A calculation break‑off due to an unstable system can have different reasons. On one hand, it can indicate a "real" instability due to overloading of the system; on the other hand, the error message can result from inaccuracies in the model.
If the calculation of a member model according to the second-order analysis is terminated with an error message, this instability is often caused by failed tension members: As soon as compressive forces appear in a tension member during a calculation step, this member is no longer considered in the following iterations. Thus, the model can become unstable.
In the case of a post-critical failure, a substantial change occurs in the geometry of a structure. After reaching the instability of the equilibrium, a stable, strength position is reached again. The post-critical analysis requires an experimental approach. It is necessary to manually load the structure in increments, step by step.
The following article describes a design using the equivalent member method according to [1] Section 6.3.2, performed on an example of a cross-laminated timber wall susceptible to buckling described in Part 1 of this article series. The buckling analysis will be performed as a compressive stress analysis with reduced compressive strength. For this, the instability factor kc is determined, which depends primarily on the component slenderness and the support type.
The previous post on this topic describes instabilities that may occur when using tension members. The example shown refers primarily to wall stiffening. Now, instability error messages can also refer to nodes within the range of supports. Truss girders and support trusses are especially susceptible to this. What causes the instability here?