Dissertation

1,2
χLT
1,0
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0,0
0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00
λLT
I-Steel beams under tension:
Lateral torsional buckling, behaviour and design
João Tomás Mello e Silva
Thesis to obtain the Master of Science Degree in
Civil Engineering
Examination Committee
Chairperson: Professor Doutor Fernando Manuel Fernandes Simões

Supervisor: Professor Doutor Dinar Reis Zamith Camotim
Supervisor: Professor Doutor Nicolas Boissonnade
Member of the Committee: Professor Doutor Luís Manuel Calado de Oliveira Martins
Member of the Committee: Professor Doutor Pedro Manuel de Castro Borges Dinis
October 2013
“You must be the change you wish to see in the world.”
Mahatma Gandhi
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank all the people who contributed in some way to the work described in this thesis.
First and foremost, I thank my academic and scientific supervisor, Professor Dinar Camotim for being an
outstanding supervisor and an excellent professor. His constant encouragement, support and invaluable
suggestions made it possible to carry out the work presented in this dissertation successfully. I would like also
to acknowledge all the opportunities given to me during the last year, which have broaden my personal and
professional horizons considerably. Lastly, I would like to thank him for sharing with me his revolutionary
and perfectionist vision of the professional and academic/research work.
Second, I would like to thank my supervisor, Professor Nicolas Boissonnade, for his constant support and for
always pushing me to the limits to make this dissertation a better work. I also would like to express my
gratitude for receiving me so well in Switzerland and for always making me feel like it was my home.
I would like also to thank Professor Pedro Borges Dinis for his full availability and for all the constructive
advices given during the first part of this dissertation.
I would like to express my deep gratitude and respect to my friend Joanna Nseir, for supporting me during last
year and for the time devoted and constant contributions given to improve the quality of this dissertation.
I would like to express my sincere appreciation, first to my friends, namely Joana and Maria João, as well as to
my “Suisse family”, for their constant support in all my struggles and frustrations, as well as encouraging me
in my decisions in my new life in Switzerland. Even from the distance, each one gave me force to overcome
all kinds of obstacles, supported me to succeed in every new challenge and made me feel that they were always
right there next to me.
I would like to thank my family, especially my mother, father, sister and grandfather, for always believing in
me, for their continuous love and their supports in my decisions. Without them I could not have made it here.
iii
iv
ABSTRACT
This dissertation reports the results of an analytical, numerical and experimental investigation dealing with
hot-rolled I-section steel members acted by a combination of major-axis bending and axial tension (“beams
subjected to tension”), which is relatively rare in practice and, therefore, has received little attention from
researchers in the past. In particular, there are no guidelines for the design against buckling ultimate limit states of
such members (only their cross-section resistance is checked). This means that the axial tension favourable effect
on lateral-torsional buckling/failure is neglected, thus leading to over-conservative designs − indeed, a beam
subjected to axial tension is currently designed against lateral-torsional failure as a “pure beam”. In order to
acquire scientific knowledge and provide design guidance on this topic, the lateral-torsional stability, failure
and design of hot-rolled steel I-beams with fork-type end supports and acted by simple transverse loadings (mostly
applied end moments) and various axial tension values are addressed in this work. After developing and validating
an analytical expression to calculate critical buckling moments of beams under uniform bending and axial tension,
numerical (beam finite element) buckling results are presented for the non-uniform bending cases. Then, two full-
scale tests involving a narrow and a wide flange beams under eccentric tension are described and their results are used
to develop shell and beam finite element models − the latter are subsequently employed to perform a parametric
study aimed at gathering a fairly extensive ultimate strength/moment data bank. Finally, this data bank is used to
assess the merits of a design approach proposed in this work for beams subjected to tension and collapsing in
lateral-torsional modes − this design approach, which consists of slightly modifying the current procedure
prescribed in Eurocode 3 to design beams against lateral-torsional failure, is shown to provide ultimate moment
estimates that correlate very well with the values obtained from the numerical simulations. The predictions of the
proposed design approach are also compared with those of the design procedure included in the ENV version of
Eurocode 3 (but later removed).
Keywords:
Hot-rolled I-section steel beams, Combination of major-axis bending and tension, Lateral-torsional buckling, Failure
governed by lateral-torsional buckling, Design approach
v
vi
RESUMO
Esta dissertação apresenta os resultados de uma investigação analítica, numérica e experimental sobre vigas
de aço laminadas a quente com secção em I, submetidos a uma combinação de flexão em torno do eixo de
maior inércia e tracção (“vigas traccionadas”), a qual ocorre com pouca frequência na prática e, portanto, tem
recebido pouca atenção da comunidade científico-técnica. Em particular, não existem disposições regulamentares
relativas ao dimensionamento, em relação ao estado limite último de encurvadura lateral, de tais elementos
estruturais (apenas se efectua a verificação de secção). Isto significa que o efeito favorável da tracção no colapso
por encurvadura lateral é desprezado, conduzindo a um dimensionamento demasiado conservativo – de facto, uma
viga submetida a tracção é presentemente dimensionada como uma “viga pura”. Com o objectivo de adquirir
conhecimento científico sobre o comportamento estrutural de vigas traccionadas, bem como contribuir para o
seu dimensionamento eficaz, o presente trabalho aborda a estabilidade lateral (por flexão-torção), a resistência última
e o dimensionamento de vigas metálicas laminadas a quente, com secção em I, simplesmente apoiadas (apoio em
“forquilha”) e submetidas a carregamentos transversais simples (sobretudo momentos de extremidade) e
diferentes níveis de tracção axial. Após desenvolver e validar uma expressão analítica para calcular
momentos críticos em vigas submetidas a flexão uniforme e tracção, apresentam-se resultados numéricos
(elemento finito de viga) relativos a vigas submetidas a flexão não-uniforme. Em seguida, descrevem-se dois
ensaios experimentais, efectuados à escala real e envolvendo duas vigas, uma de banzos estreitos e outra de
banzos largo, submetidas a tracção aplicada de forma excêntrica, cujos resultados obtidos são usados para
desenvolver modelos de elementos finitos de casca e viga – este último modelo é, posteriormente, utilizado para
efectuar um estudo paramétrico destinado a reunir uma considerável base de dados de resistências/momentos
últimos de vigas traccionadas. Finalmente, estes resultados são utilizados para avaliar a qualidade das
estimativas fornecidas por uma metodologia de dimensionamento proposta neste trabalho para vigas
submetidas a tracção e cujo colapso é provocado por encurvadura lateral – mostra-se que esta metodologia de
dimensionamento, a qual consiste numa pequena modificação do procedimento prescrito pela actual versão do
Eurocódigo 3 para calcular a resistência de vigas à encurvadura lateral, fornece estimativas da resistência última
que exibem uma correlação muito boa com os valores obtidos através das simulações numéricas. As
estimativas fornecidas pela metodologia de dimensionamento proposta são também comparadas com as que
resultam da aplicação do procedimento preconizado na versão ENV (Pré-Norma Europeia) do Eurocódigo 3, o
qual não figura na versão actual.
Palavras-chave:
Vigas de aço laminadas a quente com secção em I, Combinação de flexão em torno do eixo de maior inércia e
tracção, Estabilidade lateral (por flexão-torção), Colapso provocado encurvadura lateral, Metodologia de
dimensionamento
vii
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................. iii
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................................... v
RESUMO ........................................................................................................................................ viiii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................... ix
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xiii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xix
Chapter 1 ........................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction
1.1. Preliminary remarks ....................................................................................................................... 2
1.2. Motivation and scope of the work ............................................................................................... 3
1.3. Organization of the dissertation .................................................................................................. 4
Chapter 2 ........................................................................................................................................... 7
Lateral Torsional Buckling

2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Beams under uniform bending -‐ analytical solution ............................................................. 8
2.3 Beams under non-‐uniform Bending − numerical results .................................................. 11
2.3.1 Beam finite element model ...................................................................................................................... 12
2.3.2 Validation -‐ comparison with the analytical results ..................................................................... 13
2.3.3 Parametric studies ...................................................................................................................................... 14
2.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 20
ix
Chapter 3 ......................................................................................................................................... 23
Ultimate Behaviour and Strength − Experimental Study

3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 23
3.2 Specimen characterisation ........................................................................................................... 24
3.2.1. Material tests ................................................................................................................................................ 24
3.2.2 Residual stress measurement ................................................................................................................ 25
3.2.3 Determination of the initial geometrical imperfections ............................................................. 26
3.3 Experimental set-‐up and procedure ......................................................................................... 28
3.4 Initial Measurements -‐ beam characterisation ...................................................................... 32
3.5 Test results ......................................................................................................................................... 36
3.5.1. IPE 200 beam ................................................................................................................................................ 36
3.2.2 HEA 160 beam ............................................................................................................................................... 38
3.5.3 Discussion ....................................................................................................................................................... 40
3.6 Numerical simulation ..................................................................................................................... 41
3.6.1. Modelling issues .......................................................................................................................................... 41
3.6.2 Numerical results ......................................................................................................................................... 45
3.7 Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 49
Chapter 4 ......................................................................................................................................... 51
Ultimate Behaviour and Strength − Numerical Parametric Study

4.1 Beam finite element model ........................................................................................................... 52
4.1.1 Description ..................................................................................................................................................... 52
4.1.2 Validation ........................................................................................................................................................ 54
4.2 Effect of axial tension on the ultimate strength -‐ qualitative aspects ............................ 54
4.3 Parametric study .............................................................................................................................. 55
4.3.1 Scope and procedure .................................................................................................................................. 55
4.3.2 Results .............................................................................................................................................................. 56
4.3 Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 61
x
Chapter 5 ......................................................................................................................................... 63
Development of a design approach

5.1 Proposed design approach ........................................................................................................... 64
5.2 Assessment of the proposed ultimate strength/moment estimates .............................. 65
5.3 Axial tension beneficial influence ............................................................................................. 70
5.4 Comparison with the design procedure prescribed in EC3-‐ENV-‐1-‐1 ............................. 72
5.5 Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 75
Chapter 6 ......................................................................................................................................... 77
Conclusion and Future Developments
6.1 Concluding Remarks ............................................................................................................ 78
6.2 Future developments .......................................................................................................... 80
References ...................................................................................................................................... 81
Annexes ........................................................................................................................................... 83
Annex 1 Analytical formula to calculate critical buckling moments of beams subjected
to uniform major-‐axis bending and axial tension .................................................................... A1.1
Annex 2 Numerical Data: critical moments, ultimate moment values and ultimate
moment estimates .............................................................................................................................. A2.1
A2.1. Proposed ultimate moment estimates and design results -‐ IPE300 beams ................... A2.3
A2.2. Proposed ultimate moment estimates and design results -‐ IPE500 beams ................ A2.19
A2.3. Proposed ultimate moment estimates and design results -‐ HEB300 beams .............. A2.35
Annex 3 Measured initial geometrical imperfections ............................................................ A3.1
xi
xii
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 -‐ Beam subjected to uniform major-‐axis bending (My) and tension (N) .................................................. 3
Figure' 2.1' –' Beam' deformed' configuration' associated' with' the' occurrence' of' LTB:' (a)' member' and' (b)'
cross>section'views'...............................................................................................................................................................................'8'
Figure' 2.2' –' Lateral>torsional' buckling:' fundamental' and' post>buckling' equilibrium' paths' (Reis' &'
Camotim,'2012)'......................................................................................................................................................................................'8'
Figure' 2.3' –' Beam' subjected' to' major>axis' bending' My' and' axial' tension' Nt:' (a)' general' view' and' (b)'
deformed'configuration'associated'with'the'occurrence'of'lateral'torsional'buckling'..........................................'9'
Figure'2.4'–'Variation'of'the'critical'buckling'moment'increase'Mcr'(Nt)'/Mcr'(0)'with'Nt'(IPE'300'+'L=10'
m)'................................................................................................................................................................................................................'10'
Figure' 2.5' −' Linear' longitudinal' stress' distributions' at' an' IPE' 300' cross>section' for' (a)' β' <' 9.6' and' (b)'
β=9.6'..........................................................................................................................................................................................................'11'
Figure'2.6'–'“Fork'conditions”'at'both'end'supports'...........................................................................................................'13'
Figure'2.7'>'Variation'of'Mcr'(Nt)'/Mcr'(0)'with'Nt:'comparison'between'analytical'and'numerical'results'
(IPE'300'+'L=10'm)'.............................................................................................................................................................................'14'
Figure'2.8:'Variation'of'Mcr'(Nt)'/Mcr'(0)'with'β'for'0.5)m'≤'L'≤'15)m'(IPE'300'beams'+'ψ=0)'..........................'16'
Figure'2.9:'Variation'of'Mcr'(Nt)'/Mcr'(0)'with'β'for'0.5)m'≤'L'≤'15)m'(IPE'500'beams'+'ψ=0.5)'.......................'16'
Figure'2.10:'Variation'of'Mcr'(Nt)'/Mcr'(0)'with'β'for'0.5)m'≤'L'≤'15)m'(HEB'500'beams'+'ψ=.1)'....................'17'
Figure'2.11:'Variation'of'Mcr'(Nt)'/Mcr'(0)'with'β'for'various'bending'moment'diagrams'(HEB'300'beams'+'
L=10'm)'....................................................................................................................................................................................................'18'
Figure'2.12:'Variation'of'Mcr'(Nt)'/Mcr'(0)'with'β'for'various'bending'moment'diagrams'(IPE'300'beams'+'
L=5'm)'.......................................................................................................................................................................................................'18'
Figure'2.13'–'Top'views'of'the'LTB'mode'shapes'of'the'beams'subjected'to'(a)'ψ='−'0.5'and'(b)'ψ='−'1'
diagrams'(β=1)'.....................................................................................................................................................................................'19'
Figure'2.14:'Variation'of'Mcr'(Nt)'/Mcr'(0)'with' β'for'beams'with'HEB>IPE'500>300'cross'sections'(L=15m'
+'ψ=0)'.......................................................................................................................................................................................................'20'
xiii
Figure'3.1'–'Standard'tension'coupon'specimens:'(a)'overview'and'(b)'detail'of'the'rupture'zone'..............'24!
Figure'3.2'–'Tensile'coupon'test'and'axial'extension'measured'by'means'an'extensometer'............................'24!
Figure'3.3'–'Cutting'of'thin'strips'to'measure'the'residual'stresses'.............................................................................'25!
Figure'3.4'–'Measuring'strip'length'(after'cutting),'by'means'of'an'extensometer'...............................................'25!
Figure'3.5'–'Stable'Bench'and'LVDT’s'employed'to'measure'the'beam'initial'geometrical'imperfections'.'26!
Figure'3.6'–'Schematic'representation'of'Step'1'...................................................................................................................'27!
Figure'3.10'–'Schematic'representation'of'Step'5'.................................................................................................................'27!
Figure'3.11:'Experimental'setTup:'(a)'overall'view'and'(b)'detail'of'the'beam'end'supports'...........................'28!
Figure'3.12'–'Detail'of'the'secondary'supporting'system'where'the'hydraulic'jacks'are'mounted'...............'29!
Figure'3.13'–'Web'stiffeners'intended'to'preclude'local'buckling'during'the'HEA'160'beam'test'.......................'29!
Figure'3.14'–'Detailed'view'of'the'beam'end'support'conditions'..................................................................................'30!
Figure'3.15'–'Measuring'device'systems'...................................................................................................................................'31!
Figure'3.16'–'Schematic'representations'of'the'steel'σTε'curves'obtained'for'the'(a)'IPE'200'and'(b)'the'
HEA160'beams'......................................................................................................................................................................................'33!
Figure'3.17'–'Residual'stresses'distribution'measured'at'the'IPE200'and'HEA160'beams'(positive'values'
stand'for'compression)'......................................................................................................................................................................'34!
Figure'3.18'–'Comparison'of'the'residual'stresses'distribution:'measured'(red),'linear'(blue)'and'
parabolic'(green)'.................................................................................................................................................................................'34!
Figure'3.19'–'Initial'geometrical'imperfections'measured'on'the'flanges'(points'B'and'H)'for'the'(a)'IPE'
200'and'(b)'HEA'160'..........................................................................................................................................................................'35!
Figure'3.20'–'Initial'geometrical'imperfections'measured'on'the'web'(point'E)'for'the'(a)'IPE'200'and'(b)'
HEA'160'...................................................................................................................................................................................................'35!
Figure'3.21'–'CrossTsection'points'for'which'initial'displacement'profiles'were'measured:'(a)'IPE'200'and'(b)'
HEA'160'beams'......................................................................................................................................................................................'35!
Figure'3.22'–'Overall'view'of'the'test'setTup'and'initial'(deformed)'configuration'of'the'IPE'200'beam'
specimen'..................................................................................................................................................................................................'36!
Figure'3.23'–'Time'evolution'of'the'axial'forces'recorded'by'the'measuring'devices'of'the'hydraulic'jacks'during'
the'IPE'200'beam'test'...........................................................................................................................................................................'36!
xiv
Figure'3.1'–'Standard'tension'coupon'specimens:'(a)'overview'and'(b)'detail'of'the'rupture'zone'..............'24!
Figure'3.2'–'Tensile'coupon'test'and'axial'extension'measured'by'means'an'extensometer'............................'24!
Figure'3.3'–'Cutting'of'thin'strips'to'measure'the'residual'stresses'.............................................................................'25!
Figure'3.4'–'Measuring'strip'length'(after'cutting),'by'means'of'an'extensometer'...............................................'25!
Figure'3.5'–'Stable'Bench'and'LVDT’s'employed'to'measure'the'beam'initial'geometrical'imperfections'.'26!
Figure'3.10'–'Schematic'representation'of'Step'5'.................................................................................................................'27!
Figure'3.11:'Experimental'setTup:'(a)'overall'view'and'(b)'detail'of'the'beam'end'supports'...........................'28!
Figure'3.12'–'Detail'of'the'secondary'supporting'system'where'the'hydraulic'jacks'are'mounted'...............'29!
Figure'3.13'–'Web'stiffeners'intended'to'preclude'local'buckling'during'the'HEA'160'beam'test'.......................'29!
Figure'3.14'–'Detailed'view'of'the'beam'end'support'conditions'..................................................................................'30!
Figure'3.15'–'Measuring'device'systems'...................................................................................................................................'31!
Figure'3.16'–'Schematic'representations'of'the'steel'σTε'curves'obtained'for'the'(a)'IPE'200'and'(b)'the'
HEA160'beams'......................................................................................................................................................................................'33!
Figure'3.17'–'Residual'stresses'distribution'measured'at'the'IPE200'and'HEA160'beams'(positive'values'
stand'for'compression)'......................................................................................................................................................................'34!
Figure'3.18'–'Comparison'of'the'residual'stresses'distribution:'measured'(red),'linear'(blue)'and'
parabolic'(green)'.................................................................................................................................................................................'34!
Figure'3.19'–'Initial'geometrical'imperfections'measured'on'the'flanges'(points'B'and'H)'for'the'(a)'IPE'
200'and'(b)'HEA'160'..........................................................................................................................................................................'35!
Figure'3.20'–'Initial'geometrical'imperfections'measured'on'the'web'(point'E)'for'the'(a)'IPE'200'and'(b)'
HEA'160'...................................................................................................................................................................................................'35!
Figure'3.21'–'CrossTsection'points'for'which'initial'displacement'profiles'were'measured:'(a)'IPE'200'and'(b)'
HEA'160'beams'......................................................................................................................................................................................'35!
Figure'3.22'–'Overall'view'of'the'test'setTup'and'initial'(deformed)'configuration'of'the'IPE'200'beam'
specimen'..................................................................................................................................................................................................'36!
Figure'3.23'–'Time'evolution'of'the'axial'forces'recorded'by'the'measuring'devices'of'the'hydraulic'jacks'during'
the'IPE'200'beam'test'...........................................................................................................................................................................'36!
xv
Figure'4.1'−'(a)'Longitudinal'residual'stress'pattern'and'(b)'initial'geometrical'imperfections'incorporated'into'
the'beam'GMNIA'−'shapes'and'values'taken'from'the'recent'work'of'Boissonnade'&'Somja'(2012)'.............'52'
Figure'4.2'–'Finite'element'model:'beam'discretisation'and'load'application'.........................................................'53'
Figure'4.3'−'Constitutive'law'adopted'to'model'the'steel'material'behaviour'.........................................................'53'
Figure' 4.4' –' Numerical' beam' equilibrium' path' and' deformed' configuration' at' the' brink' of' the' LTB'
collapse'.....................................................................................................................................................................................................'53'
Figure' 4.5' –' Schematic' representation' of' the' crossPsection' plastic' resistance' decrease' caused' by' the'
presence'of'axial'tension'..................................................................................................................................................................'55'
Figure' 4.6' –' Failure' mode' governed' by' lateralPtorsional' buckling' of' a' member' acted' by' majorPaxis'
bending'and'axial'tension'................................................................................................................................................................'55'
Figure'4.7'–'Deformed'configuration'of'the'midPspan'region'of'a'very'slender'beam,'at'collapse'.................'56'
Figure'4.8'−'Variation'of'Mu/Mpl'with' β'and'the'beam'length'(S460'steel'IPE'300'beams'under'uniform'
bending)'...................................................................................................................................................................................................'57'
Figure'4.9'−'Variation'of'Mu/Mpl'with' β'and'the'beam'length'(S355'steel'IPE'500'beams'under'triangular'
bending'–'ψ=0)'......................................................................................................................................................................................'58'
Figure'4.10'−'Variation'of'Mu/Mpl'with'β'and'the'bending'moment'diagram'(L=15*m'S355'steel'HEB'300'beams)
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................'58'
Figure'4.11'−'Variation'of'Mu/Mpl'with'β'and'the'bending'moment'diagram'(L=5*m'S460'steel'IPE'300'beams)'59'
Figure'4.12'–'Variation'of'Mu/Mpl'with'the'beam'lateralPtorsional'slenderness'λLT'..............................................'61'
Figure'5.1'−'Comparison'between'the'Mu'/Mpl,Rk'(numerical'gross'results)'and'Mb,Rd'/Mpl,Rk'(proposed'
design'approach)'values'for'ψ=0'..................................................................................................................................................'66'
Figure'5.2'−'Comparison'between'the'Mu'/Mpl,Rk'(numerical)'and'Mb,Rd'/Mpl,Rk'(proposed'design'approach)'
values'for'ψ=1'.......................................................................................................................................................................................'67'
Figure'5.3'−'Comparison'between'the'Mu-/Mpl,Rk-(numerical)'and'Mb,Rd'/Mpl,Rk'(proposed'design'approach)'
values'for'ψ=0.5'...................................................................................................................................................................................'67'
values'for'ψ=0'.......................................................................................................................................................................................'68'
values'for'ψ ='−'0.5'.............................................................................................................................................................................'68'
xvi
Figure'5.6'−'Comparison'between'the'Mu#/Mpl,Rk#(numerical)'and'Mb,Rd'/Mpl,Rk'(proposed'design'approach)'
for'ψ='−'1'.................................................................................................................................................................................................'69'
Figure'5.7'−'Pictorial'representation'of'the'ultimate'moment'predictions'−'L=8.0'm'S355'steel'IPE'500'beam'
(ψ=1)'..........................................................................................................................................................................................................'71'
Figure'5.8'−'Illustration'of'the'effective'moment'concept'on'which'the'EC3JENVJ1J1'provisions'are'based'.........'72'
Figure'5.9'−'Values'of'the'ratio'difference'ΔRP-EC3'plotted'against'the'beam'slenderness'(ψ=1)'.....................'74'
Figure'5.10'−'Values'of'the'ratio'difference'ΔRP-EC3'plotted'against'the'beam'slenderness'(ψ=#−#1)'..............'74'
xvii
xviii
List of Tables
Table&2.1&–&Critical&bending&loads&using&analytic&and&numerical&approaches&...........................................................&13&
Table&2.2&–&Profiles&and&lengths&used&within&LBA&..................................................................................................................&14&
Table&2.3&–&Moment&distribution&evaluated&in&LBA&...............................................................................................................&15&
Table&2.4&–&Comparison&between&geometric&properties&of&the&different&profile&section&.....................................&19&
Table&3.1&–&Measured&and&nominal&beam&cross5section&dimensions&............................................................................&32!
Table&3.2&–&Steel’s&material&properties&.......................................................................................................................................&32!
Table&3.3&5&Analytical,&numerical&and&experimental&results&concerning&the&two&beams&tested&........................&45!
Table&4.1&–&Load.carrying&capacity&of&HEB&300&beams&for&β =&0&....................................................................................&54&
Table&4.2&–&Load.carrying&capacity&of&HEB&300&beams&for&β =&1&....................................................................................&54&

Table&5.1&−&Averages,&standard&deviations&and&maximum/minimum&value&of&the&ratio&RM &...............................&70&
Table&5.2&−&Ultimate&moment&predictions&for&the&L=8.0&m&S355&steel&IPE&500&beam&under&uniform&
bending&.....................................................................................................................................................................................................&70&
Table&5.3&−&Averages,&standard&deviations&and&maximum/minimum&values&of&ΔMb,Rd&........................................&71&
Table&5.4&−&Averages,&standard&deviations&and&maximum/minimum&values&of&ΔRP'EC3&for&(a)&ψ&=&1&and&(b)&
ψ&=&L1&.........................................................................................................................................................................................................&75&
xix
xx
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Preliminary remarks
In recent years, the technical and scientific community dealing with steel structures has devoted a
considerable effort to the development of efficient (safe and economical) procedures and formulae
(interaction equations) for the design and safety checking of steel members (i) subjected to different
combinations of internal forces and moments and (ii) susceptible to global buckling phenomena,
namely flexural buckling (members under compression) and/or lateral-torsional buckling (open-section
members under major-axis bending). Indeed, it is well known that the failure of most thin-walled steel
members, such as the I-section beams dealt with in this work, is governed by a combination of
instability and plasticity effects − while the latter are more prevalent in stocky beams, the former
dominate in the more slender members. In the particular case of beams subjected to major-axis bending, their
failure often involves lateral-torsional buckling, a complex three-dimensional global instability phenomenon
involving torsion and minor-axis bending, which is mainly triggered by the low torsional stiffness exhibited
by open-section thin-walled cross-sections. Naturally, the ultimate strength and collapse mechanism of the
aforementioned beams can only be adequately predicted provided that in-depth knowledge about their lateral-
torsional buckling mechanics is acquired. Moreover, it is well known that the beam lateral-torsional buckling
behaviour is affected by the presence of axial forces. Furthermore, the influence of compressive forces on
the lateral-torsional buckling behaviour has been thoroughly investigated, not only because of its practical
relevance (most steel frame members are subjected to major-axis bending and compression), but also because
such forces cause a significant reduction of beam ultimate (bending) strength that needs to be
accounted for. As for the influence of tensile forces on the beam lateral-torsional buckling behaviour,
which has much less practical relevance (members subjected to bending and tension are relatively rare), it has
received little attention from researchers − indeed, due to their beneficial effects, tensile forces are often
“ignored” when assessing the beam resistance against lateral-torsional failure (e.g., in the current version of the
part 1-1 of Eurocode 3 − CEN 2005).
As far as steel members are concerned, the vast majority of available studies deal with I-section members,
by far the most widely used in the steel construction industry. This fact is attested by the very large number
of “fine-tuned” expressions (interaction equations), intended for the design and safety checking of I-
section members, which are present in the current steel design codes. For instance, the current version
of part 1-1 of Eurocode 3 (EC3-1-1 − CEN 2005) contains a plethora of rather elaborate (and also fairly
complex) formulae and equations aimed at the design (cross-section and member checks) of I-section members
with narrow-flange (I type) and wide-flange (H type) cross-sections and members subjected to a large
variety of internal forces and moment diagrams − the interested reader can find the background of most of these
formulae and equations in the ECCS (European Convention for Constructional Steelwork) report stemming
2
from the activity of its Technical Committee on Stability (TC8) and co-authored by Boissonnade et al. (2006).
In the particular case of I-section members subjected to major-axis bending (beams), which are highly
prone to lateral-torsional buckling (unlike beams with closed section, such as RHS beams), it is necessary
either (i) to prevent the occurrence of such buckling phenomenon, by appropriately bracing the beam (i.e.,
restraining the lateral deflections and/or twisting rotations at selected cross-section points along the beam
length), or (ii) to develop efficient (safe and economical) procedures to estimate the beam ultimate strength
associated with a collapse governed by lateral-torsional buckling.
1.2 Motivation and scope of the work
For some load combinations, the members of steel frames and/or trusses members may be subjected to
internal force and moment diagrams that combine major-axis bending (predominant) and axial tension −
such members, which are illustrated in Figure 1.1, are sometimes termed “beams under tension”, a
designation adopted hereafter in this work.
Figure 1.1 - Beam subjected to uniform major-axis bending (My) and tension (Nt)
The fact that the above internal force and moment combination is relatively rare and, moreover, can be
conservatively handled by “ignoring” the axial tension when checking against the member buckling ultimate
limit state (only the cross-section resistance needs to be checked), is most likely the reason why very
little attention has been paid to the development of a genuine design and/or safety checking procedure
aimed at estimating the ultimate strength of beams under tension. Indeed, it is fair to say that, quite
surprisingly, virtually no information can currently be found concerning the structural response and design of
I-section beams members subjected to major-axis bending and tension (i.e., beams under tension), namely on
how the presence of tension affects (improves) the beam lateral-torsional buckling behaviour. Indeed, the
rather complete literature search (including publication in both the English and German languages) carried
out by the author bore no fruits and, moreover, no information was obtained from several world-wide
recognized experts on lateral-torsional buckling that were contacted in the last year. The sole exception
to the above situation are the provisions included in Part 1-1 of the ENV (European Pre-Norm) version of
Eurocode 3 (EC3-ENV-Part 1-1, 1992) and concerning the safety checking of beams under tension
against failures triggered by lateral-torsional buckling. Such provisions, whose existence provided the
motivation for the investigation study reported in this work, are based on an “effective (reduced) bending
3
moment” concept to take into account the beneficial effect stemming from the presence of axial tension
− however, once more, no trace of background information concerning these rather “mysterious” provisions
could be found. Of course, part of the explanation for the “information void” on this problem is due to the
fact that (i) beams under tension occur seldom in practice and (ii) neglecting the tension effects leads to
conservative ultimate strength estimates against lateral-torsional failures. The above design provisions were
later removed from the EN (European Norm) version of Eurocode 3 (EC3-EN-Part 1-1, 2005), allegedly due to
space limitations. Thus, it seems fair to argue that the favourable effect of axial tension on failures
governed by lateral-torsional buckling is currently completely neglected, which naturally leads to over-
conservative designs. Indeed, a beam subjected under tension is currently designed as a “pure beam”,
i.e., only (major-axis) bending is taken into account − the presence of axial tension is felt exclusively through
the cross-section resistance check.
Therefore, the objective of this work is to provide a contribution to the investigation of the behaviour,
collapse and design of I-section beams susceptible to lateral-torsional buckling and subjected to tension, namely
by acquiring information on how conservative are the ultimate strength predictions that neglect the tension
effects. In particular, the works aims at bridging the lack of scientific information and technical guidance
concerning the lateral-torsional stability, behaviour/failure and design of beams under tension. It deals
specifically with (doubly symmetric) hot-rolled steel I-section beams exhibiting “fork-type” end supports and
subjected to simple transverse loadings (mostly applied end moments) and not affected by local buckling
phenomena − beams with compact cross-sections (class 1 or 2 cross-sections, according to the EC3
nomenclature) that can reach its plastic resistance prior to the occurrence of local buckling.
1.3 Organisation of the Dissertation
The dissertation is organised into six chapters, the first of which is the present introductory chapter. In the
following paragraphs, brief descriptions of the contents of the remaining of these chapters are presented.
Chapter 2 is devoted to investigate the influence of axial tension of the beam lateral-torsional
stability/buckling (bifurcation) behaviour. After briefly reviewing the fundamental of lateral-torsional
buckling behaviour, attention is paid to the derivation and validation, through the comparison with
beam finite element results, of an analytical expression that provides critical buckling moments associated with
the lateral-torsional stability of uniformly bent beams subjected to tension. Then, the analytical study
is (numerically) extended to beams subjected to non-uniform bending (mostly stemming from unequal
applied end moments, although uniformly loaded beams are also addressed) − several beam finite element
results concerning the beneficial influence of axial tension on the beam lateral-torsional stability are presented
and discussed in detail.
4
Chapter 3, which is concerned with the experimental investigation, is divided into three distinct parts,
which address: (i) the description and characterisation of the specimens tested (one narrow flange beam and one
wide flange beam, both subjected to eccentric axial tension), including all the preliminary measurements
required to obtain information about the steel material properties (tensile coupon tests), residual stresses and
initial geometrical imperfections; (ii) the performance of two full-scale tests, including the description
of the test set-up and procedure and the presentation of the results obtained; and (iii) the numerical
simulations carried out to develop a shell finite element model that is able to simulate adequately the test
results − this was done by means of the software FINELG (2012) and the resulting shell finite element
model was then used to develop and validate a FINELG beam finite element model, subsequently employed to
perform an extensive parametric study.
Chapter 4 deals with the aforementioned parametric study, carried out in order to assemble a fairly large
ultimate strength/moment data bank, involving more than 2000 numerical simulations concerning beams with
various cross-section shapes, lengths, yield stresses, acting bending moment diagrams and axial
tension levels. Particular attention is paid to the distinction between the beams collapses stemming from
plasticity effects (cross-section resistance) and those governed by lateral-torsional buckling effects −
recall that only the latter are investigated in this work.
Chapter 5 uses the gathered experimental (only two specimens) and numerical (over 2000 beams
analysed) ultimate strength/moment data gathered previously to develop/propose design procedures
for beams subjected to tension − in particular, the work (i) revisits the “effective moment” concept included
in EC3-ENV-Part 1-1 and (ii) investigates the merits of using the beam buckling curves currently available in
EC3-EN-Part 1-1 in combination with slenderness values obtained on the basis of critical buckling moments
that incorporate the beneficial effects of the presence of axial tension − i.e., the latter approach merely
consists of a slight modification of the procedure prescribed in the current Eurocode 3 to design beams
against lateral-torsional failures.
Finally, Chapter 6 briefly describes the content of the dissertation, underlining the main conclusions drawn
from the analytical, experimental and numerical research activity reported, and provides a few suggestions for
future developments/extensions of the work carried out by the author.
5
6
Chapter 2
Lateral Torsional Buckling
2.1 Introduction
This chapter addresses the influence of axial tension on the lateral-torsional stability/buckling behaviour of
simply supported (“fork-type” supports − free warping and flexural rotations) doubly-symmetric I-
section beams subjected to major-axis bending − i.e., to assess how the presence of an axial tension Nt
changes/increases the critical buckling moment Mcr. Of course, it is assumed that Nt is such that the beam
cross-section resistance (under bending moment and axial force) is not reached prior to the occurrence of
instability (bifurcation) − otherwise, if Nt is large enough to preclude the occurrence of compressive stresses in
the cross-section, the beam collapse stems exclusively from plasticity effects.
Lateral-torsional buckling (LTB) is a three-dimensional instability phenomenon exhibited by beams

subjected to major-axis bending, which causes transverse (vertical) displacements u, as depicted in Figure 2.1 −
the equilibrium path associated with major-axis bending is termed the “fundamental (or pre-buckling)
equilibrium path”, as shown in Figure 2.2. The LTB instability, occurring at a bifurcation point,
involves a combination of minor-axis bending (transverse/horizontal displacements v − see Figure 2.1)
and torsion (angles of twist φ − see Figure 2.1) − the equilibrium path following the
instability/bifurcation is termed the “post-buckling equilibrium path”, as shown in Figure 2.2. The
intersection between the above two equilibrium paths occurs at “the critical buckling moment Mcr” (caused
by the transverse loading).
Figure 2.1 – Beam deformed configuration associated with the occurrence of LTB: (a) member and (b) cross-section views
Figure 2.2 – Lateral-torsional buckling: fundamental and post-buckling equilibrium paths (Reis & Camotim, 2012)
This chapter begins by presenting the analytical derivation of an expression providing critical buckling
moments of simply supported I-section beams subjected to uniform major-axis bending and axial tension.
Next, the analytical expression obtained is then used to validate an ABAQUS (Simulia Inc. 2008) beam finite
element model, subsequently employed to perform an extensive parametric study aimed at assessing the effect
of axial tension on the critical moment of simply supported doubly symmetric I-section beams acted by several
non-uniform bending diagrams, namely those caused by unequal applied end moments and uniformly
distributed loads.
2.2 Beams under uniform bending − analytical solution

As mentioned before, this present section addresses the derivation of an analytical expression that provides
critical buckling moments associated with the lateral-torsional buckling/stability (bifurcation) of simply
supported I-section beams subjected to uniform major-axis bending and axial tension − see Figure 2.3. The first
step consists of establishing the differential equilibrium equations governing the behaviour under consideration.
Following the classical monographs by Chen & Atsuta (1977) and Trahair (1993), concerning the LTB
behaviour of beam-columns (i.e., members under uniform major-axis bending and axial compression), it is
8
Figure 2.3 – Beam subjected to major-axis bending My and axial tension Nt: (a) general view and (b) deformed configuration
associated with the occurrence of lateral torsional buckling
possible to derive differential equilibrium equations that ensure adjacent equilibrium for members subjected to
major-axis bending and axial tension and deemed to remain undeformed up to bifurcation (i.e., the pre-
buckling deformations are neglected) − they read (note the change in sign of the Nt terms)
EIz vIV + Nt vʹ′ʹ′+My φ ʹ′ʹ′= 0 (2.1)
EIw φ IV − (GIt + Nt r02)φ ʹ′ʹ′ + My vʹ′ʹ′= 0 (2.2)
where v and φ are the minor-axis bending displacements and torsional rotations, respectively (see Figure 2.1)
The detailed analytical derivation of these equations is presented in Annex 1, included at the end of this
dissertation.
For a simply supported beam, the solution of the eigenvalue problem defined by equations (2.1)-(2.2) is
provided by the sinusoidal eigenfunctions
v(x) = A1 sin (π/L x) (2.3)
φ(x) = A2 sin (π/L x) (2.4)
which define the beam critical mode shape and correspond to critical buckling moments given by the expression
(2.5)
In this expression, (i) Mcr (0) denotes the critical buckling moment of the “pure beam” (member under
uniform bending only), and (ii) Pcr,z and Pcr,φ are given by
(2.6)
(2.7)
9
and their values correspond to the symmetric of the minor-axis flexural and torsion buckling loads of the “pure
column” (member under uniform compression only) − once again, the steps involved in the determination of
Eqs.(2,3)-(2.7) are presented and explained in detail in Annex 1, included at the end of this dissertation.
Eq. (2.5) confirms (and quantifies, for the particular case under consideration) the beneficial effect of tension
on the member lateral-torsional buckling moment − i.e., the additional bending and torsional stiffness values,
stemming from the presence of Nt, lead to a Mcr increase. In order to illustrate the results provided by the
derived analytical expression, Figure 2.4 plots the critical bucking moment increase [Mcr (Nt) /Mcr (0)] against the
ratio β=Nt /My 1 for an IPE 300 beam with length L=10 m. It is observed that the critical moment increase
grows exponentially with the applied tension level − for β larger than 9.6, lateral-torsional buckling no
longer occurs, as the whole beam is under tension.
30.0
25.0
Mcr (Nt) /Mcr (0)
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5
β = Νt/Μy
Figure 2.4 – Variation of the critical buckling moment increase Mcr (Nt) /Mcr (0) with Nt (IPE 300 + L=10 m)
The Mcr (Nt) /Mcr (0) vs. β curve eventually tends to infinity as β approaches a “limit value” (9.6 in this
particular case) because such limit value corresponds to the absence of compressive stresses in any beam
cross-section. In order to illustrate this statement, Figure 2.5 shows the linear longitudinal stress distributions
of an IPE 300 cross-section subjected to axial tension levels corresponding to (i) β <9.6 and (ii) β=9.6
(limit value). However, note that a loading strategy involving and Nt value established a priori, which
corresponds to applying a transverse loading to a “pre-tensioned beam”, never precludes the occurrence of
lateral-torsional buckling (for any Nt) − indeed, compressive stresses will always eventually occur in the beam.
1
Note that the parameter β has dimension L 1, i.e., these results are valid only for the IPE 300 beam analysed. My stands for the applied major-axis
−
end bending moment, herein designated simply as M. It is worth mentioning that β, which relates the applied Nt and M values, corresponds to the inverse
of the eccentricity exhibited by tensile axial force Nt causing the moment M.
10
(a)
(b)
Figure 2.5 − Linear longitudinal stress distributions at an IPE 300 cross-section for (a) β < 9.6 and (b) β=9.6
Finally, one last word to mention the similarity between Eq. (2.5) and the classical expression to
evaluate the critical buckling moment of doubly symmetric members subjected to uniform major-axis
bending and axial compression (beam-columns), which reads (e.g., Trahair, 1993)
(2.8)
where Pcr,z and Pcr,φ are now the minor-axis flexural and torsion column buckling. Note that the sole difference
between Eqs. (2.5) and (2.8) are the signs of the terms involving the axial compression − the negative signs
reflect the fact that axial compression lowers the critical buckling moment value.
2.3 Beams under non-uniform bending − numerical results
This section begins by presenting an ABAQUS beam finite element model developed to perform linear buckling
analyses, which will be subsequently used to investigate the influence on axial tension on the LTB behaviour
of beams subjected to non-uniform bending. Then, after using the analytical expression derived in the
previous sub-section to validate the above finite element model, this model is used to perform a parametric
11
study aimed at assessing the beneficial influence of axial tension on the LTB behaviour of doubly symmetric I-
section beams with different geometries (cross-section dimensions and length) and subjected to non-uniform
bending caused by either unequal end moments or uniformly distributed transverse loads.
2.3.1 Beam finite element model
The beams are discretised by means of ABAQUS three-dimensional bar finite elements (BFE). Previous studies
(e.g., Mendonça, 2004) showed that, among the various elements of this type available in the ABAQUS library,
element B31OS (B-“beam”, 3-spatial, 1-linear interpolation functions and OS-“open section”) is the most
suitable for the purpose of this work. The formulation of this BFE is based on Timoshenko’s bar theory (i.e.,
includes the shear deformation) and it exhibits seven degrees of freedom per node, corresponding to
three translations, three rotations and warping.
In order to perform a buckling (linear stability) analysis, it is necessary to input a data file containing (i) a
reference load, which is linked to a load parameter λ (λcr is its sought lowest bifurcation value), and
(ii) one command to initiate the solution of the buckling eigenvalue problem (determination of the
critical buckling load and corresponding buckling mode shape, i.e., the lowest eigenvalue and its associated
eigenvector). In the particular case of the lateral-torsional buckling of beams subjected to major-axis bending,
the code provides critical buckling moment values (Mcr), which correspond to the critical load parameter (λcr)
multiplied by the maximum moments associated with the reference transverse loading − in this work, they may
consist of (i) applied end moments (Mcr=λcr MR,max) or (ii) uniformly distributed loads (Mcr=λcr pR,max L2/8).
Concerning the loading application, the combination of major axis bending (M) and axial tension (Nt)
can be made in many different ways. The two most common ones are either (i) begin by applying a fixed Nt
value and then gradually increase the bending moment diagram until buckling takes place, thus determining
the (unknown) Mcr value associated with the presence of the (known) Nt, or (ii) select reference bending
moment diagram and axial tension value, and then increase them simultaneously while keeping the
relation between them constant − this corresponds to a“proportional loading strategy” and leads to a
pair of (initially unknown) M and Nt values that are associated with the occurrence of lateral-torsional buckling.
The latter load application strategy was employed in this work and the parameter β defines the constant ratio
between the axial tension and the reference maximum bending moment (β=NR,t /MR,max, where it should be
noted that β has dimension L 1 and, therefore, is“beam-dependent”) − buckling occurs for Ncr,t=λcr NR,t and
−
Mcr,N=λcr MR,max, which define the critical pair (Ncr,t, Mcr,N (Ncr,t)). It is still worth pointing out that, according to
this load application strategy and depending on the β value, it may happen that Mcr,N=∞ − it suffices that β
corresponds to a bending moment and axial tension combination causing no compression in the whole beam.
Concerning the boundary conditions, all the beams analysed are simply supported, i.e., exhibit “fork-type”
end supports, as illustrated in Figure 2.6: the two end sections have (i) prevented transverse displacements,
12
(ii) free flexural rotations, (iii) prevented torsional rotations and (iv) free warping − as for the
longitudinal displacement, it is prevented at one end section and free at the other.
Figure 2.6 – “Fork conditions” at both end supports
2.3.2 Validation − comparison with the analytical results
Before carrying out the numerical investigation, it is convenient to begin by validating the developed ABAQUS
BFE model. This is done in two steps, both including a comparison between the analytical and numerical results
concerning beams subjected to uniform bending (ψ=1). The first step consists of analysing two beams
subjected to pure uniform bending: (i) a 10 m long IPE 300 beam and (ii) a 5 m long HEB 300 beam.
Table 2.1 shows the critical bending moment values of these two beams, obtained analytically and
numerically − the two pairs of values are very similar, as the differences between then do not exceed 2%.
Table 2.1 – Comparison between the analytical and numerical (ABAQUS BFE) critical bending moment values
Mcr [kNm] Analytical Numerical (ABAQUS BFE) Δ (%)

IPE 300 (L=10.0 m) 48.6 47.8 1.6
HEB 300 (L=5.0 m) 1433.26 1401.5 2.2
The second step consists of comparing the analytical and numerical results concerning the LTB behaviour
of a 10 m long IPE 300 beam subjected to uniform bending and different levels of axial tension. Figure
2.7 compares results concerning the variation of the critical bucking moment percentage increase Mcr (Nt)
/Mcr (0) with the ratio Nt /M − the solid line stands for the analytical values, obtained with Eq. (2.5)
and already shown in Figure 2.4, and the small circles correspond to the numerical values determined
by means of the ABAQUS BFE analyses. It is clear that there is a virtually perfect agreement between the
analytical and numerical values, which means that the BFE model may be deemed validated.
13
30.0
Numerical
25.0
Analytical
Mcr (Nt) /Mcr (0)
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5
β = Νt/Μ
Figure 2.7 - Variation of Mcr (Nt) /Mcr (0) with Nt: comparison between analytical and numerical results (IPE 300 + L=10 m)
2.3.3 Parametric studies
The parametric studies, carried out by means of the developed (and validated) ABAQUS BFE model,
concern I-section beams with the geometries (cross-section dimensions and lengths) defined in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2 – Geometries of the I-section beam analysed in the parametric studies
Length (m) IPE 300 IPE 500 HEB 300 HEB 500
0.5 P
1 P P
2 P P P P
3.5 P P P P
5 P P P P
8 P P P P
10 P P P P
15 P P P P
20 P P P
25 P P
14
For each beam, various levels of axial tension are considered, defined by means of the (dimensional)
parameter β=Nt /M − it takes the values 0; 0.5; 1.0; 1.5; 2.0: 2.5; 3.0. Moreover, several beam transverse
loadings are addressed − they are indicated in Table 2.3. A total of about 1200 LTB results were obtained.
Table 2.3 – Moment distribution evaluated in Lateral Buckling Analysis (LBA)
ψ=1 (uniform bending)
ψ=0.5
ψ=0(triangular bending)
ψ = − 0.5
ψ= − 1 (doubly triangular bending)
Uniformly distributed load p
(applied along the beam shear centre axis)
Next, a representative sample of the critical buckling moments obtained in this work is presented and
discussed − the full set of LTB results can be found (in tabular form) in Annexes 2.1 to 2.4, located at the end
of the dissertation. The main aim of this presentation/discussion is to assess the individual influences of the
various parameters involved.
Figures 2.8 to 2.10 concern (i) IPE 300 beams under ψ=0 bending moment diagrams, (ii) IPE 500
beams under ψ=0.5 bending moment diagrams and (iii) HEB 500 beams under ψ= − 0.5 bending moment
diagrams, respectively. All of them provide the variations of the critical moment ratio Mcr (Nt) /Mcr (0) with β for
various beam lengths, ranging from L=0.5 m to L=25 m. The observation of the LTB results presented in these
three figures make it possible to conclude that, naturally, the relevance of the (beneficial) tension effect
on the LTB behaviour grows with the beam length, i.e., as the beam becomes more prone to this instability
phenomenon. This assertion can easily be confirmed by looking at the slopes of the Mcr (Nt) /Mcr (0) vs. β
curves corresponding to the different beam lengths. Quantitatively speaking, the variation of the beneficial effect
due to axial tension with the beam length is different for the three cases addressed in Figures 2.8 to 2.10 −
in particular, the acting bending moment diagram shape seems to play an important role. The influences of the
various parameters involved in the beam LTB behaviour will be assessed individually next.
15
2.6
L = 0.5 m
2.4 L=1m
L = 2m
2.2 L = 3.5 m
Mcr (Nt) /Mcr (0)
L = 5m
2.0 L = 8m
L = 10 m
1.8 L = 15 m
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
β = Νt/Μ
Figure 2.8: Variation of Mcr (Nt) /Mcr (0) with β for 0.5 m ≤ L ≤ 15 m (IPE 300 beams + ψ=0)
7.0
6.5 L=1m
6.0 L=2m
L = 3.5 m
5.5 L = 5m
Mcr (Nt) /Mcr (0)
5.0 L = 8m
L = 10 m
4.5 L = 15 m
4.0 L = 20 m
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
β = Νt/Μ
Figure 2.9: Variation of Mcr (Nt) /Mcr (0) with β for 1 m ≤ L ≤ 20 m (IPE 500 beams + ψ=0.5)
16
6.0
5.5 L=2m
L = 3.5 m
5.0 L=5m
L=8m
4.5
Mcr (Nt) /Mcr (0)
L = 10 m
L = 15 m
4.0
L = 20 m
3.5 L = 25 m
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
β = Νt/Μ
Figure 2.10: Variation of Mcr (Nt) /Mcr (0) with β for 2 m ≤ L ≤ 25 m (HEB 500 beams + ψ=-1)
In order to assess the influence of the bending moment diagram shape, Figures 2.11 (L=10 m HEB 300
beams) and 2.12 (L=5 m IPE 300 beams) provide Mcr (Nt) /Mcr (0) vs. β curves for all the bending moment
diagrams considered in this work. The observation of these numerical results prompts the following
remarks:
(i) The key factor is the shape of the amount of compression exhibited by the axial stress distributions acting
on the flanges along the whole beam length, which stems from the combination of the uniform axial
tension Nt with the varying bending moments. This combination leads to tensile effects that are (i1) highest
for the (triangular) ψ=0 moment diagram, corresponding to the “least compressed” flange pair, and (i2)
lowest for the (uniform) ψ=1 uniform diagram, obviously corresponding to the “most compressed”
flange pair. The same reasoning explains why, between the two moment distributions associated with
flanges part in compression and part in tension due to bending (ψ= − 0.5 and ψ=0.5), the benefits of axial
tension are more pronounced for the beam acted by the ψ= − 0.5 diagram. Figure 2.13, providing the top
views of the LTB mode shapes concerning the (i1) ψ= − 0.5 and (i2) ψ= − 1 bending moment diagrams,
for β=1, clearly shows that the axial tension reinforces the restraint effect of the shorter and less bent
beam right side on its longer and more bent left counterpart − due to symmetry, such restraint effect
is absent from the beam subjected to the ψ= − 1 bending moment diagram.
17
(ii) It is still worth noting that, somewhat surprisingly, the curves associated with the uniformly distributed
load fall in between those concerning the ψ= − 0.5 and ψ=0.5 bending moment diagrams.
3.5
ψ=1
ψ = 0.5
3.0 ψ=0
ψ = -0.5
Mcr (Nt) /Mcr (0)
ψ = -1
Dist. Load
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
β = Νt/Μ
Figure 2.11: Variation of Mcr (Nt) /Mcr (0) with β for various bending moment diagrams (HEB 300 beams + L=10 m)
2.6
ψ=1
2.4 ψ = 0.5
ψ=0
2.2 ψ = -0.5
Mcr (Nt) /Mcr (0)
ψ = -1
2.0 Dist. Load
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
β = Νt/Μ
Figure 2.12: Variation of Mcr (Nt) /Mcr (0) with β for various bending moment diagrams (IPE 300 beams + L=5 m)
18
(a)
(b)
Figure 2.13 – Top views of the LTB mode shapes of the beams subjected to (a) ψ= − 0.5 and (b) ψ= − 1 diagrams (β=1)
Regarding the influence of the cross-section shape, Figure 2.14 concerns L=15 m beams subjected
to triangular bending moment diagrams (ψ=0) and exhibiting the four cross-sections considered in this
work. The observation of the corresponding Mcr (Nt) /Mcr (0) vs. β curves indicate that the benefits of axial
tension become more pronounced as the cross-section height increases (IPE 500 vs. IPE 300 + HEB 500 vs.
HEB 300). This height increase is also associated with an increase of the web height-to-flange width ratio
(h/b), which naturally leads to a growth of the ratio between the major and minor-axis moments of inertia
(Iy /Iz), a well known “measure” of the beam susceptibility to LTB − Table 2.4 shows the values of these
ratios for the four profiles considered in this work. Finally, it is interesting to notice that, depending on the
cross-section height, the benefits of axial tension may be larger for the IPE profile (IPE 300 vs. HEB 300) or
for the HEB one (IPE 500 vs. HEB 500) − however, the differences are only meaningful for β >1.0 (see
Figure 2.14). Although an extended parametric study would be required to obtain a solid explanation for this
“benefit switch”, it is probably related to the fact that the same web height increase (67%) corresponds to (i) a
25% h/b increase and a 64% Iy /Iz increase, for the IPE profiles, and (ii) a 70% h/b increase and a 167% Iy /Iz
increase, for the HEB profiles − the susceptibility to LTB grows much more for the HEB profiles than for the
IPE ones.
Table 2.4 – Comparison between geometric properties of the different profile section
IPE 300 IPE 500 ΗΕΒ 300 ΗΕΒ 500

h/b 2 2.5 1 1.7
Iy / Iz 14 23 3 8
19
4.4
IPE 300
4.0
IPE 500
HEB 300
3.6 HEB 500
Mcr (Nt) /Mcr (0)
3.2
2.8
2.4
2.0
1.6
1.2
1.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
β = Νt/Μ
Figure 2.14: Variation of Mcr (Nt) /Mcr (0) with β for beams with HEB-IPE 500-300 cross sections (L=15m + ψ=0)
Finally, it is worth mentioning that a preliminary investigation was carried out on the possibility of
finding a relation between the values of Mcr (Nt) concerning beams subjected to non-uniform and uniform
bending − similar to the coefficient C1 adopted in EC3 to relate the critical moments of beams under non-
uniform and uniform pure bending. Although this preliminary investigation bore no fruits (the high dispersion
of the values found precluded the immediate development of a simple expression for a coefficient C1 that takes
into account axial tension), the author is convinced that further research may lead to the sought expression.
2.4 Summary
This chapter reported an analytical and numerical (BFE) investigation concerning the beneficial effect of axial
tension on the lateral-torsional buckling behaviour of I-section steel beams. After deriving an analytical
expression that provides critical buckling moments of beam subjected to uniform bending and tension,
numerical results were presented for beams with various geometries (cross-section dimensions and length)
and subjected to several non-uniform bending moment diagrams. The results obtained and gathered in this
chapter will be used later in the development of a design procedure against the lateral-torsional failure
of I-section beams subjected to axial tension − see Chapter 5.
20
Out of the various conclusions drawn from the research work reported in this chapter, the following ones
deserve to be specially mentioned:
(i) It was shown analytically, for the case of uniform bending, that axial tension has a beneficial effect on the beam
LTB behaviour, i.e., leads to a Mcr increase.
(ii) The above beneficial effect becomes more relevant as beams are more susceptible to LTB − for instance,
the Mcr increase grows with the beam length or with the ratio between the cross-section major and minor-
axis moments of inertia.
(iii) Moreover, it was possible to assess how the axial tension beneficial effects vary with the bending moment
diagram shape. It was concluded that the highest effects occur for ψ=0 (triangular diagram), which
corresponds to the “least compressed” flange pair. Conversely, the lowest axial tension benefits
occur for ψ=1, corresponding to the “most compressed” flange pair.
(iv) Concerning the cross-section geometry, it is clear that increasing the web height leads to considerably
higher axial tension beneficial effects. However, it became also clear that the increased axial tension
benefits are more pronounced for the HEB (wide flange) profiles than for the IPE (narrow flange) ones.
21
22
Chapter 3
Behaviour and Strength − Experimental Study
3.1 Introduction
This chapter reports a limited experimental investigation (only two full-scale tests are involved), concerning the
behaviour and strength of beams subjected to tension − the tests were carried out at the Structures Laboratory of
École d'Ingénieur et d'Architecture de Fribourg, from the Haute École Suisse Occidentale. Besides acquiring
in-depth knowledge about the structural response under consideration, this experimental study aims at gathering
information intended to develop accurate and reliable numerical (finite element) models, which will be
subsequently employed to (i) carry out parametric studies to assemble a fairly large ultimate strength data bank,
in Chapter 4 − the final goal is to assess the merits of the design methodology developed in Chapter 5.
Prior to the performance of each test, standard preliminary measurements were carried out with the
aim of characterising the specimens: (i) measurements to define the member geometry, (ii) tensile coupon
tests, to obtain the steel material properties, (ii) residual stresses measurements and (iii) determination of
the initial geometrical imperfections. Then, after describing the experimental set-up and procedure, the chapter
presents and discusses the test results obtained. Finally, these results are used to validate shell and beam finite
element models developed to simulate the structural response of thin-walled members under major-axis
bending and tension − the validation is made through the comparison between the test results reported
and the corresponding numerical simulations.
3.2 Specimen characterisation
3.2.1. Material tests
Regarding the material tests, (i) the real cross-section geometric properties were defined by carefully measuring
the specimen dimensions and (ii) tensile coupon tests were carried out, in order to assess the steel material
behaviour. Initially, several measurements were taken, in order to determine the specimen full length and its
cross section dimensions, namely the web and flange width and thickness − several measurements were
taken along the specimen length, in order to assess the longitudinal variation of the cross-section
dimensions, and a high accuracy digital calliper was employed to perform this task. Then, coupon tests were
carried out to obtain the steel stress-strain curve (constitutive law) at both the web and flanges, following the
provisions for uniaxial tensile prescribed in EN 10002-1 (CEN, 2001) − an extensometer was used to measure the
axial extensions and the coupon specimens were tested up to failure/rupture, as illustrated in Figures 3.1 and
3.2.
(a) (b)
Figure 3.1 – Standard tension coupon specimens: (a) overview and (b) detail of the rupture zone
Figure 3.2 – Tensile coupon test and axial extension measured by means of an extensometer
The performance of a tensile coupon tests consisted of a three-step protocol, which included (i) an
initial loading procedure up to the plastic range, (ii) a full unloading procedure and (iii) a new reloading
procedure until failure/rupture occurred. This protocol was followed to enable a more accurate
24
estimation of the steel profile Young’s modulus, on the basis of Hooke’s law. The steel σ–ε curves
obtained were characterised by four parameters, namely the Young’s modulus E, yield stress fy, failure
stress fu and axial extension at failure εu.
3.2.2 Residual stress measurement
Concerning the residual stress measurement, it was based on a destructive method termed “sectioning
method” and briefly described next. The beam segment used to measure the residual stresses was cut into thin
strips along the cross section mid-line, as shown in Figure 3.3. Prior to cutting, the strips were marked on the
cross section, together with sets of two point (circular) marks located near the beam segment ends (well
apart), intended for the measurement of each strip initial and final length, by means of an extensometer,
as depicted in Figure 3.4. After recording all the strip initial and final lengths, the residual longitudinal stresses
were estimated through the simple relation
(3.1)
Figure 3.3 – Cutting of thin strips to measure the residual stresses
Figure 3.4 – Measuring strip length (after cutting), by means of an extensometer
25
By following the above procedure, which (i) involves measuring the length changes of strips covering the
entire cross section mid-line, (ii) is based on the stress relief experienced by each strip after being cut and (iii)
uses Hooke’s law, it is possible to use Hooke’s law to obtain a reasonable estimate/measurement the cross-
section longitudinal normal residual stress distribution.
3.2.3 Determination of the initial geometrical imperfections
The specimen initial geometrical imperfections (global and local) were measured by resorting to a set of
linear variable displacement transducers (LVDT’s) and a stable bench, which are displayed in Figure 3.5 and
were specifically designed to perform this task. At 10 cm intervals along the specimen length, (i) vertical
displacements at three upper flange points (web-flange corner and flange free ends) and (ii) lateral
displacements at three web points (mid-height and web-flange corners) were recorded. It is worth noting
that, in view of the relative lengths of the stable bench (1.20 m) and specimen (4.0 m), four beam
segments were measured separately and an overlapping was purposely considered to check and ensure the
accuracy of the measurement procedure. After performing this large number of measurements, they were
rigorously treated computationally, thus leading to a quick and reliable determination of the specimen real
initial configuration.
Figure 3.5 – Stable Bench and LVDT’s employed to measure the beam initial geometrical imperfections
Between the data collection (displacement measurement), on the specimen, and the plot of the
corresponding beam initial configuration, a 7-step procedure had to be carried out − each step is described
next, together with the associated simplifying assumptions:
26
Step 1: The initial measurements collected from the
sensors are processed and lead to a plot providing the
initial positions of the bench plus floor (accounting for
their out-of-flatness) − see Figure 3.6. These
reference positions that must be considered when the Figure 3.6 – Schematic representation of Step 1
subsequent measurements are made on the four
specimen segments.
Step 2: This step consists of making sure that the future

measurements are adequately collected. It is necessary to
match the slopes associated with the sensors belonging to
two adjacent beam segments: the measurements of (i)
the last four sensors of one segment and (ii) the first four
sensors of the adjacent segment must account for the
Figure 3.7 – Schematic representation of Step 2
different reference positions of the bench plus floor
located below each beam segment − see Figure 3.7.
Step 3: In this step, the four measurement series (one per

beam segment) are put together, thus enabling the
calculation of the beam chord position − see Figure
3.8.
Step 4: After knowing the beam chord position, all

measured displacements are related to the horizontal
axis depicted in Figure 3.9.
Step 5: It is assumed that the beam ends (reference

points) share the same position with respect to the z-axis.
Step 6: In this step, the displacement measurements of the points corresponding to the beam segment overlaps are
replaced by their averages, so that a smooth deformed configuration is obtained, which incorporates the beam
(i) initial geometrical imperfections and (ii) deformed configuration caused by the self-weight.
Step 7: In order to isolate the beam initial geometrical imperfections, it suffices to subtract the deformed
configuration caused by the self-weight from the total one obtained in Step 6, thus making it possible to
visualise the beam initial (deformed) configuration.
27
3.3 Experimental set-up and procedure
Figures 3.11(a)-(b) provide an overall picture of the experimental set-up and a detailed view of the beam end
support conditions, which combine (i) “fork-type conditions”, with respect to major and minor-axis bending,
with (ii) full warping restraint of the end cross-sections (the beam “extends” beyond the cross-sections
where the end supports are deemed materialised). The two beams tested had length L=4.00 m (due to
space constraints, the effective beam “free length” was L=3.36 m) and were linked at both ends (symmetrically)
to rigid secondary systems conceived to ensure a smooth application of eccentric tension (minor-axis
eccentricity causing major-axis bending). The tests involved (i) an IPE 200 beam loaded with a 0.25 m
eccentricity and (ii) an HEA 160 beam loaded with a 0.5 m eccentricity.
(a)
(b)
Figure 3.11: Experimental set-up: (a) overall view and (b) detail of the beam end supports
28
Moreover, the eccentricity values were selected so that the associated LT slenderness and axial tension
level allow for the assessment of the influence of axial tension on the LTB behaviour, i.e., do not lead
to experimental failures merely stemming from exceeding the cross-section resistance. Therefore, the
performance of the tests was preceded by preliminary numerical simulations that yielded the following results:
(i) λLT=0.91 and Nu/Npl=0.24, for the IPE 200, and (ii) λLT=0.66 and Nu/Npl=0.16, for the HEA 160 − these λLT
values include already the beneficial effect stemming from the presence of axial tension.
When performing a test, the first steps consisted of (i) welding vertical rigid profiles (HEB 200) to the
specimen ends, thus preventing warping and making it possible to apply the eccentric tensile loads, (ii)
positioning the specimen in between two pairs of end support cylindrical hinges, one resting on the supporting
cross-bar and the other leaning vertically against a short RHS cantilever, ensuring that the symmetry with
respect to the mid cross-section is retained kept, i.e., that the outstand segments, extending beyond each
supporting hinge, are equal, and (iii) placing the hydraulic jacks, which are mounted on secondary structural
systems in such a way that the required axial tension eccentricity is guaranteed − see Figure 3.12.
Figure 3.12 – Detail of the secondary supporting system where the hydraulic jacks are mounted
In addition, (i) a rigid hollow member (RHS 200 x 100 x 12.5) was assembled on the top of the vertical
HEB 200 profile, to ensure a smooth and uniform load transmission between the two hydraulic jacks, and
(ii) stiffeners were attached to the web of the HEB 200, to preclude the occurrence of local buckling during
the performance of the second test (HEA 160 beam) − the one with the higher eccentricity (see Figure 3.13).
Figure 3.13 – Web stiffeners intended to preclude local buckling during the HEA 160 beam test
29
Regarding the beam end support conditions, shown in detail in Figure 3.14, (i) the two cylindrical hinges
ensure free axial displacements and major-axis flexural rotations, while preventing the vertical displacements,
and (ii) a system of welded plates, which provide point supports for the specimen flanges, ensuring free minor-
axis flexural rotations, while preventing the lateral/horizontal displacements. Furthermore, the secondary
system, welded to the HEB 200 profile, together with the support devices described above, ensure full end
section torsional twist and warping.
Figure 3.14 – Detailed view of the beam end support conditions
Another aspect concerns the location of the measuring devices (i) on the hydraulic jacks and (ii) at the
mid-span and end cross-sections. In view of the expected specimen three-dimensional behaviour, a complex
displacement transducer system was devised to enable the measurement of two pairs of mid-span cross-
section transverse displacements (two vertical and two lateral). Figures 3.15(a)-(b) make it possible to visualise
the displacement transducer system, which adopts (i) two LVDTs (Linear Variable Differential Transformers)
to measure the vertical displacements – TK 100 (range of measurement: 0-100 mm) and (ii) a system of
pulleys to record the lateral displacement (including two displacement transducer plungers − WA 200,
with range of measurement 0–200 mm). Moreover, inclinometers (KB–10EB) were attached to the vertical
rigid profiles welded to the specimen ends, in order to measure the major-axis flexural rotations at the supports,
as illustrated in Figure 3.15(c). The real forces applied by the jacks were monitored by means of two load
cells (C6A force transducers) located near each jack, as depicted in Figure 3.15(d).
During the performance of the tests, the above measurement devices recorded values at 0.5 s intervals,
thus providing a fairly continuous displacement/rotation output. Concerning the load application, a two-stage
strategy was adopted, involving (i) large load increments in the elastic range and (ii) much smaller load
increments after the (anticipated) onset of yielding, which was detected by closely monitoring the tensile axial
load level provided by loads cells (also recorded at 0.5 s intervals). Finally, it is worth noticing that the
specimens were tested up to failure, which means that experimental ultimate strength values were obtained.
30
(b) Mid-span lateral displacements (WA 200)
(a) Mid-span vertical displacements (TK 100)
(d) Loads applied by the hydraulic jacks (load cells C6A)
(c) End support inclinations (one inclinometer

KB–10EB and two TT50 LVDT’s)
Figure 3.15 – Measuring device systems
31
3.4 Initial measurements − beam characterisation
As mentioned before, each specimen tested was initially characterised, by measuring its (i) cross-section
dimensions, (ii) material properties (Young’s modulus, yield stress, failure stress and extension at failure), (iii)
longitudinal normal residual stress distribution, and (iv) global and local initial geometrical imperfections. Table
3.1 presents the beam measured cross-section dimensions (each value stands for the average of measurements
taken at three different cross-sections located along the beam length), which are compared with the
corresponding nominal values, i.e., those appearing in standard catalogue. It is observed that, with one
exception, the tested specimens exhibit dimensions larger than the nominal ones − the exception are the
flange thickness values, which are below the nominal ones.
Table 3.1 – Measured and nominal beam cross-section dimensions
IPE 200 IPE 200 HEA 160 HEA 160

Δ (%) Δ (%)
(measured) (nominal) (measured) (nominal)
b [mm] 101.4 100 + 1.4 162.3 160 + 1.4
h [mm] 203.3 200 + 1.7 153.8 152 + 1.2
tf [mm] 8.1 8.5 - 4.7 8.8 9 - 2.2
tw [mm] 6.1 5.6 + 8.9 6.7 6 + 11.7
r [mm] − 12 − 15
Concerning the steel material behaviour, it was characterised by means of σ-ε curves defined by four
representative properties, namely the Young’s modulus (E), yield stress (fy), failure stress (fu) and extension at
failure (εu) − their measures values are given in Table 3.2. Additionally, Figures 3.16 (a)-(b) depict
schematic representations σ-ε curves obtained from the coupon tests taken from the two beams analysed.
(a)
32
(b)
Figure 3.16 – Schematic representations of the steel σ-ε curves obtained for the (a) IPE 200 and (b) the HEA160 beams
Table 3.2 – Steel’s material properties
IPE200 HEA160
E [GPa] 208 212
fy [MPa] 320 307
fu [MPa] 446 449
εu 30.57 31.2
As far as the residual stresses are concerned, Figure 3.17 illustrates the measured residual stress
distributions, which are next analysed and compared with the (theoretical) triangular and parabolic distributions
recently proposed by Boissonnade & Somja (2012). First of all, it is readily noticed that the measured
residual stresses are not self-equilibrated in both cross sections (the flanges exhibit only compressive
stresses in both cases) − this can only be attributed to measurement inaccuracies, most likely due to the
high sensitivity of the device employed to make the measurements (an extensometer). Moreover, the magnitude
of the measured residual stresses also differs considerably from the linear and parabolic ones proposed
by Boissonnade & Somja (2012) − the comparisons are shown in Figure 3.18.
In view of what was mentioned in the previous paragraph, which reflects the poor quality of the obtained
residual stress measurements, the data collected was deemed not valid/reliable and, therefore, the finite element
model developed to simulate the experimental (see Section 3.6) includes the residual stress distributions
proposed by Boissonnade & Somja (2012).
33
Figure 3.17 – Residual stresses distribution measured at the IPE200 and HEA160 beams (positive values stand for compression)
Figure 3.18 – Comparison of the residual stresses distribution: measured (red), linear (blue) and parabolic (green)
Finally, Figures 3.19(a)-(b) and 3.20(a)-(b) display a sample of the measured initial geometrical imperfection
profiles − the complete set of measured initial geometrical imperfection data is presented in Annex 3.
These four profiles concern the initial vertical and horizontal displacements measured along the longitudinal
lines passing through the cross-section mid-flange and mid-web points: points B, E and H indicated in Figure
3.21(a)-(b) − note that these displacement measurements are associated with both local and global initial
deformations. It is worth pointing out that the measured initial geometrical imperfections are included in
the numerical simulations presented further ahead in this chapter.
34
11 6
10 Top Flange Top Flange
Vertical displacement [mm]

Bottom Flange Bottom Flange
9 5
8
4
7
6
3
5
4
2
3
2 1
1
0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Axial position of measurement [mm] Axial position of measurement [mm]
(a) (b)
Figure 3.19 – Initial geometrical imperfections measured on the flanges (points B and H) for the (a) IPE 200 and (b) HEA 160
3 18
16
Lateral displacement [mm]
14
2 12
10
1 6
0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Axial position of measurement [mm] Axial position of measurement [mm]
(a) (b)
Figure 3.20 – Initial geometrical imperfections measured on the web (point E) for the (a) IPE 200 and (b) HEA 160
(a) (b)
Figure 3.21 – Cross-section points for which initial displacement profiles were measured: (a) IPE 200 and (b) HEA 160 beams
35
3.5 Test results
3.5.1 IPE 200 beam
The first test concerns an IPE 200 beam subjected to a tensile axial force applied with a 250 mm minor-axis
eccentricity (uniform major-axis bending moment diagram − ψ=1) − Figure 3.22 provides an overall view of
the test set-up and shows the beam initial (deformed) configuration (prior to testing). Figure 3.23 shows the
time evolution of the axial loads recorded by the measurement devices of the hydraulic jacks located at
each end of the beam. One readily observes the virtual coincidence between the curves concerning the
readings of the two hydraulic jacks, thus confirming that the applied bending moment diagram is, indeed,
uniform. It is worth noting that the experimental failure load is 270 kN, a value that corresponds to an applied
bending moment diagram equal to 67.25 kNm.
Figure 3.22 – Overall view of the test set-up and initial (deformed) configuration of the IPE 200 beam specimen
300
270
240
Applied Tension [kN]
210
180
150
120
90
Jacks (Side 1)
60 Jacks (Side 2)
30
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time [s]
Figure 3.23 – Time evolution of the axial forces recorded by the measuring devices of the hydraulic jacks during the IPE 200 beam test
36
Figures 3.24 and 3.25 provided several views of the beam deformed configuration at the brink of collapse
− these views provide clear experimental evidence of the three-dimensional nature of the beam collapse
mechanism, which combines minor-axis (lateral) flexural and torsional deformations.
Figure 3.24 – IPE 200 beam deformed configuration at the brink of collapse − overall view
Figure 3.25 – IPE 200 beam deformed configuration at the brink of collapse − detailed views of the (a) mid-span and (b) end regions
Figures 3.26(a)-(b3) display the recorded IPE 200 beam equilibrium paths, which plot the applied tensile
force versus (i) the end cross-section flexural rotation θy (measured twice, by means of either two LVDTs or an
inclinometer), and (ii) the mid-span (ii1) vertical displacement v, (ii2) lateral displacement u and (iii3)
torsional rotation θx.
37
300
250
250

200 200
150 150
100 100
LVDT_Support2
LVDT_Support1
50 Incl._Support2 50
Incl._Support1
0 0
-10 -5 0 5 10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
End section flexural rotation θy [°] Mid-span vertical displacement v [mm]
(a) (b1)
250 250
200 200
150 150
100 100
50 50
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Mid-span lateral displacement u [mm] Torsional rotation θx [°]
(b2) (b3)
Figure 3.26 – IPE 200 beam equilibrium paths relating the applied tensile force with (a) the end cross-section flexural rotation θy and
(b) the mid-span (b1) vertical displacement v, (b2) lateral displacement u and (b3) torsional rotation θx
3.5.2 HEA 160 beam
The second test involves an HEA 160 beam and is similar to the first one − however, the tensile axial force
is now applied with a 500 mm minor-axis eccentricity − Figure 3.27 provides an overall view of the test set-up
and shows a view of the beam deformed configuration at the onset of collapse. As for the IPE 200 beam, the
curves concerning the readings of the two hydraulic jacks, depicted in Figure 3.28, are virtually coincident,
38
which means that the applied bending moment diagram is again uniform. The experimental failure load now
reads 145 kN, a value corresponding to an applied bending moment diagram of 72.50 kNm.
Figure 3.27 – HEA 160 beam deformed configuration at the brink of collapse − overall view
160
120
80
Jacks (Side 1)
Jacks (Side 2)
40
0
0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600
Time [s]
Figure 3.28 – Time evolution of the axial forces recorded by the measuring devices of the hydraulic jacks during the HEA 160 beam
As before, Figures 3.29(a)-(b3) display the recorded IPE 200 beam equilibrium paths, which plot the applied
tensile force versus (i) the end cross-section flexural rotation θy (measured once more by means of two LVDTs
and an inclinometer), and (ii) the mid-span (ii1) vertical displacement v, (ii2) lateral displacement u
and (ii3) torsional rotation θx.
39
140 140
120

120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 LVDT_Support2 40
LVDT_Support1
Incl._Support2
20 Incl._Support1 20
0 0
-10 -5 0 5 10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
(a) (b1)
140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
(b2) (b3)
Figure 3.29 – HEA 160 beam equilibrium paths relating the applied tensile force with (a) the end cross-section flexural rotation θy
and (b) the mid-span (b1) vertical displacement v, (b2) lateral displacement u and (b3) torsional rotation θx
3.5.3 Discussion
The observation of the beam equilibrium paths presented in the previous two sub-sections prompts
the following remarks:
40
(i) In most of the equilibrium paths, the beam are in the elastic regime − in terms of applied load, the
elastic behaviour extends up to 90% of the failure load. However, the elastic regime is responsible for
only a very small fraction (about 2%) of the displacements reached at the onset of collapse.
(ii) The IPE 200 beam exhibited non-negligible lateral displacements and torsional rotations, thus providing
clear experimental evidence concerning the occurrence of a collapse mechanism governed by
LTB. On the other hand, the HEA 160 beam collapse mechanism was characterized by smaller
lateral displacements and rotations, which provides experimental evidence of the “exhaustion” of the
mid-span plastic capacity, but still some signs of LTB.
(iii) The lateral displacements and rotations exhibited by the IPE 200 beam were higher than those recorded
for the HEA 160 beam, which is just a logical consequence of the fact that the IPE beams (narrow
flanges) are more prone to the occurrence of LTB.
(iv) The horizontal plateaus exhibited by the equilibrium paths (of both beams) concerning the mid-span
lateral displacements and torsional rotations provide clear indication that that the collapse is triggered by
the beam central region − this is just logical, since LTB governs the beam failures.
(v) With the exception of the IPE 200 beam equilibrium path concerning the end section flexural rotation,
all the remaining equilibrium paths exhibit an ascending slope, a feature that may be misleading, in
the sense that it appears to indicate that beam is able to withstand a larger applied load. Indeed, these
equilibrium path end slopes are due to erroneous measurements occurring at the onset of collapse, due to a
considerable decrease in accuracy of the displacement transducers measuring three-dimensional
deformed configurations.
3.6 Numerical simulations
3.6.1 Modelling issues
The experimental results are now employed to develop, calibrate and validate a shell finite element
model able to handle realistic material constitutive laws, end support conditions, load application
procedures, initial geometrical imperfections and residual stresses. This is done using the non-linear
FEM software FINELG (2012), which was originally developed by Ville de Goyet (1989), at the University of
Liège, and has been continuously updated by several researchers at that University and also at the Greisch
Design Office. In the context of this dissertation, this software is used mainly to perform elastic buckling,
elastic-plastic first-order and elastic-plastic second-order analyses.
In order to shed some light on the capabilities of the FINELG shell finite element model, the next few
lines are devoted to describing some important modelling features exhibited by this model (Boissonnade &
Somja, 2012). The first issue concerns the fact that the real hot-rolled beam cross-section cannot be
41
modelled by merely considering an assembly of three plates/walls, due to the existence of the rounded
web-flange corner areas. In order to model adequately these areas, the FINELG model places an additional node
within the web height and located at the exact vertical position of the radius zone centroid, as depicted in
Figure 3.30. Besides being linked to the web elements, this node also bears an additional beam finite element,
oriented in the longitudinal (x) direction and having a cross-section area equal to the difference between the
radius zones and the overlapped area − see Figure 3.30. The presence of this beam element, which is assumed
to exhibit the same constitutive law as the various wall shell finite elements, makes it possible to achieve
nearly exact cross-sectional properties with the developed model.
Figure 3.30 – FINELG finite element modelling of the web-flange corner areas (Boissonnade & Somja, 2012)
Since the “nominal beam” (member with length 3.36 m and subjected to major-axis bending and axial
tension) end support conditions are fairly complex, due to the flexural rotation and warping restraint provided by
the two 0.3 m overhang segments attached to the vertical rigid profiles (see Figure 3.12), it was decided to
attempt to simulate the beam “real end support conditions”. This was done by modelling the entire
experimental set-up mainly by means of fine meshes of 4-node shell elements based on Kirchhoff’s bending
theory, thus ensuring that the influence of the beam “surroundings” is adequately taken into account. The only
exception concerns the rectangular hollow section segments, which are depicted in blue in Figure 3.32 and
were modelled by means of 3D beam finite elements, in order to facilitate the application of the end nodal
forces.
At this stage, it is worth mentioning that the parametric study addressed in the next chapter involves
exclusively simply supported beams with “fork-type” end supports: a combination of (i) prevented flexural
displacements and torsional rotation with (ii) free axial extension, warping and flexural rotations. Two aspects
deserve to be specially mentioned concerning the modeling of these end support conditions. The first one deals
with the handling of the end cross-section in-plane local supports, in order to preclude the occurrence of local
buckling stemming from the (concentrated) reactive forces − the arrangement adopted is depicted in Figure
3.31 and consists of preventing the local displacements normal to the wall thickness along the whole cross-
section contour. The second aspect concerns the allowance for longitudinal displacements ensuring that the end
42
cross-section exhibits free axial extension, flexural rotations and warping. As illustrated in Figure 3.31, this
was achieved by allowing four (adequately selected) cross-section nodes to have free longitudinal
displacements, while restraining the remaining ones to guarantee linear variations along all three wall mid-lines
− for symmetry reasons, the flange tips were selected as the four nodes exhibiting free longitudinal
displacements.
Figure 3.31 – FINELG modelling of the “fork-type” end support conditions (Boissonnade & Somja, 2012)
Finally, Figures 3.32 to 3.34 concern the IPE200 beam test and provide (i) an overall view of the
experimental set-up discretisation, (ii) the shape of the initial geometrical imperfections included in the analysis
and (iii) the load application system adopted in the analysis. As for Figures 3.35 and 3.36, they concern the
HEA 160 beam and provide (i) a detailed view of the web stiffeners added to the vertical rigid element (to
prevent local buckling) and (ii) the shape of the initial geometrical imperfections included in the numerical
simulation.
Figure 3.32 – Overall view of the experimental set-up discretisation using the developed shell finite element model (IPE 200 beam)
43
Figure 3.33 – Measured initial geometrical imperfections included in the shell finite element analysis (IPE 200 beam)
Figure 3.34 – Load introduction adopted in the shell finite element analysis
Figure 3.35 – Web stiffeners added to the vertical rigid element to prevent local buckling (HEB 200 beam)
44
Figure 3.36 – Measured initial geometrical imperfections included in the shell finite element analysis (HEA 160 beam)
3.6.2 Numerical results
The developed shell finite element model was employed to perform elastic buckling and elastic-plastic
geometrically non-linear analyses of the two beams tested. Table 3.3 shows a comparison between the
experimental and numerical ultimate moments (Mu) obtained − moreover, this table also provides the (i)
analytical cross-section plastic moments Mpl (under pure bending), (ii) numerical (FINELG) critical moments
Mcr, calculated for the “real experimental set-up conditions” modelled (Figure 3.37 displays half of the
IPE200 beam critical lateral-torsional buckling mode shape) and (iii) beam lateral-torsional slenderness
values λLT=(Mpl,Rk /Mcr)0.5, calculated on the basis of the presented Mpl and Mcr values. It is observed that
there is a quite good correlation between the experimental and numerical and experimental ultimate
moments − indeed, the numerical values either underestimate by 6% (IPE 200 beam) or overestimate by
2% (HEA 160 beam) their experimental counterparts.
Table 3.3 - Analytical, numerical and experimental results concerning the two beams tested
Numerical Experimental
Mpl [kNm] λLT [-] Mcr [kNm] Mu [kNm] Mu [kNm]
IPE 200 70.6 0.90 86.5 63.0 67.3
HEA 160 75.3 0.66 179.0 76.9 75
45
Figure 3.37 – Half of the critical lateral-torsional buckling mode provided by FINELG for the IPE200 beam
As for Figures 3.38 and 3.39, they provide the numerical (FINELG) IPE200 and the HEA160 beam
deformed configurations at collapse − note the qualitative and quantitative similarity with their experimental
counterparts, shown previously in Figures 3.24 and 3.27. Moreover, Figure 3.40 shows the amount
yielding taking place at the collapse of the IPE 200 beam − note the heavy spread of plasticity clearly
visible along the flanges.
Figure 3.38 – IPE200 beam deformed configuration at collapse obtained with FINELG
46
Figure 3.39 – HEA160 beam deformed configuration at collapse obtained with FINELG
Figure 3.40 − Amount yielding taking place at the collapse of the IPE 200 beam
Lastly, Figures 3.41(a)-(b3) and 3.42(a)-(b3) show comparisons between the experimental and
numerical equilibrium paths relating the applied load to the (i) end cross section flexural rotation θy
(measured twice, using two LVDTs and an inclinometer) and (ii) mid-span (ii1) vertical displacement
v, (ii2) lateral displacement u and (ii3) torsional rotation θx − note that the experimental equilibrium
paths had already been shown in Figures 3.26 and 3.29. At first glance it becomes clear that, with one
exception, there is a virtually perfect coincidence in the elastic regime, beyond which the numerical model
becomes a bit stiffer and, therefore, underestimates the experimentally measured displacements (v and u) and
rotations (θy and θx).
The exception concerns the mid-span lateral displacement of the IPE 200 beam, whose
experimental equilibrium path shows a very pronounced displacement reversal taking place during the
test − such displacement reversal is also visible in the corresponding numerical equilibrium path, but
to a much lesser extent. A possible (and quite reasonable) explanation for this behaviour and
discrepancy stems from the fact that the beam collapse occurred in a direction opposite to that of the measured
47
initial geometrical imperfections (lateral displacements) − however, it should be noted that also in this
case the numerical simulation follows the qualitative trend recorded during the performance of the
experimental test.
160
300
140
250

120
200 100
150 80
LVDT_Support2 60
100 LVDT_Support1
Incl._Support2
Incl._Support1 40 Numerical
Numerical_Support2
50 Experimental
Numerical_Suppor1 20
0 0
-10 -5 0 5 10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
(a) (b1)
160
300
140
250
120
100 200
80 150
60
100
40
50 Experimental
20 Numerical
0 0
-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0 5 10 15 20
(b2) (b3)
Figure 3.41 – Experimental and numerical equilibrium paths relating the applied load/tension with the (a) end cross section
flexural rotation and (b) mid-span (b1) vertical displacement, (b2) lateral displacement and (b3) torsional rotation (IPE 200 beam)
48
300
160
140 250

120
200
100
80 150
60
LVDT_Support2 100
LVDT_Support1
40 Incl._Support2
Incl._Support1
Numerical_Sup2
50 Experimental
20 Numerical_Sup1 Numerical
0 0
-10 -5 0 5 10 0 10 20 30 40
(a) (b1)
300 160
140
250
120
200
100
150 80
60
100
40
Experimental
50 Experimental 20 Numerical
Numerical
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
(b2) (b3)
Figure 3.42 – Experimental and numerical equilibrium paths relating the applied load/tension with the (a) end cross section
flexural rotation and (b) mid-span (b1) vertical displacement, (b2) lateral displacement and (b3) torsional rotation (HEA 160 beam)
At this stage, it is still worth mentioning that some discrepancies between the numerical and experimental
equilibrium paths may stem from the three-dimensional nature of the beam deformed configurations, which is
probably the source of erroneous measurements. Indeed, it was concluded that the accuracy of the transducer
measurements decreases considerably when the point under consideration experiences various displacement
components. Although some corrections were made to overcome this situation, on the basis of geometrical
considerations, they were found to become gradually less effective as the beam deformation increases,
rendering almost inevitable the underestimation of the measured displacements and rotations.
49
In view of the fairly good agreement observed between the experimental results obtained and the
corresponding numerical simulations, it seems fair to conclude that the shell finite element model
developed provides reasonably accurate results and, therefore, can be employed to validate the beam finite
element model adopted to perform the parametric study addressed in the next chapter.
3.7 Summary
This chapter presented an experimental investigation comprising two beams tested under axial
tension applied with a minor-axis eccentricity, thus leading to a uniform major-axis bending moment diagram.
After describing the beam material and geometrical characterisation, experimental set-up and experimental
measurements, the test results were presented and discussed. Both beams were tested up to failure and
it was observed that their collapses were governed by lateral-torsional buckling, which was clearly more
pronounced for the first test (IPE 200 beam). The experimental were then used to calibrate and validate a
shell finite element model developed in the code FINELG − a fairly good agreement was found between the
numerical and experimental results (equilibrium paths and ultimate moments). The above shell finite element
model will be used to validate a FINELG beam finite element model, subsequently used to perform the
parametric study addressed in the next chapter.
50
Chapter 4
Ultimate Behaviour and Strength − Numerical
Parametric Study
The shell finite element model just developed is now employed to validate a beam finite element model, which
is subsequently used to perform a numerical parametric study comprising geometrically and materially non-
linear analyses of about 2000 simply supported beams subjected to major-axis bending and axial tension, and
containing initial geometrical imperfections and residual stresses − this type of structural analysis is often
identified by the acronym GMNIA. Specifically, this chapter includes (i) the description and validation of a
FINELG beam finite element model; (ii) the performance of the aforementioned parametric study, aimed at
obtaining a beam ultimate strength/moment data bank, and (iii) the analysis of this ultimate strength/moment
data bank, in order assess the influence of the axial tension on the lateral-torsional buckling behaviour
and collapse of the beams under consideration.
4.1 Beam Finite Element Model
4.1.1 Description
The FINELG beam finite element employed to perform the GMNIA is based on Vlasov’s theory for open-
section thin-walled members, reported in Vlasov (1961), and has seven degrees of freedom per node: three
displacements, three rotations and warping. The beams are discretised into unequal-length 28 beam elements
− finer meshes are considered at the beam end section and mid-span regions (an overall view of the
beam discretisation can be observed in Figure 4.2). Moreover, longitudinal residual stresses and initial
geometrical imperfections are incorporated into the analyses. The formed exhibit the parabolic pattern
depicted in Figure 4.1(a), with the values given as percentages of the steel yield stress, and the latter are
sinusoidal and consist of a combination of minor-axis flexure and torsion, as shown in Figure 4.1(b) − these
shapes and values were taken from the recent work of Boissonnade & Somja (2012).
(a) (b)
Figure 4.1 − (a) Longitudinal residual stress pattern and (b) initial geometrical imperfections incorporated into the beam GMNIA −
shapes and values taken from Boissonnade & Somja (2012)
As mentioned earlier, all the beams analysed are simply supported, i.e., exhibit “fork-type” end supports that
combine (i) prevented flexural displacements and torsional rotation with (ii) free axial extension, warping and
flexural rotations. Additionally, in order to preclude the occurrence of a beam rigid-body axial translation, the
axial displacement was prevented at the mid-span cross-section. Concerning the load application, axial forces
were imposed at the end cross-section nodes − such forces are statically equivalent to the particular combination
of major-axis bending moment and axial tension considered (recall that no in-span transverse loads were
considered in this parametric study) − see Figure 4.2. Since the 28 finite element mesh is refined near
the supports and at mid-span, it is possible to (i) ensure a smooth introduction of the applied loads and (ii)
capture the continuous spread of plasticity occurring at the onset of the beam LTB collapse. The steel
52
!
material behaviour was modelled as depicted in Figure 4.3 and corresponds to the usual elastic-perfectly
plastic constitutive lay with marginal strain-hardening taking place for very large strains.
!
Figure 4.2 – Finite element model: beam discretisation and load application
Figure 4.3 − Constitutive law adopted to model the steel material behaviour
The beam load-carrying capacities were determined by means GMNIA, employing a standard arc-length
numerical technique (Memon & Su, 2003). Figure 4.4 shows the output of each of the analyses performed,
namely a schematic representation of the beam equilibrium path relating the applied force (F) with the mid-
span vertical displacement (δ), and the beam deformed configuration at the brink of the LTB collapse.
Figure 4.4 – Beam numerical F-δ equilibrium path and deformed configuration at the brink of the LTB collapse
53
4.1.2 Validation
In order to validate the above beam finite element model, Tables 4.1 and 4.2 provide load-carrying
capacities of simply supported HEB 300 beams, with yield stress fy=355 MPa and subjected to either pure
uniform bending (β =0) or uniform bending combined with axial tension (β =1), obtained with (i) the
beam finite element (BFE) model described in the previous sub-section and (ii) the shell finite element
(SFE) model developed and validated in Chapter 3, through the comparison with the experimental results.
Table 4.1 – Load-carrying capacity of HEB 300 beams for β = 0
L λLT Mu (BFE) [kNm] Mu (SFE) [kNm]

5 0.69 583.5 553.5 5.42%
10 1.09 443.2 421.9 5.06%
15 1.37 339.5 325.3 4.35%
25 1.80 203.4 198.7 2.39%
Table 4.2 – Load-carrying capacity of HEB 300 beams for β = 1
L λLT Mu (BFE) [kNm] Mu (SFE) [kNm]

5 0.63 643.4 609.3 5.60%
10 0.98 473.4 454.1 4.18%
15 1.21 439.7 424.2 3.53%
20 1.49 327.8 320.6 2.19%
The observation of the ultimate moments given in the two tables clearly shows that there is a quite good
correlation between the BFE and SFE values − indeed, the differences never reach 6% and decrease as the
beam length increases. Moreover, it is also noticed that the SFE values are always the lowest ones, which is just
a logical consequence of the fact that they are influenced by local deformation effects (not captured by the
BFE analyses) that invariably lower the beam load-carrying capacity − naturally, these local deformation
effects become less relevant as the beam length increases. In view of the similarity between the BFE and
SFE values presented in Tables 4.1 and 4.2, it seems fair to consider the beam finite element model validated,
which means that it can be adequately used to perform the parametric study addressed later in this chapter.
4.2 Effect of axial tension on the ultimate strength − qualitative aspects
Concerning the influence of axial tension on the beam load-carrying capacity, it may be either (i) beneficial,
if the beam collapse is governed by lateral-torsional buckling (critical moment increase), or (ii) detrimental, if
the beam collapse is governed by plasticity effects (cross-section plastic resistance decrease − see Figure 4.5).
This means that the presence of axial tension (i) decreases the beam load-carrying capacity of stocky beams and
54
(ii) increases their slender beam counterparts. The present dissertation is mainly concerned with the
first situation, i.e., with the beneficial influence of axial tension on the beam ultimate moments associated
with failure modes governed by lateral-torsional buckling − Figure 4.6 depicts such a failure mode.
Figure 4.5 – Schematic representation of the cross-section plastic resistance decrease caused by the presence of axial tension
Figure 4.6 – Failure mode governed by lateral-torsional buckling of a member acted by major-axis bending and axial tension
4.3 Parametric study
4.3.1 Scope
The parametric study carried out comprise beams exhibiting several slenderness values, stemming from (i)
eight span lengths (between 0.5 and 25 m), (ii) two yield stresses (fy=355; 460 MPa − the steel material
behaviour modelled is depicted in Figure 4.3. and (iii) four cross-section shapes (IPE 300, IPE 500, HEB 300,
HEB 500). The beams are subjected to (i) five bending moment diagrams (ψ=1; 0.5, 0, − 0.5, − 1 − all caused
by applied end moments) and (ii) six axial tension levels, corresponding to β=Nt /My ratios equal to 0; 0.5; 0.75;
1.0; 1.5; 2.0 − a total of over 2000 numerical simulations are carried out. As mentioned earlier, the beams
contain (i) longitudinal normal residual stresses and (ii) global sinusoidal initial geometrical imperfections with
the patterns depicted in Figures 4.1(a)-(b).
55
4.3.2 Results
Before presenting the ultimate strengths/moments obtained from the parametric study carried out, it is
important to stress again the fact that this dissertation focuses on beams whose collapse is governed
by lateral-torsional buckling. Therefore, the ultimate strengths/moments concerning collapses stemming from
plasticity effects (cross-section plastic resistance) are only briefly commented and will not be included in the
ultimate strength/moment data bank used to develop design rules, in Chapter 5. It is still worth mentioning
that, in the most stocky beams, the cross-section plastic resistance is sometimes exceeded, which is due to the
inclusion of the (small) strain-hardening in the steel material behaviour.
Another feature that deserves to be specially mentioned concerns the most slender beams and consists of
the fact that the collapse occurs at extremely high deformation levels (e.g., torsional rotations close to 90°)
and, therefore, is associated with very large ultimate moments − in order to illustrate this statement, Figure 4.7
depicts the deformed configuration of the mid-span region of a very slender beam, at collapse. Indeed,
for this high deformation/rotation levels, the beam major-axis bending resistance is “activated”, thus
rendering the beam capable of withstanding ultimate loadings much larger than expected. Since such high
deformation/rotation levels are unacceptable for practical purposes, it was decided to consider as “ultimate
strength/moment”, for these beams, the value corresponding to a torsional rotation of about 15°.
Figure 4.7 – Deformed configuration of the mid-span region of a very slender beam, at collapse
The results presented and discussed next constitute a representative fraction of those obtained from the
parametric study carried out − the full set of results are given, in tabular form, at the end of this dissertation (in
Annex 2). They make it possible to assess the influence of the axial tension on the ultimate strength of the
beam, for different lengths and moment distributions.
Figures 4.8 and 4.9 concern the influence of the axial tension level on the ultimate strength of IPE 300,
IPE 500 and HEB 300 beams made of S355 and S460 steel, exhibiting various lengths, comprised between
L=0.5 m and L=15 m, and subjected to several bending moment diagrams, all stemming from applied end
moments. Both figures provide the variation of the ultimate moment Mu, normalized with respect to the cross-
56
section plastic bending resistance Mpl (calculated for pure bending on the basis of fy), with the loading ratio
β=Nt /My − the values between parentheses, given above or below each point (beam analysed) provide the Mu
percentage increase due to axial tension: [Mu (β) − Mu (0)] /Mu (0). While Figures 4.8 and 4.9 focus on the
combined effect of β and the beam length, Figures 4.10 and 4.11 address the joint influence of β and the
bending moment diagram. It is worth noting that the negative (red) and underlined positive (blue) values in
Figures 4.8 to 4.11 correspond to beams whose collapse is governed by the cross-section resistance, which
naturally decreases with β − all the remaining (positive/green) values are associated with collapses governed by
LTB. It is worth noting that the underlined values concern beams whose collapse becomes governed by the
cross-section due to the axial tension level − for lower or null axial tension levels, the collapse is
governed by LTB. Note also that, after the descending curve (corresponding to the plastic moment reduction
caused by the axial tension) intersects a particular Mu /Mpl vs. β curve, for a given axial tension level, they
become coincident for higher axial tension levels (β values). This means that, for some axial load levels, the
same descending curve point applies to several curves. In such cases, the various Mu /Mpl values (either
negative or underlined) are displayed in “column form” (i.e., one above the other) − naturally, in each
“column” the values are ordered according to the corresponding Mu /Mpl vs. β curves, i.e., in ascending order
“top down”. For instance, in Figure 4.10, the three values associated with β=2.0 concern the curves
corresponding to the ψ= − 1 (top value), ψ= − 0.5 (intermediate value) and ψ= 0 (bottom value) bending
moment diagrams.
Figure 4.8 − Variation of Mu/Mpl with β and the beam length (S460 steel IPE 300 beams under uniform bending)
57
Figure 4.9 − Variation of Mu/Mpl with β and the beam length (S355 steel IPE 500 beams under triangular bending – ψ=0)
Figure 4.10 − Variation of Mu/Mpl with β and the bending moment diagram (L=15 m S355 steel HEB 300 beams)
58
Figure 4.11 − Variation of Mu/Mpl with β and the bending moment diagram (L=5 m S460 steel IPE 300 beams)
The observation of the numerical results displayed in these figures prompts the following remarks:
(i) First of all, as mentioned earlier, the influence of axial tension is completely different in the stocky and
slender beams, due to the fact that their collapses are governed by plasticity and instability effects,
respectively. In the former (e.g., the L=0.5; 1.0 m beams in Figure 4.8 and the L=1 to 3.5 m beams in
Figure 4.9), axial tension leads to an ultimate moment decrease, stemming exclusively from the drop
in cross-section resistance. In the latter (e.g., the L=8; 10; 15 m beams in Figure 4.8 and the L=15; 20
m beams in Figure 4.9), axial tension leads to an ultimate moment increase, which grows with β and
stems from the improved lateral-torsional buckling resistance.
(ii) In Figure 4.8, the comparison between the Mu /Mpl vs. β curves concerning the (ii1) L=8; 10; 15 m and (ii2)
L=3.5; 5 m beams show different trends, even if all these curves have positive slopes throughout the whole
β range considered. While in the former group Mu /Mpl grows with β at an always increasing rate (upward
curvature), which becomes percentage-wise more relevant as L increases, the latter group exhibit points
of inflexion, i.e., the curvature changes from upward to downward at a given β value that seems to
increase with L. These different trends reflect the contradicting influence of axial tension on the
lateral-torsional buckling and cross-section resistances: the latter becomes progressively more relevant
as β increases and L decreases. This assertion is fully confirmed by looking at the Mu /Mpl vs. β curve
concerning the L=2 m beam, which exhibits very little growth and ends up merging with their L=0.5; 1.0 m
59
beam counterparts for β=2.0 − it would start descending for larger β values, whenever collapse would
become governed by plasticity in the beam mid-span region.
(iii) Naturally, the Mu /Mpl percentage growth with β is considerably larger for the longer (more slender)
beams − e.g., in Figure 4.8, for L=15 m and β=2.0, Mu /Mpl increases by almost 84% (for L=5 m this same
increase is just about 27%).
(iv) The results presented in Figure 4.9 show the same qualitative trends exhibited by those displayed
in Figure 4.8. However, it should be noticed that the different moment distribution leads to (iv1)
higher Mu /Mpl growths, which may exceed 200% for the 20 m beam, and also (iv2) larger Mu /Mpl
drops for most of the beams with length below 5 m.
(v) Concerning the influence of the bending moment diagram shape on the axial tension benefit, it should
be mentioned that the lateral-torsional slenderness (λLT) of the beams included in Figure 4.10 varies
between 0.5 and 1.1, while those included in Figure 4.11 exhibit, in the majority of the cases, λLT values
larger than 1.0. This fact explains why, regardless of the moment distribution, the Mu /Mpl percentage
growths are always larger in Figure 4.11.
(vi) In Figure 4.10, dealing with the L=15 m S355 steel HEB 300 beams, the first important observation is
that only the ψ=1 and ψ=0.5 (marginally) curves (i.e., those leading to more relevant lateral-torsional
buckling effects) are not limited by the descending curve associated with the mid-span cross-section full
yielding up to β=2.0 − indeed, the ψ=0 and ψ= − 0.5 curves merge into this curve at lower (decreasing) β
values and following an “almost horizontal” segment. Finally the ψ= − 1 curve decreases monotonically
with ψ, thus meaning that the beam collapse is always governed by the mid-span cross-section
resistance. Quantitatively speaking, the largest Mu /Mpl percentage increases occur for the beams acted
by the ψ=0.5 bending moment diagram − they slightly exceed their ψ=0 and ψ=1 diagram counterparts
(in this order).
(vii) The results presented in Figure 4.11 are qualitatively similar to those shown in Figure 4.10.
However, they differ considerably in quantitative terms, as already explained in item (v). Indeed, the
descending curve associated with the decreasing cross-section resistance only limits the Mu /Mpl vs. β
curves associated with the moment distributions less prone to LTB at high axial tension levels. The curves
concerning the moment distributions more prone to LTB, namely ψ=1 and ψ=0.5, show a significant Mu
/Mpl growth with β and involve exclusively collapses governed by LTB.
Finally, Figure 4.12 shows the variation of Mu /Mpl with the lateral-torsional slenderness λLT=(Mpl,Rk /Mcr)0.5,
where Mcr is calculated taking into account the axial tension, for various combinations of beam length, cross-
section shape and steel grade. This figure provides clear evidence that the net effect of the presence of an
increasing axial tension is to move the Mu /Mpl vs. λLT “beam points” (i) to the left (lateral-torsional slenderness
decrease) and (ii) upwards (ultimate moment increase), thus reflecting the double influence of Nt. Moreover, it
60
can also be observed in this figure that the whole set of points, corresponding to various beams and β values
(including β=0), remain nicely “aligned” along a “design-like” strength curve. The design approach for beams
subjected to axial tension that is proposed in the next chapter takes advantage of this feature.
Figure 4.12 – Variation of Mu/Mpl with the beam lateral-torsional slenderness λLT
4.3 Summary
The results of a parametric study comprising about 2000 numerical simulations, concerning beams (i) subjected
to major-axis bending and axial tension, and (ii) exhibiting collapse modes governed by either lateral-torsional
buckling or plasticity effects, were presented and discussed in this chapter. It was shown that:
(i) In the slender beams, whose collapse is governed by lateral-torsional buckling (not plasticity effects), the
presence of axial tension causes a load-carrying capacity growth that increases with the axial
tension level (provided that such growth is not “interrupted” by the exhaustion of the mid-span cross-
section resistance). Although the above load-carrying capacity growth is non-linear and depends
on several parameters, it may said, generally, that larger growths occur for (i1) longer (more slender)
beams and (i2) moment distributions more prone to lateral torsional buckling.
(ii) In the stocky beams, whose collapse is governed by plasticity effects, the presence of axial tension
naturally causes a load-carrying capacity drop that increases with the axial tension level. Such beams do
not constitute the primary focus of this dissertation, which is mainly concerned with beams whose
collapse is governed by lateral-torsional buckling (with and without axial tension).
(iii) The influence of axial tension on the ultimate strength of beams exhibiting LTB-based collapses
is two-fold: (iii1) reduces the beam vulnerability to lateral-torsional buckling, i.e., decreases its lateral-
61
torsional slenderness λLT, and (iii2) increases the beam load-carrying capacity, i.e., leads to higher
ultimate strengths/moments.
(iv) The normalised ultimate strengths/moments plotted against λLT are aligned along a “design-like” strength
curve, which indicates that a design approach may be successfully sought − this will be done in Chapter 5,
taking advantage of the extensive ultimate strength/moment data bank gathered in this chapter (note that
only those values concerning beams exhibiting collapses governed by lateral-torsional buckling, both with
and without axial tension, are considered).
62
Chapter 5
Development of a Design Approach
As mentioned earlier, Part 1-1 of Eurocode 3 (EC3-1-1 − CEN 2005) currently lacks design guidance for
beams susceptible to lateral-torsional buckling that are subjected to axial tension − moreover, this topic has
been very seldom been addressed in the literature. This means that the provisions of the current EC3-1-1
completely neglect the beneficial influence of axial tension on the beam ultimate strength associated
with collapses governed by lateral-torsional buckling, thus leading to overly conservative designs − indeed, as
far as this type of collapse is concerned, the beams is treated as if they were subjected to pure bending.
This chapter presents the development and assesses the merits of a design approach aimed at providing
efficient (safe and economic) predictions of the ultimate strength of beams subjected to major-axis bending and
axial tension whose collapse is governed by lateral-torsional buckling. The proposed approach is based on
the use of beam buckling/strength curves currently prescribed by EC3-1-1 in combination with slenderness
values calculated on the basis of critical buckling moments that account for the beneficial effect of axial tension.
In order to assess the merits of this approach, its estimates are compared with the numerical ultimate strength
data gathered in Chapter 4 − moreover, the benefits of incorporating axial tension in the proposed design
approach are quantified (in percentage terms). Finally, the chapter closes with (i) a comparison between the
design procedure proposed in this dissertation and that included in the previous version of EC3-1-1 (EC3-
ENV-1-1, 1992), which no longer appears in the current EC3-1-1, and (ii) the presentation and discussion of a
couple of illustrative examples.
5.1 Proposed design approach
Following the currently available design guidance, a beam subjected to axial tension is designed against
lateral-torsional instability ultimate limit states as “pure beam” (i.e., only major-axis bending is taken into
account), and the (detrimental) influence of axial tension is only felt through the cross-section resistance. The
aim of the design approach proposed in this dissertation is to change the above situation, by incorporating the
axial tension effects in the ultimate moment prediction prescribed by EC31-1 for compact hot-rolled
steel beams (the so-called “special method”).
The proposed design approach is based on the current EC3-1-1 methodology, which stipulates that the
ultimate moment of (compact) beams subjected to axial tension (MRd) is the least of two values: (i) the
cross-section reduced plastic moment (MN,Rk) and (ii) the beam bending resistance against a failure governed by
lateral-torsional buckling. While the former is determined through classical strength of materials concepts,
the latter is obtained by means of a procedure based of the use of “beam strength curves” − Mb,Rd. This
procedure involves the following steps (the EC3-1-1 nomenclature is adopted):
(i) Determine the beam lateral-torsional slenderness λLT=(Mpl,Rk /Mcr)0.5, where Mpl,Rk is the cross-section
plastic moment (bending resistance) and Mcr is the beam critical buckling moment, which obviously
depends on the acting major-axis bending moment diagram.
(ii) On the basis of λLT, use the appropriate buckling curve (depends on the cross-section geometry and
fabrication process − curve b for all the profiles considered in this work) to obtain the reduction factor χLT.
(iii) Further modify/increase the reduction factor obtained in the previous step, by means of the relation
χLT.mod=χLT /f, where the parameter f ≤ 1.0 depends on the bending moment diagram and beam slenderness
λLT − it supposedly reflects the influence of the spread of plasticity taking place prior to the beam collapse.
(iv) Evaluate the beam bending resistance against lateral-torsional buckling failure, which is termed Mb,Rd
and given by Mb,Rd=χLT.mod × Mpl,Rk.
At this stage, it is worth recalling that this dissertation is exclusively concerned with instability limit states
and, therefore, the cross-section resistance safety check falls outside the scope of this dissertation.
However, the interested reader may found detailed information in EC3-1-1 (section 6.2.9), which includes a set
of formulae and interaction equations aimed at estimating the plastic resistance of I cross-sections subjected to
major-axis bending and axial force.
The proposed design approach consists of merely incorporating the axial tension beneficial effects into the
above procedure. This is done exclusively through the value of the critical buckling moment used to determine
the beam slenderness, while keeping all the remaining steps unchanged − in particular, Mpl,Rk still remains the
cross-section pure bending plastic resistance (i.e., does not account for the presence of axial tension). In other
64
words, Mcr≡Mcr (0) is replaced by Mcr (Nt,Ed), where Nt,Ed is the acting axial tension. This leads to a λLT decrease
and, therefore, also to larger χLT.mod and Mb,Rd values. It is worth noting that the calculation of Mcr (Nt,Ed) must be
done by means of a numerical beam buckling analysis (e.g., using beam finite elements) − in the future, the
authors plan to develop analytical expressions and/or other design aids that will render the performance of
this task easier and more straightforward for the practitioners.
5.2 Assessment of the proposed ultimate strength/moment estimates
The assessment of the quality of the ultimate strength/moment estimates provided by the proposed
modification of the current EC3-1-1 design rules is based on the results of the numerical simulations
addressed in Chapter 4 and reported in Annex 2. These results consist of, for each combination of beam
geometry (cross-section and length), steel grade, bending moment diagram and β value, the beam (i) critical
moment Mcr (accounting for the axial tension), (ii) plastic moment Mpl,Rk, (iii) reduced (by the axial tension)
plastic bending resistance MN,Rk, (iv) numerical ultimate moment Mu, (v) lateral-torsional slenderness λLT (based
on Mcr(Nt) and Mpl,Rk), (vi) reduction factor χLT.mod (obtained with the EC3-1-1 curve b), (vii) predicted ultimate
moment Mb,Rd (for a collapse governed by lateral-torsional buckling) and (viii) numerical-to-estimated moment
ratio RM=Mu /Mu.est, where Mu.est is the lower between MN,Rk and Mb,Rd − whenever Mu.est=MN,Rk, the value of RM
reflects the cross-section over-strength due to the small strain-hardening included in the steel constitutive law
considered in this work.
Before comparing the obtained numerical and estimated ultimate moments, it should be pointed out again
that this comparison concerns exclusively the beams whose collapse does not correspond to exhausting the
beam mid-span cross-section resistance, i.e., beams failing in lateral-torsional modes occurring prior to the
attainment of MN,Rk − the proposed design approach only deals with the latter.
The numerical ultimate moments Mu, normalised with respect to the cross-section “pure” (not reduced)
plastic moment Mpl (Mu /Mpl≡χLT), are plotted against the beam “modified” (by accounting for the influence of
axial tension Nt on Mcr) lateral-torsional slenderness λLT. Also plotted is the EC3-1-1 design curve b, making
it possible to compare the numerical Mu /Mpl values with their predictions provided by the proposed design
approach. Figure 5.1, concerning the results obtained for beams subjected to a bending moment diagram
defined by ψ=0, provides an illustrative example of the Mu /Mpl values corresponding to the ultimate moments
effectively calculated through the FINELG beam finite element analyses. Although it is clear that there is a very
good agreement between the numerical ultimate moments and the EC3-1-1 curve b, it is impossible not to
notice the few striking exceptions to the above general rule, practically all of them concerning the very slender
beams: an L=25 m HEB 500 beams (both the S355 and S460 steel grades). The explanation for these
discrepancies lies in the fact that, as already mentioned in Chapter 4, for most loadings (i.e., whenever the
65
mid-span cross-section resistance does not govern) these beams collapse at extremely high deformation levels
(e.g., torsional rotations above 90°), which correspond to ultimate moments that are clearly underestimated by
the design curve. If the ultimate moments are linked to “acceptable deformation levels” (instead of the actual
equilibrium path limit points) their values drop considerably and end up much closer to the design curve. For
instance, if the (quite logical) torsional rotation limit of 15° is adopted as a beam ultimate limit state, none
of the Mu /Mpl values associated with the above very slender beams in Figure 5.1 exceeds the design
curve (EC3-1-1 curve b) by more than 13% − currently, the underestimation can be as high as 35% (for the
L=25 m S355 HEB 500 beam and β =1).
1.2
1.1 β=0
1.0 β = 0.5
β = 0.75
0.9
β=1
0.8
Mu / Mpl [-]
β = 1.5
0.7 β=2
0.6 EC3-1-1 curve b ( ψ = 0)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
λLT
Figure 5.1 − Comparison between the Mu /Mpl,Rk (numerical gross results) and Mb,Rd /Mpl,Rk (proposed design approach) values
for ψ=0
In order to exclude all the numerical moments associated with “unacceptably high” deformation levels, it
was decided to limit the beam torsional rotation to 15°, which means that the associated applied moment is
hereafter termed “ultimate moment”, even if it does not correspond to the equilibrium path limit point. Then, the
ultimate moments provided in Figures 5.2 to 5.6, for the various beams analysed subjected bending
moment diagrams defined by ψ=1, ψ=0.5, ψ=0, ψ= − 0.5 and ψ= − 1, respectively, are in accordance with
the above criterion − in particular, the comparison between Figures 5.4 and 5.1 makes it possible to assess its
implications. Moreover, the observation of the results displayed in these five figures prompts the following
remarks:
66
1.2
1.1 β=0
1.0 β = 0.5
0.9 β = 0.75
β=1
0.8
Mu / Mpl [-]
β = 1.5
0.7
β=2
0.6 EC3-1-1 curve b ( ψ = 1)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
λLT
Figure 5.2 − Comparison between the Mu /Mpl,Rk (numerical) and Mb,Rd /Mpl,Rk (proposed design approach) values for ψ=1
1.2
1.1 β=0
1.0 β = 0.5
0.9 β = 0.75
β=1
0.8
Mu / Mpl [-]
β = 1.5
0.7
β=2
0.6 EC3-1-1 curve b ( ψ = 0.5)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
λLT
Figure 5.3 − Comparison between the Mu /Mpl,Rk (numerical) and Mb,Rd /Mpl,Rk (proposed design approach) values for ψ=0.5
67
1.2
1.1 β=0
1.0 β = 0.5
0.9 β = 0.75
0.8 β=1
Mu / Mpl [-]
0.7 β = 1.5
β=2
0.6 EC3-1-1 curve b ( ψ = 0)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
λLT
Figure 5.4 − Comparison between the Mu /Mpl,Rk (numerical) and Mb,Rd /Mpl,Rk (proposed design approach) values for ψ=0
1.2
1.1 β=0
1.0 β = 0.5
0.9 β = 0.75
β=1
0.8
Mu / Mpl [-]
β = 1.5
0.7
β=2
0.6 EC3-1-1 curve b ( ψ = - 0.5)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
λLT
Figure 5.5 − Comparison between the Mu /Mpl,Rk (numerical) and Mb,Rd /Mpl,Rk (proposed design approach) values for ψ = − 0.5
68
1.2
1.1 β=0
1.0 β = 0.5
0.9 β = 0.75
β=1
0.8
Mu / Mpl [-]
β = 1.5
0.7
β=2
0.6 EC3-1-1 curve b ( ψ = -1)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
λLT
Figure 5.6 − Comparison between the Mu /Mpl,Rk (numerical) and Mb,Rd /Mpl,Rk (proposed design approach) for ψ= − 1
(i) First of all, it is worth noting that the length of the EC3-1-1 design curve b horizontal plateau depends on
the bending moment diagram acting on the beam − indeed, this plateau length increases gradually
from 0.4 (ψ=1) to 0.55 (ψ=0.5), 0.70 (ψ=0), 0.75 (ψ=− 0.5) and 0.80 (ψ= − 1).
(ii) Then, it is impossible not to notice the remarkable closeness between the numerical ultimate moments and
their predictions provided by the proposed design approach. Indeed, in the five figures the numerical
values are very nicely aligned slightly above the design curve.
(iii) It is also clearly noticeable that, as one travels from Figure 5.1 to Figure 5.5, there is a clear trend
of the numerical results to shift to the left and upwards, i.e., towards the plastic plateau. Additionally, the
number of simulations decreases as one travels from ψ = 1 to ψ = − 1, since the moment distribution
change renders the beam less prone to LTB and, therefore, the collapse becomes gradually more often
governed by the cross section plastic resistance.
(iv) Table 5.1 provides the averages, standard deviations and maximum/minimum values of the ratio
RM=Mu /Mu.est corresponding to Figures 5.1 to 5.5, for the various axial tension levels. These indicators
reflect the excellent quality of the ultimate strength/moment estimates − indeed, the overwhelming
majority of them are safe and extremely accurate. It is still worth noticing that the least accurate
estimations (higher average and standard deviation) concern β=1.
69
Table 5.1 − Averages, standard deviations and maximum/minimum value of the ratio RM
Average St. Dev. Max Min
β =0 1.03 0.04 1.12 0.92

β =0.5 1.04 0.03 1.11 0.93
β =0.75 1.05 0.03 1.15 0.95
β =1 1.06 0.04 1.13 0.97
β =1.5 1.05 0.04 1.16 0.92
β =2 1.05 0.03 1.16 0.98
In view of what was mentioned above, it seems fair to conclude that the proposed design approach for
beams subjected to major-axis bending and axial tension provides excellent estimates of all the numerical
ultimate moments obtained in this work (associated with lateral-torsional collapse modes) and, therefore, can
be considered as a very promising candidate for inclusion in a future version of Eurocode 3 − of course,
additional parametric studies, involving other loadings (particularly transverse loads) and reliability assessments
studies are required before this goal can be actually achieved. The only foreseeable hurdle for designers is the
lack of an easy and user-friendly way to calculate critical buckling moment in the presence of axial tension − as
mentioned earlier, it is planned to work on the removal of this hurdle through the development of analytical
expressions and/or other design aids to calculate Mcr (Nt,Ed).
5.3 Axial tension beneficial influence
In order to assess the beneficial influence of the presence of axial tension on the beam ultimate
strength/moment, let us begin by considering, as an illustrative example, the L=8.0 m S355 steel IPE 500 beam
subjected to uniform bending and six axial tension levels (β=NEd /MEd). Table 5.2 shows the corresponding λLT,
χLT.mod and Mb,Rd values, and also the Mb,Rd percentage increases with respect to the “pure bending” value
(ΔMb,Rd). Figure 5.7 provides a pictorial representation of the various Mb,Rd and ΔMb,Rd values − it is very clear
that how an increase in axial leading causes a slenderness drop and the corresponding ultimate moment
increase.
Table 5.2 − Ultimate moment predictions for the L=8.0 m S355 steel IPE 500 beam under uniform bending
β λLT χLT.mod Mb.Rd [kNm] ΔMb.Rd [kNm]
0 1.683 0.357 278.1 −

0.5 1.575 0.396 308.9 11.1%
0.75 1.509 0.423 329.9 18.6%
1 1.464 0.443 345.1 24.1%
1.5 1.350 0.498 387.8 39.4%
2 1.231 0.562 437.8 57.4%
70
Figure 5.7 − Pictorial representation of the ultimate moment predictions − L=8.0 m S355 steel IPE 500 beam (ψ=1)
Finally, Table 5.3 provides the averages, standard deviations and maximum/minimum values of the
percentage ultimate moment increases (ΔMb,Rd) due to axial tension corresponding to the beam ultimate
moments included in Figures 5.1 to 5.5. It is observed that all the above axial tension benefit indicators increase
with β, with the sole exception of the minimum value − it remains constant and very small, because it
always corresponds to a slenderness located very close to the end of the design curve plateau.
Table 5.3 − Averages, standard deviations and maximum/minimum values of ΔMb,Rd
β Average St. Dev. Max Min
β =0.5 14.7% 8.9% 43% 0.01%
β =0.75 24.5% 14.3% 64% 0.01%
β =1 34.0% 19.5% 91% 0.01%
β =1.5 53.7% 30.4% 135% 0.01%
β =2 79.9% 46.4% 202% 0.01%
71
5.4 Comparison with the design procedure prescribed in EC3-ENV-1-1
This section compares the design approach proposed in this work with the provisions prescribed by
EC3-ENV-1-1 (1992) for the safety checking of beams subjected to major-axis bending and axial tension,
and failing in lateral-torsional modes. Such provisions were based on the concept of effective moment
(Meff,Ed) − the influence of axial tension was taken into account by decreasing the magnitude of the
applied major-axis bending moment, before comparing it with the beam resistance against lateral-torsional
buckling (Mb,Rd). Figure 5.7 illustrates this concept for the case of a doubly symmetric I-section beam acted
by a bending moment diagram with maximum value My,Ed and axial tension Nt,Ed.
Figure 5.8 − Illustration of the effective moment concept on which the EC3-ENV-1-1 provisions are based
The value of Meff,Ed is obtained from the expression
Meff,Ed = Wcomp σcomp,Ed (5.1)
with Wcomp denoting the cross-section elastic modulus concerning the most compressed fibre and σcomp,Ed is
calculated by means of the expression
σcomp,Ed = MEd /Wcomp,Ed − ψvec NEd /A (5.2)
where the vectorial reduction factor ψvec takes the value 1.0 or 0.8 depending on whether the applied bending
moment and axial tension stem from the same or distinct actions − in the latter case, only 80% of the beneficial
effect is taken into account. If ψvec =1.0, σcomp,Ed is the maximum compressive stress acting on the
72
cross-section subjected to the highest bending moment. It is still worth noting that σcomp,Ed may be higher than
fy in class 1 or 2 cross-sections acted by bending moments exceeding Mel,Rk and small axial tension values.
Finally, the safety checking of the beams subjected to major-axis bending and axial tension merely
consisted of comparing Meff,Ed with the beam LTB resistance Mb,Rd, calculated as prescribed by EC3-ENV-1-1.
In order to compare the ultimate moments provided by the design approach proposed in this dissertation
and the design methodology prescribed in EC3-ENV-1-1, two illustrative examples are first presented, both
concerning IPE beams. In order to have a meaningful comparison, it is assumed that ψvec =1.0, i.e., that My,Ed
and Nt,Ed stem from the same action − otherwise, the calculation of Mcr should be based on only 80% of the
acting axial tension. Moreover, the value of Mb,Rd is calculated according to EC3-1-1 and not EC3-ENV-1-1
(the two values are not identical). Since axial tension benefits are captured differently in the two design
procedures (one increases the bending resistance and the other reduces the applied moment), it is necessary to
define a criterion for their comparison. The following one is adopted here: for a beam subjected to a bending
moment diagram with maximum value My,Ed and axial tension Nt,Ed, related by a given β value, and with LTB
resistance Mb,Rd (0) (without considering the axial tension beneficial influence), (i) the benefit of the
proposed approach is measured by the ratio RP=[Mb,Rd (Ntu,Ed) − Mb,Rd (0)]/Mb,Rd (0) and (ii) that associated with the
EC3-ENV-1-1 methodology by the ratio REC3=[Mb,Rd (0) − Meff,Ed (Ntu,Ed)]/Mb,Rd (0), where the calculation of
Meff,Ed (Ntu,Ed) is based on Mb,Rd (0) − in both cases, Ntu,Ed denotes the value of the axial tension at the beam lateral-
torsional collapse, calculated on the basis of the proposed design approach. Then, in order to assess the strength
increases, stemming from using the proposed design approach and the EC3-ENV-1-1 methodology, the
two aforementioned ratios are compared for all the beams analysed that collapse in modes governed by LTB −
the percentage difference between these two ratios, termed ΔRP-EC3, will be used to quantify this comparison.
The first illustrative example concerns a L=8 m S460 IPE 300 beam under uniform bending (ψ=1) and
subjected to a loading strategy corresponding to β=1. The corresponding design values are the following:
(i) Mb,Rd (Ntu,Ed)=85.9 kNm, (ii) Ntu,Ed=85.9 kN, (iii) Mb,Rd (0)=57.0 kNm and (iv) Meff,Rd (Ntu,Ed)=51.1 kNm.
They correspond to RP=0.51%, REC3=0.10 and, thus, ΔRP-EC3=41%.
The second illustrative example concerns a L=15 m S460 IPE 500 beam under a bending moment diagram
defined by ψ= − 1) and subjected to a loading strategy corresponding to β=0.5. The corresponding design
values are the following: (i) Mb,Rd (Ntu,Ed)=393.3 kNm, (ii) Ntu,Ed=196.7 kN, (iii) Mb,Rd (0)=335.9 kNm and
(iv) Meff,Rd (Ntu,Ed)=308.0 kNm. They correspond to RP=0.17, REC3=0.08 and, thus, ΔRP-EC3=9%.
Although the two illustrative examples indicate that the proposed design approach leads to higher benefits
stemming from the presence of axial tension that the methodology prescribed in EC3-ENV-1-1, such an
assertion can only be general after checking it against a much larger of beams. Therefore, the above comparison
is extended to 400 beams, exhibiting (i) various lengths (comprised between 0.5 and 25 m), (ii) two yield
stresses (fy=355; 460 MPa), (iii) four cross-section shapes (IPE 300, IPE 500, HEB 300, HEB 500), (iv) two
73
bending moment diagrams (ψ=1 and ψ= − 1), and (v) five axial tension levels, corresponding to β=Nt /My
ratios equal to 0.5; 0.75; 1.0; 1.5; 2.0 – this is a sizeable fraction of the parametric study carried out in Chapter 4.
Since all these beams collapse in modes governed lateral-torsional buckling, the corresponding ultimate
moments fall outside the design curve b plastic plateau, i.e., λLT >0.4 (ψ=1) and λLT >0.8 (ψ= − 1).
Figures 5.9 (ψ=1) and 5.10 (ψ= − 1) plot the ΔRP-EC values against the beam lateral-torsional slenderness λLT.
Moreover, Tables 5.4(a)-(b) provide the ΔRP-EC3 averages, standard deviations and maximum/minimum values
for the total number of beams considered. After observing these results, the following remarks are appropriate:
Figure 5.9 − Values of the ratio difference ΔRP-EC3 plotted against the beam slenderness (ψ=1)
Figure 5.10 − Values of the ratio difference ΔRP-EC3 plotted against the beam slenderness (ψ= − 1)
74
Table 5.4 − Averages, standard deviations and maximum/minimum values of ΔRP-EC3 for (a) ψ=1 and (b) ψ= − 1
Average St. Dev. Max Min Beam Number

esults.
ψ=1 23% 45% 195% − 42% 270
(a)
Average St. Dev. Max Min Beam Number
ψ = −1 10% 27% 102% − 37% 108
(b)
(i) First of all, it is readily observed the huge scatter of the ΔRP-EC3 values, particularly for ψ=1 − indeed, the
maximum and minimum values are 237% (ψ=1) and 139% (ψ= − 1) apart, even if the average
values (45% and 10%) are relatively small.
(ii) Then, it is also clear that the proposed design approach generally leads higher ultimate strength/moment
prediction increases due to the presence of axial tension. Moreover, the increases associated with
the uniformly bent beams (ψ=1) are naturally considerably larger than those concerning the
beams acted by ψ= − 1 bending moment diagrams − this is because the former are much more
prone to LTB, which means that “feel more intensely” the axial tension benefits.
(iii) However, in spite of what was mentioned in the previous two items, it is also noticeable that a
distinction must be made between the beams with low slenderness values (close to the design curve b
plastic plateau and, generally speaking, below 1.0) and those with λLT values above 1.0. For the vast
majority of the former beams, the use of the design methodology prescribed in EC3-ENV-1-1 leads to
higher axial tension benefits. Conversely, the proposed design approach ensures higher axial tension
benefits for virtually all the beams associated with λLT >1.0.
5.5 Summary
This chapter presented the development of a design approach aimed at predicting the ultimate strength/moment
of beams subjected to major-axis bending and axial tension whose collapse is governed by lateral-torsional
buckling. This approach consists of a slight modification of the current EC3-1-1 design rules for beams prone to
lateral-torsional buckling and, in particular, used its design curves to obtain the ultimate moment estimates.
The modification consists of calculating the beam slenderness on the basis of a critical moment value that
accounts for the beneficial effect of axial tension.
75
Out of the various conclusions drawn from the research work reported in this chapter, the following ones
deserve to be specially mentioned:
(i) Neglecting the influence of axial tension on the LTB behaviour of failure of beam subjected to major-axis
bending may lead to a considerable underestimation of their load-carrying capacity. This underestimation
is more pronounced for the beams more prone to lateral-torsional buckling (and, obviously, subjected to
higher axial tension levels).
(ii) The proposed design approach was shown to provide ultimate strength/moment estimates that correlate quite
well with the numerical values obtained from the parametric study performed in Chapter 4. Indeed, the
overwhelming majority of the predictions are safe and rather accurate.
(iii) The application of the proposed design approach is quite straightforward. The only difficulty concerns the
determination of critical moments of beams subjected to axial tension − this difficulty should be overcome by
developing easy-to-use formulae to calculate (more or less approximately) these critical moments.
(iv) The comparison between the ultimate moment estimates provided by the proposed design approach and the
design methodology prescribed in EC3-ENV-1-1 showed that, generally speaking, the former leads to
higher axial tension benefits than the latter. However, a closer observation of the results obtained made it
possible to conclude that the above assertion is mostly true for beams with λLT >1.0. For the lesser
slender beams, higher axial tension benefits can be achieved using the EC3-ENV-1-1 methodology.
76
Chapter 6
Conclusion and Future Developments
This dissertation reported the results of an analytical, numerical and experimental investigation on the
lateral-torsional stability, failure and design of hot-rolled steel I-section beams with fork-type end
supports and acted by simple transverse loadings (mostly applied end moments) and various axial
tension values. Initially, the derivation and validation of an analytical expression providing critical
buckling moments of uniformly bent beams subjected to tension was presented. Then, this analytical
finding was followed by a numerical study on the beneficial influence of axial tension on beams under
non-uniform bending, namely caused by unequal applied end moments − several beam finite element
results were presented and discussed in some detail. Next, the dissertation addressed the performance of two
experimental tests, carried out at the University of Fribourg and aimed at determining the behaviour
and ultimate strength of a narrow and a wide flange beams subjected to eccentric axial tension. These
results were also used to develop and validate FINELG beam and shell finite element models that were
subsequently employed to perform an extensive parametric study that (i) involved more than 2000 numerical
simulations, concerning beams with various cross-section shapes, lengths, yield stresses, bending moment
diagrams and axial tension levels, and (ii) was carried out to gather a fairly large ultimate strength/moment
data bank. Finally, these data were used to assess the merits of a design approach proposed for beams subjected
to tension and collapsing in modes governed by lateral-torsional buckling − this design approach
consists of slightly modifying the current procedure prescribed in Eurocode 3 to design beams against
lateral-torsional failures (through the incorporation of the axial tension influence on the critical buckling
moment that is used to evaluate the beam slenderness). The predictions of the proposed design approach
were also compared with those of the design procedure included in the ENV version of Eurocode 3, which
was later removed and is absent from the current version.

6.1 Concluding Remarks
The most relevant findings and conclusions of the research work carried out in this dissertation are the following:
(i) An analytical expression to calculate critical moments of doubly symmetric I-section beams subjected to
uniform bending and axial tension was developed and validated by means of a comparison with beam
finite element results. This expression made it possible to acquire in-depth knowledge about the beneficial
influence of axial tension on the beam lateral-torsional buckling behaviour, namely by increasing its
critical buckling moment (Mcr).
(ii) In order to assess the influence of the cross-section shape, bending moment diagram and loading
characteristics, and at the same time gather critical buckling moment data to be used subsequently in the
development of a design approach, a fairly wide numerical (ABAQUS beam finite element) parametric
study was carried out. Its results made it possible to conclude that the Mcr increase due to axial tension is
more pronounced for (ii1) slender beams, (ii2) cross-sections with narrow flanges (higher ratio between the
major and minor-axis moments of inertia) and (ii3) triangular moment distributions (ψ=0).
(iii) In order to obtain a better feel concerning the mechanics of the lateral-torsional collapse of beams
subjected to major-axis bending and axial tension, as well as to assemble experimental results to be used in
the development of a FINELG shell finite element model, two full scale tests were performed. They
involved beams subjected to eccentric tension and provided clear experimental evidence of the occurrence
of collapse modes governed by lateral-torsional buckling. Moreover, the beam specimens were fully
characterised prior to testing, namely by (iii1) carrying out tensile coupon tests to obtain the steel material
behaviour (stress-strain law) and (iii2) carefully measuring the beam initial geometrical imperfections.
(iv) The measurements and results gathered from the above two tests were then used to develop and validate a
FINELG shell finite element model. After the validation procedure, which required modelling the whole
test set-up to obtain an acceptable correlation between the numerical and experimental results, the shell
finite element model was used to develop and validate an accurate FINELG beam finite element model.
(v) The above beam finite element model was then employed to perform an extensive parametric study,
comprising about 2000 numerical simulations and aimed at gathering ultimate strength/moment data
concerning beams subjected to major-axis bending and axial tension and exhibiting collapse modes
stemming from either lateral-torsional buckling or plasticity effects (cross-section resistance). It was
shown clearly that, as expected, the presence axial tension either increases or reduces the ultimate
strength/moment, depending on whether failure is due to LTB or plasticity effects. It is worth noting
that the focus of this dissertation was beams failing in lateral-torsional collapse modes.
(vi) By plotting the extensive ultimate strength/moment data, normalised with respect to the cross-section
plastic resistance, against the beam lateral-torsional slenderness λLT, it became very clear that ultimate the
78
numerical Mu /Mpl values exhibited a typical “design curve” alignment, thus suggesting the development
of a design/strength curve to estimate them. Moreover, it was found that the axial tension benefits stem
from (vi1) decreasing the beam vulnerability to lateral-torsional buckling (critical buckling moment
increase that reduces λLT) and, therefore, (vi2) increasing the beam load-carrying capacity associated with
lateral-torsional collapses.
(vii) A design approach for beams subjected to major-axis bending (only end applied moments were dealt
with) and axial tension that collapse in lateral-torsional modes was developed and the quality of its
estimates was assessed by means of the comparison with the ultimate strength/moment data obtained
previously − a very good correlation was found for the overwhelming majority of the beams considered
(moreover, practically all the predictions are on the safe side). The proposed design approach consists of a
slight modification of the procedure currently prescribed in EC3-1-1 to determine the beam resistance
against lateral-torsional failures − the modification consists of determining λLT on the basis of a critical
buckling moments that account for the beneficial effect of axial tension.
(viii) The application of the proposed design approach is rather simple and straightforward. The only difficulty
resides in the determination of the critical moment of a beam subjected to major-axis bending and axial
tension. In order to overcome this hurdle, easy-to-use formulae to calculate (more or less approximately) such
critical moments are required.
(ix) It was clearly shown that neglecting the beneficial effect stemming from the presence of axial tension may
lead to highly over-conservative designs, particularly in the beams most prone to lateral-torsional buckling.
(x) Finally, a comparison between the ultimate moment estimates provided by the proposed design approach
and the design methodology prescribed in EC3-ENV-1-1 showed that, generally speaking, the former
leads to higher axial tension benefits (which were confirmed by the numerical results). However, it was
also found that the predictions provided by the EC3-ENV-1-1 methodology lead to higher axial tension
benefits for less slender beams (λLT <1.0), even if most of these predictions are most likely probably
unsafe (this fact was not checked in this work). Therefore, it seems fair to say that the proposed design
approach looks quite promising, at least in the context of the beams analysed in this dissertation.
Finally, it is still worth mentioning that the work reported in this dissertation originated two papers presented in
international conferences and published in the respective proceedings − moreover, a paper intended to
be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed international journal is currently under preparation. The
references of the above two publications are the following:
(i) Tomás J, Nseir J, Camotim D, Boissonnade N (2013). “Stability, failure and design of I-section beams
subjected to tension”, USB Key Drive Proceedings of Structural Stability Research Council Annual
Stability Conference (St. Louis, 16-20/4).
79
(ii) Tomás J, Nseir J, Camotim D, Boissonnade N (2013). “Stability, failure and design of I-section steel
beams subjected to tension”, Research and Applications in Structural Engineering, Mechanics and
Computation (SEMC-2013 − Cape Town, 2-4/9), A. Zingoni (ed.), Taylor & Francis (London), 465-466.
(full paper in CD-ROM Proceedings − 1303-1308).
6.2 Future Developments
This dissertation constitutes a first contribution towards understanding the structural behaviour and
providing design guidance concerning members subjected to major-axis bending and torsion. Although it is fair
to say that the output of the dissertation is clearly positive and successful, it is also important to recognise that
much remains to be done before this topic can be deemed mastered. Without claiming to be exhaustive, several
extensions of the work presented in this dissertation that require future research are listed below:
(i) Consideration of additional transverse loadings, namely those involving transverse loadings − in this case,
it is essential to consider the location of the point of application of the transverse loads (with respect to the
cross-section shear centre).
(ii) Consideration of additional beam end support conditions, namely those involving warping fixity.
(iii) Consideration of slender beams, namely class 3 and class 4 beams. This issue is particularly relevant, in
view of the current trend of the steel construction industry to use higher-grade steels exhibiting very large
yield stress values.
(iv) Assessment of whether the design approach proposed in this dissertation can be successfully applied to the
beams described in the previous three items − naturally, such an assessment requires also the performance
of a reasonable number of experimental tests. If successful, this task may lead to the proposal of design
provisions for beams under major-axis bending and torsion to be included in a future Eurocode 3 version.
(v) Extension of the work carried out in this dissertation, as well as all the topics listed above, to singly-
symmetric beams, namely welded beams with unequal flanges.
(vi) Extension of the work carried out in this dissertation, as well as of all the research concerning the
topics listed above, to beams subjected to bi-axial bending and torsion.
80
References
Boissonnade N, Greiner R, Jaspart J-P, Lindner J (2006). Rules for Member Stability in EN 1993-1-1:
Background Documentation and Design Guidelines (ECSS Technical Committee 8 − Stability), ECCS
Publication Nº 119, Brussels.
Boissonnade N, Somja H (2012). “Influence of imperfections in FEM modeling of lateral-torsional buckling”,
USB Key Drive Proceedings of SSRC Annual Stability Conference (Grapevine. 17-21/4).
Reis A & Camotim D, (2012). Estabilidade e Dimensionamento de Estruturas, Orion Press, Lisbon.
(Portuguese)
CEN (Comité Européen de Normalisation) (1992). Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures − Part 1.1: General
Rules and Rules for Buildings (ENV 1993-1-1). Brussels.
CEN (Comité Européen de Normalisation) (2005). Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures − Part 1.1: General
Rules and Rules for Buildings (EN 1993-1-1), Brussels.
Chen W-F, Atsuta T (1977). Theory of Beam-Columns − Space Behavior and Design (vol. 2), McGraw-Hill.
New York.
Culver C (1966). “Exact solution of the biaxial bending equations”, Journal of the Structural Division (ASCE),
92(2), 63-83.
Falgoust MK (2004). On the validity of the Wagner Hypothesis in Thin-Walled Open-Profile

Members, M.A.Sc. Thesis in Civil Engineering, University of Pittsburgh.
FINELG (Non-Linear Finite Element Analysis Program) (2012). User’s Manual (vrs. 9.3), ArGEnCo
Department, University of Liège and Greisch Info S.A.. Liège.
Fukumoto Y, Galambos T (1966). “Inelastic lateral-torsional buckling of beam-columns”, Journal of Structural
Division (ASCE), 92(2), 41-55.
Memon, B-A, Su X-Z. (2003). “Arc-length technique for nonlinear finite element analysis”, Journal of
Zhejiang University − Science, Department of Structural Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai.
Mendonça P. (2006). Dimensionamento de Colunas-Viga através das Equações de Interacção do Eurocódigo 3,
M.A.Sc. Dissertation (Structural Engineering), Instituto Superior Técnico, Technical University of Lisbon.
(Portuguese)
Simulia Inc. (2008). Abaqus Standard (vrs. 6.7-5).
Tededge N, Alpsten G, Tall L, (1973). “Residual stress measurement by the sectioning method”, Proceedings of
the Society of Experimental Stress Analysis”, 30, nº1.
Trahair NS (1993). Flexural Torsional Buckling of Structures, E&FN Spon (Chapman & Hall), London.
Ville de Goyet V (1989). L’Analyse Statique Non Linéaire par la Méthode des Élements Finis des Structures
Spatiales Formées de Poutres à Section Symétrique. Ph.D. Thesis in Applied Science, University of Liège.
(French)
Vlasov VZ (1961), Thin-walled Elastic Beams, English translation by the National Science Foundation and
Department of Commerce, Washington D.C.
82

Annexes
Annex 1 Analytical formula to calculate critical buckling moments of beams
subjected to uniform major-‐axis bending and axial tension .............................. A1.1

Annex 2 Numerical data: critical moments, ultimate moment values and
ultimate moment estimates ........................................................................................... A2.1

A2.1. Proposed ultimate moment estimates and design results -‐ IPE300 beams ................... A2.3
A2.2. Proposed ultimate moment estimates and design results -‐ IPE500 beams ................ A2.19

Annex 3 Measured initial geometrical imperfections ............................................................ A3.1

84
Annex 1: Analytical Formula to Calculate Critical Buckling Moments of Beams
Subjected to Uniform Major-Axis Bending and Axial Tension
This annex concerns the establishment and analytical solution of the differential equilibrium
equations governing the lateral-torsional buckling behaviour of doubly symmetric beams subjected
to uniform major-axis uniform bending and axial tension. Figure A1.1 depicts the beam deformed
configuration at an equilibrium state adjacent to the fundamental equilibrium path − also shown are
(i) the coordinate axes at the beam undeformed (x-y-z − corresponding to displacements w-v-u) and
deformed (ζ-η-ξ) configurations and (ii) the applied/external forces and moments. In the undeformed
and deformed configuration, the y-z and ζ-η axes coincide with the cross-section centroidal principal
axes. As for the ξ axis, it is tangent to the beam deformed longitudinal axis ζ.
Figure A1.1 – Beam undeformed and deformed (adjacent equilibrium state) configurations, including the corresponding
coordinate axes and the applied forces and moments
In the case of a beam under uniform major-axis bending (My) and axial tension (Nt), the
applied forces and moments at the deformed configuration shown in Figure A1.1, expressed
in terms of the undeformed coordinate axes, read
𝐹! −𝑁!
𝐹! = 0 (A.1)
𝐹! 0
𝑀! 0 0 𝑢 −𝑣 −𝑁! 0 (A.2)
𝑀! = 𝑀! + −𝑢 0 𝑥 0 = 𝑀! + 𝑢𝑁!
𝑀! 0 𝑣 −𝑥 0 0 −𝑣𝑁 !
By using the rotation matrix 𝑅 , associated with the hypothesis of “small displacements and
moderate rotations” and defined by Chen & Atsuta (1977)
A1-1
𝜁 𝑥
𝜂 = 𝑅 𝑦 (A.3)
𝜉 𝑧
cos(𝜁 𝑥) cos(𝜁 𝑦) cos(𝜁 𝑧) 1 𝑣′ 𝑢′

𝑅 = cos(𝜂 𝑥) cos(𝜂 𝑦) cos(𝜂 𝑧) = −𝑣′ 1 𝜙
cos(𝜉 𝑥) cos(𝜉 𝑦) cos(𝜉 𝑧) −𝑢′ −𝜙 1 (A.4)
it is possible to rewrite the applied/external moments in terms of the deformed coordinate axes, as
𝑀! 1 𝑣′ 𝑢′ −𝑢𝑁!
𝑀! = −𝑣′ 1 𝜙 𝑀! + 𝑢𝑁! (A.5)
𝑀! −𝑢′ −𝜙 1 −𝑣𝑁!
!"#
In the equation system (A.5), it is worth noting that the three equations concern the bending
moment and bi-moment equilibrium in the beam deformed configuration and are written with respect
to the deformed location of the origin of the cross-section coordinate system (𝜂, 𝜉) − note that, since
only doubly symmetric beams are dealt with in this work, this origin coincides with both the cross-
section centroid and shear/torsion centre.
The next step in the establishment of the beam differential equilibrium equations consists of
developing generalised elastic stress-strain relationships, based on the assumption of a linear
longitudinal extension variation over the whole cross section. Following the work of Chen & Atsuta
(1977) and using the deformed configuration coordinate system (𝜁 , 𝜂 , 𝜉 ), the longitudinal
extensions can be related to the cross-section generalised deformations, namely the axial extension
ε! , the two principal flexural curvatures 𝜒! and 𝜒 ! , and the “twistature” 𝜃′′! (adopting the
neologism coined by Trahair, 1993), by means of the expression
𝜀 = 𝜀! + 𝜒! 𝜉 − 𝜒! 𝜂 − 𝜁𝜃 !! ! = 𝜀! + 𝜃 !! ! 𝜉 − 𝜃 !! ! 𝜂 − 𝜁𝜃 !! ! (A.6)
where in which 𝜃! , 𝜃! and 𝜃! are the cross-section rotations about the coordinate axes ζ – η – ξ.
Taking into account that the longitudinal normal stresses are obtained from the axial extensions
through the multiplication by the material (steel) Young’s modulus, the cross-section stress
resultants (internal forces and moments) stemming from these normal stresses are given by
Axial Force 𝑁! = 𝜎 𝑑𝐴 𝑁! = 𝐸𝐴𝜀! (A.7)
Bending Moments 𝑀! = 𝜎 𝜉 𝑑𝐴 𝑀! = 𝐸𝐼! 𝜒! (A.8)
𝑀! = − 𝜎 𝜂 𝑑𝐴 𝑀! = − 𝐸𝐼! 𝜒! (A.9)
A1-2
Bi-moment 𝑀𝜁 = 𝜎𝜁 𝑑𝐴 𝑀𝜁 = −𝐸𝐼! 𝜃′′!
(A.10)
where A, Iy, Iz and Iw are the cross-sectional area, major and minor moments of inertia and
warping constant. In other words, the longitudinal normal stresses acting on the are given by
𝑁! 𝑀! 𝑀! 𝑀𝜁
𝜎 = + 𝜉− 𝜂+ 𝜁 (A.11)
𝐴 𝐼! 𝐼! 𝐼!
Concerning the torsional/twisting moment equilibrium, it reads (Chen & Atsuta, 1977)
𝑀! = 𝑇! + 𝑇!" = −𝐸𝐼! 𝜃 !!! ! + 𝐺𝐼! 𝜃′! (A.12)
where the first and second terms in the right hand side stand for the warping and Saint-Venant
torsional moments − while the former is caused by the shear stress resultant stemming from the
longitudinal variation of the bi-moment (the so-called bi-shear shear stresses constant across the wall
thickness), the latter is due to the Saint-Venant shear stresses (linear across the wall thickness)
stemming from the longitudinal variation of the cross-section torsional rotation (Trahair, 1993).
Moreover, it is still necessary to take into account a second-order effect associated with the
longitudinal normal stresses caused by the axial load and bi-moment, which is designated in the
literature as “Wagner effect”. According to Falgoust (2004), Wagner’s hypothesis states that when a
thin-walled open-section member is subjected to longitudinal normal stresses and begins to twist,
these normal stresses become inclined with respect to the deformed cross-section plane and, therefore,
produce a torsional moment about the member deformed longitudinal axis tangent − see Figure A1.2.
The contribution of the normal stress acting at a given fibre is proportional to its distance to the cross-
section shear centre (coincident with the centroid in doubly symmetric beams) − its value is given
through the multiplication by
Figure A1.2 − Wagner effect due to inclined longitudinal normal stresses (Chen & Atsuta, 1977)
A1-3
𝑠𝜃′! = 𝜂 − 𝜂! ! + 𝜉 − 𝜉! ! 𝜃′! (A.13)
where s is the distance to the cross section to the shear centre and 𝜃′! is the twist (derivative
of the torsional rotation) − see Figure A1.2. Then, the total contribution is given by 𝐾𝜃′!
𝑇! = 𝜎𝑠 ! 𝜃′! 𝑑𝐴 = 𝐾𝜃′! (A.14)
where 𝐾 is the “Wagner coefficient” − for doubly symmetric section and when the normal stresses
due to axial loading are the most relevant ones (recall that no applied bi-moments are considered in this
work), (A.14) may be simplified to (Chen & Atsuta, 1977)
𝑁!
𝐾= 𝜎𝑠 ! 𝑑𝐴 𝐾𝜃′! ≈ 𝜂 − 𝜂! !
+ 𝜉 − 𝜉! !
𝑑𝐴 = 𝑁! 𝑟! ! (A.15)
𝐴
where 𝑟! is the cross-section polar radius of gyration.
Then, the total equilibrium reads
𝑀! = −𝐸𝐼! 𝜃 !!! ! + 𝐺𝐼! + 𝐾 𝜃′! (A.16)
Before equating the external/applied and internal axial force, major and minor-axis bending
moments and torsional/twisting moment (i.e., establishing the equilibrium equations governing the
“tensioned beam” lateral-torsional buckling behaviour), it is necessary to express the latter in the
undeformed beam coordinate system (x-y-z), corresponding to displacements (w-v-u) − see Figure A1.1.
Under the assumption of the small displacements and moderate rotations, the rotation first derivatives
can be written as
𝜃 !! 1 𝑣′ 𝑢′ −𝑢′′ −𝑢 !! + 𝑣 ! 𝑣 !! + 𝑢′𝜙′
𝜃 ! ! = −𝑣′ 1 𝜙 𝑣′′ = 𝑣 ! 𝑢 !! + 𝑣 !! + 𝜙𝜙′ (A.17)
𝜃 !! −𝑢′ −𝜙 1 𝜙′ 𝑢 ! 𝑢 !! − 𝜙𝑣 !! + 𝜙′
Then, the corresponding torsional rotation second and third derivatives (i.e., the “twistature” and
its first derivative) read
𝜃 !! ! = 𝑢 !! !
+ 𝑢 ! 𝑢 !!! − 𝜙′𝑣 !! − 𝜙𝑣 !!! + 𝜙′′ (A.18)
𝜃 !!! ! ≈ −𝜙′′𝑣 !!! − 𝜙𝑣 !!! + 𝜙′′′ (A.19)
where the fourth derivative was neglected in (A.19). Finally, the axial strain is given by
! !
𝜀! = 𝑤 ! + 𝑣! !
+ 𝑢! !
(A.20)
! !
A1-4
Using the above relationships, the internal axial force, bending moments and torsional/twisting
moment are expressed as (see equations (A.7)-(A.10) )
! !
−𝑁! 𝐴 0 0 0 𝑤! + 𝑣! !
+ 𝑢! !′
! !
𝑀! =𝐸 0 𝐼! 0 0 −𝑢 + 𝑣 ! 𝑣 !! + 𝑢′𝜙′
!! (A.21)
𝑀! 0 0 𝐼! 0 𝑣 ! 𝑢 !! + 𝑣 !! + 𝜙𝜙′
!"#
!!!
𝑀! = −𝐸𝐼! 𝑢 ! 𝑢 !! − 𝜙𝑣 !! + 𝜙 + 𝐺𝐼! + 𝐾 −𝜙 !!! − 𝜙𝑣 !!! + 𝜙 !!! −
−𝐸𝐼! ( 𝑢 !! !
+ 𝑢 ! 𝑢 !!! − 𝜙′𝑣 !! − 𝜙𝑣 !!! + 𝜙′′) (A.22)
Taking into account that the external forces are given by (see equation (A.5))
−𝑁! 1 0 0 0 −𝑁!
𝑀! 0 1 𝜙 −𝑣′ 𝑀! + 𝑢𝑁!
𝑀! = (A.23)
0 −𝜙 1 −𝑢′ −𝑣𝑁!
𝑀! 0 𝑣′ 𝑢′ 1 −𝑢𝑁!
!"#
and equating the external and internal axial forces, bending moments and torsional/twisting
moments, one is led to (note that, since only adjacent equilibrium is sought, all the non-linear terms
are neglected)
𝐴 0 0 𝑤! 1 0 0 0 −𝑁!
𝐸 0 𝐼! 0 −𝑢 !! = 0 1 𝜙 −𝑣′ 𝑀! + 𝑢𝑁! (A.24)
0 0 𝐼! 𝑣 !! 0 −𝜙 1 −𝑢′ −𝑣𝑁!
−𝑁!
𝜃 !!! ! 𝑀! + 𝑢𝑁!
−𝐸𝐼! 𝐺𝐼! + 𝐾 = 0 𝑣′ 𝑢′ 1 (A.25)
𝜃 !! −𝑣𝑁!
−𝑢𝑁!
or, in explicit form
𝐸𝐴𝑤 ! = −𝑁! (A.26)
−𝐸𝐼! 𝑢 !! = 𝑀! + 𝑢𝑁! + 𝑣𝜙𝑁! ⟺ 𝐸𝐼! 𝑢 !! + 𝑀! + 𝑁! 𝑢 = 0 (A.27)
𝐸𝐼! 𝑣 !! = −𝜙𝑀! − 𝑢𝜙𝑁! − 𝑣𝑁! ⟺ 𝐸𝐼! 𝑢 !! + 𝑀! + 𝑁! 𝑢 = 0 (A.28)
−𝐸𝐼! 𝜙 !!! ! + 𝐺𝐼! + 𝐾 𝜙 ! ! = 𝑣 ! 𝑀! ⟺ 𝐸𝐼! 𝜙 !!! ! − 𝐺𝐼! + 𝐾 𝜙 ! ! + 𝑣 ! 𝑀! = 0 (A.29)
where it should be noted that equation (A.26) is trivially satisfied. In order to render the solution
of the above equation system easier, it is convenient to rewrite it as the fourth-order differential
equation system (Chen & Atsuta, 1977)
A1-5
𝐸𝐼! 𝑢 !" + 𝑁! 𝑢 !! = 0 (A.30)
𝐸𝐼! 𝑣 !" + 𝑁! 𝑣 !! + 𝑀! 𝜙′′ = 0 (A.31)
𝐸𝐼! 𝜙 !" − 𝐺𝐼! + 𝑁! 𝑟! ! 𝜙 !! + 𝑀! 𝑣 !! = 0 (A.32)
Since (i) equation (A.30) concerns the major-axis bending moment equilibrium along the tensioned
beam fundamental equilibrium path and (ii) the pre-buckling deformation is neglected (in this case,
its consideration would lead to a beam stiffening effect − neglecting such effect is conservative, in
the sense that higher critical moments are obtained), this equation can be disregarded and the
critical buckling moment is provided by the solution of the eigenvalue problem defined by equations
(A.31) and (A.32). Making My≡M and integrating these two equations twice leads to the following
system of second-order differential equations.
𝐸𝐼! 𝑣 !! − 𝑁! 𝑣 + 𝑀 𝜙 = 𝐶! 𝑥 + 𝐶! (A.33)
𝐸𝐼! 𝜙 !! − 𝐺𝐼! + 𝑁! 𝑟! ! 𝜙 + 𝑀𝑣 = 𝐶! 𝑥 + 𝐶! (A.34)
whose complete solution consists of two parts, namely a particular solution and a complementary
solution. Since the terms on the right hand sides of these equations are linear functions of x, their
particular solutions 𝑣! and 𝜙! must satisfy the relations
−𝑁𝑡 𝑣 + 𝑀 𝜙 = 𝐶! 𝑥 + 𝐶! (A.35)
− 𝐺𝐼! + 𝑁𝑡 𝑟! ! 𝜙 + 𝑀𝑣 = 𝐶! 𝑥 + 𝐶! (A.36)
which means that they are given by
𝐶! 𝑥 + 𝐶! 𝐺𝐼! + 𝑁𝑡 𝑟! ! + 𝐶! 𝑥 + 𝐶! 𝑀
𝑣! =
𝑀 ! − 𝑁𝑡 𝐺𝐼! + 𝑁𝑡 𝑟! ! (A.37)
𝐶! 𝑥 + 𝐶! 𝑀 𝑁𝑡 + 𝐶! 𝑥 + 𝐶! (A.38)
𝜙! =
𝑁𝑡 𝑀 𝑁𝑡 ! + 𝑟! ! − 𝐺𝐼!
On the other hand, the complementary solutions 𝑣! and 𝜙𝑝 are determined by solving the
homogeneous system of second-order differential equilibrium equation system
𝐸𝐼! 𝑣 !! − 𝑁𝑡 𝑣 + 𝑀 𝜙 = 0 (A.39)
𝐸𝐼! 𝜙 !! − 𝐺𝐼! + 𝑁𝑡 𝑟! ! 𝜙 + 𝑀𝑣 = 0 (A.40)
In the most general case, the solution of the above system is of the form 𝑣 = 𝐴! 𝑒 !" and
𝜙 = 𝐴! 𝑒 !" , and its incorporation into equations (A.39) and (A.40), together with the assemblage of
the terms 𝑒 !" , leads to the algebraic equation system
A1-6
EI! D! − 𝑁𝑡 𝑀 v 0
𝑀 EI! D! − GI! + 𝑁𝑡 r! ! 𝜙 = 0 (A.41)
whose non-trivial solutions are obtained by solving the characteristic equation
𝐸𝐼! 𝐷 ! − 𝑁! 𝐸𝐼! 𝐷 ! − 𝐺𝐼! + 𝑁! 𝑟! ! − 𝑀 !

=0 (A.42)
It can be shown (Culver, 1966) that the four solutions of (A.42) are of the form 𝐷 = ±𝑖𝜆! and
𝐷 = ±𝜆! , where λ1 and λ2 must be evaluated numerically. Then, the complementary solutions
v! and ϕ! are given by
𝑀 1
𝑣! = − 𝐵 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝜆! 𝑥 + 𝐵! 𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝜆! 𝑥
𝐸𝐼! −𝜆! ! − 𝜆! ! !
(A.43)
1
+ 𝐵! 𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ 𝜆! 𝑥 + 𝐵! 𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ 𝜆! 𝑥
𝜆! ! − 𝜆! !
(A.44)
𝜙! = 𝐵! 𝑠𝑖𝑛 (𝜆! 𝑥) + 𝐵! 𝑐𝑜𝑠 (𝜆! 𝑥) + 𝐵! 𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ (𝜆! 𝑥) + 𝐵! 𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ (𝜆! 𝑥)
(A.45)
𝑁𝑡
𝜆! ! =
𝐸𝐼!
Finally, the complete solution of the original system reads
𝑣 = 𝑣! + 𝑣! (A.46)
𝜙 = 𝜙! + 𝜙! (A.47)
where the eight integrations constants are determined from the beam end supporting conditions,
concerning the lateral displacement and torsional rotation values and second derivatives at the beam
end cross-sections, through the equations
𝑀 𝐵! 𝐵! 𝐶! 𝐺𝐼! + 𝑁! 𝑟! ! + 𝐶! 𝑀 (
𝑣 0 = 0 ⇔ − ! !+ ! ! + =0 (A.48)
𝐸𝐼! −𝜆! − 𝜆! 𝜆! − 𝜆! 𝑀2 − 𝑁! 𝐺𝐼𝑡 + 𝑁! 𝑟0 2
𝑀 −𝜆! ! 𝜆! !
𝑣 !! 0 = 0 ⇔ − 𝐵 + 𝐵 =0 (A.49)
𝐸𝐼! −𝜆! ! − 𝜆! ! ! 𝜆! ! − 𝜆! ! !
𝐶! 𝑀 𝑁! + 𝐶!
𝜙 0 = 0 ⇔ 𝐵! + 𝐵! + =0 (A.50)
𝑁! 𝑀 𝑁! 2 + 𝑟0 2 − 𝐺𝐼𝑡
𝜙 !! 0 = 0 ⇔ −𝜆! ! 𝐵! + 𝜆! ! 𝐵! = 0 (A.51)
A1-7
𝑀 𝐵! 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝜆! 𝐿 𝐵! 𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ 𝜆! 𝐿 𝐶! 𝐿 𝐺𝐼! + 𝑁! 𝑟! ! + 𝐶! 𝐿 𝑀 A.52)
𝑣 𝐿 =− + + =0
𝐸𝐼! −𝜆! ! − 𝜆! ! 𝜆! ! − 𝜆! ! 2
𝑀 − 𝑁! 𝐺𝐼𝑡 + 𝑁! 𝑟0 2
𝑀 𝐵! 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝜆! 𝐿 ! 𝐵! 𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ 𝜆! 𝐿
𝑣′′ 𝐿 = − −𝜆! ! ! ! + 𝜆! =0 (A.53)
𝐸𝐼! −𝜆! − 𝜆! 𝜆! ! − 𝜆! !
𝐶! 𝐿 𝑀 𝑁! + 𝐶! 𝐿
𝜙 𝐿 = 𝐵! 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝜆! 𝐿 + 𝐵! 𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ 𝜆! 𝐿 + =0 (A.54)
𝑁! 𝑀 𝑁! 2 + 𝑟0 2 − 𝐺𝐼𝑡
𝜙′′ 𝐿 = −𝜆! ! 𝐵! 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝜆! 𝐿 + 𝜆! ! 𝐵! 𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ 𝜆! 𝐿 = 0 (A.55)
From the above first four equations ((A.48) to (A.51)), it can be readily concluded that
𝐵! = 𝐵! = 𝐶! = 𝐶! = 0. From the last four equations ((A. 52) to (A.55)), it can also be easily
concluded that C1=C3=0. As for B5 and B7, they can be either (i) null, which corresponds to the trivial
solution, or (ii) arbitrary, provided that the following conditions hold,
𝑖 𝜋
𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ 𝜆! 𝐿 = 0 ⇒ 𝜆! = (A.56)
𝐿
𝜋
𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝜆! 𝐿 = 0 ⇒ 𝜆! = (A.57)
𝐿
! ! !
Finally, since sinh L = sin L , the expressions providing of the two eigenmodes
! !
of the problem, 𝑢 and 𝜙, read
𝜋
𝑣 𝑥 = 𝐵! 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝑥 (A.58)
𝐿
𝜋
𝜙 𝑥 = 𝐵! 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝑥 (A.59)
𝐿
Introducing now the above eigenmode expressions in equations (A.33) and (A.34), they become
𝜋 ! 𝜋 𝜋 ! 𝜋 𝜋 ! 𝜋
𝐸𝐼! 𝐵! 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝑥 − 𝑁𝑡 −𝐵! 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝑥 + 𝑀 − 𝐵! 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝑥 =0 (A.60)
𝐿 𝐿 𝐿 𝐿 𝐿 𝐿
𝜋 ! 𝜋 𝜋 ! 𝜋 𝜋 ! 𝜋
𝐸𝐼! 𝐵! 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝑥 − 𝐺𝐼! + 𝑁! 𝑟! ! − 𝐵! 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝑥 + 𝑀 −𝐵! 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝑥 =0 (A.61)
𝐿 𝐿 𝐿 𝐿 𝐿 𝐿
and may be rewritten as
𝑃!",! + 𝑁𝑡 𝑀 𝐵! 0
= (A.62)
𝑀 𝑃𝑐𝑟,𝜙 + 𝑁𝑡 𝑟! ! 𝐵! 0
where
A1-8
𝜋 ! 𝐸𝐼! (A.63)
𝑃!",! =
𝐿!
𝜋 ! 𝐸𝐼! 1
𝑃!",! = !
+ 𝐺𝐼!
𝐿 𝑟! ! (A.64)
are the symmetric of the (i) minor-axis flexural and (ii) torsional buckling loads of this member
when subjected to uniform compression only (i.e., treated as a “pure column”). Since B5 and B7 are
both non-null, the solution of the eingenvalue problem defined by equation (A.62) correspond
to the readily obtainable root of the characteristic equation
𝑃!",! + 𝑁! 𝑃!",! + 𝑁! 𝑟! ! − 𝑀 ! = 0 (A.65)
Taking into account that the solution of equation (A.65) for Nt=0 (i.e., for the case of a
simply supported “pure beam” under uniform bending) is given by
𝜋 𝜋 ! 𝐸𝐼!
𝑀!" (0) = 𝑟! 𝑃!",! ∙ 𝑃!",! = ∙ 𝐸𝐼! ∙ 𝐺𝐼! ∙ 1+ (A.66)
𝐿 𝐿! 𝐺𝐼!
equation (A.65) can be cast in the form
𝑁! 𝑁! 𝑀!
1+ 1+ = !
(A.67)
𝑃!",! 𝑃!",! 𝑀!" (0)
which leads to
𝑁! 𝑁!
𝑀!" (𝑁! ) = 1+ 1+ 𝑀!" (0) (A.68)
𝑃!",! 𝑃!",!
The above expression provides the critical buckling moment of a beam subjected to uniform
bending and an axial tension Nt. It is clearly demonstrated that the axial tension leads to a critical
moment increase, thus reducing the beam susceptibility to lateral-torsional buckling.
A1-9
A1-10
Annex 2: Numerical Data: Critical Moments, Ultimate Moment Values
and Ultimate Moment Estimates

This Annex presents the (i) numerical critical buckling moments and ultimate moments obtained from
the parametric studies reported in Chapters 2 and 4, respectively, and (ii) the ultimate moment
estimates provided by the design approach proposed in Chapter 5. The numerical data are included in
four distinct sections, each of them concerning beams exhibiting the same cross-section: IPE 300
(section A2.1), IPE 500 (section A2.2) HEA 300 (section A2.3) and HEA 500 (section A2.4).
In the above sections, the information is provided in different tables, one per combination of
beam geometry (cross-section shape and length), steel yield stress and bending moment diagram. In
each table and for each β value considered in this work, the results displayed are the beam (i)
critical moment Mcr (accounting for the axial tension) (ii) plastic moment Mpl,Rk, (iii) reduced (by the
axial tension) plastic bending resistance MN,Rk, (iv) numerical ultimate moment Mu, (v) lateral-torsional
slenderness λLT (based on Mcr(Nt) and Mpl,Rk), (vi) reduction factor χLT.mod (obtained with the EC3-1-1
curve b), (vii) ultimate moment prediction Mb,Rd (provided by the EC3-1-1 curve b) and (viii)
numerical-to-estimated ultimate moment ratio RM=Mu /Mu.est, where Mu.est is the lower between MN,Rk
and Mb,Rd. When Mu.est=MN,Rk (mostly shorter beams), it should be noted that some RM values exceed 1.0
(up to 15%) − this somewhat surprising fact is due to the small strain-hardening exhibited by the
employed steel constitutive law model, which leads to some degree of cross-section over-strength.

A2 -‐ 1

A2 -‐ 2
A2.1. Proposed ultimate moment estimates and design results - IPE300 beams
IPE300 / L = 0.5 m / fy = 355 MPa

ψ = 1
β Mcr [kNm] Mpl,Rk [kNm] MN,Rk [kNm] Mu [kNm] λLT XLT Mb,Rd [kNm] Mu,est [kNm] RM
0 6612,8 223,2 223,2 244,2 0,184 1,000 223,2 223,2 1,09
0,5 7067,0 223,2 222,0 242,9 0,178 1,000 223,2 222,0 1,08
0,75 7235,8 223,2 220,2 241,0 0,176 1,000 223,2 220,2 1,07
1 7582,8 223,2 218,4 239,1 0,172 1,000 223,2 218,4 1,09
1,5 8172,2 223,2 213,1 233,1 0,165 1,000 223,2 213,1 1,10
2 8850,1 223,2 206,3 225,7 0,159 1,000 223,2 206,3 1,09
ψ = 0.5
0 8705,8 223,2 223,2 224,3 0,160 1,000 223,2 223,2 1,01
0,5 9497,9 223,2 222,0 228,8 0,153 1,000 223,2 222,0 1,03
0,75 9876,5 223,2 220,2 230,2 0,150 1,000 223,2 220,2 1,05
1 10431,9 223,2 218,4 235,7 0,146 1,000 223,2 218,4 1,08
1,5 11543,9 223,2 213,1 236,5 0,139 1,000 223,2 213,1 1,11
2 12880,6 223,2 206,3 237,2 0,132 1,000 223,2 206,3 1,15
ψ = 0
0 11953,3 223,2 223,2 202,5 0,137 1,000 223,2 223,2 0,91
0,5 13358,3 223,2 222,0 204,5 0,129 1,000 223,2 222,0 0,92
0,75 12345,8 223,2 220,2 208,9 0,134 1,000 223,2 220,2 0,95
1 15059,5 223,2 218,4 216,6 0,122 1,000 223,2 218,4 0,99
1,5 17130,8 223,2 213,1 219,5 0,114 1,000 223,2 213,1 1,03
2 19657,0 223,2 206,3 223,7 0,107 1,000 223,2 206,3 1,08
ψ = -‐0.5
0 15755,0 223,2 223,2 197,5 0,119 1,000 223,2 223,2 0,88
0,5 17699,5 223,2 222,0 203,9 0,112 1,000 223,2 222,0 0,92
0,75 18563,8 223,2 220,2 206,7 0,110 1,000 223,2 220,2 0,94
1 20004,9 223,2 218,4 207,3 0,106 1,000 223,2 218,4 0,95
1,5 22738,7 223,2 213,1 221,2 0,099 1,000 223,2 213,1 1,04
2 25971,4 223,2 206,3 228,1 0,093 1,000 223,2 206,3 1,11
ψ = -‐1
0 15755,0 223,2 223,2 197,5 0,119 1,000 223,2 223,2 0,88
0,5 17699,5 223,2 222,0 203,9 0,112 1,000 223,2 222,0 0,92
0,75 18563,8 223,2 220,2 206,7 0,110 1,000 223,2 220,2 0,94
1 20004,9 223,2 218,4 207,3 0,106 1,000 223,2 218,4 0,95
1,5 22738,7 223,2 213,1 221,2 0,099 1,000 223,2 213,1 1,04
2 25971,4 223,2 206,3 228,1 0,093 1,000 223,2 206,3 1,11
$
IPE300 / L = 0.5 m / fy = 460 MPa

ψ = 1
0 6612,8 289,2 289,2 317,0 0,209 1,000 289,2 289,2 1,10
0,5 7067,0 289,2 287,6 315,3 0,202 1,000 289,2 287,6 1,11
0,75 7235,8 289,2 285,3 312,8 0,200 1,000 289,2 285,3 1,08
1 7582,8 289,2 283,1 310,3 0,195 1,000 289,2 283,1 1,09
1,5 8172,2 289,2 276,1 302,6 0,188 1,000 289,2 276,1 1,10
2 8850,1 289,2 267,3 293,0 0,181 1,000 289,2 267,3 1,10
ψ = 0.5
0 8705,8 289,2 289,2 289,8 0,182 1,000 289,2 289,2 1,00
0,5 9497,9 289,2 287,6 285,3 0,174 1,000 289,2 287,6 0,99
0,75 9876,5 289,2 285,3 288,4 0,171 1,000 289,2 285,3 1,01
1 10431,9 289,2 283,1 289,8 0,166 1,000 289,2 283,1 1,02
1,5 11543,9 289,2 276,1 286,3 0,158 1,000 289,2 276,1 1,04
2 12880,6 289,2 267,3 282,3 0,150 1,000 289,2 267,3 1,06
ψ = 0
0 11953,3 289,2 289,2 267,3 0,156 1,000 289,2 289,2 0,92
0,5 13358,3 289,2 287,6 265,4 0,147 1,000 289,2 287,6 0,92
0,75 12345,8 289,2 285,3 262,5 0,153 1,000 289,2 285,3 0,92
1 15059,5 289,2 283,1 277,3 0,139 1,000 289,2 283,1 0,98
1,5 17130,8 289,2 276,1 281,9 0,130 1,000 289,2 276,1 1,02
2 19657,0 289,2 267,3 275,5 0,121 1,000 289,2 267,3 1,03
ψ = -‐0.5
0 15755,0 289,2 289,2 263,6 0,135 1,000 289,2 289,2 0,91
0,5 17699,5 289,2 287,6 266,4 0,128 1,000 289,2 287,6 0,93
0,75 18563,8 289,2 285,3 273,6 0,125 1,000 289,2 285,3 0,96
1 20004,9 289,2 283,1 277,4 0,120 1,000 289,2 283,1 0,98
1,5 22738,7 289,2 276,1 278,3 0,113 1,000 289,2 276,1 1,01
2 25971,4 289,2 267,3 276,6 0,106 1,000 289,2 267,3 1,03
ψ = -‐1
0 15443,0 289,2 289,2 280,6 0,137 1,000 289,2 289,2 0,97
0,5 16967,6 289,2 287,6 290,5 0,131 1,000 289,2 287,6 1,01
0,75 1737,0 289,2 285,3 294,5 0,408 1,000 289,2 285,3 1,03
1 18731,3 289,2 283,1 288,6 0,124 1,000 289,2 283,1 1,02
1,5 20777,1 289,2 276,1 285,4 0,118 1,000 289,2 276,1 1,03
2 23153,1 289,2 267,3 274,4 0,112 1,000 289,2 267,3 1,03
$
IPE300 / L = 1 m / fy = 355 MPa

ψ = 1
0 1798,2 223,2 223,2 211,6 0,352 1,000 223,2 223,2 0,95
0,5 1865,8 223,2 222,0 213,9 0,346 1,000 223,2 222,0 0,96
0,75 1922,7 223,2 220,2 216,9 0,341 1,000 223,2 220,2 0,98
1 2065,3 223,2 218,4 219,6 0,329 1,000 223,2 218,4 1,01
1,5 2230,0 223,2 213,1 221,5 0,316 1,000 223,2 213,1 1,04
2 2422,1 223,2 206,3 222,0 0,304 1,000 223,2 206,3 1,08
ψ = 0.5
0 2373,5 223,2 223,2 240,0 0,307 1,000 223,2 223,2 1,08
0,5 2592,7 223,2 222,0 242,5 0,293 1,000 223,2 222,0 1,09
0,75 2454,7 223,2 220,2 241,0 0,302 1,000 223,2 220,2 1,09
1 2854,5 223,2 218,4 237,3 0,280 1,000 223,2 218,4 1,09
1,5 3172,0 223,2 213,1 236,4 0,265 1,000 223,2 213,1 1,11
2 3563,8 223,2 206,3 229,7 0,250 1,000 223,2 206,3 1,11
ψ = 0
0 3312,5 223,2 223,2 235,7 0,260 1,000 223,2 223,2 1,06
0,5 3720,3 223,2 222,0 239,6 0,245 1,000 223,2 222,0 1,08
0,75 3976,2 223,2 220,2 242,9 0,237 1,000 223,2 220,2 1,10
1 4227,3 223,2 218,4 246,4 0,230 1,000 223,2 218,4 1,13
1,5 4867,8 223,2 213,1 245,4 0,214 1,000 223,2 213,1 1,15
2 5690,4 223,2 206,3 237,5 0,198 1,000 223,2 206,3 1,15
ψ = -‐0.5
0 4585,6 223,2 223,2 203,3 0,221 1,000 223,2 223,2 0,91
0,5 5206,6 223,2 222,0 205,8 0,207 1,000 223,2 222,0 0,93
0,75 5476,6 223,2 220,2 206,8 0,202 1,000 223,2 220,2 0,94
1 5966,8 223,2 218,4 207,8 0,193 1,000 223,2 218,4 0,95
1,5 6907,7 223,2 213,1 208,3 0,180 1,000 223,2 213,1 0,98
2 8085,1 223,2 206,3 208,5 0,166 1,000 223,2 206,3 1,01
ψ = -‐ 1
0 4710,3 223,2 223,2 213,1 0,218 1,000 223,2 223,2 0,95
0,5 5212,2 223,2 222,0 211,6 0,207 1,000 223,2 222,0 0,95
0,75 5342,9 223,2 220,2 212,5 0,204 1,000 223,2 220,2 0,97
1 5808,9 223,2 218,4 206,5 0,196 1,000 223,2 218,4 0,95
1,5 6526,5 223,2 213,1 207,6 0,185 1,000 223,2 213,1 0,97
2 7400,3 223,2 206,3 204,1 0,174 1,000 223,2 206,3 0,99
A2.5
IPE300 / L = 1 m / fy = 460 MPa

ψ = 1
0 1798,2 289,2 289,2 301,3 0,401 1,000 289,2 289,2 1,04
0,5 1922,7 289,2 287,6 299,6 0,388 1,000 289,2 287,6 1,03
0,75 1865,8 289,2 285,3 297,3 0,394 1,000 289,2 285,3 1,05
1 2065,3 289,2 283,1 294,9 0,374 1,000 289,2 283,1 1,04
1,5 2230,0 289,2 276,1 287,6 0,360 1,000 289,2 276,1 1,04
2 2422,1 289,2 267,3 278,5 0,346 1,000 289,2 267,3 1,05
ψ = 0.5
0 2373,5 289,2 289,2 304,8 0,349 1,000 289,2 289,2 1,05
0,5 2592,7 289,2 287,6 309,6 0,334 1,000 289,2 287,6 1,08
0,75 2454,7 289,2 285,3 310,0 0,343 1,000 289,2 285,3 1,09
1 2854,5 289,2 283,1 307,3 0,318 1,000 289,2 283,1 1,09
1,5 3172,0 289,2 276,1 305,1 0,302 1,000 289,2 276,1 1,10
2 3563,8 289,2 267,3 297,3 0,285 1,000 289,2 267,3 1,11
ψ = 0
0 3312,5 289,2 289,2 286,2 0,295 1,000 289,2 289,2 0,99
0,5 3720,3 289,2 287,6 291,8 0,279 1,000 289,2 287,6 1,01
0,75 3976,2 289,2 285,3 293,5 0,270 1,000 289,2 285,3 1,03
1 4227,3 289,2 283,1 294,7 0,262 1,000 289,2 283,1 1,04
1,5 4867,8 289,2 276,1 292,7 0,244 1,000 289,2 276,1 1,06
2 5690,4 289,2 267,3 288,2 0,225 1,000 289,2 267,3 1,08
ψ = -‐0.5
0 4585,6 289,2 289,2 270,7 0,251 1,000 289,2 289,2 0,94
0,5 5206,6 289,2 287,6 264,6 0,236 1,000 289,2 287,6 0,92
0,75 5476,6 289,2 285,3 249,1 0,230 1,000 289,2 285,3 0,87
1 5966,8 289,2 283,1 250,8 0,220 1,000 289,2 283,1 0,89
1,5 6907,7 289,2 276,1 251,0 0,205 1,000 289,2 276,1 0,91
2 8085,1 289,2 267,3 251,5 0,189 1,000 289,2 267,3 0,94
ψ = -‐ 1
0 4710,3 289,2 289,2 291,5 0,248 1,000 289,2 289,2 1,01
0,5 5212,2 289,2 287,6 265,3 0,236 1,000 289,2 287,6 0,92
0,75 5342,9 289,2 285,3 268,2 0,233 1,000 289,2 285,3 0,94
1 5808,9 289,2 283,1 242,9 0,223 1,000 289,2 283,1 0,86
1,5 6526,5 289,2 276,1 259,3 0,211 1,000 289,2 276,1 0,94
2 7400,3 289,2 267,3 252,9 0,198 1,000 289,2 267,3 0,95
A2.6
IPE300 / L = 2 m / fy = 355 MPa

ψ = 1
0 494,9 223,2 223,2 187,6 0,672 0,884 197,2 197,2 0,95
0,5 529,7 223,2 222,0 197,7 0,649 0,894 199,6 199,6 0,99
0,75 535,1 223,2 220,2 201,3 0,646 0,896 200,0 200,0 1,01
1 569,7 223,2 218,4 203,6 0,626 0,905 202,0 202,0 1,01
1,5 616,0 223,2 213,1 206,2 0,602 0,916 204,5 204,5 1,01
2 670,2 223,2 206,3 206,4 0,577 0,927 207,0 206,3 1,00
ψ = 0.5
0 653,5 223,2 223,2 228,3 0,584 0,988 220,4 220,4 1,04
0,5 714,9 223,2 222,0 231,3 0,559 1,000 223,2 222,0 1,04
0,75 759,3 223,2 220,2 231,2 0,542 1,000 223,2 220,2 1,05
1 788,4 223,2 218,4 231,7 0,532 1,000 223,2 218,4 1,06
1,5 878,0 223,2 213,1 232,5 0,504 1,000 223,2 213,1 1,09
2 989,4 223,2 206,3 224,6 0,475 1,000 223,2 206,3 1,09
ψ = 0
0 914,8 223,2 223,2 238,2 0,494 1,000 223,2 223,2 1,07
0,5 1029,5 223,2 222,0 243,8 0,466 1,000 223,2 222,0 1,10
0,75 1081,8 223,2 220,2 243,1 0,454 1,000 223,2 220,2 1,10
1 1172,7 223,2 218,4 245,6 0,436 1,000 223,2 218,4 1,12
1,5 1355,1 223,2 213,1 244,9 0,406 1,000 223,2 213,1 1,15
2 1592,3 223,2 206,3 235,8 0,374 1,000 223,2 206,3 1,14
ψ = -‐0.5
0 1281,5 223,2 223,2 236,6 0,417 1,000 223,2 223,2 1,06
0,5 1457,7 223,2 222,0 225,6 0,391 1,000 223,2 222,0 1,02
0,75 1580,3 223,2 220,2 230,2 0,376 1,000 223,2 220,2 1,05
1 1674,5 223,2 218,4 224,3 0,365 1,000 223,2 218,4 1,03
1,5 1945,6 223,2 213,1 222,5 0,339 1,000 223,2 213,1 1,04
2 2291,5 223,2 206,3 229,7 0,312 1,000 223,2 206,3 1,11
ψ = -‐1
0 1339,5 223,2 223,2 242,2 0,408 1,000 223,2 223,2 1,09
0,5 1480,7 223,2 222,0 248,2 0,388 1,000 223,2 222,0 1,12
0,75 1532,6 223,2 220,2 252,0 0,382 1,000 223,2 220,2 1,14
1 1650,1 223,2 218,4 243,2 0,368 1,000 223,2 218,4 1,11
1,5 1856,6 223,2 213,1 234,1 0,347 1,000 223,2 213,1 1,10
2 2113,2 223,2 206,3 227,0 0,325 1,000 223,2 206,3 1,10
A2.7
IPE300 / L = 2 m / fy = 460 MPa

ψ = 1
0 494,9 289,2 289,2 263,2 0,764 0,836 241,9 241,9 1,09
0,5 529,7 289,2 287,6 266,4 0,739 0,850 245,8 245,8 1,08
0,75 535,1 289,2 285,3 266,9 0,735 0,852 246,3 246,3 1,08
1 569,7 289,2 283,1 269,7 0,712 0,863 249,7 249,7 1,08
1,5 616,0 289,2 276,1 272,1 0,685 0,877 253,6 253,6 1,07
2 670,2 289,2 267,3 276,1 0,657 0,891 257,6 257,6 1,07
ψ = 0.5
0 653,5 289,2 289,2 287,8 0,665 0,952 275,2 275,2 1,05
0,5 714,9 289,2 287,6 297,2 0,636 0,965 279,1 279,1 1,06
0,75 759,3 289,2 285,3 298,0 0,617 0,974 281,6 281,6 1,06
1 788,4 289,2 283,1 297,3 0,606 0,979 283,0 283,0 1,05
1,5 878,0 289,2 276,1 296,7 0,574 1,000 289,2 276,1 1,07
2 989,4 289,2 267,3 289,8 0,541 1,000 289,2 267,3 1,08
ψ = 0
0 914,8 289,2 289,2 290,7 0,562 1,000 289,2 289,2 1,01
0,5 1029,5 289,2 287,6 271,6 0,530 1,000 289,2 287,6 0,94
0,75 1081,8 289,2 285,3 293,2 0,517 1,000 289,2 285,3 1,03
1 1172,7 289,2 283,1 314,6 0,497 1,000 289,2 283,1 1,11
1,5 1355,1 289,2 276,1 313,5 0,462 1,000 289,2 276,1 1,14
2 1592,3 289,2 267,3 308,6 0,426 1,000 289,2 267,3 1,15
ψ = -‐0.5
0 1281,5 289,2 289,2 305,5 0,475 1,000 289,2 289,2 1,06
0,5 1457,7 289,2 287,6 309,2 0,445 1,000 289,2 287,6 1,07
0,75 1580,3 289,2 285,3 311,2 0,428 1,000 289,2 285,3 1,09
1 1674,5 289,2 283,1 314,2 0,416 1,000 289,2 283,1 1,11
1,5 1945,6 289,2 276,1 319,9 0,386 1,000 289,2 276,1 1,16
2 2291,5 289,2 267,3 313,1 0,355 1,000 289,2 267,3 1,17
ψ = -‐ 1
0 1339,5 289,2 289,2 294,0 0,465 1,000 289,2 289,2 1,02
0,5 1480,7 289,2 287,6 298,0 0,442 1,000 289,2 287,6 1,04
0,75 1532,6 289,2 285,3 299,6 0,434 1,000 289,2 285,3 1,05
1 1650,1 289,2 283,1 300,1 0,419 1,000 289,2 283,1 1,06
1,5 1856,6 289,2 276,1 300,7 0,395 1,000 289,2 276,1 1,09
2 2113,2 289,2 267,3 296,2 0,370 1,000 289,2 267,3 1,11
A2.8
IPE300 / L = 3.5 m / fy = 355 MPa

ψ = 1
0 192,2 223,2 223,2 108,7 1,433 0,457 102,0 102,0 1,07
0,5 206,4 223,2 222,0 113,0 1,405 0,470 104,9 104,9 1,08
0,75 216,2 223,2 220,2 116,9 1,382 0,482 107,5 107,5 1,09
1 222,7 223,2 218,4 118,3 1,374 0,486 108,4 108,4 1,09
1,5 241,6 223,2 213,1 120,2 1,363 0,491 109,6 109,6 1,10
2 263,8 223,2 206,3 121,4 1,356 0,494 110,4 110,4 1,10
ψ = 0.5
0 253,7 223,2 223,2 181,5 0,938 0,791 176,6 176,6 1,03
0,5 278,6 223,2 222,0 190,9 0,895 0,820 183,0 183,0 1,04
0,75 292,3 223,2 220,2 200,3 0,874 0,834 186,1 186,1 1,08
1 308,5 223,2 218,4 204,0 0,851 0,849 189,4 189,4 1,08
1,5 344,9 223,2 213,1 209,3 0,804 0,877 195,7 195,7 1,07
2 390,2 223,2 206,3 210,2 0,756 0,905 201,9 201,9 1,04
ψ = 0
0 354,2 223,2 223,2 219,8 0,794 0,957 213,5 213,5 1,03
0,5 400,0 223,2 222,0 229,5 0,747 0,985 219,9 219,9 1,04
0,75 433,7 223,2 220,2 230,8 0,717 1,000 223,2 220,2 1,05
1 456,7 223,2 218,4 230,9 0,699 1,000 223,2 218,4 1,06
1,5 528,3 223,2 213,1 232,6 0,650 1,000 223,2 213,1 1,09
2 620,5 223,2 206,3 236,6 0,600 1,000 223,2 206,3 1,15
ψ = -‐0.5
0 494,7 223,2 223,2 233,7 0,672 1,000 223,2 223,2 1,05
0,5 562,3 223,2 222,0 237,5 0,630 1,000 223,2 222,0 1,07
0,75 592,2 223,2 220,2 239,6 0,614 1,000 223,2 220,2 1,09
1 644,0 223,2 218,4 241,9 0,589 1,000 223,2 218,4 1,11
1,5 745,0 223,2 213,1 246,8 0,547 1,000 223,2 213,1 1,16
2 873,1 223,2 206,3 255,5 0,506 1,000 223,2 206,3 1,24
ψ = -‐ 1
0 522,6 223,2 223,2 228,8 0,653 1,000 223,2 223,2 1,03
0,5 574,2 223,2 222,0 231,0 0,623 1,000 223,2 222,0 1,04
0,75 597,4 223,2 220,2 235,4 0,611 1,000 223,2 220,2 1,07
1 636,3 223,2 218,4 226,2 0,592 1,000 223,2 218,4 1,04
1,5 712,1 223,2 213,1 231,8 0,560 1,000 223,2 213,1 1,09
2 806,6 223,2 206,3 218,0 0,526 1,000 223,2 206,3 1,06
A2.9
IPE300 / L = 3.5 m / fy = 460 MPa

ψ = 1
0 192,2 289,2 289,2 162,0 1,227 0,564 163,1 163,1 0,99
0,5 206,4 289,2 287,6 173,8 1,184 0,589 170,2 170,2 1,02
0,75 216,2 289,2 285,3 179,4 1,157 0,605 174,9 174,9 1,03
1 222,7 289,2 283,1 192,1 1,140 0,615 177,8 177,8 1,08
1,5 241,6 289,2 276,1 211,6 1,094 0,642 185,7 185,7 1,14
2 263,8 289,2 267,3 225,1 1,047 0,671 194,0 194,0 1,16
ψ = 0.5
0 253,7 289,2 289,2 203,3 1,068 0,701 202,6 202,6 1,00
0,5 278,6 289,2 287,6 213,4 1,019 0,735 212,6 212,6 1,00
0,75 292,3 289,2 285,3 224,9 0,995 0,752 217,5 217,5 1,03
1 308,5 289,2 283,1 230,3 0,968 0,771 222,8 222,8 1,03
1,5 344,9 289,2 276,1 234,8 0,916 0,806 233,2 233,2 1,01
2 390,2 289,2 267,3 247,2 0,861 0,842 243,5 243,5 1,02
ψ = 0
0 354,2 289,2 289,2 261,8 0,904 0,881 254,7 254,7 1,03
0,5 400,0 289,2 287,6 284,6 0,850 0,919 265,8 265,8 1,07
0,75 433,7 289,2 285,3 292,1 0,817 0,942 272,4 272,4 1,07
1 456,7 289,2 283,1 295,6 0,796 0,956 276,3 276,3 1,07
1,5 528,3 289,2 276,1 295,4 0,740 0,989 286,1 276,1 1,07
2 620,5 289,2 267,3 298,6 0,683 1,000 289,2 267,3 1,12
ψ = -‐0.5
0 494,7 289,2 289,2 298,8 0,765 1,000 289,2 289,2 1,03
0,5 562,3 289,2 287,6 303,0 0,717 1,000 289,2 287,6 1,05
0,75 592,2 289,2 285,3 304,2 0,699 1,000 289,2 285,3 1,07
1 644,0 289,2 283,1 306,2 0,670 1,000 289,2 283,1 1,08
1,5 745,0 289,2 276,1 300,8 0,623 1,000 289,2 276,1 1,09
2 873,1 289,2 267,3 298,0 0,576 1,000 289,2 267,3 1,11
ψ = -‐ 1
0 522,6 289,2 289,7 292,9 0,744 1,000 289,2 289,2 1,01
0,5 574,2 289,2 294,4 294,9 0,710 1,000 289,2 289,2 1,02
0,75 597,4 289,2 297,8 293,5 0,696 1,000 289,2 289,2 1,01
1 636,3 289,2 301,9 297,8 0,674 1,000 289,2 289,2 1,03
1,5 712,1 289,2 309,2 295,5 0,637 1,000 289,2 289,2 1,02
2 806,6 289,2 309,4 295,7 0,599 1,000 289,2 289,2 1,02
A2.10
IPE300 / L = 5 m / fy = 355 MPa

ψ = 1
0 113,3 223,2 223,2 110,7 1,404 0,471 105,1 105,1 1,05
0,5 122,4 223,2 222,0 120,1 1,351 0,497 111,0 111,0 1,08
0,75 125,4 223,2 220,2 122,9 1,334 0,506 112,9 112,9 1,09
1 132,8 223,2 218,4 127,3 1,296 0,526 117,3 117,3 1,08
1,5 144,9 223,2 213,1 135,6 1,241 0,556 124,1 124,1 1,09
2 159,1 223,2 206,3 144,0 1,184 0,588 131,3 131,3 1,10
ψ = 0.5
0 149,4 223,2 223,2 135,0 1,222 0,594 132,5 132,5 1,02
0,5 165,3 223,2 222,0 149,9 1,162 0,635 141,6 141,6 1,06
0,75 173,9 223,2 220,2 156,6 1,133 0,655 146,2 146,2 1,07
1 184,3 223,2 218,4 158,0 1,100 0,678 151,2 151,2 1,04
1,5 207,5 223,2 213,1 168,9 1,037 0,722 161,2 161,2 1,05
2 236,2 223,2 206,3 174,7 0,972 0,768 171,4 171,4 1,02
ψ = 0
0 207,8 223,2 223,2 177,6 1,036 0,775 173,1 173,1 1,03
0,5 236,2 223,2 222,0 198,6 0,972 0,828 184,7 184,7 1,07
0,75 255,4 223,2 220,2 205,4 0,935 0,857 191,2 191,2 1,07
1 271,1 223,2 218,4 210,7 0,907 0,878 195,9 195,9 1,08
1,5 314,4 223,2 213,1 213,7 0,843 0,924 206,3 206,3 1,04
2 369,1 223,2 206,3 215,4 0,778 0,967 215,8 206,3 1,04
ψ = -‐0.5
0 288,3 223,2 223,2 216,1 0,880 0,923 205,9 205,9 1,05
0,5 328,2 223,2 222,0 224,9 0,825 0,963 214,8 214,8 1,05
0,75 352,1 223,2 220,2 226,6 0,796 0,982 219,1 219,1 1,03
1 375,5 223,2 218,4 227,8 0,771 0,998 222,7 218,4 1,04
1,5 432,9 223,2 213,1 230,5 0,718 1,000 223,2 213,1 1,08
2 504,8 223,2 206,3 216,7 0,665 1,000 223,2 206,3 1,05
ψ = -‐1
0 307,2 223,2 223,2 227,9 0,852 0,982 219,1 219,1 1,04
0,5 336,2 223,2 222,0 232,8 0,815 1,000 223,2 222,0 1,05
0,75 344,8 223,2 220,2 233,1 0,804 1,000 223,2 220,2 1,06
1 371,0 223,2 218,4 233,7 0,776 1,000 223,2 218,4 1,07
1,5 413,5 223,2 213,1 235,2 0,735 1,000 223,2 213,1 1,10
2 466,4 223,2 206,3 238,2 0,692 1,000 223,2 206,3 1,15
A2.11
IPE300 / L = 5 m / fy = 460 MPa

ψ = 1
0 113,3 289,2 289,2 108,8 1,598 0,388 112,1 112,1 0,97
0,5 122,4 289,2 287,6 116,7 1,537 0,412 119,0 119,0 0,98
0,75 125,4 289,2 285,3 120,5 1,518 0,419 121,3 121,3 0,99
1 132,8 289,2 283,1 129,0 1,476 0,438 126,6 126,6 1,02
1,5 144,9 289,2 276,1 142,2 1,413 0,467 135,0 135,0 1,05
2 159,1 289,2 267,3 161,7 1,348 0,499 144,2 144,2 1,12
ψ = 0.5
0 149,4 289,2 289,2 142,8 1,391 0,487 141,0 141,0 1,01
0,5 165,3 289,2 287,6 145,4 1,323 0,529 152,9 152,9 0,95
0,75 173,9 289,2 285,3 172,9 1,289 0,550 158,9 158,9 1,09
1 184,3 289,2 283,1 187,2 1,253 0,573 165,8 165,8 1,13
1,5 207,5 289,2 276,1 201,1 1,181 0,622 179,8 179,8 1,12
2 236,2 289,2 267,3 221,8 1,107 0,673 194,7 194,7 1,14
ψ = 0
0 207,8 289,2 289,2 194,0 1,180 0,658 190,2 190,2 1,02
0,5 236,2 289,2 287,6 216,1 1,106 0,718 207,6 207,6 1,04
0,75 255,4 289,2 285,3 226,3 1,064 0,753 217,7 217,7 1,04
1 271,1 289,2 283,1 243,0 1,033 0,778 225,1 225,1 1,08
1,5 314,4 289,2 276,1 256,8 0,959 0,838 242,3 242,3 1,06
2 369,1 289,2 267,3 267,1 0,885 0,894 258,6 258,6 1,03
ψ = -‐0.5
0 288,3 289,2 289,2 226,0 1,002 0,824 238,3 238,3 0,95
0,5 328,2 289,2 287,6 255,4 0,939 0,876 253,5 253,5 1,01
0,75 352,1 289,2 285,3 261,8 0,906 0,902 260,9 260,9 1,00
1 375,5 289,2 283,1 260,5 0,878 0,924 267,3 267,3 0,97
1,5 432,9 289,2 276,1 274,7 0,817 0,968 279,8 276,1 0,99
2 504,8 289,2 267,3 268,1 0,757 1,000 289,2 267,3 1,00
ψ = -‐1
0 307,2 289,2 289,2 246,9 0,970 0,883 255,4 255,4 0,97
0,5 336,2 289,2 287,6 267,8 0,927 0,921 266,3 266,3 1,01
0,75 344,8 289,2 285,3 285,0 0,916 0,931 269,2 269,2 1,06
1 371,0 289,2 283,1 285,7 0,883 0,958 277,0 277,0 1,03
1,5 413,5 289,2 276,1 278,9 0,836 0,994 287,4 276,1 1,01
2 466,4 289,2 267,3 268,5 0,787 1,000 289,2 267,3 1,00
A2.12
IPE300 / L = 8 m / fy = 355 MPa

ψ = 1
0 61,7 223,2 223,2 59,0 1,902 0,291 65,0 65,0 0,91
0,5 67,8 223,2 222,0 64,5 1,815 0,315 70,4 70,4 0,92
0,75 68,9 223,2 220,2 65,5 1,800 0,320 71,3 71,3 0,92
1 74,8 223,2 218,4 72,8 1,727 0,342 76,3 76,3 0,95
1,5 83,0 223,2 213,1 85,7 1,640 0,372 83,0 83,0 1,03
2 92,6 223,2 206,3 104,9 1,552 0,405 90,5 90,5 1,16
ψ = 0.5
0 81,2 223,2 223,2 86,2 1,657 0,366 81,6 81,6 1,06
0,5 91,8 223,2 222,0 92,3 1,559 0,403 89,9 89,9 1,03
0,75 96,1 223,2 220,2 101,6 1,524 0,417 93,1 93,1 1,09
1 104,5 223,2 218,4 109,4 1,462 0,448 100,0 100,0 1,09
1,5 119,8 223,2 213,1 118,5 1,365 0,503 112,3 112,3 1,06
2 138,7 223,2 206,3 131,7 1,268 0,563 125,7 125,7 1,05
ψ = 0
0 112,1 223,2 223,2 112,2 1,411 0,485 108,2 108,2 1,04
0,5 130,1 223,2 222,0 122,1 1,310 0,556 124,2 124,2 0,98
0,75 139,8 223,2 220,2 130,3 1,264 0,591 132,0 132,0 0,99
1 151,6 223,2 218,4 146,7 1,213 0,631 140,8 140,8 1,04
1,5 177,4 223,2 213,1 165,6 1,122 0,705 157,4 157,4 1,05
2 208,9 223,2 206,3 186,5 1,034 0,778 173,6 173,6 1,07
ψ = -‐0.5
0 153,4 223,2 223,2 149,3 1,206 0,647 144,5 144,5 1,03
0,5 176,7 223,2 222,0 172,7 1,124 0,718 160,3 160,3 1,08
0,75 188,2 223,2 220,2 182,4 1,089 0,749 167,1 167,1 1,09
1 203,0 223,2 218,4 191,4 1,049 0,784 174,9 174,9 1,09
1,5 233,9 223,2 213,1 205,2 0,977 0,845 188,6 188,6 1,09
2 271,9 223,2 206,3 213,0 0,906 0,902 201,4 201,4 1,06
ψ = -‐ 1
0 165,7 223,2 223,2 159,2 1,161 0,706 157,6 157,6 1,01
0,5 181,3 223,2 222,0 175,4 1,110 0,754 168,3 168,3 1,04
0,75 187,3 223,2 220,2 182,0 1,091 0,771 172,1 172,1 1,06
1 199,9 223,2 218,4 192,1 1,057 0,804 179,4 179,4 1,07
1,5 222,6 223,2 213,1 203,0 1,001 0,855 190,8 190,8 1,06
2 250,7 223,2 206,3 217,5 0,943 0,907 202,4 202,4 1,07
A2.13
IPE300 / L = 8 m / fy = 460 MPa

ψ = 1
0 61,7 289,2 289,2 62,0 2,165 0,210 60,7 60,7 1,02
0,5 67,8 289,2 287,6 67,8 2,066 0,240 69,4 69,4 0,98
0,75 68,9 289,2 285,3 68,8 2,048 0,256 74,1 74,1 0,93
1 74,8 289,2 283,1 76,5 1,966 0,275 79,6 79,6 0,96
1,5 83,0 289,2 276,1 90,1 1,867 0,301 86,9 86,9 1,04
2 92,6 289,2 267,3 110,2 1,767 0,340 98,3 98,3 1,12
ψ = 0.5
0 81,2 289,2 289,2 85,5 1,887 0,295 85,4 85,4 1,00
0,5 91,8 289,2 287,6 96,5 1,775 0,327 94,6 94,6 1,02
0,75 96,1 289,2 285,3 103,5 1,735 0,340 98,2 98,2 1,05
1 104,5 289,2 283,1 112,1 1,664 0,364 105,1 105,1 1,07
1,5 119,8 289,2 276,1 120,4 1,553 0,405 117,1 117,1 1,03
2 138,7 289,2 267,3 127,6 1,444 0,458 132,4 132,4 0,96
ψ = 0
0 112,1 289,2 289,2 112,9 1,607 0,384 111,1 111,1 1,02
0,5 130,1 289,2 287,6 131,6 1,491 0,434 125,5 125,5 1,05
0,75 139,8 289,2 285,3 137,5 1,438 0,467 135,1 135,1 1,02
1 151,6 289,2 283,1 150,3 1,381 0,505 146,1 146,1 1,03
1,5 177,4 289,2 276,1 167,8 1,277 0,581 168,1 168,1 1,00
2 208,9 289,2 267,3 191,6 1,177 0,660 190,9 190,9 1,00
ψ =-‐ 0.5
0 153,4 289,2 289,2 153,5 1,373 0,515 149,0 149,0 1,03
0,5 176,7 289,2 287,6 177,2 1,279 0,587 169,8 169,8 1,04
0,75 188,2 289,2 285,3 187,0 1,239 0,620 179,2 179,2 1,04
1 203,0 289,2 283,1 194,0 1,194 0,658 190,3 190,3 1,02
1,5 233,9 289,2 276,1 206,6 1,112 0,729 210,7 210,7 0,98
2 271,9 289,2 267,3 214,0 1,031 0,798 230,9 230,9 0,93
ψ = -‐1
0 165,7 289,2 289,2 166,6 1,321 0,564 163,0 163,0 1,02
0,5 181,3 289,2 287,6 184,7 1,263 0,613 177,4 177,4 1,04
0,75 187,3 289,2 285,3 199,4 1,242 0,631 182,6 182,6 1,09
1 199,9 289,2 283,1 206,6 1,203 0,667 193,0 193,0 1,07
1,5 222,6 289,2 276,1 222,0 1,140 0,726 209,8 209,8 1,06
2 250,7 289,2 267,3 241,9 1,074 0,787 227,7 227,7 1,06
A2.14
IPE300 / L = 10 m / fy = 355 MPa

ψ = 1
0 47,8 223,2 223,2 48,1 2,161 0,234 52,1 52,1 0,92
0,5 52,9 223,2 222,0 53,9 2,054 0,255 57,0 57,0 0,95
0,75 55,0 223,2 220,2 59,3 2,015 0,264 58,9 58,9 1,01
1 59,3 223,2 218,4 63,4 1,940 0,282 62,9 62,9 1,01
1,5 66,7 223,2 213,1 69,9 1,830 0,311 69,4 69,4 1,01
2 75,4 223,2 206,3 81,9 1,721 0,344 76,8 76,8 1,07
ψ = 0.5
0 62,6 223,2 223,2 69,5 1,888 0,295 65,8 65,8 1,06
0,5 72,0 223,2 222,0 77,7 1,760 0,332 74,0 74,0 1,05
0,75 78,6 223,2 220,2 82,4 1,685 0,356 79,5 79,5 1,04
1 83,3 223,2 218,4 88,3 1,637 0,373 83,3 83,3 1,06
1,5 96,9 223,2 213,1 101,9 1,518 0,420 93,7 93,7 1,09
2 113,5 223,2 206,3 113,9 1,402 0,481 107,4 107,4 1,06
ψ = 0
0 86,0 223,2 223,2 87,8 1,611 0,383 85,4 85,4 1,03
0,5 101,6 223,2 222,0 95,5 1,482 0,439 98,1 98,1 0,97
0,75 110,9 223,2 220,2 111,4 1,419 0,480 107,1 107,1 1,04
1 119,8 223,2 218,4 119,9 1,365 0,517 115,3 115,3 1,04
1,5 141,3 223,2 213,1 137,0 1,257 0,596 133,1 133,1 1,03
2 166,9 223,2 206,3 159,8 1,157 0,677 151,0 151,0 1,06
ψ = -‐0.5
0 116,9 223,2 223,2 115,5 1,382 0,509 113,6 113,6 1,02
0,5 136,2 223,2 222,0 128,3 1,280 0,587 130,9 130,9 0,98
0,75 144,4 223,2 220,2 139,8 1,243 0,617 137,6 137,6 1,02
1 157,4 223,2 218,4 152,4 1,191 0,660 147,4 147,4 1,03
1,5 182,0 223,2 213,1 171,5 1,107 0,732 163,4 163,4 1,05
2 211,8 223,2 206,3 192,8 1,027 0,803 179,1 179,1 1,08
ψ = -‐1
0 126,9 223,2 223,2 130,9 1,326 0,560 124,9 124,9 1,05
0,5 139,4 223,2 222,0 145,4 1,265 0,611 136,4 136,4 1,07
0,75 148,9 223,2 220,2 153,7 1,224 0,648 144,6 144,6 1,06
1 154,3 223,2 218,4 162,7 1,203 0,667 149,0 149,0 1,09
1,5 172,4 223,2 213,1 174,2 1,138 0,728 162,4 162,4 1,07
2 194,8 223,2 206,3 182,8 1,070 0,791 176,5 176,5 1,04
A2.15
IPE300 / L = 10 m / fy = 460 MPa

ψ = 1
0 47,8 289,2 289,2 52,0 2,460 0,185 53,6 53,6 0,97
0,5 52,9 289,2 287,6 56,8 2,338 0,203 58,7 58,7 0,97
0,75 55,0 289,2 285,3 57,7 2,293 0,210 60,8 60,8 0,95
1 59,3 289,2 283,1 64,1 2,208 0,225 65,0 65,0 0,99
1,5 66,7 289,2 276,1 75,5 2,083 0,249 72,0 72,0 1,05
2 75,4 289,2 267,3 92,5 1,959 0,277 80,1 80,1 1,15
ψ = 0.5
0 62,6 289,2 289,2 65,2 2,149 0,236 68,2 68,2 0,96
0,5 72,0 289,2 287,6 79,3 2,004 0,266 77,0 77,0 1,03
0,75 78,6 289,2 285,3 85,5 1,918 0,287 83,0 83,0 1,03
1 83,3 289,2 283,1 90,1 1,863 0,301 87,2 87,2 1,03
1,5 96,9 289,2 276,1 104,6 1,728 0,342 98,9 98,9 1,06
2 113,5 289,2 267,3 115,1 1,596 0,388 112,3 112,3 1,02
ψ = 0
0 86,0 289,2 289,2 88,8 1,834 0,310 89,6 89,6 0,99
0,5 101,6 289,2 287,6 107,5 1,687 0,355 102,8 102,8 1,05
0,75 110,9 289,2 285,3 119,4 1,615 0,381 110,2 110,2 1,08
1 119,8 289,2 283,1 124,2 1,553 0,405 117,1 117,1 1,06
1,5 141,3 289,2 276,1 142,3 1,431 0,472 136,5 136,5 1,04
2 166,9 289,2 267,3 165,6 1,316 0,552 159,5 159,5 1,04
ψ = -‐0.5
0 116,9 289,2 289,2 122,4 1,573 0,397 114,9 114,9 1,07
0,5 136,2 289,2 287,6 136,1 1,457 0,456 132,0 132,0 1,03
0,75 144,4 289,2 285,3 143,7 1,415 0,485 140,3 140,3 1,02
1 157,4 289,2 283,1 157,2 1,356 0,528 152,8 152,8 1,03
1,5 182,0 289,2 276,1 176,7 1,261 0,602 174,2 174,2 1,01
2 211,8 289,2 267,3 192,2 1,169 0,679 196,5 196,5 0,98
ψ = -‐1
0 126,9 289,2 289,2 131,5 1,509 0,423 122,4 122,4 1,07
0,5 139,4 289,2 287,6 145,8 1,440 0,471 136,1 136,1 1,07
0,75 148,9 289,2 285,3 155,7 1,394 0,506 146,2 146,2 1,06
1 154,3 289,2 283,1 166,6 1,369 0,525 151,8 151,8 1,10
1,5 172,4 289,2 276,1 177,2 1,295 0,586 169,3 169,3 1,05
2 194,8 289,2 267,3 199,2 1,218 0,653 188,8 188,8 1,05
A2.16
IPE300 / L = 15 m / fy = 355 MPa

ψ = 1
0 30,4 223,2 223,2 36,3 2,709 0,155 34,7 34,7 1,05
0,5 35,2 223,2 222,0 40,0 2,519 0,178 39,6 39,6 1,01
0,75 38,6 223,2 220,2 45,0 2,403 0,193 43,1 43,1 1,04
1 40,8 223,2 218,4 48,7 2,338 0,203 45,3 45,3 1,07
1,5 47,5 223,2 213,1 55,7 2,167 0,232 51,8 51,8 1,07
2 55,4 223,2 206,3 62,6 2,007 0,266 59,3 59,3 1,06
ψ = 0.5
0 40,0 223,2 223,2 45,9 2,363 0,199 44,4 44,4 1,03
0,5 48,2 223,2 222,0 56,8 2,153 0,235 52,5 52,5 1,08
0,75 53,9 223,2 220,2 62,1 2,035 0,259 57,9 57,9 1,07
1 58,1 223,2 218,4 67,9 1,960 0,277 61,7 61,7 1,10
1,5 69,9 223,2 213,1 74,3 1,786 0,324 72,2 72,2 1,03
2 84,1 223,2 206,3 88,1 1,629 0,376 83,9 83,9 1,05
ψ = 0
0 54,5 223,2 223,2 59,9 2,024 0,262 58,4 58,4 1,03
0,5 67,4 223,2 222,0 72,9 1,820 0,314 70,0 70,0 1,04
0,75 73,5 223,2 220,2 78,7 1,742 0,337 75,3 75,3 1,04
1 81,9 223,2 218,4 86,8 1,651 0,368 82,1 82,1 1,06
1,5 98,1 223,2 213,1 95,4 1,508 0,424 94,6 94,6 1,01
2 117,0 223,2 206,3 121,0 1,381 0,505 112,7 112,7 1,07
ψ = -‐0.5
0 73,2 223,2 223,2 78,0 1,746 0,336 75,0 75,0 1,04
0,5 88,0 223,2 222,0 89,2 1,592 0,390 87,0 87,0 1,03
0,75 93,8 223,2 220,2 96,2 1,542 0,410 91,4 91,4 1,05
1 103,6 223,2 218,4 104,2 1,468 0,449 100,3 100,3 1,04
1,5 121,2 223,2 213,1 120,9 1,357 0,527 117,6 117,6 1,03
2 142,1 223,2 206,3 146,1 1,253 0,609 135,8 135,8 1,08
ψ = -‐1
0 80,0 223,2 223,2 80,6 1,670 0,361 80,6 80,6 1,00
0,5 89,3 223,2 222,0 90,5 1,581 0,394 88,0 88,0 1,03
0,75 95,4 223,2 220,2 98,7 1,530 0,415 92,6 92,6 1,07
1 100,4 223,2 218,4 103,1 1,491 0,435 97,1 97,1 1,06
1,5 113,8 223,2 213,1 115,1 1,400 0,500 111,7 111,7 1,03
2 130,2 223,2 206,3 137,5 1,309 0,574 128,0 128,0 1,07
A2.17
IPE300 / L = 15 m / fy = 460 MPa

ψ = 1
0 30,4 289,2 289,2 36,0 3,084 0,122 35,4 35,4 1,02
0,5 35,2 289,2 287,6 39,6 2,867 0,140 40,5 40,5 0,98
0,75 38,6 289,2 285,3 46,6 2,736 0,153 44,1 44,1 1,06
1 40,8 289,2 283,1 44,4 2,661 0,161 46,4 46,4 0,96
1,5 47,5 289,2 276,1 61,2 2,467 0,184 53,3 53,3 1,15
2 55,4 289,2 267,3 69,8 2,284 0,212 61,2 61,2 1,14
ψ = 0.5
0 40,0 289,2 289,2 47,2 2,690 0,157 45,5 45,5 1,04
0,5 48,2 289,2 287,6 52,3 2,451 0,187 53,9 53,9 0,97
0,75 53,9 289,2 285,3 58,4 2,316 0,206 59,7 59,7 0,98
1 58,1 289,2 283,1 65,2 2,231 0,221 63,8 63,8 1,02
1,5 69,9 289,2 276,1 76,5 2,033 0,260 75,1 75,1 1,02
2 84,1 289,2 267,3 94,8 1,855 0,304 87,9 87,9 1,08
ψ = 0.5
0 54,5 289,2 289,2 63,6 2,304 0,208 60,3 60,3 1,06
0,5 67,4 289,2 287,6 74,8 2,071 0,251 72,7 72,7 1,03
0,75 73,5 289,2 285,3 83,0 1,983 0,271 78,4 78,4 1,06
1 81,9 289,2 283,1 90,0 1,879 0,297 85,9 85,9 1,05
1,5 98,1 289,2 276,1 101,9 1,717 0,346 99,9 99,9 1,02
2 117,0 289,2 267,3 122,3 1,572 0,397 114,9 114,9 1,06
ψ = -‐ 0.5
0 73,2 289,2 289,2 85,0 1,988 0,270 78,1 78,1 1,09
0,5 88,0 289,2 287,6 95,4 1,813 0,316 91,3 91,3 1,04
0,75 93,8 289,2 285,3 99,1 1,755 0,333 96,3 96,3 1,03
1 103,6 289,2 283,1 110,4 1,671 0,361 104,4 104,4 1,06
1,5 121,2 289,2 276,1 122,7 1,545 0,409 118,1 118,1 1,04
2 142,1 289,2 267,3 142,8 1,426 0,477 138,0 138,0 1,03
ψ = -‐ 1
0 80,0 289,2 289,2 87,5 1,901 0,291 84,3 84,3 1,04
0,5 89,3 289,2 287,6 97,5 1,799 0,320 92,5 92,5 1,05
0,75 95,4 289,2 285,3 103,1 1,741 0,338 97,6 97,6 1,06
1 100,4 289,2 283,1 108,3 1,697 0,352 101,8 101,8 1,06
1,5 113,8 289,2 276,1 123,1 1,594 0,389 112,5 112,5 1,09
2 130,2 289,2 267,3 137,9 1,490 0,435 125,9 125,9 1,09
A2.18
IPE500 / L = 1 m / fy = 355 MPa

ψ = 1
0 10449,6 779,2 779,2 719,6 0,273 1,000 779,2 779,2 0,92
0,5 11668,7 779,2 769,0 765,1 0,258 1,000 779,2 769,0 0,99
0,75 12755,4 779,2 755,2 779,2 0,247 1,000 779,2 755,2 1,03
1 13191,8 779,2 741,3 791,7 0,243 1,000 779,2 741,3 1,07
1,5 15140,9 779,2 702,6 782,5 0,227 1,000 779,2 702,6 1,11
2 17706,8 779,2 659,2 761,7 0,210 1,000 779,2 659,2 1,16
ψ = 0.5
0 13785,0 779,2 779,2 756,6 0,238 1,000 779,2 779,2 0,97
0,5 15953,6 779,2 769,0 782,4 0,221 1,000 779,2 769,0 1,02
0,75 16996,4 779,2 755,2 798,2 0,214 1,000 779,2 755,2 1,06
1 18865,3 779,2 741,3 790,8 0,203 1,000 779,2 741,3 1,07
1,5 22932,2 779,2 702,6 783,7 0,184 1,000 779,2 702,6 1,12
2 28871,6 779,2 659,2 756,4 0,164 1,000 779,2 659,2 1,15
ψ = 0
0 19168,1 779,2 779,2 776,7 0,202 1,000 779,2 779,2 1,00
0,5 23197,0 779,2 769,0 817,0 0,183 1,000 779,2 769,0 1,06
0,75 2489,6 779,2 755,2 823,2 0,559 1,000 779,2 755,2 1,09
1 28921,1 779,2 741,3 818,9 0,164 1,000 779,2 741,3 1,10
1,5 37294,6 779,2 702,6 790,9 0,145 1,000 779,2 702,6 1,13
2 49675,0 779,2 659,2 763,0 0,125 1,000 779,2 659,2 1,16
ψ = -‐0.5
0 26230,6 779,2 779,2 782,2 0,172 1,000 779,2 779,2 1,00
0,5 32135,6 779,2 769,0 813,3 0,156 1,000 779,2 769,0 1,06
0,75 37324,5 779,2 755,2 823,9 0,144 1,000 779,2 755,2 1,09
1 40232,8 779,2 741,3 805,7 0,139 1,000 779,2 741,3 1,09
1,5 51524,3 779,2 702,6 796,7 0,123 1,000 779,2 702,6 1,13
2 67315,2 779,2 659,2 757,1 0,108 1,000 779,2 659,2 1,15
ψ = -‐ 1
0 26634,7 779,2 779,2 823,7 0,171 1,000 779,2 779,2 1,06
0,5 31272,2 779,2 769,0 830,7 0,158 1,000 779,2 769,0 1,08
0,75 3562,8 779,2 755,2 802,6 0,468 1,000 779,2 755,2 1,06
1 37376,1 779,2 741,3 797,3 0,144 1,000 779,2 741,3 1,08
1,5 45588,6 779,2 702,6 759,8 0,131 1,000 779,2 702,6 1,08
2 56817,2 779,2 659,2 741,6 0,117 1,000 779,2 659,2 1,12
A2.19
IPE500 / L = 1 m / fy = 460 MPa

ψ = 1
0 10449,6 1009,7 1009,7 964,1 0,311 1,000 1009,7 1009,7 0,95
0,5 11668,7 1009,7 996,5 972,3 0,294 1,000 1009,7 996,5 0,98
0,75 12755,4 1009,7 978,5 982,6 0,281 1,000 1009,7 978,5 1,00
1 13191,8 1009,7 960,5 1009,6 0,277 1,000 1009,7 960,5 1,05
1,5 15140,9 1009,7 910,3 934,0 0,258 1,000 1009,7 910,3 1,03
2 17706,8 1009,7 854,2 888,0 0,239 1,000 1009,7 854,2 1,04
ψ = 0.5
0 13785,0 1009,7 1009,7 1038,3 0,271 1,000 1009,7 1009,7 1,03
0,5 15953,6 1009,7 996,5 1061,0 0,252 1,000 1009,7 996,5 1,06
0,75 16996,4 1009,7 978,5 1064,6 0,244 1,000 1009,7 978,5 1,09
1 18865,3 1009,7 960,5 1044,8 0,231 1,000 1009,7 960,5 1,09
1,5 22932,2 1009,7 910,3 991,2 0,210 1,000 1009,7 910,3 1,09
2 28871,6 1009,7 854,2 949,5 0,187 1,000 1009,7 854,2 1,11
ψ = 0
0 19168,1 1009,7 1009,7 905,3 0,230 1,000 1009,7 1009,7 0,90
0,5 23197,0 1009,7 996,5 931,9 0,209 1,000 1009,7 996,5 0,94
0,75 2489,6 1009,7 978,5 950,7 0,637 1,000 1009,7 978,5 0,97
1 28921,1 1009,7 960,5 965,2 0,187 1,000 1009,7 960,5 1,00
1,5 37294,6 1009,7 910,3 965,9 0,165 1,000 1009,7 910,3 1,06
2 49675,0 1009,7 854,2 956,9 0,143 1,000 1009,7 854,2 1,12
ψ = -‐0.5
0 26230,6 1009,7 1009,7 912,5 0,196 1,000 1009,7 1009,7 0,90
0,5 32135,6 1009,7 996,5 928,1 0,177 1,000 1009,7 996,5 0,93
0,75 37324,5 1009,7 978,5 933,8 0,164 1,000 1009,7 978,5 0,95
1 40232,8 1009,7 960,5 911,2 0,158 1,000 1009,7 960,5 0,95
1,5 51524,3 1009,7 910,3 948,5 0,140 1,000 1009,7 910,3 1,04
2 67315,2 1009,7 854,2 941,8 0,122 1,000 1009,7 854,2 1,10
ψ = -‐ 1
0 26634,7 1009,7 1009,7 987,0 0,195 1,000 1009,7 1009,7 0,98
0,5 31272,2 1009,7 996,5 995,7 0,180 1,000 1009,7 996,5 1,00
0,75 3562,8 1009,7 978,5 1030,9 0,532 1,000 1009,7 978,5 1,05
1 37376,1 1009,7 960,5 987,0 0,164 1,000 1009,7 960,5 1,03
1,5 45588,6 1009,7 910,3 894,5 0,149 1,000 1009,7 910,3 0,98
2 56817,2 1009,7 854,2 871,9 0,133 1,000 1009,7 854,2 1,02
A2.20
IPE500 / L = 2 m / fy = 355 MPa

ψ = 1
0 2793,8 779,2 779,2 697,1 0,528 1,000 779,2 779,2 0,89
0,5 3124,1 779,2 769,0 704,5 0,499 1,000 779,2 769,0 0,92
0,75 3389,7 779,2 755,2 714,7 0,479 1,000 779,2 755,2 0,95
1 3540,0 779,2 741,3 729,1 0,469 1,000 779,2 741,3 0,98
1,5 4079,1 779,2 702,6 731,1 0,437 1,000 779,2 702,6 1,04
2 4804,2 779,2 659,2 732,9 0,403 1,000 779,2 659,2 1,11
ψ = 0.5
0 3689,3 779,2 779,2 731,9 0,460 1,000 779,2 779,2 0,94
0,5 4279,5 779,2 769,0 770,9 0,427 1,000 779,2 769,0 1,00
0,75 4617,4 779,2 755,2 808,8 0,411 1,000 779,2 755,2 1,07
1 5082,2 779,2 741,3 811,6 0,392 1,000 779,2 741,3 1,09
1,5 6231,4 779,2 702,6 787,9 0,354 1,000 779,2 702,6 1,12
2 7991,9 779,2 659,2 751,3 0,312 1,000 779,2 659,2 1,14
ψ = 0
0 5164,8 779,2 779,2 798,9 0,388 1,000 779,2 779,2 1,03
0,5 6284,5 779,2 769,0 810,6 0,352 1,000 779,2 769,0 1,05
0,75 7173,4 779,2 755,2 829,9 0,330 1,000 779,2 755,2 1,10
1 7917,7 779,2 741,3 833,9 0,314 1,000 779,2 741,3 1,12
1,5 10429,3 779,2 702,6 812,8 0,273 1,000 779,2 702,6 1,16
2 14503,2 779,2 659,2 760,4 0,232 1,000 779,2 659,2 1,15
ψ = -‐0.5
0 7225,0 779,2 779,2 791,7 0,328 1,000 779,2 779,2 1,02
0,5 8934,8 779,2 769,0 808,1 0,295 1,000 779,2 769,0 1,05
0,75 22718,2 779,2 755,2 823,4 0,185 1,000 779,2 755,2 1,09
1 11359,1 779,2 741,3 806,2 0,262 1,000 779,2 741,3 1,09
1,5 14960,0 779,2 702,6 740,0 0,228 1,000 779,2 702,6 1,05
2 20599,9 779,2 659,2 732,3 0,194 1,000 779,2 659,2 1,11
ψ = -‐ 1
0 7511,6 779,2 779,2 815,4 0,322 1,000 779,2 779,2 1,05
0,5 8862,6 779,2 769,0 830,7 0,297 1,000 779,2 769,0 1,08
0,75 9026,0 779,2 755,2 846,7 0,294 1,000 779,2 755,2 1,12
1 10698,7 779,2 741,3 810,7 0,270 1,000 779,2 741,3 1,09
1,5 13307,2 779,2 702,6 799,8 0,242 1,000 779,2 702,6 1,14
2 17217,9 779,2 659,2 752,3 0,213 1,000 779,2 659,2 1,14
A2.21
IPE500 / L = 2 m / fy = 460 MPa

ψ = 1
0 2793,8 1009,7 1009,7 915,4 0,601 0,917 925,5 925,5 0,99
0,5 3124,1 1009,7 996,5 922,3 0,569 1,000 1009,7 996,5 0,93
0,75 3389,7 1009,7 978,5 936,6 0,546 1,000 1009,7 978,5 0,96
1 3540,0 1009,7 960,5 1015,4 0,534 1,000 1009,7 960,5 1,06
1,5 4079,1 1009,7 910,3 932,3 0,498 1,000 1009,7 910,3 1,02
2 4804,2 1009,7 854,2 885,8 0,458 1,000 1009,7 854,2 1,04
ψ = 0.5
0 3689,3 1009,7 1009,7 948,1 0,523 1,000 1009,7 1009,7 0,94
0,5 4279,5 1009,7 996,5 995,5 0,486 1,000 1009,7 996,5 1,00
0,75 4617,4 1009,7 978,5 1013,4 0,468 1,000 1009,7 978,5 1,04
1 5082,2 1009,7 960,5 1025,2 0,446 1,000 1009,7 960,5 1,07
1,5 6231,4 1009,7 910,3 952,9 0,403 1,000 1009,7 910,3 1,05
2 7991,9 1009,7 854,2 900,4 0,355 1,000 1009,7 854,2 1,05
ψ = 0
0 5164,8 1009,7 1009,7 1018,1 0,442 1,000 1009,7 1009,7 1,01
0,5 6284,5 1009,7 996,5 1039,6 0,401 1,000 1009,7 996,5 1,04
0,75 7173,4 1009,7 978,5 1060,1 0,375 1,000 1009,7 978,5 1,08
1 7917,7 1009,7 960,5 1042,6 0,357 1,000 1009,7 960,5 1,09
1,5 10429,3 1009,7 910,3 996,7 0,311 1,000 1009,7 910,3 1,09
2 14503,2 1009,7 854,2 909,5 0,264 1,000 1009,7 854,2 1,06
ψ = -‐0.5
0 7225,0 1009,7 1009,7 1029,0 0,374 1,000 1009,7 1009,7 1,02
0,5 8934,8 1009,7 996,5 1043,6 0,336 1,000 1009,7 996,5 1,05
0,75 22718,2 1009,7 978,5 1067,8 0,211 1,000 1009,7 978,5 1,09
1 11359,1 1009,7 960,5 1093,9 0,298 1,000 1009,7 960,5 1,14
1,5 14960,0 1009,7 910,3 915,8 0,260 1,000 1009,7 910,3 1,01
2 20599,9 1009,7 854,2 912,4 0,221 1,000 1009,7 854,2 1,07
ψ = -‐ 1
0 7511,6 1009,7 1009,7 1034,0 0,367 1,000 1009,7 1009,7 1,02
0,5 8862,6 1009,7 996,5 1052,6 0,338 1,000 1009,7 996,5 1,06
0,75 9026,0 1009,7 978,5 1067,8 0,334 1,000 1009,7 978,5 1,09
1 10698,7 1009,7 960,5 1099,9 0,307 1,000 1009,7 960,5 1,15
1,5 13307,2 1009,7 910,3 974,8 0,275 1,000 1009,7 910,3 1,07
2 17217,9 1009,7 854,2 941,4 0,242 1,000 1009,7 854,2 1,10
A2.22
IPE500 / L = 3.5 m / fy = 355 MPa

ψ = 1
0 1005,2 779,2 779,2 650,9 0,880 0,771 601,2 601,2 1,08
0,5 1126,9 779,2 769,0 666,0 0,832 0,800 623,0 623,0 1,07
0,75 1180,5 779,2 755,2 678,0 0,812 0,810 631,4 631,4 1,07
1 1280,4 779,2 741,3 680,8 0,780 0,828 645,2 645,2 1,06
1,5 1480,0 779,2 702,6 695,7 0,726 0,857 667,5 667,5 1,04
2 1749,9 779,2 659,2 708,1 0,667 0,886 690,2 659,2 1,07
ψ = 0.5
0 1327,4 779,2 779,2 708,6 0,766 0,899 700,5 700,5 1,01
0,5 1544,7 779,2 769,0 773,4 0,710 0,929 724,1 724,1 1,07
0,75 1763,0 779,2 755,2 775,1 0,665 0,952 741,7 741,7 1,05
1 1840,8 779,2 741,3 781,0 0,651 0,959 746,9 741,3 1,05
1,5 2266,7 779,2 702,6 785,5 0,586 0,987 768,9 702,6 1,12
2 2925,4 779,2 659,2 827,7 0,516 1,000 779,2 659,2 1,26
ψ = 0
0 1858,3 779,2 779,2 809,2 0,648 1,000 779,2 779,2 1,04
0,5 2267,9 779,2 769,0 820,0 0,586 1,000 779,2 769,0 1,07
0,75 2576,0 779,2 755,2 822,2 0,550 1,000 779,2 755,2 1,09
1 2864,4 779,2 741,3 804,4 0,522 1,000 779,2 741,3 1,09
1,5 3783,5 779,2 702,6 788,0 0,454 1,000 779,2 702,6 1,12
2 5295,3 779,2 659,2 751,0 0,384 1,000 779,2 659,2 1,14
ψ = -‐0.5
0 2606,1 779,2 779,2 787,1 0,547 1,000 779,2 779,2 1,01
0,5 3222,5 779,2 769,0 812,7 0,492 1,000 779,2 769,0 1,06
0,75 3731,8 779,2 755,2 828,0 0,457 1,000 779,2 755,2 1,10
1 4093,4 779,2 741,3 796,7 0,436 1,000 779,2 741,3 1,07
1,5 5399,5 779,2 702,6 731,0 0,380 1,000 779,2 702,6 1,04
2 7514,7 779,2 659,2 711,1 0,322 1,000 779,2 659,2 1,08
ψ = -‐ 1
0 2734,2 779,2 779,2 832,5 0,534 1,000 779,2 779,2 1,07
0,5 3122,2 779,2 769,0 815,8 0,500 1,000 779,2 769,0 1,06
0,75 3481,3 779,2 755,2 791,0 0,473 1,000 779,2 755,2 1,05
1 3866,9 779,2 741,3 772,0 0,449 1,000 779,2 741,3 1,04
1,5 4811,1 779,2 702,6 758,0 0,402 1,000 779,2 702,6 1,08
2 6269,3 779,2 659,2 740,7 0,353 1,000 779,2 659,2 1,12
A2.23
IPE500 / L = 3.5 m / fy = 460 MPa

ψ = 1
0 1005,2 1009,7 1009,7 761,4 1,002 0,698 705,1 705,1 1,08
0,5 1126,9 1009,7 996,5 775,8 0,947 0,732 739,3 739,3 1,05
0,75 1180,5 1009,7 978,5 799,4 0,925 0,745 752,5 752,5 1,06
1 1280,4 1009,7 960,5 813,7 0,888 0,767 774,5 774,5 1,05
1,5 1480,0 1009,7 910,3 824,5 0,826 0,803 810,5 810,5 1,02
2 1749,9 1009,7 854,2 838,2 0,760 0,839 847,1 847,1 0,99
ψ = 0.5
0 1327,4 1009,7 1009,7 861,1 0,872 0,835 842,9 842,9 1,02
0,5 1544,7 1009,7 996,5 966,1 0,809 0,874 882,8 882,8 1,09
0,75 1763,0 1009,7 978,5 996,1 0,757 0,904 913,0 913,0 1,09
1 1840,8 1009,7 960,5 1002,7 0,741 0,913 922,0 922,0 1,09
1,5 2266,7 1009,7 910,3 981,9 0,667 0,951 959,8 910,3 1,08
2 2925,4 1009,7 854,2 965,2 0,587 0,986 995,8 854,2 1,13
ψ = 0
0 1858,3 1009,7 1009,7 1020,5 0,737 0,991 1000,3 1000,3 1,02
0,5 2267,9 1009,7 996,5 1042,3 0,667 1,000 1009,7 996,5 1,05
0,75 2576,0 1009,7 978,5 1044,7 0,626 1,000 1009,7 978,5 1,07
1 2864,4 1009,7 960,5 992,6 0,594 1,000 1009,7 960,5 1,03
1,5 3783,5 1009,7 910,3 974,1 0,517 1,000 1009,7 910,3 1,07
2 5295,3 1009,7 854,2 956,0 0,437 1,000 1009,7 854,2 1,12
ψ = -‐0.5
0 2606,1 1009,7 1009,7 1025,1 0,622 1,000 1009,7 1009,7 1,02
0,5 3222,5 1009,7 996,5 1056,6 0,560 1,000 1009,7 996,5 1,06
0,75 3731,8 1009,7 978,5 986,0 0,520 1,000 1009,7 978,5 1,01
1 4093,4 1009,7 960,5 968,4 0,497 1,000 1009,7 960,5 1,01
1,5 5399,5 1009,7 910,3 955,5 0,432 1,000 1009,7 910,3 1,05
2 7514,7 1009,7 854,2 903,6 0,367 1,000 1009,7 854,2 1,06
ψ = -‐ 1
0 2734,2 1009,7 1009,7 922,8 0,608 1,000 1009,7 1009,7 0,91
0,5 3122,2 1009,7 996,5 961,9 0,569 1,000 1009,7 996,5 0,97
0,75 3481,3 1009,7 978,5 1004,4 0,539 1,000 1009,7 978,5 1,03
1 3866,9 1009,7 960,5 1032,3 0,511 1,000 1009,7 960,5 1,07
1,5 4811,1 1009,7 910,3 978,7 0,458 1,000 1009,7 910,3 1,08
2 6269,3 1009,7 854,2 966,5 0,401 1,000 1009,7 854,2 1,13
A2.24
IPE500 / L = 5 m / fy = 355 MPa

ψ = 1
0 552,7 779,2 779,2 467,7 1,187 0,587 457,1 457,1 1,02
0,5 622,3 779,2 769,0 491,3 1,119 0,627 488,6 488,6 1,01
0,75 681,7 779,2 755,2 515,7 1,069 0,657 512,2 512,2 1,01
1 710,0 779,2 741,3 525,6 1,048 0,671 522,5 522,5 1,01
1,5 824,3 779,2 702,6 567,4 0,972 0,717 558,4 558,4 1,02
2 979,0 779,2 659,2 599,5 0,892 0,765 595,8 595,8 1,01
ψ = 0.5
0 729,6 779,2 779,2 606,6 1,033 0,725 564,9 564,9 1,07
0,5 853,5 779,2 769,0 653,9 0,956 0,779 607,2 607,2 1,08
0,75 978,3 779,2 755,2 684,2 0,892 0,822 640,2 640,2 1,07
1 1022,2 779,2 741,3 702,4 0,873 0,834 650,0 650,0 1,08
1,5 1264,6 779,2 702,6 741,9 0,785 0,888 692,1 692,1 1,07
2 1638,9 779,2 659,2 761,5 0,690 0,940 732,3 659,2 1,16
ψ = 0
0 1019,4 779,2 779,2 699,8 0,874 0,902 702,9 702,9 1,00
0,5 1249,5 779,2 769,0 783,5 0,790 0,959 747,6 747,6 1,05
0,75 1383,4 779,2 755,2 792,0 0,751 0,983 766,0 755,2 1,05
1 1580,9 779,2 741,3 795,1 0,702 1,000 779,2 741,3 1,07
1,5 2084,3 779,2 702,6 784,4 0,611 1,000 779,2 702,6 1,12
2 2901,6 779,2 659,2 754,4 0,518 1,000 779,2 659,2 1,14
ψ = -‐0.5
0 1425,7 779,2 779,2 803,5 0,739 1,000 779,2 779,2 1,03
0,5 1761,0 779,2 769,0 820,8 0,665 1,000 779,2 769,0 1,07
0,75 2568,5 779,2 755,2 828,0 0,551 1,000 779,2 755,2 1,10
1 2227,2 779,2 741,3 816,3 0,592 1,000 779,2 741,3 1,10
1,5 2920,6 779,2 702,6 787,1 0,517 1,000 779,2 702,6 1,12
2 4044,4 779,2 659,2 752,7 0,439 1,000 779,2 659,2 1,14
ψ = -‐ 1
0 1505,0 779,2 779,2 817,3 0,720 1,000 779,2 779,2 1,05
0,5 1757,9 779,2 769,0 836,1 0,666 1,000 779,2 769,0 1,09
0,75 1806,7 779,2 755,2 845,1 0,657 1,000 779,2 755,2 1,12
1 2104,6 779,2 741,3 784,7 0,608 1,000 779,2 741,3 1,06
1,5 2605,7 779,2 702,6 735,5 0,547 1,000 779,2 702,6 1,05
2 3383,9 779,2 659,2 716,9 0,480 1,000 779,2 659,2 1,09
A2.25
IPE500 / L = 5 m / fy = 460 MPa

ψ = 1
0 552,7 1009,7 1009,7 514,0 1,352 0,497 501,6 501,6 1,02
0,5 622,3 1009,7 996,5 564,3 1,274 0,538 542,9 542,9 1,04
0,75 681,7 1009,7 978,5 580,5 1,217 0,569 575,0 575,0 1,01
1 710,0 1009,7 960,5 602,1 1,192 0,584 589,2 589,2 1,02
1,5 824,3 1009,7 910,3 656,5 1,107 0,634 640,6 640,6 1,02
2 979,0 1009,7 854,2 720,0 1,016 0,690 696,8 696,8 1,03
ψ = 0.5
0 729,6 1009,7 1009,7 607,0 1,176 0,625 630,7 630,7 0,96
0,5 853,5 1009,7 996,5 710,6 1,088 0,687 693,3 693,3 1,02
0,75 978,3 1009,7 978,5 775,8 1,016 0,737 744,4 744,4 1,04
1 1022,2 1009,7 960,5 817,3 0,994 0,753 760,0 760,0 1,08
1,5 1264,6 1009,7 910,3 868,8 0,894 0,821 828,9 828,9 1,05
2 1638,9 1009,7 854,2 879,2 0,785 0,888 896,9 854,2 1,03
ψ = 0
0 1019,4 1009,7 1009,7 865,7 0,995 0,809 816,9 816,9 1,06
0,5 1249,5 1009,7 996,5 914,8 0,899 0,884 892,6 892,6 1,02
0,75 1383,4 1009,7 978,5 959,0 0,854 0,916 925,2 925,2 1,04
1 1580,9 1009,7 960,5 982,7 0,799 0,953 962,6 960,5 1,02
1,5 2084,3 1009,7 910,3 927,2 0,696 1,000 1009,7 910,3 1,02
2 2901,6 1009,7 854,2 883,0 0,590 1,000 1009,7 854,2 1,03
ψ = -‐0.5
0 1425,7 1009,7 1009,7 1093,1 0,842 0,951 960,0 960,0 1,14
0,5 1761,0 1009,7 996,5 1103,0 0,757 1,000 1009,7 996,5 1,11
0,75 2568,5 1009,7 978,5 1051,1 0,627 1,000 1009,7 978,5 1,07
1 2227,2 1009,7 960,5 1018,1 0,673 1,000 1009,7 960,5 1,06
1,5 2920,6 1009,7 910,3 1055,8 0,588 1,000 1009,7 910,3 1,16
2 4044,4 1009,7 854,2 985,8 0,500 1,000 1009,7 854,2 1,15
ψ = -‐ 1
0 1505,0 1009,7 1009,7 950,5 0,819 1,000 1009,7 1009,7 0,94
0,5 1757,9 1009,7 996,5 959,2 0,758 1,000 1009,7 996,5 0,96
0,75 1806,7 1009,7 978,5 1000,9 0,748 1,000 1009,7 978,5 1,02
1 2104,6 1009,7 960,5 959,3 0,693 1,000 1009,7 960,5 1,00
1,5 2605,7 1009,7 910,3 943,7 0,622 1,000 1009,7 910,3 1,04
2 3383,9 1009,7 854,2 918,1 0,546 1,000 1009,7 854,2 1,07
A2.26
IPE500 / L = 8 m / fy = 355 MPa

ψ = 1
0 275,2 779,2 779,2 293,4 1,683 0,357 278,1 278,1 1,06
0,5 314,1 779,2 769,0 309,8 1,575 0,396 308,9 308,9 1,00
0,75 342,2 779,2 755,2 332,0 1,509 0,423 329,9 329,9 1,01
1 363,4 779,2 741,3 359,5 1,464 0,443 345,1 345,1 1,04
1,5 427,6 779,2 702,6 405,1 1,350 0,498 387,8 387,8 1,04
2 514,6 779,2 659,2 470,1 1,231 0,562 437,8 437,8 1,07
ψ = 0.5
0 699,0 779,2 779,2 567,7 1,056 0,709 552,6 552,6 1,03
0,5 866,5 779,2 769,0 640,9 0,948 0,784 611,1 611,1 1,05
0,75 927,7 779,2 755,2 687,9 0,916 0,806 627,8 627,8 1,10
1 1089,9 779,2 741,3 714,8 0,846 0,852 663,7 663,7 1,08
1,5 1413,7 779,2 702,6 713,3 0,742 0,912 710,8 702,6 1,02
2 1929,7 779,2 659,2 726,2 0,635 0,965 752,3 659,2 1,10
ψ = 0
0 504,3 779,2 779,2 475,1 1,243 0,607 473,2 473,2 1,00
0,5 627,7 779,2 769,0 588,9 1,114 0,711 554,2 554,2 1,06
0,75 678,9 779,2 755,2 609,8 1,071 0,747 581,8 581,8 1,05
1 799,8 779,2 741,3 683,5 0,987 0,816 635,5 635,5 1,08
1,5 1051,2 779,2 702,6 709,1 0,861 0,912 710,4 702,6 1,01
2 1443,5 779,2 659,2 724,1 0,735 0,992 773,0 659,2 1,10
ψ = -‐0.5
0 699,0 779,2 779,2 624,3 1,056 0,777 605,7 605,7 1,03
0,5 866,5 779,2 769,0 735,3 0,948 0,869 676,8 676,8 1,09
0,75 927,7 779,2 755,2 754,8 0,916 0,894 696,8 696,8 1,08
1 1089,9 779,2 741,3 769,5 0,846 0,948 738,6 738,6 1,04
1,5 1413,7 779,2 702,6 735,1 0,742 1,000 779,2 702,6 1,05
2 1929,7 779,2 659,2 690,1 0,635 1,000 779,2 659,2 1,05
ψ = -‐ 1
0 746,2 779,2 779,2 655,4 1,022 0,836 651,5 651,5 1,01
0,5 865,6 779,2 769,0 740,7 0,949 0,902 703,0 703,0 1,05
0,75 927,7 779,2 755,2 768,1 0,916 0,930 724,7 724,7 1,06
1 1028,8 779,2 741,3 780,1 0,870 0,968 754,2 741,3 1,05
1,5 1264,0 779,2 702,6 779,8 0,785 1,000 779,2 702,6 1,11
2 1628,1 779,2 659,2 812,3 0,692 1,000 779,2 659,2 1,23
A2.27
IPE500 / L = 8 m / fy = 460 MPa

ψ = 1
0 275,2 1009,7 1009,7 295,5 1,915 0,288 290,5 290,5 1,02
0,5 314,1 1009,7 996,5 328,7 1,793 0,322 324,8 324,8 1,01
0,75 342,2 1009,7 978,5 355,0 1,718 0,345 348,5 348,5 1,02
1 363,4 1009,7 960,5 375,8 1,667 0,362 365,9 365,9 1,03
1,5 427,6 1009,7 910,3 429,4 1,537 0,412 415,9 415,9 1,03
2 514,6 1009,7 854,2 514,6 1,401 0,472 477,1 477,1 1,08
ψ = 0.5
0 699,0 1009,7 1009,7 614,7 1,202 0,607 613,2 613,2 1,00
0,5 866,5 1009,7 996,5 693,2 1,079 0,692 699,2 699,2 0,99
0,75 927,7 1009,7 978,5 743,9 1,043 0,718 725,0 725,0 1,03
1 1089,9 1009,7 960,5 805,7 0,963 0,774 782,0 782,0 1,03
1,5 1413,7 1009,7 910,3 865,3 0,845 0,852 860,2 860,2 1,01
2 1929,7 1009,7 854,2 954,4 0,723 0,922 931,3 854,2 1,12
ψ = 0
0 504,3 1009,7 1009,7 517,9 1,415 0,482 487,1 487,1 1,06
0,5 627,7 1009,7 996,5 604,1 1,268 0,588 593,4 593,4 1,02
0,75 678,9 1009,7 978,5 650,2 1,220 0,626 631,9 631,9 1,03
1 799,8 1009,7 960,5 742,9 1,124 0,704 710,4 710,4 1,05
1,5 1051,2 1009,7 910,3 910,4 0,980 0,821 829,2 829,2 1,10
2 1443,5 1009,7 854,2 962,9 0,836 0,929 937,8 854,2 1,13
ψ = -‐0.5
0 699,0 1009,7 1009,7 676,2 1,202 0,651 657,5 657,5 1,03
0,5 866,5 1009,7 996,5 820,5 1,079 0,757 764,1 764,1 1,07
0,75 927,7 1009,7 978,5 853,4 1,043 0,788 795,9 795,9 1,07
1 1089,9 1009,7 960,5 894,7 0,963 0,857 865,2 865,2 1,03
1,5 1413,7 1009,7 910,3 922,9 0,845 0,948 957,4 910,3 1,01
2 1929,7 1009,7 854,2 952,9 0,723 1,000 1009,7 854,2 1,12
ψ = -‐ 1
0 746,2 1009,7 1009,7 689,1 1,163 0,704 710,5 710,5 0,97
0,5 865,6 1009,7 996,5 802,4 1,080 0,782 789,3 789,3 1,02
0,75 927,7 1009,7 978,5 865,9 1,043 0,816 824,2 824,2 1,05
1 1028,8 1009,7 960,5 916,5 0,991 0,865 873,2 873,2 1,05
1,5 1264,0 1009,7 910,3 970,9 0,894 0,949 958,2 910,3 1,07
2 1628,1 1009,7 854,2 996,0 0,788 1,000 1009,7 854,2 1,17
A2.28
IPE500 / L = 10 m / fy = 355 MPa

ψ = 1
0 204,5 779,2 779,2 227,8 1,952 0,279 217,1 217,1 1,05
0,5 236,3 779,2 769,0 256,8 1,816 0,315 245,4 245,4 1,05
0,75 258,5 779,2 755,2 279,3 1,736 0,339 264,3 264,3 1,06
1 276,6 779,2 741,3 302,9 1,678 0,358 279,3 279,3 1,08
1,5 329,3 779,2 702,6 349,7 1,538 0,411 320,4 320,4 1,09
2 400,6 779,2 659,2 396,2 1,395 0,475 370,4 370,4 1,07
ψ = 0.5
0 269,6 779,2 779,2 286,6 1,700 0,351 273,5 273,5 1,05
0,5 325,6 779,2 769,0 332,0 1,547 0,408 317,6 317,6 1,05
0,75 374,8 779,2 755,2 358,1 1,442 0,459 357,5 357,5 1,00
1 401,7 779,2 741,3 402,6 1,393 0,487 379,1 379,1 1,06
1,5 509,5 779,2 702,6 467,4 1,237 0,584 455,0 455,0 1,03
2 672,1 779,2 659,2 573,9 1,077 0,694 541,0 541,0 1,06
ψ = 0
0 373,1 779,2 779,2 369,3 1,445 0,463 360,5 360,5 1,02
0,5 470,8 779,2 769,0 457,8 1,287 0,574 447,1 447,1 1,02
0,75 565,2 779,2 755,2 517,1 1,174 0,662 516,0 516,0 1,00
1 603,9 779,2 741,3 558,7 1,136 0,693 540,3 540,3 1,03
1,5 793,1 779,2 702,6 691,3 0,991 0,812 632,9 632,9 1,09
2 1081,3 779,2 659,2 737,4 0,849 0,920 717,0 659,2 1,12
ψ = -‐0.5
0 513,7 779,2 779,2 494,4 1,232 0,626 487,9 487,9 1,01
0,5 640,8 779,2 769,0 580,4 1,103 0,737 573,9 573,9 1,01
0,75 756,8 779,2 755,2 639,2 1,015 0,813 633,4 633,4 1,01
1 805,7 779,2 741,3 698,8 0,983 0,839 654,1 654,1 1,07
1,5 1040,9 779,2 702,6 708,6 0,865 0,934 727,5 702,6 1,01
2 1411,0 779,2 659,2 715,6 0,743 1,000 779,2 659,2 1,09
ψ = -‐ 1
0 551,8 779,2 779,2 540,2 1,188 0,681 530,3 530,3 1,02
0,5 639,9 779,2 769,0 594,7 1,104 0,760 591,9 591,9 1,00
0,75 701,9 779,2 755,2 645,5 1,054 0,807 628,5 628,5 1,03
1 759,9 779,2 741,3 688,7 1,013 0,845 658,2 658,2 1,05
1,5 932,3 779,2 702,6 739,8 0,914 0,932 726,2 702,6 1,05
2 1198,0 779,2 659,2 757,9 0,807 1,000 779,2 659,2 1,15
A2.29
IPE500 / L = 10 m / fy = 460 MPa

ψ = 1
0 204,5 1009,7 1009,7 225,9 2,222 0,222 224,4 224,4 1,01
0,5 236,3 1009,7 996,5 289,0 2,067 0,252 254,8 254,8 1,13
0,75 258,5 1009,7 978,5 309,3 1,976 0,273 275,4 275,4 1,12
1 276,6 1009,7 960,5 325,7 1,910 0,289 291,8 291,8 1,12
1,5 329,3 1009,7 910,3 372,0 1,751 0,334 337,7 337,7 1,10
2 400,6 1009,7 854,2 449,9 1,588 0,392 395,4 395,4 1,14
ψ = 0.5
0 269,6 1009,7 1009,7 303,6 1,935 0,283 285,5 285,5 1,06
0,5 325,6 1009,7 996,5 351,4 1,761 0,331 334,6 334,6 1,05
0,75 374,8 1009,7 978,5 373,6 1,641 0,371 375,1 375,1 1,00
1 401,7 1009,7 960,5 424,7 1,585 0,392 396,2 396,2 1,07
1,5 509,5 1009,7 910,3 557,1 1,408 0,478 482,6 482,6 1,15
2 672,1 1009,7 854,2 626,7 1,226 0,591 596,9 596,9 1,05
ψ = 0
0 373,1 1009,7 1009,7 404,2 1,645 0,370 373,7 373,7 1,08
0,5 470,8 1009,7 996,5 517,7 1,465 0,450 454,7 454,7 1,14
0,75 565,2 1009,7 978,5 591,6 1,337 0,537 542,1 542,1 1,09
1 603,9 1009,7 960,5 641,0 1,293 0,569 574,4 574,4 1,12
1,5 793,1 1009,7 910,3 791,9 1,128 0,700 706,4 706,4 1,12
2 1081,3 1009,7 854,2 915,2 0,966 0,832 840,2 840,2 1,09
ψ = -‐0.5
0 513,7 1009,7 1009,7 569,9 1,402 0,494 499,2 499,2 1,14
0,5 640,8 1009,7 996,5 649,2 1,255 0,607 612,6 612,6 1,06
0,75 756,8 1009,7 978,5 743,6 1,155 0,691 697,8 697,8 1,07
1 805,7 1009,7 960,5 843,1 1,119 0,722 728,9 728,9 1,16
1,5 1040,9 1009,7 910,3 910,2 0,985 0,838 846,3 846,3 1,08
2 1411,0 1009,7 854,2 967,7 0,846 0,948 956,8 854,2 1,13
ψ = -‐ 1
0 551,8 1009,7 1009,7 602,8 1,353 0,538 543,1 543,1 1,11
0,5 639,9 1009,7 996,5 689,1 1,256 0,619 625,3 625,3 1,10
0,75 701,9 1009,7 978,5 739,4 1,199 0,670 676,8 676,8 1,09
1 759,9 1009,7 960,5 812,8 1,153 0,713 720,4 720,4 1,13
1,5 932,3 1009,7 910,3 947,7 1,041 0,819 826,6 826,6 1,15
2 1198,0 1009,7 854,2 988,4 0,918 0,929 937,8 854,2 1,16
A2.30
IPE500 / L = 15 m / fy = 355 MPa

ψ = 1
0 125,8 779,2 779,2 151,8 2,488 0,181 141,4 141,4 1,07
0,5 151,0 779,2 769,0 175,8 2,272 0,214 166,5 166,5 1,06
0,75 167,6 779,2 755,2 196,3 2,156 0,234 182,6 182,6 1,07
1 183,2 779,2 741,3 228,0 2,062 0,253 197,4 197,4 1,15
1,5 225,4 779,2 702,6 263,6 1,859 0,303 235,8 235,8 1,12
2 282,5 779,2 659,2 323,0 1,661 0,365 284,0 284,0 1,14
ψ = 0.5
0 165,6 779,2 779,2 182,6 2,169 0,232 180,7 180,7 1,01
0,5 209,5 779,2 769,0 226,4 1,929 0,284 221,6 221,6 1,02
0,75 245,4 779,2 755,2 269,9 1,782 0,325 253,2 253,2 1,07
1 268,9 779,2 741,3 294,7 1,702 0,350 272,9 272,9 1,08
1,5 351,2 779,2 702,6 365,1 1,489 0,433 337,7 337,7 1,08
2 470,8 779,2 659,2 451,4 1,287 0,551 429,7 429,7 1,05
ψ = 0
0 227,5 779,2 779,2 241,5 1,851 0,305 237,6 237,6 1,02
0,5 299,5 779,2 769,0 330,0 1,613 0,382 297,6 297,6 1,11
0,75 346,0 779,2 755,2 369,6 1,501 0,428 333,5 333,5 1,11
1 392,4 779,2 741,3 403,5 1,409 0,486 378,9 378,9 1,06
1,5 517,2 779,2 702,6 551,6 1,227 0,619 482,7 482,7 1,14
2 698,8 779,2 659,2 678,6 1,056 0,759 591,7 591,7 1,15
ψ = -‐0.5
0 309,3 779,2 779,2 331,9 1,587 0,392 305,2 305,2 1,09
0,5 395,9 779,2 769,0 433,5 1,403 0,494 384,7 384,7 1,13
0,75 464,8 779,2 755,2 492,9 1,295 0,575 448,0 448,0 1,10
1 501,9 779,2 741,3 523,4 1,246 0,614 478,7 478,7 1,09
1,5 648,4 779,2 702,6 625,1 1,096 0,742 578,3 578,3 1,08
2 871,6 779,2 659,2 715,8 0,946 0,871 678,6 659,2 1,09
ψ = -‐ 1
0 335,9 779,2 779,2 366,5 1,523 0,417 325,3 325,3 1,13
0,5 393,3 779,2 769,0 434,0 1,408 0,495 385,6 385,6 1,13
0,75 436,6 779,2 755,2 479,0 1,336 0,551 429,6 429,6 1,11
1 470,9 779,2 741,3 501,6 1,286 0,593 462,1 462,1 1,09
1,5 581,0 779,2 702,6 595,5 1,158 0,708 552,1 552,1 1,08
2 747,8 779,2 659,2 737,2 1,021 0,837 652,3 652,3 1,13
A2.31
IPE500 / L = 15 m / fy = 460 MPa

ψ = 1
0 125,8 1009,7 1009,7 151,8 2,833 0,143 144,6 144,6 1,05
0,5 151,0 1009,7 996,5 182,9 2,586 0,169 170,8 170,8 1,07
0,75 167,6 1009,7 978,5 212,7 2,454 0,186 187,8 187,8 1,13
1 183,2 1009,7 960,5 228,0 2,348 0,201 203,4 203,4 1,12
1,5 225,4 1009,7 910,3 273,6 2,116 0,242 244,5 244,5 1,12
2 282,5 1009,7 854,2 323,2 1,891 0,294 297,1 297,1 1,09
ψ = 0.5
0 165,6 1009,7 1009,7 198,3 2,469 0,184 185,8 185,8 1,07
0,5 209,5 1009,7 996,5 255,3 2,195 0,227 229,2 229,2 1,11
0,75 245,4 1009,7 978,5 298,9 2,028 0,261 263,3 263,3 1,13
1 268,9 1009,7 960,5 324,1 1,938 0,282 284,9 284,9 1,14
1,5 351,2 1009,7 910,3 379,6 1,695 0,353 356,0 356,0 1,07
2 470,8 1009,7 854,2 489,9 1,464 0,447 450,9 450,9 1,09
ψ = 0
0 227,5 1009,7 1009,7 250,0 2,107 0,244 246,5 246,5 1,01
0,5 299,5 1009,7 996,5 327,5 1,836 0,309 312,1 312,1 1,05
0,75 346,0 1009,7 978,5 364,4 1,708 0,348 351,6 351,6 1,04
1 392,4 1009,7 960,5 422,1 1,604 0,385 389,0 389,0 1,09
1,5 517,2 1009,7 910,3 537,5 1,397 0,494 499,1 499,1 1,08
2 698,8 1009,7 854,2 687,9 1,202 0,640 645,9 645,9 1,06
ψ = -‐0.5
0 309,3 1009,7 1009,7 352,4 1,807 0,318 320,6 320,6 1,10
0,5 395,9 1009,7 996,5 419,8 1,597 0,388 391,7 391,7 1,07
0,75 464,8 1009,7 978,5 473,0 1,474 0,445 449,7 449,7 1,05
1 501,9 1009,7 960,5 548,6 1,418 0,483 487,6 487,6 1,13
1,5 648,4 1009,7 910,3 698,2 1,248 0,613 618,7 618,7 1,13
2 871,6 1009,7 854,2 862,2 1,076 0,760 766,9 766,9 1,12
ψ = -‐ 1
0 335,9 1009,7 1009,7 350,6 1,734 0,340 343,3 343,3 1,02
0,5 393,3 1009,7 996,5 415,2 1,602 0,386 389,6 389,6 1,07
0,75 436,6 1009,7 978,5 458,3 1,521 0,418 422,5 422,5 1,08
1 470,9 1009,7 960,5 508,5 1,464 0,453 457,9 457,9 1,11
1,5 581,0 1009,7 910,3 636,8 1,318 0,566 571,5 571,5 1,11
2 747,8 1009,7 854,2 775,6 1,162 0,705 711,7 711,7 1,09
A2.32
IPE500 / L = 20 m / fy = 355 MPa

ψ = 1
0 91,4 779,2 779,2 115,1 2,920 0,135 105,5 105,5 1,09
0,5 114,3 779,2 769,0 139,0 2,611 0,166 129,6 129,6 1,07
0,75 129,3 779,2 755,2 152,8 2,455 0,186 144,9 144,9 1,06
1 144,2 779,2 741,3 173,4 2,325 0,205 159,8 159,8 1,09
1,5 183,4 779,2 702,6 202,1 2,061 0,254 197,6 197,6 1,02
2 236,2 779,2 659,2 259,6 1,816 0,315 245,2 245,2 1,06
ψ = 0.5
0 120,1 779,2 779,2 145,1 2,547 0,174 135,5 135,5 1,07
0,5 159,9 779,2 769,0 194,7 2,208 0,225 175,2 175,2 1,11
0,75 192,9 779,2 755,2 233,8 2,010 0,265 206,5 206,5 1,13
1 213,5 779,2 741,3 254,3 1,910 0,289 225,2 225,2 1,13
1,5 285,8 779,2 702,6 310,9 1,651 0,368 286,7 286,7 1,08
2 387,0 779,2 659,2 406,5 1,419 0,472 367,5 367,5 1,11
ψ = 0
0 164,2 779,2 779,2 180,9 2,179 0,230 179,3 179,3 1,01
0,5 226,3 779,2 769,0 243,1 1,856 0,304 236,6 236,6 1,03
0,75 276,3 779,2 755,2 295,9 1,679 0,358 279,0 279,0 1,06
1 302,5 779,2 741,3 318,5 1,605 0,385 299,9 299,9 1,06
1,5 401,3 779,2 702,6 404,4 1,394 0,497 387,2 387,2 1,04
2 541,1 779,2 659,2 557,3 1,200 0,641 499,8 499,8 1,12
ψ = -‐0.5
0 221,2 779,2 779,2 231,4 1,877 0,298 232,1 232,1 1,00
0,5 291,9 779,2 769,0 321,4 1,634 0,374 291,6 291,6 1,10
0,75 324,1 779,2 755,2 354,5 1,551 0,406 316,5 316,5 1,12
1 375,3 779,2 741,3 404,6 1,441 0,467 364,1 364,1 1,11
1,5 488,0 779,2 702,6 514,9 1,264 0,600 467,5 467,5 1,10
2 655,3 779,2 659,2 656,6 1,090 0,747 582,2 582,2 1,13
ψ = -‐ 1
0 241,5 779,2 779,2 262,0 1,796 0,321 249,9 249,9 1,05
0,5 287,8 779,2 769,0 290,7 1,645 0,370 288,3 288,3 1,01
0,75 312,7 779,2 755,2 321,0 1,579 0,395 307,8 307,8 1,04
1 350,1 779,2 741,3 366,2 1,492 0,434 338,6 338,6 1,08
1,5 437,6 779,2 702,6 453,8 1,334 0,553 430,6 430,6 1,05
2 567,6 779,2 659,2 584,9 1,172 0,696 542,2 542,2 1,08
A2.33
IPE500 / L = 20 m / fy = 460 MPa

ψ = 1
0 91,4 1009,7 1009,7 111,7 3,324 0,106 107,4 107,4 1,04
0,5 114,3 1009,7 996,5 132,1 2,972 0,131 132,3 132,3 1,00
0,75 129,3 1009,7 978,5 154,2 2,795 0,147 148,2 148,2 1,04
1 144,2 1009,7 960,5 163,4 2,646 0,162 163,8 163,8 1,00
1,5 183,4 1009,7 910,3 204,4 2,346 0,202 203,6 203,6 1,00
2 236,2 1009,7 854,2 259,7 2,068 0,252 254,7 254,7 1,02
ψ = 0.5
0 120,1 1009,7 1009,7 142,7 2,899 0,137 138,5 138,5 1,03
0,5 159,9 1009,7 996,5 191,4 2,513 0,178 180,0 180,0 1,06
0,75 192,9 1009,7 978,5 229,8 2,288 0,211 213,1 213,1 1,08
1 213,5 1009,7 960,5 249,6 2,175 0,231 233,1 233,1 1,07
1,5 285,8 1009,7 910,3 314,4 1,880 0,297 300,0 300,0 1,05
2 387,0 1009,7 854,2 402,1 1,615 0,381 384,7 384,7 1,05
ψ = 0
0 164,2 1009,7 1009,7 197,3 2,480 0,183 184,3 184,3 1,07
0,5 226,3 1009,7 996,5 251,4 2,112 0,243 245,3 245,3 1,02
0,75 276,3 1009,7 978,5 297,3 1,912 0,289 291,6 291,6 1,02
1 302,5 1009,7 960,5 332,1 1,827 0,312 314,7 314,7 1,06
1,5 401,3 1009,7 910,3 417,8 1,586 0,392 395,9 395,9 1,06
2 541,1 1009,7 854,2 549,1 1,366 0,516 520,9 520,9 1,05
ψ = -‐0.5
0 221,2 1009,7 1009,7 261,3 2,137 0,238 240,5 240,5 1,09
0,5 291,9 1009,7 996,5 308,7 1,860 0,302 305,4 305,4 1,01
0,75 324,1 1009,7 978,5 348,9 1,765 0,330 333,3 333,3 1,05
1 375,3 1009,7 960,5 381,3 1,640 0,372 375,4 375,4 1,02
1,5 488,0 1009,7 910,3 480,6 1,438 0,469 473,6 473,6 1,01
2 655,3 1009,7 854,2 652,7 1,241 0,618 624,2 624,2 1,05
ψ = -‐ 1
0 241,5 1009,7 1009,7 262,0 2,045 0,257 259,7 259,7 1,01
0,5 287,8 1009,7 996,5 310,7 1,873 0,299 301,8 301,8 1,03
0,75 312,7 1009,7 978,5 351,0 1,797 0,320 323,5 323,5 1,08
1 350,1 1009,7 960,5 376,2 1,698 0,352 355,1 355,1 1,06
1,5 437,6 1009,7 910,3 455,5 1,519 0,419 423,2 423,2 1,08
2 567,6 1009,7 854,2 590,4 1,334 0,553 558,6 558,6 1,06
A2.34
A2.3. Proposed ultimate moment estimates and design results - HEB300 beams
HEB300 / L = 2 m / fy = 355 MPa

ψ = 1
0 6504,4 664,0 664,0 657,8 0,320 1,000 664,0 664,0 0,99
0,5 7033,1 664,0 657,1 665,5 0,307 1,000 664,0 657,1 1,01
0,75 7367,9 664,0 647,6 629,2 0,300 1,000 664,0 647,6 0,97
1 7653,0 664,0 638,0 661,9 0,295 1,000 664,0 638,0 1,04
1,5 8388,9 664,0 610,4 650,2 0,281 1,000 664,0 610,4 1,07
2 9275,5 664,0 578,4 619,9 0,268 1,000 664,0 578,4 1,07
ψ = 0.5
0 8582,7 664,0 664,0 714,3 0,278 1,000 664,0 664,0 1,08
0,5 9516,2 664,0 657,1 725,8 0,264 1,000 664,0 657,1 1,10
0,75 10190,7 664,0 647,6 737,5 0,255 1,000 664,0 647,6 1,14
1 10667,8 664,0 638,0 710,4 0,249 1,000 664,0 638,0 1,11
1,5 12119,1 664,0 610,4 686,7 0,234 1,000 664,0 610,4 1,13
2 13994,4 664,0 578,4 646,0 0,218 1,000 664,0 578,4 1,12
ψ = 0
0 11954,0 664,0 664,0 715,9 0,236 1,000 664,0 664,0 1,08
0,5 13697,6 664,0 657,1 722,2 0,220 1,000 664,0 657,1 1,10
0,75 14373,1 664,0 647,6 738,4 0,215 1,000 664,0 647,6 1,14
1 15954,4 664,0 638,0 706,0 0,204 1,000 664,0 638,0 1,11
1,5 18940,2 664,0 610,4 653,3 0,187 1,000 664,0 610,4 1,07
2 22970,8 664,0 578,4 601,9 0,170 1,000 664,0 578,4 1,04
ψ = -‐ 0.5
0 16456,2 664,0 664,0 662,8 0,201 1,000 664,0 664,0 1,00
0,5 19151,4 664,0 657,1 699,0 0,186 1,000 664,0 657,1 1,06
0,75 20773,2 664,0 647,6 712,6 0,179 1,000 664,0 647,6 1,10
1 22586,0 664,0 638,0 718,0 0,171 1,000 664,0 638,0 1,13
1,5 27012,6 664,0 610,4 696,9 0,157 1,000 664,0 610,4 1,14
2 32775,9 664,0 578,4 644,8 0,142 1,000 664,0 578,4 1,11
ψ = -‐ 1
0 16836,5 664,0 664,0 656,7 0,199 1,000 664,0 664,0 0,99
0,5 19099,1 664,0 657,1 667,1 0,186 1,000 664,0 657,1 1,02
0,75 20237,3 664,0 647,6 683,7 0,181 1,000 664,0 647,6 1,06
1 21868,7 664,0 638,0 652,7 0,174 1,000 664,0 638,0 1,02
1,5 25305,4 664,0 610,4 626,6 0,162 1,000 664,0 610,4 1,03
2 29631,0 664,0 578,4 599,2 0,150 1,000 664,0 578,4 1,04
A2.35
HEB300 / L = 2 m / fy = 460 MPa

ψ = 1
0 6504,4 860,5 860,5 820,7 0,364 1,000 860,5 860,5 0,95
0,5 7033,1 860,5 851,5 844,0 0,350 1,000 860,5 851,5 0,99
0,75 7367,9 860,5 839,1 857,5 0,342 1,000 860,5 839,1 1,02
1 7653,0 860,5 826,7 866,3 0,335 1,000 860,5 826,7 1,05
1,5 8388,9 860,5 790,9 889,2 0,320 1,000 860,5 790,9 1,12
2 9275,5 860,5 749,5 912,3 0,305 1,000 860,5 749,5 1,22
ψ = 0.5
0 8582,7 860,5 860,5 854,2 0,317 1,000 860,5 860,5 0,99
0,5 9516,2 860,5 851,5 865,1 0,301 1,000 860,5 851,5 1,02
0,75 10190,7 860,5 839,1 870,4 0,291 1,000 860,5 839,1 1,04
1 10667,8 860,5 826,7 873,6 0,284 1,000 860,5 826,7 1,06
1,5 12119,1 860,5 790,9 831,6 0,266 1,000 860,5 790,9 1,05
2 13994,4 860,5 749,5 922,3 0,248 1,000 860,5 749,5 1,23
ψ = 0
0 11954,0 860,5 860,5 862,6 0,268 1,000 860,5 860,5 1,00
0,5 13697,6 860,5 851,5 878,0 0,251 1,000 860,5 851,5 1,03
0,75 14373,1 860,5 839,1 897,6 0,245 1,000 860,5 839,1 1,07
1 15954,4 860,5 826,7 872,7 0,232 1,000 860,5 826,7 1,06
1,5 18940,2 860,5 790,9 844,3 0,213 1,000 860,5 790,9 1,07
2 22970,8 860,5 749,5 795,9 0,194 1,000 860,5 749,5 1,06
ψ = -‐ 0.5
0 16456,2 860,5 860,5 852,7 0,229 1,000 860,5 860,5 0,99
0,5 19151,4 860,5 851,5 865,0 0,212 1,000 860,5 851,5 1,02
0,75 20773,2 860,5 839,1 874,4 0,204 1,000 860,5 839,1 1,04
1 22586,0 860,5 826,7 891,4 0,195 1,000 860,5 826,7 1,08
1,5 27012,6 860,5 790,9 882,1 0,178 1,000 860,5 790,9 1,12
2 32775,9 860,5 749,5 831,6 0,162 1,000 860,5 749,5 1,11
ψ = -‐ 1
0 16836,5 860,5 860,5 880,7 0,226 1,000 860,5 860,5 1,02
0,5 19099,1 860,5 851,5 916,9 0,212 1,000 860,5 851,5 1,08
0,75 20237,3 860,5 839,1 926,9 0,206 1,000 860,5 839,1 1,10
1 21868,7 860,5 826,7 944,9 0,198 1,000 860,5 826,7 1,14
1,5 25305,4 860,5 790,9 896,2 0,184 1,000 860,5 790,9 1,13
2 29631,0 860,5 749,5 857,5 0,170 1,000 860,5 749,5 1,14
A2.36
HEB300 / L = 3.5 m / fy = 355 MPa

ψ = 1
0 2450,6 664,0 664,0 625,3 0,521 1,000 664,0 664,0 0,94
0,5 2651,3 664,0 657,1 645,6 0,500 1,000 664,0 657,1 0,98
0,75 2707,2 664,0 647,6 657,7 0,495 1,000 664,0 647,6 1,02
1 2887,1 664,0 638,0 675,8 0,480 1,000 664,0 638,0 1,06
1,5 3168,0 664,0 610,4 634,7 0,458 1,000 664,0 610,4 1,04
2 3508,2 664,0 578,4 575,7 0,435 1,000 664,0 578,4 1,00
ψ = 0.5
0 3234,5 664,0 664,0 688,9 0,453 1,000 664,0 664,0 1,04
0,5 3588,8 664,0 657,1 707,9 0,430 1,000 664,0 657,1 1,08
0,75 3754,1 664,0 647,6 725,1 0,421 1,000 664,0 647,6 1,12
1 4027,3 664,0 638,0 708,4 0,406 1,000 664,0 638,0 1,11
1,5 4582,8 664,0 610,4 692,6 0,381 1,000 664,0 610,4 1,13
2 5306,9 664,0 578,4 659,1 0,354 1,000 664,0 578,4 1,14
ψ = 0
0 4514,5 664,0 664,0 702,7 0,384 1,000 664,0 664,0 1,06
0,5 5175,3 664,0 657,1 722,0 0,358 1,000 664,0 657,1 1,10
0,75 5633,3 664,0 647,6 718,9 0,343 1,000 664,0 647,6 1,11
1 6032,8 664,0 638,0 684,9 0,332 1,000 664,0 638,0 1,07
1,5 7174,1 664,0 610,4 675,4 0,304 1,000 664,0 610,4 1,11
2 8734,8 664,0 578,4 641,8 0,276 1,000 664,0 578,4 1,11
ψ = -‐ 0.5
0 6284,0 664,0 664,0 743,1 0,325 1,000 664,0 664,0 1,12
0,5 7302,0 664,0 657,1 745,4 0,302 1,000 664,0 657,1 1,13
0,75 8195,0 664,0 647,6 733,4 0,285 1,000 664,0 647,6 1,13
1 8601,9 664,0 638,0 728,6 0,278 1,000 664,0 638,0 1,14
1,5 10294,5 664,0 610,4 684,8 0,254 1,000 664,0 610,4 1,12
2 12550,5 664,0 578,4 653,7 0,230 1,000 664,0 578,4 1,13
ψ = -‐ 1
0 6571,0 664,0 664,0 750,1 0,318 1,000 664,0 664,0 1,13
0,5 7414,8 664,0 657,1 752,4 0,299 1,000 664,0 657,1 1,15
0,75 7949,2 664,0 647,6 740,3 0,289 1,000 664,0 647,6 1,14
1 8457,5 664,0 638,0 735,4 0,280 1,000 664,0 638,0 1,15
1,5 9772,2 664,0 610,4 691,3 0,261 1,000 664,0 610,4 1,13
2 11469,5 664,0 578,4 659,9 0,241 1,000 664,0 578,4 1,14
A2.37
HEB300 / L = 3.5 m / fy = 460 MPa

ψ = 1
0 2450,6 860,5 860,5 789,0 0,593 0,920 792,0 792,0 1,00
0,5 2651,3 860,5 851,5 803,8 0,570 1,000 860,5 851,5 0,94
0,75 2707,2 860,5 839,1 825,4 0,564 1,000 860,5 839,1 0,98
1 2887,1 860,5 826,7 848,9 0,546 1,000 860,5 826,7 1,03
1,5 3168,0 860,5 790,9 806,4 0,521 1,000 860,5 790,9 1,02
2 3508,2 860,5 749,5 756,1 0,495 1,000 860,5 749,5 1,01
ψ = 0.5
0 3234,5 860,5 860,5 861,0 0,516 1,000 860,5 860,5 1,00
0,5 3588,8 860,5 851,5 869,1 0,490 1,000 860,5 851,5 1,02
0,75 3754,1 860,5 839,1 889,4 0,479 1,000 860,5 839,1 1,06
1 4027,3 860,5 826,7 896,3 0,462 1,000 860,5 826,7 1,08
1,5 4582,8 860,5 790,9 926,8 0,433 1,000 860,5 790,9 1,17
2 5306,9 860,5 749,5 941,8 0,403 1,000 860,5 749,5 1,26
ψ = 0
0 4514,5 860,5 860,5 885,7 0,437 1,000 860,5 860,5 1,03
0,5 5175,3 860,5 851,5 920,3 0,408 1,000 860,5 851,5 1,08
0,75 5633,3 860,5 839,1 939,5 0,391 1,000 860,5 839,1 1,12
1 6032,8 860,5 826,7 925,1 0,378 1,000 860,5 826,7 1,12
1,5 7174,1 860,5 790,9 937,8 0,346 1,000 860,5 790,9 1,19
2 8734,8 860,5 749,5 952,8 0,314 1,000 860,5 749,5 1,27
ψ = -‐ 0.5
0 6284,0 860,5 860,5 977,5 0,370 1,000 860,5 860,5 1,14
0,5 7302,0 860,5 851,5 987,6 0,343 1,000 860,5 851,5 1,16
0,75 8195,0 860,5 839,1 986,5 0,324 1,000 860,5 839,1 1,18
1 8601,9 860,5 826,7 980,2 0,316 1,000 860,5 826,7 1,19
1,5 10294,5 860,5 790,9 958,1 0,289 1,000 860,5 790,9 1,21
2 12550,5 860,5 749,5 935,5 0,262 1,000 860,5 749,5 1,25
ψ = -‐ 1
0 6571,0 860,5 860,5 907,6 0,362 1,000 860,5 860,5 1,05
0,5 7414,8 860,5 851,5 936,3 0,341 1,000 860,5 851,5 1,10
0,75 7949,2 860,5 839,1 950,8 0,329 1,000 860,5 839,1 1,13
1 8457,5 860,5 826,7 971,5 0,319 1,000 860,5 826,7 1,18
1,5 9772,2 860,5 790,9 974,8 0,297 1,000 860,5 790,9 1,23
2 11469,5 860,5 749,5 980,6 0,274 1,000 860,5 749,5 1,31
A2.38
HEB300 / L = 5 m / fy = 355 MPa

ψ = 1
0 1401,5 664,0 664,0 583,5 0,688 0,875 581,3 581,3 1,00
0,5 1519,7 664,0 657,1 617,8 0,661 0,889 590,2 590,2 1,05
0,75 1576,3 664,0 647,6 641,8 0,649 0,894 593,9 593,9 1,08
1 1658,8 664,0 638,0 643,4 0,633 0,902 599,0 599,0 1,07
1,5 1824,6 664,0 610,4 631,5 0,603 0,916 608,0 608,0 1,04
2 2025,6 664,0 578,4 581,0 0,573 1,000 664,0 578,4 1,00
ψ = 0.5
0 1849,1 664,0 664,0 682,5 0,599 0,981 651,7 651,7 1,05
0,5 2057,3 664,0 657,1 693,5 0,568 1,000 664,0 657,1 1,06
0,75 2195,1 664,0 647,6 713,9 0,550 1,000 664,0 647,6 1,10
1 2314,9 664,0 638,0 715,2 0,536 1,000 664,0 638,0 1,12
1,5 2641,2 664,0 610,4 683,6 0,501 1,000 664,0 610,4 1,12
2 3066,8 664,0 578,4 641,7 0,465 1,000 664,0 578,4 1,11
ψ = 0
0 2575,1 664,0 664,0 709,5 0,508 1,000 664,0 664,0 1,07
0,5 2957,1 664,0 657,1 728,6 0,474 1,000 664,0 657,1 1,11
0,75 3253,3 664,0 647,6 744,0 0,452 1,000 664,0 647,6 1,15
1 3449,1 664,0 638,0 720,3 0,439 1,000 664,0 638,0 1,13
1,5 4098,4 664,0 610,4 690,1 0,403 1,000 664,0 610,4 1,13
2 4978,2 664,0 578,4 655,9 0,365 1,000 664,0 578,4 1,13
ψ = -‐ 0.5
0 3577,8 664,0 664,0 716,6 0,431 1,000 664,0 664,0 1,08
0,5 4145,6 664,0 657,1 735,9 0,400 1,000 664,0 657,1 1,12
0,75 4515,4 664,0 647,6 744,7 0,383 1,000 664,0 647,6 1,15
1 4861,3 664,0 638,0 727,5 0,370 1,000 664,0 638,0 1,14
1,5 5785,7 664,0 610,4 697,0 0,339 1,000 664,0 610,4 1,14
2 7015,8 664,0 578,4 662,5 0,308 1,000 664,0 578,4 1,15
ψ = -‐ 1
0 3782,1 664,0 664,0 723,7 0,419 1,000 664,0 664,0 1,09
0,5 4236,1 664,0 657,1 743,3 0,396 1,000 664,0 657,1 1,13
0,75 4488,9 664,0 647,6 745,5 0,385 1,000 664,0 647,6 1,15
1 4797,8 664,0 638,0 734,8 0,372 1,000 664,0 638,0 1,15
1,5 5508,5 664,0 610,4 704,0 0,347 1,000 664,0 610,4 1,15
2 6431,8 664,0 578,4 669,1 0,321 1,000 664,0 578,4 1,16
A2.39
HEB300 / L = 5 m / fy = 460 MPa

ψ = 1
0 1401,5 860,5 860,5 721,1 0,784 0,826 710,8 710,8 1,01
0,5 1519,7 860,5 851,5 780,3 0,752 0,843 725,1 725,1 1,08
0,75 1576,3 860,5 839,1 819,3 0,739 0,850 731,3 731,3 1,12
1 1658,8 860,5 826,7 823,6 0,720 0,859 739,5 739,5 1,11
1,5 1824,6 860,5 790,9 874,2 0,687 0,876 753,9 753,9 1,16
2 2025,6 860,5 749,5 821,5 0,652 0,893 768,5 749,5 1,10
ψ = 0.5
0 1849,1 860,5 860,5 872,4 0,682 0,943 811,8 811,8 1,07
0,5 2057,3 860,5 851,5 885,8 0,647 0,960 826,3 826,3 1,07
0,75 2195,1 860,5 839,1 912,9 0,626 0,970 834,4 834,4 1,09
1 2314,9 860,5 826,7 887,5 0,610 0,977 840,6 826,7 1,07
1,5 2641,2 860,5 790,9 833,4 0,571 1,000 860,5 790,9 1,05
2 3066,8 860,5 749,5 811,2 0,530 1,000 860,5 749,5 1,08
ψ = 0
0 2575,1 860,5 860,5 852,2 0,578 1,000 860,5 860,5 0,99
0,5 2957,1 860,5 851,5 864,3 0,539 1,000 860,5 851,5 1,02
0,75 3253,3 860,5 839,1 912,9 0,514 1,000 860,5 839,1 1,09
1 3449,1 860,5 826,7 941,1 0,499 1,000 860,5 826,7 1,14
1,5 4098,4 860,5 790,9 905,9 0,458 1,000 860,5 790,9 1,15
2 4978,2 860,5 749,5 868,7 0,416 1,000 860,5 749,5 1,16
ψ = -‐ 0.5
0 3577,8 860,5 860,5 898,1 0,490 1,000 860,5 860,5 1,04
0,5 4145,6 860,5 851,5 872,9 0,456 1,000 860,5 851,5 1,03
0,75 4515,4 860,5 839,1 913,8 0,437 1,000 860,5 839,1 1,09
1 4861,3 860,5 826,7 950,5 0,421 1,000 860,5 826,7 1,15
1,5 5785,7 860,5 790,9 900,4 0,386 1,000 860,5 790,9 1,14
2 7015,8 860,5 749,5 860,0 0,350 1,000 860,5 749,5 1,15
ψ = -‐ 1
0 3782,1 860,5 860,5 904,8 0,477 1,000 860,5 860,5 1,05
0,5 4236,1 860,5 851,5 879,4 0,451 1,000 860,5 851,5 1,03
0,75 4488,9 860,5 839,1 920,6 0,438 1,000 860,5 839,1 1,10
1 4797,8 860,5 826,7 957,6 0,423 1,000 860,5 826,7 1,16
1,5 5508,5 860,5 790,9 905,4 0,395 1,000 860,5 790,9 1,14
2 6431,8 860,5 749,5 863,2 0,366 1,000 860,5 749,5 1,15
A2.40
HEB300 / L = 8 m / fy = 355 MPa

ψ = 1
0 735,6 664,0 664,0 507,1 0,950 0,730 484,8 484,8 1,05
0,5 805,3 664,0 657,1 532,3 0,908 0,755 501,5 501,5 1,06
0,75 835,1 664,0 647,6 545,4 0,892 0,765 507,9 507,9 1,07
1 887,5 664,0 638,0 556,6 0,865 0,780 518,3 518,3 1,07
1,5 985,6 664,0 610,4 573,0 0,821 0,806 535,0 535,0 1,07
2 1104,7 664,0 578,4 580,5 0,775 0,831 551,5 551,5 1,05
ψ = 0.5
0 969,4 664,0 664,0 622,8 0,828 0,863 572,9 572,9 1,09
0,5 1091,4 664,0 657,1 647,2 0,780 0,891 591,7 591,7 1,09
0,75 1143,8 664,0 647,6 671,7 0,762 0,901 598,6 598,6 1,12
1 1242,1 664,0 638,0 686,8 0,731 0,918 609,7 609,7 1,13
1,5 1432,4 664,0 610,4 630,3 0,681 0,944 626,9 610,4 1,03
2 1679,2 664,0 578,4 587,6 0,629 0,968 643,1 578,4 1,02
ψ = 0
0 1341,2 664,0 664,0 686,6 0,704 1,000 664,0 664,0 1,03
0,5 1556,2 664,0 657,1 683,4 0,653 1,000 664,0 657,1 1,04
0,75 1667,5 664,0 647,6 662,7 0,631 1,000 664,0 647,6 1,02
1 1826,9 664,0 638,0 684,8 0,603 1,000 664,0 638,0 1,07
1,5 2174,3 664,0 610,4 643,0 0,553 1,000 664,0 610,4 1,05
2 2630,9 664,0 578,4 586,1 0,502 1,000 664,0 578,4 1,01
ψ = -‐ 0.5
0 1844,9 664,0 664,0 702,7 0,600 1,000 664,0 664,0 1,06
0,5 2140,4 664,0 657,1 710,8 0,557 1,000 664,0 657,1 1,08
0,75 2280,7 664,0 647,6 681,5 0,540 1,000 664,0 647,6 1,05
1 2499,4 664,0 638,0 735,1 0,515 1,000 664,0 638,0 1,15
1,5 2951,0 664,0 610,4 677,3 0,474 1,000 664,0 610,4 1,11
2 3542,4 664,0 578,4 594,0 0,433 1,000 664,0 578,4 1,03
ψ = -‐ 1
0 1979,7 664,0 664,0 700,4 0,579 1,000 664,0 664,0 1,05
0,5 2197,8 664,0 657,1 697,1 0,550 1,000 664,0 657,1 1,06
0,75 2306,5 664,0 647,6 676,0 0,537 1,000 664,0 647,6 1,04
1 2467,4 664,0 638,0 698,5 0,519 1,000 664,0 638,0 1,09
1,5 2808,3 664,0 610,4 655,8 0,486 1,000 664,0 610,4 1,07
2 3251,7 664,0 578,4 597,9 0,452 1,000 664,0 578,4 1,03
A2.41
HEB300 / L = 8 m / fy = 460 MPa

ψ = 1
0 735,6 860,5 860,5 607,9 1,082 0,650 559,1 559,1 1,09
0,5 805,3 860,5 851,5 616,0 1,034 0,679 584,3 584,3 1,05
0,75 835,1 860,5 839,1 635,5 1,015 0,690 594,1 594,1 1,07
1 887,5 860,5 826,7 638,6 0,985 0,709 610,1 610,1 1,05
1,5 985,6 860,5 790,9 672,3 0,934 0,740 636,3 636,3 1,06
2 1104,7 860,5 749,5 688,6 0,883 0,770 662,8 662,8 1,04
ψ = 0.5
0 969,4 860,5 860,5 675,4 0,942 0,788 678,4 678,4 1,00
0,5 1091,4 860,5 851,5 760,5 0,888 0,825 709,5 709,5 1,07
0,75 1143,8 860,5 839,1 784,5 0,867 0,838 721,0 721,0 1,09
1 1242,1 860,5 826,7 788,4 0,832 0,860 739,9 739,9 1,07
1,5 1432,4 860,5 790,9 829,9 0,775 0,894 769,2 769,2 1,08
2 1679,2 860,5 749,5 850,1 0,716 0,926 797,1 749,5 1,13
ψ = 0
0 1341,2 860,5 860,5 758,0 0,801 0,952 819,3 819,3 0,93
0,5 1556,2 860,5 851,5 853,4 0,744 0,987 849,3 849,3 1,00
0,75 1667,5 860,5 839,1 916,6 0,718 1,000 860,5 839,1 1,09
1 1826,9 860,5 826,7 867,4 0,686 1,000 860,5 826,7 1,05
1,5 2174,3 860,5 790,9 837,8 0,629 1,000 860,5 790,9 1,06
2 2630,9 860,5 749,5 756,4 0,572 1,000 860,5 749,5 1,01
ψ = -‐ 0.5
0 1844,9 860,5 860,5 835,9 0,683 1,000 860,5 860,5 0,97
0,5 2140,4 860,5 851,5 896,1 0,634 1,000 860,5 851,5 1,05
0,75 2280,7 860,5 839,1 914,4 0,614 1,000 860,5 839,1 1,09
1 2499,4 860,5 826,7 929,0 0,587 1,000 860,5 826,7 1,12
1,5 2951,0 860,5 790,9 890,9 0,540 1,000 860,5 790,9 1,13
2 3542,4 860,5 749,5 840,4 0,493 1,000 860,5 749,5 1,12
ψ = -‐ 1
0 1979,7 860,5 860,5 859,6 0,659 1,000 860,5 860,5 1,00
0,5 2197,8 860,5 851,5 949,9 0,626 1,000 860,5 851,5 1,12
0,75 2306,5 860,5 839,1 919,1 0,611 1,000 860,5 839,1 1,10
1 2467,4 860,5 826,7 893,4 0,591 1,000 860,5 826,7 1,08
1,5 2808,3 860,5 790,9 816,2 0,554 1,000 860,5 790,9 1,03
2 3251,7 860,5 749,5 791,8 0,514 1,000 860,5 749,5 1,06
A2.42
HEB300 / L = 10 m / fy = 355 MPa

ψ = 1
0 560,1 664,0 664,0 443,2 1,089 0,645 428,5 428,5 1,03
0,5 618,8 664,0 657,1 456,8 1,036 0,678 450,0 450,0 1,02
0,75 641,7 664,0 647,6 470,0 1,017 0,689 457,6 457,6 1,03
1 688,1 664,0 638,0 473,9 0,982 0,710 471,8 471,8 1,00
1,5 771,0 664,0 610,4 522,0 0,928 0,743 493,6 493,6 1,06
2 871,8 664,0 578,4 581,7 0,873 0,776 515,3 515,3 1,13
ψ = 0.5
0 737,6 664,0 664,0 565,3 0,949 0,784 520,5 520,5 1,09
0,5 839,9 664,0 657,1 579,6 0,889 0,824 547,0 547,0 1,06
0,75 899,6 664,0 647,6 599,1 0,859 0,843 559,9 559,9 1,07
1 966,3 664,0 638,0 611,6 0,829 0,862 572,4 572,4 1,07
1,5 1125,3 664,0 610,4 643,9 0,768 0,898 596,2 596,2 1,08
2 1330,4 664,0 578,4 669,4 0,706 0,931 618,3 578,4 1,16
ψ = 0
0 1016,5 664,0 664,0 665,1 0,808 0,948 629,2 629,2 1,06
0,5 1192,2 664,0 657,1 686,7 0,746 0,985 654,4 654,4 1,05
0,75 1314,9 664,0 647,6 706,6 0,711 1,000 664,0 647,6 1,09
1 1409,8 664,0 638,0 691,6 0,686 1,000 664,0 638,0 1,08
1,5 1683,6 664,0 610,4 667,0 0,628 1,000 664,0 610,4 1,09
2 2036,3 664,0 578,4 625,1 0,571 1,000 664,0 578,4 1,08
ψ = -‐ 0.5
0 1388,9 664,0 664,0 689,1 0,691 1,000 664,0 664,0 1,04
0,5 1619,9 664,0 657,1 703,0 0,640 1,000 664,0 657,1 1,07
0,75 1775,0 664,0 647,6 697,0 0,612 1,000 664,0 647,6 1,08
1 1893,5 664,0 638,0 657,5 0,592 1,000 664,0 638,0 1,03
1,5 2232,3 664,0 610,4 631,6 0,545 1,000 664,0 610,4 1,03
2 2671,0 664,0 578,4 625,3 0,499 1,000 664,0 578,4 1,08
ψ = -‐ 1
0 1499,8 664,0 664,0 704,9 0,665 1,000 664,0 664,0 1,06
0,5 1662,9 664,0 657,1 760,8 0,632 1,000 664,0 657,1 1,16
0,75 1752,1 664,0 647,6 727,0 0,616 1,000 664,0 647,6 1,12
1 1864,2 664,0 638,0 672,6 0,597 1,000 664,0 638,0 1,05
1,5 2118,5 664,0 610,4 677,2 0,560 1,000 664,0 610,4 1,11
2 2448,7 664,0 578,4 664,3 0,521 1,000 664,0 578,4 1,15
A2.43
HEB300 / L = 10 m / fy = 460 MPa

ψ = 1
0 560,1 860,5 860,5 509,8 1,239 0,557 479,1 479,1 1,06
0,5 618,8 860,5 851,5 530,9 1,179 0,591 508,8 508,8 1,04
0,75 641,7 860,5 839,1 575,6 1,158 0,604 519,5 519,5 1,11
1 688,1 860,5 826,7 561,8 1,118 0,628 540,0 540,0 1,04
1,5 771,0 860,5 790,9 648,8 1,056 0,665 572,3 572,3 1,13
2 871,8 860,5 749,5 700,6 0,993 0,704 605,5 605,5 1,16
ψ = 0.5
0 737,6 860,5 860,5 601,5 1,080 0,692 595,5 595,5 1,01
0,5 839,9 860,5 851,5 681,6 1,012 0,740 636,7 636,7 1,07
0,75 899,6 860,5 839,1 716,0 0,978 0,764 657,2 657,2 1,09
1 966,3 860,5 826,7 769,0 0,944 0,787 677,5 677,5 1,13
1,5 1125,3 860,5 790,9 804,8 0,874 0,833 717,1 717,1 1,12
2 1330,4 860,5 749,5 834,5 0,804 0,877 754,6 749,5 1,11
ψ = 0
0 1016,5 860,5 860,5 850,5 0,920 0,868 747,0 747,0 1,14
0,5 1192,2 860,5 851,5 851,7 0,850 0,920 791,3 791,3 1,08
0,75 1314,9 860,5 839,1 832,9 0,809 0,947 814,9 814,9 1,02
1 1409,8 860,5 826,7 823,3 0,781 0,965 830,0 826,7 1,00
1,5 1683,6 860,5 790,9 812,4 0,715 1,000 860,5 790,9 1,03
2 2036,3 860,5 749,5 752,8 0,650 1,000 860,5 749,5 1,00
ψ = -‐ 0.5
0 1388,9 860,5 860,5 862,7 0,787 0,988 849,8 849,8 1,02
0,5 1619,9 860,5 851,5 864,0 0,729 1,000 860,5 851,5 1,01
0,75 1775,0 860,5 839,1 866,3 0,696 1,000 860,5 839,1 1,03
1 1893,5 860,5 826,7 828,6 0,674 1,000 860,5 826,7 1,00
1,5 2232,3 860,5 790,9 824,0 0,621 1,000 860,5 790,9 1,04
2 2671,0 860,5 749,5 748,2 0,568 1,000 860,5 749,5 1,00
ψ = -‐ 1
0 1499,8 860,5 860,5 871,4 0,757 1,000 860,5 860,5 1,01
0,5 1662,9 860,5 851,5 872,7 0,719 1,000 860,5 851,5 1,02
0,75 1752,1 860,5 839,1 875,1 0,701 1,000 860,5 839,1 1,04
1 1864,2 860,5 826,7 836,9 0,679 1,000 860,5 826,7 1,01
1,5 2118,5 860,5 790,9 832,4 0,637 1,000 860,5 790,9 1,05
2 2448,7 860,5 749,5 755,8 0,593 1,000 860,5 749,5 1,01
A2.44
HEB300 / L = 15 m / fy = 355 MPa

ψ = 1
0 352,5 664,0 664,0 339,5 1,373 0,486 322,9 322,9 1,05
0,5 400,3 664,0 657,1 394,9 1,288 0,530 352,0 352,0 1,12
0,75 421,5 664,0 647,6 420,1 1,255 0,548 363,9 363,9 1,15
1 457,3 664,0 638,0 439,7 1,205 0,576 382,7 382,7 1,15
1,5 525,8 664,0 610,4 448,6 1,124 0,624 414,5 414,5 1,08
2 609,2 664,0 578,4 510,8 1,044 0,673 446,7 446,7 1,14
ψ = 0.5
0 463,5 664,0 664,0 417,0 1,197 0,611 405,5 405,5 1,03
0,5 546,0 664,0 657,1 501,9 1,103 0,676 448,9 448,9 1,12
0,75 596,2 664,0 647,6 516,3 1,055 0,709 471,1 471,1 1,10
1 648,1 664,0 638,0 562,7 1,012 0,740 491,3 491,3 1,15
1,5 775,4 664,0 610,4 588,3 0,925 0,800 531,1 531,1 1,11
2 936,4 664,0 578,4 603,5 0,842 0,854 567,0 567,0 1,06
ψ = 0
0 633,8 664,0 664,0 558,3 1,024 0,786 521,9 521,9 1,07
0,5 768,3 664,0 657,1 661,0 0,930 0,861 571,6 571,6 1,16
0,75 856,8 664,0 647,6 686,0 0,880 0,898 596,1 596,1 1,15
1 928,2 664,0 638,0 692,3 0,846 0,922 612,4 612,4 1,13
1,5 1120,4 664,0 610,4 620,8 0,770 0,972 645,2 610,4 1,02
2 1358,1 664,0 578,4 588,5 0,699 1,000 664,0 578,4 1,02
ψ = -‐ 0.5
0 855,3 664,0 664,0 653,7 0,881 0,922 612,0 612,0 1,07
0,5 1018,2 664,0 657,1 686,0 0,808 0,974 646,9 646,9 1,06
0,75 1116,2 664,0 647,6 673,5 0,771 0,998 662,5 647,6 1,04
1 1201,2 664,0 638,0 659,7 0,744 1,000 664,0 638,0 1,03
1,5 1420,8 664,0 610,4 616,5 0,684 1,000 664,0 610,4 1,01
2 1699,1 664,0 578,4 590,0 0,625 1,000 664,0 578,4 1,02
ψ = -‐ 1
0 932,8 664,0 664,0 683,5 0,844 0,988 656,3 656,3 1,04
0,5 1040,4 664,0 657,1 657,1 0,799 1,000 664,0 657,1 1,00
0,75 1092,6 664,0 647,6 660,0 0,780 1,000 664,0 647,6 1,02
1 1172,8 664,0 638,0 657,1 0,752 1,000 664,0 638,0 1,03
1,5 1339,0 664,0 610,4 634,8 0,704 1,000 664,0 610,4 1,04
2 1553,1 664,0 578,4 572,6 0,654 1,000 664,0 578,4 0,99
A2.45
HEB300 / L = 15 m / fy = 460 MPa

ψ = 1
0 352,5 860,5 860,5 367,8 1,562 0,401 345,4 345,4 1,06
0,5 400,3 860,5 851,5 383,5 1,466 0,442 380,4 380,4 1,01
0,75 421,5 860,5 839,1 404,2 1,429 0,459 395,1 395,1 1,02
1 457,3 860,5 826,7 440,9 1,372 0,487 418,7 418,7 1,05
1,5 525,8 860,5 790,9 519,3 1,279 0,535 460,2 460,2 1,13
2 609,2 860,5 749,5 558,0 1,188 0,586 504,2 504,2 1,11
ψ = 0.5
0 463,5 860,5 860,5 433,9 1,363 0,504 434,0 434,0 1,00
0,5 546,0 860,5 851,5 511,4 1,255 0,572 491,8 491,8 1,04
0,75 596,2 860,5 839,1 545,4 1,201 0,608 522,8 522,8 1,04
1 648,1 860,5 826,7 598,9 1,152 0,641 551,9 551,9 1,09
1,5 775,4 860,5 790,9 662,3 1,053 0,711 611,6 611,6 1,08
2 936,4 860,5 749,5 751,4 0,959 0,777 668,7 668,7 1,12
ψ = 0
0 633,8 860,5 860,5 628,2 1,165 0,670 576,1 576,1 1,09
0,5 768,3 860,5 851,5 703,2 1,058 0,757 651,8 651,8 1,08
0,75 856,8 860,5 839,1 745,2 1,002 0,803 691,3 691,3 1,08
1 928,2 860,5 826,7 774,8 0,963 0,835 718,4 718,4 1,08
1,5 1120,4 860,5 790,9 817,6 0,876 0,901 774,9 774,9 1,06
2 1358,1 860,5 749,5 855,3 0,796 0,955 822,1 749,5 1,14
ψ = -‐ 0.5
0 855,3 860,5 860,5 777,7 1,003 0,823 708,0 708,0 1,10
0,5 1018,2 860,5 851,5 839,3 0,919 0,892 767,6 767,6 1,09
0,75 1116,2 860,5 839,1 866,2 0,878 0,924 795,1 795,1 1,09
1 1201,2 860,5 826,7 842,6 0,846 0,947 815,1 815,1 1,03
1,5 1420,8 860,5 790,9 804,0 0,778 0,993 854,7 790,9 1,02
2 1699,1 860,5 749,5 756,9 0,712 1,000 860,5 749,5 1,01
ψ = -‐ 1
0 932,8 860,5 860,5 851,6 0,960 0,892 767,5 767,5 1,11
0,5 1040,4 860,5 851,5 890,1 0,909 0,936 805,4 805,4 1,11
0,75 1092,6 860,5 839,1 888,3 0,887 0,954 821,0 821,0 1,08
1 1172,8 860,5 826,7 931,6 0,857 0,979 842,1 826,7 1,13
1,5 1339,0 860,5 790,9 892,1 0,802 1,000 860,5 790,9 1,13
2 1553,1 860,5 749,5 832,4 0,744 1,000 860,5 749,5 1,11
A2.46
HEB300 / L = 20 m / fy = 355 MPa

ψ = 1
0 542,6 664,0 664,0 443,2 1,106 0,635 421,5 421,5 1,05
0,5 681,9 664,0 657,1 507,5 0,987 0,708 469,9 469,9 1,08
0,75 725,9 664,0 647,6 556,7 0,956 0,726 482,2 482,2 1,15
1 866,2 664,0 638,0 525,1 0,876 0,774 514,2 514,2 1,02
1,5 1113,5 664,0 610,4 544,4 0,772 0,832 552,6 552,6 0,99
2 1457,3 664,0 578,4 598,2 0,675 0,882 585,7 578,4 1,03
ψ = 0.5
0 713,3 664,0 664,0 565,3 0,965 0,773 513,2 513,2 1,10
0,5 955,1 664,0 657,1 644,0 0,834 0,859 570,4 570,4 1,13
0,75 1106,8 664,0 647,6 653,9 0,775 0,894 593,8 593,8 1,10
1 1288,0 664,0 638,0 679,5 0,718 0,925 614,4 614,4 1,11
1,5 1750,4 664,0 610,4 700,4 0,616 0,974 646,9 610,4 1,15
2 2425,1 664,0 578,4 670,1 0,523 1,000 664,0 578,4 1,16
ψ = 0
0 974,0 664,0 664,0 665,1 0,826 0,936 621,5 621,5 1,07
0,5 1352,0 664,0 657,1 686,7 0,701 1,000 664,0 657,1 1,04
0,75 1693,6 664,0 647,6 690,9 0,626 1,000 664,0 647,6 1,07
1 1826,9 664,0 638,0 711,4 0,603 1,000 664,0 638,0 1,12
1,5 2463,6 664,0 610,4 701,8 0,519 1,000 664,0 610,4 1,15
2 3409,0 664,0 578,4 678,6 0,441 1,000 664,0 578,4 1,17
ψ = -‐ 0.5
0 1311,1 664,0 664,0 689,1 0,712 1,000 664,0 664,0 1,04
0,5 1742,9 664,0 657,1 702,9 0,617 1,000 664,0 657,1 1,07
0,75 1983,4 664,0 647,6 727,5 0,579 1,000 664,0 647,6 1,12
1 2266,9 664,0 638,0 728,5 0,541 1,000 664,0 638,0 1,14
1,5 3002,2 664,0 610,4 686,8 0,470 1,000 664,0 610,4 1,13
2 4147,6 664,0 578,4 625,8 0,400 1,000 664,0 578,4 1,08
ψ = -‐ 1
0 1432,0 664,0 664,0 636,2 0,681 1,000 664,0 664,0 0,96
0,5 1718,6 664,0 657,1 693,9 0,622 1,000 664,0 657,1 1,06
0,75 1931,2 664,0 647,6 713,8 0,586 1,000 664,0 647,6 1,10
1 2113,4 664,0 638,0 716,7 0,561 1,000 664,0 638,0 1,12
1,5 2685,7 664,0 610,4 695,2 0,497 1,000 664,0 610,4 1,14
2 3575,5 664,0 578,4 631,8 0,431 1,000 664,0 578,4 1,09
A2.47
HEB300 / L = 20 m / fy = 460 MPa

ψ = 1
0 542,6 860,5 860,5 509,8 1,259 0,546 469,6 469,6 1,09
0,5 681,9 860,5 851,5 589,9 1,123 0,624 537,3 537,3 1,10
0,75 725,9 860,5 839,1 615,5 1,089 0,645 555,3 555,3 1,11
1 866,2 860,5 826,7 632,3 0,997 0,702 603,8 603,8 1,05
1,5 1113,5 860,5 790,9 681,0 0,879 0,772 664,5 664,5 1,02
2 1457,3 860,5 749,5 745,9 0,768 0,834 717,9 717,9 1,04
ψ = 0.5
0 713,3 860,5 860,5 612,2 1,098 0,679 584,3 584,3 1,05
0,5 955,1 860,5 851,5 714,0 0,949 0,784 674,3 674,3 1,06
0,75 1106,8 860,5 839,1 737,2 0,882 0,829 713,0 713,0 1,03
1 1288,0 860,5 826,7 765,3 0,817 0,869 747,8 747,8 1,02
1,5 1750,4 860,5 790,9 868,6 0,701 0,934 803,6 790,9 1,10
2 2425,1 860,5 749,5 807,8 0,596 0,983 845,7 749,5 1,08
ψ = 0
0 974,0 860,5 860,5 759,3 0,940 0,853 733,9 733,9 1,03
0,5 1352,0 860,5 851,5 876,6 0,798 0,954 821,1 821,1 1,07
0,75 1693,6 860,5 839,1 913,1 0,713 1,000 860,5 839,1 1,09
1 1826,9 860,5 826,7 836,9 0,686 1,000 860,5 826,7 1,01
1,5 2463,6 860,5 790,9 873,0 0,591 1,000 860,5 790,9 1,10
2 3409,0 860,5 749,5 834,8 0,502 1,000 860,5 749,5 1,11
ψ = -‐ 0.5
0 1311,1 860,5 860,5 868,0 0,810 0,973 836,8 836,8 1,04
0,5 1742,9 860,5 851,5 900,7 0,703 1,000 860,5 851,5 1,06
0,75 1983,4 860,5 839,1 911,7 0,659 1,000 860,5 839,1 1,09
1 2266,9 860,5 826,7 836,0 0,616 1,000 860,5 826,7 1,01
1,5 3002,2 860,5 790,9 872,7 0,535 1,000 860,5 790,9 1,10
2 4147,6 860,5 749,5 804,8 0,455 1,000 860,5 749,5 1,07
ψ = -‐ 1
0 1432,0 860,5 860,5 868,0 0,775 1,000 860,5 860,5 1,01
0,5 1718,6 860,5 851,5 900,7 0,708 1,000 860,5 851,5 1,06
0,75 1931,2 860,5 839,1 911,7 0,667 1,000 860,5 839,1 1,09
1 2113,4 860,5 826,7 836,0 0,638 1,000 860,5 826,7 1,01
1,5 2685,7 860,5 790,9 872,7 0,566 1,000 860,5 790,9 1,10
2 3575,5 860,5 749,5 804,8 0,491 1,000 860,5 749,5 1,07
A2.48
HEB300 / L = 25 m / fy = 355 MPa

ψ = 1
0 204,9 664,0 664,0 227,3 1,800 0,320 212,2 212,2 1,07
0,5 247,9 664,0 657,1 272,4 1,637 0,373 247,8 247,8 1,10
0,75 273,0 664,0 647,6 301,6 1,560 0,403 267,3 267,3 1,13
1 300,7 664,0 638,0 327,8 1,486 0,433 287,7 287,7 1,14
1,5 364,9 664,0 610,4 354,3 1,349 0,498 330,8 330,8 1,07
2 443,0 664,0 578,4 381,6 1,224 0,565 375,4 375,4 1,02
ψ = 0.5
0 269,1 664,0 664,0 283,5 1,571 0,398 264,4 264,4 1,07
0,5 342,6 664,0 657,1 355,8 1,392 0,487 323,3 323,3 1,10
0,75 392,9 664,0 647,6 408,3 1,300 0,543 360,4 360,4 1,13
1 434,0 664,0 638,0 442,3 1,237 0,584 387,6 387,6 1,14
1,5 544,7 664,0 610,4 482,6 1,104 0,675 448,3 448,3 1,08
2 678,5 664,0 578,4 510,4 0,989 0,756 502,0 502,0 1,02
ψ = 0
0 365,5 664,0 664,0 365,6 1,348 0,529 351,1 351,1 1,04
0,5 476,9 664,0 657,1 447,7 1,180 0,657 436,5 436,5 1,03
0,75 547,1 664,0 647,6 549,3 1,102 0,722 479,2 479,2 1,15
1 600,8 664,0 638,0 584,6 1,051 0,763 506,8 506,8 1,15
1,5 741,3 664,0 610,4 617,5 0,946 0,848 563,0 563,0 1,10
2 908,6 664,0 578,4 634,3 0,855 0,916 608,2 578,4 1,10
ψ = -‐ 0.5
0 487,1 664,0 664,0 484,3 1,168 0,680 451,8 451,8 1,07
0,5 610,4 664,0 657,1 520,6 1,043 0,788 523,5 523,5 0,99
0,75 678,9 664,0 647,6 580,9 0,989 0,835 554,3 554,3 1,05
1 740,2 664,0 638,0 600,6 0,947 0,870 577,4 577,4 1,04
1,5 891,9 664,0 610,4 630,7 0,863 0,935 621,1 610,4 1,03
2 1079,1 664,0 578,4 657,6 0,784 0,989 657,0 578,4 1,14
ψ = -‐ 1
0 533,8 664,0 664,0 537,2 1,115 0,748 497,0 497,0 1,08
0,5 612,8 664,0 657,1 574,2 1,041 0,818 543,4 543,4 1,06
0,75 652,7 664,0 647,6 609,5 1,009 0,848 563,3 563,3 1,08
1 709,4 664,0 638,0 626,9 0,967 0,886 588,1 588,1 1,07
1,5 829,5 664,0 610,4 639,1 0,895 0,948 629,7 610,4 1,05
2 981,6 664,0 578,4 663,9 0,822 1,000 664,0 578,4 1,15
A2.49
HEB300 / L = 25 m / fy = 460 MPa

ψ = 1
0 204,9 860,5 860,5 229,5 2,049 0,256 220,5 220,5 1,04
0,5 247,9 860,5 851,5 264,2 1,863 0,302 259,5 259,5 1,02
0,75 273,0 860,5 839,1 321,9 1,775 0,327 281,3 281,3 1,14
1 300,7 860,5 826,7 351,6 1,692 0,354 304,5 304,5 1,15
1,5 364,9 860,5 790,9 391,1 1,536 0,412 354,8 354,8 1,10
2 443,0 860,5 749,5 458,9 1,394 0,476 409,5 409,5 1,12
ψ = 0.5
0 269,1 860,5 860,5 290,1 1,788 0,323 278,0 278,0 1,04
0,5 342,6 860,5 851,5 356,9 1,585 0,393 337,8 337,8 1,06
0,75 392,9 860,5 839,1 424,3 1,480 0,438 377,2 377,2 1,12
1 434,0 860,5 826,7 419,7 1,408 0,478 411,1 411,1 1,02
1,5 544,7 860,5 790,9 538,8 1,257 0,571 491,0 491,0 1,10
2 678,5 860,5 749,5 628,2 1,126 0,660 567,6 567,6 1,11
ψ = 0
0 365,5 860,5 860,5 363,9 1,534 0,413 355,2 355,2 1,02
0,5 476,9 860,5 851,5 470,7 1,343 0,532 457,8 457,8 1,03
0,75 547,1 860,5 839,1 552,8 1,254 0,599 515,2 515,2 1,07
1 600,8 860,5 826,7 629,9 1,197 0,644 554,1 554,1 1,14
1,5 741,3 860,5 790,9 685,2 1,077 0,742 638,2 638,2 1,07
2 908,6 860,5 749,5 741,5 0,973 0,827 711,4 711,4 1,04
ψ = -‐ 0.5
0 487,1 860,5 860,5 493,4 1,329 0,548 471,8 471,8 1,05
0,5 610,4 860,5 851,5 600,3 1,187 0,663 570,9 570,9 1,05
0,75 678,9 860,5 839,1 659,0 1,126 0,716 616,4 616,4 1,07
1 740,2 860,5 826,7 692,3 1,078 0,758 652,1 652,1 1,06
1,5 891,9 860,5 790,9 747,6 0,982 0,840 723,1 723,1 1,03
2 1079,1 860,5 749,5 787,6 0,893 0,913 785,3 749,5 1,05
ψ = -‐ 1
0 533,8 860,5 860,5 579,2 1,270 0,608 522,8 522,8 1,11
0,5 612,8 860,5 851,5 624,3 1,185 0,684 588,1 588,1 1,06
0,75 652,7 860,5 839,1 678,2 1,148 0,718 617,6 617,6 1,10
1 709,4 860,5 826,7 716,6 1,101 0,762 655,4 655,4 1,09
1,5 829,5 860,5 790,9 749,9 1,018 0,839 722,2 722,2 1,04
2 981,6 860,5 749,5 802,9 0,936 0,913 785,7 749,5 1,07
A2.50
HEB500 / L = 2 m / fy = 355 MPa

ψ = 1
0 15920,7 1709,8 1709,8 1868,6 0,328 1,000 1709,8 1709,8 1,09
0,5 17927,1 1709,8 1675,7 1805,8 0,309 1,000 1709,8 1675,7 1,08
0,75 19322,3 1709,8 1631,6 1728,3 0,297 1,000 1709,8 1631,6 1,06
1 20490,2 1709,8 1587,5 1633,9 0,289 1,000 1709,8 1587,5 1,03
1,5 23867,4 1709,8 1472,8 1604,3 0,268 1,000 1709,8 1472,8 1,09
2 28490,7 1709,8 1360,2 1413,6 0,245 1,000 1709,8 1360,2 1,04
ψ = 0.5
0 21009,8 1709,8 1709,8 1885,8 0,285 1,000 1709,8 1709,8 1,10
0,5 24596,1 1709,8 1675,7 1763,8 0,264 1,000 1709,8 1675,7 1,05
0,75 27216,9 1709,8 1631,6 1804,4 0,251 1,000 1709,8 1631,6 1,11
1 29566,5 1709,8 1587,5 1778,4 0,240 1,000 1709,8 1587,5 1,12
1,5 36826,4 1709,8 1472,8 1695,0 0,215 1,000 1709,8 1472,8 1,15
2 48132,6 1709,8 1360,2 1469,5 0,188 1,000 1709,8 1360,2 1,08
ψ = 0
0 29281,3 1709,8 1709,8 1885,8 0,242 1,000 1709,8 1709,8 1,10
0,5 36033,2 1709,8 1675,7 1763,8 0,218 1,000 1709,8 1675,7 1,05
0,75 41686,6 1709,8 1631,6 1804,4 0,203 1,000 1709,8 1631,6 1,11
1 46052,5 1709,8 1587,5 1778,4 0,193 1,000 1709,8 1587,5 1,12
1,5 61579,2 1709,8 1472,8 1695,0 0,167 1,000 1709,8 1472,8 1,15
2 87105,9 1709,8 1360,2 1469,5 0,140 1,000 1709,8 1360,2 1,08
ψ = -‐ 0.5
0 40384,4 1709,8 1709,8 1853,2 0,206 1,000 1709,8 1709,8 1,08
0,5 50559,0 1709,8 1675,7 1733,1 0,184 1,000 1709,8 1675,7 1,03
0,75 61183,1 1709,8 1631,6 1837,1 0,167 1,000 1709,8 1631,6 1,13
1 65559,0 1709,8 1587,5 1705,3 0,161 1,000 1709,8 1587,5 1,07
1,5 86642,3 1709,8 1472,8 1590,6 0,140 1,000 1709,8 1472,8 1,08
2 118774,0 1709,8 1360,2 1411,9 0,120 1,000 1709,8 1360,2 1,04
ψ = -‐ 1
0 41383,3 1709,8 1709,8 1875,7 0,203 1,000 1709,8 1709,8 1,10
0,5 49552,3 1709,8 1675,7 1754,1 0,186 1,000 1709,8 1675,7 1,05
0,75 5464,8 1709,8 1631,6 1859,3 0,559 1,000 1709,8 1631,6 1,14
1 60694,5 1709,8 1587,5 1726,0 0,168 1,000 1709,8 1587,5 1,09
1,5 76406,2 1709,8 1472,8 1609,9 0,150 1,000 1709,8 1472,8 1,09
2 99226,9 1709,8 1360,2 1429,0 0,131 1,000 1709,8 1360,2 1,05
A2.51
HEB500 / L = 2 m / fy = 460 MPa

ψ = 1
0 15920,7 2215,6 2215,6 2429,2 0,373 1,000 2215,6 2215,6 1,10
0,5 17927,1 2215,6 2171,4 2347,6 0,352 1,000 2215,6 2171,4 1,08
0,75 19322,3 2215,6 2114,2 2419,7 0,339 1,000 2215,6 2114,2 1,14
1 20490,2 2215,6 2057,0 2124,1 0,329 1,000 2215,6 2057,0 1,03
1,5 23867,4 2215,6 1908,4 2085,6 0,305 1,000 2215,6 1908,4 1,09
2 28490,7 2215,6 1762,5 1696,3 0,279 1,000 2215,6 1762,5 0,96
ψ = 0.5
0 21009,8 2215,6 2215,6 2451,5 0,325 1,000 2215,6 2215,6 1,11
0,5 24596,1 2215,6 2171,4 2293,0 0,300 1,000 2215,6 2171,4 1,06
0,75 27216,9 2215,6 2114,2 2526,2 0,285 1,000 2215,6 2114,2 1,19
1 29566,5 2215,6 2057,0 2311,9 0,274 1,000 2215,6 2057,0 1,12
1,5 36826,4 2215,6 1908,4 2203,6 0,245 1,000 2215,6 1908,4 1,15
2 48132,6 2215,6 1762,5 1763,4 0,215 1,000 2215,6 1762,5 1,00
ψ = 0
0 29281,3 2215,6 2215,6 2451,5 0,275 1,000 2215,6 2215,6 1,11
0,5 36033,2 2215,6 2171,4 2293,0 0,248 1,000 2215,6 2171,4 1,06
0,75 41686,6 2215,6 2114,2 2363,8 0,231 1,000 2215,6 2114,2 1,12
1 46052,5 2215,6 2057,0 2311,9 0,219 1,000 2215,6 2057,0 1,12
1,5 61579,2 2215,6 1908,4 2203,6 0,190 1,000 2215,6 1908,4 1,15
2 87105,9 2215,6 1762,5 1763,4 0,159 1,000 2215,6 1762,5 1,00
ψ = -‐ 0.5
0 40384,4 2215,6 2215,6 2401,3 0,234 1,000 2215,6 2215,6 1,08
0,5 50559,0 2215,6 2171,4 2245,7 0,209 1,000 2215,6 2171,4 1,03
0,75 61183,1 2215,6 2114,2 2380,4 0,190 1,000 2215,6 2114,2 1,13
1 65559,0 2215,6 2057,0 2209,7 0,184 1,000 2215,6 2057,0 1,07
1,5 86642,3 2215,6 1908,4 2061,1 0,160 1,000 2215,6 1908,4 1,08
2 118774,0 2215,6 1762,5 1829,5 0,137 1,000 2215,6 1762,5 1,04
ψ = -‐ 1
0 41383,3 2215,6 2215,6 2438,4 0,231 1,000 2215,6 2215,6 1,10
0,5 49552,3 2215,6 2171,4 2280,3 0,211 1,000 2215,6 2171,4 1,05
0,75 5464,8 2215,6 2114,2 2138,2 0,637 1,000 2215,6 2114,2 1,01
1 60694,5 2215,6 2057,0 2243,8 0,191 1,000 2215,6 2057,0 1,09
1,5 76406,2 2215,6 1908,4 2092,9 0,170 1,000 2215,6 1908,4 1,10
2 99226,9 2215,6 1762,5 1886,3 0,149 1,000 2215,6 1762,5 1,07
A2.52
HEB500 / L = 3.5 m / fy = 355 MPa

ψ = 1
0 5811,3 1709,8 1709,8 1582,5 0,542 1,000 1709,8 1709,8 0,93
0,5 6556,5 1709,8 1675,7 1645,0 0,511 1,000 1709,8 1675,7 0,98
0,75 6933,4 1709,8 1631,6 1660,7 0,497 1,000 1709,8 1631,6 1,02
1 7513,3 1709,8 1587,5 1692,5 0,477 1,000 1709,8 1587,5 1,07
1,5 8784,9 1709,8 1472,8 1614,0 0,441 1,000 1709,8 1472,8 1,10
2 10552,8 1709,8 1360,2 1568,1 0,403 1,000 1709,8 1360,2 1,15
ψ = 0.5
0 7672,0 1709,8 1709,8 1734,9 0,472 1,000 1709,8 1709,8 1,01
0,5 9005,5 1709,8 1675,7 1706,0 0,436 1,000 1709,8 1675,7 1,02
0,75 9815,0 1709,8 1631,6 1696,4 0,417 1,000 1709,8 1631,6 1,04
1 10867,8 1709,8 1587,5 1643,4 0,397 1,000 1709,8 1587,5 1,04
1,5 13630,9 1709,8 1472,8 1629,1 0,354 1,000 1709,8 1472,8 1,11
2 18082,5 1709,8 1360,2 1577,0 0,308 1,000 1709,8 1360,2 1,16
ψ = 0
0 10721,8 1709,8 1709,8 1732,6 0,399 1,000 1709,8 1709,8 1,01
0,5 13240,3 1709,8 1675,7 1766,9 0,359 1,000 1709,8 1675,7 1,05
0,75 14797,2 1709,8 1631,6 1792,3 0,340 1,000 1709,8 1631,6 1,10
1 17016,3 1709,8 1587,5 1724,4 0,317 1,000 1709,8 1587,5 1,09
1,5 23022,3 1709,8 1472,8 1657,0 0,273 1,000 1709,8 1472,8 1,13
2 33154,0 1709,8 1360,2 1543,3 0,227 1,000 1709,8 1360,2 1,13
ψ = -‐ 0.5
0 14960,1 1709,8 1709,8 1845,7 0,338 1,000 1709,8 1709,8 1,08
0,5 18773,3 1709,8 1675,7 1864,4 0,302 1,000 1709,8 1675,7 1,11
0,75 22120,4 1709,8 1631,6 1797,4 0,278 1,000 1709,8 1631,6 1,10
1 24313,8 1709,8 1587,5 1715,0 0,265 1,000 1709,8 1587,5 1,08
1,5 32817,0 1709,8 1472,8 1643,5 0,228 1,000 1709,8 1472,8 1,12
2 46715,3 1709,8 1360,2 1509,1 0,191 1,000 1709,8 1360,2 1,11
ψ = -‐ 1
0 15620,3 1709,8 1709,8 1853,9 0,331 1,000 1709,8 1709,8 1,08
0,5 18653,1 1709,8 1675,7 1892,8 0,303 1,000 1709,8 1675,7 1,13
0,75 20137,0 1709,8 1631,6 1761,4 0,291 1,000 1709,8 1631,6 1,08
1 22878,8 1709,8 1587,5 1680,7 0,273 1,000 1709,8 1587,5 1,06
1,5 29082,5 1709,8 1472,8 1610,6 0,242 1,000 1709,8 1472,8 1,09
2 38796,2 1709,8 1360,2 1433,6 0,210 1,000 1709,8 1360,2 1,05
A2.53
HEB500 / L = 3.5 m / fy = 460 MPa

ψ = 1
0 5811,3 2215,6 1709,8 1733,3 0,617 0,909 2014,3 1709,8 1,01
0,5 6556,5 2215,6 1675,7 1787,1 0,581 0,925 2050,4 1675,7 1,07
0,75 6933,4 2215,6 1631,6 1720,0 0,565 1,000 2215,6 1631,6 1,05
1 7513,3 2215,6 1587,5 1687,0 0,543 1,000 2215,6 1587,5 1,06
1,5 8784,9 2215,6 1472,8 1603,1 0,502 1,000 2215,6 1472,8 1,09
2 10552,8 2215,6 1360,2 1509,8 0,458 1,000 2215,6 1360,2 1,11
ψ = 0.5
0 7672,0 2215,6 1709,8 1797,7 0,537 1,000 2215,6 1709,8 1,05
0,5 9005,5 2215,6 1675,7 1755,1 0,496 1,000 2215,6 1675,7 1,05
0,75 9815,0 2215,6 1631,6 1643,4 0,475 1,000 2215,6 1631,6 1,01
1 10867,8 2215,6 1587,5 1623,1 0,452 1,000 2215,6 1587,5 1,02
1,5 13630,9 2215,6 1472,8 1489,4 0,403 1,000 2215,6 1472,8 1,01
2 18082,5 2215,6 1360,2 1454,2 0,350 1,000 2215,6 1360,2 1,07
ψ = 0
0 10721,8 2215,6 1709,8 1750,5 0,455 1,000 2215,6 1709,8 1,02
0,5 13240,3 2215,6 1675,7 1728,9 0,409 1,000 2215,6 1675,7 1,03
0,75 14797,2 2215,6 1631,6 1683,3 0,387 1,000 2215,6 1631,6 1,03
1 17016,3 2215,6 1587,5 1662,5 0,361 1,000 2215,6 1587,5 1,05
1,5 23022,3 2215,6 1472,8 1525,6 0,310 1,000 2215,6 1472,8 1,04
2 33154,0 2215,6 1360,2 1388,3 0,259 1,000 2215,6 1360,2 1,02
ψ = -‐ 0.5
0 14960,1 2215,6 1709,8 1784,7 0,385 1,000 2215,6 1709,8 1,04
0,5 18773,3 2215,6 1675,7 1762,6 0,344 1,000 2215,6 1675,7 1,05
0,75 22120,4 2215,6 1631,6 1843,2 0,316 1,000 2215,6 1631,6 1,13
1 24313,8 2215,6 1587,5 1694,9 0,302 1,000 2215,6 1587,5 1,07
1,5 32817,0 2215,6 1472,8 1555,3 0,260 1,000 2215,6 1472,8 1,06
2 46715,3 2215,6 1360,2 1415,3 0,218 1,000 2215,6 1360,2 1,04
ψ = -‐ 1
0 15620,3 2215,6 1709,8 1823,0 0,377 1,000 2215,6 1709,8 1,07
0,5 18653,1 2215,6 1675,7 1797,0 0,345 1,000 2215,6 1675,7 1,07
0,75 20137,0 2215,6 1631,6 1704,2 0,332 1,000 2215,6 1631,6 1,04
1 22878,8 2215,6 1587,5 1683,2 0,311 1,000 2215,6 1587,5 1,06
1,5 29082,5 2215,6 1472,8 1544,5 0,276 1,000 2215,6 1472,8 1,05
2 38796,2 2215,6 1360,2 1405,5 0,239 1,000 2215,6 1360,2 1,03
A2.54
HEB500 / L = 5 m / fy = 355 MPa

ψ = 1
0 3219,6 1709,8 1709,8 1449,9 0,729 0,855 1462,0 1462,0 0,99
0,5 3645,8 1709,8 1675,7 1572,6 0,685 0,877 1499,8 1499,8 1,05
0,75 3877,3 1709,8 1631,6 1604,5 0,664 0,887 1517,1 1517,1 1,06
1 4193,6 1709,8 1587,5 1622,9 0,639 0,899 1537,8 1537,8 1,06
1,5 4923,5 1709,8 1472,8 1522,4 0,589 0,922 1576,3 1472,8 1,03
2 5942,3 1709,8 1360,2 1451,8 0,536 1,000 1709,8 1360,2 1,07
ψ = 0.5
0 4249,4 1709,8 1709,8 1743,9 0,634 0,966 1651,7 1651,7 1,06
0,5 5010,4 1709,8 1675,7 1774,1 0,584 0,988 1688,7 1675,7 1,06
0,75 5498,1 1709,8 1631,6 1788,0 0,558 1,000 1709,8 1631,6 1,10
1 6073,8 1709,8 1587,5 1726,3 0,531 1,000 1709,8 1587,5 1,09
1,5 7654,1 1709,8 1472,8 1663,5 0,473 1,000 1709,8 1472,8 1,13
2 10211,5 1709,8 1360,2 1566,9 0,409 1,000 1709,8 1360,2 1,15
ψ = 0
0 5930,5 1709,8 1709,8 1803,5 0,537 1,000 1709,8 1709,8 1,05
0,5 7348,9 1709,8 1675,7 1829,7 0,482 1,000 1709,8 1675,7 1,09
0,75 8121,8 1709,8 1631,6 1745,7 0,459 1,000 1709,8 1631,6 1,07
1 9457,0 1709,8 1587,5 1644,9 0,425 1,000 1709,8 1587,5 1,04
1,5 12782,5 1709,8 1472,8 1569,6 0,366 1,000 1709,8 1472,8 1,07
2 18401,0 1709,8 1360,2 1402,1 0,305 1,000 1709,8 1360,2 1,03
ψ = -‐ 0.5
0 8270,2 1709,8 1709,8 1815,3 0,455 1,000 1709,8 1709,8 1,06
0,5 10358,1 1709,8 1675,7 1752,6 0,406 1,000 1709,8 1675,7 1,05
0,75 11775,3 1709,8 1631,6 1641,3 0,381 1,000 1709,8 1631,6 1,01
1 13356,1 1709,8 1587,5 1584,6 0,358 1,000 1709,8 1587,5 1,00
1,5 17964,3 1709,8 1472,8 1529,8 0,309 1,000 1709,8 1472,8 1,04
2 25670,9 1709,8 1360,2 1371,6 0,258 1,000 1709,8 1360,2 1,01
ψ = -‐ 1
0 8712,5 1709,8 1709,8 1824,4 0,443 1,000 1709,8 1709,8 1,07
0,5 10331,0 1709,8 1675,7 1761,3 0,407 1,000 1709,8 1675,7 1,05
0,75 11307,8 1709,8 1631,6 1655,3 0,389 1,000 1709,8 1631,6 1,01
1 12596,4 1709,8 1587,5 1609,5 0,368 1,000 1709,8 1587,5 1,01
1,5 15956,9 1709,8 1472,8 1537,5 0,327 1,000 1709,8 1472,8 1,04
2 21339,4 1709,8 1360,2 1372,9 0,283 1,000 1709,8 1360,2 1,01
A2.55
HEB500 / L = 5 m / fy = 460 MPa

ψ = 1
0 3219,6 2215,6 1709,8 1791,9 0,830 0,801 1774,0 1709,8 1,05
0,5 3645,8 2215,6 1675,7 1707,6 0,780 0,828 1835,1 1675,7 1,02
0,75 3877,3 2215,6 1631,6 1685,9 0,756 0,841 1863,1 1631,6 1,03
1 4193,6 2215,6 1587,5 1657,5 0,727 0,856 1896,6 1587,5 1,04
1,5 4923,5 2215,6 1472,8 1544,1 0,671 0,884 1958,5 1472,8 1,05
2 5942,3 2215,6 1360,2 1438,7 0,611 0,912 2021,3 1360,2 1,06
ψ = 0.5
0 4249,4 2215,6 1709,8 1800,2 0,722 0,923 2045,1 1709,8 1,05
0,5 5010,4 2215,6 1675,7 1713,0 0,665 0,952 2108,7 1675,7 1,02
0,75 5498,1 2215,6 1631,6 1690,5 0,635 0,966 2139,8 1631,6 1,04
1 6073,8 2215,6 1587,5 1661,1 0,604 0,979 2169,8 1587,5 1,05
1,5 7654,1 2215,6 1472,8 1543,9 0,538 1,000 2215,6 1472,8 1,05
2 10211,5 2215,6 1360,2 1533,0 0,466 1,000 2215,6 1360,2 1,13
ψ = 0
0 5930,5 2215,6 1709,8 1862,4 0,611 1,000 2215,6 1709,8 1,09
0,5 7348,9 2215,6 1675,7 1771,4 0,549 1,000 2215,6 1675,7 1,06
0,75 8121,8 2215,6 1631,6 1747,9 0,522 1,000 2215,6 1631,6 1,07
1 9457,0 2215,6 1587,5 1717,3 0,484 1,000 2215,6 1587,5 1,08
1,5 12782,5 2215,6 1472,8 1594,9 0,416 1,000 2215,6 1472,8 1,08
2 18401,0 2215,6 1360,2 1583,6 0,347 1,000 2215,6 1360,2 1,16
ψ = -‐ 0.5
0 8270,2 2215,6 1709,8 1943,0 0,518 1,000 2215,6 1709,8 1,14
0,5 10358,1 2215,6 1675,7 1848,0 0,462 1,000 2215,6 1675,7 1,10
0,75 11775,3 2215,6 1631,6 1823,6 0,434 1,000 2215,6 1631,6 1,12
1 13356,1 2215,6 1587,5 1791,6 0,407 1,000 2215,6 1587,5 1,13
1,5 17964,3 2215,6 1472,8 1664,0 0,351 1,000 2215,6 1472,8 1,13
2 25670,9 2215,6 1360,2 1583,8 0,294 1,000 2215,6 1360,2 1,16
ψ = -‐ 1
0 8712,5 2215,6 1709,8 1921,1 0,504 1,000 2215,6 1709,8 1,12
0,5 10331,0 2215,6 1675,7 1783,8 0,463 1,000 2215,6 1675,7 1,06
0,75 11307,8 2215,6 1631,6 1717,6 0,443 1,000 2215,6 1631,6 1,05
1 12596,4 2215,6 1587,5 1653,8 0,419 1,000 2215,6 1587,5 1,04
1,5 15956,9 2215,6 1472,8 1641,9 0,373 1,000 2215,6 1472,8 1,11
2 21339,4 2215,6 1360,2 1524,6 0,322 1,000 2215,6 1360,2 1,12
A2.56
HEB500 / L = 8 m / fy = 355 MPa

ψ = 1
0 1617,7 1709,8 1709,8 1290,3 1,028 0,682 1166,9 1166,9 1,11
0,5 1855,8 1709,8 1675,7 1320,6 0,960 0,724 1238,1 1238,1 1,07
0,75 1995,2 1709,8 1631,6 1378,3 0,926 0,745 1273,3 1273,3 1,08
1 2162,6 1709,8 1587,5 1391,4 0,889 0,766 1310,4 1310,4 1,06
1,5 2572,0 1709,8 1472,8 1410,2 0,815 0,809 1382,7 1382,7 1,02
2 3144,9 1709,8 1360,2 1487,7 0,737 0,851 1454,4 1360,2 1,09
ψ = 0.5
0 2133,1 1709,8 1709,8 1501,6 0,895 0,820 1401,7 1401,7 1,07
0,5 2555,8 1709,8 1675,7 1696,2 0,818 0,869 1485,3 1485,3 1,14
0,75 2744,8 1709,8 1631,6 1717,1 0,789 0,886 1514,5 1514,5 1,13
1 3144,9 1709,8 1587,5 1733,2 0,737 0,915 1564,3 1564,3 1,11
1,5 4014,9 1709,8 1472,8 1646,5 0,653 0,958 1637,4 1472,8 1,12
2 5407,7 1709,8 1360,2 1562,0 0,562 1,000 1709,8 1360,2 1,15
ψ = 0
0 2961,4 1709,8 1709,8 1743,1 0,760 0,978 1671,5 1671,5 1,04
0,5 3719,8 1709,8 1675,7 1788,1 0,678 1,000 1709,8 1675,7 1,07
0,75 4175,0 1709,8 1631,6 1710,1 0,640 1,000 1709,8 1631,6 1,05
1 4811,6 1709,8 1587,5 1660,4 0,596 1,000 1709,8 1587,5 1,05
1,5 6469,0 1709,8 1472,8 1533,1 0,514 1,000 1709,8 1472,8 1,04
2 9180,6 1709,8 1360,2 1482,7 0,432 1,000 1709,8 1360,2 1,09
ψ = -‐ 0.5
0 4097,2 1709,8 1709,8 1759,4 0,646 1,000 1709,8 1709,8 1,03
0,5 5137,4 1709,8 1675,7 1804,8 0,577 1,000 1709,8 1675,7 1,08
0,75 5542,3 1709,8 1631,6 1726,0 0,555 1,000 1709,8 1631,6 1,06
1 6571,7 1709,8 1587,5 1675,8 0,510 1,000 1709,8 1587,5 1,06
1,5 8732,3 1709,8 1472,8 1547,4 0,443 1,000 1709,8 1472,8 1,05
2 12336,9 1709,8 1360,2 1496,5 0,372 1,000 1709,8 1360,2 1,10
ψ = -‐ 1
0 4373,3 1709,8 1709,8 1780,3 0,625 1,000 1709,8 1709,8 1,04
0,5 5134,1 1709,8 1675,7 1826,2 0,577 1,000 1709,8 1675,7 1,09
0,75 5691,0 1709,8 1631,6 1746,6 0,548 1,000 1709,8 1631,6 1,07
1 6198,7 1709,8 1587,5 1695,8 0,525 1,000 1709,8 1587,5 1,07
1,5 7781,2 1709,8 1472,8 1565,8 0,469 1,000 1709,8 1472,8 1,06
2 10335,5 1709,8 1360,2 1514,3 0,407 1,000 1709,8 1360,2 1,11
A2.57
HEB500 / L = 8 m / fy = 460 MPa

ψ = 1
0 1617,7 2215,6 1709,8 1393,3 1,170 0,597 1321,7 1321,7 1,05
0,5 1855,8 2215,6 1675,7 1572,8 1,093 0,643 1424,7 1424,7 1,10
0,75 1995,2 2215,6 1631,6 1620,8 1,054 0,667 1477,2 1477,2 1,10
1 2162,6 2215,6 1587,5 1713,6 1,012 0,692 1533,7 1533,7 1,12
1,5 2572,0 2215,6 1472,8 1646,7 0,928 0,743 1646,7 1472,8 1,12
2 3144,9 2215,6 1360,2 1535,7 0,839 0,795 1761,7 1360,2 1,13
ψ = 0.5
0 2133,1 2215,6 1709,8 1701,7 1,019 0,735 1628,4 1628,4 1,04
0,5 2555,8 2215,6 1675,7 1593,7 0,931 0,796 1763,4 1675,7 0,95
0,75 2744,8 2215,6 1631,6 1641,2 0,898 0,818 1811,7 1631,6 1,01
1 3144,9 2215,6 1587,5 1732,4 0,839 0,856 1895,5 1587,5 1,09
1,5 4014,9 2215,6 1472,8 1664,9 0,743 0,912 2020,4 1472,8 1,13
2 5407,7 2215,6 1360,2 1535,7 0,640 0,963 2134,5 1360,2 1,13
ψ = 0
0 2961,4 2215,6 1709,8 1956,9 0,865 0,909 2013,5 1709,8 1,14
0,5 3719,8 2215,6 1675,7 1751,3 0,772 0,970 2150,1 1675,7 1,05
0,75 4175,0 2215,6 1631,6 1660,6 0,728 0,996 2205,6 1631,6 1,02
1 4811,6 2215,6 1587,5 1753,0 0,679 1,000 2215,6 1587,5 1,10
1,5 6469,0 2215,6 1472,8 1684,6 0,585 1,000 2215,6 1472,8 1,14
2 9180,6 2215,6 1360,2 1554,2 0,491 1,000 2215,6 1360,2 1,14
ψ = -‐ 0.5
0 4097,2 2215,6 1709,8 1931,9 0,735 1,000 2215,6 1709,8 1,13
0,5 5137,4 2215,6 1675,7 1815,7 0,657 1,000 2215,6 1675,7 1,08
0,75 5542,3 2215,6 1631,6 1647,1 0,632 1,000 2215,6 1631,6 1,01
1 6571,7 2215,6 1587,5 1631,8 0,581 1,000 2215,6 1587,5 1,03
1,5 8732,3 2215,6 1472,8 1616,7 0,504 1,000 2215,6 1472,8 1,10
2 12336,9 2215,6 1360,2 1586,8 0,424 1,000 2215,6 1360,2 1,17
ψ = -‐ 1
0 4373,3 2215,6 1709,8 1883,2 0,712 1,000 2215,6 1709,8 1,10
0,5 5134,1 2215,6 1675,7 1769,9 0,657 1,000 2215,6 1675,7 1,06
0,75 5691,0 2215,6 1631,6 1605,6 0,624 1,000 2215,6 1631,6 0,98
1 6198,7 2215,6 1587,5 1590,7 0,598 1,000 2215,6 1587,5 1,00
1,5 7781,2 2215,6 1472,8 1575,9 0,534 1,000 2215,6 1472,8 1,07
2 10335,5 2215,6 1360,2 1546,8 0,463 1,000 2215,6 1360,2 1,14
A2.58
HEB500 / L = 10 m / fy = 355 MPa

ψ = 1
0 1207,1 1709,8 1709,8 1006,7 1,190 0,585 1000,1 1000,1 1,01
0,5 1401,1 1709,8 1675,7 1089,0 1,105 0,636 1087,0 1087,0 1,00
0,75 1490,6 1709,8 1631,6 1205,4 1,071 0,656 1122,0 1122,0 1,07
1 1651,7 1709,8 1587,5 1316,1 1,017 0,689 1178,1 1178,1 1,12
1,5 1986,8 1709,8 1472,8 1432,1 0,928 0,744 1271,3 1271,3 1,13
2 2456,2 1709,8 1360,2 1440,8 0,834 0,798 1364,4 1360,2 1,06
ψ = 0.5
0 1590,6 1709,8 1709,8 1300,9 1,037 0,723 1235,5 1235,5 1,05
0,5 1933,6 1709,8 1675,7 1473,1 0,940 0,790 1350,1 1350,1 1,09
0,75 2247,5 1709,8 1631,6 1564,2 0,872 0,835 1427,3 1427,3 1,10
1 2410,8 1709,8 1587,5 1590,3 0,842 0,854 1459,9 1459,9 1,09
1,5 3111,2 1709,8 1472,8 1556,3 0,741 0,913 1560,7 1472,8 1,06
2 4219,5 1709,8 1360,2 1469,8 0,637 0,965 1650,0 1360,2 1,08
ψ = 0
0 2199,5 1709,8 1709,8 1622,8 0,882 0,897 1533,3 1533,3 1,06
0,5 2798,2 1709,8 1675,7 1755,4 0,782 0,964 1648,9 1648,9 1,06
0,75 3294,8 1709,8 1631,6 1766,5 0,720 1,000 1709,7 1631,6 1,08
1 3639,5 1709,8 1587,5 1703,5 0,685 1,000 1709,8 1587,5 1,07
1,5 4882,6 1709,8 1472,8 1629,0 0,592 1,000 1709,8 1472,8 1,11
2 6891,0 1709,8 1360,2 1504,3 0,498 1,000 1709,8 1360,2 1,11
ψ = -‐ 0.5
0 3022,7 1709,8 1709,8 1772,2 0,752 1,000 1709,8 1709,8 1,04
0,5 3809,2 1709,8 1675,7 1813,4 0,670 1,000 1709,8 1675,7 1,08
0,75 4361,2 1709,8 1631,6 1658,5 0,626 1,000 1709,8 1631,6 1,02
1 4864,5 1709,8 1587,5 1588,3 0,593 1,000 1709,8 1587,5 1,00
1,5 6430,6 1709,8 1472,8 1524,0 0,516 1,000 1709,8 1472,8 1,03
2 9042,3 1709,8 1360,2 1502,0 0,435 1,000 1709,8 1360,2 1,10
ψ = -‐ 1
0 4138,3 1709,8 1709,8 1789,9 0,643 1,000 1709,8 1709,8 1,05
0,5 4955,2 1709,8 1675,7 1831,6 0,587 1,000 1709,8 1675,7 1,09
0,75 5454,2 1709,8 1631,6 1708,3 0,560 1,000 1709,8 1631,6 1,05
1 6069,5 1709,8 1587,5 1604,2 0,531 1,000 1709,8 1587,5 1,01
1,5 7646,2 1709,8 1472,8 1585,0 0,473 1,000 1709,8 1472,8 1,08
2 9926,9 1709,8 1360,2 1517,0 0,415 1,000 1709,8 1360,2 1,12
A2.59
HEB500 / L = 10 m / fy = 460 MPa

ψ = 1
0 1207,1 2215,6 1709,8 1099,1 1,355 0,495 1097,0 1097,0 1,00
0,5 1401,1 2215,6 1675,7 1307,3 1,258 0,547 1211,2 1211,2 1,08
0,75 1490,6 2215,6 1631,6 1443,0 1,219 0,568 1259,0 1259,0 1,15
1 1651,7 2215,6 1587,5 1509,9 1,158 0,604 1337,5 1337,5 1,13
1,5 1986,8 2215,6 1472,8 1589,0 1,056 0,665 1474,2 1472,8 1,08
2 2456,2 2215,6 1360,2 1568,2 0,950 0,730 1617,9 1360,2 1,15
ψ = 0.5
0 1590,6 2215,6 1709,8 1433,5 1,180 0,622 1378,2 1378,2 1,04
0,5 1933,6 2215,6 1675,7 1785,7 1,070 0,699 1548,2 1548,2 1,15
0,75 2247,5 2215,6 1631,6 1688,8 0,993 0,753 1669,2 1631,6 1,04
1 2410,8 2215,6 1587,5 1565,8 0,959 0,777 1721,7 1587,5 0,99
1,5 3111,2 2215,6 1472,8 1492,5 0,844 0,853 1889,3 1472,8 1,01
2 4219,5 2215,6 1360,2 1427,5 0,725 0,922 2042,1 1360,2 1,05
ψ = 0
0 2199,5 2215,6 1709,8 1677,2 1,004 0,802 1777,3 1709,8 0,98
0,5 2798,2 2215,6 1675,7 1821,4 0,890 0,891 1973,6 1675,7 1,09
0,75 3294,8 2215,6 1631,6 1722,6 0,820 0,940 2082,1 1631,6 1,06
1 3639,5 2215,6 1587,5 1597,1 0,780 0,965 2138,6 1587,5 1,01
1,5 4882,6 2215,6 1472,8 1522,3 0,674 1,000 2215,6 1472,8 1,03
2 6891,0 2215,6 1360,2 1456,1 0,567 1,000 2215,6 1360,2 1,07
ψ = -‐ 0.5
0 3022,7 2215,6 1709,8 1730,7 0,856 0,940 2083,2 1709,8 1,01
0,5 3809,2 2215,6 1675,7 1688,3 0,763 1,000 2215,6 1675,7 1,01
0,75 4361,2 2215,6 1631,6 1647,0 0,713 1,000 2215,6 1631,6 1,01
1 4864,5 2215,6 1587,5 1606,6 0,675 1,000 2215,6 1587,5 1,01
1,5 6430,6 2215,6 1472,8 1567,3 0,587 1,000 2215,6 1472,8 1,06
2 9042,3 2215,6 1360,2 1528,9 0,495 1,000 2215,6 1360,2 1,12
ψ = -‐ 1
0 4138,3 2215,6 1709,8 1888,1 0,732 1,000 2215,6 1709,8 1,10
0,5 4955,2 2215,6 1675,7 1841,9 0,669 1,000 2215,6 1675,7 1,10
0,75 5454,2 2215,6 1631,6 1678,4 0,637 1,000 2215,6 1631,6 1,03
1 6069,5 2215,6 1587,5 1621,2 0,604 1,000 2215,6 1587,5 1,02
1,5 7646,2 2215,6 1472,8 1596,9 0,538 1,000 2215,6 1472,8 1,08
2 9926,9 2215,6 1360,2 1522,2 0,472 1,000 2215,6 1360,2 1,12
A2.60
HEB500 / L = 15 m / fy = 355 MPa

ψ = 1
0 745,8 1709,8 1709,8 702,3 1,514 0,421 720,2 720,2 0,98
0,5 898,6 1709,8 1675,7 880,8 1,379 0,483 825,6 825,6 1,07
0,75 963,6 1709,8 1631,6 1004,3 1,332 0,507 866,5 866,5 1,16
1 1098,0 1709,8 1587,5 1094,0 1,248 0,552 943,9 943,9 1,16
1,5 1365,3 1709,8 1472,8 1191,9 1,119 0,627 1072,1 1072,1 1,11
2 1738,6 1709,8 1360,2 1329,1 0,992 0,705 1205,0 1205,0 1,10
ψ = 0.5
0 981,3 1709,8 1709,8 916,8 1,320 0,530 906,7 906,7 1,01
0,5 1248,8 1709,8 1675,7 1119,2 1,170 0,629 1075,5 1075,5 1,04
0,75 1477,3 1709,8 1631,6 1323,1 1,076 0,695 1188,3 1188,3 1,11
1 1619,2 1709,8 1587,5 1382,8 1,028 0,729 1246,5 1246,5 1,11
1,5 2149,3 1709,8 1472,8 1451,9 0,892 0,822 1405,4 1405,4 1,03
2 2953,8 1709,8 1360,2 1554,2 0,761 0,902 1542,2 1360,2 1,14
ψ = 0
0 1346,9 1709,8 1709,8 1184,4 1,127 0,701 1198,6 1198,6 0,99
0,5 1786,7 1709,8 1675,7 1435,4 0,978 0,823 1406,6 1406,6 1,02
0,75 1996,1 1709,8 1631,6 1526,5 0,926 0,864 1477,2 1477,2 1,03
1 2368,3 1709,8 1587,5 1550,3 0,850 0,920 1572,3 1572,3 0,99
1,5 3178,6 1709,8 1472,8 1538,9 0,733 0,993 1697,5 1472,8 1,04
2 4416,6 1709,8 1360,2 1505,7 0,622 1,000 1709,8 1360,2 1,11
ψ = -‐ 0.5
0 1828,7 1709,8 1709,8 1481,6 0,967 0,853 1458,8 1458,8 1,02
0,5 2360,1 1709,8 1675,7 1671,8 0,851 0,944 1613,8 1613,8 1,04
0,75 2694,1 1709,8 1631,6 1679,7 0,797 0,981 1678,1 1631,6 1,03
1 3031,5 1709,8 1587,5 1611,8 0,751 1,000 1709,8 1587,5 1,02
1,5 3995,3 1709,8 1472,8 1549,7 0,654 1,000 1709,8 1472,8 1,05
2 5538,4 1709,8 1360,2 1521,4 0,556 1,000 1709,8 1360,2 1,12
ψ = -‐ 1
0 1987,2 1709,8 1709,8 1595,4 0,928 0,921 1574,1 1574,1 1,01
0,5 2345,4 1709,8 1675,7 1687,5 0,854 0,981 1676,9 1675,7 1,01
0,75 2501,7 1709,8 1631,6 1695,5 0,827 1,000 1709,8 1631,6 1,04
1 2842,1 1709,8 1587,5 1627,9 0,776 1,000 1709,8 1587,5 1,03
1,5 3570,7 1709,8 1472,8 1568,2 0,692 1,000 1709,8 1472,8 1,06
2 4725,0 1709,8 1360,2 1540,6 0,602 1,000 1709,8 1360,2 1,13
A2.61
HEB500 / L = 15 m / fy = 460 MPa

ψ = 1
0 745,8 2215,6 1709,8 739,5 1,724 0,343 760,5 760,5 0,97
0,5 898,6 2215,6 1675,7 937,6 1,570 0,398 882,5 882,5 1,06
0,75 963,6 2215,6 1631,6 1020,5 1,516 0,420 931,2 931,2 1,10
1 1098,0 2215,6 1587,5 1115,9 1,420 0,463 1026,0 1026,0 1,09
1,5 1365,3 2215,6 1472,8 1278,1 1,274 0,538 1191,3 1191,3 1,07
2 1738,6 2215,6 1360,2 1453,8 1,129 0,621 1376,2 1360,2 1,07
ψ = 0.5
0 981,3 2215,6 1709,8 918,0 1,503 0,427 945,0 945,0 0,97
0,5 1248,8 2215,6 1675,7 1238,2 1,332 0,523 1158,5 1158,5 1,07
0,75 1477,3 2215,6 1631,6 1471,7 1,225 0,592 1311,4 1311,4 1,12
1 1619,2 2215,6 1587,5 1543,3 1,170 0,629 1394,1 1394,1 1,11
1,5 2149,3 2215,6 1472,8 1585,5 1,015 0,738 1634,4 1472,8 1,08
2 2953,8 2215,6 1360,2 1545,6 0,866 0,839 1858,2 1360,2 1,14
ψ = 0
0 1346,9 2215,6 1709,8 1602,7 1,283 0,577 1278,1 1278,1 1,25
0,5 1786,7 2215,6 1675,7 1732,2 1,114 0,712 1577,0 1577,0 1,10
0,75 1996,1 2215,6 1631,6 1731,2 1,054 0,761 1686,9 1631,6 1,06
1 2368,3 2215,6 1587,5 1644,1 0,967 0,831 1842,1 1587,5 1,04
1,5 3178,6 2215,6 1472,8 1578,0 0,835 0,930 2060,0 1472,8 1,07
2 4416,6 2215,6 1360,2 1463,2 0,708 1,000 2215,6 1360,2 1,08
ψ = -‐ 0.5
0 1828,7 2215,6 1709,8 1682,2 1,101 0,738 1635,7 1635,7 1,03
0,5 2360,1 2215,6 1675,7 1818,1 0,969 0,852 1886,7 1675,7 1,08
0,75 2694,1 2215,6 1631,6 1801,6 0,907 0,902 1998,1 1631,6 1,10
1 3031,5 2215,6 1587,5 1725,6 0,855 0,941 2085,2 1587,5 1,09
1,5 3995,3 2215,6 1472,8 1621,5 0,745 1,000 2215,6 1472,8 1,10
2 5538,4 2215,6 1360,2 1535,8 0,632 1,000 2215,6 1360,2 1,13
ψ = -‐ 1
0 1987,2 2215,6 1709,8 1716,5 1,056 0,804 1782,2 1709,8 1,00
0,5 2345,4 2215,6 1675,7 1855,2 0,972 0,882 1953,5 1675,7 1,11
0,75 2501,7 2215,6 1631,6 1838,4 0,941 0,909 2013,9 1631,6 1,13
1 2842,1 2215,6 1587,5 1760,8 0,883 0,958 2122,1 1587,5 1,11
1,5 3570,7 2215,6 1472,8 1654,6 0,788 1,000 2215,6 1472,8 1,12
2 4725,0 2215,6 1360,2 1567,1 0,685 1,000 2215,6 1360,2 1,15
A2.62
HEB500 / L = 20 m / fy = 355 MPa

ψ = 1
0 542,6 1709,8 1709,8 537,0 1,775 0,327 559,1 559,1 0,96
0,5 681,9 1709,8 1675,7 719,8 1,584 0,393 672,2 672,2 1,07
0,75 744,7 1709,8 1631,6 776,2 1,515 0,421 719,4 719,4 1,08
1 866,2 1709,8 1587,5 882,1 1,405 0,470 804,3 804,3 1,10
1,5 1113,5 1709,8 1472,8 1078,5 1,239 0,557 952,3 952,3 1,13
2 1457,3 1709,8 1360,2 1255,1 1,083 0,649 1109,3 1109,3 1,13
ψ = 0.5
0 713,3 1709,8 1709,8 727,1 1,548 0,407 696,1 696,1 1,04
0,5 955,1 1709,8 1675,7 922,9 1,338 0,519 887,8 887,8 1,04
0,75 1074,3 1709,8 1631,6 1055,6 1,262 0,568 970,4 970,4 1,09
1 1288,0 1709,8 1587,5 1189,7 1,152 0,641 1096,7 1096,7 1,08
1,5 1750,4 1709,8 1472,8 1311,4 0,988 0,757 1293,6 1293,6 1,01
2 2425,1 1709,8 1360,2 1511,8 0,840 0,855 1462,5 1360,2 1,11
ψ = 0
0 974,0 1709,8 1709,8 937,5 1,325 0,545 932,4 932,4 1,01
0,5 1352,0 1709,8 1675,7 1029,3 1,125 0,703 1201,5 1201,5 0,86
0,75 1627,4 1709,8 1631,6 1365,8 1,025 0,785 1341,9 1341,9 1,02
1 1826,9 1709,8 1587,5 1515,6 0,967 0,831 1421,3 1421,3 1,07
1,5 2463,6 1709,8 1472,8 1636,2 0,833 0,931 1591,8 1472,8 1,11
2 3409,0 1709,8 1360,2 1553,1 0,708 1,000 1709,8 1360,2 1,14
ψ = -‐ 0.5
0 1311,1 1709,8 1709,8 1216,5 1,142 0,702 1201,0 1201,0 1,01
0,5 1742,9 1709,8 1675,7 1396,3 0,990 0,833 1425,1 1425,1 0,98
0,75 1929,6 1709,8 1631,6 1597,5 0,941 0,874 1494,9 1494,9 1,07
1 2266,9 1709,8 1587,5 1680,3 0,868 0,931 1592,1 1587,5 1,06
1,5 3002,2 1709,8 1472,8 1607,4 0,755 1,000 1709,8 1472,8 1,09
2 4147,6 1709,8 1360,2 1516,0 0,642 1,000 1709,8 1360,2 1,11
ψ = -‐ 1
0 1432,0 1709,8 1709,8 1370,8 1,093 0,770 1316,2 1316,2 1,04
0,5 1718,6 1709,8 1675,7 1486,7 0,997 0,859 1468,1 1468,1 1,01
0,75 1947,6 1709,8 1631,6 1612,3 0,937 0,913 1560,3 1560,3 1,03
1 2113,4 1709,8 1587,5 1696,6 0,899 0,944 1614,6 1587,5 1,07
1,5 2685,7 1709,8 1472,8 1624,3 0,798 1,000 1709,8 1472,8 1,10
2 3575,5 1709,8 1360,2 1568,0 0,692 1,000 1709,8 1360,2 1,15
A2.63
HEB500 / L = 20 m / fy = 460 MPa

ψ = 1
0 542,6 2215,6 1709,8 597,3 2,021 0,262 581,6 581,6 1,03
0,5 681,9 2215,6 1675,7 729,4 1,803 0,319 706,3 706,3 1,03
0,75 744,7 2215,6 1631,6 812,6 1,725 0,343 759,6 759,6 1,07
1 866,2 2215,6 1587,5 922,3 1,599 0,387 857,5 857,5 1,08
1,5 1113,5 2215,6 1472,8 1107,6 1,411 0,468 1036,4 1036,4 1,07
2 1457,3 2215,6 1360,2 1296,7 1,233 0,560 1241,5 1241,5 1,04
ψ = 0.5
0 713,3 2215,6 1709,8 756,7 1,762 0,331 733,1 733,1 1,03
0,5 955,1 2215,6 1675,7 959,4 1,523 0,417 925,0 925,0 1,04
0,75 1074,3 2215,6 1631,6 1151,3 1,436 0,462 1023,6 1023,6 1,12
1 1288,0 2215,6 1587,5 1349,5 1,312 0,536 1186,5 1186,5 1,14
1,5 1750,4 2215,6 1472,8 1588,8 1,125 0,660 1463,0 1463,0 1,09
2 2425,1 2215,6 1360,2 1635,1 0,956 0,779 1726,1 1360,2 1,20
ψ = 0
0 974,0 2215,6 1709,8 979,1 1,508 0,424 938,9 938,9 1,04
0,5 1352,0 2215,6 1675,7 1291,3 1,280 0,579 1282,2 1282,2 1,01
0,75 1627,4 2215,6 1631,6 1585,5 1,167 0,668 1480,3 1480,3 1,07
1 1826,9 2215,6 1587,5 1559,4 1,101 0,722 1599,6 1587,5 0,98
1,5 2463,6 2215,6 1472,8 1506,6 0,948 0,846 1875,1 1472,8 1,02
2 3409,0 2215,6 1360,2 1402,1 0,806 0,949 2102,3 1360,2 1,03
ψ = -‐ 0.5
0 1311,1 2215,6 1709,8 1291,0 1,300 0,571 1264,8 1264,8 1,02
0,5 1742,9 2215,6 1675,7 1465,4 1,127 0,715 1584,1 1584,1 0,93
0,75 1929,6 2215,6 1631,6 1804,9 1,072 0,764 1692,0 1631,6 1,11
1 2266,9 2215,6 1587,5 2082,1 0,989 0,835 1850,1 1587,5 1,31
1,5 3002,2 2215,6 1472,8 2171,6 0,859 0,938 2078,4 1472,8 1,47
2 4147,6 2215,6 1360,2 2327,8 0,731 1,000 2215,6 1360,2 1,71
ψ = -‐ 1
0 1432,0 2215,6 1709,8 1434,7 1,244 0,630 1396,3 1396,3 1,03
0,5 1718,6 2215,6 1675,7 1674,4 1,135 0,730 1616,6 1616,6 1,04
0,75 1947,6 2215,6 1631,6 1640,0 1,067 0,794 1760,0 1631,6 1,01
1 2113,4 2215,6 1587,5 1571,6 1,024 0,834 1848,4 1587,5 0,99
1,5 2685,7 2215,6 1472,8 1506,9 0,908 0,937 2076,0 1472,8 1,02
2 3575,5 2215,6 1360,2 1468,0 0,787 1,000 2215,6 1360,2 1,08
A2.64
HEB500 / L = 25 m / fy = 355 MPa

ψ = 1
0 417,5 1709,8 1709,8 471,0 2,024 0,262 447,7 447,7 1,05
0,5 545,5 1709,8 1675,7 597,9 1,770 0,328 561,6 561,6 1,06
0,75 625,2 1709,8 1631,6 653,2 1,654 0,367 627,6 627,6 1,04
1 717,1 1709,8 1587,5 782,0 1,544 0,409 699,0 699,0 1,12
1,5 948,3 1709,8 1472,8 893,6 1,343 0,501 857,0 857,0 1,04
2 1269,3 1709,8 1360,2 1093,8 1,161 0,602 1029,7 1029,7 1,06
ψ = 0.5
0 427,7 1709,8 1709,8 494,2 1,999 0,267 457,1 457,1 1,08
0,5 561,8 1709,8 1675,7 624,9 1,745 0,337 575,4 575,4 1,09
0,75 669,2 1709,8 1631,6 684,6 1,599 0,387 662,3 662,3 1,03
1 741,8 1709,8 1587,5 783,6 1,518 0,420 717,3 717,3 1,09
1,5 983,2 1709,8 1472,8 924,0 1,319 0,531 908,1 908,1 1,02
2 1316,1 1709,8 1360,2 1225,6 1,140 0,650 1111,4 1111,4 1,10
ψ = 0
0 561,9 1709,8 1709,8 564,8 1,744 0,337 575,5 575,5 0,98
0,5 793,1 1709,8 1675,7 802,0 1,468 0,448 766,0 766,0 1,05
0,75 968,3 1709,8 1631,6 876,2 1,329 0,542 927,6 927,6 0,94
1 1108,5 1709,8 1587,5 1049,0 1,242 0,608 1039,8 1039,8 1,01
1,5 1533,3 1709,8 1472,8 1298,7 1,056 0,759 1298,3 1298,3 1,00
2 2134,0 1709,8 1360,2 1385,5 0,895 0,887 1516,4 1360,2 1,02
ψ = -‐ 0.5
0 764,9 1709,8 1709,8 759,7 1,495 0,432 738,2 738,2 1,03
0,5 1111,3 1709,8 1675,7 1088,0 1,240 0,619 1058,3 1058,3 1,03
0,75 1364,2 1709,8 1631,6 1225,1 1,120 0,722 1234,3 1234,3 0,99
1 1529,0 1709,8 1587,5 1284,8 1,057 0,776 1326,6 1326,6 0,97
1,5 2075,4 1709,8 1472,8 1507,3 0,908 0,901 1540,9 1472,8 1,02
2 2871,1 1709,8 1360,2 1516,4 0,772 0,997 1705,3 1360,2 1,11
ψ = -‐ 1
0 1120,7 1709,8 1709,8 1151,7 1,235 0,638 1090,7 1090,7 1,06
0,5 1373,7 1709,8 1675,7 1359,7 1,116 0,748 1279,3 1279,3 1,06
0,75 1490,2 1709,8 1631,6 1439,5 1,071 0,790 1350,9 1350,9 1,07
1 1720,6 1709,8 1587,5 1572,0 0,997 0,859 1469,0 1469,0 1,07
1,5 2217,3 1709,8 1472,8 1586,6 0,878 0,962 1644,3 1472,8 1,08
2 2975,0 1709,8 1360,2 1474,4 0,758 1,000 1709,8 1360,2 1,08
A2.65
HEB500 / L = 25 m / fy = 460 MPa

ψ = 1
0 417,5 2215,6 1709,8 472,5 2,304 0,208 461,8 461,8 1,02
0,5 545,5 2215,6 1675,7 604,2 2,015 0,264 584,2 584,2 1,03
0,75 625,2 2215,6 1631,6 733,9 1,882 0,296 656,6 656,6 1,12
1 717,1 2215,6 1587,5 850,3 1,758 0,332 736,4 736,4 1,15
1,5 948,3 2215,6 1472,8 1061,3 1,529 0,415 919,9 919,9 1,15
2 1269,3 2215,6 1360,2 1301,5 1,321 0,512 1135,3 1135,3 1,15
ψ = 0.5
0 427,7 2215,6 1709,8 496,3 2,276 0,213 471,9 471,9 1,05
0,5 561,8 2215,6 1675,7 652,6 1,986 0,271 599,3 599,3 1,09
0,75 669,2 2215,6 1631,6 792,6 1,820 0,314 695,3 695,3 1,14
1 741,8 2215,6 1587,5 838,3 1,728 0,342 757,2 757,2 1,11
1,5 983,2 2215,6 1472,8 1038,6 1,501 0,427 946,7 946,7 1,10
2 1316,1 2215,6 1360,2 1305,6 1,297 0,544 1206,2 1206,2 1,08
ψ = 0
0 561,9 2215,6 1709,8 650,4 1,986 0,271 599,4 599,4 1,08
0,5 793,1 2215,6 1675,7 841,7 1,671 0,361 799,5 799,5 1,05
0,75 968,3 2215,6 1631,6 976,0 1,513 0,422 934,7 934,7 1,04
1 1108,5 2215,6 1587,5 1171,6 1,414 0,483 1070,6 1070,6 1,09
1,5 1533,3 2215,6 1472,8 1529,8 1,202 0,640 1417,2 1417,2 1,08
2 2134,0 2215,6 1360,2 1514,4 1,019 0,790 1749,8 1360,2 1,11
ψ = -‐ 0.5
0 764,9 2215,6 1709,8 811,3 1,702 0,350 776,3 776,3 1,04
0,5 1111,3 2215,6 1675,7 1147,5 1,412 0,487 1079,7 1079,7 1,06
0,75 1364,2 2215,6 1631,6 1328,6 1,274 0,591 1309,9 1309,9 1,01
1 1529,0 2215,6 1587,5 1546,0 1,204 0,650 1439,1 1439,1 1,07
1,5 2075,4 2215,6 1472,8 1604,5 1,033 0,797 1765,6 1472,8 1,09
2 2871,1 2215,6 1360,2 1568,8 0,878 0,924 2046,5 1360,2 1,15
ψ = -‐ 1
0 1120,7 2215,6 1709,8 1137,5 1,406 0,496 1099,1 1099,1 1,03
0,5 1373,7 2215,6 1675,7 1416,4 1,270 0,607 1345,3 1345,3 1,05
0,75 1490,2 2215,6 1631,6 1480,0 1,219 0,652 1445,0 1445,0 1,02
1 1720,6 2215,6 1587,5 1719,0 1,135 0,730 1617,9 1587,5 1,08
1,5 2217,3 2215,6 1472,8 1589,8 1,000 0,857 1897,9 1472,8 1,08
2 2975,0 2215,6 1360,2 1502,8 0,863 0,974 2157,2 1360,2 1,10
A2.66
Annex 3: Measured Initial Geometrical Imperfections
This annex presents the initial geometrical imperfections recorded in the tested IPE 200 and HEA 160
beams. The initial displacements were measured along longitudinal lines passing through the
cross-section points indicated in Figures A3.1(a)-(b). The corresponding initial displacement profiles
are displayed in Figures (i) A3.2 to A3.4 (IPE 200 beam) and (ii) A3.5 to A3.7 (HEA 160 beam) −
these displacement profiles comprise the whole beam length (including the two outstand segments).
(a) (b)
Figure A3.1 – Cross-section points for which initial displacement profiles were measured: (a) IPE 200 and (b) HEA 160 beam
8
Point A
7 Point B
Point C
6
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Axial position
Measurement Position of measurement
along [mm]
the Beam Length [mm]
Figure A3.2 – Initial vertical displacement longitudinal profiles measured in the IPE 200 beam top flange
A3 - 1
16
Point E

14 Point F
Point D
12
10
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Measurement Position
Axial position of along the Beam Length
measurement [mm][mm]
Figure A3.3 – Initial lateral displacement longitudinal profiles measured in the IPE 200 beam web
12
11 Point G
Point H
10 Point I
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Measurement Positionofalong
Axial position the Beam Length
measurement [mm][mm]
Figure A3.4 – Initial vertical displacement longitudinal profiles measured in the IPE 200 beam bottom flange
A3 - 2
7
Point A

6 Point B
Point C
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Axial position
Measurement of measurement
Position along [mm][mm]
the Beam Length
Figure A3.5 – – Initial vertical displacement longitudinal profiles measured in the HEA 160 beam top flange
5
Point E
Point F
4 Point D
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Axial position
Measurement of measurement
Position along [mm]
Figure A3.6 – Initial lateral displacement longitudinal profiles measured in the HEA 160 beam web
A3 - 3
5
Point G

Point H
4 Point I
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Axial position
Measurement Position of measurement
along [mm]
Figure A3.7 – Initial vertical displacement longitudinal profiles measured in the HEA 160 beam bottom flange
A3 - 4

Dissertation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dissertation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

João Tomás Mello e Silva

Thesis to obtain the Master of Science Degree in

Chairperson: Professor Doutor Fernando Manuel Fernandes Simões

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................. iii

RESUMO ........................................................................................................................................ viiii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................... ix

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xiii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xix

Lateral Torsional Buckling

Ultimate Behaviour and Strength − Experimental Study

Chapter 4 ......................................................................................................................................... 51

Ultimate Behaviour and Strength − Numerical Parametric Study

Development of a design approach

Chapter 6 ......................................................................................................................................... 77

Conclusion and Future Developments

6.1 Concluding Remarks ............................................................................................................ 78

6.2 Future developments .......................................................................................................... 80

References ...................................................................................................................................... 81

Annexes ........................................................................................................................................... 83

Annex 3 Measured initial geometrical imperfections ............................................................ A3.1

1.2 Motivation and scope of the work

1.3 Organisation of the Dissertation

Lateral Torsional Buckling

Lateral-torsional buckling (LTB) is a three-dimensional instability phenomenon exhibited by beams

2.2 Beams under uniform bending − analytical solution

EIz vIV + Nt vʹ′ʹ′+My φ ʹ′ʹ′= 0 (2.1)

EIw φ IV − (GIt + Nt r02)φ ʹ′ʹ′ + My vʹ′ʹ′= 0 (2.2)

v(x) = A1 sin (π/L x) (2.3)

φ(x) = A2 sin (π/L x) (2.4)

2.3 Beams under non-uniform bending − numerical results

2.3.1 Beam finite element model

Figure 2.6 – “Fork conditions” at both end supports

2.3.2 Validation − comparison with the analytical results

Mcr [kNm] Analytical Numerical (ABAQUS BFE) Δ (%)

2.3.3 Parametric studies

Table 2.3 – Moment distribution evaluated in Lateral Buckling Analysis (LBA)

ψ=1 (uniform bending)

ψ= − 1 (doubly triangular bending)

Uniformly distributed load p

(applied along the beam shear centre axis)

IPE 300 IPE 500 ΗΕΒ 300 ΗΕΒ 500

Behaviour and Strength − Experimental Study

3.2.1. Material tests

3.2.2 Residual stress measurement

Figure 3.3 – Cutting of thin strips to measure the residual stresses

Figure 3.4 – Measuring strip length (after cutting), by means of an extensometer

3.2.3 Determination of the initial geometrical imperfections

Step 2: This step consists of making sure that the future

Step 3: In this step, the four measurement series (one per

Step 4: After knowing the beam chord position, all

Step 5: It is assumed that the beam ends (reference

Figure 3.10 – Schematic representation of Step 5

Figure 3.14 – Detailed view of the beam end support conditions

(a) Mid-span vertical displacements (TK 100)

(d) Loads applied by the hydraulic jacks (load cells C6A)

(c) End support inclinations (one inclinometer

Figure 3.15 – Measuring device systems

Table 3.1 – Measured and nominal beam cross-section dimensions

IPE 200 IPE 200 HEA 160 HEA 160

Table 3.2 – Steel’s material properties

Vertical displacement [mm]

Axial position of measurement [mm] Axial position of measurement [mm]

Axial position of measurement [mm] Axial position of measurement [mm]

3.5.1 IPE 200 beam