ARTICLE IN PRESS

Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 701729

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thin-Walled Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

Calculation of pure distortional elastic buckling loads of members subjected

to compression via the nite element method
Miquel Casafont , Frederic Marimon, Maria Magdalena Pastor
`ncia de Materials i Estructures a lEnginyeria, E.T.S. dEnginyeria Industrial de Barcelona, Universitat Polite
`cnica de Catalunya, Av. Diagonal 647, 08028
Departament de Resiste
Barcelona, Spain

a r t i c l e in fo

abstract

Article history:
Received 23 November 2007
Received in revised form
16 October 2008
Accepted 3 December 2008
Available online 12 February 2009

An analysis procedure is presented which allows to calculate pure distortional elastic buckling loads by
means of the nite element method (FEM). The calculation is carried out using nite element models
constrained according to uncoupled buckling deformation modes. The procedure consists of two steps:
the rst one is a generalised beam theory (GBT) analysis of the member cross-section, from which the
constraints to apply to the nite element model are deduced; in the second step, a linear buckling
analysis of the constrained FEM model is performed to determine the pure distortional loads. The
proposed procedure is applied to thin-walled members with open cross-section, similar to those
produced by cold-forming. The distortional loads obtained are rather accurate. They are in agreement
with the loads given by GBT and the constrained nite strip method (cFSM).
& 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Thin-walled members
Cold-formed members
Distortional buckling
Generalised beam theory (GBT)
Constrained nite strip method (cFSM)

1. Introduction
Linear buckling analyses play an important role in the investigation and design of cold-formed members with open cross-sections. On
the one hand, they help to know the behaviour of a member, predicting the type of instabilities that can experience and the degree of
interaction between them. On the other hand, the elastic buckling loads deduced from the analysis are used, together with
experimentally determined buckling curves, to calculate the strength of the member.
Nowadays, three different methods are usually applied to perform linear buckling analyses of cold-formed members: the nite strip
method (FSM), the nite element method (FEM) and the generalised beam theory (GBT). They are suitable for this type of members
because they can take into account all relevant buckling modes: local, distortional and global. However, these methods show different
advantages and limitations that are briey presented in this introduction.
The generalised beam theory, developed by Schardt [1], may be the most suitable method for carrying out linear buckling analyses. Its
main feature is that it directly works with uncoupled buckling modes of deformation. These pure modes are obtained in a rst step of the
analysis procedure by means of a calculation performed at the cross-section level. Fig. 1 shows the result of the cross-section calculation
applied to a channel prole. Four global and two distortional pure modes of buckling are obtained. In a second step, the solution of the
analysis of the member (a standard linear, a non-linear or a linear buckling analysis) is obtained in the vectorial space dened by these
modes of deformation.
Since GBT can work with uncoupled modes, it is possible to determine the pure elastic buckling loads independently for each mode of
buckling. This is very important because, according to the current design standards [2,3], this pure load is one of the input values needed
for the calculation of the buckling strength of members.
GBT presents other advantages: an identical formulation is applied for all modes of buckling; it is easy to investigate
the interaction between modes, because calculations can be easily done for any mode combination; and, since it is
formulated as a beam element, the computational cost of the calculations is very low. It should also be pointed out that calculation
procedures have been developed in GBT that allow for the consideration of different types of boundary conditions at member ends. For
example, GBT-based formulas for the calculation of C and Z members with various end supports were presented by Silvestre and
Camotim in [4,5].

 Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 93 405 43 22; fax: +34 93 40110 34.

E-mail addresses: miquel.casafont@upc.edu (M. Casafont), frederic.marimon@upc.edu (F. Marimon), m.magdalena.pastor@upc.edu (M.M. Pastor).
0263-8231/$ - see front matter & 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tws.2008.12.001

ARTICLE IN PRESS
702

M. Casafont et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 701729

Longitudinal displacements

Transverse displacements

Fig. 1. GBT pure modes of deformation for a channel section. (a) Axial mode, (b) bending about X, (c) bending about Z, (d) torsion, (e) symmetric distortional, and (f) antisymmetric distortional.

GBT is a well known analysis method among the scientic community, mainly due to the articles published by Davies and Schardt in
the nineties [69]. Currently, in the eld of thin-walled members, the method is used by the Portuguese team led by Silvestre and
Camotim [4,5,10,11].
The nite strip method has probably been the most used method of performing linear buckling analysis in investigations on coldformed members. It has been applied since many years ago [1214] in some of the most relevant investigations devoted to the
distortional mode of buckling, for example the one carried out by Hancock [15].
The main limitation of the method with respect to GBT is that it does not allow to work with uncoupled modes of buckling. The
buckling load calculated corresponds to a combination of local, distortional and global buckling. In spite of this problem, good
approximations to pure distortional buckling loads are obtained for lengths near the critical length, for which there is usually no
signicant interaction with the other modes. The method has had good success and software has been specically developed for thinwalled members: THIN WALL [16] and CUFSM [17].
FSM helped to the development of theoretical models and formulations for the hand-calculation of distortional (and local) buckling
loads. For example, the formulas proposed by Lau and Hancock [18], Schafer [19] and Serrete and Pekoz [20], were veried and improved
comparing their results to the results of FSM analyses.
Recently, Adany and Schafer have introduced an improvement in FSM [21,22]. They have developed the constrained nite strip method
(cFSM), which is based on the fundamentals of GBT, and can also work with uncoupled modes of buckling. As in GBT, when the cFSM is
applied, the solution of the linear buckling analysis is sought in the vectorial space dened by a specic mode of deformation, for example
symmetric distortional, or by a chosen combination of modes, for example symmetric and anti-symmetric distortional. This is achieved
by properly constraining the nodal displacements of the nite strip model [22].
The last version of CUFSM already includes cFSM. The results obtained with this software are good when compared to the results of
GBT [23]. Furthermore, the calculation time cost is also low. However, nowadays the analyses can only be done for buckling in
one-half sine wave, because the semi-analytical nite strip method is applied. The authors believe that in the future this problem will be
solved, since there is already a method in FSM that allows for the analysis of members with other boundary conditions, the spline nite
strip method.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Casafont et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 701729

703

The FEM has also been used for a long time in investigations on instabilities of cold-formed members. However, there are few of them
where linear buckling analyses are performed (see for example [24,25]). The problem with FEM is the same as with FSM: buckling modes
cannot be uncoupled. Furthermore, another important limitation is that the analyses performed via FEM may be too time consuming. The
model generation and the calculation process take much more time than when GBT or FSM are used.
In spite of these limitations, FEM may be useful under certain circumstances. For example, it can be used to analyse members with
perforations. Actually, the origin of the present investigation was a study on members of pallet-rack structures, where the problem of
perforations is relevant [26]. This is the reason why it is believed that linear buckling analyses carried out with FEM may be useful, and
that it makes sense to try to introduce some improvements to the analysis procedure, such as the one shown herein.
The aim of the paper is to present a FEM analysis procedure for the calculation of pure distortional buckling loads. The idea is to
constrain nite element models in such a way that GBT uncoupled distortional deformations are obtained in the analyses (Fig. 1e and f).
The constraining method applied is similar to the one used in the cFSM of Adany and Schafer [21,22].
An outline of the paper follows. The fundamentals of GBT needed for the understanding of the presented method are summarised in
Sections 2 and 4. Those readers who are familiar with GBT can skip these sections, and go directly to Sections 3 and 5, where it is
explained how to constrain nite element models to obtain pure distortional loads. Section 6 includes an illustrative example performed
with commercial nite element software. The accuracy of the procedure is discussed in Section 7 by means of the results of calculations
on channel lipped cross-sections subject to pure compression. Finally, the concluding remarks of Section 8 close the paper.

2. Theoretical bases for the calculation of the GBT deformational modes

In the formulation of the generalised beam theory, members are considered to be composed of plates, as shown in Fig. 2. GBT assumes
that these plates behave according to the Kirchoff plate theory: straight lines normal to the mid-plane remain straight, inextensional and
normal to the mid-plane after deformation. Consequently, ezz gxz gyz 0.
Furthermore, two additional simplifying assumptions are considered:
1. The membrane transverse extensions are zero:

M
xx 0.

(1)

2. The membrane shear strains are zero:

gM
xy 0.

(2)

These are the two main assumptions of GBT (see [1]).

Fig. 2 shows the notation that will be used for the displacements of the plate mid-plane points (the notation given in [21,22] is
followed): u, v, w and y are the displacements expressed in the local plate systems, the xyz coordinate systems; and UVW and y are
the displacements corresponding to the global coordinate system, the XYZ system. Later on, it will be seen that it is very important to
make the distinction between longitudinal displacements: v and V; and transverse displacements: u, w, U, W and y.
2.1. Straindisplacement relations
It is easy to see from all above considerations that the relevant straindisplacement relations are:
B
2
2
xx M
xx xx 0  z@ w@x zw;xx ,

B
yy M
yy yy

(3.a)

@v
@2 w
 z 2 v;y  zw;yy ,
@y
@y

B
gxy gM
xy gxy 0  2z

(3.b)

@2 w
2zw;xy .
@x@y

(3.c)

Y,V

X,U

Z,W
x,u
y,v

z,w

Fig. 2. Local and global degrees of freedom considered in GBT.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
704

M. Casafont et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 701729

The present subsection summarizes the initial steps of the GBT formulation, which are devoted to express Eqs. (3.a), (3.b), (3.c) in a
particular way.
In GBT, as in FSM, displacements u(x,y), v(x,y) and w(x,y) are expressed as a product of two single-variable functions:
ux; y uxcy,

(4.a)

vx; y vxc;y y,

(4.b)

wx; y wxcy,

(4.c)

where c(y) is usually taken as a sinusoidal function that provides the variation of the u(x), v(x) and w(x) mid-plane displacements along
the longitudinal direction. It is pointed out that c(y) can also be approximated by polynomials (mostly cubic). In (4.b), v(x,y) depends on
the derivative of c(y) because the member shear strains are considered null (assumption (2)).
Substituting c(y) by a sinusoidal function, the resultant displacement expression is:
r  p  y
,
(5.a)
ux; y uxsin
L
vx; y

r py
rp
,
vx cos
L
L

wx; y wx sin

(5.b)

r py
,
L

(5.c)

where L is the length of the member and r the number of half-waves.

The next step is to express the transverse displacements u(x) and w(x) in terms of the longitudinal displacements v(x). This is one of the
most important steps of GBT, and a direct consequence of assumptions (1) and (2). Firstly, v(x) is expressed in terms of the longitudinal
nodal displacements vi,
vx

n1
X

vi xvi ,

(6)

i1

where n is the number of elements of the cross-section (Fig. 3a), vi is the longitudinal displacement of node i, and vi(x) is a function of x,
that has unit value at node i and zero value at all other nodes. For the moment, the nodes of the section are located in the wall
longitudinal edges. These nodes corresponding to the longitudinal edges are called natural nodes.
Subsequently, what is actually done is to express the transverse displacements in terms of the longitudinal nodal displacements:
ux; y

n1
X

ui xvi sin

i1

vx; y

(7.a)

n1
r py X

vi xvi cos
vi xfi;y y,
L
L
i1

n1
X
rp
i1

wx; y

n1
r py X

ui xfi y,
L
i1

n1
X
i1

wi xvi sin

(7.b)

n1
r py X

wi xfi y,
L
i1

(7.c)

where ui(x) and wi(x) are functions of vi(x). These functions can be directly derived from assumptions (1) and (2) through a rather long
procedure presented in [1,10]. Part of this procedure will be shown in Section 4, when the relation between the transverse nodal
displacements and the longitudinal nodal displacements is derived.

i+1

i+1

sub n
n

n
x, u i

sub i

n+1

n+

i
z, wi
X, U

Z, W

1
2

X, U

Z, W

1
sub 2

Fig. 3. Nodes and sub-nodes considered in the formulation of GBT.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Casafont et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 701729

705

At this point, it is important to notice that all mid-plane displacements of the member are expressed in terms of the vi nodal
displacements (or fi(y) displacements).
Finally, the above equations are introduced in the straindisplacement relations (3.a), (3.b), (3.c):

xx zw;xx z

n1
X

wi;xx xfi y,

(8.a)

i1

yy v;y  zw;yy

n1
X

vi xfi;yy y  z

i1

gxy 2zw;xy 2z

n1
X

n1
X

wi xfi;yy y

i1

n1
X
vi x  z  wi xfi;yy y,

(8.b)

i1

wi;x xfi;y y.

(8.c)

i1

2.2. Equation of equilibrium

Once the straindisplacement relations are dened, the GBT equilibrium equation is obtained by applying the constitutive law of the
material and the principle of virtual work.
The constitutive law in GBT is reduced to the following equations:

sxx

E
uE
E
uE
xx
yy
zw;xx
v;y  zw;yy ,
1  u2
1  u2
1  u2
1  u2

(9.a)

syy

uE
E
uE
E
xx
yy
zw;xx
v;y  zw;yy ,
1  u2
1  u2
1  u2
1  u2

(9.b)

txy

E
E
zw;xy ,
g
21 u xy 1 u

(9.c)

where E is the Youngs modulus and u is the Poissons ratio. These relations are used when the principle of virtual work is applied
Z Z
Z Z Z
sxx dxx syy dyy txy dgxy dz dx dy
qx du qy dv qz dv dx dy;
(10)
L

where

dxx z

n1
X

wi;xx xdfi ,

(11.a)

n1
X
vi x  zwi xdfi;yy ,

(11.b)

i1

dyy

i1

dgxy 2z

n1
X

wi;x xdfi;y ,

(11.c)

i1

and qx, qy and qz are the three components of the applied load per unit of mid-surface area.
The integration of (10) results in the equation of equilibrium. It is not the purpose of this summary on GBT to fully develop this
integration, which is a laborious work that can be consulted in more complete references on the subject [10]. However, the nal result is
shown, because it is very important for the calculation of the GBT deformation modes:
f
;yyyy  GD
;yy B f
q.
EC f

(12)

It should be pointed out that:

and B are second order tensors obtained from the integration of (10). They can be calculated from geometric and material
D
1. C,
properties of the member;
is a vector that contains the longitudinal displacements of the nodes (see (7.a), (7.b), (7.c). These displacements are the unknowns of
2. f
the equilibrium equation.
The
The equilibrium equation is important because the pure GBT deformation modes are calculated from matrices of tensors C and B.
longitudinal components of the buckling modes shown in Fig. 1 are obtained by solving the following eigenvalue problem
v 0.
B  lEC

(13)

This simultaneous diagonalization of matrices Cand

B results in n+1 eigenvectors, n3 of which contain the longitudinal displacements
of the distortional modes. The other 4 eigenvectors correspond to global buckling modes. The calculation of these global eigenvectors
involves more work, as it is explained in [1,10].

ARTICLE IN PRESS
706

M. Casafont et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 701729

3. Constraining the longitudinal displacements of a nite element model

When linear buckling analyses are performed to calculate the elastic buckling loads of a nite element model, an eigenvalue problem
is also solved
0,
K e  lK g D

(14)

where K e is the elastic stiffness matrix, K g is the geometric stiffness matrix, the eigenvalues l are load factors, which allow to determine
provide the modes of buckling.
the elastic buckling loads, and the eigenvectors D
As pointed out in Section 1, the aim of the investigation is to verify whether it is possible to obtain good values of pure distortional
buckling loads by forcing the member to buckle in the GBT pure distortional modes. The way to force the GBT modes is to introduce some
.
constraints to the components of D
The members will be modeled by means of plate nite elements with six degrees of freedom per node: U, V, W, yX, yY, y( yZ). The
, which are those degrees of freedom used in the GBT formulation: U, V, W
constraints will only be applied to GBT degrees of freedom of D
and y.
In the present section, it is shown the method followed to constrain only the GBT longitudinal degrees of freedom (V). This case is
explained to make easy to understand the more complex constraining procedure that will be shown in Section 5, where the constraints
are also applied to transverse degrees of freedom.
The rst step of the procedure is to solve the GBT eigenvalue problem (13) to obtain the longitudinal displacements corresponding to a
pure distortional mode m (for example the symmetric or the anti-symmetric distortional modes in Fig. 4)
8 m 9 8 m 9
v1 > > V 1 >
>
> >
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> Vm >
m >
>
= >
=
< v2 >
< 2 >
m
m

V .
v
(15)
.
..
.
>
>
>
>
.
>
>
>
>
.
>
>
> >
>
>
> m >
>
>
>
>
;
: vm ; : V
n1

n1

The local and global longitudinal displacements are identical. The global notation is used because the constraining equations will be
introduced in the global coordinate system.
If the member has to buckle according to mode m, the longitudinal components of the constrained nodes should accomplish the
relationship given by (15), i.e., the displacement vector of these nodes has to be proportional to (15). This can be accomplished if these
longitudinal degrees of freedom are expressed in terms of only one longitudinal degree of freedom, and the eigenvalue problem (14) is

V3sd

V4sd

V2sd

V1

V5sd

sd

V6sd

V3ad

V4ad
V1ad

V5ad

V2ad

V6ad

Fig. 4. Longitudinal node displacements corresponding to the GBT pure distortional modes of a channel section. (a) Symmetric distortional and (b) anti-symmetric
distortional.

V12
V11
Fig. 5. Constrained nite element mesh.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Casafont et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 701729

707

modied as it will be shown at the end of this section. Now, the next step is to express the longitudinal displacements in terms of V1s,
which is chosen to be the unknown longitudinal degree of freedom of the cross-section (Fig. 5):
9 8 m 9
8
V1 >
V
> >
>
>
>
> >
> 1s >
>
>
>
>
> Vm >
>
= >
=
< V 2s >
< 2 >
m

V 1s V V 1s ,
Vs
(16)
..
..
>
>
>
>
.
>
>
>
>
.
>
>
> >
>
>
> m >
>
>
>
>
;
: V n1s ; : V
n1

where s is one of the ns constrained cross-sections, and V1s is the longitudinal displacement of the node located at edge of the constrained
cross-section, see Fig. 5b. This gure also shows that the constraints are not applied to all nodes of the nite element mesh. They are
applied to the nodes which are located in the same place as the GBT natural nodes. Furthermore, it is not necessary to constrain the
natural nodes of all cross-sections of the mesh. In Section 7, it will be shown that good results are obtained when the constraints are
applied to the nodes of some regularly spaced cross-sections (Fig. 5b).
The constraining relations (16) of all ns cross-sections are assembled in one matrix
2 m
3
V
0

0
m
6
7

0 7
6 0 V
m
7,
R 6
(17)
.
.
6
.. 7
..
4 0
5
0
m
0
0
   V
which provides the relationship between the constrained degrees of freedom and the unknown degrees of freedom V1s for all constrained
cross-sections
9
2 m
38
V 11 >
0

0

0 >
V
>
>
>
>
6
7
>
m
V 12 >
>
6 0 V
>
>

0

0 7>
>
>
> . >
6
7>
>
..
..
..
.. 7>
>
6 ..
.
=
<
.
6
7
m
.
.
.
.
. 7
m
6
Cons 6
R V 1 .
D
(18)
m
7
>
>
V

1s

0 7>
0  V
>
>
6 0
>
>
>
6 .
7
>
>
..
>
6 .
... 7
...
...
>
> ... >
>
4 .
5>
.
>
>
>
>
;
m :
V 1ns
0
0

0
   V
Consm is called vector of constrained degrees of freedom of mode m, and V1 is called vector of unknown longitudinal degrees
D
of freedom.
of (14), which includes all degrees of freedom of the nite element model, is
Subsequently, the displacement vector D
m, which includes the unknown longitudinal degrees of freedom V1 of the ns constrained sections, plus all degrees of
reduced to D
freedom of the model that are not constrained. The relation between these two vectors can be easily formulated by conveniently ordering
:
the components of D
9
9
8
8

"
#> D
NonCons: >
>
=
=
< DNonCons: >
<

I
0
mD

m.



<
D
(19)
m
>
>
>
>
R
m
0
;
;
: D
:
Cons
V 1
Finally, the eigenvalue problem (14) should be changed to the following one (see [23]):

<

mT

m
m K g <
m D
m: 0.
 l<
K e <

(20)

The constraining procedure presented in this section was the rst one used by the authors. This procedure is easy to apply because it
only involves the calculation of the longitudinal GBT displacements in Eq. (13), and the application of the constraints to the nite element
model, which is not a difcult task. However, the results of this rst procedure were not satisfactory. The main problem is that it does not
allow to uncouple the distortional buckling from local buckling (see Section 7).
A second procedure was developed which involved constraining the transverse displacements U, W and y of the nodes located at the
mid points of the cross-section elements (sub-nodes, sub i in Fig. 3b). The idea was to force these nodes to move according to pure
distortional modes, and to reduce the local buckling deformations.
The existing procedures for the calculation of the transverse displacements of the sub-nodes also comprise the calculation of the
transverse displacements of the natural nodes. For this reason, in the end, the transverse displacements of both types of nodes were
constrained.
These transverse displacements are determined from the longitudinal displacements calculated in (13) following a very involved
procedure. The next section shows how these transverselongitudinal displacement relations are derived. The formulation proposed by
Adany and Schafer in [21,23] is followed.
A third procedure is presented in Section 7 that is similar to the previous one. The idea is also to constrain the transverse
displacements, but applying constraints derived from FEM buckling analyses. This allows to avoid the complex formulation of the
transverselongitudinal displacement relations.

4. Relationship between transverse and longitudinal nodal displacements

The transverselongitudinal displacement relationships, which are needed to constrain the transverse degrees of freedom, are
determined by following a two step procedure. In the rst step, the global transverse displacements Ui and Wi of the internal nodes (nodes

ARTICLE IN PRESS
708

M. Casafont et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 701729

2 to n in Fig. 3), are expressed in terms of the global longitudinal displacements Vi. This relationship, which is called UWinV, is derived
from the GBT main assumptions (1) and (2), and from geometric compatibility conditions. In the second step, the equilibrium condition of
the cross-section is applied to determine:

 UWexV relationship between V and the U1, Un+1, W1 and Wn+1 transverse displacements of the external nodes (nodes 1 and n+1
in Fig. 3);

 UWsubV relationship between V and Usubi and Wsubi transverse displacements of the sub-nodes; and
 yV relationship between V and yi rotations of all nodes and sub-nodes.
4.1. Derivation of the UWinV relationship
When the generalised beam theory is derived, the variation of u(x) and v(x) in Eqs. (5.a), (5.b) and (5.c) is assumed to be linear within
the elements of the cross-section [10]. For example, in [21] these displacements are expressed in terms of the nodal degrees of freedom, ui
and vi, and a linear function of x:



r py
x
x
ui ui1 sin
ux; y
1
,
(21.a)
bi
bi
L
vx; y

rp
L



1



r py
x
x
.
vi vi1 cos
bi
bi
L

(21.b)

The relation between ui and vi can be easily deduced from these equations. If the simplifying assumption (1) is taken into account, the
following condition is obtained:
r py
@u
u  ui
0 ! i1
M
sin
0.
(22)
xx
@x
L
bi
Since (22) has to be fullled in all cross-sections of the member, then:
ui1 ui .

(23)

Therefore, the u(x,y) displacement within an element of the cross-section can be expressed as:
r py
.
ux; y uy ui sin
L
Furthermore, if the simplifying assumption (2) is considered, then:
r py r p v  v
r py
@u @v
rp
i1
i

0!

0,
ui cos
gM
cos
xy
@y @x
L
L
L
L
bi

(24)

(25)

and, consequently, the relation between longitudinal vi and transverse ui displacements is obtained:
ui

vi  vi1
.
bi

(26)

As vi Vi, displacement ui can be directly related to the longitudinal global displacement:

ui

V i  V i1
.
bi

(27)

i+1
n

bi
u i =vi /bi

vi

u i-1=vi /bi-1

ui
i

n+1

wi

u i-1 wi-1

b i-1

1
2
dy
Fig. 6. Geometric determination of the wi displacement.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Casafont et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 701729

709

i+1

i+1
Z

Z
i

ui-1

wi-1

wi-1

wi
Ui

wi

ui

u i-1

Wi

ui

ui-1

i-1
i-1

i-1

Fig. 7. Geometric relationship between transverse displacements.

Once the relationship corresponding to the ui component is known, geometric compatibility allows to express wi in terms of vi. This can
be seen in Fig. 6 where an arbitrary longitudinal vi displacement is applied at node i, considering at the same time that, for the moment,
the cross-section elements are connected by means of perfect hinges. Actually, the displacement wi is rst expressed in terms of the
transverse displacement ui, taking into account that there must be continuity of the cross-section at nodes. Afterwards, (26) (or (27)) are
used to express wi in terms of vi (or Vi).
The relationship between wi and ui can be deduced from the drawing in Fig. 7. This drawing shows an arbitrary displacement of an
internal node of the section. The displacement has been drawn in such a way that the wiui relationship is easily derived. However, it
should be pointed out that the nal equation is valid for any arbitrary displacement.
This relationship is obtained with the help of the two triangles highlighted in Fig. 7b:
wi

ui1
ui

,
sin Dai tan Dai

(28)

where

Dai ai  ai1 .

(29)

At this point, the relationships between the transverse ui and wi displacements and the longitudinal vi (or Vi) displacements have
already been obtained (Eqs. (27) and (28)). However, as pointed out in Section 3, the constraints will be applied in the global coordinate
system. Therefore, the last step is to translate (27) and (28) into global coordinates. This can be done by means of the following equations
(see Fig. 7a):


ui1
ui
U i ui cos ai wi sin ai ui cos ai

sin ai ,
(30.a)
sin Dai tan Dai
W i ui sin ai  wi cos ai ui sin ai 


ui1
ui

cos ai .
sin Dai tan Dai

(30.b)

After some trigonometric operations performed taking into account that

sin Dai sin ai cos ai1  cos ai sin ai1 ,

(31)

cos Dai cos ai cos ai1 sin ai sin ai1 ,

(32)

the following relations are obtained

Ui

sin ai
sin ai1
u 
u,
sin Dai i1 sin Dai i

Wi 

cos ai
cos ai1
u
u.
sin Dai i1
sin Dai i

(33.a)

(33.b)

Introducing the relationship between the transverse u displacements and the longitudinal V displacements (Eq. (27)) in the above
equations, the nal relation is obtained:
sin ai V i1  V i sin ai1 V i  V i1

sin Dai bi1
sin Dai
bi


sin ai
sin ai
sin ai1
sin ai1

V i1 

V ,
Vi
sin Dai bi1
sin Dai bi1 sin Dai bi
sin Dai bi i1

Ui

(34.a)

ARTICLE IN PRESS
710

M. Casafont et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 701729

cos ai V i1  V i cos ai1 V i  V i1

sin Dai bi1

sin Dai
bi


cos ai
cos ai
cos ai1
cos ai1

V i1

V .
Vi 
sin Dai bi1
sin Dai bi1 sin Dai bi
sin Dai bi i1

Wi 

(34.b)

The above equations can be expressed in matrix form

(
Ui

sin ai
sin Dai bi1



sin ai
sin ai1


sin Dai bi1 sin Dai bi

sin ai1
sin Dai bi

9
8
V
 )>
=
< i1 >
Vi
,
>
>
;
:V

(35.a)

i1

(
Wi

cos ai

sin Dai bi1

cos ai
cos ai1

sin Dai bi1 sin Dai bi

9
8
V

 )>
=
< i1 >
cos ai1

Vi
,
sin Dai bi
>
>
;
:V
i1

(35.b)

and they can be extended to all internal nodes of the cross-section


2
sin a2
9 6
8
U2 >
6 sin Da2 b1
>
>
>
6
>
>
>
>
>
>
6
U
>
>
3
>
>
0
= 6
<
6
..
6
.

6
>
>
>
>
> 6
>
>

> 6
> U n1 >
>
>
6
>
>
; 6
:
Un
0
4
0



sin a2
sin a1


sin Da2 b1 sin Da2 b2


sin a3
sin Da3 b2



sin a1
sin Da2 b2


sin a3
sin a2


sin Da3 b2 sin Da3 b3



0


0


0


x


x


x

sin a2
sin Da3 b3


3
0 78
9
V
7>
>
> 1 >
7>
>
>
> V2 >
7>
>
>
>
0 7>
=
<
7
.
..
7
 7>
>
7>
>
> V >
>
7
n >
>
>
>
7>
>
>
;
7: V
05
n1
x

(36.a)


2
cos a2
9
8
6
W2 >
6 sin Da2 b1
>
>
>
6
>
>
>
>
>
>
6
W
>
>
3
>
>
6
0
=
<
6
..
6
.

6
>
>
>
>
6
>
>
> W n1 >
6

>
>
>
>
6
>
>
;
:
6
Wn
0
4
0

cos a2
cos a1


sin Da2 b1 sin Da2 b2


cos a3
sin Da3 b2



cos a1
sin Da2 b2


cos a3
cos a2


sin Da3 b2 sin Da3 b3


0


cos a2
sin Da3 b3



0


0


0


x


x


x

3
0 78
9
V1 >
7>
>
7>
>
>
>
>
7> V 2 >
>
>
>
0 7>
=
<
7
.
..
7
 7>
>
>
7>
>
>
> Vn >
7
>
>
>
7>
>
>
;
7:
0 5 V n1
x

(36.b)
or,

U in R Uin V,

(37.a)

in R Win V.
W

(37.b)

4.2. The equilibrium of the cross-section

In the present section, the UWexV, UWsubV and yV relationships are derived. They are determined through the relation
between the internal displacements Uin and Win and the other transverse displacements of the cross-section (from now on in-exsuby
relationship). Once in-exsuby is known, Eqs. (37.a), (37.b) can be a used to obtain the nal relation with the global longitudinal
displacements.
The in-exsuby relationship is determined by means of the equivalent 2D beam model shown in Fig. 8. The analogy
between the cross-section and a beam system is applied, assuming that the cross-section deforms so that this 2D system is in
equilibrium.
Now, the connection between the cross-section elements of the model is perfectly rigid, and the internal nodes are assumed to be
supported by means of external hinges where displacements Uin and Win have been imposed.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Casafont et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 701729

711

i+1
t

sub i

n+1
b

1
sub 2
3

Fig. 8. Cross-section beam model.

The following steps should be applied to obtain the in-exsuby relation (similar to the standard 2D beam nite element procedure):
1. For each beam element (Fig. 8a), the equivalent stiffness matrix is calculated in the xy local coordinate system
2
3
EAi
EAi
0
0
0
0
6 bi
7
bi
6
7
6
12EIi
6EIi
12EIi
6EIi 7
6 0
7
0

6
3
2
3
2 7
6
7
b
b
b
b
i
i
i
i
6
7
6
6EIi
4EIi
6EIi
2EIi 7
6
7
0

6 0
7
2
2
6
bi
bi 7
bi
bi
6
7
ki 6
7,
EAi
6 EAi
7
0
0
0
0 7
6
6 bi
7
bi
6
7
6
7
12EI
6EI
12EI
6EI
i
i
i
i
6 0
7

0


6
3
2
3
2 7
6
bi
bi
bi
bi 7
6
7
6
6EIi
2EIi
6EIi
EAi 7
4 0
5
0

2
2
bi
bi
b
b
i

(38)

where:
ti
,
1  u2

(39)

t 3i
.
121  n2

(40)

Ai

Ii

2. The element stiffness matrices are expressed in the XZ global coordinate system
T

K i T k i T,

the usual coordinate transformation matrix.

where Tis
3. Assembly of the global stiffness matrix K from K i .
4. Global equilibrium
9 8
8
9
U1 >
>
0 >
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
W1 >
>
>
>
> 0 >
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
y
>
>
>
>
1
0 >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
U
>
>
>
>
2
F U2 >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
W
2
F W2 >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
y2 >
>
>
>
>
0 >
>
>
>
>
= <
=
<
0

q.
K d K U sub2

>
>
>
>
>
>
W sub2 >
>
>
>
>
0 >
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >
>
> ysub2 >
> 0 >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
.. >
.. >
>
>
>
> >
>
> . >
> . >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> U n1 >
> 0 >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> W n1 >
> 0 >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
; : 0 ;
: y
n1

(41)

(42)

ARTICLE IN PRESS
712

M. Casafont et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 701729

5. The system of equations of the global equilibrium is reordered to separate the known displacements from the unknown
displacements
9 8
8
9
U2 >
F U2 >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
.
>
>
>
.
>
>
>
.. >
.. >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Un >
>
>
>
F Un >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
W2 >
>
>
>
F W2 >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
.. >
.. >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
. >
>
>
>
.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> Wn >
F
>
>
>
Wn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
"
# >
>
>
>
=
=
<
<

 >
K kk K ku

,
(43)

U1 >
>
>
K uk K uu
>
>
>
> 0 >
>
>
>
> >
>
> U
>
>
>
>
>
>
n1 >
> >
>
>
> 0 >
>
>
> >
>
> W >
>
>
>
>
0 >
>
>
>
1 >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
W n1 >
>
>
>
0 >
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
y >
>
>
>
0
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
U sub >
0
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
sub >
>
>
>
>
>
W
0
>
>
>
>
> :
>
>
>
>
;
>
;
: y

0
sub
or in more compact
to9the notation given by Adany in [23]
8 form9according
8
"
#> d k > > q k >
= <
=
K kk K ku <
  ,

>
K uk K uu >
:
; >
: >
;
0
du

(44)

where, dk is the vector of known displacements, du is the vector of unknown displacements, qk may be seen as the reaction forces
provoked by the imposed known displacements, 0 is a null vector, K kk , K uk , K ku and K uu are constructed from the global stiffness
matrix K of Eq. (42).
6. The in-exsuby relationship is calculated from (44)
1
d u K uu K uk d k ,

(45)

or
9
8
U1 >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
U n1 >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
W
>
1 >
>
>
>
>
>
=
< W n1 >

y
>
>
>
>
>

>
U
sub
>
>
>
>
sub
>
W
>
>
>
: y
sub

9
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Un =
1

K uu K uk
,
>
>
W2 >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
.. >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
. >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
;
:
>
>
W
n
>
;
8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
<

U2
..
.

and in terms of the longitudinal displacements

9
8
U1 >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
U n1 >
>
>
9
8
>
>
>
>
>
>
V1 >
>
>
2
3>
W
>
>
>
>
1
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
R
>
>
>
=
< W n1 >
6 Uin 7< V 2 =
1

6
7


K
K



.
uk
uu
4
5> . >.
y >
>
>
>
> . >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
R Win >
>
>
>
;
>
: V n1 >
U sub >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
sub >
>
W
>
>
>
>
>
>
:
y sub ;
The above equation is nally expressed as follows:
3
9 2
8
RU1
U1 >
>
>
>
7
> 6
>
>
6 RUn1 7
>
>
U n1 >
>
>
9
6
78
>
>
>
>
> 6 R W1 7> V 1 >
>
>
W1 >
>
>
>
6
7>
>
>
>
>
> 6
>
>
7>
>
= 6 RWn1 7>
< W n1 >
=
< V2 >
6
7

,
6
7
.

.
R
y >
>
>
6
y 7>
>
>
> 6
>
>
> . >
7>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 6
>
U
R Usub 7
>
7: V n1 ;
> 6
> sub >
>
>
6
7
>
>

>
>

6
7
W sub >
>
>
>
4 RWsub 5
>
>
;
: y
sub
R ysub
where RU1, RUn+1, RW1, RWn+1, R y , R Usub , R Wsub and R ysub are vectors and matrices derived from Eq. (47).

(46)

(47)

(48)

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Casafont et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 701729

713

Eq. (48) is the last step of the procedure for the determination of the transverselongitudinal relationships. In Section 6, this procedure
will be further illustrated with one example. The present section will be closed with a compact equation that provides the nal
relationship between all transverse displacements and the longitudinal displacements. This equation can be obtained by re-ordering the
vectors and matrices shown in Eqs. (37.a), (37.b) and (48).
2

3
R U1
6
7
6 RUin 7
6
7
2
3
9
8
6 R
7
R U
6 Un1 7
>
U n1
U >
>
>
6
6
7
7
>
>
>
>
9 6 78
9
6 I 78
>
>
>
V
V >
6
7> V 1 > 6 I 7> V 1 >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
6
6
7>
7>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 6 RW 7>
>
>
6 RW1 7>
>
W1
>
=
= 6
=
< W >
< V2 >
< V2 >
6
7>
7>
6
6
7
7

in
W
y
6 RWin 7

6 R y 7
,
..
..
>
>
>
>
6
6
7>
7>
. >
. >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
6
6
7
7

R
W
U
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Wn1
n1
R
sub >
>
> 6 Usub 7>
>
>
7>
> 6
> >
>
>
>
>
6
7: V n1 ;
7: V n1 ; 6
>
>
>
>
sub >
y >
W
>
>
>
>
Ry 7
6 RWsub 7
> 6
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
4
6
5
7
>
>
>
> 6
; >
>
: y
7
>
sub
> 6 RUsub 7
> U sub >
R ysub
>
>
>
>
6
7
>
>
sub >
>
W
6
7
>
>
>
>
; 4 RWsub 5
:
ysub
R ysub
8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
<

U1
U in

9
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
=

(49)

where I is the (n+1) identity matrix.

5. Constraining the longitudinal and transverse displacements of a nite element model

It should be noticed that the relationship between ui and vi is not a relationship between nodal displacements, it is actually a
relationship between amplitudes of nodal displacements (see Eq. (25)). All other relationships presented in the previous section are
derived from this fundamental relationship. As a consequence, Eq. (49) is also a relationship between the amplitude of the longitudinal
displacement and the amplitudes of the transverse displacements of the cross-section.
The relationship between longitudinal and transverse displacements is slightly more complex than Eq. (49), due to the fact that U, V, W
and y are function of the longitudinal coordinate y. The relationship that takes into account this variation of the displacements in the y
direction has to be derived to correctly constrain the nite element mesh.
The starting point for the calculation of this nal relationship is Eqs. (5.a), (5.b) and (5.c), which is slightly modied because now nodal
displacements are considered
r py

,
Uy
U sin
L

Vy

(50.a)

r py
rp
,
V cos
L
L

sin
Wy
W

y y y sin

(50.b)

r py
,
L

r py
L

(50.c)

(50.d)

, V, W
and y are the vectors that contain the amplitudes of the nodal displacements. These equations will be used to constrain the
U
nodes corresponding to the longitudinal edges of the nite element mesh (the natural nodes of GBT). For the nodes located at the midpoint of the cross-section elements (the sub-nodes of GBT), similar equations are used
U sub y U sub sin

r py
,
L

sub y W
sub sin
W

y sub y y sub sin

r py
L

r py
.
L

(51.a)

(51.b)

(51.c)

, V, W
, y U
sub, W
sub and), can be expressed in terms of the vector of
All vectors of displacement amplitudes of the above equations (U
longitudinal displacements V following Eq. (49). Therefore, combining Eqs. (49), (50.a), (50.b), (50.c), (50.d), (51.a), (51.b), (51.c) the nal

ARTICLE IN PRESS
714

M. Casafont et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 701729

relationship is obtained
2

r py 3
R sin
6 U
7
L
r py 7
9 6
8
6 rp
7
I
cos

6
7
>
>
Uy
>
>
6 L
7
L
>
>
>
>


9
6
78
>
>

>
>
r
p
y
Vy
6 R sin
7> V 1 >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
6 W
7>
>
>
>
>
L
> 6
>
>
>

>
r py 7
= 6
=
< Wy >
< V2 >
7>
6
7
y y
6 R y sin
.
7
..
L
> 6
>
> . >
>
>
r py 7
>
>
>
>
6
7>
sub y >
U
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
7>

> 6
>
>
6 RUsub sin L 7: V n1 ;
>
>
sub y >
W
>
>
6
7
>
>


>
>
6
r py 7
>
; 6 R
: y y >
7
sub
6 Wsub sin L 7
6
r py 7
4
5
R ysub sin
L

(52)

This is the equation used to constrain the nite element mesh. The constraining procedure is similar to the one shown in Section 3. The
rst step is, again, to solve the GBT eigenvalue problem (13) to obtain the longitudinal displacements corresponding to a pure distortional
mode, Vm. The next step is to choose the ns regularly spaced cross-sections where the constraining equations will be applied.
Subsequently, the longitudinal and transverse displacements of the natural nodes and sub-nodes of the cross-section are forced to move
according to the m mode of buckling by introducing Vm in (52)
2

Cons;s
D

r py  3
s
R sin
6 U
7
L
r py  7
9 6
8 m
7
s
ys > 6
rp

U
>
6 I L cos
7
>
>
>
>
6
7
L
>
>
m
>
>



6
78 m 9
>
>
y

V
>
s >
r
p
y
6
7> V 1 >
>
>
s

>
>
sin
R
m
>
>
>
6 W
7>
>
>
>

W ys >
L
>
>
> Vm >
6
>
>
r py  7
= 6
=
< m
< 2 >
7>
m
s
6
7

y ys
6 Ry sin
V 1s R s V V 1s ,

7
.
.
L
>
>
>
>
6
7
>
>
>
>
.
m


>
>
>
6
r pys 7
>
>
>
U sub ys >
>
>
>
>
6 R
7>
>
;
>
>
>
6 Usub sin L
7: V m
m
>
>
n1
>
>
6
7

W sub ys >
> 6
>


>
7
r pys 7
>
>
> 6 R
>
: m
Wsub sin
7
ysub ys ; 6
L
6

7
4
5
Rysub sin r pys
L

(53)

where ys is the longitudinal coordinate of one of the ns constrained sections, and V1s is the longitudinal displacement of the edge of the
constrained section, which is chosen to be the unknown degree of freedom. This is the constraining equation of the natural nodes and subnodes located in cross-section s. It is equivalent to Eq. (16) used to constrain the longitudinal degrees of freedoms in Section 3, but now
extended to the transverse displacements of nodes and sub-nodes.
The remaining steps of the constraining procedure are the same as the last steps performed in Section 3 (Eqs. (17)(20)). A
constraining matrix is dened that contains the constraining relations of all ns cross-sections
2
6
6
6
6
6
m
6
R 6
6
6
6
6
4

m
R 1 V
0
..
.
0
..
.
0

0
R2 V m
..
.
0
..
.
0



..
.




0
0
..
.
m
R s V
..
.
0





..
.


3
0
7
0 7
7
.. 7
. 7
7
7.
0 7
7
.. 7
. 7
5
m
R ns V

(54)

This matrix provides the relationship between the vector of constrained degrees of freedom, and the vector of unknown longitudinal
degrees of freedom
2

m
D
Cons

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4

m
R 1 V
0
..
.
0
..
.
0

0
R2 V m
..
.
0
..
.
0
m



..
.




0
0
..
.
m
R s V
..
.
0





..
.


38
9
0
> V 11 >
>
7>
>
>
>
>
> V 12 >
0 7
>
>
>
7>
>
>
>
.. >
.. 7
>
=
< . >
7
m
. 7
R V 1 .
7
V
>
0 7>
1s >
>
>
7>
>
>
>
.. >
>
>
.. 7
>
>
7
>
>
.
. 5>
>
>
>
;
:
m
Rns V
V 1ns

(55)

m (Eq. (19)) and, nally, the constrained eigenvalue problem is solved (Eq. (20)) to obtain
The constraining matrix R is introduced in <
the pure GBT buckling load and mode of deformation.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Casafont et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 701729

715

b f = 30 mm

b s = 5 mm

t = 1 mm

bw = 90 mm

w = 90

f = 180

s = 90

Fig. 9. Geometry of the cross-section S1.

6. Illustrative example
This section presents the calculation of the pure distortional buckling load of a uniformly compressed lipped channel member. The
example will illustrate the theoretical concepts discussed above.
The cross-section shown in Fig. 9 is chosen for the analysis because it has already been calculated in [4] by means of GBT-based
formulas and, consequently, it will be easy to verify the accuracy of the result obtained herein.
Loads are determined for the buckling of the member in one-half sine wave, considering simple supports with
respect to the distortional mode at both end sections. This was the way pure distortional loads were usually calculated
when GBT was derived, and it is also the way the cFSM is applied in CUFSM. Buckling in one-half wave is also considered in this
example and in Section 7, where the proposed constraining procedure is veried. This will be the rst step of the verication of the
procedure, as it was for the other two existing methods. In future investigations, members with more complex boundary conditions will
be analysed.
It is underlined that no specic software has been developed to apply the new procedure. All calculations are performed using
widespread computer software:
1. Maple is used for the calculation of the constraint equations.
2. Ansys is used to perform the constrained linear buckling analysis.

The theoretical procedure shown in the previous sections is not strictly followed. Small changes are introduced in the second step,
when the nite element model is constrained. The users of Ansys do not directly constrain the nite element stiffness matrices. They only
have to introduce the constraining relationships in a particular way, and the constraining operation is automatically performed by Ansys.
Section 6.2 will further illustrate this point.

6.1. Calculation of the constraining displacement factors

Fig. 10a shows the nodes and elements that have to be considered for the calculation of the longitudinal components of the pure GBT
deformation modes, Vm; while Fig. 10b shows the sub-nodes and sub-elements that are used in the calculation of the in-exsuby
relationship.
The geometric properties of the cross-section are presented in Fig. 9 and in Table 1. The calculation is performed for a 150 mm long
member, and the material properties considered are: E 210 000 MPa and n 0.3.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
716

M. Casafont et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 701729

5
8

sub 4

sub 3

1
3

1
2

sub 2
3

1
2

Fig. 10. GBT discretization for the calculation of (a) longitudinal displacements, and (b) in-exsuby relations.

Table 1
Main dimensions of the cross-section.
Element

t (mm)

b (mm)

1
2
3
4
5

1
1
1
1
1

5
30
90
30
5

90
180
270
0
90

t: thickness, b: width, a: element inclination angle with respect to the global X-axis.

The following steps should be performed to obtain the constraint equations:

1. The calculation of matrices C and
2
5 5
0
0
0
63 6
6
6 5 35
6
5
0
0
66 3
6
6 0 5 40 15 0
6
C 6
6 0 0 15 40 5
6
6
35
60 0
0
5
6
3
6
4
5
0 0
0
0
6
2

0:0249
6 0:0268
6
6
6
B 6 0:0038
6 0:0038
6
6
4 0:0112
0:0093

B of the equilibrium Eq. (12) is performed following the procedure given in Ref. [1].
3
07
7
7
07
7
7
07
7
7,
07
7
57
7
67
7
55
3

0:0267

0:0038

0:0038

0:0112

0:0289

0:0042

0:0042

0:0133

0:0042

0:0008

0:0008

0:0042

0:0042

0:0008

0:0008

0:0042

0:0133
0:0112

0:0042
0:0038

0:0042
0:0038

0:0289
0:0268

0:0093

0:0112 7
7
7
0:0038 7
7.
0:0038 7
7
7
0:0268 5
0:0249

(56)

(57)

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Casafont et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 701729

717

2. The eigenvalue problem (13) is solved. The Vm vectors corresponding to the symmetric (sd) and the anti-symmetric (ad) pure
distortional buckling modes are obtained
9
8
0:6922 >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
0:1436 >
>
>
>
>
>
>
<
0:0130 =
sd
(58.a)
V
>
0:0130 >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 0:1436 >
;
:
0:6922

ad
V

9
8
0:6868 >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
0:1630 >
>
>
>
>
>
=
< 0:0415 >

>
>
0:0415
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
0:1630
>
>
>
>
;
:
0:6868

(58.b)

3. The UWinV relations are expressed by means of matrices R Uin and R Win of Eqs. (36.a), (36.b) or (37.a), (37.b)
2
3
0 0:0334 0:0334
0
0
0
6 0 0:0334 0:0334
0
0
07
6
7
R Uin 6
7
40
0
0
0:0334 0:0334 0 5
0
2
R Win

0:0334

0:0334

0
3

0:2000

0:2000

0:0112

0:0112

0:0112

0:0112

0:2000

0:2000

6
6
6
4

(59.a)

7
7
7
5

(59.b)

4. The calculation of the in-exsuby relations is performed. The 2D-beam system shown in Fig. 10b should be solved following the
procedure explained in Section 4.2. This procedure consists of several steps that are now summarised.
4.1. Calculation of the stiffness matrix of the beam elements in the local coordinate system. The stiffness matrix of the rst element
(element number 1 in Fig. 10b) is shown as example
2

46153:84

6
0
6
6
6
0
k 1 6
6 46153:84
6
6
4
0
0

46153:84

1846:15

4615:38

1846:15

4615:38

15384:61

4615:38

0
1846:15

0
4615:38

46153:84
0

0
1846:15

4615:38

7692:30

4615:38

4615:38 7
7
7
7692:30 7
7.
7
0
7
7
4615:38 5

(60)

15384:61

4.2. The coordinate transformation matrices T are calculated and the element stiffness matrices are expressed in the global coordinate
system. The transformation matrix of the rst element is
2
3 2
3
0 1 0 0 0 0
cos a1
sin a1 0
0
0
0
6  sin a cos a 0
7
6
0
0
0 7 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 7
1
1
6
7
6
7 6
7
6
0
0
1
0
0
07 6 0 0 1 0 0 07
76
7,
T1 6
(61)
6
7
6
sin a1 0 7 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 7
0
0
0 cos a1
6
7
6
7 6
7
4
0
0
0  sin a1 cos a1 0 5 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 5
0

and the resultant stiffness matrix in the global

2
1846:15
0
4615:38
6
0
46153:84
0
6
6
6 4615:38
0
15384:61
K1 6
6 1846:15
0
4615:38
6
6
4
0
46153:84
0
4615:38

7692:30

coordinate system
1846:15

4615:38

46153:84

4615:38
1846:15

0
0

7692:30
4615:38

46153:84

4615:38

15384:61

3
7
7
7
7
7.
7
7
7
5

(62)

4.3. The element stiffness matrices are assembled to obtain the global stiffness matrix. For space reasons the global matrix of this
example is not included in the present section. It can be seen in the Appendix (Table A1).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
718

M. Casafont et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 701729

4.4. The components of the global stiffness matrix are reordered so that the known displacements are separated from the
unknown displacements. The global matrix that results from this operation can be decomposed into the four sub-matrices
shown in Eq. (43). The rst one is
2
3
17230:77
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
7
0
15387:15
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
7
6
7
6
7
0
0
15387:15
0
0
0
0
0
6
7
6
7
0
0
0
17230:77
0
0
0
0
6
7
K kk 6
(63)
7.
6
7
0
0
0
0
46222:22
0
0
0
6
7
6
7
0
0
0
0
0
5196:58
0
0
6
7
6
7
4
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
5196:58
0
0

46222:22
T

The other three sub-matrices, which are rather larger, can be consulted in the Appendix (Tables A2 and A3, K ku K uk ).
4.5. The next step is to determine the in-exsuby relationship applying Eq. (45). See the result in the Appendix (Table A4)
4.6. The UWinV relations are introduced in (47) and, as a consequence, the unknown transverse displacements are expressed in
terms of the longitudinal displacements
9
8
3
U 1 > 2 0:0382
0:0719
0:0359
0:0026
0:0022
0:0018
>
>
>
>
>
> 6 0:0018
> U
>
0:0022
0:0026
0:0359
0:0719
0:0382 7
n1 >
>
>
7
>
>
> 6
>
6
7
>
>
>
>
W
6
7
0:2000
0:2000
0
0
0
0
1 >
>
>
>
7
> 6
>
>
>
6
7
>
>
W
0
0
0
0
0:2000
0:2000
>
n1 >
7
>
>
> 6
>
6
7
>
>
>
>
6
7
y
>
>
0:00764
0:00771
0:00052
0:00052
0:00044
0:00036
1
>
>
6
7
>
>
>
>
> 6 0:00764 0:00771 0:00052 0:00052 0:00044 0:00036 7
> y2 >
>
6
7
>
>
>
>
7
>
> 6
> y3 >
6 0:00472 0:00458 0:00007 0:00007 0:00088 0:00072 78
9
>
>
>
>
6
7> V 1 >
>
>
>
>
7>
> 6 0:00072 0:00088
> y >
>
>
>
>
0:00007
0:00007
0:00458
0:00472
4
6
7>
>
>
>
>
>
> 6
>
>
> V2 >
7>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
6
7
y
0:00036
0:00044
0:00052
0:00052
0:00771
0:00764
5
>
>
= 6
<
=
< V3 >
7>
6
7
y6
6 0:00036 0:00044 0:00052 0:00052 0:00771 0:00764 7
(64)
V4 >
>
>
6
7>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
6
7
U
0
0:0334
0:0334
0
0
0
>
>
>
>
sub2 >
>
>
7>
> 6
>
>
>
> V5 >
6
7>
>
>
>
U sub3 >
>
>
>
>
0:0780
0:0167
0:0167
0:0780
0:0614 7>
6 0:0614
>
>
:
>
>
6
7 V6 ;
>
>
>
>
6
7
U
>
>
0
0
0
0:0334
0:0334
0
sub4 >
>
7
> 6
>
>
7
> 6
> W sub2 >
>
>
0:0883
0:0073
0:0073
0:0049
0:0041 7
6 0:0891
>
>
>
>
6
7
>
>
>
>
6
7
>
W sub3 >
0
0
0:0112
0:0112
0
0
>
>
7
>
>
> 6
>
6
7
>
>
>
>
W
6
7
0:0041
0:0049
0:0073
0:0073
0:0883
0:0891
> 6
> sub4 >
>
7
>
>
>
>
6
7
>
>
y
0:00009
0:00691
0:00693
0:00041
0:00041
0:00011
>
>
sub2 >
6
7
>
> 6
>
>
> 4 0:00100 0:00148 0:00059 0:00059 0:00148 0:00100 7
> ysub3 >
5
>
>
>
>
>
>
:
ysub4 ;
0:00009 0:00011 0:00041 0:00041 0:00693 0:00691
5. At this point, the constraints
2
3:82 7:19
6 0
3:34
6
6
6 0
3:34
R U 6
6 0
0
6
6
4 0
0
0:22

0:18
2

R W

20
6 20
6
6
6 0
6
6 0
6
6
4 0

0:36

7:19

0
0

1:12

1:12

1:12

1:12

20

3
0
0 7
7
7
0 7 2
710 ,
0 7
7
7
20 5

20

20

0
0

(65.a)

3:82

0
0

0
0

7:64
6 7:64
6
6
6 4:72
R y 6
6 0:72
6
6
4 0:36

3:59

0:26

20
20

presented in Eq. (49) can be obtained from (59.a), (59.b) and (64)
3
3:59 0:26 0:22 0:18
3:34
0
0
0 7
7
7
3:34
0
0
0 7 2
710 ,
0
3:34 3:34
0 7
7
7
0
3:34 3:34
0 5

(65.b)

7:71

0:52

0:52

0:44

0:36

7:71

0:52

0:52

0:44

4:58

0:07

0:07

0:88

0:88

0:07

0:07

4:58

0:44

0:52

0:52

7:71

0:36 7
7
7
0:72 7 3
710 ,
4:72 7
7
7
7:64 5

0:44

0:52

0:52

7:71

7:64

(65.c)

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Casafont et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 701729

719

Table 2
Constraining displacement factors.
Node

Uds

Vds

Wds

yds

1
2
Sub2
3
Sub3
4
Sub 5
5
6

0.0356
0.0052
0.0052
0.0052
0.1078
0.0052
0.0052
0.0052
0.0356

r  p/L  0.692
r  p/L  0.143

r  p/L  0.013

r  p/L  0.013

r  p/L  0.143
r  p/L  0.692

0.1671
0.1671
0.0779
0
0
0
0.0779
0.1671
0U1671

0.0061
0.0061
0.0057
0.0046
0
0.0046
0.0057
0.0061
0.0061

R Usub

0
6
4 6:14
0
2

6
R Wsub 4

3
0
2
6:14 7
510 ,

3:34
7:80

3:34
1:67

0
1:67

0
7:80

3:34

3:34

8:91

8:83

0:73

0:73

0:49

0:41

1:12

1:12

0:41

0:49

0:73

0:73

8:83

8:91

6:91

6
R ysub 4 1
0:09

(65.d)

6:93

0:41

0:41

0:11

0:09

1:48

0:59

0:59

1:48

0:11

0:41

0:41

6:93

6:91

3
7 2
510 ,

(65.e)

3
7 3
510 .

(65.f)

6. Finally, if the longitudinal displacements Vsd determined in the second step are introduced in (53), the constraint equations for the
symmetric distortional mode are obtained. Table 2 shows the constraining factors which result from (53). These factors will be used in
the next section to constrain the nite element mesh.
From now on the calculations are only performed for the sd mode.
6.2. Constrained linear buckling analysis
Figs. 11 and 12 show the nite element mesh and boundary conditions of the 150 mm long member that is analysed in the example.
Only half of the member is included in the model. Symmetry boundary conditions are applied at one end, while at the other end the
simple support with respect to the distortional mode is considered. Fig. 11 shows which degrees of freedom have to be constrained at the
end cross-sections. It is pointed out that it is very important to allow the warping of the hinged cross-section, if the one-half sine wave
distortional deformation has to be obtained.
At the hinged cross-section, the nodes located in the web are forced to have identical U displacements (see Fig. 11). These
displacements are coupled because the local buckling of this element of the end cross-section has to be avoided. The same operation is
performed at the nodes of the ange stiffeners, where it is also necessary to avoid local buckling.
The linear buckling analyses are performed in two steps. In the rst step, a uniformly distributed normal pressure is applied
at the hinged end of the member, and a linear analysis is carried out. The geometric stiffness matrix is calculated from the results of
this analysis.
In the second step, the constraints are introduced and the pure elastic distortional loads are determined solving the eigenvalue
m
problem (20). However, when using Ansys it is not necessary to dene matrix R and to modify the original elastic stiffness and
geometric matrices. This is done automatically by the program. The user only has to provide the constraining relationships according to
the following procedure:
1. The constraint relations for the longitudinal displacements Vis are dened. According to Eqs. (53) or (16)
V is

r p=LV ds
i cos r p=Lys
=LV ds
1

r p

cos r p=Lys

V 1s

V ds
i

V 1s

V ds
1

V ds
i
V 1s ,
0:692

(66)

where Vids is the constraining factor for the longitudinal displacement of node i, that can be obtained from Table 2, and V1s is the
unknown degree of freedom of section s (see equation (53)).
2. The constraint relations for the transverse displacements are set
U is

U ds
i sin r p=Lys
=LV ds
1

r p

cos r p=Lys

V 1s

U ds
i
=LV ds
1

r p

r p 
U ds
i
y V 1s
tan 0:0209ys V 1s ,
tan
L s
0:0145

(67.a)

and in a similar way

W is

W ds
i
tan 0:0209ys V 1s ,
0:0145

(67.b)

ARTICLE IN PRESS
720

M. Casafont et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 701729

Transverse displacement.
Longitudinal displacement.
Rotation.
Coupled displacements.

Symmetry boundary
conditions

Distortional hinge

Fig. 11. Boundary conditions applied to the nite element model.

Fig. 12. Constrained nite element model.

yis

yds
i
0:0145

tan 0:0209ys V 1s .

(67.c)

where and Uids , Wids and yids are obtained from Table 2, and ys is the longitudinal coordinate of the cross-section s. If the global
coordinate system of the nite element model is not the same as the coordinate system used when dening the constraining factors, it
should be checked whether the right-hand side of equations (67.a), (67.b) and (67.c) needs to be multiplied by (1).
These constraining equations should be determined for the ns constrained cross-sections of the member. Eqs. (67.a), (67.b), (67.c) are
valid for natural nodes and sub-nodes.
In the beginning, the idea was to apply this constraining procedure to pallet-rack columns, which show regularly spaced perforations.
In Spain, the pattern of perforations of these columns is usually repeated every 50 mm in the longitudinal direction. It was believed that
to constrain two sections of the perforation pattern would lead to accurate values of pure distortional loads. For this reason, the
constraints are applied every 25 mm in the members of this investigation (ys 25 mm, 50 mm,y in (67.a), (67.b), (67.c)). Later on, see
Section 7, it was veried that most of the times accurate results are obtained if this value is used.
Accuracy problems were only found for members shorter than 200 mm. For this reason, when the length of the member was short, the
distance between constrained cross-sections was reduced to 10 mm. This is the case of the 150 mm long member that is calculated in
this example.
A complete investigation on the sensitivity of the results with respect to the distance between constrained cross-sections should be
performed in the future. For the moment, the chosen values are good for the members analysed herein. It is also pointed out that it has been
veried that the use of shorter distances than 25 mm (or 10 mm for members shorter than 200 mm), do not signicantly change the results.
Finally, once the constraints have been applied, the eigenvalue problem (20) is solved and the distortional buckling load corresponding
to the pure distortional mode is obtained. The result for the member analysed in this example
ND 32662 N
The accuracy of this result is discussed in the next section.

(68)

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Casafont et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 701729

721

Fig. 13. Pure distortional buckling mode.

Table 3
Mean and standard deviation of the ratio between the cFEM load and the GBTb load for symmetric distortional modes.
Section bf bs as

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

All

30
60
90
30
60
90
30
60
90
30
60
90

5
5
5
10
10
10
5
5
5
10
10
10

90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90

GBT Longitudinal constraints

GBT longitudinal constraints +FEM-based transverse

constraints

GBT longitudinal constraints +GBT transverse

constraints

All lengths LoLcrD

All lengths

All lengths

LoLcrD

LXLcrD

LoLcrD

LXLcrD

LXLcrD

Mean Dev. Mean Dev. Mean Dev. Mean

Dev.

Mean

Dev.

Mean

Dev.

Mean

Dev.

Mean

Dev.

Mean

Dev.

0.87
0.91
0.88
0.83
0.85
0.83
0.87
0.91
0.89
0.72
0.78
0.77

0.18
0.20
0.21
0.23
0.26
0.28
0.19
0.20
0.20
0.35
0.34
0.34

0.96
0.99
0.98
0.93
0.96
0.95
0.95
0.99
0.98
0.90
0.95
0.96

0.10
0.05
0.05
0.14
0.06
0.08
0.11
0.05
0.05
0.19
0.09
0.07

0.80
0.91
0.92
0.73
0.89
0.87
0.77
0.91
0.90
0.67
0.86
0.88

0.08
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.03
0.05
0.08
0.03
0.02
0.09
0.07
0.04

1.00
1.02
1.01
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.01
1.02
1.00
1.02
1.01
1.00

0.03
0.02
0.01
0.07
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.01
0.02
0.07
0.02
0.03

1.03
1.01
0.99
0.97
0.98
0.96
1.03
1.00
0.99
0.97
0.96
0.94

0.02
0.03
0.03
0.09
0.04
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.09
0.07
0.10

1.00
0.97
0.96
0.86
0.93
0.91
0.99
0.96
0.95
0.86
0.89
0.87

0.00
0.02
0.03
0.09
0.03
0.04
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.08
0.07
0.11

1.04
1.02
1.01
1.02
1.01
1.00
1.05
1.02
1.01
1.02
1.01
1.00

0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01

0.84

0.25 0.58

0.03 0.96

0.09

0.85

0.08

1.00

0.03

0.99

0.06

0.92

0.07

1.02

0.02

0.61
0.69
0.70
0.48
0.64
0.61
0.58
0.69
0.61
0.33
0.53
0.52

0.25
0.27
0.27
0.20
0.31
0.33
0.26
0.28
0.25
0.25
0.37
0.37

0.95
1.00
0.99
0.94
0.99
0.98
0.95
1.00
0.99
0.95
0.99
0.98

0.28 0.98

0.02
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.02

It should be pointed out that the pure distortional buckling mode can be usually found among the rst modes given by Ansys, and that
is easy to identify (see Fig. 13).

7. Verication of the calculation procedure

The calculation procedure presented in the previous section is applied to the cross-sections listed in Table 3, which have already been
analysed by Silvestre and Camotim in [5]. Symmetric and anti-symmetric distortional loads are calculated for different buckling lengths.
The results obtained are compared to the loads given by the GBT-based formula proposed by the mentioned authors in [4], and to the
loads given by the CUFSM program of Adany and Schafer [21,22].
Actually, the three calculation procedures presented in Section 3 are evaluated. A brief discussion on the accuracy of these procedures
is included, because it gives interesting information on how the different types of constraints affect the uncoupling procedure.
The results are presented by means of an example. The cross-section S1 of Fig. 9, which is the cross-section number 1 in Tables 3 and 4,
is again chosen to carry out the example. The results of the calculations on the other cross-sections are also taken into account to fully
evaluate the procedures.
The rst step was to determine the distortional buckling loads of S1 by means of the GBT-based formulas (GBTb), and by means of
CUFSM. Fig. 14 shows the results obtained for the symmetric distortional mode of buckling. The third curve included in this graph
corresponds to the elastic buckling loads obtained by means of the nite element method without any constraint, i.e., all modes
combined.
As discussed in Section 3, in the beginning, the idea was to obtain the pure distortional deformations by only constraining the
longitudinal displacements Vi of the natural nodes (i.e., by applying only constraining Eqs. (66) to these nodes). The main reason
why this decision was taken was to avoid the complex formulation of the longitudinaltransverse displacement relationships presented in
Section 4.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
722

M. Casafont et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 701729

Table 4
Mean and standard deviation of the ratio between the cFEM load and the GBTb load for asymmetric distortional modes.
Section bf bs as

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

All

30
60
90
30
60
90
30
60
90
30
60
90

5
5
5
10
10
10
5
5
5
10
10
10

90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90

GBT Longitudinal constraints

GBT longitudinal constraints+FEM-based transverse

constraints

GBT longitudinal constraints+GBT transverse

constraints

All lengths LoLcrD

All lengths

All lengths

LoLcrD

LXLcrD

LoLcrD

LXLcrD

LXLcrD

Mean Dev. Mean Dev. Mean Dev. Mean

Dev.

Mean

Dev.

Mean

Dev.

Mean

Dev.

Mean

Dev.

Mean

Dev.

0.96
0.91
0.88
0.87
0.79
0.74
0.95
0.91
0.88
0.86
0.81
0.76

0.05
0.13
0.20
0.21
0.29
0.34
0.05
0.13
0.19
0.21
0.27
0.33

0.98
0.97
0.97
0.94
0.94
0.95
0.98
0.97
0.97
0.94
0.94
0.92

0.02
0.05
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.10

0.94
0.91
0.85
0.86
0.84
0.84
0.94
0.91
0.90
0.88
0.85
0.84

0.02
0.03
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.10

0.99
1.00
1.02
0.99
1.00
1.00
0.99
1.00
1.00
0.98
0.99
0.99

0.02
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.02

1.00
1.00
0.99
0.95
0.96
0.97
1.00
1.00
0.99
0.95
0.96
0.95

0.02
0.03
0.03
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.06
0.07
0.10

0.97
0.95
0.94
0.87
0.88
0.90
0.97
0.95
0.96
0.89
0.88
0.87

0.02
0.02
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.10

1.00
1.01
1.01
1.00
1.01
1.00
1.00
1.01
1.01
1.00
1.00
1.01

0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.02

0.85

0.23 0.64

0.02 0.95

0.07

0.87

0.06

1.00

0.03

0.97

0.06

0.91

0.06

1.01

0.02

0.84
0.78
0.62
0.71
0.57
0.47
0.85
0.78
0.70
0.71
0.57
0.55

0.17
0.24
0.27
0.31
0.35
0.17
0.25
0.28
0.31
0.36

0.98
0.98
0.97
0.98
0.97
0.96
0.97
0.98
0.98
0.97
0.97
0.97

0.27 0.97

0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01

200000
180000

GBTb
CUFSM

160000

FEM

140000

N (N)

120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

L (mm)
Fig. 14. Distortional buckling loads of S1 determined via GBT, cFSM and FEM.

All cross-sections of Table 3 were calculated with the longitudinal constraints. Fig. 15 (cFEM curve) shows the result for S1. It can be
observed that distortional loads are rather accurate when the length of the member is higher than the critical buckling length. On the
contrary, for shorter lengths, buckling loads are the same as the previously calculated FEM loads. In this case the distortional mode is still
coupled with local buckling.
The same occurred to the other cross-sections for both symmetric and anti-symmetric distortional modes. This can be seen in the
columns titled GBT longitudinal constraints of Tables 3 and 4, which show the mean value and standard deviation of the ratio between the
cFEM loads and the GBTb loads for all calculated members. See also Fig. 18.
At this point, it was decided to constrain the transverse deformation of the plates of the cross-section to eliminate the local-distortional
interaction. For this reason, sub-nodes were placed and constrained at the mid-point of the cross-section elements (Fig. 10b). However, the
longitudinaltransverse displacement relationship was not initially chosen to impose the constraints. Instead, the constraining equations for
the transverse displacements of nodes and sub-nodes were deduced from the just calculated FEM results (GBT longitudinal constraints results).
Since good approximations to the distortional buckling loads had been obtained for the critical distortional lengths of the members, the
critical mode was chosen as a pattern of deformation for the other lengths. Constraining factors for the transverse displacements, similar to
the ones shown in Table 2, were deduced from the distortional deformation mode of the critical length. Afterwards, these factors,
conveniently modied to take into account the effect of L (rp/L in Table 2), were used for the other buckling lengths.
Applying these FEM-based transverse constraints the results improved. For the members whose length is shorter than the critical
length, the local-distortional buckling interaction is partially removed, as can be seen in Figs. 16 and 18, and Tables 3 and 4 (results in
columns GBT longitudinal constraints+FEM-based transverse constraints). However, the distortional buckling loads are still slightly lower
than the GBTb loads. For the members with lengths higher than the critical length, the introduction of the FEM-based transverse
constraints results in very good approximations to the distortional loads given by the GBTb formulas.
In the end, as the results were still not completely accurate, it was decided to incorporate all longitudinaltransverse relations of
Sections 4 and 5. It seems that this reduced to a very low degree the local-distortional interaction, and good results are obtained for

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Casafont et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 701729

723

200000
180000

GBTb

160000

CUFSM

140000

cFEM

FEM

N (N)

120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

L (mm)
Fig. 15. Calculation performed with Lon-GBT constraints.

200000
180000

GBTb
CUFSM
FEM
cFEM

160000
140000

N (N)

120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

L (mm)
Fig. 16. Calculation performed with Lon-GBT + Trans-FEM based constraints.

200000
180000

GBTb
CUFSM
FEM
cFEM

160000
140000

N (N)

120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

L (mm)
Fig. 17. Calculation performed with Lon.-GBT + Tran.-GBT constraints.

800

ARTICLE IN PRESS
724

M. Casafont et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 701729

1.2

CFEM Nd / GBTb Nd

1
0.8

Lon.-GBT
+Tran.-FEM
+Tran.-GBT

0.6
0.4
0.2
0

3
L / Lcr d

Fig. 18. Ratios between the cFEM distortional load and the GBTb distortional load.

members whose length is shorter than the critical length (Figs. 17 and 18 and columns GBT longitudinal constraints+GBT transverse
constraints of Tables 3 and 4) The results for the members with lengths higher than the critical length were also good and similar to the
results obtained when applying the FEM-based transverse constraints.
8. Conclusions
The paper has presented a combined GBTFEM procedure for the calculation of pure distortional buckling loads of open thin-walled
members. The bases of the combined procedure are the same as the bases of the constrained nite strip method. In both methods, the
idea is to force the member to buckle in a GBT buckling mode by constraining degrees of freedom of the mesh.
The main contribution of the investigation is the translation of the GBT and cFSM concepts into FEM for the distortional mode of
buckling. This is a small step in the research on GBT, which has consisted in extending the cFSM formulation of the cross-section
constraints in the longitudinal direction of the member.
It has been shown that it is necessary to constrain the longitudinal and transverse displacements of natural nodes, together with the
transverse displacements of sub-nodes, to obtain accurate values of distortional buckling loads. It has also been proved that the constraints
do not have to be applied to all these nodes of the mesh. The constraining equations can be applied at regularly spaced cross-sections.
This results in some advantages when the nite element model to constrain has an irregular mesh. It has also been veried that the
computing time decreases when the number of constrained cross-sections is reduced.
There are several other ways the constraining operation can be performed, some of them are discussed in this section because they
may be subject of future research:
1. The uncoupling procedure presented was the result of an investigation where, in the beginning, only the longitudinal displacements of
the natural nodes were constrained. It should be noticed that the longitudinal constraints do not depend on the y coordinate. For this
reason, different cross-sections of the member were independently constrained and, as a consequence, there was one V1s unknown
displacement per constrained cross-section. Afterwards, it was veried that it is necessary to constrain the transverse degrees of
freedom to obtain accurate results. The transverse constraints were introduced together with a sinusoidal function of y that provides a
relationship between the constraints of the different cross-sections. Consequently, instead of using one V1s unknown displacement per
cross-section, it could have been used only one V1 unknown displacement for the whole member.
2. The transverse constraints could have been applied without the sinusoidal function. This would have avoided the longitudinal
relationship and, consequently, the cross-sections could have been independently constrained. Indeed, some calculations were done
without this longitudinal relationship, and the results were good for members buckling in one-half sine wave.
3. An alternative way of determining the transverse constraints has also been presented, which is based on the results of the nite
element analysis of the critical length of the member. The results obtained with the FEM-based transverse constrains are similar to the
GBT results, and the errors of accuracy of these calculations are always on the safe side.
Finally, it is pointed out that more research is currently being done by the authors on the GBTFEM combined procedure. The rst
objective is to extend the constraining procedure to the local and global instabilities. This investigation will also involve a sensitivity
analysis of the effect of the distance between constrained cross-sections and the number of constrained nodes per section (number of
sub-nodes) on the resultant buckling load. Future research will be also focused on the analysis of members subject to bending and
members with more complex boundary conditions. Finally, it will also be investigated whether the proposed procedure is useful for the
analyses of members with regularly spaced perforations, such as the ones used in pallet-rack structures.

Appendix
Tables A1A4 show the matrices mentioned in Section 6 that were not included in the main text due to space reasons.

10

11

12

13

14

1846.15
0
4615.38
1846.15
0
4615.38
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
46153.85
0
0
46153.85
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

4615.38
0
15384.62
4615.38
0
7692.31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1846.15
0
4615.38
17230.77
0
4615.38
15384.62
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
46153.85
0
0
46222.22
512.82
0
68.38
512.82
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

46135.38
0
7692,31
46135.38
512.82
20512.82
0
512.82
2564.10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
15384.62
0
0
30769.23
0
0
15384.62
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
68.38
512.82
0
136.75
0
0
68.38
512.82
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
512.82
2564.10
0
0
10256.41
0
512.82
2564.10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
15384.62
0
0
15387.15
0
56.98
2.53
0
56.98
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
68.38
512.82
0
5196.58
512.82
0
5128.21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
512.82
2564.10
56.98
512.82
6837.61
56.98
0
854.70
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.53
0
56.98
5.06
0
0
2.53
0
56.98
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5128.21
0
0
10256.41
0
0
5128.21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

15
0
0
0

17
0
0
0

18
0
0
0

19
0
0
0

20
0
0
0

21
0
0
0

22
0
0
0

23
0
0
0

24
0
0
0

25
0
0
0

26
0
0
0

27
0
0
0

0
0
0

725

1
2
3

16

ARTICLE IN PRESS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

M. Casafont et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 701729

Table A1
Global matrix.

726

Table A1 (continued )
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

0
0
0
0
0
0
56.98
0
854.70
0
0
3418.80
56.98
0
854.70
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.53
0
56.98
15387.15
0
56.98
15384.62
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5128.21
0
0
5196.58
512.82
0
68.38
512.82
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
56.98
0
854.70
56.98
512.82
6837.61
0
512.82
2564.10
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15384.62
0
0
30769.23
0
0
15384.62
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
68.38
512.82
0
136.75
0
0
68.38
512.82
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
512.82
2564.10
0
0
10256.41
0
512.82
2564.10
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15384.62
0
0
17230.77
0
4615.38
1846.15
0
4615.38

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
68.38
512.82
0
46222.22
512.82
0
46153.85
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
512.82
2564.10
4615.38
512.82
20512.82
4615.38
0
7692.31

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1846.15
0
4615.38
1846.15
0
4615.38

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46153.85
0
0
46153.85
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4615.38
0
7692.31
4615.38
0
15384.62

ARTICLE IN PRESS

16

M. Casafont et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 701729

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

15

Table A2
Matrix K uu :
3

1846.15
0
0
0
4615.38
4615.38
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
1846.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
4615.38
4615.38
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
46153.85
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
46153.85
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

4615.38
0
0
0
15384.62
7692.31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

4615.38
0
0
0
7692.31
20513.82
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
512.82
0
0
2564.10
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
6837.61
0
0
0
0
56.98
0
512.82
0
0
2564.10
854.70
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6837.61
0
0
0
56.98
0
0
0
512.82
0
854.70
2564.10

10

0
4615.38
0

0
4615.38
0
0
0
0
0
0
7692.31
15384.62
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
20512.82
7692.31
0
0
0
0
0
512.82
0
0
2564.10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30769.23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
56.98
56.98
0
0
0
5.06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30769.23
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
512.82
512.82
0
0
0
0
0
0
136.75
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10256.41
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
512.82
512.82
0
0
0
0
0
0
136.75
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
2564.10
2564.10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10256.41
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
854.70
854.70
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3418.80
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2564.10
2564.10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10256,41

ARTICLE IN PRESS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

M. Casafont et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 701729

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

727

ARTICLE IN PRESS
728

M. Casafont et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 701729

Table A3
Matrix K ku :

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

10

1846.15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
1846.15
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
46153.85
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46153.85

4615.38
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

4615.38
0
0
0
512.82
0
0
0

0
56.98
0
0
0
512.82
0
0

0
0
56.98
0
0
0
512.82
0

0
0
0
4615.38
0
0
0
512.82

0
0
0
4615.38
0
0
0
0

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

15384.62
15384.62
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
2,53
2.53
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
15384.62
15384.62
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
68.38
68.38
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
5128.21
5128.21
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
68.38
68.38

0
0
0
0
512.82
512.82
0
0

0
56.98
56.98
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
512.82
512.82

Table A4
Matrix of the in-exsuby relationship.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

1.0000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.0112
0.0112
0
0
0.0023
0.0023
0.0045
0.0045
0.0023
0.0023
0.5000
0.5000
0
0.0250
0
0.0250
0.0006
0.0145
0.0006

0.0112
0.0112
0
0
0.0023
0.0023
0.0045
0.0045
0.0023
0.0023
0
0.5000
0.5000
0.0250
0
0.0250
0.0006
0.0145
0.0006

0
1.0000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5000
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.1909
0.0091
1.0000
0
0.0382
0.0382
0.0236
0.0036
0.0018
0.0018
0
0.3068
0
0.4455
0
0.0205
0.0345
0.5000
0.0005

0.1909
0.0091
0
0
0.0382
0.0382
0.0236
0.0036
0.0018
0.0018
0
0.3068
0
0.5545
0.5000
0.0205
0.0345
0.0005
0.0005

0.0091
0.1909
0
0
0.0018
0.0018
0.0360
0.0236
0.0381
0.0381
0
0.3068
0
0.0205
0.5000
0.5545
0.0005
0.5000
0.0345

0.0091
0.1909
0
1.0000
0.0018
0.0018
0.0036
0.0236
0.0381
0.0381
0
0.3068
0
0.0205
0
0.4455
0.0005
0.5000
0.0345

References
[1] Schardt R. Verallgemeinerte technische biegetheorie. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 1989.
[2] Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures-Part 1-3: General rulessupplementary rules for cold-formed members and sheeting. CEN European Committee for
Standardisation, Brussels, 2004 (Draft).
[3] Specication for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members. Appendix 1. Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members Using the Direct Strength Method.
American Iron and Steel Institute, 2004.
[4] Silvestre N, Camotim D. Distortional buckling formulae for cold-formed steel C and Z-section members. Part Iderivation. Thin-Walled Structures 2004;42:156797.
[5] Silvestre N, Camotim D. Distortional buckling formulae for cold-formed steel C and Z-section members. Part IIvalidation and application. Thin-Walled Structures
2004;42:1599629.
[6] Davies JM, Leach P. First-order generalised beam theory. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1994;31:187220.
[7] Davies JM, Leach P. Second-order generalised beam theory. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1994;31:22141.
[8] Schardt R. Generalised beam theoryan adequate method for coupled stability problems. Thin-Walled Structures 1994;19:16180.
[9] Schardt R. Lateral torsional and distortional buckling of channel- and hat- sections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1994;31:24365.
[10] Silvestre N, Camotim D. First-order generalised beam theory for arbitrary orthotropic materials. Thin-Walled Structures 2002;40:75589.
[11] Silvestre N, Camotim D. Second-order generalised beam theory for arbitrary orthotropic materials. Thin-Walled Structures 2002;40:791820.
[12] Plank RJ, Wittrick WH. Buckling under combined loading of thin, at-walled structures by a complex nite strip method. International Journal for Numerical Methods
in Engineering 1974;8:32339.
[13] Hancock GJ. Local, Distortional, and Lateral Buckling of I-Beams. Journal of the Structural Division. In: Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 104: p.
7871798.
[14] Sridharan S. A Semi-analytical method for the post-local-torsional buckling analysis of prismatic plate structures. International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering 1982;18:168597.
[15] Hancock GJ. Distortional buckling of steel storage rack columns. Journal of Structural Engineering 1985;111(12):277083.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Casafont et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 47 (2009) 701729

[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]

729

Papangelis JP, Hancock GJ. Computer analysis of thin-walled structural members. Computers & Structures 1995;56(1):15776.
Schafer BW. CUFSM Cornell university nite strip method. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University; 2001.
Lau SCW, Hancock GJ. Distortional buckling formulas for channel columns. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1987;113(5):106378.
Schafer BW. Local, distortional, and Euler buckling of thin-walled columns. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 2002;128(3):28999.
Serrette RL, Pekoz T. Distortional buckling of thin-walled beams/panels. I: theory. Journal of Structural Engineering 1995;121(4):75766.
Adany S, Schafer BW. Buckling mode decomposition of single-branched open cross-section members via nite strip method: derivation. Thin-Walled Structures
2006;44:56384.
Adany S, Schafer BW. Buckling mode decomposition of single-branched open cross-section members via nite strip method: application and examples. Thin-Walled
Structures 2006;44:585600.
Adany S. Buckling mode classication of members with open thin-walled cross-sections by using the Finite Strip Method. Research Report, Johns Hopkins University,
2004.
Desmond TP, Pekoz T, Winter G. Edge Stiffeners for Thin-Walled Members. Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers,
ASCE, 1981; 107: p. 32953.
Kesti J, Makelainen P. Design of gypsum-sheathed perforated steel wall studs. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 1998;46:13.
Casafont M. Behaviour of perforated cold-formed steel members subjected to combined axial force and bending moment. Ph.d. Thesis. Universitat Polite`cnica de
Catalunya (UPC) 2003 (in Spanish).