Proceedings of the Cold-Formed Steel Research Consortium Colloquium

20-22 October 2020 (cfsrc.org)

Large Deflection Analysis of Beam-Columns with General Sections Using Gaussian Line-element
Method

A.H.A. Abdelrahman1, Liang Chen2, Siwei Liu3, Ronald D. Ziemian4 and Siu-Lai Chan5

Abstract

The line-element analysis method is extensively adopted in practicing engineering, relying on the robustness of the basic
beam-column element formulations. This paper proposes a new beam-column element based on the nonsymmetrical
section assumption for large deflection analysis of beam-columns with general sections. The element formulations are
derived by introducing the total-potential energy method. When the member is under torsion, the inclined angle, between
the cross-section’s and the element’s local axes, is varied along the element length due to the twisting, thereby causing the
difficulty in summating the section stiffness to form the element stiffness matrix. To this end, the Gaussian quadrature
method is introduced to this summation process. A refined Updated-Lagrangian method (UL) is developed for considering
large deflection. The major feature of this element, as compared with others, is the proper consideration of the twisting
deformation within the element, allowing the use of fewer elements to simulate a structural member for dramatically
increasing the numerical efficiency. Detailed derivations are given, and their implementations are elaborated. Finally,
several validation examples are provided for verifying the accuracy and examining the robustness of the proposed method.

1. Introduction G. Bian 2017; Hussain et al. 2018; Schafer & Peköz 1998;
Tang et al. 2018; Yu & Schafer 2007), generalized beam
Thin-walled asymmetrical section members are extensively theory (GPT) (Dinis et al. 2006; Gonçalves et al. 2010;
used in contemporary structures for improving material Martins et al. 2018a; Martins et al. 2018b), finite-strip
usage efficiency. Further, the high strength-to-weight and method (FSM) (Ádány & Schafer 2014; Guanbo Bian et al.
stiffness-to-weight ratios make such members show 2016; Schafer 2002), and line finite-element method (LFEM)
superiority for cold-formed and modular steel constructions. (Chan & Cho 2008; Cho & Chan 2008; Du et al. 2017;
The constraints of fabricating irregularly shaped sections, Hancock & Rasmussen 2016; Shakourzadeh et al. 1995),
such as those in Figure 1, are eliminated as robotic welding are provided for investigating the buckling behaviour of
machines (RWM), and building information modelling (BIM) asymmetrical section members thereby conducting an
are extensively utilized in modern steel constructions. advanced analysis of structures comprising such members.
However, the large-deflection behavior of these members is
usually complex, thereby eliminating the use of the direct
analysis method (DAM) for structures of which members
with asymmetrical sections are a part.

Direct analysis method (DAM), also named as a second-

order design approach, is considered an innovative and
robust method at which the real behavior of the structures is
included within the analysis. Current design specifications
such as AISC360-16 (2016) and Eurocode-3 (2005) highly
recommend DAM as a primary method to design structures
for stability. Accordingly, the evolution of member checking
moves from system level (K factors) to a member physical
Figure 1. Examples of irregularly-shaped sections in
length (buckling curve) and right down to the cross-section
cold-formed and modular constructions
level (section capacity check). With this purpose, different
numerical methods, such as the shell finite-element method
(SFEM) (Abdelrahman et al. 2019; Abdelrahman et al. 2020;

1
Lecturer, Department of Structural Engineering, Mansoura University, Egypt.
2
Ph.D Candidate, Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China.
3
Associate Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Sun Yat-Sen University, China.
4
Professor, Civil Engineering, Bucknell University, USA.
5
Chair Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China.
Line finite-element method (LFEM) is extensively employed stability function element (Chan & Gu 2000; W. F. Chen &
in current engineering practices to simulate the global Lui 1987; Liew et al. 1999; Oran 1973), force-based line
behavior of members and systems, as it is considered the element (Du et al. 2017; Neuenhofer & Filippou 1997, 1998;
most efficient over the other numerical methods. Such a Souza 2000; Spacone et al. 1996), mixed field element (K.
method shows superiority in terms of computational J. Bathe 2007; Zienkiewicz et al. 2005), high-order shape
efficiency and convenience in programming. However, the function element (Bai et al. 2020; Bai et al. 2019; Izzuddin &
accuracy of LFEM mainly relies on the robustness of the Smith 1996; Liu et al. 2014a, 2014b; So & Chan 1991) and
element formulation as well as the deep consideration of the warping line element (Chan & Kitipornchai 1987; Hancock &
actual member and system deformations, thereby Rasmussen 2016; Kim et al. 1996; Liu et al. 2019; Liu et al.
underpinning the development of the direct analysis method. 2018; Shakourzadeh et al. 1995; Ziemian et al. 2019). The
As such a requirement, several advanced line-elements are main features and the drawbacks of these elements are
derived, such as Hermite cubic element (Bathe et al. 1979; briefly elaborated, as shown in Figure 2.
Chan & Zhou 1994; Connor et al. 1968; Fong & Chan 2012;
Iu & Bradford 2010; Teh 2001; Wood & Zienkiewicz 1977),

Figure 2. The main features and drawbacks of different line elements

numerical implementation within the educational software
In recent years, more researchers have been devoted to MASTAN2 (Ziemian et al. 2019) was presented. Although
considering Wagner effects in the formulation of the beam- recent research has made a significant contribution to
column elements for asymmetrical sections’ members (Gao simulating such complex behaviors of thin-walled members,
et al. 2020; Liu et al. 2019; Liu et al. 2018). For example, there are still improvements that can be made.
Hancock and Rasmussen (2016) developed an advanced
flexibility-based beam-column element with seven degrees Generally, the non-coincidence of the centroid and the shear
of freedom (DOFs) whereas the misalignment of the shear center of asymmetric section’s members makes the global
center and the centroid is taken into consideration. Their member’s behavior apparently different. The member
routine has been programmed into OpenSEES (Mazzoni et twisting causes the inclination between the member’s local
al. 2006). Later, Ronald Zimeian and his co-workers axes and the cross-section axes. As a result, the cross-
developed a displacement-based line element with warping section properties, such as coordinates of the shear center
degree of freedom, which implement the Updated- with respect to the centroid (𝑦 and 𝑧 ) as well as the Wagner
Lagrangian (UL) description for tracking the large-deflection coefficients (𝛽 , 𝛽 , and 𝛽 ), are varied along the member
behaviour (Liu et al. 2019; Liu et al. 2018). The derivations length. This demonstrates the need for inclusion of the
and the element formulations were illustrated, while the

2
twisting angle (𝜃) without an error of assuming the cross- 3.1 Element Local Axes and Forces
section being unchangeable. Accordingly, more accurate
predictions of the member deformations along the member Because asymmetrical section members usually experience
length are established utilizing fewer elements to model the apparent warping deformations, an additional degree-of-
member (Figure 3). It is believed that the twisting angles freedom DOF (i.e. warping DOF) is proposed so that a 14
along the element need to be considered, thereby predicting DOFs element is introduced (Figure 4). The element local
the global behavior of asymmetrical section members under axes, as well as the element’s deformations and forces, are
high twisting levels. shown in Figure 4. It is worthy of mentioning that the
centroidal axis connecting the section centroids at element
In this paper, a new Gaussian beam-column (GBC) element ends is of a spiral line due to the element twisting along its
is derived, and the detailed formulations are presented. The length (Figure 4). For the derivation, only the longitudinal
Gauss-quadrature method is implemented so that the axial displacement (𝑢) is referenced to the centroidal axis,
twisting angle along the element length is included in the while the other deformations are defined with respect to the
element’s formulations. The numerical procedure is shear-center axis. After the derivations, however, they are
illustrated. Finally, verification examples are provided, and transferred to the section centroid utilizing a transformation
the accuracy of the proposed method is clearly established. matrix presented later in this paper.

To describe the deformations along the element length,

fourth-order displacement shape functions are
implemented. Because the twisting deformations (𝜃) are
essential to be calculated at each gaussian point, the
following relation is adopted and given for easy reference
as;

𝜃 𝑥 𝑥 𝜃 𝜃
(1)
1 𝜃 𝜃

where 𝜃 𝑥 is the twisting angle along the element length;

Figure 3. Illustration of the simulations using 𝜃 and 𝜃 are the twisting angles at the element ends; and
conventional warping line-element and proposed 𝜃 and 𝜃 are the corresponding warping angles.
Gaussian beam-column (G.B.C.) elements

2. Assumption

For the element formulations, the following assumptions are

made; (1) the material is elastic, homogenous, and isotropic,
(2) strains are small, but the deformations and
displacements can be large, (3) the applied loads are
conservative, and (4) section local, and distortional buckling
are not taken into account.

3. Gauss Line-Element Formulation

In the following, a new gaussian beam-column element is Figure 4. Illustrations of the deformations and forces in
derived so that the twisting angle (𝜃) along the element the element local axes
length is considered in the element derivation. Thus, the
element formulations and its implementation for large 3.2 Total Potential Energy
deflection analysis of thin-walled members are presented.
As a sequel, element’s local axes and forces, the total The element stiffness matrix can be derived by the second
potential energy function, Gaussian quadrature method, variation of the total potential energy function, which is given
section properties at each gaussian point, and the tangent as;
stiffness matrix are provided in detail.
Π 𝑈 𝑉 (2)

3
in which, Π is the total potential energy, 𝑉 is the work done 3.3 Gauss Integration Method and Section Properties at
by external loads, and 𝑈 is the strain energy which can be Each Gaussian Point
calculated by,
When the element twists, the inclination angle (𝜃) between
the cross-section’s axes and element’s local axes is
𝑈 𝐸𝐴 𝐸𝐼 calculated according to the shape interpolation function
(equation (1)), and hence, the cross-section properties, such
𝐺𝐽 𝑑𝑥 𝑃 𝑑𝑥 as the coordinates of the shear center with respect the
centroid (𝑦 and 𝑧 ) as well as the second moment of areas
𝑃𝑟 𝑑𝑥 𝑀 𝑑𝑥 (𝐼 and 𝐼 ), are varied along the element length. As a
result, the direct integration of equation (3) is mathematically
𝑀 𝑑𝑥 𝑀 𝑑𝑥 complex; accordingly, the Gaussian quadrature method is
introduced to summate the cross-section properties along
𝑀 𝑑𝑥 𝜃 𝑥 the element length thereby integrating the potential energy
function. With this purpose, a number of 5 gaussian points
𝜃 𝑥 is placed along the element length, as shown in Figure 5,
where the location of each Gaussian point is determined by
the Gauss quadrature method and the updated coordinates
𝑑𝑥 𝐸𝐼 (3) of the cross-section (𝑧 , 𝑦 ) of any point (𝑧, 𝑦) after the
element twisting can be calculated as follows,
𝐸𝐼 𝑑𝑥 𝑀 𝛽 𝑑𝑥
𝑦 𝑦 cos 𝜃 𝑥 𝑧 sin 𝜃 𝑥 (4)
𝑃 2𝑦 2𝑧 𝑑𝑥 𝑧 𝑧 cos 𝜃 𝑥 𝑦 sin 𝜃 𝑥 (5)
𝑀 𝛽 𝑑𝑥
Besides, the section properties at the 𝑖 Gaussian point
𝑀 𝛽 𝑑𝑥 (Figure 6) can be generated by,

𝑀 𝛽 𝑑𝑥 𝑦 𝑦 cos 𝜃 𝑥 𝑧 sin 𝜃 𝑥 (6)

𝑧 𝑧 cos 𝜃 𝑥 𝑦 sin 𝜃 𝑥 (7)
𝑀 𝛽 𝑑𝑥

where, 𝑦 , 𝑧 , 𝐼 , 𝐼 , 𝛽 , 𝛽 , and 𝛽 are section 𝐼 𝑧 𝑑𝐴 (8)

properties calculated at different gaussian points along the
element length with respect to the twisting angle (𝜃) (Figure 𝐼 𝑦 𝑑𝐴
5). (9)
1
𝛽 𝑧 𝑧 𝑦 𝑑𝐴 2𝑧 (10)
𝐼
1
𝛽 𝑦 𝑦 𝑧 𝑑𝐴 2𝑦 (11)
𝐼
1
𝛽 𝜔 𝑦 𝑧 𝑑𝐴 (12)
𝐼

With these in hand, the strain energy sorted in the element

is simplified and presented as follows,

Figure 5. Gaussian points along the element length

4
 𝑈
1 𝜕𝑢 𝑥 𝜕 𝜃 𝑥
𝐸𝐴 𝐸𝐼
2 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥
𝜕𝜃 𝑥
𝐺𝐽 𝑑𝑥
𝜕𝑥
1 𝜕𝑣 𝑥 𝜕𝑤 𝑥
𝑃 𝑑𝑥
2 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥
1 𝜕𝜃 𝑥
𝑃𝑟 𝑑𝑥
2 𝜕𝑥
𝐿 𝑥 𝜕𝜃 𝑥 𝜕𝑣 𝑥
𝑀 𝑑𝑥
𝐿 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥
𝑥 𝜕𝜃 𝑥 𝜕𝑣 𝑥 Figure 6. Illustrations of the section rotation at a general
𝑀 𝑑𝑥
𝐿 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 Gaussian point
𝐿 𝑥 𝜕𝜃 𝑥 𝜕𝑤 𝑥
𝑀 𝑑𝑥 3.4 Tangent Stiffness Matrix
𝐿 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥
𝑥 𝜕𝜃 𝑥 𝜕𝑤 𝑥
𝑀 𝑑𝑥 As a result of the above and by taking the second variation
𝐿 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 of the total potential energy function (equation 2), the
𝑀 𝑀 𝜕𝑤 𝑥 𝜕𝑢 𝑥 𝜕𝑣 𝑥 element stiffness matrix can be formulated as;
𝜃 𝑥
𝐿 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 (13)
𝑀 𝑀 𝜕𝑣 𝑥 𝜕𝑢 𝑥 𝜕𝑤 𝑥 𝛿 Π 𝑘 Δ𝑢 Δ𝑓 0
𝜃 𝑥 𝑑𝑥 (14)
𝐿 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥
𝐿 𝜕 𝑣 𝑥 𝜕 𝑤 𝑥 where 𝑘 is the local element stiffness matrix accounting
𝐻 𝐸𝐼 𝐸𝐼 for the linear and geometric stiffness matrices, 𝑘 and 𝑘 ,
2 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥
respectively, and is given as;
𝐿 𝜕𝑤 𝑥 𝜕𝑣 𝑥 𝜕𝜃 𝑥
𝐻 𝑃 2𝑦 2𝑧
4 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 𝐾 Τ 𝑘 ⊙ 𝜉 𝑘 𝑘 ⊙ 𝜉 T (15)
𝐿 𝜕𝜃 𝑥 where, ⊙ represents the Hadamard product; 𝑘 is the
𝐻𝑀 𝛽 additional geometric matrix by Liu et al. (2018) to account
2 𝜕𝑥
for the misalignment of the shear center and the cross-
𝐿 𝐿 𝑥 𝜕𝜃 𝑥 1 𝜕𝜃 𝑥 section centroid; 𝜉 and 𝜉 are the modification matrices
𝐻𝑀 𝛽
2 𝐿 𝜕𝑥 2 𝜕𝑥 which are calculated and given by L. Chen et al. (2020); and
𝑇 is, as mentioned earlier, the transformation matrix for the
𝐿 𝑥 𝜕𝜃 𝑥 1 𝜕𝜃 𝑥
𝐻𝑀 𝛽 element deformations to reference the centroidal axis which
2 𝐿 𝜕𝑥 2 𝜕𝑥 is given as,
𝐿 𝐿 𝑥 𝜕𝜃 𝑥 1 𝜕𝜃 𝑥
𝐻𝑀 𝛽 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 𝐿 𝜕𝑥 2 𝜕𝑥 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

𝐿 𝑥 𝜕𝜃 𝑥 1 𝜕𝜃 𝑥 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
𝐻𝑀 𝛽  
2 𝐿 𝜕𝑥 2 𝜕𝑥  0  z s 1 ys 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
in which, 𝐻 is the weight factor of the 𝑖 Gaussian point 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (16)
located at a distance 𝑥 from the element starting point, see T    
 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Figure 5; and 𝑛 is the number of Gaussian points assumed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
as 5 in the current study.  
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  zs 2 ys 2 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

5
4. Numerical Procedure shown in Figure 8, are studied. The member length is 6.0 m,
and the material constants are Young’s modulus 𝐸 (= 210
After generating the element stiffness matrix, the global Gpa), and Poisson’s ratio 𝜈 (= 0.3). Incremental-iterative
stiffness matrix needs to be assembled; while the element’s scheme shown in Figure 7 is adopted with 40 load steps. A
local axes are transformed to a single global system utilizing concentrated bending moment (𝑀) is applied at the
the transformation matrix 𝐿 per McGuire et al. (2000). The cantilever end while a torsion moment (𝑇) is imposed with
numerical procedure where the element stiffness matrix 𝑘 twisting levels 𝑇/𝑀 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 . The results from the
is updated at each load increment is shown in Figure 7. conventional warping line element by Liu et al. (2018) and
Accordingly, the global stiffness matrix 𝑘 for a number of those resulted from the proposed Gaussian line element are
elements (NELEM) constructing the whole model is given for comparisons. Herein, the results obtained from the
expressed as, warping element with 32 elements to model the beam
represent the benchmark results. The applied bending
moment versus lateral displacements are plotted in Figure
𝑘 𝐿 Γ 𝑘 Γ 𝐿 (17) 9, for monosymmetric I-section, and Figure 10 for channel
section. As a sequel, the maximum displacements from
different line elements for the cantilever with
Afterwards, the node displacements are calculated at each monosymmetric I-section are summarized in Table 1.
load increment; and hence, the node coordinates are
updated so that the new member lengths are determined. Based on the analysis results in Figure 9, Figure 10, and
As a sequel, the total element’s end forces are updated. The Table 1, it is clearly seen that the results obtained from the
summary of the incremental-iterative procedure is presented proposed Gaussian line-element, utilizing 8 or 4 elements to
in Figure 7. Herein, the Updated-Lagrangian method is used model the beam, agree well with the warping element using
for tracking the large-deflection behaviour while it is refined 32 elements. It is worthy of noting that even though the
so that the element deformations are taken into account in applied torsion on the beam is relatively small, the mono-
addition to the nodal displacements and element forces. symmetry of the sections makes the differences between
Hence, accurate predictions of the total member results from 8 or 4 warping elements, and 32 warping
deformations are established employing the proposed elements are sizable. The results from Gaussian line-
Gaussian line-elements (Figure 3). elements are, however, in line with those from 32 warping
elements under both small and large twisting. Further, it can
be noticed that the results of 4 Gaussian line-elements are
more accurate than those of 8 warping elements. As a result
of the above, it can be concluded that the proposed element
can precisely and efficiently be implemented for simulating
the asymmetrical section members utilizing fewer elements,
thereby improving the numerical efficiency dramatically.

Figure 8. Cantilever beam with monosymmetric-I and

channel sections

6. Conclusion
Figure 7. Flow chart for the numerical procedure of the
proposed G.B.C. element Nonsymmetrical section members usually experience
complex behavior due to the non-coincidence of the shear-
5. Verification Examples center and the cross-section centroid. Moreover, the twisting
deformations of such members make the inclined angle
In this section, verification examples to prove the accuracy between the element’s local axes, and the cross-section
and efficiency of the proposed Gauss line-element are axes vary along the member length. Hence, utilizing four or
presented. Cantilever beams with two cross-sections; (1) fewer conventional warping elements to model a structural
monosymmetric I-section, and (2) channel section, as member under sever torsion leads to significant errors when

6
predicting its global behaviour. In this paper, a new proposed Gaussian line-element can precisely predict the
Gaussian line-element, based on the Gauss quadrature large-deflection behavior of asymmetrical section members
method to integrate the total potential energy function and implementing fewer elements to simulate the member,
accounting for the twisting deformations along the element thereby improving the numerical efficiency significantly.
length, is provided. A number of 5 Gaussian points is placed Finally, the Updated-Lagrangian method is refined so that a
along the element length, whereas the twisting angle (𝜃) is consideration of the element deformation along the element
calculated and included in the element formulation. From is included.
verification examples, it can be clearly seen that the

Table 1. Results summary for a member with monosymmetric I-section

Maximum displacement (mm)

* 32 Elements 4 Elements 8 Elements
T/M
Warping element Warping element GBC Warping element GBC
(Benchmark) Diff. Diff. Diff. Diff.
0.1 138.3 153.57 11.04% 147.41 6.59% 144.55 4.52% 142.96 3.37%
0.2 128.38 158.14 23.18% 133.34 3.86% 138.76 8.09% 133.09 3.67%
0.3 69.05 102.06 47.81% 71.84 4.04% 80.15 16.08% 69.82 1.12%
0.4 32.68 55.43 69.61% 34.83 6.58% 40.33 23.41% 33.66 3.00%
*
Note: T is the trosion moment, and M is the applied bending moment.

Figure 9. Applied moment versus lateral displacements for the cantilever with monosymmetric I-
section

7
 Figure 10. Applied moment versus lateral displacements for the cantilever with channel
section

7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Bian, G. (2017). Modeling cold-formed steel members and

systems. Johns Hopkins University,
The first author would like to express his gratitude to Johns Bian, G., Peterman, K. D., Torabian, S., & Schafer, B. W. (2016).
Hopkins University for providing an excellent research Torsion of cold-formed steel lipped channels dominated
by warping response. Thin-Walled Structures, 98, 565-
environment for conducting this research. The last author is 577.
grateful for the financial support from the Hong Kong British Standards Institution. (2005). British Standards Institution
Polytechnic University. The authors want to sincerely (BSI), BS EN 1993-1-1: 2005 Eurocode 3: Design of steel
acknowledge Professor Ronald D. Ziemian for his guidance Structures Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for
and helping on conducting this research. Building,. In. London: BSI.
Chan, S. L., & Cho, S. H. (2008). Second-order analysis and design
References of angle trusses Part I: Elastic analysis and design.
Engineering Structures, 30(3), 616-625.
Abdelrahman, A. H. A., Du, Z. L., Liu, Y. P., & Chan, S. L. (2019). Chan, S. L., & Gu, J. X. (2000). Exact tangent stiffness for imperfect
Stability design of single angle member using effective beam-column members. Journal of structural
stress-strain method. Structures, 20, 298-308. engineering, ASCE, 126(9), 1094-1102.
Abdelrahman, A. H. A., Liu, Y. P., Liu, S. W., & Chan, S. L. (2020). Chan, S. L., & Kitipornchai, S. (1987). Geometric nonlinear
Simulation of thin-walled members with arbitrary-shaped analysis of asymmetric thin-walled beam-columns.
cross-sections for static and dynamic analyses. Engineering Structures, 9(4), 243-254.
International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0141-0296(87)90023-X
(IJSSD). doi:doi: 10.1142/S021945542050128X Chan, S. L., & Zhou, Z. H. (1994). Pointwise equilibrating
Ádány, S., & Schafer, B. W. (2014). Generalized constrained finite polynomial element for nonlinear analysis of frames.
strip method for thin-walled members with arbitrary cross- Journal of structural engineering, ASCE, 120(6), 1703-
section: primary modes. Thin-Walled Structures, 84, 150- 1717.
169. Chen, L., Abdelrahman, A. H. A., Liu, S. W., Ziemian, R. D., &
AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction). (2016). AISC Chan, S. L. (2020). Gaussian Line-Element Formulations
specification. Specification for structural steel buildings. for Large-Deflection Analysis of Beam-Column with
American Institute of Steel Construction. In. Chicago (IL). Nonsymmetrical Sections. AISC Journal of Structural
Bai, R., Gao, W. L., Liu, S. W., & Chan, S. L. (2020). Innovative Engineering (Under review).
high-order beam-column element for geometrically Chen, W. F., & Lui, E. M. (1987). Effects of joint flexibility on the
nonlinear analysis with one-element-per-member behavior of steel frames. Computers & Structures, 26(5),
modelling method. Structures, 24, 542-552. 719-732.
Bai, R., Liu, S. W., Chan, S. L., & Yu, F. (2019). Flexural Buckling Cho, S. H., & Chan, S. L. (2008). Second-order analysis and design
Strength of Tapered-I-Section Steel Columns Based on of angle trusses, Part II: Plastic analysis and design.
ANSI/AISC-360-16. International Journal of Structural Engineering Structures, 30(3), 626-631.
Stability and Dynamics, 19(11), 1950134. Connor, J., Logcher, R. D., & Chan, S. C. (1968). Nonlinear
doi:10.1142/s0219455419501347 analysis of elastic framed structures. Journal of the
Bathe, Klaus-Jurgen, & Bolourchi, S. (1979). Large displacement Structural Division, ASCE, 94(6), 1525-1548.
analysis of three-dimensional beam structures. Dinis, P. B., Camotim, D., & Silvestre, N. (2006). GBT formulation
International journal for numerical methods in to analyze the buckling behaviour of thin-walled members
engineering, 14(7), 961-986. with arbitrarily ‘branched’open cross-sections. Thin-
Bathe, K. J. (2007). Finite element method. Wiley encyclopedia of Walled Structures, 44(1), 20-38.
computer science engineering, 1-12.

8
Du, Z. L., Liu, Y. P., & Chan, S. L. (2017). A second-order flexibility- Mazzoni, S., McKenna, F., Scott, M. H., & Fenves, G. L. (2006).
based beam-column element with member imperfection. The open system for earthquake engineering simulation
Engineering Structures, 143, 410-426. (OpenSEES), user command-language manual.
Fong, M., & Chan, S. L. (2012). advanced analysis of steel– McGuire, W., Gallagher, R., & Ziemian, R. D. (2000). Matrix
concrete composite beam-columns by refined plastic Structural Analysis, John Wiley and Sons.
hinge method. International Journal of Structural Stability Neuenhofer, A., & Filippou, F. C. (1997). Evaluation of nonlinear
and Dynamics, 12(06), 1250046. frame finite-element models. Journal of structural
doi:10.1142/s0219455412500460 engineering, ASCE, 123(7), 958-966.
Gao, W. L., Abdelrahman, A. H. A., Liu, S. W., & Ziemian, R. D. Neuenhofer, A., & Filippou, F. C. (1998). Geometrically nonlinear
(2020). Second-order dynamic time-history analysis of flexibility-based frame finite element. Journal of structural
beam-columns with nonsymmetrical thin-walled steel engineering, ASCE, 124(6), 704-711.
sections. Thin-Walled Structures (Under review). Oran, C. (1973). Tangent stiffness in plane frames. Journal of the
Gonçalves, R., Ritto-Corrêa, M., & Camotim, D. (2010). A new Structural Division, ASCE, 99(6), 973-985.
approach to the calculation of cross-section deformation Schafer, B. W. (2002). Local, distortional, and Euler buckling of
modes in the framework of generalized beam theory. J thin-walled columns. Journal of structural engineering,
Computational Mechanics, 46(5), 759-781. ASCE, 128(3), 289-299.
Hancock, G. j., & Rasmussen, K. (2016). Formulation and Schafer, B. W., & Peköz, T. (1998). Computational modeling of
implementation of general thin-walled open-section cold-formed steel: characterizing geometric imperfections
beam-column elements in opensees. Retrieved from and residual stresses. Journal of Constructional Steel
Hussain, A., Liu, Y. P., & Chan, S. L. (2018). Finite element Research, 47(3), 193-210.
modeling and design of single angle member under bi- Shakourzadeh, H., Guo, Y. Q., & Batoz, J. L. (1995). A torsion
axial bending. Structures, 16, 373-389. bending element for thin-walled beams with open and
Iu, C. K., & Bradford, M. A. (2010). Second-order elastic finite closed cross sections. J Computers & Structures, 55(6),
element analysis of steel structures using a single 1045-1054.
element per member. Engineering Structures, 32(9), So, A. K. W., & Chan, S. L. (1991). Buckling and geometrically
2606-2616. nonlinear analysis of frames using one element/member.
Izzuddin, B., & Smith, D. L. (1996). Large-displacement analysis of Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 20(4), 271-289.
elastoplastic thin-walled frames. I: formulation and Souza, R. d. (2000). Force-based finite element for large
implementation. Journal of structural engineering, ASCE, displacement inelastic analysis of frames. (Ph.D.),
122(8), 905-914. University Of California, Berkeley,
Kim, M. Y., Chang, S. P., & Kim, S. B. (1996). Spatial stability Spacone, E., Ciampi, V., & Filippou, F. C. (1996). Mixed
analysis of thin-walled space frames. International journal formulation of nonlinear beam finite element. Computers
for numerical methods in engineering, 39(3), 499-525. & Structures, 58(1), 71-83.
Liew, J. R., Chen, H., & Shanmugam, N. (1999). Stability functions doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7949(95)00103-N
for second-order inelastic analysis of space frames. Tang, Y. Q., Liu, Y. P., & Chan, S. L. (2018). A co-rotational
Paper presented at the Light-Weight Steel and Aluminium framework for quadrilateral shell elements based on the
Structures, Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Steel and Aluminium pure deformational method. Advanced Steel Construction
Structures. (IJASC), 14(1), 90-114.
Liu, S. W., Gao, W. L., & Ziemian, R. D. (2019). Improved line- Teh, L. H. (2001). Cubic beam elements in practical analysis and
element formulations for the stability analysis of design of steel frames. Engineering Structures, 23(10),
arbitrarily-shaped open-section beam-columns. Thin- 1243-1255.
Walled Structures, 144, 106290. Wood, R. D., & Zienkiewicz, O. C. (1977). Geometrically nonlinear
Liu, S. W., Liu, Y. P., & Chan, S. L. (2014a). Direct analysis by an finite element analysis of beams, frames, arches and
arbitrarily-located-plastic-hinge element—Part 1: Planar axisymmetric shells. Computers & Structures, 7(6), 725-
analysis. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 103, 735.
303-315. Yu, C., & Schafer, B. W. (2007). Simulation of cold-formed steel
Liu, S. W., Liu, Y. P., & Chan, S. L. (2014b). Direct analysis by an beams in local and distortional buckling with applications
arbitrarily-located-plastic-hinge element—part 2: spatial to the direct strength method. Journal of Constructional
analysis. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 103, Steel Research, 63(5), 581-590.
316-326. Ziemian, R. D., McGuire, W., & Liu, S. W. (2019). MASTAN2 v5.
Liu, S. W., Ziemian, R. D., Chen, L., & Chan, S. L. (2018). In.
Bifurcation and large-deflection analyses of thin-walled Zienkiewicz, O. C., Taylor, R. L., & Zhu, J. Z. (2005). The finite
beam-columns with non-symmetric open-sections. Thin- element method: its basis and fundamentals (6th Edition
Walled Structures, 132, 287-301. ed.): Elsevier.
Martins, A. D., Camotim, D., & Dinis, P. B. (2018a). Distortional-
global interaction in lipped channel and zed-section
beams: Strength, relevance and DSM design. Thin-
Walled Structures, 129, 289-308.
Martins, A. D., Camotim, D., Gonçalves, R., & Dinis, P. B. (2018b).
On the mechanics of local-distortional interaction in thin-
walled lipped channel beams. Thin-Walled Structures,
128, 108-125.