Comparison between different finite element method and

different finite element software to the stability of cold-formed

steel structure.

Contents
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................1

2. Finite element method .......................................................................................................1

3. Comparison between each method under different softwares ........................................4

3.1 Use CUFSM4 to simulate C-section ............................................................................4

3.1.1 Simulate C-section without round corner ........................................................6

3.1.2 Simulate C-section with round corner ..........................................................11

3.2. Use Abaqus to simulate ............................................................................................17

3.2.1 Simulate C-section without consider geometric imperfection ......................17

3.2.2 Consider the geometric imperfection ............................................................21

3.2.3 Simulate C-section which has round corner...................................................27

3.3. Use solidworks to simulate.......................................................................................31

3.2.1 Simulate C-section without round corner ......................................................31

3.2.1 Simulate C-section with round corner............................................................35

Reference .................................................................................................................................39

1
1. Introduction:
Development of an efficient FE model to represent local buckling as well as combined
local/distortional buckling under different boundary conditions of cold-formed steel column is the
main objective in this paper. This paper use different softwares to simulate one model to see the
difference between different softwares and analyze reason and compare to each other which is
better. Elastic buckling analysis is the most commonly used technique to define the shape and
distribution of initial imperfections. The lowest Eigenmode is often selected as the shape of the
initial geometry of the structure [1]. However, this is not always the case and selecting an
appropriate Eigenmode is sometimes very challenging in some boundary conditions since it should
represent the buckling modes which are triggered in the member. Kwon and Hancock [2] found
that the mode of imperfection had a more significant effect on the behaviour of their sections than
the amplitude of initial imperfections. Yu and Schafer [3] used the finite strip software CUFSM to
obtain the shape of initial imperfections. In the present study, it was found to be difficult to obtain
an appropriate Eigenmode representative of pure local buckling along the constant axial force. It
was, therefore, decided to generate the initial geometric imperfections manually with the aid of
finite strip software CUFSM [4] and sinusoidal functions rather than using the conventional method
of feeding the Eigenmodes from the ABAQUS elastic buckling analysis into the ABAQUS nonlinear
analysis. The sensitivity of FE models to the magnitude of initial imperfections has also been
addressed in this paper using different CDF values proposed by Schafer and Pekz [5] for
imperfection amplitudes.

2. Finite element method:

This method is actually part of the approximate methods, but it is the most versatile tool when
solving plate exercises. The solving of these problems is based in the hypothesis in the turning of
the normal lines to the middle plain and two theories exist. The thin plate theory of Kirchhoff
establishes that the normal lines to middle plain stay orthogonal to the deformed form of the
middle plain, which allows us to despise the shear strain deformation. The Reissner-Mindlin theory
keeps the condition of the straight deformation of the normal line but does not demand the
ortogonality after the deformation [6].
The FEM requires discretization in every dimension of the exercise, and so requires many more
variables that other approximate methods. If the geometrical and mechanical properties are
constant in a direction, like in plates or prismatic structures, in which the transversal section does
not vary in the longitudinal direction, the analysis can be simplified. Combining the FEM and
Fourier series we can solve this kind of structures. This procedure is known as the Finite Strip
Method (FSM).
The comparative table between FSM and FEM is shown in the following:
Table 1: Comparison between the Finite Element Method and the Finite Strip Method
FEM FSM
Applicable to any type of geometry, boundary In static analysis it is used for structures with
conditions or material variation. Extremely two opposite simply supported ends. In
powerful and usable in nearly every case. dynamic analysis it is used with all boundary
conditions and with discrete supports.
Implies a great number of equations and Usually has a much smaller quantity of
extremely big matrix. Can be very expensive equations and matrix are also smaller. This

2
 and even impossible to use sometimes
because of the demanding computing
facilities.
Large quantity of input data which can lead to
mistakes.
Large quantity of output. Normally
displacements of all the nodes are listed.
Difficult to program and a very big
computational requirement.
leads to a much shorter computing time to
find a solution with nearly the same accuracy.
Very small amount of input data due to the
smaller number of meshing.
Easier to specify only those nodes which
displacements and stresses are required.
Due to the reduction in the number of
degrees of freedom, the computational
requirements are smaller.

For the finite element modeling:

Modeling Details and Loading/Boundary Conditions:
The cold-formed steel columns (same as beams when only subject to compression) are modeled
using 4-node, quadrilateral, shell elements (S4R in ABAQUS). One end of column is constrained and
the other ends are: simply-supported, clamped and free. And we will see the effects of different
B.C. to the column.

Geometric Imperfections:
I considered the geometric imperfection in Abaqus. To define an imperfection based on the
deformed geometry of a previous static analysis (Unstable collapse and postbuckling analysis),
specify the result file and step (and, optionally, the increment number) from a previous static
analysis. The response of some structures depends strongly on the imperfections in the original
geometry, particularly if the buckling modes interact after buckling occurs. Hence, imperfections
based on single buckling mode tend to yield nonconservative results. By adjusting the magnitude
of scaling factors of various buckling modes, the imperfection sensitivity of the structure can be
assessed. Normally, a number of analyses should be conducted to investigate the sensitivity of a
structure to imperfections. Structures with many closely spaced eigenmodes tend to be
imperfection sensitivity, and imperfections with shapes corresponding to the eigenmode for the
lowest eigenvalue may not give the worst case.
The imperfect structure will be easier to analyze if the imperfection is large. If the imperfection is
small, the deformation will be quite small (relative to the imperfection) below the critical load. The
response will grow quickly near the critical load, introducing a rapid change in behavior. On the
other hand, if the imperfection is large, the postbuckling response will grow steadily before the
critical load is reached. In this case the transition into postbuckled behavior will be smooth and
relatively easy to analyze.
Material Modeling:
Material nonlinearity in the cold-formed steel beams was modeled with von Mises yield criteria
and isotropic hardening. Measured stress-strain relations taken from tensile coupons from the
beams were employed. All other components were modeled as elastic, with E = 29500 ksi (203 GPa)
and = 0.3, except for the hot-rolled steel tubes and the loading beam which used an artificially
elevated modulus (10E) so that they would effectively act as rigid bodies. Residual stresses were
ignored. [7]

3
3. Comparison between each method under different simulation software:
In this paper, I use the members cross-section 600S162-54, boundary condition are: one end is
fixed, the other end constrain the displacement in 3 different ways, C-C, C-F, C-S. Uniform pressure
applied in the cross-section other than constraint one. On the other hand, set the yield stress is
50ksi as well.

3.1. Use cufsm4 to simulate C-section.

In the finite strip method, the structure is only discretized in the cross-section. The other dimension
is usually represented using a shape trigonometrical function. In the following figure we can see
the axis taken for the exercise. Local coordinates are named with small letters (x-y-z) and will always
be associated with the strip element. [8]
Displacements are represented with the translation U-V-W and the rotation for global
displacements and u-v-w and for local displacements. The subscript p refers to the half-wave
number (number of longitudinal terms).

Figure 1: Strip situation

Figure 2: Strip degrees of freedom definition

4
 Figure 3: Strip stress distribution
The shape functions for the transverse direction are assumed to be the same polynomial function
for every boundary condition. On the other hand, in the longitudinal direction, trigonometrical
functions are taken. These functions have to satisfy the pre-set boundary conditions. The out of
plane displacement will use a shape cubic polynomial function for all boundary conditions.
Therefore, the expressions for general displacements are as follows:

Where = and is the half-wave number. is the function for the longitudinal direction,
which varies depending on the boundary conditions.
Boundary conditon Shape function
Simply-Simply p y
Yp sin
a
Clamped-Clamped p y y
Yp sin sin
a a
Simply-Clamped
( p 1) y p 1 p y
Yp sin ( )sin
a p a

Clamped-Free 1
( p ) y
Yp 1 cos 2
a
Clamped-Guided 1
( p ) y
2 p y
Yp sin sin
a 2a

5
A typical signature curve after analysis are shown in the following:

Figure 4: Signature curve

3.1.1 Use cufsm4 to simulate C-section without round corner.

(a). Geometry and material property
The web depth: 6, style is: stud or joist sections, flange width: 1.625, mil thickness: 0.054, design
thickness: 0.0566, and assume the lips are both 0.54. I build the model with accuracy 10 nodes.
Material property: Elastic modulus is: 29500ksi. Poissons ratio is 0.3. Shear modulus is 11346.15ksi.
Building model in CUFSM 4:

Figure 5: Section details and material property

6
 Figure 6: Calculated section properties
After set the material and dimension of cross section, then use the general boundary condition
solution type for the half-wave length, because traditional BC only fit for S-S.
. Clamped-Simply supported B.C.
Set 20 eigenvalues and make m=2 means only two term of triangular series will be used for the
specified half- wave length in the finite strip method for the C-S boundary condition.

Figure 7: Boundary condition figures for m=2 (C-S)

We just set the yield stress is 50 ksi, then Calculate P,M and B, but just check P part, uncheck the
other options because I just assume the cross-section only subject to compression:

7
 Figure 8: Load condition figures

Open all the base vectors to analyze:

Figure 9: CUFSM4 analysis

Then, we get the results as shown in the following, means the local buckling controls and when
applied load is 0.28682*50ksi=14.341ksi, the elastic critical local buckling will occurs.

8
 Figure 10: CUFSM results for C-S boundary condition, mode 1

. Clamped-Clamped B.C.
This time I use m=4 in the C-C boundary condition. Because after analysis, the result with m=4 can
be closer to the Abaqus analysis result without consider geometric imperfection

Figure 11: Boundary condition figures for m=4 (C-C)

9
After analysis, we get the results as shown in the following, means the local buckling controls and
when applied load is 0.28682*50ksi=14.341ksi, the elastic critical local buckling will occurs.

Figure 12: CUFSM results for C-C boundary condition, mode 1

. Clamped-Free B.C.
This time I use m=1 in the C-F boundary condition. Because under this boundary condition, it seems
like the simply supported B.C., relative weak than other two B.C., so use minimum m value.

Figure 13: Boundary condition figures for m=1 (C-F)

10
After analysis, we get the results as shown in the following, means this time global buckling
controls and when applied load is 0.063387*50ksi=3.17ksi, the elastic critical local buckling will
occurs.

Figure 14: CUFSM results for C-F boundary condition, mode 1

3.1.2 Use cufsm4 to simulate C-section with round corner.

This time use web depth 6 which the same as without round corner in section 3.1.1, style is: stud
or joist sections, flange width the same as well: 1.625, mil thickness: 0.054, design thickness:
0.0566, and assume the lips are both 0.54. But, the connection between 1.Flange and web. 2.
Flange and lips becomes with a 0.25 radius round corner. Material property: Elastic modulus is:
29500ksi. Poissons ratio is 0.3. Shear modulus is 11346.15ksi. I building model in CUFSM 4 and the
cross-section details and property are as shown in the following:

11
 Figure 15: Section details and material property

Figure 16: Calculated section properties

After set the material and dimension of cross section, then use the general boundary condition
solution type for the half-wave length, because traditional BC only fit for S-S and C-F (m=1).

12
. Clamped-Simply supported B.C.
Set 20 eigenvalues and make m=2 means only two term of triangular series will be used for the
specified half- wave length in the finite strip method for the C-S boundary condition.

Figure 17: Boundary condition figures for m=2 (C-S)

We just set the yield stress is 50 ksi, then Calculate P,M and B, but just check P part, uncheck the
other options because I just assume the cross-section only subject to compression:

Figure 18: Load condition figures

13
Open all the base vectors to analyze:

Figure 19: CUFSM4 analysis

Then, we get the results as shown in the following, means the local buckling controls and when
applied load is 0.30151*50ksi=15.0755ksi, the elastic critical local buckling will occurs.

Figure 20: CUFSM results for C-S boundary condition, mode 1

14
. Clamped-Clamped B.C.
This time I use m=4 in the C-C boundary condition. Because after analyze and comparison, it is
more close to Abaqus analysis result without consider geometric imperfection.

Figure 21: Boundary condition figures for m=4 (C-C)

After analysis, we get the results as shown in the following, means the local buckling controls and
when applied load is 0.30556*50ksi=15.278ksi, the elastic critical local buckling will occurs.

Figure 22: CUFSM results for C-C boundary condition, mode 1

15
. Clamped-Free B.C.
This time I use m=1 in the C-F boundary condition. Because under this boundary condition, it seems
like the simply supported B.C., relative weak than other two B.C., so use minimum m value.

Figure 23: Boundary condition figures for m=1 (C-F)

After analysis, we get the results as shown in the following, means this time global buckling
controls and when applied load is 0.059504*50ksi=2.9752ksi, the elastic critical local buckling will
occurs.

Figure 24: CUFSM results for C-F boundary condition, mode 1

16
Then I summary the result in following table, with make all the other conditions are same and only
change the cross-section.
Load factor C-S B.C. C-C B.C. C-F B.C.
C-section without 0.28682 0.28946 0.063387
round corner
C-section with round 0.30151 0.30151 0.059504
corner
Difference (%) 5.12% 4.16% -6.13%
From the table, I can make a conclusion that section with round corner can improve load factor a
little under C-S and C-C boundary conditions and reduce a little under C-F B.C.

3.2. Use ABAQUS to simulate.

3.2.1. Without consider the geometric imperfection:
Materials: E=29500ksi, v=0.3. Dimension are same as part2, thickness is 0.0566.Length is 96.
Boundary condition: Set BC for stress perturbation and buckling mode calculation.
Property: Set the elastic and plastic materials property as shown below (Use elastic perfectly
plastic model, do not consider strain-hardening now):

Figure 25: material property setting in ABAQUS

Step: set the analysis step as shown in the following

Figure 26: Buckling analysis step in ABAQUS

17
Load and boundary condition:
Apply load equal to the yield stress, means apply 50ksi to the cross-section. For the thin-wall
structures, I use an equivalent load application method, treat the uniform load as a concentrate
load which apply on the center of gravity of cross section which is not encased, as shown in the
following. So P=-50ksi*0.554=-27.7k, negative value because the force is pressure. For the fixed
end, I use ENCASTRE (U1=U2=U3=UR1=UR2=UR3=0) in ABAQUS.

Figure 27: Load and boundary condition settings in ABAQUS

Mesh: Use the mesh kind as shown in following, the shell element S4R is employed throughout.

Figure 28: Mesh of the member

18
. Clamped-Simply supported B.C.
For the simply-supported end, apply the pressure and constrain displacement in x and y direction

Figure 29: B.C. setting for C-S condition

Then we get the mode 1 outcome in the following figure. The color bar means resultant
displacement of this member. Eigenvalue means the critical buckling force are
eigenvalue*applied force in Abaqus. Mode shape 1: eigenvalue=0.28998, buckling
stress=50*0.28998=14.5ksi.

Figure 30: Abaqus result for C-S boundary conditions (mode 1)

After the buckling analysis, we consider geometric imperfection in this time, because one end of
column is fixed and the other end of column is simply-supported.

19
. Clamped-Clamped B.C.
All the conditions are same as C-S situation except for the B.C. of where load applies. This time,
constrain x,y direction of displacement and 3 direction of rotations. But only accept displacement
in z-direction.

Figure 31: B.C. setting for C-C condition

Figure 32: Abaqus result for C-C boundary conditions (mode 1)

Mode shape 1: eigenvalue=0.29038, buckling stress=50*0.29038=14.52ksi.

20
. Clamped-Free B.C.
This time delete the boundary condition at where load applies.
After that, we can get the outcomes as shown in the following

Figure 33: Abaqus result for C-F boundary conditions (mode 1)

Mode shape 1: eigenvalue=0.0607, buckling stress=50*0.0607=3.035ksi.

The outcomes comparison:

C-C C-S C-F
CUFSM4 0.28946 0.28682 0.063387
Abaqus 0.29038 0.28998 0.0607
Difference (%) +0.32% +1.1% -4.4%

3.2.2. Consider the geometric imperfection:

. Clamped-Simply supported B.C.
I consider the geometric imperfection with apply a concentrate load in horizontal direction with a
very small value (0.0001kip) in each conditions to see what happens. I create a new step with
consider geometric imperfection instead of the older one and set the same incrementation as
shown in the following in the all three B.C..

21
 Figure 34: Geometric imperfection consideration

In C-S boundary condition, I apply the horizontal load very near the simply-supported side. Because
it is simply-supported, so I cant apply load in the exactly cross-section because the x-directions
displacement has been restrained. I apply load as shown in the following:

Figure 35: Geometric imperfection application method for C-S.

After apply the geometric imperfection, we get the results as shown in the following, we can see
it converges when increment=47, so the load factor is 0.3598 at this condition, means buckling
stress is 50ksi*0.3598=17.99ksi

22
 Figure 36: Abaqus result with consideration of Geometric imperfection for C-S

. Clamped-Clamped supported B.C.

In C-C boundary condition, I apply the horizontal load very near the clamped side which load
applies. Because it is clamped, so I cant apply load in the exactly cross-section because the x-
directions displacement has been restrained. I apply load as shown in the following:

23
 Figure 37: Geometric imperfection application method for C-C.
After apply the geometric imperfection, we get the results as shown in the following, we can see
it converges when increment=63, so the load factor is 0.5863 at this condition, means buckling
stress is 50ksi*0.5863=29.315ksi

24
 Figure 38: Abaqus result with consideration of Geometric imperfection for C-C

. Clamped-Free supported B.C.

In C-F boundary condition, I apply the horizontal load in the exactly free end as shown in the
following:

Figure 39: Geometric imperfection application method for C-F.

25
After apply the geometric imperfection, we get the results as shown in the following, we can see
it converges when increment=12, so the load factor is 0.05962 at this condition, means buckling
stress is 50ksi*0.05962=2.981ksi

Figure 40: Abaqus result with consideration of Geometric imperfection for C-F

26
I summary results in following table.
C-C C-S C-F
Abaqus without consider 0.29038 0.28998 0.0607
geometric imperfection
Abaqus with consider 0.5863 0.3598 0.0596
geometric imperfection
Difference (%) +102% +24% -1.8%
From the table above, I can make a conclusion that the C-C B.C. has the most significant effects
with consider geometric imperfection.

3.2.3. Simulate C-section which has round corner:

In this situation, make both property, load, step, interaction, load and mesh same, only change the
cross section as shown in the following to see what will happen?
Materials: E=29500ksi, v=0.3. Dimension are same as part2, thickness is 0.0566.Length is 96.
Boundary condition: Set BC for stress perturbation and buckling mode calculation.
Property: Set the elastic and plastic materials property as shown below (Use elastic perfectly
plastic model, do not consider strain-hardening now):

27
 Figure 41: C-section with round corner
For the simply-supported end, apply the pressure and constrain displacement in x and y direction

Figure 42 B.C. setting for C-S condition

Then we get the mode 1 outcome in the following figure, because for buckling, we only consider
the minimum buckling mode. The color bar means resultant displacement of this member. And I
change the deformation scale factor to 3 just in order to see the deformation better. Eigenvalue
means the critical buckling force are eigenvalue*applied force in Abaqus. For mode shape 1:

28
eigenvalue=0.30919, buckling stress=50*0.30919=15.46ksi.

Figure 43: Abaqus result for C-S boundary conditions (mode 1)

. Clamped-Clamped B.C.
All the conditions are same as C-S situation except for the B.C. of where load applies. This time,
constrain x,y direction of displacement and 3 direction of rotations. But only accept displacement
in z-direction.

Figure 44: B.C. setting for C-C condition

29
 Figure 45: Abaqus result for C-C boundary conditions (mode 1)
For mode shape 1: eigenvalue=0.30905, buckling stress=50*0.30905=14.453ksi.

. Clamped-Free B.C.
This time delete the boundary condition at where load applies.
After that, we can get the outcomes as shown in the following

Figure 46: Abaqus result for C-F boundary conditions (mode 1)

For mode shape 1: eigenvalue=0.05077, buckling stress=50*0.05077=2.5385ksi.

30
The outcomes comparison:
Between CUFSM4 result and Abaqus result:
C-C C-S C-F
CUFSM4 0.30556 0.30151 0.059504
Abaqus 0.30905 0.30919 0.05077
Difference (%) +1.13% +2.48% -17.2%

Abaqus result between C-section with round corner and without round corner:
C-C C-S C-F
Without round corner 0.29038 0.28998 0.0607
With round corner 0.30905 0.30919 0.05077
Difference (%) +6.43% +6.624% -16.4%

From the table, I can make a conclusion that section with round corner can improve load factor a
little under C-S and C-C boundary conditions and reduce a little under C-F B.C. It is the same
outcome as analysis by the CUFSM4.

3.3 Use Solidworks to simulate.

3.3.1 Simulate C-section without round corner
In Solidworks, I design the members cross-section as shown in the following, and the length of
member is 96 inches:

Figure 47: cross-section of member

31
 Figure 48: material property of member

Mesh: I use standard mesh in Solidworks

32
 Figure 49: mesh in Solidworks

. Clamped-Simply supported B.C.

Mode shape 1: Load factor is 0.28106, so the critical buckling stress is: 50ksi*0.28106=14.05ksi

Figure 50: Solidworks result for C-S B.C. (mode 1)

. Clamped-clamped B.C.
Mode shape 1: Load factor is 0.51532, so the critical buckling stress is: 50ksi*0.51532=25.766ksi

33
 Figure 51: Solidworks result for C-C B.C. (mode 1)

. Clamped-free B.C.
Mode shape 1: Load factor is 0.034889, so the critical buckling stress is: 50ksi*0.034889=1.7445ksi

Figure 52: Solidworks result for C-F B.C. (mode 1)

I summary results between Solidworks results and Abaqus results with consideration of geometric
imperfection.
C-S C-C C-F
Solidworks result 0.28106 0.51532 0.0349
Abaqus with consider 0.3598 0.5863 0.0596
geometric imperfection
Difference (%) +21.9% +13.77% -70.8%

34
3.3.2 Simulate C-section without round corner
I design the members cross-section as shown in the following, and the length of member is 96
inches, all the parameters are the same as before only change the shape of cross-section:

Figure 53: cross-section of member

Mesh: This time, I use curvature-based mesh in Solidworks

35
 Figure 54: mesh in Solidworks

. Clamped-Simply supported B.C.

Mode shape 1: Load factor is 0.46571, so the critical buckling stress is: 50ksi*0.46571=23.29ksi

Figure 55: Solidworks result for C-S B.C. (mode 1)

36
. Clamped-clamped B.C.
Mode shape 1: Load factor is 0.7393, so the critical buckling stress is: 50ksi*0.7393=36.97ksi

Figure 56: Solidworks result for C-C B.C. (mode 1)

. Clamped-free B.C.
Mode shape 1: Load factor is 0.059586, so the critical buckling stress is: 50ksi*0.059586=2.98ksi

Figure 57: Solidworks result for C-F B.C. (mode 1)

37
I summary results between Solidworks results between with round corner and without round
corner:
C-S C-C C-F
Solidworks without round 0.28106 0.51532 0.0349
corner
Solidworks result with 0.46571 0.7393 0.0596
round corner
Difference (%) +65.7% +43.5% 70.8%
Base on the analysis result from solidworks, I can make a conclusion that the round corner will
increase the load capacity of member in each 3 B.C.s.

38
Reference
[1]. Moreyra ME, Pekz T, Finite element studies on lipped channel flexural members. In:
Proceedings of the twelfth international specialty conference on cold-formed steel structures.
University of Missouri-Rolla, St Louis, MO; 1994.p. 57-74
[2]. Y.B. Kwon, G.J. Hancock, Post-buckling analysis of thin-walled channel sections undergoing local
and distortional buckling
[3]. C. Yu, B.W. Schafer, Simulation of cold-formed steel beams in local and distortional buckling
with applications to the direct strength method
[4]. CUFSM4 Version 4.03 by Ben Schafer. Department of Civil Engineering, Johns Hopkins
University; 2006. http://www.ce.jhu.edu/bschafer/cufsm/
[5]. B.W. Schafer, T. Pekz, Computational modelling of cold-formed steel: characterizing geometric
imperfections and residual stresses
[6]. JOVICEVIC, J and OATE, E: Analysis of Beams and Shells Using a Rotation
[7]. C. Yu, B.W. Schafer, Finite Element Modeling of Cold-formed Steel Beams Validation and
Application.
[8] Alejandro Lifante Mira, Non-linear geometric elastic analysis of thin-walled beam by the finite
strip element method.

39