Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 44 (2002) 25572571
Lateral-torsional buckling of beams and the Southwell plot
P. Mandal
a,
, C.R. Calladine
b
a
Manchester Centre for Civil & Construction Engineering, UMIST, P.O. Box 88, Manchester, M60 1QD, UK
b
Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 1PZ, UK
Received 13 June 2002; received in revised form 15 November 2002; accepted 26 November 2002
Abstract
The Southwell plot is a well-known technique for determining experimentally the elastic critical load of a
structure, without having to subject the structure to loading in the vicinity of critical. But several authors have
suggested that when the structure is a beam which undergoes lateral-torsional buckling, a modied version
of the Southwell plot is called for. In this paper we demonstrate that the modied form of the Southwell
plot is not needed, and that the standard version is indeed satisfactory. We do this by plotting and re-plotting
some experimental data; by drawing attention to some very clear work by Meck; and by explaining the
practical coupling between the variables describing the lateral deection and the rotation when lateral-torsional
buckling occurs. Finally, we examine an argument based on symmetry which appears to support the idea that
a modication of the standard Southwell plot is needed in the case of lateral-torsional buckling: but we show
that a correct deployment of the argument from symmetry leads to the conclusion that the modied form of
the Southwell plot is valid only for special, unrealistic cases.
? 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Lateral-torsional buckling; Southwell plot; Modications to Southwell plot
1. Introduction
The Southwell plot is a key feature of a well-known experimental method for determining the
critical buckling load of an elastic structure, without the need for applying loads in the neighbourhood
of that critical load. In the case of a simple axially loaded column, for example (see Fig. 1), the
applied load P is increased and the lateral deection u of the column, due to exure, is measured
near a location where it is expected to be largest; and then a plot is made of u}P against u. The
datum for u is the unloaded (and not perfectly straight) conguration of the column. As P increases,
the points approach a straight line. The slope of that line is equal to 1}P
cr
, where P
cr
is the sought-for

Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-161-200-4622; fax: +44-161-200-4646.

E-mail address: p.mandal@umist.ac.uk (P. Mandal).
0020-7403/03/$ - see front matter ? 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0020-7403(02)00192-3
2558 P. Mandal, C.R. Calladine / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 44 (2002) 25572571
Nomenclature
C torsional rigidity of the beam in Fig. 2
D warping rigidity of the beam in Fig. 2
E Youngs modulus of elasticity of material
I second moment of area of the beams cross-section
M major axis bending moment in the beam
M
cr
critical moment for lateral-torsional buckling of beam
P axial load on the column (Fig. 1); transverse load applied to the beam (Fig. 2)
P
cr
critical load
P
E
Euler load
u lateral defection at the centre of the beam or column, measured from the
unloaded conguration
u

(:) lateral defection along the length of the beam

U initial lateral deection (i.e. imperfection) at the centre of the beam
U

(:) initial lateral deection along the length of the beam

x, ,, : co-ordinate axes
: torsional buckling parameter (7)
[ lateral buckling parameter (8)
[ rotation at the centre of the beam, measured from unloaded conguration
[

(:) rotation along the length of the beam

1 initial rotation (i.e. imperfection) at the centre of the beam
1

(:) initial rotation along the length of the beam

critical load; while the intercept on the u axis gives an indication of the initial lack-of-straightness
of the column.
Presently, we shall look more closely at some features of this Southwell procedure; but now we
turn to the question of whether the same sort of plot is equally useful in assays of lateral-torsional
buckling as it is in simple exural buckling.
A characteristic lateral-torsional elastic buckling problem is shown schematically in Fig. 2. A deep,
slender beam, supported at its ends against rotation about its long axis, is loaded at its ends by pure
bending moment M; and under increasing M it buckles by a combination of lateral deection and
twisting.
Lateral-torsional buckling is evidently more complicated than exural buckling. Thus, the rotation
of cross-sections in their own planes in the set-up of Fig. 2 produces a component of M as a
minor-axis bending moment; while the local rotation of the axis of the beam resulting from lateral
deection provides a component of torsional moment in the structure. In other words, there is a
subtle interaction between minor-axis bending and twisting in this kind of buckling.
Suppose that, as M is increased from zero, we measure both the lateral deection u and the
rotation [ at the centretaking, as before, the unloaded conguration as datum for both u and [.
How should we plot the experimental observations in order to obtain an accurate prediction of the
critical value, M
cr
, of M, without loading the beam into the vicinity of M
cr
?
P. Mandal, C.R. Calladine / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 44 (2002) 25572571 2559
P
l
u
o
z
y
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of an elastic column that displays classical exural buckling under axial load P. The
lateral displacement u is measured (relative to the initial, possibly crooked, conguration) near a place where the modal
displacement is maximum.
M
u
x

o
P
M
y
z
l
Fig. 2. Schematic representation of a beam which is subject to lateral-torsional buckling. The end supports prevent rotation
only about the long (:) axis of the beam. Loading by end-moments M is the simplest case to analyse; but essentially the
same phenomena are observed under a transverse loading P that is resisted primarily by major-axis bending. Displacements
u, [ are the measured transverse deection (on account of minor-axis bending) and rotation (on account of torsion),
respectively: both are measured relative to the initial, possibly imperfect, conguration of the beam. Governing equations
are set up with respect to the x, ,, : co-ordinate system shown.
2560 P. Mandal, C.R. Calladine / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 44 (2002) 25572571
Several workers [13] have conducted experiments on lateral-torsional buckling of beams, and have
successfully determined the critical loading condition by assuming that the Southwell plot would be
valid, separately, for both lateral deection u and rotation [. Lateral-torsional buckling occurs not
only for pure-moment loading as in Fig. 2, of course, but also for normal vertical loading (e.g. P in
Fig. 2), which is somewhat more dicult to analyse (e.g. Refs. [4, Section 6.4], [5, Sections 4.57,
and 6.36.4]). But whether the loading is by means of end-moments or vertical forces, a measure
of the loading can always be taken as the bending-moment M at a particular location on the beam.
Accordingly, these workers have made plots of u}M (or u}load) against u, and of [}M (or [}load)
against [. And they have found that the experimental pointsapart perhaps from the rst few as
the loading has increasedlie on straight lines; and that the inverse slopes of these lines are in
good agreement with each other; and so are presumably close to the required critical condition. An
example, from Cheng and Yura [1], is shown in Fig. 3(a).
Notwithstanding these successful applications of the Southwell plot to such experiments, several
authors have argued that a dierent version of the Southwell plot should be used for the analysis
of lateral-torsional buckling experiments, in which M
2
(or (load)
2
) is used instead of M (or load)
in the ordinates of the plots. Thus in 1963, Massey [6], while acknowledging that Dumont and
Hill [7] had successfully applied Southwells original method to analyse experimental results on
the lateral-torsional buckling of an aluminium I-beam in major-axis bending, and had shown good
agreement between predicted and measured collapse loads, nevertheless remarked that it is dicult
to justify theoretically their use of the method . Then, starting with the well-known governing
equations of the problem (e.g. [4, Section 6.12]; and see below) he assumed initial imperfections
in both lateral deection and cross-sectional rotation that varied along the length of the beam as
half-sine waves. Following the analysis through, he argued that the standard Southwell plot should
be abandoned in favour of a plot of [}M
2
against [, from which the reciprocal slope of the
straight-line portion would give the value of M
2
cr
.
Massey demonstrated his method by means of experiments on small-scale steel I-beams of dierent
lengths. Later on we shall discuss some shortcomings of Masseys assessment of the situation.
Recently, and independently, Stratford and Burgoyne [8,9], in papers on the self-weight buckling
of long, narrow precast concrete beams in various situations, have stated that when the buckling
involves both minor axis bending and torsion, a modied Southwell plot should be used, in which
deection/(load)
2
is plotted against deection, giving a line with gradient of 1}(critical load)
2
. They
cite as their authority a formula of Allen and Bulson [10, Eq. (6.70)] for the lateral deection of
a beam loaded as in Fig. 2, on the assumption that no initial twist is present. We shall also return
later to this assumption and its range of validity.
2. A paradox
Here, then, we have a paradox in relation to the use of the Southwell plot in the analysis of
experimental data on lateral-torsional buckling of beams. Several investigators [13,7,11] have shown
that the standard Southwell plot works satisfactorily in these conditions; whereas other workers
[6,810] have argued that, nevertheless, the appropriate form of the Southwell plot for lateral-torsional
buckling involves use of the square of the load parameter, rather than the load parameter itself, as
in the standard version of the Southwell plot.
P. Mandal, C.R. Calladine / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 44 (2002) 25572571 2561
0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
(rad)

/

P

(
r
a
d
/
k
i
p
s
)
0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
u (in)

u

/

P

(
i
n
/
k
i
p
s
)
(a)
1
1
10.6 kips
10.9 kips
0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
(rad)

u

/

P

(
i
n
/
k
i
p
s
)
0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
u (in)

/

P

(
r
a
d
/
k
i
p
s
)
24.7 kips in
(b)
1
1
4.7 kips / in
0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
x 10
3
u (in)

u

/

P

2

(
i
n
/
k
i
p
s
2
)

0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
x 10
3
(rad)

/


P

2

(
r
a
d
/
k
i
p
s
2
)
(c)
1
1
2
2 (11.0 kips)
(10.7 kips)
Fig. 3. Standard Southwell plots and variants, based on experimental data of Cheng and Yura [1] for a beam loaded as in
Fig. 2 by a vertical force P: (a) standard Southwell plots for u and [ separately; (b) Mecks skew version of the plot:
from Eq. (9) P
cr
= 10.71 kips; and (c) Masseys version of the Southwell plots, involving P
2
rather than P, in contrast
to both (a) and (b).
Our aim in the present paper is to resolve this paradox, and to explain why the classical Southwell
plot is indeed satisfactory in general for lateral-torsional buckling problems.
2562 P. Mandal, C.R. Calladine / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 44 (2002) 25572571
3. Resolution of the paradox
First we note that in none of [13,6,7,11] is there any attempt to deny that the classical Southwell
plot works satisfactorily, as demonstrated, for example, in Ref. [1]. If, therefore, we can explain why
the classical Southwell plot does work, there will be no need to consider the alleged advantages of
the (load)
2
version of the plot.
The key to the entire situation lies in a paper written by Meck in 1977 [12]. Here we shall give
a version of Mecks analysis of lateral-torsional buckling under pure-moment loading (Fig. 2), but
using our own notation. Meck assumes that lateral deection and rotation in the initial conguration
vary as half-sine waves along the length of the beam; and the governing equations show that they
preserve this feature as the loading increases. Now actual initial imperfections are unlikely to adopt
such simple patterns. But the chosen form is of course the rst Fourier term for an arbitrary shape,
which is known to become the dominant term as the load increases, and will produce Southwells
straight-line asymptote. Hence Mecks assumption about mode-forms is a good one.
In the following derivation we shall use essentially the linearised scheme of Timoshenko and
Gere [4].
The :-axis runs along the beam, whose ends are at : = 0 and !: see Fig. 2. Lateral deection
is in the ,-direction. Let u

(:) be the lateral deection in addition to the initial deection U

(:),
which is measured with respect to the (straight) :-axis. Likewise let [

(:) be the rotation about the

:-axis in addition to the initial rotation 1

(:), which is measured with respect to the x, : plane.

The governing equation for minor-axis exure is
EI
d
2
u

d:
2
= M([

+ 1

). (1)
Here EI is the elastic minor-axis exural stiness and M is the applied major-axis bending moment.
The LHS represents the bending moment on account of the change of curvature with respect to
the initial conguration, while the RHS represents the component of M that provides minor-axis
bending on account of the (absolute) rotation ([

+1

) of a typical cross-section; which is a matter

of statics.
The governing equation for torsion is
C
d[

d:
D
d
3
[

d:
3
=M

du

d:
+
dU

d:

. (2)
The LHS sums the St Venant and warping components of torquewith elastic constants C, D,
respectivelywhile the RHS, again derived by statics, gives the component of M providing the
torque due to rotation of the centre-line about the x-axis.
Putting
u

=u sin(:}!) (3)
and
[

= [sin(:}!), (4)
P. Mandal, C.R. Calladine / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 44 (2002) 25572571 2563
with similar expressions for the initial conguration U

, 1

, we obtain from Eqs. (1) and (2):

[(u}M) = [ + 1, (5)
:([}M) = u + U, (6)
where constants :, [ are given by
: = C + (}!)
2
D (7)
and
[ =
2
EI}!
2
. (8)
Here, then, are simple expressions relating the amplitudes of the additional lateral deections and
rotation (u, [) to the initial lateral deection and rotation (U, 1), the applied moment (M), and
two elastic constants. We have chosen this particular notation so that u, [ are essentially the
deection-quantities that would be measured in a typical experiment. (Note that Eqs. (5) and (6)
apply independently of the relative contributions of the St Venant and warping components of
torque.)
First we shall nd the critical value, M
cr
, of M according to the simplest classical theory, by
setting both initial imperfections U and 1 to zero. Then Eqs. (5) and (6) give
M
cr
= (:[)
0.5
. (9)
Also, by eliminating M between Eqs. (5) and (6) we nd
u}[ = (:}[)
0.5
. (10)
Thus, according to the classical theory, the lateral deection and the rotation are directly coupled:
the mode involves rotation of every cross-section about an instantaneous centre located at a distance
(:}[)
0.5
from the centre-line of the beam. This simple fact will play an important part in discussion
later on.
For the sake of comparison, we also give the governing equation for a pin-ended (Euler) column
loaded by an axial compressive force P:
EI
d
2
u

d:
2
=P(u

+ U

). (11)
Here we have used the same notation as before; and EI is the relevant exural stiness of the
member. Making substitutions (3) and (4) again, we obtain the simple equation
[(u}P) = u + U. (12)
This suggests directly the standard Southwell plot, i.e. a plot of experimental values of (u}P) against
u, giving a straight line of slope 1}[ and intercept U; and expression (8) indicates, of course, that
[ is equal to the classical Euler buckling load for the column.
2564 P. Mandal, C.R. Calladine / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 44 (2002) 25572571
4. Mecks plot
We are now ready for Mecks contribution. He pointed out that Eqs. (5) and (6) suggest that we
should make a plot of (u}M) against [, and another of ([}M) against u; and that the slopes of the
straight-line portions of these two plots will be 1}[ and 1}:, respectively. Hence, by Eq. (9) M
cr
will be the geometric mean of the slopes of the two plots.
In other words, Meck proposes a skewed version of the Southwell plot, which indeed may be
seen as reecting the physical inter-dependence of lateral exure and torsion in the structure under
test. Mecks scheme should clearly be regarded as the natural generalisation of the Southwell plot
to the case of lateral-torsional buckling. Note in particular that the intercepts correctly reveal the
initial imperfections.
In Fig. 3 we plot experimental data of Cheng and Yura [1] for a beam loaded by a central force
P, in bending about its major axis. Fig. 3(a) presents their plots of (u}P) against u and ([}P) against
[that is, their own use of two separate standard Southwell plots, as described above in Section 1.
Fig. 3(b) shows the same experimental data, but now plotted according to Mecks prescription. From
the slopes of the lines in (b) we obtain P
cr
= 10.71 kips, while the slopes of the plots in (a) give,
respectively, P
cr
= 10.85 and 10.64 kips.
In this particular case, then, the two standard Southwell plots give values for P
cr
that dier from
each other by 2%, and are each within about 1% of the value given by Mecks plots.
Why, then, do the standard Southwell plots, as distinct from Mecks plots, work so well? Or,
putting the question another way, why do the plots of Fig. 3(a) and (b) give straight lines irrespective
of whether the abscissa is u or [? The obvious answer is that, to a fair approximation, u and [ are
themselves proportional to each other. Now we have already seen that in the classical case, when
there are no initial imperfections, u}[ = constant. Our results therefore suggest that this feature is
present, as a good approximation whatever initial imperfections are present.
Now it is a straightforward matter to discover the general relationship between u and [. Eliminating
M between Eqs. (5) and (6) and re-arranging we nd
(u + 0.5U)
2
:

([ + 0.51)
2
[
=
1
4

U
2
:

1
2
[

= constant. (13)
This is the equation of a hyperbola. When (u + 0.5U) is plotted against ([ + 0.51), the trajectory
from the starting point (0.5U, 0.51) will be a hyperbola having an asymptote
(u + 0.5U) = (:}[)
0.5
([ + 0.51). (14)
Fig. 4(a) gives examples of such a plot, mainly from a numerically derived database corresponding
to u- and [-imperfections which are in the form of half-sine waves, and for a specic moment-loaded
beam whose particulars are given in the caption. It can be seen that if the initial imperfections
have U}1(:}[)
0.5
then u increases rapidly until the asymptotic value is approached; whereas if
U}1(:}[)
0.5
, it is [ which begins by increasing rapidly. And if it so happens that U}1=(:}[)
0.5
,
then the ratio u}[ remains xed at this same value throughout; and in that case the standard Southwell
plot works perfectly.
If the same data are plotted, rather more straightforwardly, as u against [, as in Fig. 4(b), the
curves for dierent imperfection schemes become a parallel set of lines as M increases. Thus,
P. Mandal, C.R. Calladine / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 44 (2002) 25572571 2565
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
+ /2 (rad)

u

+

U
/
2

(
m
)
U/ = (/)
0.5
(Case 2)
U/ > (/)
0.5
(Case 3)
U/ < (/)
0.5
(Case 4)
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
(rad)
u

(
m
)
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
Case 4
Case 5
Case 6
Case 7
(b)
(a)
{
Fig. 4. Relationship between displacement measures u and [. The data have been generated for a uniform
rectangular-section beam of length 1 m, width 10 mm and depth 120 mm. The Youngs modulus, Poissons ratio, and
shear modulus of the material are 200 GPa, 0.25, and 80 GPa, respectively. The beam is loaded by pure moments, as
shown in Fig. 2. The dierent cases indicate the same beam but with dierent initial imperfections (for details see Table
1): (a) plot showing hyperbolic trajectories for dierent initial conditions, according to Eq. (13), when the initial imper-
fections are in the form of the classical buckling mode; and (b) plot of u against [, including the data of (a) and also
some cases where the initial imperfections were in the form of constant eccentricity and tilt.
in general, we nd
u}[ (:}[)
0.5
+ constant (15)
as M increases; and so it is not surprising that the values of M
cr
obtained from the slopes of two
lines such as those in Fig. 3(a) dier slightly from each other.
In Fig. 4(b) data are also included for two numerically derived cases in which the imperfections are
uniform along the length of the beam, rather than being in the form of the classical buckling mode.
As can be seen by comparison of the curves for cases 3 and 6 and cases 4 and 7 (see Table 1),
the details of the imperfection form hardly alter the outcome. Our reason for using uniform
imperfections here is that a Fourier decomposition would involve many terms, rather than just one
as for the sinusoidal imperfections with which we have been mainly concerned. For a simple Euler
column (Fig. 1) a uniform imperfection is the same thing as eccentric end-ttings. Likewise in
Fig. 2 an imperfection of uniform deection could be provided by cutting away the upper and
lower anges close to the two ends on the near-side, and widening them on the far-side, so as
to translate the beam a small amount in the ,-direction; and a uniform rotation could readily be
provided by similar means.
These considerations therefore enable us to understand why the standard Southwell plot works so
well for lateral-torsional buckling problems. In short, after the initial stages of loading there is a
direct coupling between u and [, just as in the classical mode for the perfect structure; and so it
is not surprising that the standard Southwell plot works well, in terms either of u or of [.
2566 P. Mandal, C.R. Calladine / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 44 (2002) 25572571
Table 1
Details of dierent cases shown in the plots of Fig. 4
U (m) 1 (rad) Imperfection shape
Case 1 0 0 No imperfection
Case 2 0.01 0.025 First buckling mode
Case 3 0.01 0 First buckling mode
Case 4 0 0.05 First buckling mode
Case 5 0.01 0.05 First buckling mode
Case 6 0.01 0 Uniform eccentricity
Case 7 0 0.05 Uniform tilt
U and 1 indicate the amplitude of initial imperfections
lateral deection and tilt, respectively. See the text for more
details of Cases 6 and 7. The values of u and [ for Cases 15
were calculated by using Eqs. (5) and (6), whereas ABAQUS
[13] was used for Cases 6 and 7.
5. Masseys plot
What are we to make of Masseys suggestion that the standard Southwell plot should be replaced
by plots of u}M
2
against u and [}M
2
against [ when the structure undergoes lateral-torsional
buckling?
First we observe, as Massey did, that if [ is eliminated between Eqs. (5) and (6) in order to
obtain an equation in u alone, then both U and 1 will be present in that equation; and 1 will in
general be of unknown magnitude. On the other hand, in the special case
1 = 0 (16)
elimination of [ gives
:[(u}M
2
) = u + U. (17)
In this case, a plot of (u}M
2
) against u will give a straight line whose inverse slope is the square of
M
cr
. This equation is essentially identical to Eq. (6.70) of Allen and Bulson [10], which Stratford
and Burgoyne [8,9] cite as their warrant for advocating essentially the Massey plot.
Likewise, in the other special case
U = 0, (18)
elimination of u gives
:[([}M
2
) = [ + 1 (19)
and a similar straight line is to be expected in a plot of [}M
2
against [.
Thus Masseys plots work perfectly in the special cases where there is only one kind of imperfec-
tion, and when the displacement variable used (either u or [) is the one which is not initially zero.
And Massey argues that the presence of an actual non-zero imperfection will make little dierence,
particularly when M approaches M
cr
.
P. Mandal, C.R. Calladine / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 44 (2002) 25572571 2567
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
x 10
9
u (m)

u

/

P
2

(
m
/
N
2
)
Eq. (21)
Fig. 5. General plot of u}P
2
against u of data which would provide a straight line in a plot of u}P against u. The ordinate
exceeds that of the asymptotic line by an amount inversely proportional to u.
To test Masseys idea we have included plots of this kind in Fig. 3(c), in addition to the plots
already described. A general feature of Masseys plots is that the rst few points, as the loading
is being increased, lie further away from the eventual straight line (Fig. 3(c)) than they do for the
other two plots (Fig. 3(a) and (b)). As a general rule, therefore, the Massey version of the Southwell
plot shows no advantage over the standard Southwell plot or Mecks version of it.
The two plots of data-points in Fig. 3(c) according to Masseys scheme have in common that
the rst few points lie well above the straight line to which the majority of points tend. In order
to investigate this apparent pattern in the plot, let us suppose that an experimenter decided to
plot, according to Masseys presumption, data which actually satisfy Southwells formula (12) or,
equivalently,
u
P
=
u + U
P
E
. (20)
Since we shall plot, on this occasion, u}P
2
against u, we re-arrange Eq. (20) as follows:
u
P
2
=
u
P
2
E
+
2U
P
2
E
+

U
P
E

2
1
u

. (21)
Of the three terms on the RHS of Eq. (21), the rst is proportional to u, while the second is constant.
Thus, if the third term (in curly brackets) were to be neglected, we should obtain the broken straight
line shown in Fig. 5, which is analogous to the standard Southwell plot, apart from the factor 2.
However, the third term is inversely proportional to u, with a coecient that is always positive; and
so the resulting plot has the form shown by the continuous curve in Fig. 5. Thus the departure of
the rst few points in Fig. 3(c) from the eventual straight line may be interpreted as an expected
deviation when data which would indeed provide a straight line in the standard Southwell plot are
actually plotted according to Masseys scheme.
2568 P. Mandal, C.R. Calladine / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 44 (2002) 25572571
6. Discussion
Our main conclusion is that the standard Southwell plot, made separately for measurements of
u and [, provides a satisfactory scheme for assessing the classical buckling load of a beam that
undergoes lateral-torsional buckling. Even a single plot for one of these displacement variables may
well be satisfactory, provided the ratio U/1 of initial imperfections is not far from the ideal, classical
value. But two plots would be better, and the dierence between the critical loads inferred from them
would give an indication of the reliability of either of the separate plots. The Meck plot is probably
more reliable in general; but it requires both kinds of displacement to be measured and is a deviation
from the standard, and otherwise universal, Southwell plot.
Masseys version of the Southwell plot appears to us to have little to commend it. The early
points (i.e. for low loads) tend to lie further from the eventual straight line than in the standard
Southwell plot; and it appears that the estimates of critical load inferred from the two plots may
lie further apart than the corresponding estimates made by use of the standard Southwell plot. The
formulas on which Masseys plots are based emerge unambiguously only if it is assumed that one
or other of the imperfections is zeroin contrast to the generally applicable Eqs. (5) and (6) of
Meck. In this connection we note that although Massey demonstrated [6] that his method produced
satisfactory estimates of the elastic critical load for some experiments, his work would have been
more convincing if he had made a successful comparison of this method with plots of the same data
made according to the standard Southwell plotting scheme. And it cannot be denied that if one is
seeking a variant of the standard Southwell plot for use in problems of lateral-torsional buckling,
then Mecks scheme is altogether neater than Masseys.
Both exural buckling and lateral-torsional buckling are examples where classical buckling anal-
ysis, based on a linearisation of the governing equations, produces physically meaningful estimates
of the buckling load of a structure via an eigenvalue problem. This is in contrast to problems of
buckling in, say, plates and shells, where it is necessary for the analysis to include non-linearities
if it is to describe the physical buckling phenomena, even to rst order. Particularly in some case
of thin-shell buckling, the Southwell plot does not enable the collapse load of the structure to be
estimated from observed behaviour of the structure at low loads.
7. More general discussion: arguments from symmetry
In this paper we have not attempted to embed our work within any general theory of classical
buckling. Instead, we have sought to resolve a particular paradox. But general-theory ideas can
nevertheless be useful in some practical problems. Thus, for example, in the case shown in Fig. 1
of an initially crooked simply-supported column under axial loading, the physical behaviour is quite
dierent in compression and tension. In both cases an initial sinusoidal imperfection is multiplied,
according to Thomas Youngs formula, by the factor (1 (P}P
E
))
1
, where P is the compressive
force and P
E
is the Euler load. The formula clearly gives qualitatively dierent results when P 0
and P 0.
In the case of lateral-torsional buckling (Fig. 2), on the other hand, we expect broadly similar
behaviour for loads M 0 and M 0 when the magnitudes of M are the same. And so we might
expect, on purely mathematical grounds, to nd a corresponding amplitude-magnication factor of
P. Mandal, C.R. Calladine / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 44 (2002) 25572571 2569
(d)
(c)
(a)
(b)
M
M
y
M
z
M
z
y
M
y
z
M
M
y
M
z
Fig. 6. Schematic views of the initial, stress-free form of a slender beam, as in Fig. 2, but not showing end-supports
against rotation about the :-axis: (a) U = 1 = 0; (b) U = 0, 1 = 0; (c) U = 0, 1 = 0; and (d) U = 0, 1 = 0. See the
text for an explanation.
the kind (1 (M}M
cr
)
2
)
1
. And indeed this is equivalent to Masseys formulas (17) and (19), as
may be shown readily. But note that Masseys formula (17) for u is only true when 1 = 0.
Hence it appears that an argument based on symmetry provides support for Masseys version
of the Southwell plot in the case of lateral-torsional buckling, contrary to the conclusions reached
above. However, a more careful examination of the role of symmetry in arguments such as these
shows that the conclusions of the present paper are indeed supported by arguments of symmetry
when these are properly deployed.
Thus, consider the situation shown schematically in Fig. 6(a), where an initially perfect beam is
on the point of buckling under the application of couples M. Now suppose that the entire beam and
its loading are rotated as a rigid body through 180

about the , axis. The sense of M is reversed by

this rotation, and the rotated structure is also indistinguishable from the original one. Hence buckling
is indierent to the sign of M, and the behaviour can be described by functions of M
2
. And precisely
2570 P. Mandal, C.R. Calladine / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 44 (2002) 25572571
the same argument holds in the case shown in Fig. 6(b), where there is a lateral imperfection U but
no rotational imperfection: 1 = 0, and again rotation through 180

changes the sign of the loading

but does not alter the physical form of the beam.
Consider next the case shown schematically in Fig. 6(c), where U =0 but 1 = 0. Here, a rotation
of 180

about the , axis produces a recognisably dierent structure; and so the previous argument
is no longer valid in detail. Observe, however, that a rigid-body rotation through 180

of this beam
and its loading about the : axis would both reverse the sense of M and also leave an identical
structure; and so M
2
behaviour should be expected after all. (Note also that a 180

rotation about
the : axis in Case (a), where U = 1 = 0, would give exactly the same result as before). Thus we
conclude from this symmetry-based argument that if either 1 = 0 or U = 0, M
2
behaviour is to
be found, and Masseys version of the Southwell plot works well.
However, when we nally try to apply the same method to the beam shown in Fig. 6(d), for
which both U = 0 and 1 = 0, then the argument breaks down, because a rigid-body rotation of 180

about neither the , nor the : axis leaves the geometry of the structure unchanged. And therefore
the Massey version of the Southwell plot, which was indeed satisfactory if either U = 0 or 1 = 0,
is no longer appropriate in this case. In other words, the argument from symmetry, when properly
applied, supports precisely the previous conclusions of the paper.
Thus we discover that in applying simple symmetry arguments in situations such as these, it is
important to consider the presence of imperfections of various kinds, rather than merely to deal with
the perfect form of the structure.
Lastly, we note that our entire discussion has been conducted on the hypotheses that the material
of the beam remains within the elastic range, and that deections and (particularly) rotations are
small. In many practical structures some portions of material may be near the elastic limit of stress
when they approach the classical buckling load; and indeed one of the strengths of the Southwell
plot is that it enables the classical load level to be determined without the danger of the structures
incurring plastic deformation or damage. And again the Southwell plot enables classical buckling
loads to be determined by the use of load levels at which potential large deections and rotations
are not experienced.
8. Conclusions
As stated above, our main conclusion is that the standard Southwell plot, made separately for
measurements of u and [, provides a satisfactory assay for the classical buckling load of a beam that
undergoes lateral-torsional buckling. There is thus no advantage in employing the modications of
the Southwell plot which have been proposed by dierent workers [6,8,9]. The key to the situation
is provided by Mecks analysis [12], coupled with the observation that in general u tends to be
proportional to [ as deformations increase. The same conclusion is also reached by deployment of
symmetry arguments, as in Section 7.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Allan McRobie and Michael Thompson for helpful discussions.
P. Mandal, C.R. Calladine / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 44 (2002) 25572571 2571
References
[1] Cheng JJ, Yura JA. Lateral buckling tests on coped steel beams. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1988;114:
1629.
[2] Gregory M. The use of the Southwell plot on strains to determine the failure load of a lattice girder when lateral
buckling occurs. Australian Journal of Applied Science 1959;10:3716.
[3] Gregory M. The application of the Southwell plot on strains to problems of elastic instability of framed structures,
where buckling of members in torsion and exure occurs. Australian Journal of Applied Science 1960;11:4964.
[4] Timoshenko SP, Gere JM. Theory of elastic stability, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963.
[5] Singer J, Arbocz J, Weller T. Buckling experiments, vol. 1. New York, Wiley, 1998.
[6] Massey C. Elastic and inelastic lateral instability of I-beams. The Engineer 1963;216:6724.
[7] Dumont C, Hill HN. The lateral stability of equal anged aluminium-alloy I beams subjected to pure bending,
N.A.C.A. TN 770, 1940.
[8] Stratford TJ, Burgoyne CJ, Taylor HPJ. Stability design of long precast concrete beams. Proceeding of the Institution
of Civil Engineers, Structures and Buildings 1999;134:15968.
[9] Stratford TJ, Burgoyne CJ. The lateral stability of long precast concrete beams. Proceeding of the Institution of Civil
Engineers, Structures and Buildings 1999;134:16980.
[10] Allen HG, Bulson PS. Background to buckling. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill, 1980.
[11] Lundquist EE. Generalized analysis of experimental observations in problems of elastic stability. NACA TN 658.
1938.
[12] Meck HR. Experimental evaluation of lateral buckling loads. Proceedings of ASCE, Journal of the Engineering
Mechanics Division 1977;103:3317.
[13] ABAQUS/Standard. Hibbit, Karlsson & Sorensen, INC. Version 5.8, 1998.