AIN SHAMS UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

FIFTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STRUCTURAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

Advances In Construction Techniques

BUCKLING LOAD ESTIMATION OF COLD-FORMED ANGLES

Ahmed Shamel Fahmy

Professor. Ahmed Shamel Fahmy, Associate Professor, Faculty of Engineering,
Alexandria University
E-mail:ahmed.fahmy@alex.edu.eg
Sherine Mostafa Swelem
Dr. Sherine Swelem, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria Unive rsity
E-mail: shswelem@alexu.edu.eg
Randa Magdy Fahmy
3
Eng. Randa Magdy Fahmy, B.Sc. Civil Engineering (June 2009), Faculty of Engineering,
Alexandria University
E-mail: randafahmy012@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

The numerical analysis of cold formed steel sections using Effective width method is
relatively conservative and the recently developed direct strength method considering the
buckling behaviour of the member. The present study is focusing on the investigation and
estimation of elastic buckling and the nonlinear behaviour of cold formed steel angles, which
could be used in transmission towers, using the modern technique. Software ANSYS V16.0
program has been used for the finite element analysis and results are compared to the ones
with the finite strip method. The specimens subjected to eccentric loading are studied for
different slenderness ratio such as 100, 120,150 and 180 and lengths up to 3500 mm as well
as for various sections. The nonlinear finite element analysis results are compared with the
finite strip analysis results as well as for some previous tests to find an effective way in
predicting the ultimate load. Using nonlinear regression analysis, a Simple equation is
presented to predict the buckling load of cold-formed steel angles. The comparison between
the numerical results and the suggested equation results proved the accuracy of the equation
in estimating the buckling load.

KEYWORDS
Cold-Formed Angles; buckling; Finite Element Analysis; Finite Strip Analysis; Proposed
Equation
 1. INTRODUCTION

Cold-formed angles are the most basic and widely used sections among the various forms of
steel sections especially in transmission towers where Cold-formed steel offers many
advantages, including: ease of prefabrication, low weight, economy of transportation, quick
and simple erection or installation which is useful in transmission towers.

A series of compression tests had been done to study the behaviour of cold-formed sections
in the elastic and in the inelastic ranges of loadings as Young and Ellobody (2005) [1].
Young and Rasmussen (1999) [2] investigated the buckling behaviour of cold-formed equal
lipped angle columns. Popovic et al. (1999) [3] also investigated Fixed-ended and pin-ended
compression tests on cold-formed angles. Mohan et al. (2006) [4] studied the behaviour of
cold-formed lipped angles in transmission line towers.

The objective of this study is to estimate the ultimate load of cold-formed angle members
used in transmission towers. A proposed equation t considered the influence of different
buckling modes. Therefore, a parametric study is carried out for 212 different models of cold-
formed angle shapes using the finite element model. To ensure the validity of the proposed
equation, the results obtained from the parametric study are compared to the proposed
equation results.

2 DESIGN AND PRAMETRIC STUDY OF COLD- FORMED STEEL MEMBERS

One of the biggest difficulties of cold-formed steel design is the prevention of member
buckling, because of the low width to thickness ratio .It is likely that the members will buckle
at stress values lower than the yield stress under compression, bearing and shear bending
forces. Therefore, buckling is a major design consideration for cold-formed steel members.
An extensive parametric study using finite element analysis is conducted to determine the
buckling behaviour of cold-formed angles when subjected to eccentric axial compressive
force. The influence of different cold-formed angle shapes, cross-sections and slenderness
ratios are considered. A total of 212 models including the experimental specimens
compressed between pin – ended and constrained ends as shown in fig (1). Ten different
shapes of cold-formed steel angles are studied as illustrated in fig (2). Shapes (a, c, e, g and k)
are equal angles while shapes (b, d, f, h and m) are unequal angles.
t c

a a
c
b b
Fig .1: Constrained condition of the test members

(c) (g) t
(a) (e) (k)
r=t/4

(b) (d) (f) (h) (m)

Fig .2: Typical shapes of cold-formed steel profiles

Where; a is the length of connected leg in [mm], b is the width of unconnected leg in [mm]
c is the length of the section’s lip in [mm], t is the thickness of the section in [mm]

The tested cross-sections were fabricated with various slenderness ratios (λ) according to
Egyptian code [5] such as (100,120,150 and 180) respectively. series of equal angle and equal
lipped angle as L70*70*5 mm and L70*70*24*4 mm with slenderness ratios (70, 80,
90,100and110) were studied by Fengli Yang, Junke Han, Jingbo Yang, and Zhenbao Li [6] to
investigate the buckling behaviour of cold-formed angle. The results were used as a reference
to verify FEA results of the current study. The studied cross sectional shapes are subdivided
into two groups according to their slenderness ratios.

2.1 Group (A)

Group (A) consists of cross- sections which have a slenderness ratio less than or equal to 100.
The geometric limitations and the sectional properties for the specimens are presented in
Table (1).
Table 1: Group (A)
Parameters λ L a b c t
[mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm]
50 50 5 Shape (a,e)
50 50 6 Shape (a,e)
70 70 5 Shape (a,e) ¤
70 70 6 Shape (a,e)
90 90 5 Shape (a,e)
90 90 8 Shape (a,e)
75 50 5 Shape (b,f)
75 50 6 Shape (b,f)
≤100 1500 100 75 6 Shape (b,f)
2000 100 75 8 Shape (b,f)
2500 70 50 4 Shape (b,f)
3000 40 40 15 2-3-4 Shape (c,g,k)
3500 50 50 15 2-3-4 Shape (c,g,k)
60 60 15 2-3-4 Shape (c,g,k)
70 70 15 2-3-4 Shape (c,g,k)
80 80 15 2-3-4 Shape (c,g,k)
70 70 24 4 Shape(c) ¤
75 50 20 2-2.5-3 Shape(d,h,m)
100 50 25 2-2.5-3 Shape(d,h,m)
100 75 25 2-2.5-3 Shape(d,h,m)
Note: (¤) refers to an experimental specimen.

2.2 Group (B)

Most of the studied cross-sections are presented in group (B) where slenderness ratios
vary from 100 to 180. The geometric limitations and section properties of the specimens are
presented in Table (2).
 Table 2: Group (B)
Parameters λ L [mm] a [mm] b [mm] c [mm] t [mm]
50 50 5 Shape (a,e)
50 50 6 Shape (a,e)
70 70 5 Shape (a,e) ¤
70 70 6 Shape (a,e)
90 90 5 Shape (a,e)
90 90 8 Shape (a,e)
75 50 5 Shape (b,f)
75 50 6 Shape (b,f)
100<λ≤180 1500 70 50 4 Shape (b,f)
2000 40 40 15 2-3-4 Shape (c,g,k)
2500 50 50 15 2-3-4 Shape (c,g,k)
3000 60 60 15 2-3-4 Shape (c,g,k)
3500 70 70 15 2-3-4 Shape (c,g,k)
70 70 24 4 Shape (c) ¤
80 80 15 2-3-4 Shape(d,h,k)
75 50 20 2-2.5-3 Shape(d,h,m)
100 50 25 2-3 Shape(d,h,m)
100 75 25 2-3 Shape(d,h,m)
Note: (¤) refers to an experimental specimen.

3. FINITE ELEMENT MODELING

The behaviour of cold-formed angle members is investigated numerically using the finite
element method. Experimental results [6] were used as a reference to verify the efficiency of
the numerical model in predicting buckling load. Thin-shell elements SHELL181 [7] with
four- nodes and six degrees of freedom at each node are used to model the members. Coarse
meshing with low smoothing and slow transition is the adequate mesh to analyze the buckling
behaviour of cold-formed angles. Fig (3) shows the undeformed shape of a typical finite
element mesh for an equal angle member, an equal lipped angle member.

The members are subjected to eccentric compression due to the constrained leg as shown in
fig (4). The load is incrementally increased through successive load steps. The end conditions
of the members were pin- ended. The loaded ends is prevented from translations in x and y
directions. On the other hand, the unloaded end is prevented from translations in x, y, and z
directions . The finite element analysis procedure is as follows: The eigenvalue buckling
analysis is carried out in the first, and the bending deformation is determined. Then the initial
overall geometric imperfections are applied along the bending deformation in accord with the
eigenvalue buckling analysis. Lastly, the nonlinear buckling analysis proceeded.

3.1 Validation of the numerical model

The model is validated by using the experimental results of equal cold-formed angle and
lipped angle members. In the finite element model, the nonlinear geometry parameter was
included to deal with the large deformation analysis as in the experiment using ANSYS
(V16.0) software. Number of the experimental specimens and the numerical model results
are listed in table (3), they are in good correlation with the experimental study data.
a) Equal angle (SP-01) b) Equal lipped angle (SP-07)
Fig .3: Optimized mesh modelling

c p p
e
•
Fig .4: Column subjected to eccentric load

Table3: Comparison between experimental ultimate load results and numerical

analysis results
Specimen Section λ P Test PFEM
ID [kN] [kN]
SP-01 70*70*5 70 101.71 115.27 1.13
SP-02 70*70*5 80 92.78 100.08 1.08
SP-03 70*70*5 90 79.66 85.86 1.08
SP-04 70*70*5 100 70.36 63.52 0.90
SP-05 70*70*5 110 62.20 54.51 0.88
SP-06 70*70*24*4 70 101.44 112.24 1.11
SP-07 70*70*24*4 80 86.56 92.87 1.07
SP-08 70*70*24*4 90 79.63 84.19 1.09
SP-09 70*70*24*4 100 71.62 79.56 1.11
SP-10 70*70*24*4 110 62.24 56.84 0.91

Figures (5) and fig (6) show the buckling behaviour of the compression members that was
observed experimentally and confirmed by the finite element analysis. It can be concluded
that the finite element model can predict the failure modes observed in the experiments.

4. Finite strip method

The finite strip method (FSM) is an effective method for studying the buckling behaviour of
cold-formed sections. The method was introduced by Cheung [8] and developed by Lau and
Hancock [9]. Several of computer programs have been developed based on the finite strip
method as CUFSM [10]. CUFSM provides a method to examine all the instabilities in cold-
formed sections under uniform axial force and bending moment and calculating their ultimate
load.

For group (a) ,a comparison between the resluts obtained from finite element analysis and
those obtained from finite strip analysis for number of specimens of the tested shapes are
shown in tables (4) and (5) .
Fig .5: Cold-formed equal angle (SP-01) Fig .6: Cold-formed lipped angle (SP-06)

Table 4: Comparison of buckling loads for Group (A)

Specimen Section PFEM PFSM
ID [kN] [kN]
SP-a-01 50*50*5 65.54 65.52 1.0003
Sp-a-02 50*50*6 81.31 82.79 0.9821
Sp-a-03 70*70*5 115.27 104.44 1.1037 ¤
Sp-a-04 70*70*5 100.08 89.38 1.1197 ¤
SP-a-05 70*70*5 85.86 80.18 1.0708 ¤
SP-a-06 70*70*5 63.52 66.53 0.9548 ¤
SP-b-01 75*50*6 104.94 107.09 0.9799
SP-b-02 75*50*5 85.2 88.92 0.9582
SP-b-03 100*75*8 134.22 136.31 0.9847
SP-b-04 100*75*6 122.84 124.44 0.9871
SP-c-01 40*40*15*2 31.8 30.36 1.0474
SP-c-02 70*70*24*4 112.24 96.51 1.1630 ¤
SP-c-03 70*70*24*4 92.87 86.21 1.0773 ¤
SP-c-04 70*70*4*4 84.19 78.74 1.0692 ¤
SP-c-05 70*70*24*4 79.56 72.99 1.0900 ¤
SP-d-01 75*50*20*2 39.11 37.19 1.0516
SP-d-02 75*50*20*3 72.62 76.35 0.9511
SP-d-03 100*50*25*2 46.6 44.27 1.0526
SP-d-04 100*75*25*3 94.74 94.89 0.9984
SP-e-01 50*50*5 72.28 74.33 0.9724
SP-e-02 50*50*6 84.2 87.01 0.9677
SP-e-03 70*70*5 94.07 92.02 1.0223
SP-e-04 70*70*6 111.52 109.42 1.0192
SP-f-01 75*50*5 93.50 92.39 1.0120
SP-f-02 75*50*6 115.93 112.19 1.0333
SP-f-03 100*75*6 130.21 128.97 1.0096
SP-f-04 70*50*4 137.68 133.4 1.0321
 Table 5: Comparison of buckling loads for Group (A)
Specimen Section PFEM PFSM
ID [kN] [kN]
SP-g-01 40*40*15*2 34.37 32.96 1.0428
SP-g-02 60*60*15*3 61.36 60.57 1.0130
SP-g-03 70*70*15*2 46.83 46.32 1.0110
SP-g-04 80*80*15*2 45.55 44.31 1.0280
SP-h-01 75*50*20*2 43.82 45.18 0.9699
SP-h-02 75*50*20*3 85.46 84.74 1.0085
SP-h-03 100*50*25*2 53.75 52.6 1.0219
SP-h-04 100*75*25*2 61.89 59.7 1.0367
SP-k-01 40*40*15*2 39.13 36.7 1.0662
SP-k-02 50*50*15*2 35.98 36.09 0.9970
SP-k-03 60*60*15*2 47.76 45.21 1.0564
SP-k-04 70*70*15*2 43.98 43.44 1.0124
SP-m-01 75*50*20*2 88.15 85.3 1.0334
SP-m-02 75*50*20*3 131.75 134.05 0.9828
SP-m-03 100*50*25*2 96.65 94.61 1.0216
SP-m-04 100*75*25*2 104.71 101.1 1.0357

The deformed shapes of sample specimens at failure load obtained from the finite element
method is shown in Fig (7) .The modes of failure predicted by ANSYS(V16.0) analysis are
flexural and flexural-torsional buckling.

a) SP-a-01 b) SP-b-02 c) SP-c-03

c) SP-k-02
(Flexural buckling ) (Flexural buckling ) (Flexure – Torsional buckling)
(Flexure – Torsional buckling)

Fig. 7 : Comparison of deformed shapes at faliure for Group (A)

For group (b) , acomparison between the results from FEM and those obtained from FSM
using ( program CUFSM) for number of specimens of the tested shapes are listed in table
(6) . .
 Table 6: Comparison of buckling load for Group (B)
Specimen Section PFEM PFSM
ID [kN] [kN]
SP-a-09 50*50*5 44.71 45.65 0.9794
SP-a-10 50*50*5 30.52 29.29 1.0420
SP-a-11 50*50*5 20.57 20.37 1.0098
SP-a-15 70*70*5 54.51 63.15 0.8632 ¤
SP-b-06 75*50*6 89.95 86.08 1.0450
SP-b-07 75*50*5 75.65 73.89 1.0238
SP-b-08 70*50*4 109.38 109.16 1.0020
SP-b-09 70*50*4 80.78 81.85 0.9869
SP-b-10 70*50*4 69.57 68.08 1.0219
SP-c-07 40*40*15*2 22.86 21.19 1.0788
SP-c-08 40*40*15*2 14.1 14.54 0.9697
SP-c-09 40*40*15*2 11.98 11.77 1.0178
SP-c-11 70*70*24*4 56.84 59.37 0.9574 ¤
SP-d-05 75*50*20*2 32.03 31.13 1.0289
SP-d-06 75*50*20*2.5 45.77 43.71 1.0471
SP-d-07 75*50*25*3 67.45 65.44 1.0307
SP-e-07 50*50*6 60.77 61.7 0.9849
SP-e-08 50*50*6 38.54 39.55 0.9745
SP-e-09 50*50*6 31.08 28.48 1.0913
SP-e-10 70*70*5 67.93 63.71 1.0662
SP-e-11 70*70*6 76.13 75.09 1.0139
SP-f-05 75*50*5 77.56 80.83 0.9595
SP-f-06 75*50*5 70.04 66.90 1.0469
SP-f-07 75*50*5 54.3 54.16 1.0026
SP-f-08 75*50*6 99.89 94.74 1.0544
SP-f-09 75*50*6 74.8 69.61 1.0746
SP-f-10 75*50*6 55.26 52.2 1.0586
SP-g-05 40*40*15*3 47.56 49.09 0.9688
SP-g-06 40*40*15*3 36.59 38.29 0.9556
SP-g-07 40*40*15*3 25.55 24.94 1.0245
SP-g-08 60*60*15*4 84.26 86.48 0.9743
SP-h-06 75*50*20*2 38.6 39.1 0.9872
SP-h-07 75*50*20*2 31.51 30.41 1.0362
SP-h-08 100*50*25*2 41.26 43.32 0.9524
SP-h-09 100*50*25*2 36.43 35.07 1.0388
SP-k-06 60*60*15*2 34.97 34.77 1.0058
SP-k-07 60*60*15*2 29.78 30.6 0.9732
SP-k-08 60*60*15*2 23.86 23.65 1.0089
SP-k-09 70*70*15*4 103.95 100.6 1.0333
SP-m-06 75*50*20*2 58.79 59.71 0.9846
SP-m-07 75*50*20*2 45.54 43.65 1.0433
SP-m-08 75*50*25*2 32.65 30.41 1.0737
SP-m-09 100*50*25*3 102.61 103.99 0.9867
Fig (8) shows samples of buckling failure modes throughout the length of cold-formed angles .
The buckling modes of the members are Flexural buckling and Flexure-Torsional buckling.

a) SP-b-07 b) SP-e-10 c) SP-h-13 d) SP-f-08

(Flexural buckling ) (Flexure – Torsional (Flexure – Torsional (Flexure – Torsional
buckling ) buckling ) buckling )

Fig. 8:Comparisson of deformed shapes at failure for Group (B)

The obtained ultimate loads from the finite element analysis are compared with those
obtained from the finite strip analysis in Fig (9). Minor differences were observed compared
to numerical results (2% to 5%).

a) Equal leg cold-formed angles b) Equal leg cold-formed lipped angles

Fig.9: Comparison between FEA and FSA results for equal lipped angle section
5. ESTIMATION METHOD FOR ULTIMATE LOAD

The buckling behaviour of cold-formed steel angle columns subjected to eccentric load is far
from simple and the buckling calculations are somewhat complicated. A simple equation (1)
is introduced to determine the buckling load of cold-formed steel angles. The impact of
instability of the section due to local and global buckling is introduced in this equation. See
fig (4)

Pp = S* ( ) + N* (1)

Where

- Pp is the predicted buckling load in (N) , fy is the nominal axial strength which in N /mm2
- A is the area of the section in mm2 , E is modulus of elasticity in N /mm2
- L is length of the column in (mm) , Iz is the moment of inertia about axis z-z in mm4
- e is the eccentricity distance in mm
- c is the distance from the centroid axis to the extreme fiber on the concave side of the
section in mm
- S and N are constant parameters depending on (f, A, L,e and I)

Driving out the equation with the conventional methods could be ineffective because of the
long calculation process that could lead to inaccurate results. Therefore the equation is
implemented based on Multiple Nonlinear Regression analysis using statistical packages
SPSS. Where nonlinear regression estimate the parameter (S, N) based on the value of the
variables which are divided into two types. Independent variables that include (f, A, L, e and
I) and dependent variables that is the predicted buckling load (Pp). To estimate the precision
of statistics relative to the suggested equation, Confidence Intervals of the parameter values
are expressed at a certain confidence level as 95%.The cold-formed angle shapes were
divided into two groups according to their slenderness ratios as

• Group (A) sections with slenderness ratio (λ≤ 100)

• Group (B) sections with slenderness ratios (100< λ≤ 180)
As precedent for executing the equation, the anticipated buckling load of cold-formed equal
angles (shape a) were calculated by the suggested equation where forecast parameters (S) and
(N) are listed in Table (7). These values varied according to corresponding values of
variables for Group (A) and (B).

Table 7: S and N values

λ S N
λ≤100 0.19 0.39
100<λ≤180 0.557 0.098
Tables (8) and (9) clarify the buckling load results from Finite element analysis program
ANSYS (V16.0) and the statistical software SPSS. A comparison between the tested sections
results and the proposed equation results were introduced in Fig (10) to determine the
accurate of the equation where the range of buckling load values obtained from the
introduced equation is between +10% and -10% of the values of the ANSYS (V16.0)
buckling load results.
 Table 8: Comparison of buckling load results between FEA and the proposed equation for
λ≤ 100
Section e c fy Iz A PFEA PPredicted
2 4 2
mm mm N/mm mm mm kN kN
50*50*5 9.9 25 240 104000 435 65.54 57.75 1.13
50*50*6 9.3 25 240 126000 536 81.31 71.07 1.14
70*70*5 14.9 35 240 312000 658.9 115.27 113.90 1.01 ¤
70*70*5 14.9 35 240 312000 658.9 100.08 101.66 0.98 ¤
70*70*5 14.9 35 240 312000 658.9 85.86 93.27 0.92 ¤
70*70*5 14.9 35 240 312000 658.9 75.52 87.26 0.87 ¤
70*70*6 13.1 35 240 377000 765 101.25 102.53 0.99
90*90*5 20.4 45 240 654000 811 108.65 107.81 1.01
90*90*8 18.8 45 240 1040000 1330 166.87 177.05 0.94

Table 9: Comparison of buckling load results between FEA and the proposed equation for
λ = 110-120
Section e c fy Iz A PFEA PPredicted
mm mm N/mm2 mm4 mm2 kN kN
50*50*5 9.9 25 240 104000 435 44.71 39.70 1.13
50*50*5 9.9 25 240 104000 435 30.52 27.22 1.12
50*50*5 9.9 25 240 104000 435 20.57 20.44 1.01
50*50*6 9.3 25 240 126000 536 58.23 48.89 1.19
50*50*6 9.3 25 240 126000 536 34.61 33.57 1.03
50*50*6 9.3 25 240 126000 536 26.81 25.25 1.06
70*70*5 14.9 35 240 312000 658.9 58.51 69.38 0.84 ¤
70*70*6 14.4 35 240 377000 765 70.32 71.85 0.98
70*70*6 14.4 35 240 377000 765 46.51 49.19 0.95
90*90*5 20.4 45 240 654000 811 81.03 73.86 1.10
90*90*8 18.8 45 240 1040000 1330 114.34 122.03 0.94

a) λ≤100 b) 100<λ≤180
Fig.10: Comparison of FEA and proposed equation buckling
6. CONCLUSIONS load results for shape (a)

A total of 212 eccentric loaded cold-formed steel angle members were studied and compared with
experimental models. The developed finite element models using ANSYS V16.0 show accurately
anticipating of the ultimate load and the behaviour of the cold-formed angles as compared to
experimental results and finite strip analysis results.
According to the results, the intermediate stiffener enhances the resistance of cold-formed
sections and increase their strength. The nominal capacity of equal angles increase by 4% to
25%% depending on the slenderness ratio. Similarly, the increase in equal lipped angles
capacities vary from 3% to 32%. For unequal angles, the raising of their capacities doesn’t
exceed 15%. As well as, the increase in unequal lipped angles capacities don’t exceed 18%.
Adding one lip could increase the capacity of the sections by almost 14% for the equal angles
and 30% for unequal angles. Shapes (e, f, k and m) are recommended to be used in transmission
towers due to their resistance and high capacity.

The applied cross-sections are selected according to Egyptian specification. As the dimensions of
these cross-sections and the width-thickness ratio prevent local buckling and distortional
buckling to occur.

Considering the instability of cold-formed steel angles due to overall and local buckling as
well as the initial geometric imperfections, some equations are proposed to determine the
ultimate buckling load for the common cold-formed angle shapes. The proposed equations
applied on the chosen cross-sections and the results are compared with the finite element
analysis results. The comparison shows a good reliability and the results could help to quick
and rough estimation of the buckling load in the predesign phase.

7. REFERENCE

[1] Young B, Ellobody E, ―Buckling analysis of cold-formed steel lipped angle columns,‖
Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 131, pp. 1570–1579, 2005.

[2] Young B, Rasmussen K J R, ―Behavior of cold-formed singly symmetric Columns,‖

Thin-Walled Structures, vol. 33, pp. 83–102, 1999.

[3] Popovic, D., Hancock, G. J., and Rasmussen, K. J. R. (1999). “Axial compression tests of
cold-formed angles.” Journal of Structural Engineering, 125(5), pp. 515-523.

[4] Mohan S J, Rahima S S, Samuel Knight G, ―Behavior of cold formed lipped angles in
transmission line towers,‖ Thin-Walled Structures; Vol. 44, pp. 1017–1030, 2006.

[5] Egyptian code for steel construction and bridges, code No. (205), ministerial Decree No
279-2001.

[6] Fengli Yang, Junke Han, Jingbo Yang, and Zhenbao Li - Study on the Buckling
Behaviour of Cold-Formed Angles in Transmission Towers, Journal of Steel Structures
December 2011, Vol 11, No 4, 495-508.

[7] ANSYS, Inc., ANSYS Mechanical APDL Structural Analysis Guide: ANSYS Release
13.0, USA, 2010.

[8] CHEUNG, Y.K., Finite Strip Method in Structural Analysis, PergamonPress, 1976.

[9] Lau, S. C. W., and G. J. Hancock: “Buckling of Thin Flat-Walled Structures by a Spline
Finite Strip Method, “International Journal on Thin-Walled Structures, vol. 4, no. 4, 1988

[10] Schafer, B.W., Ádány, S.“Buckling analysis of cold-formed steel members using
CUFSM: conventional and constrained finite strip methods.” Eighteenth International
Specialty Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures, Orlando, FL. October 2006.