Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 971–980

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

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

Application of the finite strip method in cold-formed steel member design

Z. Li ∗ , B.W. Schafer
Johns Hopkins University, Department of Civil Engineering, Baltimore, MD, 21218, USA

article info abstract

Article history: The objective of this paper is to explore solutions and provide design recommendations for two practical
Received 5 March 2010 issues that develop when integrating computational member analysis with the conventional finite strip
Accepted 1 April 2010 method (FSM) into cold-formed steel member design utilizing the direct strength method (DSM). First,
FSM often fails to uniquely identify the relevant local and distortional member buckling modes. These
Keywords: elastic buckling loads (or moments) are required inputs for predicting the design strength. Second, the
Cold-formed steel
recently developed constrained finite strip method (cFSM) which can uniquely identify local and dis-
Constrained finite strip method
Direct strength method
tortional buckling in all cases suffers from its own limitations, specifically (a) cFSM does not yield the
same exact solution as FSM even when unique minima exists in the FSM solution, and (b) cFSM cannot
include rounded corners in the model of the cross-section. Two methods are examined herein for over-
coming these limitations, both of which utilize cFSM in an augmented form. The proposed methods are
explored for lipped channel cross-sections both for elastic buckling and for ultimate strength prediction
via DSM. Particular attention is paid to methods for handling cross-sections with rounded corners (in both
elastic buckling and strength) since cFSM cannot include rounded corners and still meaningfully identify
the modes. Finally, based on the study of lipped channel members a recommendation is provided for a
methodology that enables automated analysis of cold-formed steel member elastic buckling modes for
use in DSM.
© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In cold-formed steel member design, the elastic buckling load
is a key parameter in predicting the design strength. For com-
monly used cold-formed steel sections, such as the C-section, Z-
section, etc., the buckling modes may be categorized as local-plate,
distortional, and/or global (Euler, Lateral–torsional, etc.) buckling.
Finding the elastic buckling solution is a necessary first step in
strength prediction. In cold-formed steel design the finite strip
method (FSM) is the most commonly used tool for elastic buckling
prediction. Conventional FSM analysis and the recently developed
constrained finite strip method (cFSM) are both examined here as
methods for elastic buckling prediction.
Analysis methods for elastic buckling prediction other than FSM
and cFSM are also available, such as the Finite Element Method
(FEM), Generalized Beam Theory (GBT), and manual solutions. FEM
is not typically used because of the overhead in initiating the
model and the fact that it cannot uniquely identify the buckling
modes; these drawbacks are the primary reason for FSM popular-
ity in this field. GBT suffers from the same limitations as cFSM,
as such conclusions here about utilizing cFSM can be directly ex-
tended to GBT’s application. Manual solutions are inherently lim-
ited in their applicability and so can never provide the general
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 4109490843.
E-mail addresses: lizhanjie@jhu.edu, zhan.j.lee@gmail.com (Z. Li).
0143-974X/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2010.04.001
methodology sought here. See [1] for further discussion. The direct
strength method (DSM), as discussed herein, is the most amenable
approach to integrated computational elastic buckling analysis, but
challenges in its application exist unless all modes are uniquely
defined.
1.1. Finite strip method
The conventional, or semi-analytical, FSM provides the most
widely used approach to examining instabilities in a thin-walled
member under longitudinal stress (axial, bending, and/or warp-
ing torsion). In particular, the application of FSM to members with
simply supported ends results in an efficient solution and the
‘‘signature curve’’ of the stability of a member in terms of buckling
half-wavelength vs. buckling load, as popularized by Hancock [2]
and implemented in the open source program CUFSM [3].
Basically, the semi-analytical FSM (e.g., [3]) is a variant of the
more common finite element method. A thin-walled cross-section
is discretized into a series of longitudinal strips (or elements) op-
posite to finite element discretization, as shown in Fig. 1.
Shape functions in the transverse and longitudinal directions
are selected to represent the displacement field. For CUFSM, in
particular, the shape function of the strip in the transverse direc-
tion is the same as a classical beam finite element; while in the
longitudinal direction trigonometric functions are employed [3,4].
972 Z. Li, B.W. Schafer / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 971–980
(a) FE mesh (e.g. ABAQUS S4 shell element),
5670 D.O.F.
Fig. 1. FEM vs. FSM mesh.
For each strip, based on the plane stress assumption and
Kirchhoff thin plate theory, the elastic stiffness matrix ke can be
formulated. Examining the potential work created as the plate
shortens, e.g., due to out-of-plane bending, allows the geometric
stiffness matrix kg to be formulated as well (see complete details
in [3,4]). After necessary transformation from local to global coor-
dinates based on the strip orientation and appropriate assembly
over all the strips, the global elastic (Ke ) and geometric (Kg ) stiff-
ness matrices can be obtained.
For a given distribution of edge tractions on a member the geo-
metric stiffness matrix scales linearly, resulting in the elastic buck-
ling problem:
Ke Φ = ΛKg Φ (1)
where, Λ is a diagonal matrix containing the eigenvalues (buck-
ling loads) and Φ is a fully populated matrix corresponding to
the eigenmodes (buckling modes) in its columns. See [4] for so-
lutions with general end boundary conditions, here the focus re-
mains on the classical problem of simply supported end boundary
conditions. A typical signature curve for a 250S137-33 (SSMA
nomenclature [5]) lipped channel stud section with a straight-line
model, under axial compression, is shown in Fig. 2.
Minima in the signature curve as shown in Fig. 2 indicate the
lowest critical load at which a particular buckling mode occurs, and
also the half-wavelength at which that mode will repeat within any
physical member length. Traditionally, the first minimum is local
buckling (Pcr ` ), the second distortional buckling (Pcrd ), and global
buckling (Pcre ) is identified in the descending branch of the curve
at a longer half-wavelength equal to the global unbraced length of
the member.
1.2. Constrained finite strip method
The constrained FSM (cFSM) was originally derived from
the semi-analytical FSM for simply supported end boundary
conditions. The key feature of cFSM is that based on mechanical
criteria [6,7] the general displacement field d (or buckling mode
φ ) may be separated into G, D, L, and O subspaces corresponding
to the global, distortional, local and other (shear and transverse
extension) deformation modes. Mathematically, any general dis-
placement field may be written as:
d = RM dM (2)
where RM is the constraint matrix for the selected modal space(s)
and dM is the resulting deformations within that space. Note, the
subscript M refers to the modal space (G, D, L, O or any combination
thereof).
There are two primary capabilities of cFSM: (1) modal decompo-
sition: stability solutions can be forced into selected deformation
modes, e.g. focusing only on distortional buckling; and (2) modal
identification: general stability solutions from FSM can be classified
(b) Finite strip mesh, 108 D.O.F.
20
Conventional FSM solution
Lcr=12.65 , Pcr=8.72
15
buckling load
Lcr=2.02 , Pcr=5.72
10
12.6,8.72
5 2.0,5.72
0
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
half-wave length
Fig. 2. The cross-section stability ‘‘signature curve’’ from an FSM solution.
into several fundamental modal bases, e.g. identifying the contri-
bution of local and distortional buckling at a selected FSM half-
wavelength.
Modal decomposition is accomplished by introducing the con-
straint matrix in Eq. (2) to the original eigenvalue problem Eq. (1).
Thus, the constrained eigenvalue problem associated with mode or
modes M can be formulated as
RTM Ke RM ΦM = ΛM RTM Kg RM ΦM (3)
where, ΛM is a diagonal matrix containing the eigenvalues for
the given mode or modes, and ΦM is the matrix corresponding
eigenmodes (or buckling modes) in its columns. Also, we may
define Ke,M = RTM Ke RM and Kg ,M = RTM Kg RM as the elastic
and geometric stiffness matrix of the constrained FSM problem,
respectively. Note, the solution size is typically greatly reduced by
this procedure.
Modal identification utilizes the same RM matrices, but for all
the G, D, L, and O subspaces, thus providing a complete alternative
basis to the standard FSM basis. If RM is appropriately normalized
then the dM of Eq. (2) can provide the contribution of any given
mode in an analysis. See, e.g., [3] for further details.
1.3. Direct strength method
In current cold-formed steel design specifications, e.g., in North
America, two basic design methods for cold-formed steel members
are available: the Effective Width Method and the Direct Strength
Method (DSM). The Effective Width Method performs a reduction
of the plates that comprise a cross-section based on the stability of
the individual plates, while DSM performs a similar reduction, but
based on the full cross-section stability; in either local, distortional,
and/or global buckling modes. In essence the essential difference
 Z. Li, B.W. Schafer / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 971–980 973

B B

D r D

H H
t t

(a) Straight-line model. (b) Rounded corner model.

Fig. 3. Cross-section models and dimensions for use in FSM analyses.

√
where, λ` = Mne /Mcr ` , λd = My /Mcrd , My = Sf Fy , Mcre , criti-
p
is the replacement of plate stability with member stability that
includes plate buckling. cal elastic lateral–torsional buckling moment, Mcr ` , critical elastic
Specifically, according to DSM, if all the elastic instabilities for local buckling moment, Mcrd , critical elastic distortional buckling
the gross section, i.e. local, distortional, and global buckling loads moment, and Sf , the gross section modulus referenced to the ex-
(or moments), have been determined and also the squash load treme fiber in the first yield.
(or yield moment) that causes the cross-section to yield, then Essentially, the use of column curves for global buckling is ex-
the strength can be directly determined by predicting the load tended to local and distortional buckling instabilities with appro-
(or moment) capacities separately for Global (G), Local (L), and priate consideration of post-buckling reserve and interaction in
Distortional (D) buckling. The relevant DSM formulae in the speci- these modes [9]. In particular, interaction between local and global
fication [8] are recalled here in condensed form. buckling is included explicitly as shown in Eqs. (6) and (10).
The nominal axial strength, Pn , is the minimum of the individual
predicted capacities:
2. Problem statement
Pn = min(Pne , Pn` , Pnd ) (4)
where, the nominal axial strengths, Pne for global buckling (flexu- There are several issues when applying FSM solutions in the
ral, torsional, or torsional–flexural buckling), Pn` for local buckling, context of the Direct Strength Method, particularly when one
and Pnd for distortional buckling are: wants to automate and generalize the process. First, DSM requires
the elastic buckling loads (or moments) for all sections, thus they
(0.658λC )Py
 2
if λc ≤ 1.5 must be identified in all cases. Second, the treatment of the corners
Pne = (5)
(0.877λ2C )Py if λc > 1.5 introduces complications in the process that must be specifically
addressed.
if λ` ≤ 0.776

Pne
Pn` = (6) From a strictly practical standpoint all cross-sections have
(1 − 0.15(Pcr ` /Pne )0.4 )(Pcr ` /Pne )0.4 Pne if λ` > 0.776
rounded (not sharp) corners. For stability determination in FSM
if λd ≤ 0.561 such round corners can be directly handled by approximating with

Py
Pnd = (7)
(1 − 0.25(Pcrd /Py )0.6 )(Pcrd /Py )0.6 Py if λd > 0.561 several (at least 4) strips in the corners, as shown in Fig. 3(b).
However, a straight-line model, ignoring the corners, as shown
√
where, λC = Py /Pcre , λ` = Pne /Pcr ` , λd = Py /Pcrd , Py =
p p
in Fig. 3(a) is useful for its simplicity and even necessary in cer-
Ag Fy , Pcre , minimum of the critical elastic column buckling load in tain cases since the modal decomposition capacity of cFSM cannot
flexural, torsional, or torsional–flexural buckling, Pcr ` , critical elas- be fully utilized for sections with rounded corners. Of course, the
tic local column buckling load, Pcrd , critical elastic distortional col- rounded corner model does result in modestly different elastic sta-
umn buckling load, Ag , the gross area of the cross-section, and Fy , bility solutions, and issue studied further in this paper.
the yield stress. For conventional FSM it is assumed the member buckles as a
The nominal bending strength, Mn , is the minimum of the indi- single half sine wave along the length, the length of which is known
vidual capacities: as the half-wavelength. The FSM solution provides two parallel re-
sults for understanding the elastic buckling behavior: (1) the criti-
Mn = min(Mne , Mn` , Mnd ) (8) cal loads (or moments) vs. the half-wavelength, also known as the
where, the nominal bending strengths, Mne for global buckling signature curve, and (2) the cross-section buckling mode shapes.
(lateral–torsional buckling), Mn` for local buckling, and Mnd for dis- A signature curve with unique minima is defined as one that in-
tortional buckling are: cludes two distinct minima, corresponding to local and distortional
buckling, as shown in Fig. 2. The FSM signature curve is not al-
 if Mcre < 0.56My


 Mcre ways as unambiguous as Fig. 2 indicates. If either or both minima is
 10  
10My ‘‘indistinct’’ the signature curve is characterized as having only
Mne = My 1 − if 2.78My ≥ Mcre ≥ 0.56My (9)

 9 36Mcre non-unique minima. For the case of non-unique minima application
My if Mcre > 2.78My

of FSM for use in DSM requires significant, and potentially subjec-
tive, judgment. An indistinct local, or distortional mode, are both
if λ` ≤ 0.776

Mne
Mcr ` = (10) possible [9,10].
(1 − 0.15(Mcr ` /Mne )0.4 )(Mcr ` /Mne )0.4 Mne if λ` > 0.776
To examine how common non-unique minima are in con-
if λd ≤ 0.673 ventional cross-sections the structural and non-structural cold-

My
Mnd = (11)
(1 − 0.22(Mcrd /My )0.5 )(Mcrd /My )0.5 My if λd > 0.673 formed steel studs of a North American manufacturing association
974 Z. Li, B.W. Schafer / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 971–980

Table 1
Number of SSMA cross-sections with unique or non-unique minima in FSM solution.
Loading case Structural Non-Structural
Straight-line Round corner Straight-line Round corner
Non-unique Unique Non-unique Unique Non-unique Unique Non-unique Unique
minima minima minima minima minima minima minima minima

Compression 54 45 54 45 41 9 40 10
X –X bending 19 80 19 80 30 20 31 19
Y –Y bending 2 97 2 97 37 13 36 14

(SSMA [5]) were studied (full results in [10]) under three load- 40
FSM solution, rounded corner model
ing cases: compression, laterally restrained strong axis bending cFSM solution, straight-line model
35
(bending along the X –X axis passing through the shear center and
centroid), and weak axis bending (bending along the Y –Y axis pass- 30
ing through the centroid). Both straight-line and rounded corner

models were completed in FSM. The prevalence of non-unique
minima is reported in Table 1, the problem is a common one par-
ticularly in compression where nearly half of the studied mem-
bers have non-unique minima. It is noted that the prevalence of
non-unique minima in the signature curve is not influenced by the
choice of using a cross-section model with round corners.
In addition to problems with non-unique minima it is worth
noting that for more complicated cross-sections, particularly those
with intermediate stiffeners, multiple local, or distortional buck-
ling modes may exist in the signature curve (i.e. more than 2
minima). Also, cases exist where flexural and distortional buckling
may interact at relatively long half-wavelengths, making it diffi-
cult to determine long column modes at certain intermediate to
long lengths. In all these cases, appropriate engineering judgment
must be applied to identify the mode in conventional FSM.
2.1. cFSM as an identification solution
cFSM has the capability to automatically predict the elastic
buckling load (or moment) for a given buckling mode (e.g., a solu-
tion decomposed to only include distortional buckling is possible.)
Thus, cFSM is a potential solution to the problem of non-unique
minima. Pure cFSM solutions (pure indicating that only a single
subspace is used in the decomposed stability solution) for local (L),
distortional (D) and global (G) buckling of the 550S162-43 (SSMA
nomenclature [5]) stud section with a round corner model under
axial compression are shown in Fig. 4 along with a conventional
FSM solution.
Unique elastic buckling loads (or moments) of L, D, and G modes
can be provided by the cFSM solution. As shown in the example,
and as typical, the L mode solution shows excellent agreement with
the conventional FSM minima, while a stiffer result is given for
the D mode (see [3]) and modestly stiffer for the G mode (again
see [3]). Despite the evident attractiveness of cFSM in decompos-
ing the modes and hence overcoming the difficulties of non-unique
minima in conventional FSM solutions, there are two basic issues
hampering direct use of the cFSM solution:
(1) DSM’s strength expressions are calibrated to the conventional
FSM minima instead of pure mode solutions from cFSM.
(2) cFSM (and GBT) cannot handle rounded corners and still pro-
vide a meaningful separation of local and distortional buckling.
Thus, the reasoning for identifying non-unique minima and
rounded corners as the two major hurdles in automatic identifi-
cation using FSM and DSM becomes clear.
3. Proposed solutions
To address the problem of non-unique minima in the stabil-
ity solution, and the impact of rounded corners, two methods are
explored here: (1) the use of a straight-line model in cFSM to
Critical Load M cr
25
X: FSM@cFSM-Lcr=19.31 , Mcrd=9.24
20
15 X: FSM@cFSM-Lcr=4.09 , Mcrl=4.47
10
5
4.1,4.47
0
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
Half-wave length
Fig. 4. Signature curve augmented with pure mode cFSM solution and illustration
of the proposed FSM@cFSM-Lcr solution to identifying non-unique minima.
determine only the half-wavelength of interest in a conventional
FSM analysis and (2) a method proposed by Beregszászi and
Ádány [11] that relies on a straight-line model in cFSM and em-
ploys empirical corrections to account for the difference between
cFSM pure mode and FSM solutions, including the influence of
rounded corners.
3.1. Use FSM at cFSM-Lcr values
The practical idea advanced here is that cFSM be used only to
aid in the identification of the half-wavelength of interest. The an-
alyst develops a rounded corner model of the section and runs
a conventional FSM model. If the resulting signature curve has
unique minima no further analysis is conducted. If the signature
curve does not have unique minima pure mode cFSM solutions are
performed (on a straight-line model) only for identifying the ap-
propriate Lcr . The Pcr (or Mcr ) at the associated Lcr is determined
from the conventional FSM analysis. A shorthand for this solution
method is FSM@cFSM-Lcr , which can be illustrated by the exam-
ple of a 550S162-43 (SSMA nomenclature [5]) stud section with a
round corner model under axial compression, as shown in Fig. 4.
The method is studied here only for lipped channel members, but
it is a general notion and readily extendable to arbitrary sections
as cFSM can always provide a unique minimum when constrained
to only L and/or only D solutions.
3.2. Use empirical correction to pure mode solutions
The method proposed by Beregszászi and Ádány [11] is to use
only the pure mode cFSM solution for a straight-line model and
then add appropriate modification factors to account for rounded
corners and the differences between conventional FSM and pure
mode cFSM. Currently, the method is only validated for predict-
ing the moment capacity of beams. The fundamental idea is that
both the critical elastic stresses of the local and distortional buck-
ling modes, and the elastic section modulus for global modes, are
calculated from the cFSM solution with a straight-line model. Such
an approach is obviously highly convenient for the analyst.
 Z. Li, B.W. Schafer / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 971–980 975

(a) Axial (b) Major axis (c) Minor axis (d) Minor axis
compression. bending. bending, comp. bending, comp. in
in web. lips.

Fig. 5. Stability and strength loading cases considered in parametric studies.

Table 2 Table 3
Modification factors of Ref. [11] for C- and Z-sections. Geometric range of SSMA structural stud sections.
Cross-section Kc ,S Kc ,` Kc ,d Km,` Km,d H /t B/t D/t H /B

C 1.04 0.97 0.98 1.01 1.13 Min 35.10 13.50 3.70 1.50
Z 1.02 0.97 0.98 1.01 1.07 Max 231.20 57.80 18.10 7.40

The section modulus, Sf , used for resistance prediction is mod- Table 4

ified due to the rounded corner impact as follows: Geometric range of SSMA non-structural stud sections.
H /t B/t D/t H /B
Sf
Sf = (12) Min 35.10 17.50 2.60 1.30
kc ,S Max 319.10 66.50 10.00 6.40

where S f is the section modulus of a straight-line model, and kc ,S is

a modification factor. The critical stresses for local and distortional
buckling, used for resistance prediction, are corrected by the con-
sideration of both pure cFSM mode solutions and rounded corner
effect, respectively, as follows:
σcr ` σcrd
σcr ` = and σcrd =
kc ,` × km,` kc ,d × km,d
where, σcr ` and σcrd are the critical stresses for local and distor-
tional buckling from cFSM solutions of a straight-line model; and
kc ,` , km,` , kc ,d , and km,d are modification factors as proposed in [11]
and provided in Table 2.
4. Parametric studies: elastic buckling
As discussed briefly in relation to unique and non-unique min-
ima, a study of all of the structural and non-structural stud (lipped
channel) sections of a large North American manufacturing as-
sociation (i.e., SSMA [5]) are chosen for the parametric studies
conducted herein. SSMA member companies produce 99 struc-
tural stud sections and 50 non-structural stud sections (all lipped
channel C-sections) as listed in [5]. Summaries of the geomet-
ric ranges for the SSMA sections are provided in Tables 3 and 4.
Where, H is the out-to-out web depth, B is the out-to-out flange
width, D is the out-to-out lip length, and t is the thickness.
Straight-line and rounded corner models are completed as illus-
trated in Fig. 3. Three loading cases are considered: compression,
laterally restrained strong axis bending (bending along the X –X
axis passing through the shear center and centroid), and weak
axis bending (bending along the Y –Y axis passing through the
centroid). The final case considers positive and negative bending,
as illustrated in Fig. 5. Note, distortional buckling does not exist for
weak axis bending that places the web in compression. See [10] for
complete results of the study.
To make the comparisons clear, three nomenclatures related to
the elastic loads (moments) are utilized herein:
• FSM: the elastic loads (or moments) obtained from the conven-
tional FSM solution, i.e. the signature curve.
• cFSM: the elastic loads (or moments) obtained from a pure
mode cFSM solution. Note, this is only applicable to the straight-
line (no corner) model.
• FSM@cFSM-Lcr : the elastic loads (or moments) obtained from
conventional FSM solution, but at the half-wavelengths of pure
(13) mode local and distortional buckling as determined from a
cFSM model.
4.1. Half-wave lengths (Lcr )
The FSM@cFSM-Lcr methodology provides a universal approach
to handling both unique and non-unique minima in FSM. One
means to examine the validity of the FSM@cFSM-Lcr solution is to
explore if the cFSM-Lcr is similar to the FSM Lcr in the cases where
FSM has unique minima. Analysis is conducted on all of the SSMA
sections (summarized in Tables 3 and 4), at a fine enough scale to
resolve Lcr to within 1 in., (0.2 in. for cases where local buckling Lcr
is below 1 in.). The cases with unique minima in conventional FSM
are compared to the pure mode cFSM Lcr values. Complete results
are provided in [10] and summarized here in Table 5.
As Table 5 shows pure mode cFSM may be used as a predictor
of Lcr with reasonable confidence. The interactions that cause Pcr
to differ between FSM and the pure mode cFSM (e.g., pure mode
cFSM is generally 5%–10% higher for Pcrd ) have a smaller influence
on Lcr . Further, the studied corners have little impact on Lcr , thus
supporting the use of the straight-line model for Lcr determination.
The details provided in [10] further explore the cases with maxi-
mum difference (large corner radius with a small flat width, etc.);
however, even in theses cases the differences are within required
engineering tolerance.
4.2. Elastic buckling loads
With the potential viability of the FSM@cFSM-Lcr method es-
tablished the elastic buckling loads and moments are explored
directly. The sensitivity to solution method and the inclusion of
rounded corners in the model are studied explicitly.
976 Z. Li, B.W. Schafer / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 971–980

Table 5
Difference in critical half-wavelength between FSM and cFSM.
Section type Model type Statistical results Differences of half-wavelengths relative to FSM solution (in.)
Compression X –X axis bending Y –Y axis bending
Local Dist. Local Dist. Local Local Dist.
(Lcr ` ) (Lcrd ) (Lcr `_xx ) (Lcrd_xx ) (Lcr `_yy+ ) (Lcr `_yy− ) (Lcrd_yy− )

Mean 0.0 1.0 −0.1 0.7 −0.3 0.0 0.1

Straight-line model St. dev. 0.1 1.3 0.2 1.2 0.5 0.1 1.5
Max −0.4 4.1 −0.9 3.9 −2.7 −0.3 3.9
Structural
Mean 0.0 1.3 −0.1 0.9 −0.3 0.0 0.4
Rounded corner
St. dev. 0.0 1.4 0.2 1.2 0.6 0.1 1.6
model
Max 0.0 4.1 −0.9 3.9 −2.7 −0.3 4.1

Mean 0.0 0.5 −0.1 0.4 −0.2 −0.1 −0.1

Straight-line model St. dev. 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.8
Non- Max −0.2 1.4 −0.5 1.4 −1.8 −0.3 −1.4
structural Mean 0.0 0.7 −0.1 0.7 −0.3 0.0 0.5
Rounded corner
St. dev. 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.9
model
Max −0.4 1.8 −0.5 1.4 −1.8 −0.2 1.4

Notes: yy+: Maximum compression in web; yy−: Maximum compression in lips.

Table 6
Percent difference in elastic buckling values (loads or moments) between FSM and alternatives for straight-line models of all SSMA sections.
Section type Methods Solution case Statistical results Percentage differences of critical loads relative to FSM (%)
Compression X –X axis bending Y –Y axis bending
Local Dist. Local Dist. Local Local Dist.
(Pcr ` ) (Pcrd ) (Mcr `_xx ) (Mcrd_xx ) (Mcr `_yy+ ) (Mcr `_yy− ) (Mcrd_yy− )

Mean 0.8 14.3 1.7 11.0 1.9 1.6 13.5

Unique
St. dev. 0.6 5.6 1.4 3.9 2.5 1.5 5.9
minima
Max 2.9 25.1 7.1 26.6 14.8 6.6 35.7
FSM vs. cFSM
Mean 3.0 43.0 2.7 15.8 1.9 n/a 16.4
Non-unique
St. dev. 2.6 5.1 2.0 7.9 2.5 n/a 5.3
minima
Structural Max 11.1 48.3 7.3 30.6 14.8 n/a 20.2
Mean 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.5
Unique
St. dev. 0.0 1.1 0.2 0.7 0.9 0.3 0.9
minima
FSM vs. Max 0.0 3.8 1.1 3.2 5.0 1.2 3.6
FSM@cFSM-Lcr Mean 0.8 3.0 0.2 0.6 0.4 n/a 0.6
Non-unique
St. dev. 1.2 2.1 0.6 0.8 0.9 n/a 0.8
minima
Max 4.7 6.2 1.8 2.5 5.0 n/a 1.2
Mean 1.3 8.3 3.4 9.6 2.8 5.4 12.8
Unique
St. dev. 0.8 1.5 1.8 3.2 3.5 3.0 5.4
minima
Max 3.0 10.4 7.1 17.4 15.5 9.4 20.6
FSM vs. cFSM
Mean 3.8 26.8 n/a 9.8 2.8 n/a 13.8
Non-unique
St. dev. 3.1 10.5 n/a 5.6 3.5 n/a 6.3
Non- minima
Max 13.2 42.6 n/a 28.1 15.5 n/a 34.1
structural
Mean 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.9 0.7
Unique
St. dev. 0.0 0.8 0.4 0.7 1.4 0.7 1.1
minima
FSM vs. Max 0.1 1.7 1.5 2.7 5.7 1.7 2.8
FSM@cFSM-Lcr Mean 0.9 1.7 n/a 0.3 0.7 n/a 0.7
Non-unique
St. dev. 1.4 1.5 n/a 0.5 1.4 n/a 1.0
minima
Max 4.8 5.1 n/a 1.6 5.7 n/a 3.9
Notes: yy+: maximum compression in web; yy−: maximum compression in lips; n/a: no data available for this case.

4.2.1. Sensitivity to solution method
Three solution methods are explored FSM, cFSM, and FSM@
cFSM-Lcr . For straight-line models, all three methods are available,
while for the rounded corner model no cFSM result is available.
Tables 6 and 7 provide the summary results for all models stud-
ied and for a subset consisting of only those models with unique
minima. All the loading cases are included and the relative differ-
ences in the critical loads (or moments) are reported. See [10] for
histograms and complete statistics.
Table 6 quantifies the significant difference in elastic buck-
ling loads (or moments) between FSM and (pure mode) cFSM.
In local buckling cFSM typically yields solutions about 1% stiffer
than FSM, but in distortional buckling this grows to a 10% differ-
ence, with many observations significantly in excess of 10%. Given
that DSM (the design method which predicts ultimate strength
based on these elastic buckling loads and moments) is calibrated to
conventional FSM the use of pure mode cFSM without correc-
tion would be expected to yield modestly unconservative strength
predictions. The FSM@cFSM-Lcr provides essentially the same an-
swer as conventional FSM for the case of unique minima in FSM,
and provides an organized method and consistent answer for the
other cases as well.
The comparison of the rounded corner models (Table 7) in-
dicates again that the use of FSM@cFSM-Lcr is a viable solution
method for cross-section with corner radius. Observed differences
are small with the mean difference less than 1% for local buckling,
and approximately 1% for distortional buckling.
4.2.2. Sensitivity to model details (rounded corners)
In this section we investigate what is the specific impact of em-
ploying a rounded corner model. The relative difference between
the elastic buckling loads (and moments) for straight-line and
 Z. Li, B.W. Schafer / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 971–980 977

Table 7
Percent difference in elastic buckling values (loads or moments) between FSM and FSM@cFSM-Lcr for rounded corner models of all SSMA sections.
Section type Solution case Statistical results Percentage differences of critical loads relative to FSM (%)
Compression X –X axis bending Y –Y axis bending
Local Dist. Local Dist. Local Local Dist.
(Pcr ` ) (Pcrd ) (Mcr `_xx ) (Mcrd_xx ) (Mcr `_yy+ ) (Mcr `_yy− ) (Mcrd_yy− )

Mean 0.0 1.1 0.1 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.7

Unique minima St. dev. 0.0 1.4 0.3 0.9 1.0 0.0 1.1
Max 0.0 4.9 1.3 3.8 5.8 0.2 5.3
Structural
Mean 0.8 2.6 0.5 1.0 0.4 n/a 1.8
Non-unique
St. dev. 1.4 1.8 1.2 1.0 1.0 n/a 2.5
minima
Max 6.0 4.9 3.6 3.2 5.8 n/a 3.6

Mean 0.1 1.5 0.3 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.9

Unique minima St. dev. 0.2 1.7 0.5 1.1 1.6 0.4 1.2
Non- Max 0.6 4.7 1.6 3.5 6.3 1.3 4.0
structural Mean 1.0 1.7 n/a 0.6 0.7 n/a 0.7
Non-unique
St. dev. 1.6 1.5 n/a 0.8 1.6 n/a 1.2
minima
Max 5.3 4.8 n/a 2.5 6.3 n/a 6.6

Notes: yy+: maximum compression in web; yy−: maximum compression in lips; n/a: no data available for this case.

Table 8
Percent difference in elastic buckling values (loads or moment) between straight-line and rounded corner models.
Section type Solution case Methods Statistical results Percentage differences of critical loads relative to straight-line model (%)
Compression X –X axis bending Y –Y axis bending
Local Dist. Local Dist. Local Local Dist.
(Pcr ` ) (Pcrd ) (Mcr `_xx ) (Mcrd_xx ) (Mcr `_yy+ ) (Mcr `_yy− ) (Mcrd_yy− )

Mean −0.6 −1.9 −1.5 −0.7 −1.4 −2.3 0.4

FSM St. dev. 0.1 1.0 0.7 1.3 0.8 0.7 0.4
Max −0.9 −4.6 −2.9 −3.9 −5.3 −3.6 −1.3
Unique minima
Mean −0.6 −1.6 −1.4 −0.4 −1.4 −2.4 0.6
FSM@cFSM-
St. dev. 0.1 0.9 0.8 1.2 0.7 0.5 0.5
Lcr
Structural Max −0.9 −3.7 −3.0 −3.9 −4.7 −3.6 2.2
Mean −0.5 −3.5 −0.8 −3.9 −1.4 n/a −0.6
FSM St. dev. 0.5 0.9 0.9 2.0 0.8 n/a 0.1
Non-unique Max −2.4 −4.8 −2.9 −6.1 −5.3 n/a −0.7
minima
Mean −0.7 −2.7 −2.0 −3.1 −1.4 −2.2 0.6
FSM@cFSM-
St. dev. 0.6 0.9 1.6 1.5 0.7 1.2 1.5
Lcr
Max −2.9 −5.1 −5.4 −5.4 −4.7 −3.1 1.7

Mean 0.6 0.1 1.0 0.4 −2.5 3.7 1.2

FSM St. dev. 1.5 0.9 2.4 1.5 1.2 0.6 0.5
Max 4.1 1.4 6.2 2.5 −5.6 4.9 1.7
Unique minima
Mean 0.6 0.7 1.1 0.8 −2.5 3.1 1.3
FSM@cFSM-
St. dev. 1.5 1.0 2.4 1.4 1.1 0.8 0.7
Lcr
Non-structural Max 4.1 2.1 6.3 2.8 −5.1 4.5 2.6
Mean −0.6 −2.4 n/a −0.2 −2.5 n/a 1.2
FSM St. dev. 0.5 0.9 n/a 1.8 1.2 n/a 0.6
Non-unique Max −1.9 −3.2 n/a −3.4 −5.6 n/a 2.2
minima Mean −1.1 −2.2 −1.6 0.1 −2.5 −0.6 1.3
FSM@cFSM-
St. dev. 0.8 0.6 1.4 1.8 1.1 3.7 1.0
Lcr
Max −2.7 −3.2 −3.7 −3.4 −5.1 −8.9 4.6
Notes: yy+: maximum compression in web; yy−: maximum compression in lips; n/a: no data available for this case.

rounded corner models are listed in Table 8, including the break-
down between FSM and FSM@cFSM-Lcr .
As Table 8 shows, the rounded corner models, on average, mod-
estly decrease both local and distortional buckling, except for the
case of weak axis bending with the lips in compression. In part, this
reflects the relatively sharp nature of the corners in these standard
sections (see [5]). For large r /t the corner will degrade the elastic
buckling load even for local and distortional buckling. Also, while
it is not shown here, in all cases the global buckling load decreases
for the models with rounded corners (as the global properties: A, I,
J, Cw , etc. all decrease as r is introduced), see [10] for full details.
mode cFSM elastic buckling moments, as discussed in Section 3.2.
Here a comparison between the elastic buckling loads (or mo-
ments) from using FSM@cFSM-Lcr are compared with the empirical
corrections of [11]. Only the laterally restrained strong axis bend-
ing (X –X axis bending) is studied, as the method of [11] has only
been developed for this case. The relative difference in the critical
moments is reported in Table 9. Although large differences are ob-
served in some cases, the empirical correction method of [11] aims
to adjust the critical moments and also the section modulus in the
average sense, while the method proposed by the authors is more
focused on individual sections.

4.2.3. Comparison with empirical correction method 5. Parametric studies: strength prediction
Similar to FSM@cFSM-Lcr which attempts to provide a universal
solution consistent with FSM elastic buckling values Beregszászi With the elastic buckling loads established the sensitivity of the
and Ádány [11] have introduced an empirical correction to pure strength prediction for the same study sections may be examined.
978 Z. Li, B.W. Schafer / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 971–980

Table 9
Percent difference between FSM@cFSM-Lcr and method of Ref. [11] for critical moment of SSMA sections.
Solution case Elastic moments/section modulus Percentage differences relative to the proposed method by the authors (%)
Structural Non-structural
Mean St. dev. Max Mean St. dev. Max

Local (Mcr `_xx ) 1.3 1.7 5.6 0.4 2.8 −6.1

Unique minima Dist. (Mcrd_xx ) −3.0 4.1 14.4 −5.3 3.8 −8.6
Sf −0.4 1.0 3.0 0.6 0.6 1.5
Local (Mcr `_xx ) −6.3 5.2 −11.9 9.2 19.8 67.1
Non-unique minima Dist. (Mcrd_xx ) 7.3 8.0 19.8 −4.9 6.2 12.9
Sf 0.5 1.7 3.6 0.9 1.2 4.1

Table 10
Percent difference in squash load Py and yield moment My between straight-line and rounded corner models of SSMA sections.

Solution case Statistical results Percentage differences relative to the straight-line model (%)
Structural Non-structural
Compression X –X bending Y –Y bending Compression X –X bending Y –Y bending

Mean −2.5 −3.5 −5.7 −3.4 −4.4 −7.8

Unique minima
Max −4.4 −6.7 −10.4 −3.8 −5.3 −8.5
Mean −1.9 −4.3 −13.1 −2.6 −4.7 −9.2
Non-unique minima
Max −3.9 −7.2 −13.2 −4.9 −7.6 −13.4

It is assumed in these studies that the section is fully globally
braced, i.e., Pne of Eq. (5) equals the squash load Py , and Mne of Eq. (9)
equals the yield moment My . A yield stress Fy of 345 MPa (50 ksi) is
assumed and all loading cases: axial compression, major axis bend-
ing, and minor axis bending (lips in compression) are examined.
In this study the elastic buckling loads (or moments) are cal-
culated by conventional FSM and FSM@cFSM-Lcr . For strength
prediction all elastic buckling values must be identified, so in the
conventional FSM method the elastic buckling values use the FSM
when it has unique minima and the missing one (either local or
distortional) is from the FSM@cFSM-Lcr methodology when it has
non-unique minima. While for the FSM@cFSM-Lcr method the elas-
tic buckling values always use the cFSM Lcr even when FSM has
unique minima. Thus, as utilized here both methods provide a
means for strength prediction of every situation.
Although the elastic buckling prediction method is the focus
of the work presented here, when examining strength results one
must pay particular attention to the impact of the yield stress on
the solution as well. In particular, when comparing the rounded
corner models to the straight-line models the impact of the
rounded corner on Py and My is significant, as shown in Table 10.
5.1. Sensitivity to elastic buckling solution method
The relative difference in the DSM predicted strength based
on using conventional FSM for the elastic buckling prediction or
FSM@cFSM-Lcr is provided in Table 11. Note, since DSM is cali-
brated from a conventional FSM solution, comparing the prediction
results for the cases with unique minima is of the most importance.
The observed strength differences are essentially negligible. FSM@
cFSM-Lcr is a viable prediction methodology which allows a con-
sistent approach to providing critical buckling values for all cases
(unique and non-unique minima).
5.2. Sensitivity to model details (rounded corner)
The difference in the DSM predicted strength between the
straight-line and rounded corner models are investigated for the
two elastic buckling methods, and reported in Table 12. Corners
have a significant impact on the predicted strength, but much of
this impact is derived from the change in the squash load and yield
moment (as discussed in relation to Table 10).
For models where the signature curve has a unique minima
use of FSM or FSM@cFSM-Lcr is essentially the same; however,
for models with non-unique minima the FSM@cFSM-Lcr gives far
more regular results, and results consistent with the overall change
in the squash load and yield moment. Thus, use of FSM@cFSM-
Lcr is expected to lead to a more consistent and reliable strength
prediction.
5.3. Comparison with empirical correction method
As discussed in Section 4.2.3 an empirical method has re-
cently been developed [11] that aims to provide a solution to the
case of non-unique minima. The percent difference for the DSM
strength prediction based on either the empirical method of [11]
or FSM@cFSM-Lcr are provided (relative to the method proposed
here) in Table 13 for laterally restrained major axis bending (X –X
axis bending). Overall, the average difference between two meth-
ods is negligible. In terms of reliability for all the sections they may
be considered essentially equivalent, though individual sections
may vary in their strength prediction by as much as 7%.
6. Discussion and recommendations
When employing a conventional FSM analysis, and generating
the signature curve for elastic buckling, it is common to have non-
unique minima. Rather than attempt to arbitrarily identify these
minima it is recommended to always create an additional straight-
line model and employ cFSM to determine the Lcr for local and
distortional buckling, then use the original FSM analysis at these Lcr
values to provide the elastic buckling solution. This method may be
used in all cases, whether the signature curve has unique minima
or not, as shown herein.
Despite the modest increase in complexity it is recommended
to include corners in all models used for design. While corners
typically have only a modest influence on the local and distortional
buckling solutions (and it may even be beneficial) the decrease in
gross properties and hence global buckling as well as yield loads
(and moments) can be significant. Straight-line cFSM models may
still be used to determine the appropriate Lcr for elastic buckling of
sections with rounded corners, as shown herein.
These recommendations have been proven to be accurate for
lipped channel members in the analysis provided herein. The basic
approach (i.e., using a straight-line cFSM model for finding Lcr ,
but a conventional rounded corner FSM model for the critical
buckling load or moment at that Lcr ) is extendable to any cross-
section, but its accuracy has not been definitively determined.
 Z. Li, B.W. Schafer / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 971–980 979

Table 11
Percent difference in DSM nominal strength prediction between FSM and FSM@cFSM-Lcr of SSMA sections.
Model type Solution case Loading case Percentage differences relative to FSM solution (%)
Structural Non-structural
Mean St. dev. Max Mean St. dev. Max

Compression 0.1 0.3 1.4 0.3 0.4 0.8

Unique minima X –X bending 0.1 0.2 1.2 0.2 0.3 1.1
Y –Y bending 0.1 0.2 1.3 0.3 0.4 1.0
Straight-line model
Compression 0.2 0.6 3.0 0.3 0.7 2.9
Non-unique minima X –X bending 0.1 0.2 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.7
Y –Y bending 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 1.0

Compression 0.2 0.4 1.8 0.7 0.8 2.2

Unique minima X –X bending 0.1 0.3 1.4 0.3 0.5 1.5
Y –Y bending 0.1 0.2 1.0 0.3 0.4 1.5
Rounded corner model
Compression 0.2 0.5 2.4 0.4 0.7 2.7
Non-unique minima X –X bending 0.2 0.3 1.1 0.2 0.3 1.0
Y –Y bending 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.7

Table 12
Percent difference in DSM nominal strength prediction between straight-line and rounded corner models of SSMA sections.
Solution method/solution case Statistical results Percentage differences relative to the straight-line model (%)
Structural Non-structural
Compression X –X bending Y –Y bending Compression X –X bending Y –Y bending

Mean −2.1 −2.8 −4.9 −1.8 −2.5 −4.4

FSM with unique minima St. dev. 0.8 1.2 2.4 0.3 0.3 0.3
Max −3.9 −6.7 −10.4 −2.1 −3.0 −5.0
Mean −2.0 −2.7 −4.9 −1.5 −2.3 −4.4
FSM @cFSM-Lcr with unique minima St. dev. 0.7 1.2 2.4 0.3 0.3 0.4
Max −3.9 −6.7 −10.4 −2.0 −2.7 −5.0
Mean −11.4 −5.6 −13.1 −9.7 −3.3 −6.9
FSM with non-unique minima St. dev. 7.4 2.4 0.1 6.6 1.0 3.0
Max −21.2 −11.7 −13.2 −21.5 −7.4 −13.4
Mean −2.2 −4.1 −13.1 −2.5 −3.2 −6.9
FSM @cFSM-Lcr with non-unique
St. dev. 0.8 1.7 0.1 0.4 1.1 3.0
minima
Max −4.4 −7.2 −13.2 −3.5 −7.4 −13.4

Table 13
Percent difference in DSM nominal strength prediction between FSM@cFSM-Lcr and method of Ref. [11] for SSMA sections.
Solution case Percentage differences relative to the proposed method by the authors (%)
Structural Non-structural
Mean St. dev. Max Mean St. dev. Max

Unique minima −1.0 1.7 4.8 −1.8 1.4 −3.1

Non-unique minima 2.8 2.3 6.8 −1.0 2.1 4.9
‘‘Unique + Non-unique’’ −0.3 2.4 6.8 −1.3 1.9 4.9
‘‘Overall’’: structural + non-structural −0.6 0.6 6.8

Work demonstrating the effectiveness of this approach for general
cross-sections is planned for the future.
7. Conclusions
Automated application of finite strip method (FSM) stability
analysis for cold-formed steel member strength prediction, e.g., us-
ing the direct strength method (DSM), holds the promise of sig-
nificant advancements in cold-formed steel member efficiency.
However, conventional FSM cannot uniquely identify all of the rel-
evant buckling modes required to fully enable such a procedure.
The recently introduced constrained FSM (cFSM) can uniquely
identify the modes, but cFSM leads to slightly different elastic
buckling loads than FSM and cannot be used for cross-section mod-
els with corners. This is of great importance since DSM is calibrated
to the conventional FSM, thus the advantages of cFSM cannot
be immediately employed. Using a series of parametric studies
on lipped channel members it is shown herein that the critical
half-wavelengths (Lcr ) identified in cFSM models may be used to
automatically identify local and distortional buckling in conven-
tional FSM models (termed FSM@cFSM-Lcr in this paper) and thus
avoid the problems of non-unique minima in conventional FSM
models. Further, it is shown that the critical half-wavelengths
identified in the cFSM models, which are for cross-sections mod-
eled with sharp corners, may be readily used in FSM models with
rounded corners, thus avoiding the cFSM limitation of no rounded
corners. Thus, a two-step analysis procedure whereby a conven-
tional FSM and a cFSM analysis are both run, and only the Lcr values
are taken from the cFSM run, is recommended as a general proce-
dure for identifying the appropriate elastic buckling loads (or mo-
ments) in an automated fashion. The procedure has been verified
herein for lipped channels under arbitrary loading.
Acknowledgements
This paper is based in part upon work supported by the US Na-
tional Science Foundation under Grant No. 0448707. Any opinions,
findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this
980 Z. Li, B.W. Schafer / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 971–980
material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect
the views of the National Science Foundation. Discussion and col-
laboration with Sándor Ádány is greatly appreciated.
References
[1] American Iron and Steel Institute. Direct strength method design guide.
Washington, DC, USA, 2006.
[2] Hancock GJ. Local, distortional and lateral buckling of I beams. Journal of the
Structural Division, ASCE 1978;104(11):1787–98.
[3] Schafer BW, Ádány S. Buckling analysis of cold-formed steel members using
CUFSM: conventional and constrained finite strip methods. In: Eighteenth
international specialty conference on cold-formed steel structures. 2006.
p. 39–54.
[4] Li Z, Schafer BW. Finite strip stability solutions for general boundary conditions
and the extension of the constrained finite strip method. In: Topping BHV,
Costa Neves LF, Barros RC, editors. Trends in civil and structural engineering
computing. Stirlingshire (UK): Saxe-Coburg Publications; 2009. p. 103–30.
doi:10.4203/csets.22.5 [Chapter 5].
[5] Product Technical Information, ICBO ER-4943P. Steel Stud Manufacturers
Association. http://www.ssma.com ; 2001.
[6] Ádány S, Schafer BW. Buckling mode decomposition of single-branched
open cross-section members via finite strip method: derivation. Thin-walled
Structures 2006;44(5):563–84.
[7] Ádány S, Schafer BW. Buckling mode decomposition of single-branched open
cross-section members via finite strip method: application and examples.
Thin-walled Structures 2006;44(5):585–600.
[8] NAS. North american specification for the design of cold-formed steel
structural members. 2007 ed. Washington (DC, USA): American Iron and Steel
Institute; 2007.
[9] Schafer BW. Review: the direct strength method of cold-formed steel member
design. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2008;64:766–78.
[10] Li Z. Finite strip result for SSMA cross-section with application to the direct
strength method. Research report. Johns Hopkins University; 2010. Available
at http://www.ce.jhu.edu/bschafer.
[11] Beregszászi Z, Ádány S. The effect of rounded corners of cold-formed
steel members in the buckling analysis via the direct strength method. In:
Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on civil, structural and
environmental engineering computing. Paper 36. 2009.