Scarpas-158.

qxd 16/05/2004 0:08 Page 1347

5th International PhD Symposium in Civil Engineering

Walraven, Blaauwendraad, Scarpas & Snijder (eds),
2004 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 90 5809 676 9

Adapting Prokic warping function for thin-walled beam analysis

Katy Saad, PhD Candidate

Universit Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium

Bernard Espion, Supervisor

Guy Warze, Supervisor

ABSTRACT: Many advanced theories have been developed in order to study shear deformation,
torsional warping and buckling of thin-walled beams. Proposed by Prokic in 1990, an enriched
kinematical formulation offers additional degrees of freedom related to the longitudinal displace-
ment of selected profile nodes. The objective of this Ph.D. thesis is to adapt Prokic warping function
in order to analyze advanced behaviours including warping in general geometry, loading and
boundary conditions. Numerical analyses using the finite element method investigate the linear
and the buckling behaviour of 3D structures with arbitrary profile shapes. The effects of shear
deformation on deflections for short thin beams are investigated. The influence of torsional warping
on the structural behaviour and stability of asymmetrical open and closed profiles behavi-
our shows the ability of the theory to enhance available solutions provided by existing analytical
solutions using different warping functions.

1 INTRODUCTION

The considerable progress in the research and development of thin-walled beams over the last
years responds to their growing use in engineering construction. A general assumption extensively
found in early literature considers that beam cross sections remain plane after deformation. The
resulting beam model describes the behaviour of a massive and regular cross section outside the
application zone of the concentrated loading. However, for thin-walled beams, the behaviour is
essentially different: the cross section warps when submitted to a shear force or to torsion and the
resulting shear stresses and strains cannot be neglected. Many authors adopt the normality condi-
tion of the cross section, i.e. Bernoulli theory and neglect the strain energy due to shear forces. If
the normality assumption is relaxed and the planar assumption is kept, i.e. Timoshenko theory, a
constant shear strain is calculated and a shear correction factor is thus applied (see e.g. [1]) in
order to compensate the fact that the displacement field violates the no shear boundary condition
at the edges of open profiles. More detailed theories take into consideration the warping due to
shear forces ([2], [3], [4] ).
The uniform torsion (Saint Venant, 1855) includes the transversal shear stresses resulting from
the uniform rotation of adjacent cross sections along the longitudinal axis of the beam. In general
cases of torsional loading and boundary conditions, normal stresses are induced by the resistance
of the cross section to warping. The profile initially rigid in its own plane exhibits a longitudinal
out of plane warping. Considering or neglecting the strain energy associated to this warping gen-
erated two principal theories in the non uniform torsional field, respectively Vlassov in 1940 [5]
and Benscoter in 1954 [6]. Vlassov well known hypothesis consists of neglecting shear warping at
the mid wall of an open cross section. Benscoter theory characterizes the warping by an inde-
pendent function, taken as the gradient of torsional angle in Vlassov theory, in order to include non

1
Scarpas-158.qxd 16/05/2004 0:08 Page 1348

uniform warping in the shear strain. Vlassov theory is generally applied to open profiles while
Benscoter theory is usually applied to multicelled profiles. Prokic (1990) proposed an original
study that uses a single warping function in order to analyze both open and closed profiles. The
main idea is to develop a new contour warping function based on a linear variation of warping
between transversal nodes of a profile. However, as presented by Prokic ([7][11]), the combina-
tion of the warping degrees of freedom does not allow the study of flexural-torsional coupled
effects of asymmetrical cross sections. In addition, in his thesis [7] and papers ([8][10]) Prokic
stated that the introduction of the shear center concept is not necessary with this warping function
and assumed a twisting of the cross section around the centrod. His numerical results were
obtained only for uncoupled linear torsional problems.
Rather than using different warping functions for open and closed cross sections (Vlassov or
Benscoter theories) as it is extensively done in the literature, the present work aims mainly at
adapting and validating this new unified approach in order to analyze advanced behaviours of
elastic 3D thin-walled beam structures. The application of this theory exhibits the advantage of
automatic data generation and geometric characteristic computations of arbitrary (closed or open)
asymmetric cross sections where the shear center and the centrod do not coincide. Numerical
analyses using the finite element method investigate the linear and buckling behaviour of 3D
structures with arbitrary profile shapes.

2 KINEMATICS

2.1 Prokic warping function

Prokic warping function is represented by a contour (or first order) warping assumed to vary lin-
early along each polygonal segment of the contour. This new approach presents the advantage of
automatic data generation and unified geometric characteristic computations regardless the type of
the cross section (closed, open, asymmetric, ). The thin profile is divided into a finite number of
polygonal parts called hereafter transversal segments and connected by transversal nodes.
An edge transversal node in an open cross section is connected to only one transversal segment (e.g.
in a T section, there are three edge nodes while in Figure 1a, nodes 1 and 6 are the sole edge nodes).
The longitudinal displacements ui (i  1, n) at n transversal nodes constitute the warping
degrees of freedom. !i are functions varying linearly along the branches between a transversal node
i where (!i  1) and its adjacent nodes where (!i  0) (Fig. 1c). The combination of the linear func-
tions and the additional parameters ("!i ui) describes the contour warping of the cross section.

Transversal
6 5 6 5 6 5
segment 56
0.04 m 4 4
4
Transversal
node 4 z

C G
y 0.37 m t = 0.0038m
Function
V3

1 1
3
1
0.04 m 3 3
1 2 1 2 1 2
q e
Edge node 1 hn 0.09 m

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 1. (a) open cross section, (b) two-celled cross section, (c) function !3.

2
Scarpas-158.qxd 16/05/2004 0:08 Page 1349

2.2 Application to non uniform torsion

The torsional warping at any point q of the cross section is set equal to the sum of the contour
warping function "!i ui and a thickness warping function #x,x. x is the twisting angle and
  hne is proportional to the distance hn to the normal issued from the shear center C and to the
distance to the midline e (Fig. 1a). In this paragraph, the normality assumption of Bernoulli beam
theory is relaxed and transverse shear strain due to the shear force is supposed to be constant in
each cross section. In a general loading with tension-compression, biaxial bending and torsion, the
displacement vector at any point q within the cross section has been expressed in the principal axes
yz as:

(1)

Total  axial  (xz)bending  (xy)bending  torsion.

For bending with shear, the shear stresses computed from the constitutive equations are found
to be constant and a shear correction factor is thus applied. In order to complete the torsional
kinematics, it is necessary to relate the warping to the torsional effects only and to separate it from
tension-compression and bending effects. In this paragraph, the parameters ui are additional axial
displacements that superpose the warping axial displacement to the displacement induced by the
axial force (u0) and bending (zyyz). The kinematic expression of uwarping  x,x  i ui is
related in this paragraph to the torsional warping and it is necessary to prescribe that the linear
combination of ui must describe nothing but torsion. Three additional equations must therefore be
satisfied (for more details, refer to [12]):

(2)

2.3 Application to shear bending deformation

The same contour warping function ("!i ui) can be used in order to investigate warping due to
bending shear forces. The straightness assumption of Timoshenko theory is removed. In case of
(xz) flexure, the analysis of bending warping is based on the following displacement field:

(3)

By including the warping induced by shear deformation, y does not represent any longer the
rotation of a planar cross section. Both y and ui define the deformed cross section submitted to
shear forces: the variation of uq with respect to z is not linear. In order to fulfill the kinematics,
additional equations are also required to satisfy the boundary condition setting that the transverse
shear stresses (and therefore strains) vanish at free edges of open profiles:

(4)

3
Scarpas-158.qxd 16/05/2004 0:08 Page 1350

e is an edge transversal node (a node connected to only one transversal segment in the profile) and
d is its adjacent node. ue and ud are the corresponding degrees of freedom.
In addition, in order to uncouple the (xz) warping bending effects from axial force and (xy)
bending effects, the following equations must be satisfied:

(5)

3 FINITE ELEMENT DISCRETIZATION

Two beam finite elements referred hereafter as FEM1 and FEM2 are developed in order to
illustrate the application of the kinematics previously described in 2.2 and 2.3 respectively. For
both FEM1 and FEM2, three nodes are considered: at the boundary and at the mid length of the
beam finite element. The longitudinal displacements (ui, i  0, ... n) are interpolated by a linear
function between two degrees of freedom (ui1,ui3) at the two boundary nodes of the prismatic finite
element. The transverse displacements (v,w) and the rotations (x,y,z) are interpolated by a quad-
ratic function and three degrees of freedom defined at the boundary and central nodes of the finite
element. Detailed finite element computations for FEM1 can be found in [12].

4 NUMERICAL EXAMPLES

4.1 Shear bending effects

4.1.1 Problem description
A simply supported beam with span L is submitted to a uniformly distributed load q acting through
the centrod (Fig. 2a). Two profiles having the same overall dimensions are considered but one is
open (Fig. 1a) and the other is a two-celled cross section (Fig. 1b). E  200 GPa, G  80 GPa.
The values of maximal deflection, calculated by using Bernoulli and Timoshenko theories, are
compared to the results obtained by the finite elements based on the kinematics developed above.
The minimum transversal discretization that describes the profile geometry consists in dividing
the thin profiles (Fig. 1a and Fig. 1b) into five and seven transversal segments (ns  5 and ns  7
respectively) connected by six transversal nodes (n  6). This kinematic and transversal

x
q
(c) P
(a) x

L
L=20 m
z
(b) My My
x

z
z

Figure 2. (a): Bending (Ex. 4.1), (b) flexural torsional buckling of a column (Ex. 4.2.1) and (c) lateral
torsional buckling of simply supported beam (Ex. 4.2.2).

4
Scarpas-158.qxd 16/05/2004 0:08 Page 1351

discretization is the minimum required in order to describe the behaviour of the profile. Refined
discretizations are obtained by dividing the previously described transversal segments into equal
parts and are characterized by the total number of transversal nodes (n).
Figures 3 and 4 compare, for both profiles, the results of the above mentioned analytical and
finite element methods for the maximal deflection of the simply supported beam for varying val-
ues of beam length L. In Figures 3a and 4a, the difference (6) between different models (BBT,
TBT, FEM1 and TBTM defined hereafter) is plotted against the length L of the beam. In Figures
3b and 4b, the difference (6) between the finite element taking into account shear bending effects
(FEM2) and TBTM is plotted for different values of beam length against the total number of
transversal nodes n.

(6)

40%
Differences between Differences between TBTM and FEM2
TBTM and BBT, TBT and 1.6%
FEM1 L=
30% 1.4%
1.5m
1.2%
1.0% 3
20%
0.8% 5

BBT 0.6%
8
10% TBT 0.4%
0.2% 10
FEM
0.0% 15
0% 5 10 15 20 25
0 10 20 30
(b) nn
(a) L[m]

Figure 3. Comparing beam shear theories for maximal deflection of simply supported beam with the open
profile.

40% Differences between Differences between TBTM and FEM2

TBTM and BBT, TBT
0.6%
and FEM1
30% L=
1.5m
0.4% 3
20%
5
BBT 0.2%
10% 8
TBT
FEM 10
0.0%
0%
5 10 15 20 25 15
0 10 20 30
(a) L[m] (b) nn

Figure 4. Comparing beam shear theories for maximal deflection of simply supported beam with the closed
profile.

5
Scarpas-158.qxd 16/05/2004 0:08 Page 1352

The different results are:

analytical results with Bernoulli beam theory BBT which is based on the normality assump-
tion and neglects shear bending effects;
analytical results based on Timoshenko beam theory TBT which is based on the planar
assumption and considers a constant shear strain state without the shear correction factor (or,
more exactly, with the shear correction factor set to unity);
analytical results based on the Modified Timoshenko beam theory TBTM which is the
Timoshenko beam theory with a shear correction factor as defined in the literature [1]; this
model is considered to be the reference for all the other theories while computing the differ-
ences according to (6) reported in the Figures 3 and 4;
finite element results based on Timoshenko beam kinematics FEM1 shown in paragraph 2.2;
finite element results taking into account shear bending warping FEM2 as detailed in para-
graph 2.3; the kinematic discretizations are characterized by the total number of transversal
nodes n as defined previously.

4.1.2 Analytical results

For different values of the span L and for the open profile, Figure 3a illustrates the difference
between the analytical results of Bernoulli BBT (and similarly Timoshenko TBT) and the
modified Timoshenko TBTM theories, the latter being taken as reference. The effects of shear
deformation on the beam deflection depend on the length L of the beam (Fig. 3a, curve BBT).
Neglecting shear deformation effects in short beams leads to an error (measured by the difference
between BBT and TBTM) of 32.67% for h/L  0.3. For a long beam (e.g. h/L  0.0225), this
error is equal to 0.272%. The shear correction factor in Timoshenko theory is also important for
short beams for the same reason (Fig. 3a, curve TBT). By increasing the beam length (where h/L
varies from 0.3 to 0.0225), the difference between TBT and TBTM decreases from 12.95% to
0.108%. Figure 4a illustrates the same results for the closed cross section. The error that results
from neglecting shear deformation effects (measured by the difference between BBT and TBTM)
is very important for short beams and varies from 36.28% to 0.319% for h/L decreasing from 0.3
to 0.0255. The difference between TBT and TBTM that measures the importance of the shear cor-
rection factor in Timoshenko theory varies from 16.1% to 0.142% for the same variation of h/L.

4.1.3 Numerical results

The finite element FEM1 based on Timoshenko kinematics without the correction factor (para-
graph 2.2) gives exactly the same results as TBT for both profiles (in Fig. 3a and 4a, curves TBT
and FEM1 match exactly). Figures 3b and 4b show the application of the model detailed in 2.3,
when shear bending effects are taken into account by modeling the warping due to shear forces. It
is interesting to note that no shear correction factor is needed here since this model respects the no
shear boundary condition (equation 4). This solution, which is automatically deduced from the
geometry of arbitrary cross sections, is shown to converge to the modified Timonshenko beam
theory (TBTM): the difference between the FEM2 finite element analysis and the TBTM
results decreases when refining the discretization. The minimum discretization (n  6 for the pro-
file represented in Figure 1a) does not give the exact solution and refined meshing is required to
approximate the non linear distribution by small linear variations between adjacent transversal
nodes in order to give more accurate results. This is due to the kinematics where the warping, rep-
resenting the longitudinal displacement of the deformed profile, is modeled as varying linearly
along the contour (paragraph 2.3; !i are linear functions).

4.2 Torsional warping effects

The influence of non uniform torsional warping on the buckling of elastic thin-walled structures
is discussed by comparing finite element results based on kinematics given in paragraph 2.2 with
analytical results using Vlassov warping function for the open profile and Benscoter warping

6
Scarpas-158.qxd 16/05/2004 0:08 Page 1353

Table 1. Flexural torsional buckling.

Pcr1 Pcr2 Pcr3

Case Profile [N] [N] [N]

I Open Pcrz  3606.82 Pcry  41,685.50 Pcry  345,720.03

II Closed Pcrz  5337.54 Pcry  440,434.68 Pcr  1,291,973.10

function for the closed profile. It will be shown that the numerical results with 20 finite elements,
which exhibit the advantage of automatic data generation and geometric characteristic com-
putations of arbitrary asymmetric cross sections, are in excellent agreement with the analytical
solutions.

4.2.1 Flexural torsional buckling

A column is submitted to an axial load passing through the centrod (Fig. 2b). L  20 m. E 
200 GPa, G  80 GPa. The same open and closed profiles are considered respectively (Fig. 1a
and 1b).
A first-order buckling theory, based on Vlassov warping function for the open profile and on
Benscoter warping function for the closed profile, represents an eigenvalue problem. For the open
monosymmetrical profile, a flexural-torsional buckling (characterized by two sets of buckling
loads Pcry and Pcry) is induced by the interaction of the torsional with the xz plane (or y axis)
bending modes. The xy plane (or z axis) flexural buckling is characterized by Pcrz. In the case
of the closed and bisymmetrical profile, the three (torsional, xy and xz flexural) buckling
modes are uncoupled. Pcrz corresponds to the xy plane flexural (or weak axis z) buckling, Pcry
to the xz flexural and Pcr to the torsional buckling; none of these three modes interact with
another. The lowest critical loads Pcrz, Pcry and Pcr are given for each case in Table 1. Since the
closed profile is more rigid than the open profile, the critical loads are higher for case II than for
case I. It is interesting to note the large value for pure torsional buckling load Pcr in case II
(1,291,973.10N). This shows how the torsional behaviour depends on the cross sectional geome-
try and specifically, whether the section is open or closed. The open profile resists to torsion by
a low local stiffness since it is proportional to the cube of the wall thickness as if the section would
be constituted by the assembly of longitudinal strips. The closed profile resists to torsion by
an additional (and much larger) global stiffness related to the circulation of shear flow along
the two cells. Note however that the lowest critical load corresponds in this case to a pure
bending mode.
The lowest critical load is compared with the non-linear finite element results based on the
kinematics detailed in paragraph 2.2 and the corresponding finite element (FEM1). The difference
between this finite element solution and the analytical results (Table 1) is found to be 0.185% for
the open profile (case I) and 0.205% for the closed profile (case II).

4.2.2 Lateral torsional buckling

A beam is loaded by two couples My at its ends and is therefore submitted to a uniform plane
bending in the plane perpendicular to the axis (y) (Fig. 2c). L  20 m. E  200 GPa, G  80 GPa.
The two cases, with an open and a closed profile (Fig. 1) are again considered. The same non-
linear finite element is used to evaluate the critical moments. The analytical analyses using
Vlassov warping function for the first case and Benscoter warping function for the second case
give Mcry  2043.97 and 14,397.43 Nm respectively. The difference between the numerical values
and these analytical solutions for Mcry are 0.21% for case I and 0.19% for case II. The numerical
results show excellent agreement since they converge to Vlassov solution in the case of the open
cross section and to Benscoter analytical results for the multicelled profile.

7
Scarpas-158.qxd 16/05/2004 0:08 Page 1354

5 CONCLUSIONS

Prokic warping function has been applied as a unified approach for analyzing the behaviour of 3D
thin-walled structures with arbitrary shaped cross sections. The framework includes the important
influence of warping due to non uniform torsion and to shear forces. When submitted to shear
forces, the modified Timoshenko model (including the shear correction factor) has been found to
give accurate results. The key novelty of applying Prokic warping function to analyze shear bend-
ing effects is the ability to determine accurately and automatically the shear correction factor for
arbitrary profiles. In the literature, the shear correction factor is mostly evaluated by an energetical
approach and is function of the distribution of the first moment over the area of the cross section
[1]. Evaluating the first moment is not always simple since it depends on the profile geometry and
specifically different methods are required for open and closed thin-walled profiles. For any
asymmetrical open/closed cross section, a simply supported beam may be submitted in this work
to a uniformly distributed force as in example 4.1. The maximal deflection is computed numerically
by using the finite element based on the kinematics presented in paragraph 2.3 and analytically by
using the modified Timoshenko model (the shear correction factor is the unknown). Equating
these two solutions allows the determination of the shear correction factor. Since this technique
guarantees that a valid solution is automatically found for arbitrary profiles, it is suitable for inclusion
in a black box of the finite element code in order to determine the shear correction factor before
analyzing a beam-column structure by including modified Timoshenko model and torsional warp-
ing effects (paragraph 2.2).
In addition, rather than using different torsional warping functions for open and closed cross
sections (Vlassov or Benscoter theories) as it is usually done in the literature, the present work
adopts a unified approach. An advanced beam finite element has been developed with a single
warping function for the analysis of the linear and buckling behaviour of 3-D thin-walled struc-
tures combining asymmetric open and/or closed thin-walled cross sections. The finite element
includes non-uniform torsional effects for arbitrary cross sections. The numerical results are in
excellent agreement with existing analytical solutions. The theory presents, by comparison with
usual formulations, the advantage of automatic data generation and geometric characteristic com-
putations of arbitrary asymmetric cross sections since the warping computations are based solely
on the geometry of the profile.

REFERENCES

[1] Pilkey, W. 1994. Formulas for stress, strain, and structural matrices. New York: Wiley.
[2] Reddy, J.N., Wang, C.M. & Lee, K.H. 1997. Relationships between bending solutions of classical and
shear deformation beam theories. International Journal of Solids and Structures 34(26): 33733384.
[3] Wang, C.M., Reddy, J.N. & Lee, K.H. 2000. Shear deformable beams and plates. NewYork: Elsevier.
[4] Eisenberger, M. 2003. An exact high order beam element. Computers and Structures 81: 147152.
[5] Vlassov, V.Z. 1961. Thin walled elastic beams. Jerusalem: Israel Program for Scientific Translations.
[6] Benscoter, S.U. 1954. A theory of torsion bending for multicell beams. Journal of Applied Mechanics
21(1), 2534.
[7] Prokic, A. 1990. Thin walled beams with open and closed cross section. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Belgrade,
Yugoslavia (in Serbian).
[8] Prokic, A. 1993. Thin walled beams with open and closed cross section. Computers and Structures
47(6): 10651070.
[9] Prokic, A. 1994. Material nonlinear analysis of thin-walled beams. ASCE Journal of Structural
Engineering 120(10): 28412852.
[10] Prokic, A. 1996. New warping function for thin-walled beams I: theory; II: finite element method and
applications. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 122(12): 14371452.
[11] Prokic, A. 2002. New finite element for analysis of shear lag. Computers and Structures 80(11):
10111024.
[12] Saad K., Espion B. & Warze G. 200X. Non uniform torsional behaviour and stability of thin walled
elastic beams with arbitrary cross sections. Thin Walled Structures Journal, accepted for publication.

8
Scarpas-158.qxd 16/05/2004 0:08 Page 1355

Katy Saad, PhD Candidate

Universit Libre de Bruxelles
Civil Engineering Department
and Continuum Mechanics Department
ULB-CP 194/5 Av. F.D. Roosevelt 50
1050 Brussels Belgium
Tel.: 32 2 6502747
Fax: 32 2 6502789
E-mail: ksaade@smc.ulb.ac.be

Prof. dr. ir. B. Espion, Supervisor

Universit Libre de Bruxelles, E-mail: bespion@ulb.ac.be
Prof. dr. ir. G. Warze, Supervisor
Universit Libre de Bruxelles, E-mail: gwarzee@smc.ulb.ac.be