P. 1
Greiner_Consistent Lateral Torsional Buckling Curves

# Greiner_Consistent Lateral Torsional Buckling Curves

|Views: 17|Likes:

See more
See less

11/16/2014

pdf

text

original

# Articles Andreas Taras Richard Greiner

Development of consistent buckling curves for torsional and lateral-torsional buckling
The stability design of beams and columns for lateral-torsional and torsional buckling is generally treated in the new Eurocode 3-1-1 [1] by using the same buckling curves used for flexural buckling. These buckling curves are expressed mathematically in terms of a function c(l), which was derived in [2] and [3] by combining a first-yield strength criterion with a second-order analysis of a geometrically imperfect column. Since the basic idea of this approach was originally presented by Ayrton and Perry [4], their names are often quoted in reference to this type of representation of buckling curves. In this paper, analytical Ayrton-Perry-type formulae are developed for the lateral-torsional and torsional buckling modes of profiles with doubly symmetrical open I-sections. The similarities and differences to the flexural buckling mode are highlighted. As a first step, the analytical background of the current code regulations is discussed and compared to the actual behaviour in lateral-torsional and torsional buckling of open sections as shown by geometrically and materially non-linear FEM calculations (GMNIA). Then, both the numerically derived buckling curves and the current code regulations (Eurocode 3) for these buckling modes are compared to the Ayrton-Perry-type formulae developed. where

h=

A ◊ e0 Wz

(4)

This function in cz and lz can be solved for cz, yielding the following well-known expression:

cz =

1 F+ F 2 - l2 z

(5)

where

F=

1 ◊ 1 + h + l2 z 2

(

)

(6)

1 Starting point – Ayrton-Perry formulation for flexural buckling – background to current code regulations
The starting point for the derivation of the Ayrton-Perrytype buckling curves for the case of weak-axis flexural buckling is a first-yield condition using second-order internal forces resulting from a sinusoidal pre-deformation about the bending axis-shown here for the weak bending axis:

The factor h in Eq. (6) is the primary factor determining the shape of the buckling curve. Eq. (4) gives the theoretical, elastic, first-yield value of h for the weak-axis flexural buckling case. Accordingly, h is a factor dependent on the cross-sectional properties A and W _ z, as well as on the amplitude of initial out-of-straightness e0 of the member being examined. The amplitude of the initial out-of-straightness is usually assumed to be linearly proportional to the length of the member. This is consistent with codes of practice regulating the acceptability of fabrication tolerances for steel structures. In order to account for the effects of residual stresses and material plasticity on the column buckling strength, the factor h was conveniently replaced by the following expression, Eq. (7):

N ◊ e0 N 1 + ◊ £ 1.0 A ◊ fy Wz ◊ fy 1 – (N / N cr,z )

(1)

h = a ◊ (l z - l 0 )

(7)

Assuming that the buckling load is reached at yielding in the outermost fiber, we can substitute

N = c z ◊ A ◊ fy = c z ◊ N pl
By introducing the dimensionless slenderness

(2)

Here, the parameter a bundles the factors pertaining to the cross-sectional and material properties (cross-sectional shape, imperfection amplitude, yield stress), whereas the linear length dependency of the initial geometric imperfection is contained in lz. A plateau value l0 is also used, which accounts for the fact that – for current sections – the full theoretical plastic capacity Npl = A · fy is reached up to a certain limit slenderness. In [2] and [3],
Table 1. Imperfection factors a and corresponding buckling curves according to EC3 [1]
Buckling curve a0 0.13 a 0.21 b 0.34 c 0.49 d 0.76 Imperfection factor a

lz =

N pl N cr,z

we obtain the following equation:

cz + h ◊

cz = 1.0 1 - c z ◊ l2 z

(3)

42

© Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin · Steel Construction 1 (2008), Issue 1

taking into account imperfections in the form of residual stresses and initial geometric out-of-straightnesses. (6) and (7) by substituting the appropriate value of l for each buckling phenomenon and using the adequate imperfection factor a for the applicable buckling curve. assuming a yield strength of fy = 235 N/mm2. out-of-plane (lateral) and torsional restraints at the ends of the free span and – in the case of torsional buckling – solely lateral restraints along the centroid axis. in agreement with the number of “European buckling curves” [5] a0 to d. and with Table 3 for lateral-torsional buckling. are shown in Figure 1. – In the case of purely translational (lateral) imperfections. e0 was defined as the relative horizontal distance between the centres of the flanges. having their maximum value at mid-span.2 welded I-section h… total section depth tf £ 40 mm 40 mm < tf £ 100 mm tf £ 100 mm tf > 100 mm tf £ 40 mm tf > 40 mm a0 a a c c d b… total section width Table 3. [6]. (6) and (7) to torsional and lateral-torsional buckling. Buckling curves for lateral-torsional buckling of I-sections according to EC3 [1] Cross-section rolled I-section welded I-section Limit h/b £ 2 h/b > 2 h/b £ 2 h/b > 2 Buckling curve a b c d the values of a were calibrated to find a best fit with the European buckling curves derived numerically and experimentally [5]. part 1-1. was _ assumed to be equal to e0 = L/1000. e0 was defined as the maximum horizontal predeformation at the centre of one or both of the flanges. (5). The residual stresses were assumed to vary linearly over the single cross-section components. The boundary conditions of the member. torsional and – in the so-called “general case” – lateral-torsional buckling can be calculated using Eqs. part 1-1. only rotations were considered as geometrical imperfections. numerical investigations have been carried out on the basis of geometrically and materially nonlinear analyses with imperfections (GMNIA). Steel Construction 1 (2008). This amplitude was defined as follows. Buckling curves for flexural buckling about the weak axis and torsional buckling of I-sections according to EC3 [1] Buckling curve Cross-section Limit S235 S275 S355 S420 b c c d c d tf… flange thickness S460 h/b > 1. as defined in Figure 1. or a combination of translational and rotational imperfections corresponding to the shape of the first buckling _ eigenmode. Taras/R. The possibility that the imposition of the restraints will influence the initial shape of the member was ignored for the purposes of this study. Issue 1 43 . The shell element calculations take into account the contribution of shear stresses in plasticity and allow for a more accurate – albeit somehow cumbersome – definition of loads and boundary conditions. The amplitude of these imperfections. i. According to Eurocode 3. see Table 1. The calibrated values of a can now be found in Eurocode 3. 2 Comparison of code provisions with GMNIA calculations In order to outline the strengths and weaknesses presented by the application of Eqs. the choice of the buckling curve is to be made under consideration of the method of fabrication and the geometrical properties of the section in accordance with Table 2 for both weak-axis flexural and torsional buckling. 2. All calculations were conducted for mild steel. (5).e. the buckling reduction factor c for flexural. The maximum value of residual stress depends on the type of rolled cross-section and is expressed as a fraction of the yield strength fy. see Figure 1: _ – In the case of purely rotational imperfections. as well as the chosen shapes of imperfection. both initial rotations and deflections were considered.2 rolled I-section h/b £ 1. members with in-plane (vertical). Both linear two-node beam elements with seven degrees of freedom per node and four-node linear shell elements with six degrees of freedom per node and finite strain formulation were chosen for carrying out the parametric studies presented in this paper. Greiner · Development of consistent buckling curves for torsional and lateral-torsional buckling Table 2. In the case of torsional buckling. see Table 1. In the case of lateral-torsional buckling. The clear disadvantage of the shell element calculations is of course a remarkable increase in computation time. five different values of a are given in the code. The stress-strain relationship was considered to follow an elasticplastic path without strain hardening. These assumptions closely follow the procedure chosen by Beer and Schulz [6] for the development of the European buckling curves for flexural buckling. Only single-span members with end fork boundary conditions and intermediate lateral sup- ports were considered.1 Numerical methodology The numerical GMNIA simulations were carried out using the ABAQUS software [12].A. The initial geometric imperfections were assumed to be distributed in a sinusoidal shape along the length of the member.

(5). 1. as is done in the current Eurocode provisions. presents two main disadvantages: – The first disadvantage is very directly related to the accuracy of the prediction of the ultimate buckling strength for these cases: the high influence of a sections torsional rigidity on the buckling resistance for the torsional and lateral-torsional modes is not properly taken into account by Eqs. Single-span members under axial force or constant bending moment. 2. Influence of the torsional rigidity 44 Steel Construction 1 (2008). (6) and (7). it was shown in [13] that the fillets may be ignored for the numerical determination of buckling curves. Buckling curves for torsional and lateral-torsional buckling obtained from GMNIA calculations. the fillet was omitted from the cross-section definition. This notwithstanding. Issue 1 . Taras/R. Greiner · Development of consistent buckling curves for torsional and lateral-torsional buckling Fig. (5) can be somewhat counterbalanced by attributing a lower value of a in Eq. 2. this approach still yields quite inaccurate results for certain sections. the fillets were included in the calculations pertaining to the lateral-torsional mode. as the effect of the fillets enters both the slenderness l and the buckling capacity expressed in terms of c. Geometric imperfections and residual stresses for GMNIA calculations In the calculations pertaining to the torsional buckling mode. However. This is illustrated in Figure 2. This simplification can in some cases influence the torsional response of a member.A. decreasing the first but simultaneously also increasing the latter. which shows (GMNIA) determined numerically buckling curves for different types of cross-sections and both stability modes. a) b) Fig.2 Discussion of the results of the numerical calculations Using the buckling curves derived analytically for (weakaxis) flexural buckling to describe the stability behaviour in the case of lateral-torsional and torsional buckling. The omission of the fillets is therefore justifiable in light of the objective of this study. (7) to compact sections with lower h/b ratios – as has been done in the Eurocode in the case of lateral-torsional buckling. see Table 3 –. Although the insufficient consideration of the torsional rigidity in Eq.

instead of acknowledging the positive effect on ultimate strength of the higher torsional rigidity of these sections. (7) are used for lateral-torsional and torsional buckling. T . which is not explained by the classical small-deformation theory.e. but to the corresponding slenderness instead. see also [7].0 1 .l2 T (12) F= 1 ◊ 1 + h + l2 T 2 ( ) Steel Construction 1 (2008). (8).g. we can replace N by c · Npl. as is clearly illustrated in Figure 2a. a higher value of a to rolled sections with h/d £ 1. A remarkable feature of the numerical LT buckling curves for this and similar. we can proceed to write the first-yield condition for the problem at hand. i. [9] or [10] 2 Î L ˚ ip ip = Ip / A = (I y + I z ) / A With this second-order internal force. However. the numerical calculations indicate that this buckling phenomenon is not of practical relevance at all. wmax and q0 can be expressed as follows. The Eurocode buckling curves a and b. 3. Eq.A.0 A ◊ fy fy N cr. respectively. for example. It is clearly visible that the Eurocode provision for this buckling mode is only accurate for slender sections with high h/b ratios. when Eq. we obtain Eq. using analytically determined second-order internal forces resulting from pre-deformations of sinusoidal shape and a first-yield criterion for the definition of a buckling ultimate load. see [8]. The variable wmax represents the maximum value of the warping ordinate. This is especially true for stocky sections with high torsional rigidity. and for this case (where torsional rigidity plays no role at all) the somewhat more unfavourable geometrical and structural imperfections of stockier sections have been shown to justify a higher imperfection value a. line b (see Table 2). (8) is a function in cT and lT that can be solved analytically for cT. T fy ◊ L2 4 h0 Iz N cr.z A ◊ e0 b 1 1 l2 T ◊ ◊ ◊ A ◊ e0 = ◊ 2 ◊ N cr. Then. cT + h ◊ where cT = 1. T 2 ◊ I z 2 2 lz Wz (11) Eq. stocky sections is the fact that it exceeds the (elastic) Euler curve for high slenderness ratios lLT. using these two slenderness values in Eq. it is common practice to simply replace the slenderness lz with lLT or lT.c T ◊ l2 T (10) h= _ For I. In this figure. a sinusoidal torsional pre-deformation – q0 with amplitude q0 according to Figure 1 causes a secondorder warping moment Mw at mid-span. This feature.max = EI w ◊ p2 N ◊ ◊ q0 L2 N cr. but they can be quite conservative (somewhere in the region of a 20 % underestimation of ultimate strength) for certain sections.and H-sections. the current provisions in the Eurocode actually even penalize stockier sections with a lower h/b ratio by attributing. (11): h= = N pl E ◊ p 2 h 0 ◊ b 2 ◊ ( e0 / 2) I z ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ N cr.T elastic critical buckling load. Taras/R. this is clearly illustrated in Figure 2b. (12). see Figure 1: N pl E ◊ p2 ◊ ◊ w max ◊ q0 N cr. As has been said before. which apply for sections with h/b £ 2 and > 2. È p 2 ◊ EI ˘ 1 w N cr. lie on the safe side as they represent a lower boundary of the numerically derived buckling curves for the respective geometrical class of profiles. (9). compare with Eq. (5): 3 Second-order analysis and Ayrton-Perry formulation In order to address the points listed in the previous section. stocky sections.N (8) where Iw warping constant Ncr. – The second disadvantage is of a somewhat more philosophical nature and presents itself as an inconsistency in the definition of geometrical imperfection amplitudes. respectively. we obtain an elastic expression for h.1 Torsional buckling In an axially compressed single-span member with doubly symmetric cross-section and continuous lateral restraints along the centroid. T fy ◊ L2 w max = h0 ◊ b 4 q0 = 2 ◊ ( e0 / 2) h0 Thus. in both these equations. Eq. This provision is to be attributed to the fact that torsional buckling is treated in the same way as weak-axis flexural buckling in the code. In the case of torsional buckling. this is more than compensated for by the higher torsional rigidity of these sections in the case of torsional buckling. is also plotted. for instance. T = Í + GI T ˙ ◊ 2 . will be discussed in more detail in section 4. (5) corresponds to the tacit assumption that the geometrical out-of-plane imperfections of the real member are no longer linearly proportional to length. Greiner · Development of consistent buckling curves for torsional and lateral-torsional buckling For the case of lateral-torsional buckling. see e. the buckling curve for the HEB 300 section. sional and torsional buckling following the basic idea of the Ayrton-Perry formulation.2 (see Table 2). the present study develops consistent analytical formulae to describe the buckling resistance curves for lateral-tor- cT = where 1 F+ F 2 . Issue 1 45 . M w. This is indeed inconsistent with the usual criteria determining the acceptability of fabrication out-of-straightnesses and with the GMNIA numerical calculations that were performed to calibrate the curves in the Eurocode. see. yielding Eq.N L (9) At yield. T . N E p2 N + ◊ w max ◊ 2 ◊ ◊ q0 £ 1. by introducing the slenderness lT as defined in Figure 2. Eq. The buckling curve that applies according to the Eurocode. (5) and Eq. Since neither lLT nor lT are linearly correlated with length. for compact. (10). four numerical buckling curves are plotted for sections ranging from the stocky HEB 400 to the rather slender HEAA 1000.

While this tendency is clearly illogical.2 Lateral-torsional buckling (13) The following derivation is performed for a single-span member with doubly symmetric cross-section and constant bending moment along its length. The effects of plasticity and residual stresses on the buckling case at hand should now be included by modifying the factor h so that it best fits curves numerically and determined experimentally that do account for these effects. (13) allows for a clear representation of the different torsional characteristics of the sections. For example. the value of a in Eq. which according to Eq. the line starts pointing upwards at a member length of approx. The tendencies delineated by the numerical GMNIA calculations described in section 2 – compare with Figure 2a – are therefore well represented by these formulae. (7) by reintroducing the factors a and lz. (11) can be replaced by Eq. which predict the same dependency between cT and lT for all four sections.l 0 ) + l2 T˜ 2 Ë 2 lz ¯ 3. see especially the lines for IPE 200 N cr.34. (13) can be set equal to the values given in Eurocode 3 for weak-axis flexural buckling. in the case of the IPE 200 section. Three special cases of initial imperfections can be considered: one case with only lateral imperfections v0. the limits of the validity of the small-deformation secondorder theory are reached. 6. line “EC3 – b”. one has to bear in mind that the parameter lT is by no means linearly proportional to the length of the member. Therefore. Figure 3a shows Ayrton-Perry-type buckling curves for the same four sections of Figure 2a that were determined by evaluating Eqs. Ayrton-Perry type buckling curves for torsional and lateral-torsional buckling 46 Steel Construction 1 (2008). distributed along the member’s length following a sinusoidal shape. 3. therefore. lead to the following two second-order equilibrium equations. Taras/R. (11). unrealistic lengths of the member. this part of Eq. Ncr. as recommended in Eurocode 3-1-1 for all the sections at hand for the case of weak-axis flexural buckling. (12) and (13) for a value of a = 0. the point at which the buckling lines start pointing upwards corresponds to extreme. it implies a coupling of the two degrees of freedom of the problem according to Eq. As a first assumption.z (14) (15) where Mcr.z (16) a) b) Fig.z are the elastic critical buckling loads for lateral-torsional and flexural buckling. (16). (4) defined the elastic value of h in the weak-axis flexural mode. is also present in the elastic expression for the torsional buckling case – Eq. v0 = M cr ◊ q0 N cr. In this slenderness range.z ◊ v – M y ◊ q = M y ◊ q0 –M y ◊ v + M2 cr ◊ q = My ◊ v 0 N cr. We thus obtain the following expression for F in the torsional buckling case. Initial lateral and torsional imperfections v0 and q0. Eq. 13 m. This again stands in contrast to the current recommendations for design checks against torsional buckling contained in the Eurocode. one case with only torsional imperfections q0 and one case with a distribution of q0 and v0 corresponding to the shape of the first buckling eigenmode of the system. It can be noted that the factor A · e0/Wz. Issue 1 . and a slenderness lz (for the entire member length) of approx. corresponding to a ratio of L/b equal to 130. The latter approach was used in [11].0. One manifest feature of the Ayrton-Perry-type buckling curves developed that is surprising at first sight is the fact that the curves tend to point upwards after a certain value of lT is passed. The figure illustrates that the expression for F given by Eq. as well as for a value of l0 = 0 (no plateau was considered).A. Greiner · Development of consistent buckling curves for torsional and lateral-torsional buckling Up to this point our considerations were limited to a purely elastic first-yield buckling criterion. ˆ 1 Ê 1 l2 T F = ◊ Á1 + ◊ 2 ◊ a ◊ (l z . (13): and HEB 400 in Figure 3a.

Both diagrams in Figure 4 illustrate that the Eurocode provisions are quite conservative for this buckling phenomenon. Two aspects illustrated in this figure are worth discussing in more detail: – The shape of the imperfection has an impact on the buckling strength predicted analytically. In the case of an IPE 500 section with relatively low torsional stiffness.0 (18) 4 Comparison with numerical results In the previous section.34 yields theoretical buckling resistances that compare well with numerical results. (22) was evaluated using the values of a given in the Eurocode for the “general case” of lateral-torsional buckling and a value of l0 equal to 0. 4b).l 0 ) ◊ LT + l2 LT ˜ 2 2 Ë lz ¯ (22) If the value of a in Eq. The relative difference 4. The validity of this assumption is checked in this section by comparing numerical GMNIA curves with analytical curves and current Eurocode design buckling curves. This term can again be replaced by Eq. (13) and Eq. and can only be evaluated numerically. (12): cLT = where 1 F+ F 2 . We thus obtain Eq. In the case of the IPE 200 section (Fig. Whereas Eq. Eq. 2 cLT 1- For a shape of the initial imperfection corresponding to the first buckling eigenmode: cLT + A ◊ e0 l2 cLT ◊ LT ◊ = 1. (18) cannot be easily solved analytically for cLT.A. (19) is of the exact same form as Eq.c2 ◊ T lT between the predicted buckling strength for the purely torsional and the eigenmode-based imperfection shape increases with rising slenderness and reaches approx. (10) and Eq. Taras/R.0. (7) by reintroducing the factors a and lz.0 4 1 . the same effect can be observed for other sections as well. Greiner · Development of consistent buckling curves for torsional and lateral-torsional buckling By using the same approach illustrated for torsional buck_ ling and using lLT and e0 according to Figure 1. and can be solved_ accordingly. The two applicable buckling curves according to the Eurocode (general case and specific case for rolled sections) are also plotted in the figures. In this case.2. (22) were set equal to the values given in Eurocode 3 for weak-axis flexural buckling or for the “general case” of lateral-torsional buckling.1 Torsional buckling Figure 4 shows a comparison between buckling curves obtained by evaluating Eq. Eq. it can be noted that the term A · e0 / Wz is present in all three equations. (17) and Eq. (22) is assumed to be equal to the values given in Eurocode 3 for lateral-torsional buckling and generic cross-sections.34 yields a buckling curve that lies below the curve determined numerically along its entire course.0 2 Wz 1 l2 c z LT ◊ l LT (19) 4. (13) and curves determined numerically from GMNIA calculations carried out using the assumptions shown in Figure 1.l2 LT (21) F= ˆ l2 1 Ê ◊ Á1 + a ( l z . with the resulting curve following the numerical buckling curve very closely all along its course. – The torsional rigidity of the profiles is quite distinctly taken into account by the proposed analytical formulation. torsionally stiff sections like the HEB 300 and HEM 200. For q0 only: cLT ¥ Ê ˆ A ◊ e0 l2 M cr Á ˜ + ◊ LT ◊ + 1 Á ˜¥ Wz l2 l2 z Ë LT ◊ c LT ◊ N cr . (21). Eq. Eq. (10). the purely torsional imperfection yields lower buckling loads than the eigenmode-based and the purely translational imperfection shape. the following Ayrton-Perry-type equations are obtained for each case of imperfection shape: For v0 only: cLT + ¥ Ê ◊ ( h / 2) ˆ N A ◊ e0 l2 ◊ LT ◊ Á1 + cr. where the analytical buckling curves are compared to both GMNIA results and code regulations. (13) was evaluated using the values of a = 0. (13) with a value of a = 0.2 Lateral-torsional buckling Figure 5 shows a comparison between buckling curves obtained by evaluating Eq. This point is further discussed in the next section. Furthermore. The figure illustrates this for an IPE 500 section.085. Steel Construction 1 (2008). we obtain the Ayrton-Perrytype buckling curves presented in Figure 3b. cLT + a ◊ (l z .0.z ˜¥ 2 Wz MR ◊ cLT ¯ lz Ë (17) 2 ◊ l2 cLT LT = 1. the values of a to be used in Eq. (21) and curves determined numerically from GMNIA calculations carried out using the assumptions shown in Figure 1. Especially for stocky.0 2 1 l2 c z LT ◊ l LT (20) This equation can be solved analytically as follows. z ◊ ( h / 2) ¯ ◊ l2 LT 4 c2 ◊ T lT = 1. (20). A calculation showed that the best-fit value of a could be reached at about a = 0. Figure 4a shows that using Eq. the proposed formulation predicts a remarkable increase in buckling strength when compared to the more slender IPE 500. (5) and Eq.34 given in the Eurocode for weak-axis flexural buckling for both sections analysed and a value of l0 equal to 0. Issue 1 47 . The applicable buckling curve according to the Eurocode is also plotted in the figures. For this particular loading case. strain hardening was taken into consideration for the GMNIA calculations.l 0 ) ◊ l2 cLT LT ◊ = 1. 8 % at a slenderness lLT of 2. the value of a = 0. (3) and Eq. (12) and Eq. compare with Eq.

the advantage of using a theoretically derived equation for the actual buckling case at hand becomes more apparent. and slightly conservative in the higher slenderness range. Issue 1 . Greiner · Development of consistent buckling curves for torsional and lateral-torsional buckling a) b) Fig. with Eq.A. (19) and the Eurocode “general case” curve being more accurate (when compared to GMNIA) in the low slenderness range. see Figure 6. it is necessary to take a look at the load-deformation plots. both Eq. signified by the -2 Euler hyperbola 1/lLT. where the numerical curve diverges significantly from the analytical one – the curve exceeds the elastic critical buckling load. where the specific buckling curve for rolled sections yields higher results due to the use of a high value of l0. Comparison of buckling curves according to GMNIA calculations and an Ayrton-Perry-type formulation for torsional buckling The figure illustrates that in the case of a typical beam section (IPE 500) with relatively low torsional stiffness. both Eurocode curves yield conservative results when compared with the numerical GMNIA curve. The buckling curve obtained by evaluating Eq.00. a) b) Fig. except for the very low slenderness range. It is nevertheless worthwhile discussing a remarkable feature of the GMNIA buckling curve: the fact that – in the high slenderness range. Comparison of buckling curves according to GMNIA calculations and an Ayrton-Perry-type formulation for lateraltorsional buckling 48 Steel Construction 1 (2008). however. In order to understand this “postcritical” load-carrying mechanism. (20). 4. matches the numerical curve far better over most slenderness ranges. exceeding 19 m and lz > 4. 5. (19) and the two Eurocode curves compare well with the numerical curve. at this point the physical length of the member already far outreaches the practical range. Taras/R. The curves only diverge significantly in ranges exceeding a slenderness lLT. see [8]. In the case of a stocky HEM 200 section with very high torsional rigidity. in this case.