Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 77 (2017) 61–69

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enganabound

Boundary-integral-based process for calculating stiffness matrices of space MARK

frame elements with axially varying cross section☆
⁎
F.C. de Araujo , R.A.T. Pereira
Department of Civil Engineering, School of Mines, Federal University of Ouro Preto, 35400-000 Ouro Preto-MG, Brazil

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords:
Direct Stiffness Method (DSM)
Space frame elements with axially varying
cross-sections
Boundary-integral-based processes
Cross-sections of arbitrary shapes
This paper presents a strategy to directly compute the stiffness matrix of 3D (space) frame elements having
arbitrary cross sections and generic rigidity variation along their axes. All the necessary section properties are
determined by means of formulations based purely on boundary integrals. To determine the torsional constant
and the torsion center, this strategy applies the Boundary Element Method (BEM). To model thin-walled cross-
sections, the strategy calls for activating integration algorithms devised specifically to deal with the nearly
singular integrals involved. To express all other section properties (i.e. area, first and second moments of area,
and the shear form factors) in terms of boundary integrals, the strategy employs Green's theorem. The existing
boundary-element meshes, used to determine the torsion constants, are employed to evaluate the corresponding
boundary integrals. In applying the proposed strategy – the pure boundary-integral-based process (PBIP) – we
consider space frame elements with geometrically complex cross-sections varying along their axes.

1. Introduction which an n-order polynomial is considered to describe the variation of

Since the 1950s, structural engineers wishing to conduct structural
analysis have often employed the Direct Stiffness Method (DSM). This
widespread adoption of DSM is rooted in the seminal papers by Argyris
that laid out the bases for today's matrix formulations of framed
structures. (These papers were published in Aircraft Engineering in
1954–1955 and collected afterwards in the 1960 book Energy
Theorems and Structural Analysis [1].) In the 1960s, other researchers
[2–4] followed Argyris's fundamental steps to produce important
classical books on the DSM formulation and the matrix structural
analysis (MSA). DSM provided the starting point from which the Finite
Element Method (FEM) evolved and in fact DSM offers the simplest
way to implement FEM.
Particularly useful in engineering practice are computational ana-
lysis tools with the ability to model 3D frame structures, sometimes
containing elements with geometrically non-usual cross sections, and
variable rigidities. The authors in [5] wanted to develop a 3D-beam
finite element that permitted the modeling of continuous cross-section
variations along the element axis. To do so, the authors employed the
concept of transfer functions, based on the Euler–Bernoulli's beam
theory and on Saint Venant's torsion. In that paper, DSM is used to
construct the stiffness matrix for a 2–node straight beam element in
the sectional properties along the element. In principle, this strategy
may be used to model general cross-sectional shapes. In actual
applications, however, these researchers analyze only common cross
sections (rectangular and circular). Furthermore, the formulation
includes no shear correction factor.
A fundamental and tricky issue related to the formulation of 3D
beam elements concerns the correct treatment of the torsional effects.
When dealing with such effects, one should take into account both
primary (uniform) and secondary (nonuniform) torsion effects. In the
1960s, Cywinski [6] carried out some pioneering work on torsion, as
did Wekezer [7] in the 1980s. These works, restricted to thin-walled
variable cross-sections, have been extended in recent decades by the
outstanding achievements of Sapountzakis and his collaborators [8–
13] to complete general beams with cross-sections of arbitrary shapes,
constant or variable along their axes, homogeneous or otherwise.
Cywinski [6] employed the Finite Difference Method (FDM) to solve
torsion problems in open cross-sections with one symmetry axis.
Wekezer [7] used a shell finite element formulation based on Vlasov's
assumptions to model beams with variable cross-sections. For this kind
of problem, a serious limitation of shell-finite-element models is their
inability to describe the warping of the cross-sectional walls [12]. On
the other hand, the use of 3D solid finite elements may lead to very

☆
This paper is the full and peer reviewed version of an original presentation made at the Mini-Symposium MS7 – Boundary Element and Mesh-Reduced Methods, which was part of
the CILAMCE 2015 – XXXVI Ibero-Latin American Congress on Computational Methods in Engineering, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on November 22–25, 2015.
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: dearaujofc@gmail.com (F.C. de Araujo).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enganabound.2017.01.005
Received 26 October 2016; Received in revised form 10 January 2017; Accepted 11 January 2017
Available online 26 January 2017
0955-7997/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F.C. de Araujo, R.A.T. Pereira
large-order models (for a comparison of model sizes, see applications
in [12]), not only for thin-walled sectional elements.
To solve torsion problems in beams with generic variable cross-
sections, thin-walled or not, Sapountzakis has essentially applied pure
boundary-element (BE) formulations. BE formulations constitute a
very convenient computational strategy for solving torsion problems at
the beam-element level. Using Saint-Venant's semi-inverse method,
Sapountzakis formulated the complete torsion problem in beams in
terms of three boundary-value problems (BVPs) – two potential BVPs
with Neumann's boundary conditions (stating the local equilibrium in
points of the cross-section) and a third BVP stating the global
equilibrium of the beam. In this way, Sapountzakis revealed the
existence of warping shear and normal stresses when the rate of the
twist angle along the element axis, θ′(z ), varied according to higher
order functions. This non-linear variation of θ′(z ) can occur due to
torsional element loadings and general boundary conditions. Indeed,
warping stresses are fundamental to constructing accurate stiffness
matrices for 3D frame elements. These elements should in fact include
one more degree of freedom per node, namely the torsional curvature,
θ′(z ), related to the warping moment (bimoment). And including this
extra degree of freedom may well preclude the use of many available
commercial codes if the user is aiming to carry out accurate analyses of
3D frame structures.
Another important and somehow controversial issue associated
with the evaluation of 3D frame element stiffness matrices is the
consideration of shearing stress/strain effects, not included in the
formulation presented in [5]. In this respect, several definitions for the
so-called shear correction factor have been proposed in the literature
[14–20]. In general, one aims to replace the actual shearing stress
distribution in a certain direction on a cross-section with an equivalent
constant one on an effective shear area. Thus, depending on the
criterion one adopts to find this equivalent constant stress distribution,
one may obtain somewhat different shear correction factors. To
determine them with rigor, researchers have considered 3D elasticity
solutions. Results reported in the literature [17,19,21] have shown
these solutions’ dependence on Poisson's ratio and even on the aspect
ratio of the cross-section [19]. On the other hand, Freund and Karakoç
[22] recently showed, based on a refined Timoshenko's beam model,
that shear correction factors are indeed purely geometric parameters,
depending exclusively on the cross-sectional shape. In any case, even if
determined as an elastic section parameter, the variation of shear
correction factors as a function of Poisson's ratio is not significant at all
[21].
In connection with the evaluation of shear correction factors,
researchers have also tried calculating the shear center (or center of
flexure) of the cross-section, as both section properties result from
analyzing torsionless bending in beams. Again, depending on how one
defines this class of problem, one may come up with different positions
of the shear center. Sometimes the position depends on Poisson's ratio
[17] and is not exactly coincident with the torsion center (center of
twist) of the section (determined by analyzing the beam under Saint
Venant's torsion [21]). In fact, when Weber's approach [23] is applied,
the shear center is independent of ν (Poisson's ratio), and the shear and
torsion centers become the same point. However, even for ν-dependent
formulations, researchers [21] have observed only a slight variation of
its position as a function of ν.
This paper focuses on enlarging the analysis capability of DSM-
based codes by proposing a completely general way to construct the
stiffness matrix and the equivalent nodal load vector for 3D frame
elements. Herein a strategy is devised that allows for the most general
description of cross-section variation along the element axis.
Sapountzakis [11] applied the Boundary Element Method (BEM) to
solve the local and global equilibrium equations governing torsion in
beams. In contrast, the strategy proposed here restricts the BE analysis
to solve the local equilibrium equations of torsion (within the cross-
sections of the beam) while a flexibility-based formulation is employed
62
Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 77 (2017) 61–69
to directly compute all the stiffness coefficients for the 3D frame
element. Herein, the principle of virtual work (PVW) is considered as
starting point, and a system of compatibility equations is written from
which the required stiffness coefficients will be obtained. This strategy
suitably allows for the consideration of elements with complex
geometric description. In this formulation, secondary (warping) nor-
mal and shear stresses are not taken into account, although including
them in the formulation could be done straightforwardly.
Hence, the BEM is applied here to compute only the primary
warping function, ψ, for a section. This is then used to determine the
torsion constant, J, and the torsion center of the cross-section.
Nevertheless, it is worth noting that for many cross-sectional shapes
(e.g., circular solid sections, square or triangular hollow closed
sections, angle and T sections) the warping rigidity is either zero or
almost zero, so that in these cases the torsional loading will be
essentially resisted by primary torsion moments. Negligible are the
warping stress resultants (associated with secondary torsion moments
and bimoments).
Additionally, we simply adopt a shear-correction factor based on
solutions from the elementary beam theory. The factor is determined
by equaling the shear-strain energy associated with the actual shearing
stresses on a given cross-section to that of an equivalent constant
shearing stress on a corresponding effective shear area. This shear-
correction factor corresponds exactly to the one adopted by the
commercial code SAP2000 [24]. It is also assumed that shear and
torsion centers are, as noted above, the same geometric point, and its
position will be evaluated from solving Saint Venant's torsion problem
by applying the BEM.
In the BE analysis, special care has been taken concerning the
modeling of thin-walled sections. Indeed, these require special algo-
rithms to deal with the nearly singular boundary integrals. This
problem will typically take place in 3D steel frame structures. To
evaluate the nearly singular integrals, there are available in the code
the Telles coordinate transformation [25] and an analytical process
over linear elements [26]. In fact, the special integration processes are
activated only if nearly singular integrals are identified according to a
certain criterion. To compute the other section properties as areas, the
first and second moments of area as well as the shear-stress form
factors (the inverses of the shear-correction factors), the domain
integrals involved are converted into boundary integrals. Herein, the
existing BE mesh, used to evaluate the torsional constant and torsion
center for a certain section, is used to numerically calculate these
boundary integrals. Doing so makes especially efficient the computa-
tional modules for determining all the element cross-section proper-
ties.
The boundary integral-based process for evaluating the stiffness
matrix and the equivalent load vector for 3D frame elements is then
incorporated into a DSM-based code. To show the process's suitability
and correctness, this work compares results obtained for 3D structures
with complex cross-sectional geometries with those obtained using
SAP2000.
2. The DSM coefficients for 3D frame elements
The aim in this paper is to present a numerical process for
calculating the DSM stiffness matrix and the equivalent nodal load
vector for 3D frame elements with cross sections of any geometric
form, and generically varying along their centroidal axis. For this class
of structures (spatial frameworks), the structural element is that shown
in Fig. 1, with 12 degrees of freedom. The stiffness coefficients kij
correspond to the element actions for unit prescribed displacements
uj = δij , j = 1, 2, …, 12 , in the direction of the degrees of freedom, while
the equivalent nodal loads fj0, associated with the external element
loading q1, m1, q2p, m2p, q3p, m3p (which abstractly denote concentrated
and distributed loads), are obtained by solving the element under
homogeneous boundary conditions uj = 0, j = 1, 2, …, 12 (i.e. clamped
F.C. de Araujo, R.A.T. Pereira Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 77 (2017) 61–69

Fig. 1. 3D frame element.

l
at either end). ds
Based on Fig. 1, two analysis (released) systems are considered to
a(1) = a(2) = ∫0 EA
,

determine kij and fj0. In System 1 (m=1), node I is free and node F is l sds (2) l (l − s ) ds (1) l ⎡ χ2 2 ⎤
clamped, and in System 2 (m=2), node I is clamped and node F is free. c(1) = − ∫0 ,c = ∫0 ,b = ∫0 ⎢ p + s ⎥ ds,
EI3p EI3p ⎢⎣ GA EI3p ⎥⎦
Applying the principle of virtual work (PVW) gives us the following
compatibility relationships: l ⎡ χ2 2⎤ l ⎡ χ3 2 ⎤
b(2) = ∫0 ⎢ p + (l − s ) ⎥ ds, d (1) = ∫0 ⎢ p + s ⎥ ds,
⎢⎣ GA EI3p ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ GA EI2p ⎥⎦
A(m) f (6(mm) −1)+ i = u (6(mm) −1)+ i − u (0m), m = 1, 2 (1)
l sds (2) l ⎡ χ3 2⎤
e(1) = ∫0 ,d = ∫0 ⎢ p + (l − s ) ⎥ ds,
where EI2p ⎢⎣ GA EI2p ⎥⎦
l (l − s ) ds (1) l ds
f (6(mm) −1)+ i = [ f6(m −1)+1,6(m −1)+ i … f6(m −1)+6,6(m −1)+ i ]T , (2)
e(2) = − ∫0 EI2p
, f = f (2) = ∫0 GJ
,

l ds l ds
u (6(mm) −1)+ i = [u 6(m −1)+1,6(m −1)+ i … u6(m −1)+6,6(m −1)+ i ]T , i = 1, 2, …, 6,
g(1) = g(2) = ∫0 EI2p
, h(1) = h(2) = ∫0 EI3p
.
(6)
(3)
For calculating the coefficients of the A(m) matrix, given by the
expressions in Eq. (6), the element (principal) rigidities (EA,
l N i(m) N0(m) l M 2(pmi) M2(pm0) l M 3(pmi) M3(pm0) EI2p, EI3p , GJ, and GA / χ2p , GA / χ3p ) are interpolated along the element
ui(0m) = ∫0 EA
ds + ∫0 EI3p
ds + ∫0 EI2p
ds
length by employing parametric functions in natural coordinates, and
χ2p V 2(pmi) V2(pm0) χ3p V 3(pmi) V3(pm0) the Gauss–Legendre quadrature is applied to evaluate the associated
l l l T i(m) T0(m)
+ ∫0 GA
ds + ∫0 GA
ds + ∫0 GJ
ds, integrals. To approximate the rigidities along the element axis, the code
provides constant, linear, quadratic, cubic, and 4th-order interpolation
i = [6(m − 1) + 1], …, [6(m − 1) + 6], m = 1, 2, (4) functions. Notice that once System (1) is solved for actions f (6(mm) −1)+ i ,
m=1,2, at one element node, the corresponding actions, f (6mm)·δm1+ i , at the
with N0(m) = N (q), Mk(m0 ) = Mk (q), Vk(m0 ) = Vk (q), T0(m) = T (q), N i(m)= other element node can be determined by invoking the equilibrium
N ( fi ), M ki(m) = Mk ( fi ), V ki(m) = Vk ( fi ), T i(m) = T ( fi ) , fi = 1, k = 2p , 3p , equations. Although the strategy above specifically focuses on the
wherein N, Mk, Vk, T, and q denote, respectively, the normal force evaluation of the elastic stiffness matrix, it can also be extended to
(N), the k-th bending moment component (Mk), the k-th shear force compute other element matrices as the geometric stiffness and the
component (Vk), the torsion moment (T), and the external element mass matrices.
loading. Furthermore, in Eq. (1), In the strategy considered here, only boundary integrals are
employed for computing the section properties needed in relations
⎡ a (m ) 0 0 0 0 0 ⎤
⎢ ⎥ (6), namely, the cross-sectional area, A, the centroidal point, the
(m ) c (m ) ⎥
⎢ 0 b 0 0 0 moments of inertia, I22 and I33, the principal moments of inertia,
⎢ 0 0 d (m ) 0 e (m ) 0 ⎥ I2p 2p and I3p 3p , the torsional constant, J, the torsion center, xs, ys, and
A(m) =⎢
0 ⎥
, m = 1, 2,
0 0 0 f (m ) 0 the shear-stress form factor, χk, k = 2p , 3p, along the principal axes (see
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 e (m ) 0 g (m ) 0 ⎥ Fig. 2). The geometric section data are furnished referring to the 2–3
⎢⎣ 0 c(m) 0 h(m) ⎥⎦
0 0 (5) reference system (section cardinal reference system), which may be on
their turn possibly rotated to some counterclockwise rotation angle θ
with around the 1 axis (element centroidal axis) from the 1–Z plane (see

63
F.C. de Araujo, R.A.T. Pereira Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 77 (2017) 61–69

by Eqs. (7) and (8) is re-written referring to the x , y reference system

with arbitrary origin, O, from the solution of which the ψ0 warping
function is obtained, and the position of the torsion center (xs , ys ) can
be determined by solving the system of equations [27,28]
⎧ I x − I y + M c = − ∫ y ψ dΩ
⎪ xx s xy s x
Ω 0
⎪
⎨ Ixy xs − Iy y ys + My c = − ∫ x ψ0 dΩ
⎪ Ω
⎪ Mx xs − My ys + Ωc = − ∫ ψ0 dΩ ,
⎩ Ω (12)

where Ixi xj = ∫ xi xj dΩ , Mxi = ∫ xj dΩ , and Ω is the area of the section.

Ω Ω
With ψ0 determined, the corresponding warping function referring to
the x, y system centered at the torsion center (see Fig. 3) is calculated
Fig. 2. Section reference systems. by [27]
ψ (x, y) = ψ0 (x , y ) − ys x + xs y + c. (13)
Fig. 2). At last, the element stiffness matrix and equivalent nodal loads
associated with the external element load are determined referring to Notice that the corresponding prescribed fluxes referring to the x , y
the 1, 2p , 3p axes (element analysis axes). Additionally, for generic system are given by (cf. relation (8))
sections, for when the centroidal point is not previously known, a
p0 (x) = x ·t (x), x ∈ Γ. (14)
translational coordinate transformation may be needed from the 2′–3′
reference system to the 2–3 one. All coordinate transformations
required, sketched in Fig. 2, are carried out in the code in a completely
automated way. 2.2. Calculation of other geometric section properties

2.1. Geometrical properties associated with torsion Simpler mathematical formulas for evaluating the geometric section
properties as areas, moments of inertia, and moments of areas can be
Here, the following boundary-value problem (classical Saint- easily obtained by applying Green's integral theorems to convert
Venant torsion BVP), given by domain into boundary integrals. One thus obtains:

▿2ψ = 0, x ∈ Ω, (7) ⎧Ω = ∮Γ xnx dΓ

⎪
⎪I =
∂ψ ⎨ xx ∮Γ xy 2nx dΓ , Iyy = ∮ x 2yn y dΓ ,
Γ
Ixy = ∮ x 2ynx dΓ
Γ
p (x) = = x ·t (x), x ∈ Γ, ⎪
∂n (8) 1 1
⎪ xc = ∮ xyn y dΓ , yc = ∮Γ xynx dΓ .
⎩ Ω Γ Ω (15)
has to be solved, wherein ψ is the section-warping function referred to
in the x–y reference system (with origin at the torsion center), and n (x) Additionally, the domain integrals on the right-hand side of Eq. (12)
and t (x) are the outward normal and tangent unit vectors at point may also be expressed in terms of the following boundary integrals:
x ∈ Γ . Once the BVP given by Eqs. (7) and (8) is solved, all relevant
physical quantities involved in the torsion problem as displacements, ⎧ y ψ dΩ =
⎪ ∫Ω 0 ∮Γ [( 12 y 2n y ) ψ0 (x) − ( 16 y 3) p (x)] dΓ
stresses, and the section torsional constant can be evaluated. Among ⎪
others, the following expressions are useful here: ⎨ ∫ x ψ0 dΩ = ∮ [( 12 x 2nx ) ψ0 (x) − ( 16 x 3) p (x)] dΓ
⎪ Ω Γ
(i) Shear stresses, τxz and τyz: ⎪ ∫ ψ0 dΩ = ∮ [(x nx ) ψ0 (x) − ( 1 x 2 ) p (x)] dΓ .
⎩ Ω Γ 2 (16)
⎧ ⎛ ∂ψ ⎞
⎪ τxz = Gθ′t ⎜ − y⎟ Thus, with the expressions above, all geometric properties of the 3D
⎪ ⎝ ∂x ⎠
⎨ frame element, including all the other coefficients of system of Eqs.
⎪ ⎛ ∂ψ ⎞
(12), can be exclusively computed by means of boundary integrals.
⎪ τyz = Gθ′t ⎜⎝ ∂y + x ⎟⎠
⎩ (9)

In the case of using the BEM to solve the torsion BVP, singular 2.3. Shear-stress form factor
boundary integrals will take place for evaluating the Cartesian deriva-
tives, ∂ψ and ∂ψ for points at boundary Γ. To avoid dealing with those Shear-stress effects at a certain xi direction can be included in the
∂x ∂y
kinds of integrals, the expressions below can be used: analysis by replacing the real area with the corresponding shear
effective area in that direction, Ωeff , xi , expressed by
⎧ ∂ψ ⎫ ⎧ 1 ∂ψ (η) ⎪
⎫
⎪ ∂x ⎪ ⎡ tT (x) ⎤−1 ⎪
⎨ ∂ψ ⎬ = ⎢ T ⎥ ⎨ J (η) ∂η ⎬, Ω
⎪ ∂y ⎪ ⎣ n (x)⎦ ⎩ x ·t (x) ⎭
⎪ ⎪ Ωeff , xi = ,
⎩ ⎭ (10) χxi (17)

where η is the natural coordinate employed in the parametric where χxi is the section shear form factor along xi (the inverse of the
representation of the boundary geometry. shear correction factor). To evaluate the element stiffness matrices, we
(ii) Torsional constant, J (by means exclusively of boundary will need to know the shear form factor for the section principal
integrals): directions, which for the yp principal axis is given by

J=− ∫Γ ψ (x) p (x) dΓ + ∫Γ xy [( y, x )·(nx , n y)] dΓ Ω yt Mx2p (s )

(11) χyp =
Ix2p xp
∫y b xp (s )
ds,
b (18)
In Eq. (11), the warping function ψ refers to the x, y system
centered at the torsion center. However, as that point for a generic where Mxp is the static moment of the area delimited by s and yt related
section is not known a priori, a basic step in the whole procedure is to to the xp-axis, and b xp (s ) is the width of the cross section at the s
first determine its position, xs , ys (see Fig. 3). To do this, the BVP given ordinate (see Fig. 4).

64
F.C. de Araujo, R.A.T. Pereira
Fig. 3. Torsion domain.
Fig. 4. Section calculation domain.
3. BE-based numerical procedures
To solve the BVP given in Eqs. (7) and (8), the BEM is applied. For
that, one considers the boundary Γ to be discretized by the isopara-
metric linear (2-node) and quadratic (3-node) boundary elements (see
BE domain in Fig. 4). Here, a standard BEM formulation is employed;
it is based on fundamental solutions for 2D potential problems defined
in an infinite domain Ω*. After integrating over the boundary elements,
there originates an algebraic system of equations of the form
Hψ0 = Gp0 , (19)
where ψ0 is the vector with the unknown warping boundary values
referring to the x , y system, and the p0 vector contains the prescribed
fluxes given by Eq. (14). To remove the singularity of this system of
equations, it assumed that ψn0 = 0 , where n is the last degree of
freedom of the BE model.
A fundamental step in the BE algorithm is the evaluation of singular
and, primarily, nearly singular integrals involved. Here, an analytical
integration process is implemented for the linear elements, while a
numerical quadrature based on the Telles coordinate transformation
[25] is considered for both linear and quadratic elements. As the latter
quadrature has been largely employed in many papers, no details of it
are offered here. Comments on the analytical scheme [26] are
presented below. Essentially, the coordinate transformation indicated
in Fig. 5 is applied so as to express the radius modulus, r, by
r (η ) = d 2 + α 2 (η ) , −1 ≤ η ≤ +1. (20)
65
Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 77 (2017) 61–69
Fig. 5. Coordinate transformation for analytical integrations.
This transformation allows one to obtain the analytical expressions for
either the singular or quasi-singular integrals involved, and so to
construct stiffness matrices in a unified general way for either thin-
walled and thick-walled sections.
After solving the torsion BVP by using BE models, the existing BE
mesh is then employed to compute all other geometric properties
needed, for which the previously shown boundary integrals are
considered. To determine the shear form factor, the section domain
is subdivided into an arbitrary number of calculation strips (nstrip),
each one of length Δstrip = ( yt − yb)/ nstrip (see Fig. 6b), over which the
Gauss–Legendre quadrature is applied (see Fig. 4 for the evaluation of
χyp ). The following expression is available for computational imple-
mentation:
Ω
nstrip npg M22p (sj ) Δstrip
χ3p = ∑∑ ωj ,
I32p i =1 j =1
b 2p (sj ) 2 (21)
wherein npg is the number of Gauss points, sj the integration point
abscissa, and ωj the corresponding weight. For calculating M2p (sj ) and
b 2p (sj ) in Eq. (21), the basic idea of the algorithm is, first, to modify, by
adding new nodes, the existing boundary-element (BE) mesh adopted
for calculating the torsion constant, J, so as to have element nodes
aligned with the Gauss point abscissas along the calculation strip (see
Fig. 6b). Based on the new BE mesh, the cross-section width at sj,
b 2p (sj ), may be then straightforwardly determined from the intersec-
tions between the line s = sj and the boundary elements (see Fig. 6c).
And M2p (sj ) is calculated by adding the static moments, related to 2p, of
F.C. de Araujo, R.A.T. Pereira Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 77 (2017) 61–69

Fig. 6. χi calculation domain.

where ne(j) is the number of boundary elements, Γe, around Ωj.

Thus, with the aid of relations (15), all the terms needed for
calculating the shear form factor in Eq. (21) can be converted into
boundary integrals. By means of an analogous process, one can
determine the shear form factor for the other principal direction, χ2p.

4. Applications
Fig. 7. DSM-beam model.

To show the ability of the strategy developed for modeling space

all contribution areas, Ωk, associated with the Gauss points sk, in all frame elements with complex geometric characteristics, this work
strips, for x3p (sk ) ≥ x3p (sj ). In fact, the static moment of Ωj related to 2p analyzes the beams in Figs. 8–10, clamped at section S1 and free at
(see Fig. 6c) can be given exclusively in terms of integrals over the section S3, subjected to the concentrated loads fx=0.0, fy = −5.0 kN ,
boundary elements by (cf. Eq. (15)) fz=3.0 kN, mx = m y = 0.0 , mz=2.0 kN m at the free end (S3).
ne ( j ) Considered here are three different types of cross sections, and a
M2p (Ωj ) = ∑∫ x2p x3p n2p dΓe, quadratic variation of their dimensions is assumed along the element
Γ
e =1 e (22) length (z-axis). A model consisting of 4 elements and 5 nodes (see

y
S3 bsk
y S2 z

t
x x C
z hk

k=1,2,3

S1
bik

(a) (b)
Fig. 8. Beam with trapeziform thin-walled cross section.

66
F.C. de Araujo, R.A.T. Pereira Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 77 (2017) 61–69

y
y bsk

S1 S2 S3 z t
x C
z hk
bmk

x k=1,2,3

bik
(a) (b)
Fig. 9. Beam with polygonal thin-walled cross section.

y y
bsk

S2
t
x
S3 x
z
C
hk
z bmk
S1 k=1,2,3

bik
(a) (b)
Fig. 10. Beam with quadratic thin-walled cross section.

Table 1 the element forces – not shown here – exactly meet the analytical
Cross-section measures (in cm). values in all cases studied either with the SAP2000 or the proposed
strategy.
Section Section type

Trapeziform Polygonal Quadratic

5. Conclusions
bi bm bs h bi bm bs h bi bm bs h

S1 20 – 40 40 20 24 40 40 20 24 40 40
In this paper, a strategy based purely on boundary element models
S2 15 – 35 30 15 18 30 30 15 18 30 30 is employed to construct the stiffness matrices and equivalent nodal
S3 10 – 20 15 10 12 20 15 10 12 20 15 load vectors for space frame elements having generic variation of
rigidity along their axes. As all sectional properties needed are
exclusively determined with the aid of boundary element meshes, the
Fig. 7) is adopted to analyze the beam via the DSM. For all beams, the process is clearly convenient for modeling cross-sections with very
cross-section wall thickness is t = 8.0 mm , and the other sectional complex geometric descriptions (e.g. sections of any shape, thin- or
measures are given in Table 1. The section properties (namely, area, thick-walled, or with any number of holes). And it can be easily
moments of inertia, centroid, torsion center, torsional constant, and incorporated into general DSM-based codes to analyze 3D (space)
shear form factors) are evaluated by using the boundary-element frames, allowing then, by means of completely automated computa-
meshes shown in Fig. 11, wherein linear (2-node) boundary elements tional processes, a user-friendly modeling of 3D frame elements with
are considered. And structural steel with E = 210 GPa , G = 80.8 GPa , complex geometric characteristics. To solve the problems presented in
and ν = 0.3 is employed to construct the beams. this paper, we have employed linear boundary elements and analytical
As can be seen in Tables 2–4, the section property values obtained integration over them. However, quadratic elements and numerical
via the strategy proposed here (pure boundary-integral-based process integration based on the Telles coordinate transformation have also
– PBIP) show excellent agreement with those computed with SAP2000. been incorporated into the computer code and proven to be very
In addition, quite good agreement is also seen in the response in terms efficient. Extending this strategy also to construct geometric stiffness
of displacements (see Table 5). The beam is statically determined, and matrices with variable rigidity is reserved for future work.

488 nodes 852 nodes 568 nodes

480 boundary elements 560 boundary elements
840 boundary elements
t=8mm t=8mm
t=8mm

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 11. Boundary-element meshes for modeling the cross sections.

67
F.C. de Araujo, R.A.T. Pereira Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 77 (2017) 61–69

Table 2
Geometric properties for the trapeziform cross section.

Property S1 S2 S3

PBIP SAP2000 PBIP SAP2000 PBIP SAP2000

Ω (m2) 1.11E−02 1.11E−02 8.80E−03 8.79E−03 4.66E−03 4.66E−03

I2p (m4 ) 1.87E−04 1.87E−04 1.04E−04 1.04E−04 1.75E−05 1.75E−05

I3p (m4 ) 2.54E−04 2.54E−04 1.12E−04 1.12E−04 1.49E−05 1.49E−05

J (m4 ) 3.05E−04 3.05E−04 1.48E−04 1.47E−04 2.29E−05 2.29E−05

χ2p 1.75a 1.74 1.81a 1.80 1.91a 1.91
χ3p 1.75a 1.74 1.59a 1.58 1.56a 1.55
xC 20.00 20.00 17.50 17.50 10.00 10.00
yC 22.76 22.76 17.59 17.59 8.65 8.65
xO 19.80 – 17.12 – 9.45 –
yO 21.71 – 16.13 – 7.67 –

a
Values computed with nstrip=50, npg/strip=3.

Table 3
Geometric properties for the polygonal cross section.

Property S1 S2 S3

PBIP SAP2000 PBIP SAP2000 PBIP SAP2000

Ω (m2) 1.13E−02 1.13E−02 8.39E−03 8.40E−03 4.74E−03 4.74E−03

I2p (m4) 1.63E−04 1.64E−04 6.70E−05 6.70E−05 1.54E−05 1.54E−05

I3p (m4) 2.54E−04 2.54E−04 1.05E−04 1.05E−04 1.48E−05 1.48E−05

J (m4) 2.45E−04 2.46E−04 1.01E−04 1.01E−04 1.87E−05 1.84E−05

χ2p 1.73a 1.71 1.71a 1.70 1.85a 1.84
χ3p 1.94a 1.93 1.92a 1.92 1.69a 1.69
xC 20.00 20.00 15.00 15.00 10.00 10.00
yC 22.84 22.84 17.12 17.12 8.70 8.70
xO 19.70 – 14.75 – 9.36 –
yO 22.56 – 16.98 – 7.71 –

a
Values computed with nstrip=50, npg/strip=3.

Table 4
Geometric properties for the parabolic cross section.

Property S1 S2 S3

PBIP SAP2000 PBIP SAP2000 PBIP SAP2000

Ω (m2) 1.10E−02 1.10E−02 8.19E−03 8.19E−03 4.61E−03 4.62E−03

I2p (m4) 1.50E−04 1.50E−04 6.13E−05 6.15E−05 1.41E−05 1.42E−05

I3p (m4) 2.47E−04 2.47E−04 1.02E−04 1.02E−04 1.44E−05 1.44E−05

J (m4) 2.22E−04 2.22E−04 9.15E−05 9.16E−05 1.68E−05 1.60E−05

χ2p 1.73a 1.72 1.72a 1.71 1.87a 1.86
χ3p 1.93a 1.94 1.94a 1.93 1.70a 1.68
xC 20.00 20.00 15.00 15.00 10.00 10.00
yC 22.90 22.90 17.16 17.16 8.72 8.72
xO 19.96 – 14.96 – 9.73 –
yO 22.85 – 17.17 – 7.89 –

a
Values computed with nstrip=50, npg/strip=3.

Table 5
Displacements at the free end.

Response Trapeziform section Polygonal section Parabolic section

PBIP SAP2000 PBIP SAP2000 PBIP SAP2000

ux (mm) 5.00E−03 5.00E−03 5.00E−03 6.00E−03 6.00E−03 6.00E−03

uy (mm) 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
uz (mm) −1.40E+00 −1.43E+00 −1.46E+00 −1.47E+00 −1.51E+00 −1.50E+00
θx (rad) 7.40E−04 7.30E−04 1.11E−03 1.00E−03 1.11E−03 1.17E−03
θy (rad) 9.00E−04 9.00E−04 9.00E−04 9.00E−04 1.00E−3 9.00E−04
θz (rad) 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+0 0.00E+0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

68
F.C. de Araujo, R.A.T. Pereira
Acknowledgments
This research has been sponsored by the Brazilian Research Council
(CNPq), and the Coordination for Improvement of Higher-Education
Personnel (CAPES).
References
[1] Argyris JJ, Kelsey S. Energy theorems and structural analysis. London, UK:
Butterworths; 1960.
[2] Pestel EC, Leckie FA. Matrix methods in elastomechanics. New York, USA:
McGraw-Hill; 1963.
[3] Przemieniecki JS. Theory of matrix structural analysis. New York, USA: McGraw-
Hill; 1968.
[4] Weaver W, Gere J. Matrix analysis of framed structures. New York, USA: Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company Inc.; 1965.
[5] Murin J, Kutis V. 3D-beam element with continuous variation of the cross-sectional
area. Comput Struct 2002;80:329–38.
[6] Cywinski Z. Torsion des dünnwandigen Stabes mit veränderlichem, einfach
symmetrischem, offenem Querschnitt. Der Stahlbau 1964;10:301–7.
[7] Wekezer JW. Elastic torsion of thin walled bars of variable cross sections. Comput
Struct 1984;19(3):401–7.
[8] Sapountzakis EJ. Solution of non-uniform torsion of bars by an integral equation
method. Comput Struct 2000;77(6):659–67.
[9] Sapountzakis EJ. Nonuniform torsion of multi-material composite bars by the
boundary element method. Comput Struct 2001;79(32):2805–16.
[10] Sapountzakis EJ, Mokos VG. Warping shear stresses in nonuniform torsion by bem.
Comput Mech 2003;30(2):131–42.
[11] Sapountzakis EJ, Mokos VG. Nonuniform torsion of bars of variable cross section.
Comput Struct 2004;82(9–10):703–15.
[12] Sapountzakis EJ, Mokos VG. 3-D beam element of variable composite cross section
including warping effect. Acta Mech 2004;171:151–69.
[13] Sapountzakis EJ, Mokos VG. 3-D beam element of composite cross section
69
Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 77 (2017) 61–69
including warping and shear deformation effects. Comput Struct 2007;85(1–
2):102–16.
[14] Cowper GR. The shear coefficient in Timoshenko's beam theory. ASME J Appl
Mech 1966;33(2):335–40.
[15] Stephen NG. Timoshenko's shear coefficient from a beam subjected to gravity
loading. ASME J Appl Mech 1980;47:121–7.
[16] Schramm U, Kitis L, Kang W, Pilkey WD. On the shear deformation coefficient in
beam theory. Finite Elem Anal Des 1994;16:141–62.
[17] Friedman Z, Kosmat JB. Torsion and flexure of a prismatic isotropic beam using
the boundary element method. Comput Struct 2000;74:479–94.
[18] Hutchinson JR. Shear coefficients for Timoshenko beam theory. ASME J Appl
Mech 2001;68:87–92.
[19] Gruttmann F, Wagner W. Shear correction factors in Timoshenko's beam theory for
arbitrary shaped cross-sections. Comput Mech 2001;27:199–207.
[20] Dong SB, Alpdogan C, Taciroglu E. Much ado about shear correction factors in
Timoshenko beam theory. Int J Solids Struct 2010;47:1651–65.
[21] Mokos VG, Sapountzakis EJ. A BEM solution to transverse shear loading of
composite beams. Int J Solids Struct 2005;42:3261–87.
[22] Freund J, Karakoç A. Warping displacement of Timoshenko's beam model. Int J
Solids Struct 2016;92–93:9–16.
[23] Weber C. Biegung und Schub in geraden Balken. Z Angew Math Mech
1924;4:334–48.
[24] Computers and Structures, Inc., CSI analysis reference manual for SAP2000,
ETABS, and SAFE; 2010.
[25] Telles JCF. A self-adaptive co-ordinate transformation for efficient numerical
evaluation of general boundary element integrals. Int J Numer Methods Eng
1987;24:959–73.
[26] Araújo FC, Gray LJ. Evaluation of effective material parameters of CNT-reinforced
composites via 3D BEM. Comput Model Eng Sci 2008;24:103–21.
[27] Athanasiadis G. Direkte und indirekte Randelementmethoden zur Bestimmung der
Lage des Schubmittelpunktes beliebig geformter Stabquerschnitte, Forschung im
Ingenieurwesen 55.
[28] Hillesheim MJ. Análise de Torção de Saint-Venant em Barras com Seção Arbitrária
via Método dos Elementos de Contorno (M.E.C.) [Master's thesis]. School of Mines,
Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto; 2013 [in Portuguese].