166661 -0.717995368 -9.323098134 37.4112097 10 56.02044746
0.4 14 1885.74099 0.2401 0.538696647 0.038696647 0.161168877 1.476663168 46.7343078 10 41.64931279
0.5 15 2485.048876 0.31640625 0.684455278 0.184455278 0.582969768 6.727908876 45.2576446 10 31.60493827
0.6 16 3216.990877 0.4096 0.801892533 0.301892533 0.737042317 8.700036157 38.5297358 10 24.4140625
0.7 17 4099.8275 0.52200625 0.889752426 0.389752426 0.746643217 8.889139414 29.8296996 10 19.15685875
0.8 18 5152.99735 0.6561 0.949864756 0.449864756 0.685664923 8.199259348 20.9405602 10 15.24157903
0.9 19 6397.117128 0.81450625 0.985418766 0.485418766 0.595966901 7.145333936 12.7413008 10 12.27737663
Guided 1 20 7853.981634 1 1 0.5 0.5 5.595966901 5.5959669 10 10
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
y
d
y
n
P*
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh
2
/12EI
b
aPh
2
/12EI
b 1 EI
b
/L^2
2
EI
b
/L
3
849.2662117 5603.60469 1 -90.77229916 0 0 0
1329.982022 4754.33848 0.848442876 -77.01511055 27.5057026 27.5057026 0.060375997 0.0010764 2.63120745 0.266597053
936.9075386 3424.35645 0.611098863 -55.47084882 64.31591384 91.82161644 0.201551718 0.000946287 2.63155017 0.266631778
679.0142812 2487.44892 0.443901569 -40.29396606 77.70517572 169.5267922 0.372117346 0.000763218 2.63203239 0.266680637
504.1185136 1808.43463 0.322727019 -29.29467348 76.02898128 245.5557734 0.539003667 0.000569607 2.63254237 0.266732309
382.112758 1304.31612 0.232763764 -21.12850204 66.38614667 311.9419201 0.684723624 0.000391903 2.63301044 0.266779735
294.902422 922.203362 0.164573237 -14.93869111 53.46842686 365.410347 0.802088725 0.000244601 2.63339845 0.266819048
231.2242291 627.30094 0.111945966 -10.16159273 39.99129232 405.4016393 0.889871036 0.000133288 2.63369165 0.266848755
183.8500257 396.076711 0.070682486 -6.416011789 27.35657197 432.7582113 0.949919685 5.78252E-05 2.63389042 0.266868895
148.0153453 212.226686 0.037873244 -3.437841404 16.17914224 448.9373535 0.985433479 1.49302E-05 2.63400341 0.266880343
64.21134038 64.2113404 0.011458935 -1.040153852 6.636120753 455.5734743 1 0 2.63404273 0.266884328
Table A.4.4.f. Sixth iteration of a fixed-guided column approximated by 10 elements, n=4, d
b
/d
a
=2.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
b
y
o
r
(M
r
/EI)
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b aP aP/EI
b
Fixed 0 10 490.8738521 0.0625 0 -0.5 -8 -41.26149642 -90.691122 10 160
0.1 11 718.6884069 0.09150625 0.060375997 -0.439624003 -4.804305752 -58.3458992 -49.429626 10 109.2821529
0.2 12 1017.87602 0.1296 0.201551718 -0.298448282 -2.302841682 -28.54912692 8.91627329 10 77.16049383
0.3 13 1401.984809 0.17850625 0.372117346 -0.127882654 -0.71640435 -9.304437585 37.4654002 10 56.02044746
0.4 14 1885.74099 0.2401 0.539003667 0.039003667 0.162447595 1.491889469 46.7698378 10 41.64931279
0.5 15 2485.048876 0.31640625 0.684723624 0.184723624 0.583817872 6.738147616 45.2779483 10 31.60493827
0.6 16 3216.990877 0.4096 0.802088725 0.302088725 0.737521301 8.705901313 38.5398007 10 24.4140625
0.7 17 4099.8275 0.52200625 0.889871036 0.389871036 0.746870436 8.891974304 29.8338994 10 19.15685875
0.8 18 5152.99735 0.6561 0.949919685 0.449919685 0.685748644 8.200341839 20.9419251 10 15.24157903
0.9 19 6397.117128 0.81450625 0.985433479 0.485433479 0.595984965 7.14559829 12.7415833 10 12.27737663
Guided 1 20 7853.981634 1 1 0.5 0.5 5.595984965 5.59598496 10 10
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
y
d
y
n
P*
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh/12EI
b
aPh
2
/12EI
b
aPh
2
/12EI
b 1 EI
b
/L^2
2
EI
b
/L
3
849.2662117 5603.60469 1 -90.69112233 0 0 0
1329.982022 4754.33848 0.848442876 -76.94623664 27.51661073 27.51661073 0.060393955 0.00029736 2.63299855 0.266778529
936.9075386 3424.35645 0.611098863 -55.42124174 64.33751504 91.85412576 0.201603099 0.00025486 2.63311049 0.266789871
679.0142812 2487.44892 0.443901569 -40.25793153 77.72333174 169.5774575 0.372191674 0.000199705 2.63325575 0.26680459
504.1185136 1808.43463 0.322727019 -29.26847552 76.03831331 245.6157708 0.539081941 0.000145199 2.63339931 0.266819135
382.112758 1304.31612 0.232763764 -21.10960702 66.38755534 312.0033262 0.68479055 9.77328E-05 2.63352432 0.266831802
294.902422 922.203362 0.164573237 -14.92533157 53.46513228 365.4684584 0.802136791 5.99223E-05 2.63362391 0.266841892
231.2242291 627.30094 0.111945966 -10.15250531 39.9864047 405.4548632 0.889899676 3.21836E-05 2.63369697 0.266849294
183.8500257 396.076711 0.070682486 -6.410274008 27.3521991 432.8070623 0.949932778 1.37824E-05 2.63374543 0.266854204
148.0153453 212.226686 0.037873244 -3.434766974 16.17635023 448.9834125 0.985436924 3.49627E-06 2.63377252 0.266856949
64.21134038 64.2113404 0.011458935 -1.039223651 6.635208616 455.6186211 1 0 2.63378173 0.266857882

Variable Section Buckling

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Variable Section Buckling

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THESIS

ELASTIC BUCKLING LOADS OF SLENDER COLUMNS

), which shall be determined by a rational

You might also like