Arch Appl Mech (2005) 74: 790799

DOI 10.1007/s00419-005-0402-9

ORIGINAL

J.T. Katsikadelis G.C. Tsiatas

Buckling load optimization of beams

Received: 22 January 2005 / Accepted: 4 May 2005 / Published online: 18 July 2005
Springer-Verlag 2005

Abstract In this paper, shape optimization is used to optimize the buckling load of a EulerBernoulli beam
having constant volume. This is achieved by varying appropriately the beam cross section so that the beam
buckles with the maximum or a prescribed buckling load. The problem is reduced to a nonlinear optimization
problem under equality and inequality constraints as well as specified lower and upper bounds. The evaluation
of the objective function requires the solution of the buckling problem of a beam with variable stiffness subjected to an axial force. This problem is solved using the analog equation method for the fourth-order ordinary
differential equation with variable coefficients. Besides its accuracy, this method overcomes the shortcomings
of a possible FEM solution, which would require resizing of the elements and recomputation of their stiffness
properties during the optimization process. Several example problems are presented that illustrate the method
and demonstrate its efficiency.
Keywords Buckling shape optimization Integral equation method Analog equation method Beams
Variable cross section

1 Introduction
In recent decades, shape optimization has attracted the interest of researchers due to its great importance
in engineering. The problem consists in finding the optimum shape of a structural component to control its
response under certain loading and other constraints. A shape optimization procedure is an iterative process in
which repeated improvements are carried out over successive designs until the optimal design is achieved.
In this paper we consider the problem of determining the optimum shape of a EulerBernoulli beam with
a constant volume against buckling. That is, we look for the variation law of the cross section along the beam
length so that the beam buckles with the maximum or a prescribed buckling load, while its volume is kept
constant. From both the mathematical and the engineering points of view, this is a very difficult problem.
There is an extensive body of literature on the maximization of the buckling load using analytical [2,5,10] or
FEM solutions [7,9] that are restricted to beams with similar cross sections, i.e., constrained by the relation
I (x) = aA(x)n (n = 1, 2, 3), with A(x) being the area of the cross section, I (x) its moment of inertia and a a
specified constant. All these solutions ignore any restrictions imposed on the rate of change of the cross section
to ensure the validity of the EulerBernoulli theory, as well as lower bounds resulting from serviceability factors. Note that some optimum solutions lead to zero values of the area A for certain cross sections as well as to
cross-sectional variations for which the beam theory is not valid [1]. These results are unrealistic and, therefore,
cannot be used for design. An attempt to get realistic results with FEM is by considering piecewise-constant
variation in thickness [6].
J.T. Katsikadelis (B) G.C. Tsiatas
School of Civil Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Zografou Campus GR-15780 Athens, Greece.
Tel.: +30-2107721654, Fax: +30-2107721655.
E-mail: jkats@central.ntua.gr, gtsiatas@central.ntua.gr

Buckling load optimization of beams

791

In this investigation the buckling load of a EulerBernoulli beam with constant volume is optimized by
appropriately distributing its stiffness property along the length. For homogeneous material this reflects the
variation of the beam cross section. Hence, we seek the variation of the beam cross section such that the beam
buckles with the maximum or a prescribed buckling load. This problem is reduced to a nonlinear optimization
problem under equality and inequality constraints as well as specified lower and upper bounds. The equality
constraint results from the condition that the volume of the material is kept constant, while the upper and
lower bounds result from the condition that the rate of change of the beam cross section ensures the validity
of the EulerBernoulli beam theory for beams with variable cross section. Finally, the inequality constraint
results from serviceability requirements, e.g., the cross-sectional area of the beam should not be less than
a certain value. The optimization problem is solved using the successive quadratic programming algorithm
and a finite difference gradient. The evaluation of the objective function requires the solution of the buckling
problem of a beam with variable stiffness, accepting as design variables a set of nodal values that accurately
define the shape of the beam and its rate of variation. This is achieved thanks to an efficient method for the
analysis of beams with variable properties subjected to an axial force. The method is based on the concept of
the analog equation [4]. According to this method, the fourth-order ordinary differential equation with variable
coefficients is replaced by an equivalent one pertaining to the transverse deformation of a substitute beam with
unit bending stiffness subjected to a fictitious transverse load distribution under the same boundary conditions.
The fictitious load is established using an integral equation technique. The presented method overcomes the
drawback of an FEM solution that requires resizing of the beam elements and reevaluation of their stiffness
property during the iteration process [7]. Several example problems are presented that illustrate the merits of
the method as well as its applicability and efficiency. Moreover, interesting conclusions are drawn regarding
the optimum shapes of the beams against buckling.

2 Statement of the problem

2.1 The shape optimization problem for the beam
We consider a EulerBernoulli beam with variable cross section and prescribed boundary conditions (BC). The
beam is subjected to a compressive centrally applied load P . Our problem is to establish the cross-sectional
variation such that the beam buckles with the maximum or a prescribed buckling load while keeping the volume
of the beam Vpr constant. The resulting beam should experience no abrupt change of the cross section, so that
the Euler beam theory remains valid [1]. This requirement imposes the condition that the rate of change of the
variation of cross section h(x) must not be greater than a certain prescribed value, that is,
dh/dx

h/
x .

(1)

Boley [1] has shown that, for a beam with unit constant width, a rate of change of cross section
0.35
yields an error of 7.5%, while for
0.17 the error is 1.8%. This was also verified by Katsikadelis, who
treated the beam as a two-dimensional (2D) elasticity problem and used the BEM to obtain the solution [3].
To stay away from the inequality constraints (1), it is convenient to take as design variables the cross
section h0 at the end x = 0 and the N + 1 differences of the adjacent cross sections
hk = hk hk1 (k =
1, 2, . . . , N +1)
x apart. Thus, the vector of the N +2 design variables is h = {h0 ,
h1 ,
h2 , . . . ,
hN+1 }T
and the cross section at the i nodal point is expressed as
hi = h0 +

i

hk ,

i = 1, 2, . . . , N + 1 .

(2)

k=1

Using the trapezoidal rule to evaluate the volume of the beam, the equality constraint is written as


N1


1
3
3
1
hi + 4 hN + 4 hN+1 Vpr = 0 .

x 4 h0 + 4 h1 +

(3)

i=2

Finally, the inequality constraint from the serviceability may be written as

min hi ,

i = 0, 1, 2, . . . , N + 1 .

(4)

792

J.T. Katsikadelis, G.C. Tsiatas

According to the scope of this paper, the objective function for the beam is

maximize P (h)

(5a)

2

minimize 1 P (h) /Ppr

(5b)

(a)
to buckle with the maximum load Pmax or
(b)

to buckle with a prescribed buckling load Ppr . Since Ppr cannot exceed Pmax , the latter should be first established
before specifying Ppr .

2.2 The buckling problem for beams with variable cross section
The evaluation of the objective function requires the solution of the buckling problem of a beam with variable
stiffness. This problem is stated as follows.
We consider an initially straight beam of length l having variable cross section A(x) and bending stiffness
D(x) = EI (x), subjected to a compressive centrally applied axial load P . The x-axis coincides with the
neutral axis of the beam. We assume that there is no abrupt variation in the cross section of the beam so that
the EulerBernoulli theory is valid. The beam is bent in the x, z plane. Hence, if w = w(x) is the transverse
deflection of the beam, the bending moment and the shear force are given as
M = Dw,xx ,
Q = M,x = D,x w,xx Dw,xxx ,

(6a)
(6b)

L (w) = 0 ,

(7)

L (w) = Dw,xxxx +2D,x w,xxx +D,xx w,xx +P w,xx .

(8)

and the buckling equation is

where

The beam is subjected to the boundary conditions

1 w (0) + 2 R(0) = 3 and 1 w (l) + 2 R(l) = 3 ,

(9a,b)

1 w,x (0) + 2 M(0) = 3 and 1 w,x (l) + 2 M(l) = 3 ,

(10a,b)

where R(x) (x = 0, l) is the reaction force given as

R(x) = P w,x (x) + Q (x)

(11)

and k , k , k , k (k = 1, 2, 3) are given constants. Equations 9 and 10 describe the most general boundary
conditions associated with the problem and can include elastic support or restraint. For example, at an elastically supported end, say at x = 0, the boundary condition Eq. 9a becomes kw (0) + R(0) = 0, that is,
1 = k, 2 = 1, and 3 = 0; k is the spring stiffness.

Buckling load optimization of beams

793

3 The analog equation method (AEM) solution to the buckling problem

Equation 7 is solved using the analog equation method (AEM), which for the problem at hand is applied as follows. Let w = w(x) be the sought solution of Eq. 7, which is four times differentiable in (0, l). Differentiation
of w yields
w,xxxx = b (x) .

(12)

Equation 12 describes the response of a beam with constant stiffness subjected to the fictitious load b (x).
It indicates that the solution of Eq. 7 can be established by solving Eq. 12 under the conditions Eqs. 911,
provided that the fictitious load distribution b is first determined. Equation 12 is the analog equation to Eq. 5.
The fictitious load is established by developing a procedure based on the integral equation method for 1D
problems [4]. Thus, the integral representation of the solution of Eq. 12 is written as
l
w(x) = c1 x + c2 x + c3 x + c4 +
3

G (x, ) b ( ) d ,

(13)

where ci (i = 1, 2, . . . , 4) are integration constants to be determined from the boundary conditions, and
G(x, ) is the fundamental solution of Eq. 12 (free-space Greens function), that is, a particular singular
solution of the equation
G,xxxx = (x ) ,

(14)

where (x ) is the Dirac function. Integrating Eq. 14 yields

G=

1
12

|x | (x )2 .

The derivatives of w are obtained by direct differentiation of Eq. 13. This yields
 l
G,x (x, ) b ( ) d ,
w,x (x) = 3c1 x 2 + 2c2 x + c3 +
0
 l
G,xx (x, ) b ( ) d ,
w,xx (x) = 6c1 x + 2c2 +
0
 l
G,xxx (x, ) b ( ) d ,
w,xxx (x) = 6c1 +
w,xxxx (x) = b (x) .

(15)

(16a)
(16b)
(16c)

(16d)

In the conventional BEM, the load distribution b (x) is known and Eqs. 13 and 16 are combined with
the boundary conditions Eqs. 9 and 10 to yield the unknown arbitrary constants ci (i = 1, 2, . . . , 4). This,
however, cannot be done here because b (x) is unknown. For this purpose, an additional integral equation
is derived, which permits the establishment of b (x). This equation results by applying the operator L () to
Eq. 13. This yields
 l
 
 
L (G (x, )) b ( ) d = 0 .
(17)
c1 L x 3 + c2 L x 2 + c3 L (x) + c4 L (1) +
0

Equation 17 is a domain integral for b(x), which can be solved numerically as follows.
The interval (0, l) is divided into N equal elements (Fig. 1) on which b(x) is assumed to vary according to
certain laws (constant, linear, parabolic, etc.). The constant element assumption is employed here because the
numerical implementation becomes very simple, while the obtained numerical results are very good.
After discretization of Eqs. 13 we obtain
w(x) =

4


j =1

x 4j cj + b(j )

N 


j =1

G(x, )d

(18)

or
w(x) = H(x)c + G(x)b ,

(19)

794

J.T. Katsikadelis, G.C. Tsiatas

Fig. 1 Discretization of the interval and distribution of the nodal points

where G(x) is a 1 N known matrix originating from the integration of the kernel G(x, ) on the elements;
H(x) is a 1 4 known matrix containing the powers of x; b = {b1 , b2 , . . . , bN }T is the vector containing the
values of the fictitious load at the nodal points; and c = {c1 , c2 , c3 , c4 }T . Similarly, we obtain for Eq. 16ac
w,x (x) = Hx (x)c + Gx (x)b ,
w,xx (x) = Hxx (x)c + Gxx (x)b ,
w,xxx (x) = Hxxx (x)c + Gxxx (x)b ,

(20a)
(20b)
(20c)

where Gx (x), Gxx (x), and Gxxx (x) are 1 N known matrices, originating from the integration of the derivatives of the kernel G(x, ) and Hx (x), Hxx (x), and Hxxx (x) are 1 4 known matrices resulting from the
differentiation of H(x).
First, Eqs. 19 and 20 are applied to the end nodal points x = 0 and x = l. This yields
w(0) = H(0)c + G(0)b, w(l) = H(l)c + G(l)b ,
w,x (0) = Hx (0)c + Gx (0)b, w,x (l) = Hx (l)c + Gx (l)b ,
w,xx (0) = Hxx (0)c + Gxx (0)b, w,xx (l) = Hxx (l)c + Gxx (l)b ,
w,xxx (0) = Hxxx (0)c + Gxxx (0)b, w,xxx (l) = Hxxx (l)c + Gxxx (l)b .

(21a)
(21b)
(21c)
(21d)

Substituting Eqs. 21 into the boundary conditions Eqs. 910 gives

1 H(0) 2 D,x (0) Hxx (0) 2 EI Hxxx (0)

1 G(0) 2 D,x (0) Gxx (0) 2 EI Gxxx (0)
1 H(l) 2 D,x (l) Hxx (l) 2 EI Hxxx (l)
G(l) 2 D,x (l) Gxx (l) 2 EI Gxxx (l)

c + 1
b
1 Hx (0) 2 D (0) Hxx (0)
1 Gx (0) 2 D (0) Gxx (0)
1 Hx (l) 2 D (l) Hxx (l)
1 Gx (l) 2 D (l) Gxx (l)

3
3
(22)
= .
3
3
Solving Eq. 22 for c we obtain
c = Eb + e ,

(23)

in which E is a known 4 N rectangular matrix and e is a known 4 1 vector.

Subsequently, applying Eq. 17 to the N interior nodal points and using Eq. 23 to eliminate c yields
(A + P B) b = 0 .

(24)

The matrices A and B are evaluated from the expressions

A = D + Dxx (Gxx + Hxx E) + 2Dx (Gxxx + Hxxx E) ,
B = Gxx + Hxx E ,

(25)
(26)

Table 1 Example 1: The ratio Pmax /P for various values of

This method
= 0.15
1.197

[7]
= 0.20
1.240

= 0.25
1.271

= 0.30
1.293

= 0.35
1.309

= 0.40
1.321

[2]

No constraint on
1.328
1.333

Buckling load optimization of beams

795

Fig. 2 Example 2: Cross section of the steel I-section beam

where G = G(xi ), Gxx = Gxx (xi ), Gxxx = Gxxx (xi ), H = H(xi ), Hx = Hx (xi ), Hxxx = Hxxx (xi ), and
(i = 1, 2, . . . , N) are N N known matrices and D, Dx , and Dxx are N N known diagonal matrices
including the values of the stiffness and its derivatives at the nodal points.
The condition that Eq. 24 has a nontrivial solution yields the buckling equation
det (A + P B) = 0 .

(27)

4 Numerical examples
Based on the procedure described in the previous section a FORTRAN program has been written for establishing the optimized buckling shapes. The optimization procedure was carried out using successive quadratic
programming (SQP) as developed by Schittkowski [8]. In all examples, the results were obtained using N = 51
elements.
Example 1: Beam with a similar circular cross section
For comparison of the results with those available from the literature, the maximization of the buckling load
of a simply supported beam with an initially
constant circular cross section has been studied. The employed
data are l = 1.0 m, initial radius r = 40 mm, and I (x) = r(x)4 /4 = A(x)2 /4. The computed ratio
Pmax /P for various values of the shape parameter is shown in Table 1 in juxtaposition to those obtained
from an analytical [2] and an FEM [7] solution without any restrictions on the rate of change of the cross
section; P is the buckling load for a constant cross section. The computed value of the buckling load for large
values of coincides with the analytical one, as was anticipated. The buckling load increases with . Note that
the optimum value obtained by the analytic or the FEM solution are unrealistic because they are realized for

Fig. 3 Example 2: BC case (i)

796

Fig. 4 Example 2: BC case (ii)

Fig. 5 Example 2: BC case (iii)

Fig. 6 Example 2: BC case (i)

J.T. Katsikadelis, G.C. Tsiatas

Buckling load optimization of beams

797

Fig. 7 Example 2: BC case (ii)

Fig. 8 Example 2: BC case (iii)

Fig. 9 Example 2: BC case (i), = 0.12. P , Pmax = 1.24P , Ppr = 1.15P

very large values of , for which the EulerBernoulli theory is not valid. Assuming an acceptable value for
= 0.15, the actual buckling load is about 10.2% smaller.
Example 2: Steel beam with an I-section
The optimum buckling shapes of a steel I-section beam with length l = 10.0 m and modulus of elasticity
E = 2.1 108 kN/m2 has been studied. The initial cross section is constant, and it is constructed from a
pair of identical flange plates b = 100 mm wide by tf = 15 mm thick and a web plate tw = 15 mm thick
with height hw = 500 mm (Fig. 2). Three types of boundary conditions have been considered: (i) clamped
clamped (P = 1.403 kN); (ii) simply supported (P = 0.351 kN); and (iii) clampedhinged (P = 0.717 kN);
load for a constant cross section. In all three cases the volume of the material, i.e., V =

P is the buckling
tw hw + 2tf b l, was kept constant. For a realistic construction of the optimum beam, only the web height
hw was allowed to vary. Thus, the design parameters were the height hw (x) of the beam web at the nodal
points. Results for min hw (x) = 0.1hw are shown in Figs. 4Fig. 11. More specifically, in Figs. 35 the

798

J.T. Katsikadelis, G.C. Tsiatas

Fig. 10 Example 2: BC case (ii), = 0.12. P , Pmax = 1.34P , Ppr = 1.2P

Fig. 11 Example 2: BC case (iii), = 0.06. P , Pmax = 1.34P , Ppr = 1.20P

dependence of Pmax /P on the allowable rate of change = dhw (x) /dx is presented, while in Figs. 68 the
profiles of the upper half of hw (x) for the optimum beam are shown for various values of . Moreover, the
profiles of the upper half of hw (x) for the optimum beam are shown in Figs. 911 for both the maximum and
a prescribed buckling load.
5 Conclusions
This paper examines the optimum buckling shapes of a EulerBernoulli beam with constant volume. The
problem is reduced to a nonlinear optimization problem under equality and inequality constraints as well
as specified lower and upper bounds. The proposed method has certain advantages over existing solutions
(analytical and numerical), which can be summarized as:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)

The method is unburdened by the cross-sectional similarity constraint.

Restrictions on the rate of the cross-section variation are imposed that validate the EulerBernoulli theory.
Prescribed serviceability requirements can be satisfied.
The problem of buckling a beam at a prescribed axial load is also encountered.
The AEM solution for the buckling beam equation of variable cross section overcomes the shortcoming
of element resizing required in possible FEM solutions.

An important conclusion that can be drawn from this investigation is that optimizing the shape of a beam for
maximum buckling load without imposing restrictions on the validity of the EulerBernoulli theory yields
larger buckling loads, thereby reducing the safety of the structure.
References
1. Boley, B.A.: On the accuracy of the BernoulliEuler theory for beams of variable section. J Appl Mech ASME 30, 373378
(1963)

Buckling load optimization of beams

799

2. Haftka, R.T., Gurdal, Z., Kamat M.P.: Elements of structural optimization, 2nd edn. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1990)
3. Katsikadelis, J.T.: Boundary elements: theory and applications. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2002)
4. Katsikadelis, J.T., Tsiatas, G.C.: Nonlinear dynamic analysis of beams with variable stiffness. J Sound Vib 270, 847863
(2004)
5. Keller, J.B.: The shape of the strongest column. Arch Ration Mech Analy 5, 275285 (1960)
6. Maalawi, K.Y.: Buckling optimization of flexible columns. Int J Solids Struct 39 58655876 (2002)
7. Manickarajah, D., Xie, Y.M., Steven, G.P.: Optimisation of columns and frames against buckling. Comput Struct 75, 4554
(2000)
8. Schittkowski, K.: NLPQL: a FORTRAN subroutine solving constrained nonlinear programming problems. Ann Oper Res
5, 485500 (1986)
9. Simitses, G.J., Kamat, M.P., Smith, C.V.: Strongest column by the finite element method. AIAA J 11, 12311232 (1973)
10. Tadjbakhsh, I., Keller, J.B.: Strongest columns and isoperimetric inequalities for eigenvalues. J Appl Mech ASME 29,
154164 (1962)