Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 845–861

www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr

A new residual stress distribution for hot-rolled

I-shaped sections
József Szalai∗, Ferenc Papp
Department of Structural Engineering, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, 1111-Hungary,
Budapest, Bertalan L. utca 2, Hungary

Received 12 March 2004; accepted 13 December 2004

Abstract

During the procedure of manufacturing structural steel profiles the considerable temperature
changes cause residual stresses in the material. These stresses can have a significant effect on the
stability resistance of structures consisting of such profiles. Therefore engineers have paid special
attention to the consideration and modelling of residual stresses in the comprehensive research into
column buckling. They developed several stress distribution forms based on experimental and/or
theoretical results, which worked well in column buckling problems. However, when the member
has twisting displacements – e.g. in the case of lateral–torsional buckling – these stress distributions
can lead to malfunction, because they do not satisfy certain equilibrium equations connected with
torsion and warping of the profile. In order to avoid this problem a new stress pattern is proposed
which satisfies all the equilibrium equations, thus being applicable in stability problems including
torsional and warping effects.
© 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Residual stress; Column buckling; Lateral–torsional buckling; Beam columns; Torsion; Warping;
Wagner effect

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +36 1 463 1998; fax: +36 1 463 1784.
E-mail address: szalaijoci@freemail.hu (J. Szalai).

0143-974X/$ - see front matter © 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2004.12.004
846 J. Szalai, F. Papp / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 845–861

Nomenclature

a distance between an arbitrary point of the cross-section and the shear centre
A cross-sectional area
b width of flanges
f stress distribution function on flanges
fy yielding stress
h height of web
h0 net height of web
K Wagner coefficient
Lc collapse load without taking into consideration the residual stresses
L cr collapse load taking into consideration the residual stresses
My bending moment about the major axis
Mz bending moment about the minor axis
Mω bimoment as the resultant of warping normal stresses
N resultant normal force
t thickness of plate segment
tf thickness of flanges
tw thickness of web
Tω twisting moment as a consequence of Wagner effect
w stress distribution function on web
λz slenderness about the minor axis
σx residual normal stress acting along the cross-section
σc1 compressive stresses at the tips of the flanges
σc2 compressive stresses in the midst of the web
σt tension stress at the connection point of web and flanges
θx rotation about the longitudinal axis
ω sectorial coordinate of the cross-section

1. Introduction

It has been suggested and proved by many authors e.g. [1–3] that residual stresses in
steel profiles have a significant effect on the member resistance. These stresses are caused
by the manufacturing process, especially in the case of hot-rolled sections with unequal
cooling of distinct parts of the profile after the rolling process. The portions which have
larger external surface (e.g. the tips of the flanges) cool and shrink at a faster rate than
the portions which have more material located inside (e.g. the attachment point of the
flange and web). Therefore tension stresses arise in the former and pressure in the latter.
 J. Szalai, F. Papp / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 845–861 847

Where these stresses reach the yielding stress, which is very low due to the high
temperature, plastic deformations develop. At the end of cooling the plastic deformations
due to tension result in residual elongation, while the plastic deformations caused by
pressure result in residual shrinkage in the material. These portions of different volumes
cause significant stresses, pressure in the elongated parts and tension in the shrunken
parts. These residual stresses are present throughout the whole volume of the member,
but since the longitudinal components distributed along the cross-section are far greater
than the normal components, the latter are generally neglected. The measurement of
residual stresses is a very difficult and complicated task; however, there exist a number
of methods used for structural engineering purposes, e.g. sectioning, hole drilling, X-ray
diffraction methods [4,5]. There are also several theoretical models for residual stress
distributions, partly based on the experimental measurements [1,6–8]. Nevertheless the
results of such models for the same type of profile can show essential departures due to the
great uncertainties in the methods; there are some common conclusive features of these:
• the most important influential parameter of the distribution and amplitude of residual
stresses (considering identical manufacturing process) is the shape of the profile;
• in the case of I-shaped sections there is always pressure at the tip of the flanges, and
generally tension at the connection of the web and flange;
• the stresses form an equilibrium system along the cross-section;
• the degree of symmetry of the distribution is the same as for the shape of the profile.
Another important determinant property of these models is that they were developed
for the thorough research of column buckling. Accordingly, since in the simple buckling
phenomena there are no twisting displacements, the applied residual stress distribution
models were not studied for torsional stresses, and thus do not satisfy torsional equilibrium
equations. It follows that these stress distributions can lead to malfunction when the
member has twisting displacements, e.g. in the case of torsional buckling and the
lateral–torsional buckling problem. Even so, in the research into the real behaviour and
resistance of steel beam columns, these residual stress distributions remain in use for all
kinds of problems (possibly including torsion).
This paper introduces a new type of residual stress distribution accepting the usual
assumptions (described earlier) and satisfying the equilibrium equations for torsion.
The distribution is verified by the examination of performance in stability problems
including torsion. Comparing with the results from applying other distributions, significant
differences can be observed, supposed to be arising because of the effect of error in the
torsional equilibrium.

2. Existing approaches
2.1. Effect of residual stress on column buckling resistance
During the comprehensive research into column buckling – which was the first step in
describing the real behaviour and resistance of steel beam column members – engineers
quickly realized the importance of the effect of residual stresses on the carrying capacity
of the member [1]. It was determined that a member that contains residual stress starts
848 J. Szalai, F. Papp / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 845–861

Fig. 1. Effect of residual stresses on the ultimate normal force of columns.

Fig. 2. Effect of residual stress on the buckling curve.

to soften – materially – earlier due to the additional compressive stresses at the tip of the
flanges, and finally this will be the reason for a significant decrease in the ultimate load. In
Fig. 1 the load–displacement path can be seen for a geometrically imperfect beam column
with and without residual stresses. It is also worth examining this effect as a function of
column slenderness. In Fig. 2 schematic buckling curves are plotted with and without the
presence of residual stresses. Additionally, the relative importance of the decrease in the
ultimate load is also illustrated by a third curve. It can be established [3] that this effect is
mainly significant in the range of medium slenderness, and tends to be negligible towards
zero and high slenderness. This is an important and general fact, which is true for not only
the column buckling but also other forms of loss of stability of beam columns [9]. That
will provide the basic verification of the proposed residual stress distribution.

2.2. Common residual stress distributions

After observing the influence of residual stresses on stability resistance, the next step is
the development of modelling possibilities suitable for the numerical treatment. In Fig. 3
 J. Szalai, F. Papp / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 845–861 849

Fig. 3. The applied cross-section model.

Fig. 4. Examined existing stress distributions: A—parabolic (Young [7]), B—linear (ECCS [8]), C—constant
linear (Galambos [6]).

the usual way of modelling I-shaped cross-sections built up from plate segments is
depicted; it will be used in this paper also. Firstly it was recognized that the assumed
stress distribution should satisfy the following equilibrium equations:


N= σx d A = 0; (1)


A

My = σx zd A = 0; (2)

A
Mz = σx yd A = 0 (3)
A
where N, M y , Mz are the resultant normal force and bending moment about the two
principal axes respectively, σx is the residual normal stress acting along the cross-section
and A is the sectional area. For the shape of the stress distribution along either plate
segment the constant, linear and parabolic approximations are in use. In this paper
three typical and frequently applied existing residual stress distributions are demonstrated
(developed by Young [7], the ECCS [8] and Galambos [6]) and compared with the
proposed one; these are illustrated in Fig. 4. The parabolic distribution proposed by
Young [7] is mainly based on experimental measurements, and the specific stress values
850 J. Szalai, F. Papp / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 845–861

making the distribution satisfy Eqs. (1)–(3) are the following:

 
htw
σc1 = −165 1 − (4)
2.4bt f
 
htw
σc2 = −100 1.5 − (5)
2.4bt f
 
htw
σt = 100 0.7 − (6)
2bt f

where σc1 , σc2 and σt are the compressive stresses at the tips of the flanges and in the
midst of the web, and the tension stress at the connection point of the web and flanges
respectively; the dimension is N/mm2 . The linear stress distribution recommended by the
ECCS is the simplest; the specific stress values (defined formerly) are equal and thus the
distribution automatically satisfies the equilibrium Eqs. (1)–(3). In case of the third stress
distribution proposed by Galambos the following relationship should hold between the two
specific stress values:
bt f σc1
σt = − (7)
(bt f + htw )

where the notation is the same as defined earlier. In order to allow comparison of
these models with the proposed one in the next section, firstly the extended equilibrium
requirements are discussed for problems including torsion, the assumptions and deduction
of the new distribution are presented and then the comparison and verification will be done
through some examples.

3. The proposed stress distribution

In the case of a beam column cross-section built up from relatively thin plates (such
as hot-rolled I profiles), the member having torsional displacement is subjected to the
warping of the section [10]. From this effect, additional normal stresses arise along the
cross-section, influencing the behaviour of the member. Conversely the residual stresses
can cause additional warping if they do not satisfy some further equilibrium equations,
and therefore influence erroneously the structural behaviour. In order to eliminate this
controversy, the following requirements are added to Eqs. (1)–(3) aimed at equilibrating
the normal stresses caused by torsion:


Mω = σx ωd A = 0 (8)
A
∂θx
Tω = K =0 (9)
∂x
where Mω is the bimoment as the resultant of warping normal stresses, ω is the sectorial
coordinate of the cross-section, θx is the rotation about the longitudinal axis, Tω is the
twisting moment as a consequence of the Wagner effect [10], i.e. the change in the direction
 J. Szalai, F. Papp / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 845–861 851

Fig. 5. The domain fields of the proposed stress distributions for flange and web.

of the warping normal stresses due to the twist of the section in which



K = a 2 σx tds = ((y − y D )2 + (z − z D )2 )σx tds (10)
s s
is the so-called Wagner coefficient, where a is the distance between an arbitrary point
of the cross-section (y, z) and the shear centre (y D , z D ), and t is the actual thickness of
the plate segment. In the case of a doubly symmetric cross-section – like those of the
hot-rolled I-shaped sections examined – and accordingly a doubly symmetric residual
stress distribution, it is readily conceded that the resultant bimoment is always zero, so
the first requirement of Eq. (8) is automatically satisfied for all the stress distribution
types. However, the second condition of Eq. (9) is fulfilled only – in the general case,
where the twist of the member axis is not certainly constant – if the Wagner coefficient is
zero, which is far not the case at the introduced common models, as will be shown later.
This means that the greater the change in the rotation of the member axis, the greater the
additional erroneous normal stress because of the residual stresses. For instance, in the case
of lateral–torsional buckling in the vicinity of loss of stability, there can be greatly varying
torsional displacements along the member axis that cause inaccuracy in the collapse load.
These considerations suggested the development of a distribution for the residual stresses
that satisfies Eq. (9) by setting the Wagner coefficient to zero.
For the shape of the proposed distribution the second-order parabola was selected, being
continuous and having enough parameters to calibrate. The following general form was
chosen (according to Fig. 5):
f (y) = c f + a f y 2 (11)
w(z) = cw + aw z 2
(12)
where f and w are the stress distribution function on the flanges and web respectively, y
and z are the axes according to Fig. 5 and c f , a f , cw , aw are coefficients to be calibrated.
Since the distribution is symmetric on the flanges and also on the web due to the general
form, Eqs. (2) and (3) are satisfied automatically. The four constraint equations needed
to calibrate the coefficients in Eqs. (11) and (12) will be the following: two equations
for setting the normal force (Eq. (13)) and the Wagner coefficient (Eq. (14)) to zero, one
equation (Eq. (15)) representing the equality of the stress at the connection of the web
852 J. Szalai, F. Papp / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 845–861

and flange, and the determination of an arbitrary stress value at the tip of the flanges
(Eq. (16)) as generally it is the representative value for the distributions. Considering that
the stress distribution is constant along the plate thickness, these equations can be written
in the following form:

b/2
h 0 /2
2t f f (y)dy + tw w(z)dz = 0 (13)
−b/2 −h 0 /2

 

b/2 h 20 h 0 /2
2t f +y 2
f (y)dy + tw z 2 w(z)dz = 0 (14)
−b/2 4 −h 0 /2
f (0) = w(h 0 /2) (15)
f (b/2) = −α f y (16)

where h 0 is the net height of the web, and in the last equation the stress at the tip of the
flange is defined in α proportion to the yielding stress ( f y ). Substituting the general form of
the distribution functions described by Eqs. (11) and (12) into the Eqs. (13)–(16), executing
the integration and performing some simplifications leads to the following linear system of
equations in four unknowns:
   
1 3 1 3
c f (2bt f ) + a f b t f + cw (htw ) + aw h tw = 0 (17)
6 12 0
c f (40(b2 + 3h 20 )bt f ) + a f (6b5t f + 10b3h 20 t f ) + cw (20h 30 tw )
+ aw (3h 50 tw ) = 0 (18)
 
h 20
c f − cw − a w =0 (19)
4
 
b2
cf + af = −α f y . (20)
4

Solving this system of equations yields the required coefficients as a function of the
dimensions of the cross-section and the stress value defined at the tip of the flanges:

bt f (3b2 + 4h 20 )
c f = α fy (21)
2b3t f + 8bh 20t f + h 30 tw
20b3t f + 48bh 20t f + 4h 30 tw
a f = −α f y (22)
b2 (2b3t f + 8bh 20 t f + h 30 tw )
bt f (8b3t f + 3b2h 0 tw + 2h 30 tw )
cw = −α f y (23)
2h 0 tw (2b3 t f + 8bh 20 t f + h 30 tw )
2bt f (8b3t f + 9b 2 h 0 tw + 10h 30 tw )
aw = α f y . (24)
h 30 tw (2b3 t f + 8bh 20 t f + h 30 tw )
In this manner we obtained a parabolic residual stress distribution which does not
cause disorder in problems containing torsion. This model is readily usable in numerical
 J. Szalai, F. Papp / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 845–861 853

calculations; below, it will be applied in finite element analysis in order to compare the
performance and results with the existing models introduced in Section 2.2.

4. Comparative examples for the influence on the member resistance

Two different types of frequently used hot-rolled profile are considered in the
calculations: HEA200 and IPE240 cross-sections, with geometrical dimensions defined
in the catalogue of ProfilArbed [11]. For the analysis a refined seven-degree-of-freedom
(including the warping effect) finite element model is applied, which was originally
published by Rajasekaran [12] and directly developed for thin-walled steel beam columns
with complex geometrical nonlinearity. The material is bilinear elasto-plastic with an
average value for the yielding stress of f y = 270 N/mm2 . Furthermore a special cross-
section treatment is considered [13], dividing the section into finite elements in order to
allow consideration of the variation of stress along the thickness of the plate segments.
The residual stresses are defined as corresponding initial strains over the cross-section.
All calculation models contained a further geometrical imperfection modelled by the
commonly used half-sine-wave shape of the member with an L/1000 amplitude at the
mid-length. The nonlinear solution method is incremental iterative, using the modified
Newton–Raphson strategy with a special incrementation developed for the analysis of
elasto-plastic resistance of beam column members [14].
In Fig. 6 the proposed and the other three residual stress distributions on the flange and
web are illustrated for the HEA200 and IPE240 profiles, considering the same 60 N/mm2
compressive stress at the tip of the flange. In the case of the flanges the horizontal axis is
the normalized width of the flange, while for the webs the vertical axis is the normalized
height of the web. It can be seen straightaway that while in the case of the HEA200 the
distributions are very similar – excluding obviously the web in the Galambos model – there
are significant differences for the IPE240. Mostly the Young model gives considerably
higher values due to the more slender web of the IPE profile. In the real elasto-plastic
stability analysis of beam columns the effect of the residual stress on the web is almost
negligible because of its very slight lateral stiffness and it generally remains in an elastic
state until the failure occurs; accordingly the residual stress distribution on the flanges has
particular importance. From this point of view it is important to notice that the Young
model gives very large tension stress on the flange of the IPE240; the maximum value is
about twice those of the others or of the same value for the HEA200.
Before analysing the structural behaviour considering the four different stress
distributions, let us review the numerically calculated Wagner coefficients. In the
discretized finite element model of the cross-section where the stress distribution is
staggered along the length and thickness of the plate segments, the Wagner coefficients
will obviously never be exactly zero, because of the lack of continuity of the stress;
however, they can approach zero. In Table 1 the values of the Wagner coefficients of the
four residual stress distributions and for the two profiles are represented, normalized by
the value calculated from the proposed model. It can be established that the conventional
models yield higher values of the order of one or two. The biggest deviation appears in
the case of the Young model for the IPE240 profile because of the above-mentioned large
tension stress on the flange.
854 J. Szalai, F. Papp / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 845–861

Fig. 6. Comparison of the four residual stress distributions in the cases of HEA200 and IPE240 profiles.

Table 1
The Wagner coefficients normalized by the value of the proposed distribution

Proposed Young Galambos ECCS

IPE240 1 235.85 77.58 17.81

HEA200 1 27.06 137.37 58.29

Henceforward the influence of the different residual stress distributions on the collapse
load determined by numerical calculations (introduced formerly) will be discussed. In
Fig. 7 the resistance curves of the simple lateral buckling (uniform, central compressive
force) are plotted for the two different profiles as a function of the slenderness about the
 J. Szalai, F. Papp / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 845–861 855

Fig. 6. (continued).

minor axis (λz ). It can be readily seen, as discussed earlier, that all the curves considering
the residual stresses approach the curve without residual stress in the range of low and high
slenderness; the largest influence can be observed at medium slenderness (λz = 50–90).
There is no significant deviation between the results for the four stress distributions; the
Galambos model has the greatest resistance reducing effect, while the curves belonging
to the Young and the proposed model are actually identical. In Fig. 8 the appropriate
influences can be seen directly also as a function of the slenderness, calculated from the
following general formula:
L c − L cr
φ= (25)
L cr
856 J. Szalai, F. Papp / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 845–861

Fig. 7. The buckling curves for the two profiles considering the four different residual stress distributions.

where L c and L cr are the collapse load without and with the residual stresses taken
into consideration respectively. These curves also clearly show that although there are
differences between the values of the curves, the above-discussed character of the influence
is the same for all the models. Hereafter, let us examine the resistance curves of the
lateral–torsional buckling (uniform bending moment about the major axis, LTB) in Fig. 9
for the two different profiles. In this case the curves show greater scatter in both values
 J. Szalai, F. Papp / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 845–861 857

Fig. 8. The influence of the residual stress on the ultimate buckling load for the two profiles considering the four
different residual stress distributions.

and character, which indicates that in the case of LTB the different shapes of the residual
stress distribution have a more significant effect on the structural behaviour. There are
also clearly perceptible differences between the curves belonging to the two profiles: the
curves of the HEA200 section look more uniform due to the smaller departure of the stress
distributions shown in Fig. 6. Nevertheless, it is worthy of note that in the case of both
858 J. Szalai, F. Papp / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 845–861

Fig. 9. The lateral–torsional buckling curves for the two profiles considering the four different residual stress
distributions.

profiles at low slenderness none of the curves approaches the curve free of residual stress
except the proposed one. The most dissimilar curve is that for the Young model for the
IPE240 profile; it results in greater load carrying capacity than that of the member without
residual stress at higher slenderness. This phenomenon is induced by the very high residual
tension stress in the flanges, which considerably reduces the compression in the flange
under compressive stress from the bending moment. For more detailed information let us
 J. Szalai, F. Papp / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 845–861 859

Fig. 10. The influence of the residual stress on the ultimate lateral–torsional buckling load for the two profiles
considering the four different residual stress distributions.

observe again the curves of the influences of residual stress distributions on the collapse
load in the case of LTB (Fig. 10). The curves of the HEA200 profile show essentially
same character; however, at lower and higher slenderness they diverge from the required
zero value of influence, except the proposed curve. At low slenderness it was observed
during the numerical calculation that the three existing distributions cause convergence
problems in the vicinity of the loss of stability which resulted in a lower collapse load.
At high slenderness the twist (θx ) of the mid-section can notably increase and coupling
860 J. Szalai, F. Papp / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 845–861

with the disturbance in the Wagner coefficient can cause malfunction in the behaviour
(see Eq. (10)). These observations can be appreciated even more in the IPE240 profile
because of the lower torsional stiffness and greater differences between the residual stress
distributions. In this case the influence curve of the Young model shows totally different
character, having the greatest value at low slenderness, and going into great negative values
towards higher slenderness. The influence curve of the proposed stress distribution is free
of the above-mentioned disturbances because it has no problems with the convergence,
and shows the same – considered as ideal – character as was observed in the simple
lateral buckling case (Fig. 8). It can also be clearly determined that the degree of departure
from this ideal character correlates strongly with the degree of departure of the Wagner
coefficient from the zero value (confront Table 1 with Fig. 10).

5. Conclusions
A new residual stress distribution has been proposed for the stability analysis of steel
beam columns with the commonly used I-shaped cross-section. The general effect of the
presence of residual stresses on the behaviour of such structural members was discussed. It
was established that this effect is significant mostly for members of mid-slenderness, while
in the case of stocky and very slender members it has much less influence on the behaviour.
All the models for residual stresses applied so far were developed during research into
the behaviour and real resistance of columns. One requirement for the residual stress
distributions is to satisfy distinct equilibrium equations, and it was pointed out that these
models were not examined for torsional equilibrium. For the proposed distribution we have
chosen a parabolic shape with coefficients determined to satisfy all equilibrium equations
including the torsion one. The model developed has been demonstrated for two common
kinds of cross-sections and compared with the existing ones. It was proved from the results
of numerical analysis of buckling and lateral–torsional buckling that the existing stress
distributions generate errors in the LTB problem because of the presence of torsion. The
use of the residual stress model developed corrects these errors in the case of LTB, while
its effect on the buckling resistance is the same as that of the others; thus it is proposed for
general stability analysis of steel beam columns.

Acknowledgement
The support provided by the following project is gratefully acknowledged: NKFP
2002/16 ‘e-Design’ project.

References
[1] European Convention for Constructional Steelwork. Manual on stability of steel structures. 1976.
[2] Strating J, Vos H. Computer simulation of the E.C.C.S. buckling curves using a Monte-Carlo method.
HERON 1973;19(2).
[3] Fukumoto Y, Aoki T, Kajita N. Evaluation of column curves based on probabilistic concept. In: Proceedings
of the international conference on stability. Preliminary report; 1976.
[4] Prime MB. Residual stress measurement by successive extension of a slot: The crack compliance method.
Applied Mechanics Reviews 1999;52(2):75–96.
 J. Szalai, F. Papp / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 61 (2005) 845–861 861

[5] Totten G, Howes M, Inoue T. Handbook of residual stress and deformation of steel. ASM International;
2002.
[6] Galambos TV, Ketter RL. Columns under combined bending and thrust. Journal of Engineering Mechanics
Division, ASCE 1959;85:1–30.
[7] Young BW. Residual stresses in hot-rolled members. In: IABSE international colloquium on column
strength. 1972.
[8] Ultimate limit state calculation of sway frames with rigid joints, Technical Committee 8 – Structural
Stability Technical Working Group 8.2 – System Publication No. 33. European Convention for
Constructional Steelwork; 1984.
[9] Szalai J. Overall sensitivity analysis of hot-rolled beam-columns. In: Jármai K, Farkas J, editors. Metal
structures: design, fabrication, economy. Rotterdam: Millpress; 2003.
[10] Chen WF, Atsuta T. Theory of beam-columns. Volume 2: space behaviour and design. McGraw-Hill; 1977.
[11] ProfilArbed. Sales programme: structural shapes. Luxembourg; 1995.
[12] Rajasekaran S, Murray DW. Finite element solution of inelastic beam equations. Journal of the Structural
Division, ASCE 1973;99(6):1024–42.
[13] Papp F, Iványi M, Jármai K. Unified object-oriented definition of thin-walled steel beam-column cross-
sections. Computers and Structures 2001;79:839–52.
[14] Szalai J, Papp F. Simulation of beam-column stability with automatic strain incrementation.
In: Topping BHV, Bittnar Z, editors. Proceedings of the third international conference on engineering
computational technology. Stirling(United Kingdom): Civil-Comp Press; 2002.