Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 23442352

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Simplified procedure for determining buckling loads of three-dimensional

framed structures
Konuralp Girgin , Gunay Ozmen
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Maslak 34469, Istanbul, Turkey
Received 1 May 2006; received in revised form 27 November 2006; accepted 28 November 2006
Available online 17 January 2007

Abstract
A simplified procedure for determining approximate values for the buckling loads of three-dimensional framed structures is developed. The
procedure utilises lateral load analysis of structures and yields errors less than 10%, which may be considered suitable for design purposes.
The structures with or without rigid floor diaphragms may be considered readily. Buckling loads of both regular and irregular structures may be
obtained. The proposed procedure is applied to several numerical examples and it is shown that all the errors are in the acceptable range and
generally on the safe side. Determining the buckling loads of structures using SAP2000 is also discussed.
c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Buckling load; Buckling modes; Isolated subassembly; Rigid floor diaphragms; Irregular structures; SAP2000 applications

1. Introduction
The stability analysis of framed structures is of paramount
importance in design procedures. However, such an analysis
requires either the usage of eigenvalue computer algorithms
or complex second-order matrix formulations. In spite of the
availability of algorithms based on the finite element method
and powerful computer programs, a stability analysis is still
considered a cumbersome and impractical task, particularly for
three-dimensional (3D) structures. Instead, such an analysis
is commonly carried out in practice using simplified methods
based on 2D analyses, i.e., by breaking up the structure into
orthogonal plane frames [1].
Further simplifications are incorporated in contemporary design codes, whereby practical charts, diagrams or formulae are
given for determining the effective lengths of columns [26].
The so-called isolated subassembly approach used in codes
and specifications, was originally developed by Galambos [7].
A major limitation of the isolated subassembly approach is that
it does not consider the interaction effects of structural elements
other than those in the immediate neighbourhood of the joints.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 212 2856556; fax: +90 212 2856587.

E-mail address: kgirgin@ins.itu.edu.tr (K. Girgin).

c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
0141-0296/$ - see front matter
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.11.026

Erroneous results corresponding to this fact have been recognised by several authors and numerous publications have been
made to improve the applicability of the subassembly approach.
Most of these publications use the so-called storey-buckling
approach which accounts for the horizontal interaction between the columns in a storey of the unbraced frame. Among
the papers, which use storey-buckling approach, the publications of Lui, Aristizabal-Ochoa and Cheong-Siat-Moy may be
highlighted [810]. A reasonably comprehensive list of these
improvement studies is given by Ozmen and Girgin [11].
Apart from the above mentioned improvement studies,
certain independent methods for determining an approximate
value for the overall buckling load of plane frames are also
developed, whereby the displacements due to a fictitious lateral
loading is utilised [1214].
Recently, in AISC (1999), the isolated subassembly
approach has been abandoned and it has been stated that
. . . the effective length factor K of compression members shall
be determined by structural analysis. [15]. However in several
widely used codes (such as ACI [3] and Eurocode 3 [4]) the
subassembly approach and related charts and formulae are still
being used.
As for the simplified buckling analysis of 3D structures, very
few publications exist. Only Aristizabal-Ochoa has extended
his studies to cover regular 3D structures [1,16]. In this paper,

K. Girgin, G. Ozmen / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 23442352

2345

Fig. 2. Buckling mode in direction X .

(a) System and loading.

(b) Buckling mode.

Fig. 1. Multi-storey framed structure and buckling mode.

a practical method for determining the buckling load of 3D

framed structures, will be explained and applied to numerical
examples. The method, which is developed by using the
procedure given by Cakiroglu [12], is performed by applying
a simple quotient, based on the results of a fictitious lateral
load analysis. The method is also applicable to irregular framed
structures, whereby the beams of at least one level are curtailed.

Fig. 3. Buckling mode in direction Y .

2. System buckling load of unbraced 3D structures

An unbraced multi-storey framed structure, which is
composed of beams and columns made of linear elastic
material, is under the effect of vertical loads as shown in
Fig. 1(a).
The structure is in the state of Stable Equilibrium and, if
the axial deformations are neglected, all the displacements and
deformations are zero. Internal forces of the columns consist of
only axial forces N while all the internal forces of the beams
are zero. The axial force of a column may be expressed as
N = n P,

(1)

where n is a dimensionless coefficient and P is an arbitrarily

chosen load parameter. When the load parameter reaches to
a critical Pcr value, another (buckling) state of Unstable
Equilibrium may exist. The lateral displacement diagram
corresponding to this new state, which is shown schematically
in Fig. 1(b), is called the Buckling Mode of the structure [17].
2.1. Buckling mode shapes
In general, the buckling mode shape of a 3D structure is
either translational or rotational in character. In Figs. 2 and
3, the plan view of translational mode shapes in directions X
and Y are shown, respectively.
For the mode in direction X , although slight displacements
in direction Y and minor rotations occur at each storey,

Fig. 4. Rotational buckling mode.

dominant displacements are in direction X . Similarly, dominant

displacements are in direction Y for the mode in direction Y .
However, it must be remarked that, in certain cases translational
mode displacements may occur in arbitrary directions. In
the case of the rotational buckling mode, the dominant
displacements are rotational as shown in Fig. 4.
Investigations on several numerical examples have shown
that, in most of the cases, rotational modes occur for higher
buckling modes only, hence are not important from the
designers point of view. In cases where the first buckling mode
is rotational, the next mode appears to be translational with a
quite close buckling load value to the value corresponding to
the rotational mode.

2346

K. Girgin, G. Ozmen / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 23442352

3. A simplified procedure for determining the buckling load

of 3D framed structures
In the following, a practical method will be explained
and applied to numerical examples. The method, which is
developed by using the procedure given by Cakiroglu [12], is
applied by using a simple quotient based on the results obtained
by standard frame analysis software.
Consider the fictitious lateral loading shown in Fig. 5 applied
to the structure shown in Fig. 1. It is assumed that this loading
provides displacements identical to (or proportional to) those
corresponding to the buckling mode.
The buckling load parameter can be determined by using
Bettis Reciprocal Theorem applied to the states shown in
Figs. 1 and 5. According to this theorem, it may be written that
W1 = W2 ,

Fig. 6. Column relative displacement diagram for plane structures.

(2)

Fig. 7. Column relative displacement diagram for 3D structures.

where W1 is the virtual work of the force system in Fig. 1(a) in

conjunction with the displacements in Fig. 5(b), and W2 is the
virtual work of the force system in Fig. 5(a) in conjunction with
the displacements in Fig. 1(b) [18]. Since the displacements
of Figs. 1(b) and 5(b) are assumed to be the same, the
displacements and deformations corresponding to the lateral
fictitious loading will be used in the following.
(a) Lateral loading.

3.1. Determination of W1
According to the Principle of Virtual Work, W1 can be
computed as the work done by the internal forces of the loading
shown in Fig. 1, in conjunction with the deformations induced
by the fictitious lateral loading. Ozmen and Girgin [11] have
given an approximate expression for W1 as
W1 = 1.2P

(b) Displacements.
Fig. 5. Fictitious lateral loading and displacements of 3D structure.

X 2
n
hc

(3)

for two-dimensional (plane) structures. The summation is

carried out for all the columns. It must be noted that, column
indices are omitted for the sake of simplicity. Here P and n are,
respectively, the load parameter and a dimensionless coefficient
as defined above. As shown in Fig. 6, and h c represent the
relative displacement and the height of a particular column.
In the case of 3D framed structures, relative column
displacements are in arbitrary directions, and can be
represented by the components x and y , as shown in Fig. 7.
In this case, one can transform Eq. (3) into
X n
W1 = 1.2P
( 2 + 2y ),
(4)
hc x

K. Girgin, G. Ozmen / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 23442352

2347

which can be used in Eq. (2).

3.2. Determination of W2
The virtual work of the force system in Fig. 5(a) in
conjunction with the displacements in Fig. 1(b) (Fig. 5(b)) can
simply be written as
X
W2 =
Hx dx + Hy d y ,
(5)
where Hx (Hy ) and dx (d y ) represent the lateral storey loads
and storey displacements, respectively, as shown in Fig. 5. The
summation is carried out for all joints. Here again joint indices
are omitted for the sake of simplicity.

(a) System and loading.

3.3. Simplified buckling load formula

Substituting the expressions for W1 and W2 given
respectively by Eqs. (4) and (5) into Eq. (2) and solving for
P(Pcr ), the buckling load is obtained as
P
Hx dx + Hy d y
Joints
P n 2
Pcr =
.
(6)
2
1.2
h c (x + y )
Columns

It must be noted that this formula is approximate, since the

fictitious lateral loading corresponding to the buckling mode
displacements are not known initially. However, application on
several numerical examples has shown that the value of Pcr is
not strongly dependent on the initial choice of lateral loads. It
may be recommended that the lateral load at each joint should
be selected as proportional to the vertical load Pi existing at the
joint.

(b) Plan.
Fig. 8. Dimensions and loading of Example 1.

3.4. Analysis procedure

Buckling loads of 3D framed structures can be determined
as follows:
apply lateral forces proportional to the vertical loads at each
joint,
compute relative storey displacements using any existing
software, and
compute the critical load Pcr by using Eq. (6).
In practice, lateral loads should be applied first in direction
X , then in direction Y and two separate values for Pcr should
be obtained. The smaller of the two values should be selected
as the approximate buckling load. In practice, rigid floor
diaphragms may or may not exist in storeys. The proposed
method is general, i.e., is applicable to both cases without any
modification. In certain cases, beams of a certain storey (or
storeys) may be curtailed. In this case, the structure is called
irregular and storey-buckling approaches are not applicable.
However, the proposed method is applicable to both regular and
irregular 3D structures just as easily.
4. Numerical examples
In the following, the procedure outlined above will be
applied to three examples and the results will be discussed.

Fig. 9. Fictitious lateral loading of Example 1.

4.1. Example 1
Dimensions and loading of a one-storey 3D structure are
shown in Fig. 8.
This example is first introduced by Razzaq and Naim [19]
and then used by Aristizabal-Ochoa [1]. It is assumed that
the floor acts as a rigid diaphragm with flexural restraints
provided by the girders connecting the columns. A W 10 33
section is utilised for all beams and columns with the following
properties: I y = 173.498 in.4 (72,215,320 mm4 ), I x =
34.182 in.4 (14,227,260 mm4 ), A = 10.08 in.2 (6503.2 mm2 ),
elastic moduli E = 29,000 ksi (200.1 106 kN/m2 ) and
G = 11,600 ksi (80 106 kN/m2 ). The minor axis of the cross
section of the girders is parallel to the global vertical axis Z
while the columns are oriented as shown in Fig. 8(b) with their
major axes along the global X axis.
It can easily be deduced from the characteristics of the
structure that the first buckling mode is in direction X . Hence,
the fictitious lateral loading is chosen as shown in Fig. 9.

2348

K. Girgin, G. Ozmen / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 23442352

Table 1
Buckling load calculations for Example 1
Joint (column) no.

Hx

dx (x ) 102

d y ( y ) 102

Hx d x

hc

n 2
2
h c (x + y )

1
2
3
4
Sum

0.50
1.00
0.50
0.25

82.53
82.53
75.49
75.49

4.40
4.40
4.40
4.40

41.27
82.53
37.75
18.87
180.42

0.50
1.00
0.50
0.25
2.25

250
250
250
250

13.66
27.32
11.44
5.72
58.14

Fig. 10. Dimensions and loading of Example 2.

After carrying out the lateral load analysis for the fictitious
loading, joint displacements are obtained. The terms used for
the application of Eq. (6) are shown in Table 1.
Applying Eq. (6) yields

which has an error of 0.15% compared with the exact value

of 576.54 Kips (2564 kN).

180.42 102
= 258.60 Kips (1150 kN).
1.2 58.14 104
The total critical load for the structure is found as

Dimensions and loading of a one-storey L-shaped structure

are shown in Fig. 10.
Moment of inertia for all the beams and for both
principal directions of the columns is I . Both axial and shear
deformations will be neglected in the analysis. It is again
assumed that the floor acts as a rigid diaphragm. Due to
the diagonal symmetry of the system, fictitious loading in
directions X and Y will yield identical results. The loading is
chosen in direction X as shown in Fig. 11.
Lateral load analysis is carried out by taking the moment of
inertia I , modulus of elasticity E, and storey height h equal to
unity. Thus the buckling load parameter will have a multiplier
of Eh 2I . After performing the lateral load analysis, the terms used
for the application of Eq. (6) are obtained as shown in Table 2.
Column numbers are the same as their upper joint numbers,
which are shown in Fig. 10.
Applying Eq. (6) yields

Pcr =

Pcr = 2.25 258.60 = 581.85 Kips (2588 kN).

This value of the total critical load compares well with the
results reported by Razzaq and Naim [19] (590.0 Kips) and
Aristizabal-Ochoa [1] (587.9 Kips). The exact value of the total
buckling load for this structure is found to be
Pcr = 583.27 Kips (2594 kN).
Thus, the value found by the proposed method has an error of
0.24%. Determination of the exact values will be discussed in
a separate chapter in the following.
The fictitious lateral loading shown in Fig. 9 may be
considered as representing the earthquake loading, since all the
horizontal loads are proportional to the vertical loads acting at
the same joints. The same procedure is applied by using wind
loads as the fictitious loading and the critical load is obtained as
Pcr = 593.26 Kips (2639 kN),
which has an error of 1.71%.
In the case when rigid floor diaphragms do not exist, the
procedure can be applied in just the same manner. The only
difference is not to take into account the diaphragm constraints
in the lateral load analysis. The total critical load for this case
is found as
Pcr = 575.67 Kips (2561 kN),

4.2. Example 2

250.286 102
EI
EI
= 3.994 2 .
4
2
1.2 5222.27 10 h
h
The exact value for the buckling load is found to be

Pcr =

EI
.
h2
Thus, the value computed by the proposed method has an error
of 4.54%. Here again, the lateral loading shown in Fig. 11
may be considered as representing the earthquake loading. If
the same analysis is performed by using wind loading Pcr =
4.036 Eh 2I is obtained, which has an error of 3.54%.
Pcr = 4.184

2349

K. Girgin, G. Ozmen / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 23442352

Fig. 11. Fictitious lateral loading of Example 2.

(a) Real mode shape.

(b) Mode shape according to fictitious

loading.

Fig. 12. Real and assumed modal shapes of Example 2.

Table 2
Buckling load calculations for Example 2
Joint (column) no.

Hx

dx (x ) 102

d y ( y ) 102

Hx d x

hc

n 2
2
h c (x + y )

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Sum

1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

21.209
21.209
21.209
20.787
20.787
20.787
20.364
20.364

0.360
0.060
0.480
0.360
0.060
0.480
0.360
0.060

21.209
42.418
21.209
41.574
62.361
20.787
20.364
20.364
250.286

1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

449.95
899.65
450.05
864.46
1296.31
432.33
414.82
414.70
5222.27

The real buckling mode shape of the structure is shown in

Fig. 12(a) whereby joint displacements are in a direction which
makes an angle of 45 to the horizontal plane. On the other
hand, the modal displacements due to the fictitious loading are
mainly in direction X .
It is interesting to note that the rather great discrepancy
between the real and assumed modal shapes does not affect the
resulting buckling load to a great extent.

The beams at the lower right corner of the 1st storey are
curtailed, hence, the structure is irregular, i.e., the storeybuckling approaches are not applicable. However, it will be
shown that the proposed method can be applied to this kind of
structure just as readily. The floors consist of 12 cm thick plates,
which act as rigid diaphragms. Beam and column cross sections
are 25 50 cm2 and 35 35 cm2 , respectively. Beam sections
are considered as tee-sections with flange widths as shown in
Fig. 14.

4.3. Example 3

The elastic modulus for concrete is 3 107 kN/m2 . In

order to account for the effect of cracking and reinforcement
on relative stiffness, the rigidities of beams and columns are
multiplied by 0.35 and 0.50, respectively [3].

Dimensions and loading of a two-storey 3D reinforced

concrete structure are shown in Fig. 13.

2350

K. Girgin, G. Ozmen / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 23442352

Fig. 13. Dimensions and loading of Example 3.

Fig. 14. Flange widths of tee-beams of Example 3, (m).

Fig. 15. Fictitious lateral loading of Example 3, (kN).

It can be deduced that the first buckling mode is in direction

X . Hence the fictitious lateral loading is chosen as shown in
Fig. 15.

After performing the lateral load analysis for the fictitious

loading, joint displacements are obtained and the terms used
for the application of Eq. (6) are shown in Table 3. Here again,

2351

K. Girgin, G. Ozmen / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 23442352

Table 3
Buckling load calculations for Example 3
Joint (column) no.

Hx (kN)

dx 105 (m)

d y 105 (m)

Hx d x

x 105 (m)

y 105 (m)

h c (m)

Ca

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Sum

0.15
0.40
0.15
0.40
1.00
0.40
0.15
0.40
0.15
0.18
0.48
0.18
0.48
0.90
0.18
0.18
0.18

39.36
39.36
39.36
39.89
39.89
39.89
40.42
40.42
40.42
21.75
21.75
21.75
21.93
21.93
21.93
22.12
22.12

0.74
0.00
0.85
0.74
0.00
0.85
0.74
0.00
0.85
0.26
0.00
0.29
0.26
0.00
0.29
0.26
0.00

5.90
15.74
5.90
15.96
39.89
15.96
6.06
16.17
6.06
3.92
10.44
3.92
10.53
19.74
3.95
3.98
3.98
188.08

17.61
17.61
17.61
17.96
17.96
17.96
18.30
18.30
40.42
21.75
21.75
21.75
21.93
21.93
21.93
22.12
22.12

0.48
0.00
0.56
0.48
0.00
0.56
0.48
0.00
0.85
0.26
0.00
0.29
0.26
0.00
0.29
0.26
0.00

0.15
0.40
0.15
0.40
1.00
0.40
0.15
0.40
0.15
0.33
0.88
0.33
0.88
1.90
0.58
0.33
0.58

4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
8.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00

11.64
31.01
11.64
32.28
80.64
32.29
12.57
33.49
30.65
39.03
104.07
39.03
105.82
228.44
69.75
40.37
70.95
973.67

a C = n ( 2 + 2 ).
y
hc x

column numbers are taken as the same as their upper joint

numbers, which are shown in Fig. 13.
Applying Eq. (6) yields

The exact value for the buckling load is found to be

6. The proposed procedure is applied to several numerical

examples and it is seen that all the errors are in the acceptable
range and for most of the cases on the safe side.
7. Determining the buckling loads of structures using
SAP2000 [20] is discussed and it is shown that the
compression members should be divided into a proper
number of pieces when using SAP2000.

Pcr = 16,765 kN.

Appendix A. Exact values of the buckling loads

Pcr =

188.08 105
= 16,097 kN.
1.2 973.67 1010

Thus, the value computed by the proposed method has an error

of 3.98%. When the same analysis is carried out by using
earthquake and wind loadings, the buckling load values are
found to have respective errors of 2.23% and 4.95%.
5. Conclusions
In this paper, determining the buckling loads of multi-storey
3D framed structures is investigated. The main conclusions
derived may be summarised as follows:
1. A simplified procedure for determining an approximate
value for system buckling load is developed. The procedure
utilises a simple quotient based on the results of a fictitious
lateral load analysis.
2. The structures may or may not have rigid diaphragms at floor
levels. The proposed procedure is applicable to both cases
equally.
3. The procedure is applicable to both regular and irregular
cases equally easily.
4. The procedure yields errors, which are less than 10% for
all the considered examples. This order may be regarded
acceptable from the designers point of view.
5. The buckling load value is not strongly dependent on the
choice of lateral loading. Hence, any existing lateral loading
on the structure under consideration may be used without
losing a significant amount of accuracy.

In the numerical examples presented above, all the results

are compared with the exact values of buckling loads
and the corresponding errors are determined. In view of the
characteristics of existing software, determining the exact
values seems to be a somewhat delicate matter, which will be
discussed herein.
Since the most widely used contemporary structural program
is SAP2000 [20], the buckling loads of the exact values of
the above examples are determined by a special application of
this software. The results are then checked by using specialpurpose software developed by Girgin [21]. However, standard
application of SAP2000 causes somewhat extensive errors as
shown in Table A.1.
These rather large (and unsafe) errors are due to the fact that,
SAP2000 uses the so-called geometric stiffness formulae for
the members with P effects. Formerly, Horne and Merchant
have described P (or second-order) effects by using socalled stability functions [17]. However, the geometric
Table A.1
Errors in buckling load values for standard SAP2000 application (%)
Example

Error

1
2
3

18.76
13.81
12.25

2352

K. Girgin, G. Ozmen / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 23442352

compression members into 20 pieces. The results are then

checked by using special-purpose software developed by
Girgin [21], which computes the system-buckling load utilising
the stability functions.
References
Fig. A.1. Cantilever beam and loading.
Table A.2
Values of coefficient k found by SAP2000 for cantilever beam
Number of pieces

Error (%)

1
2
4
8
16
32

3.000
2.597
2.499
2.475
2.469
2.468

21.59
5.25
1.28
0.31
0.06
0.02

stiffness formulae recognise these effects only approximately.

These formulae are reasonably accurate when the member
lengths are sufficiently small. Hence, when using SAP2000, it
is necessary to divide the compression members into a proper
number of pieces. This fact can easily be demonstrated on a
simple example shown in Fig. A.1.
When the shear deformations are neglected, the exact value
of the buckling load of a cantilever beam is given by the wellknown expression
2 E I
EI
= k 2 (k = 2.467).
4 L2
h
The value of the coefficient k is found through the use of
SAP2000 by dividing the beam into a varying number of pieces
and the corresponding results are shown in Table A.2.
It is seen that the standard application of SAP2000, i.e.,
without dividing the beam into pieces, produces 21.59% error,
which can be considered rather high. Errors diminish quite
swiftly, when the beam is divided into pieces and the number of
pieces increases. Research on several numerical examples has
revealed that, in order to achieve reasonably accurate results,
i.e., results with an error order of less than 5%, compression
members should be divided into at least 4 pieces. It is clear
that this operation increases the number of degrees of freedom
considerably.
In the above numerical examples, all the exact values
are determined through SAP2000 solutions by dividing the
Pcr =

[1] Aristizabal-Ochoa JD. Classic buckling of three-dimensional multicolumn systems under gravity loads. Journal Engineering Mechanics,
ASCE 2002;128(6):61324.
[2] AISC. Specification for structural steel buildings. Chicago (IL): American
Institute of Steel Construction; 1988.
[3] ACI 318-02. Building code requirements for structural concrete.
Farmington Hills (MI): American Concrete Institute; 2002.
[4] Eurocode 3. Design of steel structures, final draft. Brussels (Belgium):
CEN; 2002.
[5] DIN 18800. Part2: Analysis of safety against buckling of linear members
and frames. Berlin: Beuth Verlag GmbH; 1990.
[6] BS 5950-1 British standard. Part 1: Code of practice for design-rolled and
welded sections. 2000.
[7] Galambos TV. Structural members and frames. New York: Prentice-Hall,
Inc.; 1968.
[8] Lui EM. A novel approach for K factor determination. Engineering
Journal, AISC 1992;29(4):1509.
[9] Aristizabal-Ochoa JD. Braced, partially braced and unbraced frames:
Classical approach. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1997;
123(6):799807.
[10] Cheong-Siat-Moy F. An improved K-factor formula. Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE 1999;125(2):16974.
[11] Ozmen G, Girgin K. Buckling lengths of unbraced multi-storey frame
columns. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, An International Journal
2005;19(1).
[12] Cakiroglu A. Buckling analysis of multi-storey frames. In: Proc. of
technical conference of Turkish civil engineers. 1962 [in Turkish].
[13] Stevens LK. Elastic stability of practical multi-storey frames. Proceedings
of the Institute of Civil Engineers 1967;36.
[14] Horne MR. An approximate method for calculating the elastic critical
loads of multi-storey plane frames. The Structural Engineer 1975;53(6).
[15] AISC. Load and resistance factor design specification for structural steel
buildings. Chicago (IL): American Institute of Steel Construction; 1999.
[16] Aristizabal-Ochoa JD. Elastic stability and second-order analysis of threedimensional frames: Effects of column orientation. Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, ASCE 2003;129(11):125467.
[17] Horne MR, Merchant W. The stability of frames. London: Pergamon
Press; 1965.
[18] Neal BG. Structural theorems and their applications. London: Pergamon
Press; 1964.
[19] Razzaq Z, Naim MM. Elastic instability of unbraced frames. Journal of
Structural Division, ASCE 1980;106(ST7):1389400.
[20] Wilson EL. Three-dimensional static and dynamic analysis of structures.
Berkeley (CA, USA): Computers & Structures, Inc.; 2002.
[21] Girgin K. A method of load increments for determining the second-order
limit load and collapse safety in R/C structures. Ph.D. thesis. Istanbul:
Istanbul Technical University; 1996 [in Turkish].