Received: 18 May 2017 Accepted: 2 October 2017

DOI: 10.1002/nme.5709

RESEARCH ARTICLE

A modified Newton-type Koiter-Newton method for tracing

the geometrically nonlinear response of structures
Ke Liang1 Mostafa M. Abdalla2 Qin Sun1

1
School of Aeronautics, Northwestern
Polytechnical University, Youyi Western
Road 127, Xi'an 710072, PR China
2
Aerospace Structures and Computational
Mechanics, Delft University of
Technology, Kluyverweg 1, 2629 HS, Delft,
The Netherlands
Correspondence
Ke Liang, School of Aeronautics,
Northwestern Polytechnical University,
Youyi Western Road 127, Xi'an 710072, PR
China.
Email: k.liang@nwpu.edu.cn
Funding information
National Natural Science Foundation of
China, Grant/Award Number: 11602286
and 51375386 ; Fundamental Research
Funds for the Central Universities of
China, Grant/Award Number:
3102017OQD002 ; CALT, Grant/Award
Number: 2017MC010110
Summary
The Koiter-Newton (KN) method is a combination of local multimode polyno-
mial approximations inspired by Koiter's initial postbuckling theory and global
corrections using the standard Newton method. In the original formulation, the
local polynomial approximation, called a reduced-order model, is used to make
significantly more accurate predictions compared to the standard linear pre-
diction used in conjunction with Newton method. The correction to the exact
equilibrium path relied exclusively on Newton-Raphson method using the full
model.
In this paper, we proposed a modified Newton-type KN method to trace the geo-
metrically nonlinear response of structures. The developed predictor-corrector
strategy is applied to each predicted solution of the reduced-order model. The
reduced-order model can be used also in the correction phase, and the exact full
nonlinear model is applied only to calculate force residuals. Remainder terms
in both the displacement expansion and the reduced-order model are well con-
sidered and constantly updated during correction. The same augmented finite
element model system is used for both the construction of the reduced-order
model and the iterations for correction. Hence, the developed method can be
seen as a particular modified Newton method with a constant iteration matrix
over the single KN step. This significantly reduces the computational cost of
the method. As a side product, the method has better error control, leading to
more robust step size adaptation strategies. Numerical results demonstrate the
effectiveness of the method in treating nonlinear buckling problems.

K E Y WO R D S
adaptation strategy, geometrically nonlinear analysis, Koiter-Newton method, modified Newton
method, reduced-order model

1 I N T RO DU CT ION

Nonlinear static analysis of structures is an essential step of the design of flight vehicles and is important for many practical
situations, for example, it is crucial to conduct a nonlinear static analysis when the displacements and/or rotations of
a structure that is being designed are large.1 Even more important for flight vehicles is the case where a structure, or

Co-first authors: The first two authors contributed equally to this work.

Int J Numer Meth Engng. 2018;113: 1541–1560. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/nme Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1541
1542 LIANG ET AL.

some of its components, are prone to buckling. In the presence of buckling, such structures may exhibit high out-of-plane
displacements, compared to wall thickness, which cause geometrically nonlinear structural responses. In many cases,
it is crucial to assess the load-carrying capability of a structure at which buckling occurs as well as the behavior of the
structure beyond that buckling point.2-4 To this end, geometrically nonlinear analysis has been widely used to study the
buckling and postbuckling characteristics of structures.5
The development of techniques for solving large-scale nonlinear structural problems has been, and continues to be, an
active research area. Conventional path-following techniques, eg, the arc-length method and its variants,6-9 combined with
the finite element (FE) method, work well for tracing the nonlinear equilibrium path of the structure, and the buckling
load can be easily indicated from the nonlinear response curve.5 In view of the high cost of computing usually required
for nonlinear FE analysis of large complex structures, the attractiveness in reducing the problem size by the reduced
basis method is obvious.10 The primary objective of using reduced-order modeling techniques is to reduce the size of the
governing large system of equations resulting in a corresponding reduced-order models (ROMs) and, hence, to reduce
the computational effort involved in the solution of the problem.
The idea of reduced-order modeling technique has been studied intensively in the past across various disciplines follow-
ing different approaches, ie, the methods for the structural static analysis,11-16 the structural vibration,17-19 the structural
dynamics,20-23 the fluid mechanics,24-27 the aeroelasticity,28,29 and the optimization.30,31 In this paper, our work focuses on
the structural static analysis, and 2 families of reduced-order modeling techniques implemented in the FE method con-
text can be recognized in this field. One family,32-36 based on the Rayleigh-Ritz or perturbation techniques, reduces the
number of degrees of freedom (DoFs) in the full model by expanding the equilibrium equations. These methods trace
the nonlinear structural equilibrium path automatically by updating the basis vectors and correcting the results. While,
the selection of basis vectors is crucial and the numerical accuracy of the method is very sensitive to this selection. In
addition, path derivatives13 are often chosen to be the expansion parameter, leading to convergency problems near the
bifurcation point. Therefore, these methods are not well designed for buckling sensitive structures. The second family37-42
is constructed based on the Koiter's classical initial postbuckling theory,43 resulting in a very good performance in struc-
tural buckling analysis. The initial postbuckling path near the bifurcation point is well represented using an approximate
superposition of buckling modes. Since the Koiter asymptotic expansion is used only once at the bifurcation point, this
limits the validity of these methods to a small range around the bifurcation point.
A novel hybrid approach, termed the Koiter-Newton (KN) method,44-46 has been recently proposed inspired by Koiter's
initial postbuckling theory and Newton arc-length techniques. The method is designed to be applicable to the numerical
solution of a class of elastic nonlinear structural analysis problems, especially in the presence of buckling. Significantly
different from those method20,38 based on the classical Koiter's theory, the KN method applies Koiter's asymptotic expan-
sion from the beginning of the equilibrium path rather than only at the bifurcation point, thus the range of validity of this
method is not limited to the small range near the bifurcation point. The method has been successfully implemented into
the FE framework using the von Kármán45 and corotational47 kinematics. A recent research48 indicates that the mixed
(stress-displacement) formulation shows advantages to improve the computational efficiency of Koiter's asymptotic anal-
ysis. The nonlinear equilibrium path of the structure can be traced in a stepwise manner, using a series of expansion steps.
For each step, the method starts from a known equilibrium state of the structure and works by combining a prediction
phase with a correction phase. In the prediction phase, a local polynomial approximation, called the ROM, is constructed
at a known equilibrium state, using the improved Koiter's asymptotic expansion. The solution of the ROM is used to be a
predictor for the nonlinear response of the full finite element model (FEM). This nonlinear predictor allows the algorithm
to use fairly large step sizes, compared to the linear iterations used in Newton methods. One augmented FEM system
based on the full model needs to be solved to construct the ROM. Once the ROM loses the accuracy, a conventional New-
ton iteration method is applied to correct the prediction in the framework of the full model. This global correction phase
needs to solve 2 or 3 augmented FEM systems. In total, each step of the KN method needs to solve 3 or 4 augmented
FEM systems, most of which are related to the correction phase. It can be noticed that although the original KN method
is termed to be a reduced-order modeling technique, the correction to the exact equilibrium path relies exclusively on
Newton method using the full model. This will influence the computational efficiency of the whole method and makes
the method not be a “pure” reduced-order modeling technique. In addition, the error control in the predictor-corrector
process is not well designed, thus the more robust step size adaptation strategies are urgently desired in the method.
This paper develops a modified Newton-type KN method based on an adaptive predictor-corrector strategy. The devel-
oped predictor-corrector strategy is applied to each predicted solution of the ROM. The original method is extended such
that the ROM can also be used to restore the equilibrium of the full model in a corrector step. It means that the exact
nonlinear model is used only to calculate force residuals and assess the numerical accuracy of the current ROM. In
LIANG ET AL. 1543

addition, the same augmented FEM system is used for both the construction of the ROM and the iteration elimination
of the residual force, which makes the proposed method be a particular modified Newton method. However, it should be
kept in mind that the step size of the proposed method is much larger than that of the classical modified Newton method,
benefiting from the nonlinear prediction from the ROM. Both the computational efficiency and the numerical robust-
ness are largely improved, attributing to the above new features involved in the proposed method. The contribution of
this work distinguishes significantly from previous publications,44,45,47,49,50 since we essentially moves 1 big step forward
on the core parts of the algorithm.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. The modified Newton-type KN method is presented in detail in Section
2. The characteristics of the proposed method are introduced in Section 3. Numerical examples which demonstrate the
success of the proposed method are provided in Section 4. In Section 5, we summarize the paper and draw conclusions.

2 THE MODIFIED NEWTO N-TYPE KN METHOD

2.1 Nonlinear predictor

The proposed method starts by considering the nonlinear equilibrium equations of the full model,

f(q) = 𝜆fex , (1)

where q is the vector of DoFs, f is the vector of internal forces, fex is the constant vector of external loads, and 𝜆 is a load
multiplier. As usual with tracing the nonlinear response, we would like to construct the equilibrium path by finding the
1-dimensional (q − 𝜆) curve that satisfies (1).
In the presence of buckling, multiple secondary equilibrium branches that intersect with the primary path at the buck-
ling/bifurcation points exist. The possibility of some perturbation loads that may excite the secondary branches are taken
into account, to make the proposed method applicable for buckling sensitive structures. Thus, a force subspace is defined
as the span of a predefined set of force vectors, as given by

f ∈ F𝝓, (2)

where F is a load matrix with 1 + m columns. The 𝛼th column of F is formed by the subload vector f𝛼 , and 𝝓 is the load
amplitudes vector the components of which are the load parameters of subloads. The first subload vector f1 = fex is the
external load, and the subloads f𝛼 , 𝛼 = 2, … , m + 1 are the perturbation loads, where m is the number of perturbation
loads. For buckling sensitive structures, m is determined by the number of closely spaced buckling modes (with buckling
loads within 20% of the first buckling load).
Inspired by Koiter perturbation approach, the perturbation loads should excite the buckling branches near the bifur-
cation points using knowledge of the buckling modes. The success of the proposed approach depends crucially on the
choice of the perturbation loads. When the asymptotic expansion is applied on the stable part of the equilibrium path,
the buckling prone modes should be considered, otherwise both the already unstable modes and buckling prone modes
need to be involved. The selection of the perturbation loads has been carefully discussed in work Liang et al,44 and will
be illustrated in detail using the numerical examples of this work.
To guarantee that the solution to (1) belongs to the defined force subspace, we stipulate that

∃𝝓ex |fex = F𝝓ex , (3)

where the unit basis vector 𝝓ex is such that the first component is 1 and all the other components are 0.
The ROM is established to approximate the equilibrium Equation 1 in the neighborhood of a known equilibrium state
(q0 , 𝜆0 ), viz, the nominal state. Then, an unknown equilibrium state (q, 𝜆) near this nominal state is defined as

q = q0 ◦ u, 𝜆 = 𝜆0 + 𝜇, (4)

where u and 𝜇 are the variations of the displacement and load multiplier, respectively, between the above 2 equilibrium
states.
Equilibrium Equation 1 are expanded to a third-order expression with respect to u at the nominal state (q0 , 𝜆0 ), to
simplify the complicated nonlinearity of the full model, as given by

f(u) = (u) + (u, u) + (u, u, u) + O(‖u‖4 ) = F𝝓, (5)

1544 LIANG ET AL.

in which,
𝝓 = 𝜇𝝓ex , (6)

where , , and  in calligraphy are used to represent the linear, quadratic, and cubic forms of the Taylor series expansion,
respectively.
Equation 5 defines an m-dimensional equilibrium manifold. This manifold is parametrized using generalized displace-
ments 𝝃, viz,
u = u(𝝃), 𝝓 = 𝝓(𝝃). (7)

The parametrization is made unique by requiring that

f T 𝛿u = 𝝓T 𝛿𝝃. (8)

In general, constructing the mappings in (7) would be even more expensive than solving the original system of
Equation 1 (or the equivalent system 5). To make the problem more tractable, a Taylor series expansion is used to replace
the exact mappings,
u = u𝛼 𝜉𝛼 + u𝛼𝛽 𝜉𝛼 𝜉𝛽 + … , (9)

̄
𝝓 = L(𝝃) ̄
+ Q(𝝃, ̄ 𝝃, 𝝃) + …
𝝃) + C(𝝃, . (10)

Here, Greek indices run from 1 to m and repeated indices indicate summation. In (9), the first-order displacements u𝛼
present the tangent plane to the equilibrium surface at the approximation point, and the second-order displacements u𝛼𝛽
̄ ,
describe the interactions among the first-order displacement fields. In (10), , ̄ and ̄ are, still to be determined, linear,
quadratic, and cubic forms of the expansion.
Substituting (9) and (10) into the equilibrium Equation 5 and expanding in powers of 𝝃, this leads to a set of systems of
equations of the form,
[ ]{ } { }
Kt −F u𝛼 0
= −E , , (11)
−Ft 0 L̄ 𝛼 𝛼

[ ]{ } { }
Kt −F u𝛼𝛽 −(u𝛼 , u𝛽 )
̄ 𝛼𝛽 = , (12)
−Ft 0 Q 0

2
C̄ 𝛼𝛽𝛾𝛿 = (u𝛼 , u𝛽 , u𝛾 , u𝛿 ) − [ut𝛼𝛽 (u𝛿𝛾 ) + ut𝛽𝛾 (u𝛿𝛼 ) + ut𝛾𝛼 (u𝛿𝛽 )], (13)
3
where Kt = L is the tangent stiffness matrix of the full model at the nominal state (q0 , 𝜆0 ), which can be obtained using
the conventional nonlinear FE method. Kt is a N-dimensional matrix, and F is a (N × (m + 1))-dimensional matrix, where
the total number N of DoFs in the full FEM is much larger than the number m of closely spaced buckling modes. Hence,
(11) and (12) can be called the linearly augmented FEM systems.
The solutions of (11) to (13) provide the unknowns in (9) and (10). Equation 10 is a local polynomial approximation
about the parameter 𝜉 and can be termed to be the ROM in the proposed method.
After truncating the fourth- and higher-order terms in (10), the ROM is rewritten as

̄
L(𝝃) ̄
+ Q(𝝃, ̄ 𝝃, 𝝃) + 𝝓(𝝃)
𝝃) + C(𝝃, ̃ = 𝝓, (14)

̃
where 𝝓(𝝃) is the unknown remainder term and the ROM is actually a nonlinear system of equations with only
(1 + m) DoFs.
The ROM solves 𝝓 = 𝜇𝝓ex , using a path following technique, ie, the arc-length method or the normal flow method. The
relationship between the load multiplier 𝜇 and generalized displacement 𝝃 is achieved. To get the nonlinear structural
response (q − 𝜆) in (1), the definitions 𝜆 = 𝜆0 + 𝜇 and q = u ◦ q0 in (4) are used and the displacement expansion up to the
second order is invoked:
̃
u𝛼 𝜉𝛼 + u𝛼𝛽 𝜉𝛼 𝜉𝛽 + u(𝝃) = u, (15)

̃
where u(𝝃) is the unknown remainder term of the displacement expansion.
LIANG ET AL. 1545

For the predictor step, it is reasonable to assume some approximate values for the remainders ũ and 𝝓 ̃ in Equations 14
and 15. In the absence of good guesses, one may opt to set both remainder terms to 0, as we did in the original KN method.44
In this work, one would like to improve the estimate of the remainder terms in the following corrector step. In essence,
the predictor-corrector iteration should eventually converge to the correct values for the remainders.
Remark 1. Construction of the ROM is mainly dominated by the factorization of the governing system of equations
in the augmented FEM problems (11) and (12). Here, the factorization is needed only once, due to the same system
matrix used in the augmented FEM problems. Please keep this augmented FEM system in mind since it will appear
again in the following correction phase.

2.2 Correctors
The ROM constructed using the Koiter's asymptotic expansion still has a limited range of validity near its expansion point.
As we mentioned before, the corrections will be applied at each solution point of the ROM, leading to a better error control
in the proposed method.
Assuming that we proceed to the ith KN step, qi−1 and 𝜆i−1 are the displacement and load multiplier of the full model
after the (i − 1)th KN step. The ROM (14) is constructed at state (qi−1 , 𝜆i−1 ) and will be solved using the Newton-based
increment-iteration method. In each KN step, the initial value of the remainder terms ũ and 𝝓 ̃ in (14) and (15) are set to
be 0 during the solution of the ROM, and their values will be updated during the following corrections.
Further assuming that we start to calculate the kth solution step of the ROM in the ith KN step, let ũk and 𝝓̃k be the
current estimates of remainder terms, and 𝝃 k and 𝜇k are the corresponding reduced-order variables satisfying (14), and
qi−1 + uk and 𝜆i−1 + 𝜇k the current prediction of full model displacements and load multiplier. The residual force rk of the
full model at this predicted point is
rk = (𝜆i−1 + 𝜇k )fex − f(qi−1 + uk ), (16)
where f(qi−1 + uk ) is the internal force of the full model at current point.
In the original method, corrections are applied only when the above residual force exceeds a given limit, and the classical
Newton iterations are directly conducted based on the tangent stiffness of the full model. This will not only increase the
computational cost but also meet difficulties to achieve a robust error control. Differing from the original method, the
following correction procedures are applied to each predicted point of the ROM.
In general, the residual rk (16) will not belong to the force subspace given by F in (2). We make the following
decomposition for the residual force,
̃ k + r⟂ ,
rk = FΔ𝝓 (17)

where Δ𝝓 ̃ k is the variation of the remainder term 𝝓̃k . In this decomposition, we distinguish 2 components of the residual.
A component FΔ𝝓 ̃ k lies in the approximation subspace, and this is accounted for by correcting the remainder term in the
ROM (14). A component r ⟂ lies in the complementary subspace which is accounted for by correcting the remainder term
in the displacement expansion (15).
At this stage, we invoke 2 crucial assumptions:
1. The corresponding displacements to r⟂ are not acted on (in virtual work sense) by the subspace defined by F,
resulting in
FT Δũ = 0, (18)
where Δũ is the variation of the remainder term ũk , corresponding to r⟂ .
2. The force displacement relation is linear, as given by

LΔũ = r⟂ , (19)

where L = Kt is the tangent stiffness matrix of the full model at nominal state (qi−1 , 𝜆i−1 ), as mentioned in (11).
The first assumption is simply an approximate statement of the condition of virtual work equivalence (8). The second
assumption is equivalent to assuming that all nonlinearity in the system is contained in the force subspace defined by F.
This is a reasonable assumption to make as long as the choice of F guarantees that all modes that are prone to instability
are included. Actually, this condition cannot be strictly satisfied since there are too many buckling prone modes (being
1546 LIANG ET AL.

the same order as the DoFs in FE model) for a structure, however, it can be satisfied approximately if the closely spaced
buckling modes are well chosen. This is already guaranteed by construction of F as explained before. It can be concluded
that the second assumption strongly depend on the selection of the force space F, which means that the choice of modes
directly affects the computational efficiency of the correction strategy.
Combining Equations 17, 18, and 19, we obtain
( )( ) ( )
Kt −F Δũ k rk
̃k = , (20)
−FT 0 −Δ𝝓 0

where the system matrix of the above linear equation is identical to the augmented linear FEM systems (11) and (12)
̃ k can be
used to construct the ROM. Hence, solving Equation 20 does not need any new matrix factorization. Δũ k and Δ𝝓
achieved efficiently.
Now, we can update the values of the remainders,

ũ k+1 = ũ k + Δũ k , (21)

𝝓 ̃ k + Δ𝝓
̃ k+1 = 𝝓 ̃ k. (22)

̃
The new remainder 𝝓
k+1
is substituted back into (14) to only update the right-hand side of the ROM, as given by

L(𝝃 ̄ k+1 , 𝝃 k+1 ) + C(𝝃

̄ k+1 ) + Q(𝝃 ̄ k+1 , 𝝃 k+1 , 𝝃 k+1 ) = 𝝓 − 𝝓
̃ k+1 , (23)

where the left-hand side of the ROM presented by L, ̄ Q,̄ and C

̄ is not changed. The above ROM (23) is solved again to
achieve the solution (𝝃 , 𝜇 ) which is near the previous one (𝝃 k , 𝜇k ). Then, the updated displacement uk+1 is obtained
k+1 k+1

by introducing 𝝃 k+1 and the remainder ũ k+1 into (15) to be

uk+1 = u𝛼 𝝃 k+1
𝛼 + u𝛼𝛽 𝝃 k+1
𝛼 𝝃𝛽
k+1
+ ũ k+1 . (24)

Based on the renewed displacement uk+1 and load multiplier 𝜇k+1 , the residual force (16) is updated to recalculate the
linear Equation 20, and then values of the reminders are updated once again. The above corrector process is repeated
̃ are both satisfied:
until the following 2 convergence criteria for Δũ and Δ𝝓

̃ L < 𝜀,
||Δu|| (25)

̃ < 𝜀,
||Δ𝝓|| (26)

̃ L is defined as follows:
where 𝜀 is a prespecified tolerance, and the norm ||Δu||

̃ 2L = Δũ T LΔu.
||Δu|| ̃ (27)

Up to this point, the correction process for the prediction in solution step k of the ROM is ended, and then the predictor
for solution step k + 1 will be calculated and corrected using the above correction process.
One point should be stressed. The correction phase for the current predicted solution is successful if criteria (25) and
(26) are satisfied; however, a relatively large number d of correction iterations may be needed when the solution is not
close to the expansion point where the ROM is constructed. In this case, the convergence speed in the correction phase
will be very slow and it would be more computationally economical if we discard the current ROM and construct a new
one. Hence, we can use the decrease rate of the norms in criteria (25) and (26) to check whether the current ROM should
be updated.
Remark 2. The ROM (23) is involved in the correction process and the numerical accuracy (the range of validity) is
improved by updating its right-hand side. Corrections to the predicted solution is actually a matrix iteration process
based on the system (20). This system is the same augmented FEM system that used to construct the ROM. Hence,
no more factorization is needed and the computational cost for correction can be neglected assuming that cost is
dominated by the factorization and not by a forward and back substitution.
LIANG ET AL. 1547

3 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRO POSED METHOD

We show the flow chart of the proposed method in Figure 1 and also the predictor-corrector strategy used in 1 KN step in
Figure 2. The proposed method has a much larger step size compared to the Newton-Raphson method, especially to the
modified Newton method, benefiting from the nonlinear prediction from the ROM. However, both the proposed method
and modified Newton method trace the nonlinear equilibrium path with a constant iteration matrix over a single step.
Two important remarks related to the above predictor-corrector procedure are given as follows:
• Instead of directly correcting the residual force based on the full model, we choose to correct the remainder terms in
the ROM and displacement expansion. The corrections to the remainders in (20) are driven by the residual of the full
equations. This ensures the consistency of the method. If the method converges, it converges to an exact equilibrium
point of the full system of nonlinear equations.
• By the construction of F in the original paper, the matrix L is positive definite over the kernel of F. This guarantees
that the system (20) is nonsingular. Moreover, it allows us to define the norm of the correction (27).
Compared to the original method, the proposed method has the advantages both in computational cost and numerical
accuracy, as follows.
• Computational cost. Although the proposed correction strategy is applied in each solution point of the ROM, the total
computational cost is not increased but obviously reduced. The reason is that corrections used here is totally based
on the ROM (23) and the exact nonlinear model is used only to calculate force residuals. In each KN step, the same

at a known construct the solve the

equilibrium state ROM ROM

d=d+ exit

FIGURE 1 Flow chart of the proposed method. ROM, reduced-order model

Correctors

Nonlinear Predictor

FIGURE 2 Predictor-corrector strategy used in the original and improved method. KN, Koiter-Newton
1548 LIANG ET AL.

augmented FEM system (see Equations 11, 12, and (20)) are used for both the construction of the ROM and the iteration
corrections, resulting in only 1 matrix factorization. In this way, the total computational cost, in terms of the number
 of augmented FEM systems needed to be solved in the improved method is

∑
n
 = 1, (28)
p=1

where n is the total number of KN steps taken using the improved method. Equation 28 indicates that only 1 augmented
FEM system needs to be solved for each KN step. This feature demonstrates that the proposed method can be seen as
a particular modified Newton method with a constant iteration matrix over the single KN step.
• Numerical accuracy. It can be obviously observed that the ROM (23) solved in the improved method is different
from that used in the original one. The right-hand side of the ROM (23) is updated constantly in the proposed
predictor-corrector process as depicted in Figure 2, which improves the accuracy of the existing ROM without increas-
ing any computational cost. In addition, The proposed method largely improves the original KN method in terms of
robustness because of (1) the correction in each solution step of the ROM which leads to a better error control and (2)
the step size criterion which was missing in the previous works.

4 NUMERICAL EXAMPLES

The numerical accuracy and efficiency of the proposed method are evaluated using several numerical examples. Some of
these examples have already been tested using the original KN method,44,45 and those results will be compared carefully
with what we achieve using the improved method. In addition, all results are compared with the full nonlinear analysis
which adopts a general path-following method51-53 based on the full FE model, using the same number of elements and
nodes. The elements used in analysis are the 2-node planar beam element based on the classical Euler beam theory and
the 4-node plate element based on the classical plate theory. The von Kármán kinematics are adopted to take into account
the geometric nonlinearities in an element. The computational efficiency of the proposed method is carefully tested and
compared to the original method. The selection of modes for each KN step are also presented.
The response curves, ie, load vs displacement curves, achieved using the full nonlinear analysis are plotted using solid
lines. The different steps taken by the proposed method are illustrated using different marker symbols on top of these
solid lines, and each marker symbol indicates 1 solution point of the ROM followed by corrections. A new KN step by
updating the ROM will be started once the correction meets difficulties in the current step.
The number of augmented FEM systems, that need to be factorized in the analysis, is adopted for a comparison of
computational costs. We should keep in mind that only 1 augmented FEM system needs to be solved for each step of

(A) (B)

(C) (D)

FIGURE 3 Four single beams example

LIANG ET AL. 1549

the proposed method. Here, we would like to kindly let the readers know that the computational costs are assumed
to be dominated by the factorization and not by a forward and back substitution. However, actually, forward and back
substitutions in construction of the ROM and solving Equation 20 still needs to be reduced by means of some other
numerical techniques in our future work.

4.1 Nonlinear beam examples

Four single beams are chosen from reference54 to test the performance of the improved method. As seen in Figure 3, these
curved beams have differences in depths, constraint conditions, and loading positions. For all the beams, the area A and
moment of inertia I of the cross section are 391 mm2 and 2000 mm4 , respectively, and an isotropic material with Young
modulus E = 210000 N/mm2 is used. Each single beam is meshed with 16 beam elements, which results in 51 DoFs in a
full FEM.
At the undeformed configuration, the first buckling load is separated from the others for all 6 single beams, hence only
the first buckling mode needs to be taken into account. For the first KN step, the Koiter's asymptotic expansion is applied
at the undeformed configuration (the stable path), and the ROM is a system of 2 DoFs, where one DoF represents the
primary path and another one indicates the first buckling mode. The numbers of the selected modes in each KN step are
listed in Tables 1 to 4, for different beam examples, based on the criteria mentioned before.

TABLE 1 The number of the buckling modes used for beam (a)
KN step Expansion position Total Already unstable modes Buckling prone modes
1st Stable path 1 0 1
Abbreviation: KN, Koiter-Newton.

TABLE 2 The number of the buckling modes used for beam (b)
KN step Expansion position Total Already unstable modes Buckling prone modes
1st Stable path 1 0 1
2nd Stable path 1 0 1
3rd Stable path 2 0 2
4th Unstable path 3 1 2
5th Unstable path 5 3 2
Abbreviation: KN, Koiter-Newton.

TABLE 3 The number of the buckling modes used for beam (c)
KN step Expansion position Total Already unstable modes Buckling prone modes
1st Stable path 1 0 1
2nd Stable path 1 0 1
3rd Stable path 3 0 3
4th Unstable path 5 2 3
5th Unstable path 7 4 3
Abbreviation: KN, Koiter-Newton.

TABLE 4 The number of the buckling modes used for beam (d)
KN step Expansion position Total Already unstable modes Buckling prone modes
1st Stable path 1 0 1
2nd Stable path 1 0 1
3rd Stable path 3 0 3
4th Stable path 5 0 5
5th Unstable path 7 4 3
6th Unstable path 10 7 3
Abbreviation: KN, Koiter-Newton.
1550 LIANG ET AL.

0.6
full nonlinear analysis
1st KN step
0.5

0.4

Load [N]
0.3

0.2

0.1

−0.1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Displacement [mm]

FIGURE 4 Nonlinear response curves of the beam (a). KN, Koiter-Newton

6
full nonlinear analysis
1st KN step
5 2nd KN step
3rd KN step
4th KN step
4 5th KN step
Load [N]

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Displacement [mm]

FIGURE 5 Nonlinear response curves of the beam (b). KN, Koiter-Newton

30
full nonlinear analysis
1st KN step
25 2nd KN step
3rd KN step
4th KN step
20 5th KN step
Load [N]

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Displacement [mm]

FIGURE 6 Nonlinear response curves of the beam (c). KN, Koiter-Newton

The nonlinear response curves, vertical displacement at the right constraint point vs load, of these beams are plotted in
Figures 4 to 7, using the proposed method and the full nonlinear analysis, respectively. It can be noticed that the proposed
method needs only 1 step to trace the nonlinear response curves of the beam (a) accurately, including the nonlinear
prebuckling stage, the limit point, and the postbuckling stage. More KN steps, fifth and sixth steps, are needed for the
other 3 beams, due to the significant prebuckling nonlinearity. It should also be mentioned that each marker symbol
plotted in Figures 4 to 7 is the exact solution point achieved by the developed predictor-corrector process.
Table 5 shows that the buckling loads of these 4 beams obtained using the linear eigenvalue buckling analysis and the
nonlinear structural analysis are quite different. This indicates that the nonlinearity of the prebuckling stage will greatly
affect the structural buckling characteristics of a beam.
The computational costs of the full nonlinear analysis, the original KN analysis, and the proposed analysis are compared
in terms of number of augmented FEM systems, in Table 6. The value in bracket is the number of steps needed for the
method, and the value without bracket indicates the total number of iterations (or augmented FEM systems) needed to
LIANG ET AL. 1551

80
70
60
50

Load [N]
40
full nonlinear analysis
30 1st KN step
2nd KN step
20 3rd KN step
4th KN step
10 5th KN step
6th KN step
0
−5 0 5 10 15 20
Displacement [mm]

FIGURE 7 Nonlinear response curves of the beam (d). KN, Koiter-Newton

TABLE 5 Comparison between the linear eigenvalue

buckling load and the nonlinear buckling load
Four single beams (a) (b) (c) (d)
Linear buckling load, N 0.16 3.43 22.3 40.2
Nonlinear buckling load, N 0.093 5.75 27 74.3

TABLE 6 Comparison of the computational cost in terms of number of

augmented finite element model systems, for the 4 single beams example
Four single beams (a) (b) (c) (d)
Full nonlinear analysis 38 61 69 87
(number of steps) (15) (26) (32) (39)
Original Koiter-Newton approach 6 15 15 18
(number of steps) (2) (5) (5) (6)
Modified Newton-type Koiter-Newton approach 1 5 5 6
(number of steps) (1) (5) (5) (6)

FIGURE 8 The Roorda plate frame model

be solved. It can be seen that the original KN method needs to solve 3 augmented FEM systems in each step, one for
prediction and the other two for correction. However, only 1 augmented FEM system needs to be solved for each step
of the proposed method, since the proposed method is a particular modified Newton method. It can be concluded from
Table 6 that the improved method show obviously advantages in computational efficiency, compared to both the original
method and the full nonlinear analysis.
1552 LIANG ET AL.

4.2 Roorda plate frame

The performance of the proposed approach is demonstrated via a popular benchmark of the Roorda's frame. This frame
was originally called the Roorda-Koiter frame37,55 in 1956. In this example, the 2 bars are replaced by 2 slender plates,
and the geometry and boundary conditions are illustrated in Figure 8. The following material properties are considered:
E = 4.444 × 106 , 𝜈 = 0.0, where 𝜈 = 0.0 is used to avoid parasitic stress near the constrained nodes. The frame is meshed
with 640 plate elements, leading to 4830 DoFs in a full FEM.
Since the first buckling load is separated from the others, only the first buckling mode is chosen to construct the ROM
with only 2 DoFs, in the first KN step. The displacements of points a and b, in the x direction, are plotted with the load
in Figures 9 and 10. The proposed method needs 1 step to trace the nonlinear response curves of the frame accurately,
resulting in 1 solution of the augmented FEM system. As illustrated in Table 7, although the original KN method also
executes 1 step to trace the curve, 3 augmented FEM systems need to be solved, 2 of which are related to the correction
phase. The postbuckling deformations achieved using the full nonlinear analysis and the improved method are compared
in Figure 11, when the displacement of point a is 0.01 in x direction.

4.3 Cylindrical shell under a centralized transverse load

This example, as illustrated in Figure 12, has been widely used to test the numerical performance of various path-following
algorithms.44,56-58 The material properties of this shell are the Young modulus E = 3102.75 MPa and the Poisson ratio
𝜈 = 0.3. One hundred forty-four plate elements are used to mesh the shell, resulting in 1014 DoFs in a full FEM.

400

350

300

250
Load [N]

200

150

100
full nonlinear analysis
1st KN step
50

0
−0.03 −0.025 −0.02 −0.015 −0.01 −0.005 0 0.005
Displacement of point a [mm]

FIGURE 9 Nonlinear response curves of the Roorda plate frame, point a. KN, Koiter-Newton

400

350

300

250
Load [N]

200

150

100
full nonlinear analysis
50 1st KN step

0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
Displacement of point b [mm]

FIGURE 10 Nonlinear response curves of the Roorda plate frame, point b. KN, Koiter-Newton

TABLE 7 Comparison of the computational cost, for the Roorda plate frame example
Roorda plate frame Full nonlinear analysis Original method Proposed method
No. of augmented systems 49 3 1
No. of steps 26 1 1
LIANG ET AL. 1553

(A) full non linear analysis (B) Modified Newton-type Koiter-Newton method

FIGURE 11 Comparison of the postbuckling deformations of the Roorda plate frame

FIGURE 12 The cylindrical shell example

3000
full nonlinear analysis
1st KN step
2500 2nd KN step
3rd KN step
2000
Load [N]

1500

1000

500

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Displacement [mm]

FIGURE 13 Nonlinear equilibrium path of the cylindrical shell

TABLE 8 The number of the buckling modes used for cylindrical shell
KN step Expansion position Total Already unstable modes Buckling prone modes
1st Stable path 1 0 1
2nd Stable path 4 0 4
3rd Unstable path 5 2 3
Abbreviation: KN, Koiter-Newton.
1554 LIANG ET AL.

At the undeformed configuration, the first buckling load is separated from the others, hence only the first buckling
mode needs to be taken into account. For the first KN step, the Koiter's asymptotic expansion is applied at the undeformed
configuration, and the ROM is a system of 2 DoFs. The response curve related to the transverse displacement at the
shell surface center is plotted in Figure 13. Three steps have been used for the proposed method to trace the nonlinear
equilibrium path of the shell accurately. The numbers of the selected modes in each step are presented in Table 8, and
the corresponding mode deformations are illustrated in Figure 14. In this example, we notice that for the construction
of the ROM at the unstable path (the third KN step), considering the buckling prone modes or does not obviously affect
the step size. This indicates that the already unstable modes play a more important role when the asymptotic expansion
is applied at the unstable path. It can be seen from Table 9 that although both the original and proposed methods use 3
steps to trace the curve, the new one needs much less iterations in each step.

1st KN step buckling prone mode

2nd KN step buckling prone modes

already unstable modes

3rd KN step

buckling prone modes

FIGURE 14 The selected modes in each Koiter-Newton (KN) step

TABLE 9 Comparison of the computational cost, for the cylindrical shell example
Cylindrical shell Full nonlinear analysis Original method Proposed method
No. of augmented systems 48 16 3
No. of steps 21 3 3

FIGURE 15 The U-shaped cantilever beam

LIANG ET AL. 1555

4.4 U-shaped cantilever beam

The U-shaped cantilever beam considered here is a standard benchmark problem to test the path-following performance
of the method.37,47,59,60 Severe buckling phenomenons, ie, interaction modes and serious nonlinear prebuckling behavior,
can be found in this example. The geometry, material properties, and loads are shown in Figure 15. Both an isotropic mate-
rial and a laminated composite material are considered in this example. The beam is meshed using 1440 plate elements,
which results in 9198 DoFs in a full FEM.
In the KN analysis, the ROM is constructed with 5 DoFs at the undeformed configuration, 4 of which are related to the
first 4 closely spaced buckling modes. The response curves, about the lateral displacement of loading point vs load, for
isotropic material and laminated composite cases are depicted in Figure 16 and compared with the full nonlinear analysis.
For both cases, 5 steps have been applied for the proposed method to trace the nonlinear equilibrium path of the structure
accurately. The numbers of the selected modes in each step are given in Table 10 for the isotropic beam. It should be
noticed that only 1 augmented FEM system needs to be solved in each step of the proposed method. The computational
costs using different methods are well compared in Tables 11 and 12, for the 2 material properties.

120

100

80

60

full nonlinear analysis

40 1st KN step
2nd KN step
3rd KN step
20
4th KN step
5th KN step
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

FIGURE 16 Nonlinear equilibrium path of the U-shaped cantilever beam

TABLE 10 The number of the buckling modes used for the isotropic beam
KN step Expansion position Total Already unstable modes Buckling prone modes
1st Stable path 4 0 4
2nd Stable path 6 0 6
3rd Stable path 7 0 7
4th Stable path 9 0 9
5th Unstable path 10 6 4
Abbreviation: KN, Koiter-Newton.

TABLE 11 Comparison of the computational cost, for the isotropic U-shaped cantilever beam example
Isotropic U-shaped beam Full nonlinear analysis Original method Improved method
No. of augmented systems 99 21 5
No. of steps 59 6 5

TABLE 12 Comparison of the computational cost, for the laminated composite U-shaped cantilever
beam example
Laminated U-shaped beam Full nonlinear analysis Original method Improved method
No. of augmented systems 102 19 5
No. of steps 67 5 5
1556 LIANG ET AL.

clamped
120 mm
x =0

150 mm Z, w
x =0

v=w=0 Y, v

X, u

FIGURE 17 The axially compressed stiffened panel

First buckling mode Second buckling mode

FIGURE 18 The first 2 buckling modes of the stiffened panel

4.5 Axially compressed stiffened panel

The proposed method is further validated using a complex buckling problem. This is a flat metal panel of size 150 ×
120 mm with thickness 1.5 mm, as shown in Figure 17. The panel is characterized by 2 stiffeners with side dimensions of
12 mm and thickness 1 mm. The distance between to the 2 stiffeners is equal to 60 mm and the distance of the first and
second stiffeners to the lateral edges of the panel is equal to 30 mm. The boundary conditions are presented in Figure 17.
The material properties of this panel are the Young modulus E = 71 000 MPa and the Poisson ratio 𝜈 = 0.3. The panel is
meshed using a mesh size = 3 mm, which results in 14 994 DoFs in a full FEM.
A linear buckling analysis is conducted, and the first 2 buckling loads are 44.984 and 45.836 kN. The 2 closely spaced
buckling modes are illustrated in Figure 18. Thus, the first KN step constructs the ROM with 3 DoFs at the undeformed
configuration. For the nonlinear analysis, the initial geometric imperfection is formed using a combination of the first
2 buckling modes. Eight steps are used for the proposed method to trace the nonlinear equilibrium path of the panel
accurately, as depicted in Figure 19. The panel deformations at the first local buckling point and the global buckling point
are also given in the figure. The first local buckling, that is the buckling of the skin between 2 stringers, occurs at a load
level of about 50 kN that is close to the first eigenvalue buckling load. The first global buckling (stringer-based buckling),
occurs at a load level of about 130 kN which is almost 2.5 times of the first local buckling load. It can be seen that the
postbuckling behavior of this panel is very complex and accompanied by the mode jumping and load distributions. We do
not show the entire response curve with the collapse load, since a pure static analysis meets difficulties to converge near
the collapse load. The implicit dynamic method or the use of damping factor in ABAQUS could solve this problem and
obtain the entire curve. However, current results still explore the potential of the proposed method in dealing with real
engineering structures with complex buckling behaviors. The panel deformation near the collapse load is also provided
in Figure 19.
To achieve the response curve in Figure 19, the numbers of the selected modes in each step are listed in Table 13. We
notice that the number of already unstable modes will gradually accumulate to be a large number, leading to a huge
computational cost in construction of ROM. Hence, we set the number of already unstable modes to be 4 from the fifth
step, to achieve a better balance between accuracy and efficiency. In this example, effects of buckling prone modes cannot
be ignored for the construction of ROM at the unstable path. The mode selection criteria still need to be improved, to
further explore the potential of the proposed method. Finally, the computational costs using different methods are well
compared in Table 14.
LIANG ET AL. 1557

200

180
global buckling
(stringer-based) buckling
160

140
Scale factor: 3
B Scale factor: 5

Load [kN]
120
full nonlinear analysis
100
1st KN step
2nd KN step
80
3rd KN step
local buckling
60 4th KN step
A 5th KN step
40 6th KN step
7th KN step
20 8th KN step
Scale factor: 5

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
End shortening [mm]

FIGURE 19 End-shortening curve of the stiffened panel

TABLE 13 The number of the buckling modes used for the axially compressed stiffened panel
KN step Expansion position Total Already unstable modes Buckling prone modes
1st Stable path 2 0 2
2nd Unstable path 4 2 2
3rd Unstable path 4 3 1
4th Unstable path 7 6 1
5th Unstable path 7 4 3
6th Unstable path 7 4 2
7th Unstable path 6 4 2
8th Unstable path 8 4 4
Abbreviation: KN, Koiter-Newton.

TABLE 14 Comparison of the computational cost, for the axially compressed stiffened panel
Stiffened panel Full nonlinear analysis Improved method
No. of augmented systems 320 8
No. of steps 198 8

5 CO N C LUSION S

The original KN method has been approved to be a numerically accurate and computationally efficient algorithm to
trace the nonlinear equilibrium path in a stepwise manner, especially in the presence of buckling. In each step, this
method works by combining a nonlinear predictor and a few Newton iteration–based corrections. Although the predictor
is obtained from the ROM, corrections to the exact equilibrium path relies exclusively on the full model. Therefore, the
aim of this work is to improve the original KN method and make it be a “pure” reduced-order modeling technique during
the path tracing.
To this end, we propose a modified Newton-type KN method for tracing the geometrically nonlinear response of struc-
tures, where the ROM can be used also in the correction phase. The proposed predictor-corrector strategy is applied for
each solution point of the ROM and works in the following process. Firstly, the predictor to the exact equilibrium state
is achieved based on the current solution point of the ROM. Two remainder terms are considered in the ROM and the
displacement expansion, respectively. Secondly, the residual force calculated by the full model is decomposed into 2 com-
ponents which are related to the 2 remainder terms, respectively. Then, the variations of remainder terms are achieved
by factorizing an augmented FEM system which is identical to that used in the construction of the ROM. Next, the solu-
tion point of the ROM and the predictor are both renewed in sequence, using the updated remainder terms. Finally, the
1558 LIANG ET AL.

residual force is recalculated based on the updated predictor. The above process is repeated until it converges, that is, the
variations of remainder terms being below a given threshold. Here, the corrections to the remainders are driven by the
residual of the full model. This ensures the consistency of the method. Since the same augmented FEM system is used for
both the construction of the ROM and the iteration-elimination of the residual force, the proposed method can be seen as
a particular modified Newton method with a constant iteration matrix over the single KN step. This significantly reduces
the computational cost of the method. As a side product, the method has better error control and more robust step size
adaptation strategies, benefiting from the corrections applied in each solution step of the ROM.
We demonstrate the potential of the proposed method and the high quality of the analysis results with a set of bench-
mark and real engineering problems. Both reliability and accuracy of the approach are remarkable. The proposed method
show great advantages in computational efficiency, compared to both the original method and the conventional Newton
path-following method.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11602286, 51375386), the
Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China (Grant No. 3102017OQD002), and the CALT fund
(2017MC010110).

ORCID

Ke Liang http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2042-8843

REFERENCES
1. Sze KY, Liu XH, Lo SH. Popular benchmark problems for geometric nonlinear analysis of shells. Finite Elem Anal Des.
2004;40(11):1551-1569.
2. Wang S, Harvey CM, Wang B, Watson A. Post-local buckling-driven delamination in bilayer composite beams. Compos Struct.
2015;133:1058-1066.
3. Ovesy HR, Mooneghi MA, Kharazi M. Post-buckling analysis of delaminated composite laminates with multiple through-the-width
delaminations using a novel layerwise theory. Thin Wall Struct. 2015;94:98-106.
4. Rahman T, Jansen EL. Finite element based coupled mode initial post-buckling analysis of a composite cylindrical shell. Thin Wall Struct.
2010;48(1):25-32.
5. Zhou Y, Stanciulescu I, Eason T, Spottswood M. Nonlinear elastic buckling and postbuckling analysis of cylindrical panels. Finite Elem
Anal Des. 2015;96:41-50.
6. Crisfield MA. An arc-length method including line search and acceleration. Int J Numer Meth Eng. 1983;19(9):1269-1289.
7. Crisfield MA. A fast incremental/iterative solution procedure that handles snap-through. Comput Struct. 1981;13(81):55-62.
8. Forde BWR, Stiemer SF. Improved arc-length orthogonality methods for nonlinear finite element analysis. Comput Struct.
1987;27(5):625-630.
9. Ragon SA, Gürdal Z, Watson LT. A comparison of three algorithms for tracing nonlinear equilibrium paths of structural systems. Int J
Solids Struct. 2002;139:689-698.
10. Najah A, Cochelin B, Damil N, Potier-Ferry M. A critical review of asymptotic numerical methods. Arch Comput Methods Eng.
1998;5(1):31-50.
11. Nagy DA, Konig M. Geometrically nonlinear finite element behaviour using buckling mode superposition. Comput Methods Appl Mech
Eng. 1979;19(3):447-484.
12. Almroth BO, Stern P, Brogan FA. Automatic choice of global shape functions in structural analysis. AIAA Journal. 1978;16(5):525-528.
13. Noor AK, Peters JM. Reduced basis technique for nonlinear analysis of structures. AIAA Journal. 1980;18(4):455-462.
14. Lanzo AD, Garcea G. Koiter's analysis of thin-walled structures by a finite element approach. Int J Numer Meth Eng. 1996;39:3007-3031.
15. Carnoy EG. Asymptotic study of the elastic postbuckling behavior of structures by the finite element method. Comput Methods Appl Mech
Eng. 1981;29:147-173.
16. Garcea G, Madeo A, Zagari G, Casciaro R. Asymptotic postbuckling FEM analysis using corotational formulation. Int J Solids Struct.
2009;46:377-397.
17. Shaw SW, Pierre C. Normal modes for non-linear vibratory systems. J Sound Vib. 1993;164(1):85-124.
18. Lazarus A, Thomas O, Deü J-F. Finite element reduced order models for nonlinear vibrations of piezoelectric layered beams with
applications to nems. Finite Elem Anal Des. 2012;49(1):35-51.
19. Jansen EL, Rolfes R. Non-linear free vibration analysis of laminated cylindrical shells under static axial loading including accurate
satisfaction of boundary conditions. Int J Non Linear Mech. 2014;66:66-74.
LIANG ET AL. 1559

20. Tiso P. Finite element based reduction methods for static and dynamic analysis of thin-walled structures. Ph.D. Thesis: Delft University of
Technology; 2006.
21. Rahman T, Jansen EL, Gürdal Z. Dynamic buckling analysis of composite cylindrical shells using a finite element based perturbation
method. Nonlinear Dyn. 2011;66(3):389-401.
22. Azam SE, Mariani S. Investigation of computational and accuracy issues in pod-based reduced order modeling of dynamic structural
systems. Eng Struct. 2013;54:150-167.
23. Amsallem D, Carlberg K, Cortial J, Farhat C. A method for interpolating on manifolds structural dynamics reduced-order models. Int J
Numer Meth Eng. 2009;80:1241-1258.
24. Akkari N, Hamdouni A, Liberge E, Jazar M. A mathematical and numerical study of the sensitivity of a reduced order model by pod
(romcpod), for a 2d incompressible fluid flow. J Comput Appl Math. 2014;270:522-530.
25. Ammar A, Ryckelynck D, Chinesta F, Keunings R. On the reduction of kinetic theory models related to finitely extensible dumbbells. J
NonNewton Fluid Mech. 2006;134:136-147.
26. Ammar A, Pruliere E, Chinesta F, Laso M. Reduced numerical modeling of flows involving liquid-crystalline polymeres. J NonNewton
Fluid Mech. 2009;160:140-156.
27. Rowley CW. Model reduction for fluids, using balanced proper orthogonal decomposition. Int J Bifurc Chaos. 2005;15(3):997-1013.
28. Winther BA, Goggin PJ, Dykman JR. Reduced-order dynamic aeroelastic model development and integration with nonlinear simulation.
J Aircraft. 2000;37(5):833-839.
29. Zhang W, Wang B, Ye Z. High efficient numerical method for limit cycle flutter analysis based on nonlinear aerodynamic reduced order
model. In: 51st AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, And Materials Conference. Orlando, Florida; 12-15 April;
2010:1-15.
30. Yue Y. The use of model order reduction in design optimization algorithms. Ph.D. Thesis: KU Leuven; 2012.
31. Bui-Thanh T, Willcox K, Ghattas O, van Bloemen Waanders B. Goal-oriented, model-constrained optimization for reduction of large-scale
systems. J Comput Phys. 2007;224(2):880-896.
32. Mottaqui H, Braikat B, Damil N. Discussion about parameterization in the asymptotic numerical method: application to nonlinear elastic
shells. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng. 2010;199:1701-1709.
33. Cochelin B, Damil N, Potier-Ferry M. Asymptotic-numerical methods and Padé approximants for nonlinear elastic structures. Int J Numer
Meth Eng. 1994;37(7):1187-1213.
34. Boutyour EH, Zahrouni H, Potier-Ferry M, Boudi M. Asymptotic-numerical method for buckling analysis of shell structures with large
rotations. J Comput Appl Math. 2004;168(1-2):77-85.
35. Lopez S. An effective parametrization for asymptotic extrapolations. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng. 2000;189(1):297-311.
36. Xu F, Potier-Ferry M, Belouettar S, Hu H. Multiple bifurcations in wrinkling analysis of thin films on compliant substrates. Int J Non
Linear Mech. 2015;76:203-222.
37. Zagari G. Koiter's asymptotic numerical methods for shell structures using a corotational formulation. Ph.D. Thesis: Universita Della
Calabria; 2009.
38. Rahman T, Jansen EL. Finite element based multi-mode initial post-buckling analysis of composite cylindrical shells. In: 50th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference; 2009:1-11.
39. Rahman T. A perturbation approach for geometrically nonlinear structural analysis using a general purpose finite element code. Ph.D.
Thesis: Delft University of Technology; 2009.
40. Haftka RT, Mallett RH, Nachbar W. Adaption of Koiter's method to finite element analysis of snap-through buckling behavior. Int J Solids
Struct. 1971;7(10):1427-1445.
41. Salerno G, Casciaro R. Mode jumping and attractive paths in multimode elastic buckling. Int J Numer Meth Eng. 1997;40(5):833-861.
42. Garcea G, Casciaro R, Attanasio G, Giordano F. Perturbation approach to elastic post-buckling analysis. Comput Struct. 1998;66(5):585-595.
43. Koiter WT. On the stability of the elastic equilibrium. Ph.D. Thesis: Delft University of Technology; 1945.
44. Liang K, Abdalla M, Gürdal Z. A Koiter-Newton approach for nonlinear structural analysis. Int J Numer Meth Eng. 2013;96(12):763-786.
45. Liang K, Ruess M, Abdalla M. The Koiter-Newton approach using von Kármán kinematics for buckling analyses of imperfection sensitive
structures. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng. 2014;279(1):440-468.
46. Liang Ke. A Koiter-Newton arc-length method for buckling sensitive structures. Ph.D. Thesis: Delft University of Technology; 2013.
47. Liang K, Ruess M, Abdalla M. Co-rotational finite element formulation used in the Koiter-Newton method for nonlinear buckling analyses.
Finite Elem Anal Des. 2016;116:38-54.
48. Magisano D, Leonetti L, Garcea G. Advantages of the mixed format in geometrically nonlinear analysis of beams and shells using solid
finite elements. Int J Numer Meth Eng. 2017;109(9):1237-1262.
49. Liang K, Ruess M, Abdalla M. An eigenanalysis-based bifurcation indicator proposed in the framework of a reduced-order modeling
technique for non-linear structural analysis. Int J Non Linear Mech. 2016;81(1):129-138.
50. Liang K, Ruess M. Nonlinear buckling analysis of the conical and cylindrical shells using the SGL strain based reduced order model and
the PHC method. Aerosp Sci Technol. 2016;55:103-110.
51. Riks E. An incremental approach to the solution of snapping and buckling problems. Int J Solids Struct. 1979;15:524-551.
52. Riks E. Buckling analysis of elastic structures: a computational approach. Adv Appl Mech. 1997;34:1-76.
53. Wempner GA. Discrete approximation related to nonlinear theories of solids. Int J Solids Struct. 1971;17:1581-1599.
1560 LIANG ET AL.

54. Chang SC, Chen JJ. Effectiveness of linear bifurcation analysis for predicting the nonlinear stability limits of structures. Int J Numer Meth
Eng. 1986;23(5):831-846.
55. Elishakoff I, Li YW, Jr JHS. Imperfection sensitivity due to the elastic moduli in the Roorda-Koiter frame. Chaos, Solitons Fractals.
1996;7(8):1179-1186.
56. Kouhia R, Mikkola M. Some aspects of efficient path-following. Comput Struct. 1999;72:509-524.
57. Eriksson A. Derivatives of tangential stiffness matrices for equilibrium path descriptions. Int J Numer Meth Eng. 1991;32:1093-1113.
58. Lahmam H, Cadou JM, Zahrouni H, Damil N, Potier-Ferry M. High-order predictor-corrector algorithms. Int J Numer Meth Eng.
2002;55(6):685-704.
59. Ibrahimbegovic A. Stress resultant geometrically nonlinear shell theory with drilling rotations: part I. A consistent formulation. Comput
Methods Appl Mech Eng. 1994;118(3-4):265-284.
60. Chroscielewski J, Makowski J, Stumpf H. Genuinely resultant shell finite elements accounting for geometric and material non-linearity.
Int J Numer Meth Eng. 1992;35(1):63-94.

How to cite this article: Liang K, Abdalla MM, Sun Q. A modified Newton-type Koiter-Newton method
for tracing the geometrically nonlinear response of structures. Int J Numer Meth Engng. 2018;113:1541–1560.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.5709