Why do I get negative stiffness during P-Delta analysis?
Extended Question: When I get negative stiffness, and P-Delta analysis does not converge, does this indicate instability and buckling?
Answer: Convergence problems may correlate with P-Delta behavior. Inadequate member capacity and insufficient structural support may lead to instability and buckling. Excessivley large stiffness values may also disrupt convergence by causing numerical problems which adversely affect computation.
When a model fails under P-Delta, increase the size and/or quantity of columns and bracing to improve lateral capacity, and thereby avoid buckling. Walls that have been modeled uising membrane type area element (never recommended) or shells with unrealistic thickness and or low stiffness modifiers can buckle and cause convergence issues. As an alternative, you may also refine the factors and/or loads applied during analysis.
It may be best to troubleshoot the model without P-Delta until you are confident that behavior is appropriate. If problems persist with geometric nonlinearity, it may be helpful to run, after the P-Delta load case, a modal analysis which uses Stiffness At The End Of This Stage. Modal analysis may then reveal the source and location of instability.
Buckling can also occur in horizontal floor elements such as beams and floors, if the floors take in plane loads (i.e have no diaphragm or semi rigid diaphragm) and have insufficient capacity, due to structural properties or small stiffness modifiers.
Additional suggestions which may resolve negative-stiffness errors include:
- Remove auto line constraints. Select all deck/shell objects in the model, then select Assign > Shell Elements > Auto Line Constraint and uncheck the Apply to Full Structure option. This will remove auto line constraints and possibly resolve instabilities.
