Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10

Conference of Junior Researchers in Civil Engineering

272

Elastic and Geometric Stiffness Matrices for the Semi-analytical Finite Strip Method
Dvid Visy
BME Department of Structural Mechanics, e-mail: davidvisy@mail.bme.hu

Abstract
In this paper the elastic and geometric stiffness matrices of the semi-analytical finite strip method (FSM) are discussed. New derivations are presented for a specific set of longitudinal base functions, which corresponds to column/beam member with (globally and locally) pinned at both its ends. The stiffness matrices are derived in various options. Numerical studies are performed to verify the new stiffness matrices as well as to illustrate the effect of the various options. It is shown that inconsistency is existing in the current implementations of FSM, which inconsistency might have non-negligible effect in certain specific cases.

Introduction
Buckling has crucial role in the behaviour of thin-walled members. It is buckling which makes the behaviour and design of a thin-walled member far more complex than those of typical compact sections used in structural engineering. Since the load carrying capacity of thin-walled members is often governed by buckling phenomena, the ability to calculate the associated elastic critical loads is of great importance. In current design codes, e.g. relevant Eurocode [1], the accurate calculation of the elastic critical loads is crucial in predicting the ultimate load carrying capacity of a thin-walled member. Analytical formulae exist for the calculation of certain buckling loads, but their applicability is limited. Therefore, numerical methods are widely used, including e.g., the shell Finite Element Method (FEM), or the (constrained) Finite Strip Method (FSM or cFSM). FEM is certainly the most well-known and most general, but FSM is also popular since it is much easier to use than FEM. The presented research focuses on the FSM, more exactly on the FSM version with no longitudinal discretization, as proposed by Cheung [2], then applied by Schafer in the CUFSM software [3-4]. Recent analytical studies [5-6] showed some inconsistency in CUFSM caused by the inconsistent handling of through-thickness variation of strains-stresses. The practical effect of the inconsistency is discussed in the frame of global buckling (e.g., flexural, torsional, lateral-torsional buckling), and was concluded that the inconsistency has practically negligible effect on the vast majority of practical cases, but examples are found when this inconsistency has non-negligible effect. The inconsistency is embedded in the derivation of elastic and geometric stiffness matrices. In this paper the derivation of stiffness matrices is generalized. The derivations are presented for a specific set of longitudinal base functions, which corresponds to column/beam member with (globally and locally) pinned at both its ends. The stiffness matrices are derived in various (consistent or inconsistent) options, then numerical studies are performed to verify the new stiffness matrices as well as to illustrate the effect of the various options.

Finite strip method


In finite strip method a member is discretized into longitudinal strips, instead of finite element method, which applies discretization in both the longitudinal and transverse directions. In Figure 1 a single strip is highlighted, along with the local coordinate system and the degrees of freedom (DOF) for the strip, the dimensions of the strip, and the applied end tractions. Unlike in previous FSM derivations (see [3]), here the dependency of the displacements on the local z coordinate is explicitly considered, otherwise the usual steps of finite element or finite strip derivations are followed. It is to highlight that here the positive sign of the rotational degrees of freedom correspond to the positive rotation in the coordinate system, which is just the opposite the sign convention used in [2-4].

Visy, D.: Elastic and Geometric Stiffness Matrices for the Semi-analytical Finite Strip Method

Conference of Junior Researchers in Civil Engineering

273

Fig. 1: Definition of calculation options

The vector of general displacement field, u, is approximated with the matrix of shape functions, N, and the , as: vector of nodal displacements,

where

and

are defined as follows:

The strain vector,

, can be expressed by the operator matrix

, as follows:

Stress vector

, can be expressed as

, where (with considering linear elastic orthotropic material):

and With the above terms, the internal strain energy U, as well as the work of the external forces W (i.e., the negative of the external potential) can expressed as follows:

where the linearly distributed load over the strip cross-section is expressed as follows (see Fig 1):

Visy, D.: Elastic and Geometric Stiffness Matrices for the Semi-analytical Finite Strip Method

Conference of Junior Researchers in Civil Engineering

274

while the second order strain,

, can be defined as:

The total potential is differentiation, as follows:

, from which the elastic and geometric stiffness matrix can be expressed by

The different options


Though the above steps of the derivation are always valid, simplifications in the formulae are possible and sometimes applied. Simplification is possible at three steps, namely: (i) definition of second-order strain, (ii) integration in external energy, and (iii) integration in internal energy. These possible simplifications are shown as follows. In classical finite strip derivations (see [2-3]) as well as in finite element derivations the second-order strain term is expressed as shown above. However, it is also common to use a simplified formula, too, with neglecting the second-order term of the longitudinal displacement (i.e., neglecting the term). This simplified formula is the one typically used in classical buckling solutions of beams and columns. Therefore, the second-order strain term will be considered here in two options as follows:

Furthermore, in performing the integration to calculate the work of the external forces, two options are used in the practice, as follows:

The formula in the left is the mathematically precise one, but the other formula (on the right) is also widely used, especially in case of thin-walled members where the effect of the variation through the thickness is functions should be considered to be negligible. (Note, in case of the formula on the right, both T and considered with their mean values, i.e. with substituting z=0.) Finally, in calculating the strain energy, two options might be established (similarly to those of the external work). The variation of strains and stresses through the thickness can be considered or disregarded, which latter case corresponds to neglecting the membrane energy. The corresponding two formulae, therefore, are as follows:

(Again, in case of the formula on the right, both values, i.e. with substituting z=0.)

and

functions should be considered with their mean

Thus, there are altogether 8 options, as summarized in Table 1. As far as the options are concerned, here are some remarks. (i) The first two options have influence on the geometric stiffness matrix, but no influence on the elastic stiffness matrix. On the other hand, the third option has influence on the elastic stiffness matrix only. This means that the elastic stiffness matrix (ke) can be defined in two versions, while the geometric stiffness matrix (kg) in 4 versions.
Visy, D.: Elastic and Geometric Stiffness Matrices for the Semi-analytical Finite Strip Method

Conference of Junior Researchers in Civil Engineering

275

(ii)

The classical FSM (see[2-4]) uses yny option.

(iii) It does not seem to be consistent to consider through-thickness variation at one step of the derivation, while disregard it in another step, thus, *ny or *yn options are theoretically inconsistent (even though this inconsistency might have negligibly small practical effect). Option term considered? Through-thickness integration in work W? Through-thickness integration in energy U? No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes nnn nny nyn nyy ynn yny yyn yyy No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Table 1: Definition of calculation options

The elastic stiffness matrix (

The elastic stiffness matrix is derived in two options: in **n option the through-thickness stress-strain variation is not considered, while in the **y options the through-thickness stress-strain variation is considered. In case of **n options:

In options **y the elastic stiffness matrix is expressed as follows:

The geometric stiffness matrix (

The geometric stiffness matrices can be written in the following form:

Visy, D.: Elastic and Geometric Stiffness Matrices for the Semi-analytical Finite Strip Method

Conference of Junior Researchers in Civil Engineering

276

In option nn* the geometric stiffness matrix can be calculated with the following form:

In option yn* the geometric stiffness matrix can be written as follows:

In option ny* the geometric stiffness matrix can be calculated with the following form:

In option yy* the geometric stiffness matrix can be calculated with the following form:

Visy, D.: Elastic and Geometric Stiffness Matrices for the Semi-analytical Finite Strip Method

Conference of Junior Researchers in Civil Engineering

277

Numerical studies
Numerical studies are completed in order (i) to verify the newly derived stiffness matrices, and (ii) to demonstrate the effect of the matrix options on the critical forces. Simply-supported prismatic columns are analyzed with various cross-sections, as shown in Fig. 2. Both column ends are free to rotate about the transverse axes and free to warp, but restrained against transverse translations and restrained against rotation about the longitudinal axis. In order to avoid numerical problems, a longitudinal support has also been applied at one single node. The column is loaded by two concentrated longitudinal forces at its ends, equal in magnitude but opposite in direction, which is resulted a constant compression force along the column. The end forces have been applied as distributed loads on the lines of end cross-sections so that the resultant would be equal to a unit compression force. The material constants are: E = 210000 MPa, G = 105000 MPa, = 0. The member length varies, including very short and very long members. The calculations are performed by the CUFSM software [5] (using cFSM). The results are compared to results of shell finite element analysis by Ansys [7]. In case of shell finite element analysis thin shell elements are applied based on Kirchhoff plate theory (called SHELL63 in Ansys). A relatively fine mesh is used for the FE analysis with approx. 10 000 shell elements. The analyzed members are constrained in order to enforce the member to buckle according to desired mode. This constraining is not an obvious process, and depends on the desired mode. For global buckling, the practically most useful way for constraining can be summarized as follows: (i) virtual diaphragms are used in many cross-sections in order to exclude cross-section distortion, i.e., to keep cross-sections rigid, (ii) there are constraints in order to enforce linear warping distribution along each plate element (in transverse direction), and (iii) shear panels are applied for each plate element of the member in order to exclude the development of in-plane shear strains. Note, the constraints in (i) and (ii) can be realized by the CERIG command in Ansys, while shear panel is a special finite element in Ansys (called SHELL28) with shear properties only. For local plate buckling only the shear panels are applied out of above-mentioned constraints, and the corner points of the cross-sections are supported in both transverse directions. In case of distortional buckling there is no simple way to enforce a general shell finite element model to buckle according to the distortional mode, therefore, distortional buckling is not studied by shell FEM. Some of the considered buckling modes are illustrated in Figure 3. Some of the results are summarized in Tables 2 to 7.

Visy, D.: Elastic and Geometric Stiffness Matrices for the Semi-analytical Finite Strip Method

Conference of Junior Researchers in Civil Engineering

278

Fig. 2: Cross-sections

I-2 minor-axis F

I-2 pure torsion

I-2 local plate


Fig. 3: Buckling modes

C local-plate

C distortional

The most important observations are as follows. The global buckling cases have been already discussed in [6], where all the 8 options have been studied by analytical formulae. The new results, calculated by CUFSM but with the newly derived stiffness matrices, are found to be practically identical with those from the analytical formulae, the typical relative difference between the numerical results of two methods is in the order of 10-10 (that is why no separate results are given here for these two methods). In [6] it has been concluded (from global buckling results) that the applied shell FEM works according to yny option. The new results presented here (e.g., results for local plate buckling) confirm this earlier observation. The options with disregarding the membrane strain energy (i.e., **n options) give realistic results for global buckling (for most cross-sections, see also [6]), but give wrong results for distortional buckling, while do not give any result for local plate buckling. Therefore, the applicability of **n options is strongly limited. In case of global (flexural or torsional) buckling and distortional buckling there is a distinct difference in the tendencies as the length approaches zero: the n** options tend to infinity, while the y** options tend to a finite value. In case of local plate buckling there is some difference between n** and y** options, but the difference is not pronounced. It is a question of definition whether the second-order effect of the longitudinal displacements is considered or not. Both theoretical and numerical considerations suggest that nyy or yyy options are the best and most generally applicable. It must be aware, however, that typical FSM and shell FEM applications are based on yny option. Though yny option is theoretically inconsistent, in most practical cases this inconsistency causes negligible error.

Visy, D.: Elastic and Geometric Stiffness Matrices for the Semi-analytical Finite Strip Method

Conference of Junior Researchers in Civil Engineering

279

length nnn nny calculation option nyn nyy ynn yny yyn yyy

mm

10

50

100

500

1000 461 939 462 092 461 939 462 092 364 080 364 200 364 054 364 175 364 251

5000 18 478 18 484 18 478 18 484 18 281 18 287 18 281 18 287 18 289

10000 4 619.4 4 620.9 4 619.4 4 620.9 4 607.0 4 608.5 4 607.0 4 608.5 4 623.5

kN 4.619E+09 1.85E+08 4.62E+07 1 847 755 kN 4.621E+09 1.85E+08 4.62E+07 1 848 367 kN 4.619E+09 1.85E+08 4.62E+07 1 847 755 kN 4.621E+09 1.85E+08 4.62E+07 1 848 367 kN kN kN kN 1 717 980 1 702 781 1 656 972 1 718 549 1 703 345 1 657 521 1 717 411 1 702 223 1 656 443 1 717 980 1 702 786 1 656 992 1 718 557 1 703 353 1 657 503 890 425 890 719 890 272 890 567 890 514

FEM kN

Table 2: I-1 section, flexural buckling about major axis

length nnn nny calculation option nyn nyy ynn yny yyn yyy

mm kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN

10 1 259 115 1 683 717 1 259 115 1 683 717 513 842 687 121 428 343 572 790 686 056

50 50 365 67 349 50 365 67 349 47 603 63 656 46 739 62 500 63 585

100 12 591 16 837 12 591 16 837 12 411 16 596 12 352 16 517 16 594

500 503.65 673.49 503.65 673.49 503.35 673.10 503.26 672.96 673.13

1000 125.91 168.37 125.91 168.37 125.89 168.35 125.89 168.34 168.36

5000 5.0365 6.7349 5.0365 6.7349 5.0364 6.7348 5.0364 6.7348 6.7382

10000 1.2591 1.6837 1.2591 1.6837 1.2591 1.6837 1.2591 1.6837 1.6871

FEM kN

Table 3: I-2 section, flexural buckling about minor axis

length nnn nny calculation option nyn nyy ynn yny yyn yyy

mm kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN

10 2 711 540 3 018 235 2 710 301 3 016 855 657 588 731 966 605 755 674 271 732 396

50 108 462 121 492 108 412 121 436 96 416 107 999 95 184 106 619 108 067

100 27 115 30 969 27 103 30 954 26 294 30 031 26 193 29 915 30 043

500 1 084.6 2 001.1 1 084.1 2 000.2 1 083.3 1 998.6 1 082.6 1 997.4 1 998.9

1000 271.2 1 095.8 271.0 1 095.3 271.1 1 095.5 270.9 1 095.0 1 095.5

5000 10.85 806.18 10.84 805.81 10.85 806.17 10.84 805.80 806.35

10000 2.71 797.12 2.71 796.76 2.71 797.12 2.71 796.76 797.12

FEM kN

Table 4: I-2 section, pure torsional buckling about the longitudinal axis

Visy, D.: Elastic and Geometric Stiffness Matrices for the Semi-analytical Finite Strip Method

Conference of Junior Researchers in Civil Engineering

280

length nnn calculation option nny nyn nyy ynn yny yyn yyy

mm kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN

10 528 899 528 656 528 899 328 760 528 551

50 22 013 22 002 22 013 21 479 21 913

100 6 241.2 6 238.0 6 241.2 6 200.3 6 172.6

500 2 172.3 2 170.7 2 172.3 2 170.2 2 148.6

1000 3 934.9 3 931.6 3 934.9 3 931.4 3 901.2

5000 61 049 60 994 61 049 60 994 -

10000 239 499 239 283 239 499 239 283 -

FEM kN

Table 5: I-2 section, local plate buckling (first local mode with one longitudinal half-wave)

length nnn nny calculation option nyn nyy ynn yny yyn yyy

mm kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN

5 20 898 20 897 20 898 18 467 20 877

10 5 246.2 5 245.7 5 246.2 5 078.6 5 243.3

50 240.87 240.85 240.87 240.53 239.80

100 92.558 92.550 92.558 92.519 91.574

500 283.76 283.74 283.76 283.73 278.09

1000 1 033.5 1 033.4 1 033.5 1 033.4 -

5000 25 072 25 069 25 072 25 069 -

FEM kN

Table 6: C section, local plate buckling (first local mode with one longitudinal half-wave)

length nnn nny calculation option nyn nyy ynn yny yyn yyy

mm kN kN kN kN kN kN kN kN

5 1 885 990 1 900 377 1 885 769 1 900 154 146 291 147 406 145 270 146 378

10 471 497 475 122 471 442 475 066 118 675 119 587 117 999 118 907

50 18 860 19 041 18 858 19 039 16 855 17 017 16 840 17 002

100 4 715.0 4 789.4 4 714.4 4 788.9 4 578.8 4 651.1 4 577.3 4 649.6

500 188.60 260.57 188.58 260.54 188.37 260.26 188.35 260.23

1000 47.15 217.96 47.14 217.94 47.14 217.90 47.13 217.87

5000 1.89 3 370 1.89 3 369 1.89 3 370 1.89 3 369

Table 7: C section, distortional buckling (symmetric mode with one longitudinal half-wave)

Concluding remarks
In this paper elastic and geometric stiffness matrices for the semi-analytical finite strip method are derived. Altogether 8 options are considered and tested by numerical studies. The results justify the newly derived formulae as well as demonstrate the effect of various options.
Visy, D.: Elastic and Geometric Stiffness Matrices for the Semi-analytical Finite Strip Method

Conference of Junior Researchers in Civil Engineering

281

The derivations here are presented for a set of longitudinal base functions that corresponds to pinned-pinned end conditions. Recently new longitudinal base functions are proposed and implemented into a new release of CUFSM software. The new base functions provide with the possibility to handle other than pinned-pinned end conditions. Obviously, the stiffness matrices are dependent on the selected base functions. At the moment the stiffness matrices for the new base functions are derived for the classical yny option, only. In the near future the derivation of the stiffness matrices will be extended to other options, too, and implemented into the CUFSM software.

Acknowledgement
The work reported in the paper has been developed in the framework of the project Talent care and cultivation in the scientific workshops of BME" project. This project is supported by the grant TMOP4.2.2.B-10/1--2010-0009. References
[1] EN 1993-1-3:2006, Eurocode 3, Design of Steel Structures, Part 1-3: General rules, Supplementary rules for cold-formed thin gauge members and sheeting. [2] Y.K. Cheung, Finite strip method in structural analysis, Pergamon Press, 1976 [3] B. W. Schafer, S. dny, Buckling analysis of cold-formed steel members using CUFSM: Conventional and constrained finite strip methods. In: Proceedings of 18th International Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures, 2006, Orlando, Florida [4] Elastic buckling analysis http://www.ce.jhu.edu/bschafer/cufsm/ of thin-walled members by finite strip analysis, CUFSM v3.12.,

[5] S. dny, Global buckling of thin-walled simply supported columns: Analytical solution based on shell model, Thin-Walled Structures 2012, Volume 55, June 2012 [6] S. dny, D. Visy, Global buckling of thin-walled simply supported columns: Numerical studies, Thin-Walled Structures 2012, Volume 54, May 2012 [7] ANSYS (2004). ANSYS Release 9.0 Documentation, Ansys Inc., 2004.

Visy, D.: Elastic and Geometric Stiffness Matrices for the Semi-analytical Finite Strip Method