Hi, there, I had problems with my linear buckling analysis by using line body model. I applied force on the end and applied fixed support on the other end. I found that the force is consistent even though I changed the model length. Can anyone point out the mistakes I made in my analysis? Below picture shown the model of I created.

# The linear buckling analysis

- 92 Views
- Last Post 15 April 2019

It looks very strange (deformation). I would not use both a displacement and a force (use one of them) in the linear static analysis, use just one or the other (fixed support is OK).

Hi,jj77, I used displacement because I want to make a buckling model of one end fixed, one end is simple support. If I did not apply displacement , then may I know what constraint should be used for the simple supported end?

If you attach your model I will have a look - use the attach button next to your previous post to attach and archived model .wbpz which can get by going to File/Archive in WB.

Hi, jj77, here is the model I want to create. The 3rd model is the one I tried. Bottom end is fixed and top end is simple supported. And the beam is I section beam. I would appreciate you soo much if you could solve my doubt. Thanks.

N=2 is the one that I had attempted.

Well it works OK for a square section, which gives the same results as expected as the Euler buckling load formula (K=0.7) - but it does not give same results for I section

So what is the method for the I beam?

Not sure what you mean but as I said and as you can see yourself from your analysis it does not produce correct results - perhaps someone else has some more feedback, but I do not know exactly why

Okay, thanks for your comment. As I am quite new to this software , I thought that the I section should be the same for the square section but it does not generate correcte results. Anyway thanks very much.

Well not sure what you mean with "I thought that the I section should be the same for the square section".

But an I section is different to a square section in terms of the sectional properties (Ixx.Iyy, Warping conts., J,Area,....).

And Eluler load is proportional to Ixx,Iyy,.. so they will of course be different buckling loads for a square section (SS 200mmX200mm) and an I section (say UB 203mmX102mmX23mm)

Also look on the buckled mode shape that you show it does not make any sense what so ever so it is not me saying it only, just look on your screen and be critical

what I mean is the boundary condition applied to square section beam should be the same for I section beam. Thanks for the comment.

If one restrains the rotational dof then it is OK (not sure 100% why that is).

Add a command snippet in analysis settings - where you define loads and BC:

nsel,all ! selects all nodes

d,all,ROTY,0 ! fix ROT dof which is rotation about Y axis which points along beam

I had tried higher mode ，and it works for I section column，

##### Search

##### Change Language

##### Categories

##### This Weeks High Earners

- rwoolhou 51
- abenhadj 47
- peteroznewman 24
- Abubaker 20
- tsiriaks 11
- Abhi1311 8
- jj77 8
- Astro45 5
- btingthewind 5
- seeta gunti 5

##### Hot Topics

- 1 Need to help with dimension and changes, since it seems I am not able to do diff. in SpaceClaim 19.2
- 2 Ansys 19.2 student version installation problem
- 3 Wrong results for lift force every simulation
- 4 Installing the new version of License Manager
- 5 Another Work bench only opening a grey window [RESOLVED]