18th Analysis and Computation Specialty Conference © 2008 ASCE

SOLUTION TECHNIQUES FOR NONLINEAR EQUILIBRIUM

EQUATIONS

Authors:
Morteza A.M. Torkamani, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh,
PA 15261-2294, USA torkmani@pitt.edu
Mustafa Sonmez, Department of Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, Aksaray University,
Aksaray, Turkey 68100

INTRODUCTION

In linear structural analysis, the deformations compared to the overall dimensions of structures
are small. Therefore, equilibrium equations are written with respect to undeformed
configurations, and deflections are considered not to affect the equilibrium of structure. This
kind of analysis is referred as an elementary analysis or a first-order analysis. Under abnormal
or ultimate loading conditions, linear structural analysis is incapable of reflecting the real
behavior of structures. Due to large deflections, in such cases, structures behave nonlinearly,
which changes the stiffness of structures even if the structural material shows a purely linear
elastic behavior. When these deformations are taken into account, the analysis is termed a
geometric nonlinear analysis or a second-order elastic analysis.
Due to the nonlinear nature of second-order inelastic analyses, an incremental-iterative
numerical technique must be used to trace the load-deflection behavior of the structural system.
Therefore, the implementation of second-order inelastic analysis demands a vast amount of
computation. This paper provides a brief explanation of the solution procedures for nonlinear
analysis. A solution procedures for nonlinear analysis which is a variation of the Generalized
Displacement Control (GDC) Method, is outlined for use in analysis of the examples provided in
this and future articles.
After global stiffness matrix is assembled, for example for a frame structure, by using
element stiffness matrices, the global equilibrium equation is in the form
[K ] {U } = {F } (1)
where [ K] is the assembled global stiffness matrix; {U} is the nodal displacement vector; and
{F} is the nodal force vector.
In elementary elastic analysis, the global stiffness matrix [K] is constant. After applying a
load vector, the corresponding displacement {U} is easily calculated in one step. If the elements
of global stiffness matrix [K] depend on the element forces and displacements of structural
members, the force-displacement relation in (1) becomes nonlinear and the displacement cannot
be determined easily in one step. Therefore, a special solution procedure is required to be used in
tracing this nonlinear load-displacement relation of the structure. This article outlines the most
widely used procedures in nonlinear finite element analysis.
A number of solution procedures for solving the nonlinear equilibrium equation of the form
of (1) have been discussed in many research papers (Crisfield 1981, Chajes and Churchill 1987,
Clarke and Hancock 1990, Tsia and Palazoto 1990, Liew et al. 1997, Torkamani et al. 1997,
McGuire et al. 2000) and others. Generally, the solution techniques can be classified broadly as
18th Analysis and Computation Specialty Conference © 2008 ASCE

pure (linear) incremental, direct iteration, and incremental-iterative methods (also known as
nonlinear incremental methods) (Chajes and Churchill 1987).

LINEAR INCREMENTAL METHOD

The linear incremental method is a ``forward'' and the simplest incremental procedure that does
not use any iteration. Nonlinear behavior is approximated as a piecewise linear. Figure 1-a
shows the procedure for linear incremental analysis. The total load {F} is divided into a series of
small loads, for example { ΔF } , then the displacement caused by this incremental load is
determined by linear approximation. For any load step i, the so-called tangent stiffness matrix
[ K i −1 ] is formed based on the last configuration of the structure. After applying the incremental
force, the incremental equilibrium equation, [ K i −1 ]{ΔU i } = {ΔF } , is solved for the corresponding
incremental displacement vector {ΔU i } . Then internal member forces, material properties and
geometry of the structure are updated. These new internal forces and updated material are used
to form the new stiffness matrix [ K i ] for the next increment. Total displacement and total force
are obtained by summing the incremental change in displacement and the incremental force up to
the last increment. Since the linear incremental method does not perform any iteration at
incremental steps, its results may drift from the true solution with every step. Especially when
large displacements occur or large load increments are used, the drift-off errors become
significant.

Calculated Path
{Fi+1}
[K i ] {F}
{Fi } i−1 [K1]
[K ] Actual Path
{Fi−1} [K0 ]
[K j ]

{U i−1} {U i } {U i+1} {U 1} {U2} {U3} {U j }

(a ) (b )
FIGURE 1 – (a) Linear incremental method, (b) Direct iteration method

DIRECT ITERATION METHOD

Another technique is the direct iteration method, in which the total deformation is obtained by
applying the entire load in a single step. The procedure is illustrated in Figure 1-b. For any

2
18th Analysis and Computation Specialty Conference © 2008 ASCE

iteration j, the entire load {F } is applied as a single step; then the equilibrium equation,
[ K j −1 ]{U j } = {F } , is solved for the displacement {U j } . Based on the last calculated
displacements, internal member forces and material properties are updated (not geometry), then a
new secant stiffness matrix [ K j ] is formed. The direct iteration method uses the secant stiffness
matrix. In the next iteration these updated properties are used to estimate {U j +1 } . When the last
displacement {U j +1 } is close enough to the previous calculated displacement {U j } , the
convergence is said to be achieved.
The implementation of the direct iteration method is restricted to moderate displacements and
elastic analyses. Since the load-deflection relation in nonlinear analysis is path-dependent,
especially for analysis involving the yielding of materials, a divergence could be observed.
Therefore, the direct iteration method is not attractive for large displacement and inelastic
analysis.

INCREMENTAL-ITERATIVE METHODS

The incremental-iterative methods may be the most popular solution methods used in nonlinear
finite element analysis. In the linear incremental method, load-deflection behavior is
approximated as piecewise linear, which produces unbalanced forces between externally applied
loads and internal nodal loads. The presence of these unbalanced forces violates the equilibrium
of the structure. If the unbalanced forces are not eliminated or reduced to a certain acceptable
level, the calculated load-displacement relation will drift away from the ``true'' behavior of the
structure. An iteration procedure may be used to eliminate these unbalanced forces in each
incremental step. It is therefore necessary to use an incremental-iterative solution method to
obtain more accurate results.
Assuming non-proportional incremental and iterative loading, the external applied load
vector may be expressed in the incremental form as
{ } { }
F ji = F ji−1 + λij {Δ F } (2)
where {F ji−1 } is the vector of total externally applied load at the end of the increment i of the (j -
1)th iteration. {ΔF } is the reference load which is a function of total external load, and a scalar
λij is the load incremental parameter.
A nonlinear equilibrium equation of a structure for the increment i of the (j – 1)th iteration is
written in general form as:
[ ]{ } { } { }
K ij −1 ΔU ij = F ji − Pji−1 (3)
where [ K ij −1 ] is the stiffness matrix for load step i formulated based on the equilibrium states at
the end of the (j - 1)th iteration (see Figure 2). {ΔU ij } is the incremental displacement vector.
{Pji−1} is the last known internal nodal force vector. After (3) is solved for the incremental
displacement vector, the total member forces are computed and transformed into internal nodal
{ } { }
force vector Pji . The load vector R ij , which represents the unbalanced force vector between
existing external load and the last known internal nodal force is then calculated as
{ } { } { }
R ij = F ji − Pji (4)

3
18th Analysis and Computation Specialty Conference © 2008 ASCE

Notice that the unbalanced load for the previous iteration ( j − 1) holds the same property as
{R } = {F }− {P }
i
j −1
i
j −1
i
j −1 (5)
Then, using (2) to (5) gives
{ } { } { }
R ij −1 = F ji−1 − Pji−1
= {F }− λ {ΔF } − {P }
j
i i
j
i
j −1

= i
j −1 [K ] {ΔU }− λ {ΔF }
i
j
i
j

Hence, the incremental equilibrium equation may be rewritten in new form as

[K ] {ΔU } = λ {ΔF } + { R }
i
j −1
i
j
i
j
i
j −1
(6)

Constrained Path
[K ij−1 ]

{ R ij }

{Fji }
{Fji−1} {ΔU ij } {Pji }
{Pji−1}

True Path
Disp., U
External Load Internal Load
FIGURE 2 – General incremental-iterative scheme (Batoz and Dhatt 1979).

Then, the displacement {ΔU ij } is decomposed into two parts: the tangential displacement and
residual displacement (Batoz and Dhatt 1979). Mathematically,
{
{ ΔU ij } = λij ΔUˆ ij + { ΔU ji } } (7)
where

{Δ F } = [K ij −1 ] {ΔUˆ ij } (8)

{R } = [K ] {ΔU }
i
j −1
i
j −1
i
j
(9)
For a structure with N degrees of freedom, there are a total of N equations. However, (6)
involves N + 1 unknowns, the incremental displacement vector {ΔU ij } and incremental load

4
18th Analysis and Computation Specialty Conference © 2008 ASCE

parameter λij . In order to solve this equilibrium equation, somehow the load increment
parameter λij must be determined. There are several different versions of incremental-iterative
solution methods based on how one wishes to control the load increment parameter λ and the
way iterations are carried out within an incremental step. The most popular incremental-iterative
solution methods are the load control methods (modified Newton-Raphson method),
displacement control methods, work control methods, arc-length method and generalized
displacement control method. The first two methods are the earliest and most basic methods.
The last three are regarded as advanced methods and derived based on those two simpler
methods. Each of the iterative-incremental methods, has its own advantages or disadvantages,
also has its distinctive variations.
In the next section, two basic iteration schemes will be presented; then, one of the advanced
methods, the generalized displacement method, will be outlined.

NEWTON-RAPHSON METHOD

The Newton-Raphson technique, which is a load control method, is one of the most powerful and
widely used techniques for the solution of nonlinear problems. Most iterative algorithms adapted
for the solution of nonlinear equations may be regarded as variations of this method (Crisfield
1991). The Newton-Raphson method sets the load increment parameter λ1i to 1 for first iteration
( j = 1 ) and λij is set to zero for the rest of the iterations ( j > 2 ). The first iteration in this
process is identical to the linear incremental method except at the end of the first iteration,
member forces are calculated and transformed into the global coordinates. Then, unbalanced
load vector between the applied external load and the internal nodal forces are determined.
Subsequent iterations are employed until a predefined convergence criterion is satisfied.
Generally, the Newton-Raphson method uses two kinds of convergence criteria: force based and
displacement based. The force based convergence criterion (10) is defined as the ratio of the
unbalanced load to incremental force; on the other hand, the displacement based convergence
criterion (11) is defined as a ratio of the first iteration to the last iteration displacements.
{ }
R ij
εR = (10)
{Δ F }

{ ΔU }i

εD =
j

{ΔUˆ }
(11)
i
1

Since, during iterations, the load incremental parameter is kept constant, the Newton-Raphson
method is regarded as a load control solution technique.
There are a few variations of Newton-like methods, two of which are the full (general)
Newton-Raphson and the modified Newton-Raphson (see Figure 3). The full Newton-Raphson
method is the most rapidly converging process for the solution of nonlinear problems, (Crisfield
1991) yet it can be a time consuming process and inconvenient. At the end of each iteration a
new stiffness matrix has to be formed and solved. Instead of forming a new stiffness matrix at
each increment step, the modified Newton-Raphson method uses a constant approximation of the
stiffness matrix. Although the modified Newton-Raphson method is less time consuming than

5
18th Analysis and Computation Specialty Conference © 2008 ASCE

Load Load
{F i } [Ki1] {F i }
i {Ri 1} {ΔF} {Ri 1}
[K ]
0

{ΔF}

{Fi−1} {Fi−1}
{ΔU i 3}
{ΔU 1 }
i
{ΔU i 1}
Disp. Disp.

{U i−1} i −1
{U 1 } {U i } {U i −1} {U i }

(a ) (b )
FIGURE 3 – (a) Full Newton-Raphson method, (b) Modified Newton-Raphson method.

the full Newton-Raphson, the convergence rate of the modified Newton-Raphson method is
slower than that of the full Newton-Raphson method. Even though convergency rate of the
modified Newton-Raphson method is slower than that of the full Newton-Raphson method, the
modified Newton-Raphson method are generally used in nonlinear analysis.
The Newton-Raphson methods are applicable to most of the systems for tracing load
deflection behavior prior to limiting load capacity of a structure. When an applied external load
exceeds the load capacity of structure, the convergency fails. In order to trace the nonlinear
deflection curve up to the critical load level, the entire analysis should be done with a reduced
incremental load step. But again, Newton-Raphson methods cannot be used to trace the
nonlinear region of a load-displacement curve beyond the limit load point (Chen and Lui 1991,
Yang and Kou 1994).

DISPLACEMENT CONTROL METHOD

In contrast to the Newton-Raphson method, which fails to surpass limit points, the displacement
control method is used to surpass limit points. The displacement control method was originally
introduced by Argyris (1965). His method destroyed the symmetric banded nature of
equilibrium equations. Hence, the method had not been taken any attention until Batoz and
Dhatt enhanced Argyris' method by decomposing the displacement into two components as in
(7). In the displacement control method improved by Batoz and Dhatt, the incremental
parameter λij is prescribed based on a selected single displacement component of structure. This
selected degree of freedom is called the control displacement. Iterations in each incremental step
is carried out under the constant displacement until a convergence criteria is achieved. Letting

6
18th Analysis and Computation Specialty Conference © 2008 ASCE

``q'' be the control displacement point, one may write (7) for the corresponding displacement
point as
Δ U ij q = λij ΔUˆ ij q + ΔU ji q (12)
The incremental parameter is then determined based on this control displacement point to be:
Δ U ij q − Δ U ji q
λj =
i
(13)
Δ Uˆ i jq

For the first iteration ( j = 1), the unbalanced force { R0i } is set to zero. As a result, the residual
displacement ΔU 1iq becomes zero. Therefore, (12) is written as
Δ U 1i q
λ =
i
1 for j = 1 (14)
Δ Uˆ i1q

For the subsequent iterations ( j > 1), the displacement increment ΔU ij q is set to zero. This
means that during iterations the displacement is kept constant. That is why this method is called
the displacements control method. Therefore, (13) is written as
Δ U ji q
λj =
i
for j > 1 (15)
Δ Uˆ ijq

{ΔU2iq}
Load
{F i }

[K0i ] λ2{ΔF}
λ1{ΔF}

{Fi−1}

Disp.

{U 1i −q1 } {U i1 q }
FIGURE 4 – Displacement control method.

7
18th Analysis and Computation Specialty Conference © 2008 ASCE

Figure 4 illustrates the iterations schema of the displacement control method. Iterations are
carried out at a constant displacement to calculate the corresponding load increments.
Selecting of the control point is the key issue in the displacement control method. This
would be easy for small structures, but for large or complicated structures, the selection of the
control point is not obvious. Improper selection of the control point q makes the numerical
solution fail. Therefore, divergence may occur in particular when a selected control point, q,
shows a snap-back behavior (point B in Figure 5). This is one of the limitations of the
displacement control method. Therefore, this method is not accepted as a robust solution
procedure for general nonlinear finite element analysis. However, it can be used for small
structures and structures that there are a prior knowledge about their behavior.
Considerable research has been conducted to develop numerical techniques for the solution
of non-linear structural problems. In fact, an ideal iterative-incremental solution method must
have the following properties:
• A proper control method or a technique to automatically adjust the step size
• A proper iteration method which is stable for all possible nonlinear behavior including
softening, hardening D - E and snap-through B - C (see Figure 5).
• Numerical stability at the limit points (A, D).
The most popular solution procedures for nonlinear structural problems are the arc-length
(Crisfield 1981, Hellweg and Crisfield 1998) and generalized displacement control method
(Yang and Kou 1994, Yang and Shieh 1991). The arc-length method adds an extra constrain
equation to determine the step size for each load increment. The arc-length method was
originally introduced by Riks (1971) and Wempner (1971). Later, Crisfield (1981) enhanced the
method using the decomposition of displacements proposed by Batoz and Dhatt (1979). Two
types of arc-length methods are available. These are the spherical and the cylindrical arc-length
methods. In both types of arc-lengths, a quadratic function which is function of displacement
and load increments should be set up to calculate the incremental load parameter. Numerical
difficulties can be observed in both types of arc-length methods in the vicinity of critical points
with severe snap-back behavior (Grees 1999). Hellweg and Crisfield (1998), proposed a new
version of the arc-length method to overcome the numerical difficulties associated with the
severe snap-back problems. According to Grees (1999), the new arc-length method, proposed by
Hellweg and Crisfield (1998), has not overcome these numerical difficulties, yet.
The generalized displacement control method is accepted as one of the robust solution
method for nonlinear finite element analysis. Detailed description and its algorithm will be
presented in the next sections.

GENERALIZED DISPLACEMENT CONTROL METHOD

The generalized displacement control method which satisfies the three criteria mentioned before
is one of the most robust numerical procedures for nonlinear finite element analysis. The
development of the generalized displacement control method is originally attributed to Yang and
his co-workers (Yang and Shieh 1991, Yang and Kou 1994). Its name implies that the solution
procedure, which includes the selection of the load incremental parameter, considers all degrees
of freedoms in the analysis. Yang, et al. used two parameters, which are generalized stiffness
parameter and incremental load parameter, to detect the change in direction of loading.
The first is a generalized stiffness parameter (GSP) defined in (16). GSP is the ratio of the
displacements at the first step to those at the current step. The GSP is always positive except for

8
18th Analysis and Computation Specialty Conference © 2008 ASCE

Limit Point

A
Snap-back
Points
B

C
Softening Limit Point

D
Stiffening
Disp.
0
Stable Unstable Stable

FIGURE 5 – General characteristic of nonlinear systems.

the step which is the first after the limit point. The numerator is always positive, but the
denominator could be negative. The denominator would be negative if the two successive
displacements are in different directions. The negative sign is the indication of reversal of
loading direction at the incremental step. In addition, the softening and stiffening behavior of the
structure are detected by the GSP. The physical meaning of GSP is the stiffness degradation of
the structure. It is determined in first iteration of each increment step in order to determine the
loading direction and step size, by in the following equation.

GSP =i { }{ }
T
ΔUˆ 11 ΔUˆ 11
{ }{ } T
(16)
ΔUˆ i − 1 ΔUˆ i
1 1

The second parameter is the incremental load parameter, λij which is given in (17) and (18) for
the first and the subsequent iterations, respectively. The load incremental parameter λ1i in the
first iteration of any increment is computed based on the known GSP i value of that particular
load increment. For subsequent iterations, this parameter is determined based on the residual and
tangential displacement in current step.
1/ 2
λ1i = λ11 GSP i (17)

λ i
=−
{Uˆ } {U }
i −1 T
1
i
j

{Uˆ } {Uˆ }
j (18)
i −1 T i
1 j

9
18th Analysis and Computation Specialty Conference © 2008 ASCE

The first iteration of the generalized displacement control method uses (8) in order to determine
{ }
the initial tangential displacement ΔUˆ 1i for the corresponding reference load {Δ F }. The
residual displacement is set to zero for the first iteration. This results in {R0i } = {0} . Next, the
load incremental parameter must be determined by using (17). The first estimation of the
displacement vector is determined by the following:
{ }
{ ΔU 1i } = λ 1i ΔUˆ 1i (19)
Note that the residual displacement { U 1i } is zero for the first iteration. Using the last calculated
displacements in (19), the member forces and geometry of the system are updated. Also the total
internal member forces are computed and transformed into nodal force. The unbalanced force
between external load vector {F1i } and internal load vector {P1i }at the end of the first iteration is
calculated as
{R1i } = {F1i }− {P1i } (20)
The last step of the first iteration is to check the predefined convergence criterion. Conversion
is said to be achieved when the force unbalanced, force vector {R1i }, given by (20), is reduced to
a predefined acceptable level as in (21)
{ } R1i
ε max > (21)
ΔF
If convergence is not satisfied in the first iteration, subsequent iterations must be carried out until
the convergence criterion is satisfied.
{ } { }
In the subsequent iterations, displacements ΔÛ ij and ΔU ji from (8) and (9) are easily
calculated, respectively. After calculated the load incremental parameter in (18), the total
displacement is now calculated as
{ }
{ ΔU ij } = λ ij ΔUˆ ij + { ΔU ji } . (22)
Based on the displacements, the unbalanced force vector is calculated using (4). Iterations are
carried out until the convergence criterion is satisfied.
After convergence is reached, iteration is terminated and a new incremental step begins.
Subsequent incremental steps are repeated until a predefined load step number is reached or all
the external load is applied to the system. The computer implementation steps of the generalized
displacement control method are summarized in the next section.

ALGORITHM FOR THE GENERAL DISPLACEMENT CONTROL (GDC) METHOD

The following sequence lists the essential steps in the application of the GDC method:
1. Select the initial value of the incremental load parameter λ 11 , reference load parameter n and a
convergence value ε max . All parameters must be between 0.0 and 1.0.
2. Calculate the reference load using the following equation:
{Δ F } = n{ F }
3. Initialize the increment counter, i = 1
4. Initialize the total displacement vector, {U 01 } = {0}
5. Initialize the internal member force vector and external force vector { P01 } = { F01 }

10
18th Analysis and Computation Specialty Conference © 2008 ASCE

6. Initialize the iteration counter, j =1

7. Form [ K ] for each element in local coordinate system; then transform the element stiffness
matrix from local to global coordinate to form the global stiffness matrix K ij −1 . [ ]
8. Solve the equation of equilibrium for displacement, from
[ ]{
K ij −1 ΔUˆ ij = { Δ F }}
9. If i = 1, set GSP = 1, else calculate the GSP i and the incremental load parameter λ ij using

i
=
{ΔUˆ } {ΔUˆ }
1 T
1
1
1

{ΔUˆ } {ΔUˆ }
GSP
i −1 T i
1 1
i 1/ 2
λ ii = λ 11 GSP
10. Check if GSP < 0, reverse the loading direction λ i
j = −λ i
j

11. Determine the displacement using

{ ΔU ij } = λ ij ΔUˆ ij { }
12. Go to step 17.
13. Update the global stiffness matrix, K ij −1 (Optional) [ ]
14. Solve the equations for displacements { ΔUˆ ij } and { ΔU ji } given below:

{Δ F } = [K ij −1 ] {ΔUˆ ij }
{R } = [K ] {ΔU }
i
j −1
i
j −1
i
j

15. Determine the load increment λ i

j given next:

λ =− i
{ΔUˆ } {ΔU } i −1 T
1
i
j
j
{ΔUˆ } {ΔUˆ } i −1 T
1
i
j

For i = 1, set {ΔUˆ } = {ΔUˆ } 0

1
1
1
16. Compute the incremental displacements, using
{
{ ΔU ij } = λ ij ΔUˆ 1i + { ΔU 1i } }
17. Update total load and displacement vectors using
{ }
{ U ij } = U ij −1 + { Δ U ij }
{ F ji } = {F }+ λ { Δ F }
i
j −1
i
j

18. If it is an inelastic analysis, update the stresses and strains of elements, and adjust the
material properties.
19. Update the geometry of the structure.
20. Calculate the incremental member forces corresponding to incremental
displacements according to

{d P} = [K ij −1 ] { ΔU n }

11
18th Analysis and Computation Specialty Conference © 2008 ASCE

where { ΔU
n }and [ K ij −1 ] are the natural deformation and stiffness matrix of each finite
element
21. Update the member forces in local coordinate system for each element
{ }
{ Pji } = P ij −1 + { d P }
22. Transform the member forces into nodal force then construct the internal force vector
{ }
P ij which is in the global coordinate system.
23. Calculate the unbalanced load vector using the following equation:
{ } {
{ R ij } = F ij − P ij }
24. Check the convergence, using
R ij { }
ε=
{Δ F }
If ε > ε max , set j = j + 1 , Go to step 13, if ε ≤ ε max continue
25. If {F }i
j < {F } set i = i + 1, Go to step 6, else STOP, end of calculation.

EXAMPLES: ELASTICA PROBLEMS

Two benchmark problems that have been used for examination of geometrically nonlinear finite
element analysis are large elastic deflection of cantilever beams (i) loaded by a lateral tip load
and (ii) loaded by an axial point load. Because of space limitation only the first problem is
presented here to check the accuracy of formulation and to demonstrate the capacity of nonlinear
analysis as well as the force recovery process of the technology presented in this article.

LATERALLY LOADED ELASTIC FLEXIBLE CANTILEVER BEAM

The problem of the large deflection of a cantilever beam with a point load at its tip has been
solved analytically by Bishopp (1945), Mattiasson (1981), and Fertis (1993). One of the
objectives in selecting this problem is to calculate the vertical displacement vb and the horizontal
displacement u b at the point B using fiber elements technology with consideration (i) extended
Timoshenko beam theory (ETB Model) and (ii) extended Bernoulli-Euler beam theory (EBE
Model), as well as to test the effect of mesh refinement. Another objective is to ensure the
accuracy of the developed methods by comparing them with the results of Mattiasson who
analyzes this problem by means of elliptical integrals.

An elastic cantilever beam as shown in Figure 6 was assumed to be made a material with an
elastic modulus of E = 206,843 MPa (30000 ksi) and a second moment of inertia of I =
44.979 × 10 6 mm4 (108.0710 in4). The length of beam was L = 25.4 m (1000 in), and the cross-
section area was taken to be A = 5,798.8 mm2 (8.9876 in2). A single load P at the tip of the beam
was increased from 0 to 155.68 kN (0 to 35 kips). The cantilever beam was analyzed using the
ETB Model, EBE Model and ABAQUS considering 4, 10 and 20 elements.

12
18th Analysis and Computation Specialty Conference © 2008 ASCE

In analysis of this beam, a very small converge value ε = 10 − 6 is used. The generalized
displacement control method is employed in the analysis. The initial load incremental
parameter, λ 11 , and initial load reference parameter, n, are chosen as 0.1. When the external load
reaches to 155.68 kN (35 kips), the tip load deflections are more than 20.32 m (800 in) in the
vertical direction and 12.7 m (500 in) in the horizontal direction. The maximum number of
iterations for all increments is observed to be less than 6.
P

x B

y
v

L-u u

FIGURE 6 - Large deformation of a cantilever beam with a lateral tip loading.

FIGURE 7 - Deformed shapes of a cantilever beam for cases in which 20 elements are used. The
figure shows only the positions of the beam for the following load parameters
( PL2 / EI ) = 0, 5, and 10.5.

13
18th Analysis and Computation Specialty Conference © 2008 ASCE

Figure 7 shows the position of the beam for three load Parameter ( PL2 / EI ) : 0, 5 and 10.5.
The finite element results along with the Mattiasson's analytical results are presented in Figures 8
to 10. When the finite element results are compared to the analytical results, the presented
methods are highly accurate in predicting large deformation responses of cantilever beam
problem. When the beam is modeled by 20 beam-column elements, the results obtained from
both methods are much closer to the Mattiasson's analytical results than the results obtained from
the 4 and 10 element modeling cases. On the other hand, the results of ETB Model are very close
to the analytical results even for the 4 element modeling case. This may be due to the higher
order axial strain terms which are included to the formulation of flextural stiffness matrix of ETB
Model.

Very close agreement is observed between ABAQUS results and those obtained from ETB Model
and EBE Model. On the other hand, ABAQUS results are much closer to the results of EBE
Model than the results of ETB Model because both ABAQUS and EBE Model use the Bernoulli-
Euler beam theory.

FIGURE – 8 Comparison of the load-def lection curves of the cantilever beam for 4, 10, and 20
elements modeling cases based on ``ETB Model''

CONCLUSIONS

Methodologies for solving nonlinear equilibrium equations are reviewed in this article. Two
basic numerical procedures, the pure incremental and the direct iteration methods, are briefly
discussed. Then the most frequently used increment-iterative methods are presented and their
limitations are discussed. These techniques are the Newton-Raphson and the displacement

14
18th Analysis and Computation Specialty Conference © 2008 ASCE

FIGURE - 9 Comparison of the load-def lection curves of the cantilever beam for 4, 10 and 20
elements modeling cases based on the ``EBE Model''

control method. One of the advanced nonlinear solution procedures, generalized displacement
control method, is outlined, and its algorithm is also presented. The generalized displacement
method shows that it is a robust numerical technique for solving nonlinear structural problems
which may include softening, stiffening behavior and in the bifurcation vicinity of critical points.
The elstica problem which is a classic highly geometrically nonlinear problem is presented to
show the versatility of the generalized displacement control method for the solution of highly
nonlinear problems.

REFERENCES

Argyris, J. H., 1965. Continua and Discontinua, Proceedings of the Conference on Matrix Methods in Structural
Mechanics, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, pp. 11-189.

Batoz, J. and Dhatt,G., 1979. Incremental Displacement Algorithms for Nonlinear Problems, International Journal
for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 8, pp. 1262-1297.

Bishopp, K. E. and Drucker, D.C., 1945. Large Deflection of Cantilever Beams, Quarterly of Applied Mathematics,
Vol.3, pp. 272-275.

Chajes, A. and Churcill, J. E., 1987. Nonlinear Frame Analysis by the Finite Element Method, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 3. No. 6, pp. 1221-1235.

Chen, W. F. and Lui, E. M., 1991. Stability Design of Steel Frames, CRC Press Inc., pp. 171-179.

15
18th Analysis and Computation Specialty Conference © 2008 ASCE

FIGURE 10 - Comparison of the load-def lection curves of the cantilever beam for 4, 10, and 20
elements modeling cases obtained from ABAQUS

Clarke, M. J., and Hancock, G. J., 1990. A Study of Incremental-Iterative Strategies for Nonlinear Analysis,
International Journal for Numerical Methods In Engineering, Vol. 29, pp. 1365-1391.

Crisfield, M. A., 1981. A Fast Incremental/Iterative Solution Procedure That Handles Snap-Through, Computers &
Structures, Vol. 13, No1-3, pp. 55-62.

Crisfield, M. A., 1991. Non-linear Finite Element Analysis of Solids and Structures, Vol. 1, John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., pp. 1-20.

Fertis, D., 1993. Nonlinear Mechanics, CRC Press, Florida, USA.

Grees, M. G. D., 1999. Enhanced Solution Control For Physically and Geometrically Non-linear Problems. Part I-
The Subplane Control Approach, International Journal For Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 46, pp. 177-
204.

Hellweg, H. -B. and Crisfield, M. A., 1998. A New Arc-length Method For Handling Sharp Snap-Backs,
Computers & Structures, Vol. 66, No. 5, pp. 704-709.

Liew, J. Y. R, Punniyakotty, N. M. and Shanmugam, N. E., 1997. Advance Analysis and Design of Spatial
Structure, Constructional Steel Research. Vol. 42. No. pp. 21-48.

Mattiasson, K., 1981. Numerical Results From Large Deflection Beam and Frame Problems Analyzed by Means of
Elliptic Integrals, International Journal of Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 17, pp. 145-153.

McGuire, W., Gallagher, R. H. and Ziemian, R. D., 2000. Matrix Structural Analysis, Second Edition: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., p. 274.

16
18th Analysis and Computation Specialty Conference © 2008 ASCE

Riks, E., 1971. The Application of Newton's Method to the problem of elastic stability, Journal of Applied
Mechanics, Vol. 39, pp. 1060-1066.

Torkamani. M. A. M, Sonmez, M. and Coa, J., 1997. Second-Order Elastic Plane-Frame Analysis Using the Finite
Element Method, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE Vol. 123, No. 9, pp. 1225-1235.

Tsia, C. T. and Palazoto, A. N., 1990. A Modified Riks Approach To Composite Shell Snapping Using A High-
Order Shear Deformation, Computers \& Structures, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp.:221-226.

Wempner, G. A., 1971. Discrete Approximation related to Nonlinear theories of Solids, International J. Solids and
Structures, Vol. 7, pp. 1581-1899.

Yang, Y.-B. and Shieh, M.-S., 1991. Solution Method For Nonlinear Problems with Multiple Critical Points, AIAA,
Vol. 28, No:12, pp.:2110-2116.

Yang, Y. -B. and Kou, S. -R., 1994. Theory \& Analysis of Nonlinear Framed Structures, Prentice Hall, Inc.

17