THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL BUILDINGS

Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 197–219 (2002)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI:10.1002/tal.194

BUCKLING ANALYSIS OF BUILDINGS BRACED BY

FRAMEWORKS, SHEAR WALLS AND CORES

K. A. ZALKA
Szent Istvan University, Budapest, Hungary

SUMMARY
A simple hand method is presented for the three-dimensional stability analysis of buildings braced by frameworks,
coupled shear walls, shear walls and cores. Sway buckling behaviour is characterized by three types of
deformation: the full-height ‘local’ bending of the individual columns, wall sections, shear walls and cores, the
full-height ‘global’ bending of the frameworks and coupled shear walls, which is associated with the axial
deformations of the column and wall sections, and the shear deformation of the frameworks and coupled shear
walls. Based on the stiffnesses associated with these three types of deformation, a closed formula is derived for the
calculation of the sway critical load. An analogy between bending and torsion is used to carry out the pure
torsional buckling analysis. The interaction between the bending and shear modes as well as among the basic
buckling modes (sway in the principal directions and torsion) are taken into account. A worked example with step-
by-step instructions shows the easy use of the method. The results of a comprehensive accuracy analysis involving
73 multistorey buildings are also given together with comparisons with other analytical methods. Copyright
 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1. INTRODUCTION
The stability of a building can, and should, be assessed by looking at the stability of its individual
elements as well as examining its stability as a whole. National codes have detailed instructions for the
first case but the buckling analysis of whole structures is not so well regulated and therefore this paper
intends to address the second case. The designer basically has two possibilities to tackle whole
building behaviour in either using finite element packages or relying on analytical methods. The
analytical approach is used in this paper.
A great number of methods have been developed for the stress analysis of individual frameworks,
coupled shear walls and shear walls. Fewer methods are available to deal with a system of these
bracing elements. The availability of methods for the stability analysis of a system of frameworks,
coupled shear walls and shear walls is even more limited. This follows from the fact that the interaction
among the elements (beams and lintels, and columns and walls) of a single framework or coupled shear
walls is complex enough but then the bracing elements interact with one another not only in planar
behaviour but normally also in a three-dimensional fashion. This is why the available analytical
methods make one or more simplifying assumptions regarding the characteristic stiffnesses of the
bracing elements, the geometry of the building or loading.
In using an equivalent Timoshenko-beam, Goschy (1970) developed a simple hand-method for the
stability analysis of buildings under top-level load. Goldberg (1973) concentrated on plane buckling
and presented two simple approximate formulae which can be used in the two extreme cases when the

* Correspondence to: K. A. Zalka, Szent Istvan University, Budapest, Thokoly ut 74, H-1146, Hungary.

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received March 2001
Accepted June 2001
198 K. A. ZALKA

building develops pure shear mode or pure bending mode buckling. The interaction of the two modes
is taken into account by applying the Föppl–Papkovich summation formula to the flexural and shear
mode critical loads. Using the continuum approach (Gluck and Gellert, 1971; Rosman, 1974), Stafford
Smith and Coull (1991) presented a more rigorous analysis for the sway and pure torsional buckling
analysis of doubly symmetric multistorey buildings whose vertical elements develop no or negligible
axial deformations. Based on the top translation of the building (obtained from a plane frame analysis)
and assuming a straight-line deflection shape, MacLeod and Marshall (1983) derived a simple formula
for the sway critical load of buildings. In using simple closed-form solutions for the critical loads of the
individual bracing frames and coupled shear walls, Southwell’s summation theorem results in a lower
bound for the sway critical load of multistorey buildings (Zalka and Armer, 1992). Even when the
critical loads of the individual bracing elements are not available, the repeated application of
summation formulae leads to conservative estimates of the critical load in a simple manner (Kollár,
1999). In replacing the bracing elements of a building with sandwich columns with thick faces,
Hegedú´s and Kollár (1999) developed a simple method for calculating the critical load of multistorey
buildings with bracing shear walls and frameworks in an arbitrary arrangement, subjected to con-
centrated top load. All these methods restrict the scope of analysis in one way or another or neglect one
or more characteristic stiffnesses of the bracing system.
In taking into consideration all the characteristic stiffnesses of the bracing frameworks and shear
walls as well as the interaction among the elements of the bracing structures and among the bracing
elements themselves, the aim of this paper is to introduce a simple analytical method for the
calculation of the critical load of buildings braced by a system of frameworks, (coupled) shear walls
and cores.
First, the basic stiffness characteristics will be established for the analysis. Second, based on an
equivalent column, the eigenvalue problems characterising the sway buckling and pure torsional
buckling problems will be set up and solved. Finally, the coupling of the basic (sway and pure
torsional) modes will be taken into account.
It is assumed for the analysis that the structures are regular (i.e. their characteristics do not vary over
the height), the floor slabs of the building have great in-plane and small out-of-plane stiffness and the
material of the structures is elastic. The location of the shear centre depends only on geometrical
characteristics. The critical loads of the structures define the bifurcation point.

2. BASIC BEHAVIOUR: THE CHARACTERISTIC STIFFNESSES AND CORRESPONDING

CRITICAL LOADS OF THE J TH AND K TH ELEMENTS OF THE BRACING SYSTEM
The analysis of the in-plane buckling behaviour of a system of frameworks, shear walls, coupled shear
walls and cores can be based on the analysis of the behaviour of a framework. (A system of coupled
shear walls is in fact a special framework if the infinitely rigid sections of the beams at the walls and
the shear deformation of the relatively short beams are taken into account. A shear wall can also be
considered a special framework whose beams have infinitely small stiffness.)
The buckling behaviour of a framework may be characterised by three types of stiffness and the
corresponding buckling modes and critical loads. The three types are: shear buckling, the bending
buckling of the framework as a whole unit and the bending buckling of the individual columns of the
framework (Figure 1). The buckled shape of the framework can be composed of the three deformation
types and, in a similar manner, the critical load of the framework can be produced by using the three
‘part’ critical loads which are linked to the corresponding stiffnesses.
Buckling in shear (Figure 1a) is defined by the shear stiffness of the frameworks. It consists of two

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 197–219 (2002)
 STABILITY OF WALL FRAME BUILDINGS 199

Figure 1. Characteristic deformations: (a) shear; (b) full-height bending of the framework as a whole; (c) full-
height bending of the individual columns

parts. The part which is linked to the beams of the framework is often called the global shear stiffness:

X
n 1 X
n 1
6Eb Ib;i
Kb; j ˆ Kb;i ˆ 2 …1†
1 1
li h

where
j refers to the jth framework of the system ( j = 1, …, f ),
i refers to the ith beam of the framework (i = 1, …, n 1),
n is the number of columns of the jth framework,
Eb is the modulus of elasticity of the beams,
Ib,i is the second moment of area of the ith beam,
li is the length of the ith beam,
h is the storey height.
With coupled shear walls, the infinitely stiff end-sections of the beams and the shear deformation of
the often relatively deep beams have to be taken into account. With these alterations, Equation (1)
modifies to

X
n 1    1
Eb Ib;i
Kb; j ˆ 2 2
6Eb Ib;i ‰…li ‡ si † ‡ …li ‡ si‡1 † Š li h 1 ‡ 12 2
3
…2†
1
li Gb Ab;i

where
Gb is the modulus of elasticity in shear of the beams,
Ab,i is the cross-sectional area of the beams,
li is the distance between the ith and (i ‡ 1)th walls,
si is the width of the ith wall,
 is a constant whose value depends on the shape of the cross-section of the beams ( = 1
2 for
rectangular cross-sections).
The second part of the shear stiffness is associated with the columns of the framework and is often

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 197–219 (2002)
200 K. A. ZALKA

referred to as the local shear stiffness:

X
n X
n
2 Ec Ic;i
Kc; j ˆ Kc;i ˆ …3†
1 1
h2

where
Ec is the modulus of elasticity of the columns,
Ic,i is the second moment of area of the ith column.
The shear stiffness of the framework can now be established by combining the two part stiffnesses as
  1
1 1
Kj ˆ ‡ ˆ rj Kb; j …4†
Kb; j Kc; j

where

Kc; j
rj ˆ …5†
Kc; j ‡ Kb; j

is the combination factor which establishes a relationship between the two contributors to the shear
stiffness. By definition, shear stiffness Kj is also the shear critical load of the frame.
The full-height bending buckling of the framework as a whole unit represents pure bending type
deformation (Figure 1b). In this case, the columns act as longitudinal fibres (in tension and com-
pression) and the role of the beams is to transfer shear so as to make the columns work together in this
fashion. The bending stiffness associated with this bending deformation is defined by

X
n
Ec Ig; j ˆ Ec Ac;i ti2 …6†
1

The term ‘global’ bending is also used to describe the full-height bending of the framework as a whole
unit as Ig, the ‘global’ second moment of area of the cross-sections of the columns, is calculated with
respect to their ‘global’ centroidal axis:

X
n
Ig; j ˆ Ac;i ti2 …7†
1

where
Ac,i is the cross-sectional area of the ith column,
ti is the distance of the ith column from the centroid of the cross-sections.
The bending critical load which is associated with the full-height bending of the structure as a whole
unit is obtained using Timoshenko’s classical formula (Timoshenko and Gere, 1961) as

7?837rs Ec Ig; j
Ng; j ˆ …8†
H2

where rs is a reduction factor which takes into account the fact that the load of a building is not

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 197–219 (2002)
 STABILITY OF WALL FRAME BUILDINGS 201

Table 1. Reduction factor rs as a function of the number of storeys n

n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
rs 0.315 0.528 0.654 0.716 0.759 0.791 0.815 0.834 0.850 0.863 0.874
n 12 13 14 15 16 18 20 25 30 50 >50
n 0.883 0.891 0.898 0.904 0.910 0.919 0.926 0.940 0.950 0.969 n/(n ‡ 1.6)

uniformly distributed over the height (as in Timoshenko’s original derivation) but consists of
concentrated forces at floor levels. Values for factor rs are given in Table 1.
Although frameworks are routinely associated with shear type deformation, reality is somewhat
more complicated. As Figure 2 demonstrates, and the application of any FE package can confirm, as a
function of height, a framework with the same stiffness characteristics may assume a predominantly
shear type buckled shape, the buckled shape can be a mixture of bending and shear type deformations
and the structure may lose stability in a predominantly bending mode. The reason for this type of
behaviour lies in the fact that there is an interaction between buckling in shear and in bending. Low
and/or wide (multibay) frameworks tend to undergo shear buckling while as the height of the
framework increases the effect of the axial deformation of the columns becomes more and more
important. The axial deformation of the columns can be interpreted as a ‘compromising’ factor, as far
as the shear stiffness is concerned. Because of the lengthening and shortening of the columns, there is
less and less ‘scope’ for the structure to develop shear deformation, as indeed is the case with narrow
and very tall frameworks: very often they do not show any shear deformation at all.
This phenomenon can be easily taken into account by introducing the effective shear stiffness/
critical load as follows. In applying the Föppl–Papkovich theorem (Tarnai, 1999) to the shear and
global bending critical loads of an individual framework, the reduction in the value of the shear critical
load resulting from the global bending of the framework can be expressed. By so doing, the effective

Figure 2. Buckled mode as a function of height: (a) frame data; (b) 4 storeys, predominant shear; (c) 34 storeys,
combined shear and bending; (d) 50 storeys, predominant bending

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 197–219 (2002)
202 K. A. ZALKA

shear stiffness/critical load is obtained as

  1
1 1
Ke; j ˆ ‡ ˆ sj Kj …9†
Kj Ng; j

where Kj and Ng,j refer, respectively, to the shear critical load and the global bending critical load of
the jth framework and parameter sj characterises the ‘erosion’ of the shear critical load, arising from
global bending, as

Ng; j
sj ˆ …10†
Ng; j ‡ Kj

Finally, the framework may develop full-height bending type buckling in a different manner. The full-
height bending buckling of the individual columns of the framework–often called local bending
buckling–also represents pure bending type deformation (Figure 1c). The characteristic stiffness is
given by

X
n
Ec Ic; j ˆ Ec Ic;i …11†
1

where

X
n
Ic; j ˆ Ic;i …12†
1

is the sum of the second moments of area of the columns of the jth framework.
Assuming fixed support for the columns, the full-height bending critical load which is associated
with the local bending stiffness is again obtained by using Timoshenko’s formula for columns under
uniformly distributed vertical load:

7?837rs Ec Ic; j
Nf ; j ˆ …13†
H2

Again, values for factor rs are given in Table 1.

Each framework (and system of coupled shear walls) can now be characterized by their local
bending stiffness (and the related bending critical load) and their effective shear stiffness (which is
also their effective shear critical load).
As for the other two types of bracing elements, the shear walls and cores, their behaviour is much
simpler, as far as sway buckling is considered. They have only local bending stiffness in the relevant
direction

Ew Iw;k …14†

where
k refers to the kth shear wall or core (k = 1, …, m),
Ew is the modulus of elasticity of the shear walls and cores,
Iw,k is the second moment of area of the kth shear wall or core.

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 197–219 (2002)
 STABILITY OF WALL FRAME BUILDINGS 203

The corresponding critical load is

7?837rs Ew Iw;k
Nw;k ˆ …15†
H2

where values for factor rs are given in Table 1.

The complex behaviour of a framework in sway buckling, as well as a system of frameworks and
(coupled) shear walls and cores, can now be analysed by using an equivalent column. The equivalent
column is established in the next section by using the above characteristic stiffnesses and
corresponding critical loads.
As for the torsional behaviour, it will be demonstrated later that the pure torsional problem can be
traced back to the sway problem, enabling a fairly simple treatment. This favourable procedure is
made possible by an analogy which exists between the sway behaviour and restrained torsional
behaviour of the corresponding equivalent columns representing the building.
The building only develops pure sway or pure torsional buckling in some special (doubly
symmetrical) cases. In the general case, the behaviour is more complex as the sway and torsional
modes combine, resulting in coupled sway–torsional buckling. As the coupled critical load can be
determined by using the pure sway and torsional critical loads, these special modes, called basic
modes, will be investigated in the next two sections where the corresponding special critical loads,
termed basic critical loads, will be established.

3. SWAY BUCKLING OF A SYSTEM OF FRAMEWORKS, (COUPLED) SHEAR WALLS

AND CORES
Consider now a system of frames and coupled shear walls ( j = 1, …, f ) and shear walls and cores
(k = 1, …, m). The whole bracing system can now be characterized by the effective shear stiffness of
the frameworks and coupled shear walls and the bending stiffness of the individual columns and wall
sections, shear walls and cores. By combining the individual bracing elements, linked by the floor
slabs, to form a single cantilever (Figure 3), an equivalent column emerges with bending stiffness EI

Figure 3. Model for the sway buckling analysis: (a) bracing system consisting of frames, coupled shear walls,
shear walls and cores; (b) equivalent column

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 197–219 (2002)
204 K. A. ZALKA

and effective shear stiffness/critical load Ke. The bending stiffness of the equivalent column is

X
f X
m
EI ˆ Ec Ic ‡ Ew Iw ˆ Ec Ic; j rj ‡ Ew Iw;k …16†
1 1

With the above bending stiffness, the bending critical load of the system is
!
X
f X
m
7?837rs X
f X
m
Nl ˆ Nf ‡ Nw ˆ Nf ; j rj ‡ Nw;k ˆ Ec Ic; j rj ‡ Ew Iw;k …17†
1 1
H2 1 1

In Equations (16) and (17), the bending stiffness (and the bending critical load) of the columns of the
frameworks are adjusted by combination factor rj. Theoretical and numerical investigations (Hegedú´s
and Kollár, 1999; Zalka and Armer, 1992) demonstrate that this adjustment is necessary to prevent the
overrepresentation of the second moments of area of the columns in the equivalent column where they
are also represented in Ke [through Kc; cf formulae (18), (4) and (3)].
The effective shear stiffness/shear critical load is

X
f
Ke ˆ sj Kj …18†
1

The effectiveness of the shear stiffness for the whole system is measured by the effectiveness factor

Ke
sˆ …19†
K

where K is the ‘original’ shear stiffness/critical load of the whole system

X
f
Kˆ Kj …20†
1

The governing differential equation of the equivalent column is obtained by examining an elementary
section of the column. This leads to the eigenvalue problem

rs EIy0000 ‡ f‰N …z† Ke Šy0 g0 ˆ 0 …21†

with the boundary conditions

y…0† ˆ 0 …22†

y0 …H† ˆ 0 …23†
y00 …0† ˆ 0 …24†

y000 …H† ˆ 0 …25†

where N(z) is the vertical load at z. The origin of the coordinate system is fixed at the top of the column.

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 197–219 (2002)
 STABILITY OF WALL FRAME BUILDINGS 205

Table 2. Critical load parameter a as a function of stiffness ratio b

b a b a b a b a

0.0000 1.0000 0.05 1.1487 2 5.624 80 106.44

0.0005 1.0015 0.06 1.1782 3 7.427 90 118.38
0.001 1.0030 0.07 1.2075 4 9.100 100 130.25
0.002 1.0060 0.08 1.2367 5 10.697 200 246.24
0.003 1.0090 0.09 1.2659 6 12.241 300 359.51
0.004 1.0120 0.10 1.2949 7 13.749 400 471.29
0.005 1.0150 0.20 1.5798 8 15.227 500 582.06
0.006 1.0180 0.30 1.8556 9 16.682 1 000 1 127.5
0.007 1.0210 0.40 2.1226 10 18.118 2 000 2 199.1
0.008 1.0240 0.50 2.3817 20 31.820 5 000 5 360.5
0.009 1.0270 0.60 2.6333 30 44.862 10 000 10 567
0.010 1.0300 0.70 2.8780 40 57.545 100 000 102 579
0.020 1.0598 0.80 3.1163 50 69.991 1000 000 1011 864
0.030 1.0896 0.90 3.3488 60 82.265 2000 000 2018 802
0.040 1.1192 1.00 3.5758 70 94.405 >2000 000 b‡1

After introducing the critical load parameter

Ncr
ˆ …26†
Nl

and the stiffness ratio

Ke
ˆ …27†
Nl

some rearrangement and the application of the power series method, the solution for the sway buckling
of the equivalent column is obtained as

Ncr ˆ … †Nl ‡ Ke …28†

Values of load parameter a are given in Table 2 as a function of stiffness parameter b.

Before this solution is used for the sway buckling analysis of the whole bracing system, however, a
small modification has to be made. The first term in Equation (28) stands for the bending contribution
of the individual columns and wall sections, shear walls and cores in the system and it also represents
the increase of the critical load of the system, arising from the interaction between the bracing
elements in bending and the bracing elements in shear. However, because of the fact that the
effectiveness of the shear stiffness is normally smaller than 100% [cf Equation (19) where s  1
holds], these two contributions have to be separated and the effectiveness factor should be applied to
the part which arises from the interaction. The formula for the sway critical load can then be rewritten
as

Ncr ˆ Nl ‡ Ke ‡ …  1†sNl …29†

In the right-hand side of Equation (29), the first two terms stand for the bending and shear critical loads
of the system, while the third term represents the effect of the interaction between the bending and

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 197–219 (2002)
206 K. A. ZALKA

shear deformations. As is the case with systems subjected to horizontal load (MacLeod, 1971), the
interaction is beneficial. Bearing in mind that (a b 1) 1 always holds, the evaluation of the third
term demonstrates that the effect of the interaction increases the critical load of the system. The
evaluation of the data in Table 2 shows that the maximum increase is 87% at b = 2
1. [The method can
also be used for the load case of a concentrated top load, if Ni and Ng in the relevant formulae are
replaced by the corresponding Euler critical loads. It is interesting to note that the interaction in this
load case does not increase the value of the critical load; the value of the term in brackets in Equation
(28) becomes 1
0.]
A building may develop sway buckling in the two principal directions and both critical loads have to
be calculated. After some rearrangement, these critical loads are obtained from Equation (29) as
 
1
Ncr;x ˆ  ‡ 1 sNl ‡ Ke …30†
s
 
1
Ncr;y ˆ  ‡ 1 sNl ‡ Ke …31†
s

where Nl, Ke, b and s are calculated by taking into account the bracing elements in the relevant
directions (i.e. in x and y).
The following, idealised, special cases of bracing systems are worth considering (where the term
‘framework’ refers to frameworks and coupled shear walls and the term ‘wall’ covers both shear walls
and cores).

3.1 Case A: There are only walls and no frameworks in the bracing system
In this special case, there is no shear stiffness in the sense it is used in this paper. This translates to
K = 0, b = 0 and a = 1. As Nf = 0 in Equation (17), Equation (29) simplifies to

7?837rs Ew Iw
Ncr ˆ Nw ˆ …32†
H2

which is the standard solution for the sway buckling of a bracing system in pure bending.

3.2 Case B: There are only frameworks in the bracing system

Equation (29) and (17) hold with EwIw = 0; everything else is unchanged.

3.2.1 Case B1: There are only frameworks in the bracing system with very high beam/column
stiffness ratio; the axial deformations of the columns are negligible
Practical case: low-rise buildings with multibay frameworks. In this special case, Kb  Kc and
Ng  ? hold. Consequently, rj  0, K  Kc, sj  1, Ke  Kc and s  1. This leads to
!
X
f X
f X
n
2 Ec Ic;i
Ncr ˆ Kc; j ˆ …33†
1 1 1
h2
j

showing that the building loses stability through storey-high sway (shear failure from the point of
view of the whole building), which is resisted by the stiffness of the columns. Equation (33) can

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 197–219 (2002)
 STABILITY OF WALL FRAME BUILDINGS 207

also be used for checking stability when there is a loss of stiffness at a particular storey, making
that storey vulnerable to local shear buckling (Zalka, 2000).

3.3 Case C: There are walls plus frameworks with very high beam/column stiffness ratio

3.3.1 Case C1: There are walls plus frameworks with very high beam/column stiffness ratio. The
axial deformations of the columns are negligible
Practical case: low-rise buildings. In this special case, Kb  Kc and Ng  ? hold. Consequently,
rj  0, K  Kc, sj  1, Ke  Kc and s  1; b  Kc/Nw > 0 and a > 1. This leads to

7?837Ew Iw rs
Ncr ˆ … †Nw ‡ Kc ˆ Nw ˆ  …34†
H2

showing that the critical load is based on the bending critical load of the shear walls and cores.
This value is increased (through a > 1) according to the interaction between the bracing elements
in shear (frameworks with stiff beams) and the bracing elements in bending (walls and cores). The
shear stiffness is characterized by the weakest link (i.e. by the stiffness of the columns).

3.3.2 Case C2: there are walls plus frameworks with very high beam/column stiffness ratio; the
axial deformations of the columns are not negligible
Practical case: medium-rise buildings. In this case, Kb  Kc and Ng = ? hold. Consequently,
rj  0, K  Kc, sj < 1, Ke  ~Kc,jsj < Kc and s < 1; b  sKc/Nw > 0 and a > 1. This results in

 
1 7?837Ew Iw rs
Ncr ˆ  ‡ 1 sNw ‡ sKc ˆ ‰s…  1† ‡ 1 ‡ Š …35†
s H2

As [s(a b 1) ‡ 1 ‡ b] >1 always holds, owing to the supporting effect of the shear stiffness of
the frameworks, the overall critical load is again greater than that of the shear walls/cores.
However, the magnitude of the increase in this case is more difficult to estimate as, in addition to
the effect of the columns as in the previous case, it also depends on the ‘eroding’ effect of the axial
deformations of the columns (through parameter s).

3.3.3 Case C3: there are walls plus frameworks with very high beam/column stiffness ratio; the
axial deformations of the columns are very great
Practical case: medium/high-rise buildings with columns of relatively small cross-section. In this
special case, Kb  Kc and Ng  0 hold. Consequently, rj  0, K  Kc, sj  0, Ke  0 and s  0;
b  0 and a  1. This results in

7?837Ew Iw rs
Ncr ˆ ‰s… † ‡ 1 sŠNw ˆ …36†
H2

Owing to the excessive axial deformation of the columns, all the shear capacity of the frameworks
is eroded and the shear walls and cores work as individual bracing elements in bending (cf case A).

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 197–219 (2002)
208 K. A. ZALKA

3.4 Case D: there are walls plus frameworks with very high column/beam stiffness ratio

3.4.1 Case D1: there are walls plus frameworks with very high column/beam stiffness ratio; the
axial deformations of the columns are negligible
Practical case: low/medium-rise buildings. In this special case, Kb  Kc and Ng  ? hold.
Consequently, rj  1, K  Kb, sj  1, Ke  Kb and s  1; b  Kb/Nl > 0 and a > 1. This leads to

7?837rs …Ec Ic ‡ Ew Iw †
Ncr ˆ … †Nl ‡ Kb ˆ …Nf ‡ Nw † ˆ  …37†
H2

showing that the critical load is based on the bending critical load of the columns, shear walls and
cores; this value is presumably slightly increased (through a > 1) according to the interaction
between the bracing elements in shear (frameworks) and the bracing elements in bending (walls
and cores). The shear stiffness is characterized by the weakest link, (i.e. by the stiffness of the
beams).

3.4.2 Case D2: there are walls plus frameworks with very high column/beam stiffness ratio; the
axial deformations of the columns are not negligible
Practical case: low/medium-rise buildings. In this case, Kb  Kc and Ng = ? hold. Consequently,
rj  1, K  Kb, sj < 1, Ke  ~Kb,jsj < Kb and s < 1; b  sKb/Nl > 0 and a > 1. This results in

 
1 7?837rs …Ec Ic ‡ Ew Iw †
Ncr ˆ  ‡ 1 sNl ‡ sKb ˆ ‰s…  1† ‡ 1 ‡ Š …38†
s H2

As [s(a b 1) ‡ 1 ‡ b] >1 always holds, owing to the supporting effect of the shear stiffness of
the frameworks, the overall critical load is greater than that of the shear walls/cores. However, the
magnitude of the increase in this case is more difficult to estimate as, in addition to the effect of
the columns as in the previous case, it also depends on the ‘eroding’ effect of the axial deformations
of the columns (through parameter s).

3.4.3 Case D3: there are walls plus frameworks with very high column/beam stiffness ratio; the
axial deformations of the columns are very great
Practical case: high-rise buildings with frameworks of great global slenderness. In this special
case, Kb  Kc and Ng  0 hold. Consequently, rj  1, K  Kb, sj  0, Ke  0 and s  0; b  0 and
a  1. This results in

7?837rs …Ec Ic ‡ Ew Iw †
Ncr ˆ ‰s… † ‡ 1 sŠ…Nf ‡ Nw † ˆ …39†
H2

Owing to the excessive axial deformation of the columns, all the shear capacity of the frameworks
is eroded and the shear walls and cores work as individual bracing elements in bending (cf. case
C3).

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 197–219 (2002)
 STABILITY OF WALL FRAME BUILDINGS 209

4. PURE TORSIONAL BUCKLING

Although the torsional buckling problem is more complex than that of sway buckling, the solution
is obtained in a relatively simple way, as a result of an analogy between the three-dimensional
torsional problem and the two-dimensional sway buckling problem (discussed in the previous
section). This analogy is well known in the stress analysis of thin-walled structures in bending and
torsion (Kollbrunner and Basler, 1969; Vlasov, 1940, 1961). According to the analogy, translations,
bending moments and shear forces correspond to rotations, warping moments and torsional
moments, respectively. It will be demonstrated in the following that the analogy can be extended to
the sway buckling of an elastically supported cantilever (discussed in the previous section) and the
pure torsional buckling of a cantilever of thin-walled cross-section (to be investigated in this
section).
The model which is used for the pure torsional buckling analysis of the building is an equivalent
cantilever of thin-walled, open cross-section which replaces the bracing system of the building for
the torsional analysis (Figure 4). This equivalent column is situated in the shear centre and has
effective Saint-Venant torsional stiffness (GJ)e and warping torsional stiffness EIo. The governing
differential equation of the cantilever is obtained by examining the equilibrium of its elementary
section as

" ! #0
rs EIo 0000 …GJ †e 0
' ‡ N …z† ' ˆ0 …40†
i2p i2p

Figure 4. Typical layout with the equivalent column of open, thin-walled cross-section in the shear centre

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 197–219 (2002)
210 K. A. ZALKA

with the boundary conditions

'…0† ˆ 0 …41†

'0 …H† ˆ 0 …42†

'00 …0† ˆ 0 …43†

EIo '000 …H† …GJ †e '0 …H† ˆ 0 …44†

where N(z) is the vertical load at z and ip is the radius of gyration. This eigenvalue problem is clearly
analogous with the one defined by the governing differential Equation (21) and its boundary
conditions, Equations ((22)–(25)). Bending stiffness EI and the elastic support defined by the effective
shear stiffness Ke in Equation (21) correspond to warping stiffness EIo and effective Saint-Venant
torsional stiffness (GJ)e, divided by i2p in Equation (40), respectively. As the derivation of Equation
(40) demonstrates (Zalka and Armer, 1992), ip is related to the vertical load of the building. For
buildings of rectangular plan-shape and subjected to a uniformly distributed load on the floors, the
radius of gyration is obtained from

 1=2
L2 ‡ B2
ip ˆ ‡ t2 …45†
12

where L and B are the plan length and breadth of the building, and t is the distance between the
geometrical centre of the plan of the building and the shear centre of the bracing system. [For arbitrary
plan-shapes and/or other types of vertical load, formulae for the radius of gyration are available
elsewhere (Kollár, 1999; Zalka, 2000).] It is important to note that the value of ip depends on the
geometrical characteristics of the plan of the building rather than the stiffness characteristics of the
bracing system.
Once the corresponding stiffnesses are established, the solution to Equation (21) can be used and
converted to represent the solution of Equation (40).
The effective Saint-Venant torsional stiffness of the system may come from two sources: the Saint-
Venant torsional stiffness of the shear walls and cores and from the effective shear stiffness of the
frameworks as

X
m X
f
…GJ †e ˆ GJk ‡ ‰…sj Kj †x y2j ‡ …sj Kj †y x2j Š …46†
1 1

where
Jk is the Saint-Venant constant of the kth wall/core,
G is the modulus of elasticity in shear of the walls/cores,
(sjKj)x and (sjKj)y are the effective shear stiffnesses of jth framework/coupled shear walls in
directions x and y, respectively,
xj,yj are the perpendicular distance of the jth framework/coupled shear walls from
the shear centre in directions x and y, respectively.
The warping stiffness of the system may originate from three sources: the warping stiffness of the
cores, the bending stiffness of the walls and the bending stiffness of the columns of the frameworks/

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 197–219 (2002)
 STABILITY OF WALL FRAME BUILDINGS 211

wall sections of the coupled shear walls:

X
m X
f
EIo ˆ Ew ‰Io;k ‡ …Iw;k †x y2k ‡ …Iw;k †y x2k Š ‡ Ec ‰…Ic; j rj †x y2j ‡ …Ic; j rj †y x2j Š …47†
1 1

where
Io,k is the warping constant of the kth wall/core,
Ew(Iw,k)x, Ew(Iw,k)y are the bending stiffnesses of the kth wall/core in directions x and y, respec-
tively,
Ec(Ic,jrj)x, Ec(Ic,jrj)y are the bending stiffnesses of the columns/wall sections of the jth framework
in directions x and y, respectively,
x k, y k are the perpendicular distance of the kth wall/core from the shear centre in
directions x and y, respectively.
With the above stiffnesses, and making use of the analogy, the critical load of pure torsional buckling
is obtained in the same manner as Equations (30) and (31):
 
1
Ncr;' ˆ  ‡ 1 s' No ‡ Nt …48†
s'

where the warping torsional critical load of the system is

7?837rs EIo
No ˆ …49†
i2p H 2

and the Saint-Venant torsional critical load is

…GJ †e
Nt ˆ …50†
i2p

The effectiveness of the Saint-Venant torsional stiffness is expressed by the factor

…GJ †e
s' ˆ …51†
…GJ †

where the ‘original’ Saint-Venant torsional stiffness is

X
m X
f
…GJ † ˆ GJk ‡ ‰…Kj †x y2j ‡ …Kj †y x2j Š …52†
1 1

Values of critical load parameter a are given in Table 2 as a function of stiffness parameter b:

Nt
ˆ …53†
No

In making use of the analogy, special cases can be investigated in the same manner as in the previous

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 197–219 (2002)
212 K. A. ZALKA

section (cf special cases A–D), bearing in mind that the bending and shear stiffnesses correspond to the
warping and Saint-Venant stiffnesses.

5. SWAY-TORSIONAL BUCKLING
When the shear centre of the bracing system and the centre of the vertical load coincide (e.g. doubly
symmetrical arrangement), the three basic critical loads Ncr,x, Ncr,y and Ncr,' are independent of each
other, and the smallest one is the overall critical load of the building.
When the system is not doubly symmetrical and the shear centre does not coincide with the
geometrical centre of the building, two things have to be considered. First, for the calculation of the
critical load of pure torsional buckling, the location of the shear centre has to be determined. (The
value of the sway buckling critical loads is not affected.) Second, the question of interaction among the
basic modes has to be addressed.
For bracing systems developing predominantly bending deformation, the location of the shear
centre is calculated by using the bending stiffness of the bracing elements. However, with bracing
systems having frameworks and coupled shear walls as well, the shear deformation of some of the
bracing elements may be of considerable magnitude (in addition to their bending deformation). The
behaviour of such systems is complex (and the location of the shear centre may even vary over the
height). No exact solution is available for this case but, as a good approximation, the formulae given
below can be used to determine the location of the shear centre.
As the critical load of a bracing element reflects both its bending and shear stiffnesses, the location
of the shear centre is calculated by using the critical loads of the bracing elements:

" #" # 1
X
f ‡m X
f ‡m
xo ˆ Ny;j xj Ny;j …54†
1 1
" #" # 1
X
f ‡m X
f ‡m
yo ˆ Nx;j yj Nx;j …55†
1 1

where xj and yj are the perpendicular distances of the frameworks/coupled shear walls, shear walls and
cores from axes y and x, respectively (Figure 4). Any suitable method can be used for the calculation of
the critical loads in Equations (54) and (55), including Equations (30) and (31) given in Section 3 (cf
special cases A and B discussed earlier).
When the location of the shear centre is known, the Saint-Venant and warping torsional stiffnesses
can be calculated in the coordinate system whose origin is in the shear centre, using Equations (46) and
(47), and the critical load of pure torsional buckling is obtained from Equation (48). Because of the
unsymmetrical arrangement, there is an interaction among the basic critical loads (i.e. sway buckling
in the two principal directions and pure torsional buckling with respect to the shear centre). This
interaction can be taken into account in two ways. The application of the Föppl–Papkovich theorem
(Tarnai, 1999) offers a very simple lower bound for the critical load:

  1
1 1 1
Ncr ˆ ‡ ‡ …56†
Ncr;x Ncr;y Ncr;'

This formula may lead to rather uneconomical structural solutions as its error can be as much as 67%;

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 197–219 (2002)
 STABILITY OF WALL FRAME BUILDINGS 213

if a more accurate solution is needed the cubic equation

N 3 ‡ a2 N 2 ‡ a1 N a0 ˆ 0 …57†

can be used, the smallest root of which yields the combined critical load of the building.
The coefficients in the above cubic equation are

Ncr;x x2 ‡ Ncr;y y2 Ncr;x Ncr;y Ncr;'

a2 ˆ …58†
1 x2 y2
Ncr;x Ncr;y ‡ Ncr;' Ncr;x ‡ Ncr;y Ncr;'
a1 ˆ …59†
1 x2 y2
Ncr;x Ncr;y Ncr;'
a0 ˆ …60†
1 x2 y2

where tx and ty are eccentricity parameters:

xc
x ˆ …61†
ip
yc
y ˆ …62†
ip

where ip is given by Equation (45) and xc and yc are the coordinates of the geometrical centre:

L
xc ˆ xo …63†
2
B
yc ˆ yo …64†
2

When the critical load of the system is calculated, the global critical load ratio can be used to assess the
effectiveness of the bracing system. It also indicates whether or not a more sophisticated second-order
analysis needs to be carried out. The application of the global critical load ratio is discussed in detail
elsewhere (MacLeod and Zalka, 1996; Zalka, 2000) and it is only mentioned here that the smaller the
global critical load ratio, the greater the level of safety against buckling. The bracing system is
considered stable enough and no further second-order analysis is needed if the condition

N
vˆ  0
1 …65†
Ncr

is satisfied, where  is the global critical load ratio, N is the total applied vertical load and Ncr is the
critical load of the building.

6. WORKED EXAMPLE AND ACCURACY ANALYSIS

The application of the method, with step-by-step instructions for the calculation, is shown here using
an illustrative example. Figure 5 shows the plan of a 30-storey reinforced-concrete building. The
modulus of elasticity is E = 25000 MN m 2, the modulus of elasticity in shear is G = 10400 MN m 2,

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 197–219 (2002)
214 K. A. ZALKA

Figure 5. Building for the worked example in Section 6

the storey height, h, is 3 m, the total height of the building, H, is 90 m and modifier rs = 0
95 (from
Table 1). The cross-sections of the columns and beams of the frameworks are 0
35 m/0
35 m and
0
50 m/0
35 m, respectively. The thickness of the shear walls is 0
35 m. The vertical load on the floors
is Q = 8 kN m 2.

6.1 Individual frameworks

The characteristic stiffnesses and critical loads of a single framework ( j = 1) are calculated first. The
global and local shear stiffnesses are obtained from Equations (1) and (3):

X
2  
6Eb Ib;i 2  2  6  25 000  0
003 646
Kb;1 ˆ 2 ˆ MN ˆ 145
84 MN
1
li h 53

X
3  
2 Ec Ic;i 3  2  25 000  0
001 251
Kc;1 ˆ ˆ MN ˆ 102
89 MN
1
h2 32

With combination factor r1 [Equation (5)], the shear stiffness of the framework is given by Equation
(4):

Kc;1 102
89
r1 ˆ ˆ ˆ 0
414
Kc;1 ‡ Kb;1 102
89 ‡ 145
84

K1 ˆ r1 Kb;1 ˆ …0
414  145
84† MN ˆ 60
3 MN

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 197–219 (2002)
 STABILITY OF WALL FRAME BUILDINGS 215

The full-height bending critical load of the frame is obtained by using Equations (6) and (8):
 
7?837rs Ec Ig;1 7?837  0
95  2  25 000  0
1225  52
Ng;1 ˆ ˆ MN ˆ 140
75 MN
H2 902

With the effectiveness factor s1 [Equation (10)], the effective shear stiffness/shear critical load of the
frame is given by Equation (9):

Ng;1 140
75
s1 ˆ ˆ ˆ 0
700
Ng;1 ‡ K1 140
75 ‡ 60
3

Ke;1 ˆ s1 K1 ˆ …0
7  60
3† MN ˆ 42
21 MN

6.2 Sway buckling

Because of symmetry, the sway critical loads of the building are identical in directions x and y. The
total bending critical load of the system is made up of the critical loads of two frameworks and two
shear walls. Equation (17) yields the critical load as:
 
7?837  0
95  25 000
Nl ˆ 2‰…3  0
001 251  0
414† ‡ 1
867Š MN ˆ 85
87 MN
902

The total effective shear critical load is the sum of the effective shear critical loads of the two
frameworks [Equation (18)]:

X
f
Ke ˆ sj Kj ˆ …2  0
7  60
3† MN ˆ 84
42 MN
1

The effectiveness factor is obtained from Equation (19):

Ke 84
42
sˆ ˆ ˆ 0
70
K 120
6

where the original shear critical load of the system is given by Equation (20):

X
f
Kˆ Kj ˆ …2  60
3† MN ˆ 120
6 MN
1

With stiffness ratio b [Equation (27)]:

Ke 84
42
ˆ ˆ ˆ 0
983
Nl 85
87

the critical load parameter is obtained from Table 2 as

 ˆ 3
535

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 197–219 (2002)
216 K. A. ZALKA

and the sway critical loads are given by Equations (30) and (31):
    
1
Ncr;x ˆ Ncr;y ˆ 3
535 0
983 ‡ 1  0
7  85
87 ‡ 84
42 MN ˆ 264 MN
0
7

6.3 Pure torsional buckling

The radius of gyration is calculated from Equation (45):
 2 1=2  2 1=2
L ‡ B2 10 ‡ 102
ip ˆ ‡ t2 ˆ ‡0 m ˆ 4
082 m
12 12

The effective Saint-Venant torsional stiffness is obtained from Equation (46):

 
…GJ †e ˆ …4  10 400  0
0572† ‡ …4  0
7  60
3  52 † MN m2 ˆ 6600 MN m2

The original Saint-Venant torsional stiffness is calculated by using Equation (52):

 
…GJ † ˆ …4  10 400  0
0572† ‡ …4  60
3  52 † MN m2 ˆ 8409 MN m2

Factor s' [Equation (51)] measures the effectiveness of the Saint-Venant torsional stiffness:

…GJ †e 6600
s' ˆ ˆ ˆ 0
785
…GJ † 8409

Equation (47) gives the warping torsional stiffness, bearing in mind that Iw,k is zero and the value of the
second term is negligible (0
2%) and is ignored:

EIo ˆ …4  25 000  1
867  2
52 † MN m4 ˆ 1166 875 MN m4

With the above torsional stiffnesses, the pure torsional critical loads are obtained from Equations (49)
and (50):
 
7?837rs EIo 7?837  0
95  1166875
No ˆ ˆ MN ˆ 64
4 MN
i2p H 2 4
0822  902
 
…GJ † 6600
Nt ˆ 2 e ˆ MN ˆ 396 MN
ip 4
0822

With stiffness parameter [Equation (53)]

Nt 396
ˆ ˆ ˆ 6
15
No 64
4

the critical load parameter is obtained from Table 2:

 ˆ 12
45

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 197–219 (2002)
 STABILITY OF WALL FRAME BUILDINGS 217

Finally, Equation (48) gives the value of the pure torsional critical load:
    
1
Ncr;' ˆ 12
45 6
15 ‡ 1  0
785  64
4 ‡ 396 MN ˆ 729 MN
0
785

6.4 Combined sway-torsional buckling

As the building is doubly symmetric and the shear centre coincides with the centre of the vertical load
(in the geometrical centre of the plan) there is no interaction among the basic critical loads. The critical
load of the building is the smallest of the basic critical loads, that is

Ncr ˆ Ncr;x ˆ 264 MN

6.5 Global critical load ratio

According to Equation (65), the global critical load of the building is

N 30  0
008  100
vˆ ˆ ˆ 0
091
Ncr 264
 0
1

indicating an adequate bracing system.

6.6 Accuracy of the method

A comprehensive accuracy analysis has been carried out to check the accuracy of the method
introduced in this paper. As the key element of the method is the calculation of the critical load of sway
buckling of a system of frameworks, (coupled) shear walls and cores, the analysis centred on checking
the accuracy of Equations (30) and (31). The sway critical load of 73 buildings was calculated and
compared with the finite element solution. The AXIS VM finite element package (AXIS, 1999) and
Engineering System’s microSTRAN (1991) were used for the comparison, the results of which were
considered ‘exact’. Eight different frameworks/coupled shear walls and three different shear walls
were used as bracing elements. The bays of the frameworks were 6 m and the storey height was 3 m.
Using these bracing elements, eight bracing systems were created (Figure 6) to cover a wide range of
stiffness characteristics, representing buildings developing predominantly bending deformation, a
mixture of bending and shear deformations and predominantly shear deformation. The height of the
buildings varied between 4 and 80 storeys. The summary of the results is given in Table 3, in which a
comparison with other approximate methods mentioned in the introduction is also made.

7. CONCLUSIONS
The characteristic deformations of bracing frameworks, coupled shear walls, shear walls and cores of a
multistorey building can be established as the full-height ‘local’ bending of the individual columns/
wall sections/shear walls/cores, the full-height ‘global’ bending of the frameworks/coupled shear
walls, which is associated with the axial deformations of the columns/wall sections, and the shear
deformation of the frameworks/coupled shear walls. In attaching the corresponding characteristic
stiffnesses to these deformations, an equivalent column can be created for the stability analysis of a

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 197–219 (2002)
218 K. A. ZALKA

Figure 6. Bracing systems for the accuracy analysis: (a) frame and shear wall; (b) frame with high column/beam
stiffness ratio and shear wall; (c) frame with high column/beam stiffness ratio and slender shear wall; (d) frame
with high beam/column stiffness ratio and shear wall; (e) coupled shear walls and wide shear wall; (f) coupled
shear walls and shear wall; (g) one-bay and two-bay frames with a shear wall; (h) one-bay, two-bay and three-bay
frames with a shear wall

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 197–219 (2002)
 STABILITY OF WALL FRAME BUILDINGS 219

Table 3. Accuracy of approximate methods

Average Maximum
Range of error absolute absolute
Method (%) error (%) error (%)

Summation formulae (Kollar, 1999) 1 to 44 24 44

Southwell’s formula (Zalka and Armer, 1992) 3 to 34 16 34
Stafford Smith-Coull’s method (Stafford Smith and Coull, 1991) 1 to 1596 231 1596
MacLeod-Marshall’s method (MacLeod and Marshall, 1983) 4 to 64 17 64
Proposed method [equations (30) and (31)] 15 to 18 6 18

building. The solution of the eigenvalue problems of sway buckling and pure torsional buckling leads
to closed-form solutions for the basic critical loads of the building. The coupling of the basic modes
can be taken into account by a simple cubic equation. The resulting procedure for the stability analysis
can be applied directly to structural engineering design.

REFERENCES

AXIS. 1999. AXIS VM Finite Element Program for Structural Analysis. Version 5. User’s Manual. Civilax Inc.,
9913 S. Boardwalk Dr., Highlands Ranch, CO 80126, USA [www.axisvm.com].
Gluck J, Gellert M. 1971. On the stability of elastically supported cantilever with continuous lateral restraint.
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 13: 887–891.
Goldberg JE. 1973. Approximate methods for stability and frequency analysis of tall buildings. Proceedings of the
Regional Conference on Planning and Design of Tall Buildings, Madrid: 123–146.
Goschy B. 1970. Räumliche Stabilität von Großtafelbauten. Die Bautechnik 47: 416–425.
Hegedú´s I, Kollár LP. 1999. Application of the sandwich theory in the stability analysis of structures. In Structural
stability in engineering practice, Kollár L (ed.). E&FN Spon: London; 187–241.
Kollár L (ed.). 1999. Structural stability in engineering practice. E&FN Spon: London.
Kollbrunner CF, Basler K. 1969. Torsion in structures. Springer: Berlin, New York.
MacLeod IA. 1971. Shear wall–frame interaction. Portland Cement Association, Special publication.
MacLeod IA, Marshall J. 1983. Elastic stability of building structures. In Proceedings of The Michael R. Horne
Conference: Instability and plastic collapse of steel structures, Morris LJ (ed.). Granada: London; 75–85.
MacLeod IA, Zalka KA. 1966. The global critical load ratio approach to stability of building structures. The
Structural Engineer 74(15): 249–254.
microSTRAN, 1991. microSTRAN Version 4. User’s Manual. Engineering Systems, Kebbel House, Carpenders
Park, Watford, WD1 5BE, England [www.microstran.com].
Rosman R. 1974. Stability and dynamics of shear-wall frame structures. Building Science 9: 55–63.
Stafford Smith B, Coull A. 1991. Stability of high-rise buildings. In Tall building structures: analysis and design.
John Wiley, New York: 368–418.
Tarnai T. 1999. Summation theorems concerning critical loads of bifurcation. In Structural stability in
engineering practice, Kollár L (ed.). E&FN Spon: London; 23–58.
Timoshenko SP, Gere J. 1961. Theory of elastic stability. 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill: New York.
Vlasov VZ. 1940. Tonkostennye uprugie sterzhni. Moscow. 2nd edn in 1961: Thin-walled elastic beams. Israeli
Program for Scientific Translations: Jerusalem.
Zalka KA, Armer GST. 1992. Stability of large structures. Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford.
Zalka KA. 2000. Global structural analysis of buildings. E&FN Spon: London and New York.

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 11, 197–219 (2002)