Articles

Frans Bijlaard DOI: 10.1002/stco.201010004

Markus Feldmann
Johannes Naumes*
Gerhard Sedlacek

The “general method” for assessing the out-of-plane

stability of structural members and frames and
the comparison with alternative rules in EN 1993 –
Eurocode 3 – Part 1-1

The key to harmonizing the rules for the assessment of in-plane haviour without taking the flexural or lateral-torsio-
and out-of-plane stability of structural steel members is a com- nal buckling into account.
mon definition of equivalent geometric imperfections. The nature b) The elastic critical out-of-plane buckling resistance Rcrit,
of these is given by the elastic-critical buckling mode and their which can be determined from
amplitudes are obtained from the evaluation of test results for
member resistance according to EN 1990 – Annex D – Basis of αcrit · Ed = Rcrit
structural design.
EN 1993 – Part 1-1 – Design of steel structures – contains a set of where
alternative rules for stability checks. Of these, the “general me- αcrit is the minimum amplifier to reach the elastic critical
thod” could potentially function as a consistent and reliable set resistance of the member or frame with regard to fle-
of rules for assessing both flexural and lateral-torsional buckling xural or lateral-torsional buckling.
for any loading and support conditions, and also cover the case
c) The main parameters can be summarized in a global
of combined compression, biaxial bending and torsion.
slenderness for out-of-plane stability:
This report describes the basis of the “general method” and its
extension to the treatment of any stability problems in bar struc- α ult , k
Rk
tures. λ op = =
The reliability of the method is verified by test evaluations. This R crit α crit ,op
means it can be used as reference method for checking the ac-
curacy of the other alternative stability rules in EN 1993-1-1. d) Given a suitable buckling curve for out-of-plane buck-
–
A comparison shows that the other alternative rules meet the re- ling χop = χ(α,λ op), the assessment can be performed by
quirements on the whole, with deviations of about ±10 %, which either
define their modelling uncertainty. Ed Ed
= ≤1
R d α op,d · Ed
1 Background where
α ult , k · χop
EN 1993 – Eurocode 3 – Part 1-1 [1] section 6.3.4 descri- α op,d =
bes a “general method” [2] for assessing the out-of-plane γ M1
stability of structural members and frames. It is based on or
the following assumptions: χop · α ult , k
1. The design values of the in-plane action effects, for ≥ 1.0
which out-of-plane stability is to be assessed, are Ed. γ M1
2. The main parameters for the assessment are as follows: and
a) The characteristic value of in-plane resistance Rk, which χop is the buckling coefficient
can be determined from γM1 is the partial factor of safety

αult,k · Ed = Rk During the drafting of EN 1993 – Eurocode 3 – Part 1-1 it

where
αult,k is the minimum load amplifier to reach the charac-
teristic resistance at the most critical cross-section
of the member or frame considering the in-plane be-
Received 19 October 2009, revised 14 January 2010,
accepted 18 January 2010
* Corresponding author: naumes@stb.rwth-aachen.de
was not possible to specify this “general method” with all
its details, in particular how to determine the out-of-plane
–
buckling curve χ(α,λ op) accurately and how to take addi-
tional out-of-plane loading into account. This led to intro-
ductory notes with some prudent recommendations being
included in the code which allow National Choices within
the scope of National Annexes.
However, research projects have been carried out in
the meantime and now the rules for the “general method”

© Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin · Steel Construction 3 (2010), No. 1 19
F. Bijlaard/M. Feldmann/J. Naumes/G. Sedlacek · The “general method” for assessing the out-of-plane stability of structural members and frames

are complete and valid for all conditions of out-of-plane

stability.
This paper presents an outline of the complete set of
rules with reference to the definitions in EN 1993 – Part 1-1.

2 Basis of the “general method”

The basis of the “general method” is the Maquoi/Rondal

method [3] covering the flexural buckling of columns.
In this method a uniform column in compression is
modelled by a member with various imperfections (Fig. 1)
that are all summarized as a single equivalent geometrical
imperfection (Fig. 2).
The shape of the equivalent geometrical imperfection
is defined by the critical flexural buckling mode ηcrit and
for uniform compression takes the form
Ncrit
ηinit = e0 · η (x) (1)
′′ ( x )max crit
EI( x )ηcrit Fig. 2. Shapes of equivalent geometrical imperfections
which in the case of a column with hinged ends results in
πx
ηinit = e0 sin (2)

Fig. 3 shows how the European flexural buckling curves
–
χ(α,λ) have been derived – based on the above and assum-
ing that the amplitude of the equivalent geometrical im-
perfection is
MR
e0 = α (λ − 0.2) (3)
NR
The amplitude of the equivalent geometrical imperfection
in eq. (3) contains an imperfection parameter α. This has
been used as a calibration factor for the evaluation of co-
lumn tests according to EN 1990 – Eurocode – Basis of
design [2] in order to reach the characteristic values from
the formulae for column resistance:

Rk = χ · A · fy (4)

Hence, the classes of α used in Eurocode 3 expressed by

the buckling curves a0, a, b, c, d cover not only imperfec-
tions, but also the modelling uncertainty and the scatter of Fig. 3. Derivation of flexural buckling curve with calibration
yield strength on the level of characteristic resistances. parameter α

Fig. 1. Sources of imperfections and their magnitudes

20 Steel Construction 3 (2010), No. 1

 F. Bijlaard/M. Feldmann/J. Naumes/G. Sedlacek · The “general method” for assessing the out-of-plane stability of structural members and frames

3 Equivalent geometrical imperfection in the case of

non-uniform members and compression forces

Whereas for uniform members and compression forces

the reference value for the amplitude of the geometrical
imperfection in eq. (1) is at the point x = xd, where η′′crit has
its maximum value η′′crit,max(x), the design location x = xd is
not a priori known in the case of non-uniform members Fig. 5. Deflection η and twist ϕ due to lateral torsional
and compression forces (Fig. 4). This point often lies be- buckling
tween the values x(αult,k,min), where the value αult,k is a mini-
mum, and x(η′′crit,max), where the curvature η′′crit(x)max is a This yields a formula for the equivalent geometrical imper-
maximum. fection of the compression flange similar to eq. (5):
Therefore, the assumption for the equivalent geome-
trical imperfection is modified: ⎡ α crit · NE,Fl ( x ) ⎤
ηinit ,Fl = ⎢e*0 ⎥ ( ηcrit + zM,Fl ϕcrit ) (7)
⎢⎣ EIFl[ ηcrit
′′ + zM,Fl ϕcrit ′′ ] ⎥⎦
x = xd
⎡ α · N (x) ⎤
ηinit = ⎢e0 crit E ⎥ ηcrit ( x ) (5) In order to determine the amplitude e*0 from the test eva-
⎣ EI( x )ηcrit
′′ ( x ) ⎦
x = xd luation of columns in compression it is necessary to make
the conditions for lateral-torsional buckling “column-like”.
An iterative process is needed to determine x = xd. To this end, eq. (7) can be rewritten in the form

4 Equivalent geometrical imperfection for lateral-torsional ⎡ α*crit · NE,Fl ( x ) ⎤

ηinit ,Fl = ⎢e0 ⎥ ( ηcrit + zM,Fl ϕcrit )
buckling ⎢⎣ EI x [ ηcrit
′′ + zM,Fl ϕcrit ′′ ] ⎥
⎦ x = xd
In case of lateral-torsional buckling, the buckling mode is (8)
characterized by a deflection ηcrit and a twist ϕcrit (Fig. 5), where
which for the upper compression flange result in the fol- e0 is the equivalent geometrical imperfection for columns,
lowing: see eq. (3)
α*crit is the amplifier for Ed for a member or frame for which
η′′Fl = η′′crit + zM,Fl ϕ′′crit (6) the torsional stiffness It is neglected.

Fig. 4. Example of a non-uniform compression member and buckling mode ηcrit

Steel Construction 3 (2010), No. 1 21

F. Bijlaard/M. Feldmann/J. Naumes/G. Sedlacek · The “general method” for assessing the out-of-plane stability of structural members and frames

A comparison of eqs. (7) and (8) results in

MR ,Fl
e* = α* (λ − 2) (9)
NR ,Fl

where
α*crit
α* = α is the imperfection factor modified for the
α crit case of lateral-torsional buckling.

This reveals that the flexural buckling curve as derived in

Fig. 3 also applies to lateral-torsional buckling, provided it
is applied to the design location x = xd and the imperfec-
tion factor α is modified according to the effect of torsio-
nal rigidity It [5]. Fig. 6. Shape of lateral torsional buckling curve computed
with imperfections according to eqs. (7) and (9) in relation
to flexural buckling curves a and b
5 Derivation of accurate lateral-torsional buckling curves

Out-of-plane buckling may be flexural or lateral-torsional

or a mixture of both.
The elastic critical value αcrit may in general be deter-
mined from the eigenvalue equation [6]:

⎡EIz 0 ⎤
⎢ ⎥ ⎡ η′′′′ ⎤ ⎡0 ⎤
− α crit · [E( η, ϕ, η′, ϕ ′)] = ⎢ ⎥ (10)
⎢ 0 EI w · GI t ϕ ′′ ⎥ ⎢⎣ϕ ′′′′ ⎥⎦ ⎣0 ⎦
⎢⎣ ϕ ′′′′ ⎥⎦
 
Rk – αcrit · Ed =0

As in eq. (10) the loading term Ed is in equilibrium with

the reaction term Rk, when we take second-order effects
into account the effects of Ed on the flange in compres- Fig. 7. Reliable enveloping of test results with a lateral tor-
sion can be written as follows: sional buckling curve computed using eq. (17)

αE 1
E= R (11)
α crit k α we obtain the basic equation
1− E
α crit
αE α 1 ηcrit
′′ ( x ) + zM ϕcrit
′′ ( x )
+ E (λ − 0.2) α* =1
where αE is an amplifier for the load Ed. α ult , k α ult , k α E [ ηcrit
′′ + zM ϕcrit
′′ ]x = x
1− d
α crit
This gives the additional moment in the flange:
(15)
αE ⎡ α crit · NE,Fl ( x ) ⎤
ME,Fl = EIFl e*0 ⎢ ⎥ × which gives for
α crit ⎢⎣ EIFl[ ηc′′rit + zM ϕcrit
′′ ] ⎥⎦
x = xd
αE
χ= (16)
×
1
( ηc′′rit + zM ϕcrit
′′ ) α ult , k
αE and at the point x = xd:
1−
α crit
1
′′ it + zM,Fl ϕcrit
ηcr ′′ χ + χ α* (λ − 0.2) =1 (17)
= α E e*0 NE,Fl ·
1 (12) 1 − χ · λ2
α [ ηcrit
′′ + zM,Fl ϕcrit′′ ]x = x which is the same as the one given in Fig. 3 for flexural
1− E d
α crit buckling except for the use of α* instead of α.
Fig. 6 shows how a lateral-torsional buckling curve
Using the interaction formula for the flange resistance differs from flexural buckling curves when using α* in-
stead of α, and Fig. 7 demonstrates the accuracy of the la-
NE,Fl ME,Fl teral-torsional buckling curve in relation to test results.
+ =1 (13)
NR ,Fl MR ,Fl
6 Derivation of a modified lateral-torsional buckling curve
and
It often appears easier to perform the out-of-plane stabi-
NR,Fl = αult,k · NE,Fl (14) lity assessment at the location x = x(αult,k,min), where the

22 Steel Construction 3 (2010), No. 1

 F. Bijlaard/M. Feldmann/J. Naumes/G. Sedlacek · The “general method” for assessing the out-of-plane stability of structural members and frames

in-plane loads produce the maximum action effects, in-

stead of at point x = xd as assumed in section 5.
In this case the reference value

α ult , k ( x d )
λ=
α crit

would be substituted as follows:

α ult , k ( x d ) α ult , k,min α ult , k ( x d )

λ= = · (18)
α crit α α , k,min
crit
 ult

λ mod β

Instead of eq. (17) the basic equation then takes on the

form

χ mod ·
1
β
1
+ χ mod · · α* λ mod · β − 0.2
β ( ) 1
χ mod 2
=1
1− · λ mod · β
β
(19)

and results in the following modified lateral-torsional buck-

ling curve:

β
χ mod =
φ+ φ2 − β λ mod
2

Fig. 8. Comparison of lateral buckling curves valid for xd or

φ = 0.5 ⎡1 + α*
⎣⎢ ( β · λ mod − 0.2 + β · ) λ 2mod ⎤
⎥ ⎦
(20) x(αult,k,min)

NE ⎛ NE ⎞ 2 2
α ult , k,min ΔnR = 1 −
λ mod = χ NR ⎜1 − χ N ⎟ χ · λ
α crit ⎝ R⎠

α ult , k ( x d ) ≤ 0.90 (23)

β= ≥1
α ult , k,min This method has been extended in [6] to lateral-torsional
buckling using
The results from this modified lateral buckling curve are M z,E
1 B
identical with those from the lateral buckling curve valid ΔnE = + (1 − qM ) + E (1 − qB ) (24)
for x = xd. χ α ult , k Mz,R BR
Fig. 8 shows an example of the shape of the modified
lateral-torsional buckling curve. Table 1 provides some in- 1 ⎛ 1 ⎞ 2 2
dications as to the relevant location x = xd and β = 1/f. ΔnR = 1 − ⎜1 − ⎟ ·χ ·λ (25)
χ α ult , k ⎝ χ α ult , k ⎠

7 Consideration of additional out-of-plane loading where

Mz,E, Mz,R are the out-of-plane bending moments in the
For flexural buckling, Roik/Kindmann derived one possi- cross-section
bility for taking into account additional out-of-plane load- BE, BR are the warping bimoments in the cross-sec-
ing proportional to the buckling eigenmode η′′crit [7]. tion
It yields the assessment equation qM, qB are factors to account for moment distribu-
tions not proportional to η′′crit and ϕ′′crit.
ΔnE ≤ ΔnR (21)
Some qM values are given in Table 2.
where
NE M y ,0 8 Justification of the rules for lateral-torsional buckling
ΔnE = + (22) by tests
χ NR M y ,R
  8.1 General
portion additional
from transverse
imperfections moment The complete set of rules as specified above has been eva-
from luated with test results according to EN 1990 – Annex D
out − of − plane
loads in order to verify:

Steel Construction 3 (2010), No. 1 23

F. Bijlaard/M. Feldmann/J. Naumes/G. Sedlacek · The “general method” for assessing the out-of-plane stability of structural members and frames

Table 1. Design value of xd along the member length ᐉ and coefficient f = 1/β for various moment distributions [6]

– that they result in characteristic values of resistance, and
– what magnitude of partial factor of safety γM is neces-
sary.
Examples from the test evaluations are given in the
following.
8.2 Lateral-torsional buckling tests
Tests published over the years 1969–1984 were checked
[9] in order to select 144 tests with rolled sections and
71 tests with welded sections for evaluation because
their documentation was adequate for such evaluations
(Fig. 9).
Fig. 10 shows the ratios of experimental results (re) to
theoretical results (rt) from the rules for rolled and welded
sections calculated with α* values based on α values for
flexural buckling about the weak axis taken from table 6.2
of EN 1993-1-1.
The γM value resulting from a log-normal distribution
of data (Fig. 11) and referred to nominal values for dimen-
sions and fy is γ*M = 1.048 for rolled sections and γ*M =
1.087 for welded sections.

24 Steel Construction 3 (2010), No. 1

 F. Bijlaard/M. Feldmann/J. Naumes/G. Sedlacek · The “general method” for assessing the out-of-plane stability of structural members and frames

Table 2. Moment coefficient qM for lateral torsional buckling, based on [8]

Fig. 9. Loading and support conditions for lateral torsional Fig. 10. Test evaluation of lateral torsional buckling tests,
buckling tests for rolled and welded sections

Fig. 11. Log-nor-

mal distribution
of test data for
rolled and welded
sections

Steel Construction 3 (2010), No. 1 25

F. Bijlaard/M. Feldmann/J. Naumes/G. Sedlacek · The “general method” for assessing the out-of-plane stability of structural members and frames
8.3 Lateral-torsional buckling tests under bending and
compression
Tests according to Fig. 12 with variations of the angle ϕ
and the eccentricities yp and zp for the lateral load F, tests
according to Fig. 13 with bending and torsion due to a la-
Fig. 12. Tests on beams with biaxial bending and torsion
Fig. 13. Tests on beams with bending, torsion and compression
Fig. 14. Tests on beams in compression with load eccentricities
Fig. 15. Test evaluation using the “plastic warping resistance”
26 Steel Construction 3 (2010), No. 1
teral force F and with compression due to a force N and
also tests according to Fig. 14 with eccentric compression
were used to evaluate the rules for lateral-torsional buck-
ling with additional out-of-plane loading. A more detailed
description of the tests performed is given in [10].
Fig. 15 shows the ratio of experimental to calculated
results and Fig. 16 shows the log-normal distribution of
results that resulted in γ*M = 1.095.
8.4 Lateral-torsional buckling tests with channels
Beams with channel sections were loaded in bending ac-
cording to Fig. 17 and in bending and compression ac-
cording to Fig. 18. Fig. 19 shows the ratio of experimental
to calculated results and Fig. 20 the log-normal distribu-
tions of results yielding a γM value γ*M = 1.083 with plastic
warping resistances, see [10].
Fig. 16. Log-normal distribution of results
 F. Bijlaard/M. Feldmann/J. Naumes/G. Sedlacek · The “general method” for assessing the out-of-plane stability of structural members and frames

8.5 Haunched beams

Lateral-torsional buckling tests were carried out on haunch-

ed beams as depicted in Fig. 21, for which the following
parameters were varied:

kV = 1.5; 1.77

kL = 1/6; 1/3; 1/2

Fig. 17. Tests on channel sections in bending

Fig. 18. Tests on channel sections in bending and compression

Fig. 19. Test evaluation using the “plastic warping resistance” Fig. 20. Log-normal distribution of the results

Fig. 21. Tests on beams with haunches, with parameters for variation and details of haunches

Steel Construction 3 (2010), No. 1 27

F. Bijlaard/M. Feldmann/J. Naumes/G. Sedlacek · The “general method” for assessing the out-of-plane stability of structural members and frames

Fig. 25 shows the ratio of experimental to calculated

MF
f0 = = 1/ 2; 1/ 3 results taking account of the position of the load in the
MS axis of the fin plates.
The log-normal distribution of the test results is shown
A detailed description of the test set-up and results is gi- in Fig. 26. It yields γ*M = 0.953.
ven in [11] and [12]. Fig. 22 shows the ratios of experi-
mental to calculated results. The log-normal distribution
of results yields the γM value γ*M = 0.998 (Fig. 23).

8.6 Beams with fin-plate connections

For tests with beams in bending as given in Fig. 24 with

fin-plate connections, evaluations were undertaken using
FEM calculations, with varying fin plate and notch dimen-
sions as given in Table 3. More detailed information about
the tests can be found in [13].

Fig. 23. Log-normal distribution

Fig. 22. Test evaluation Fig. 24. Test beam for lateral torsional buckling with varia-
tion of fin-plate connections

Table 3. Variation of fin plate dimensions and notches

28 Steel Construction 3 (2010), No. 1

 F. Bijlaard/M. Feldmann/J. Naumes/G. Sedlacek · The “general method” for assessing the out-of-plane stability of structural members and frames

9 Examination of the accuracy of the alternative rules

for out-of-plane stability given in EN 1993 – Eurocode 3 –
Part 1-1
9.1 Lateral-torsional buckling curves according to
EN 1993-1-1 section 6.3.2.3

In the following, the “general method” as specified above

has been used to examine the accuracy of the alternative
methods for assessing the out-of-plane stability as given in
EN 1993 – Eurocode 3 – Part 1-1.
Figs. 27 to 32 show comparisons of the results obtain-
ed from the lateral-torsional buckling curve in EN 1993-1-1
sections 6.3.2.2 (→ χ.LT) and 6.3.2.3 (→ χ.LT.mod) and
Fig. 25. Test evaluation those obtained using the “general method” (→ χ.LT.GM).
The particular differences of curves for a linear mo-
ment distribution may be seen in Figs. 33 and 34, which
result in the effects shown in Fig. 35.

9.2 Lateral-torsional buckling with additional out-of-plane

loading according to EN 1993-1-1 section 6.3.3

Fig. 36 shows an example of lateral-torsional buckling

Fig. 26. Log-normal distribution of test results
with additional out-of-plane loading for which the utiliza-
tion rates ε ≤ 1 according to equations (6.61) and (6.62) of
EN 1993-1-1 have been determined for different scaling
values β (Fig. 37).
The utilization rates ε demonstrate the large differen-
ces in the results obtained with the methods in Annex A

Fig. 27. Lateral torsional buckling curves for simply supported beams under uniform load

Fig. 28. Lateral torsional buckling curves for simply supported beams under central point load

Steel Construction 3 (2010), No. 1 29

F. Bijlaard/M. Feldmann/J. Naumes/G. Sedlacek · The “general method” for assessing the out-of-plane stability of structural members and frames

Fig. 29. Lateral torsional buckling curves for fixed-end beams under uniform load

Fig. 30. Lateral torsional buckling curves for fixed-end beams under central point load

Fig. 31. Lateral torsional buckling curves for beams with one fixed end under uniform load

and Annex B of EN 1993-1-1. Fig. 38 compares the utiliza-
tion rates of both methods with the results from the “gene-
ral method” and a numerical method.
The maximum magnification factors αEd applied to
the loading to reach ε = 1 for the example in Fig. 39 are
plotted against the span length in Fig. 40.
In conclusion, the alternative design rules in section
6.3.3 (4) of EN 1993-1-1 lead to results that differ from the
results of the “general method” by about ±10 %.
9.3 Stable lengths according to EN 1993-1-1 section 6.3.5.3
Figs. 41 and 42 show “stable lengths” according to the
“general method” (GM) and according to the rules in
EN 1993-1-1 section 6.3.5.3 for a simple beam with late-
ral support at its ends and a linear moment distribution.
It is evident that the rules in section 6.3.5.3 are on the
safe side because torsional stiffness effects are neglect-
ed.

30 Steel Construction 3 (2010), No. 1

 F. Bijlaard/M. Feldmann/J. Naumes/G. Sedlacek · The “general method” for assessing the out-of-plane stability of structural members and frames
Fig. 32. Lateral torsional buckling curves for beams with one fixed end under central point load
Fig. 33. Lateral torsional buckling curve χLT.mod according
to [1] for simple beams with end moments
Fig. 34. Lateral torsional buckling curve χLT.GM of the “gene-
ral method” for simple beams with end moments
The rules for stable lengths in EN 1993-1-1 Annex BB3
are based on approximate assumptions yielding to results
that may or may not be on the safe side depending on the
case.
Fig. 35. Deviation of lateral torsional buckling curve χLT.GM
according to the “general method” from the χLT.mod curve ac-
cording to [1] for simple beams with end moments
Fig. 36. Calculation example 1: Simple beam with in-plane
and out-of-plane loading
10 Conclusions
The “general method” given in section 6.3.4 of EN 1993 –
Eurocode 3 – Part 1-1 has not been specified sufficiently
in order that its full potential can be used for the stability
assessment of beams subjected to flexural and lateral-tor-
sional buckling.
This paper presents an extension to the basic rules gi-
ven in EN 1993 so that they are applicable to any out-of-
plane stability problem.
The basis of this extension is a generalization of the
rules for equivalent geometric imperfections for flexural
Steel Construction 3 (2010), No. 1 31
F. Bijlaard/M. Feldmann/J. Naumes/G. Sedlacek · The “general method” for assessing the out-of-plane stability of structural members and frames
Fig. 37. Utilization rates ε of calculation example 1 for diffe-
rent scaling values β according to EN 1993-1-1 section 6.3.3 (4)
Fig. 38. Calculation example 1: Comparison of utilization
rates ε from EN 1993-1-1 using Annex A and B with results
from the general method and a numerical method
Fig. 39. Calculation example 2: Beam with one fixed end
subjected to in-plane and out-of-plane centric loading
and lateral-torsional buckling. They are considered as the
basis both for numerical assessments (e.g. by FEM) and
for formulae for manual calculations (e.g. with the use of
buckling curves).
The derivation of the buckling curves for flexural and
lateral-torsional buckling indicate that both buckling phe-
nomena have a common origin and that differences arise
due to the torsional stiffness G It.
There are two alternative approaches for buckling
curves, one for the case of a known design location xd
along the beam, the other for the case that the location
with the highest stresses due to in-plane loads is taken as
a reference. Both approaches yield identical results.
32 Steel Construction 3 (2010), No. 1
Fig. 40. Calculation example 2: Comparison of magnification
factors αEd from EN 1993-1-1 using Annex A and B with re-
sults from the “general method” and a numerical method
Fig. 41. Stable length of a simple beam (IPE 600) with lateral
supports at its ends and linear moment distribution
Fig. 42. Stable length of a simple beam (HE 300 B) with la-
teral supports at its ends and linear moment distribution
Additional loading transverse to the main load-carry-
ing plane of the beams (bending and torsion) can be easily
integrated into the assessment procedure of the “general
method”.
The reliability of the method has been checked by
way of test evaluations according to EN 1990 – Annex D.
Comparisons of the results of the “general method”
and the results of the alternative methods given in EN
1993-1-1 reveal certain differences. The results of alterna-
tive methods are often within the range of the results of
 F. Bijlaard/M. Feldmann/J. Naumes/G. Sedlacek · The “general method” for assessing the out-of-plane stability of structural members and frames
the “general method”; the difference depends on the situa-
tion – sometimes less economical, sometimes less safe.
References
[1] EN 1993-1-1: Eurocode 3 – Part 1-1, Design of steel structu-
res – General rules and rules for buildings. CEN, Brussels.
[2] Müller, C.: Zum Nachweis ebener Tragwerke aus Stahl ge-
gen seitliches Ausweichen. RWTH Aachen University, docto-
ral thesis, 2003, Aachen, Shaker Verlag, Institution series –
steel structures, No. 47.
[3] Maquoi, R., Rondal, J.: Analytische Formulierung der neuen
Europäischen Knickspannungskurven. Acier, Stahl, Steel,
No. 1978.
[4] EN 1990 Eurocode: Basis of structural design. CEN, Brussels.
[5] Stangenberg, H.: Zum Bauteilnachweis offener stabilitäts-
gefährdeter Stahlbauprofile unter Einbeziehung seitlicher Be-
anspruchungen und Torsion. RWTH Aachen University, doc-
toral thesis, 2007, Aachen, Shaker Verlag, Institution series –
steel structures, No. 61.
[6] Naumes, J.: Biegeknicken und Biegedrillknicken von Stä-
ben und Stabsystemen auf einheitlicher Grundlage. RWTH
Aachen University, doctoral thesis, 2009, Aachen, Shaker Ver-
lag, Institution series – steel structures, No. 70.
[7] Roik, K., Kindmann, R.: Das Ersatzstabverfahren – Eine
Nachweisform für den einfeldrigen Stab bei planmäßig ein-
achsiger Biegung mit Druckstab. Stahlbau 50 (1981), No. 12,
pp. 353–358.
[8] Boissonade, N., Greiner, R., Jaspart, J. P., Lindner, J.: Rules
for Member Stability in EN 1993-1-1 – Background documen-
tation and design guidelines. ECCS Publication No. 119,
ISBN: 92-9147-000-84.
[9] Sedlaek, G., Ungermann, D., Kuck, J., Maquoi, R., Janss, J.:
Evaluation of test results on beams with cross-sectional clas-
ses 1-3 in order to obtain strength functions and suitable mo-
del factors. Eurocode 3 – Part 1 – Background Documenta-
tion. Chapter 5 – Doc. 5.03 (partim). Eurocode 3 – Editorial
Group (1984).
[10] Sedlacek, G., Stangenberg, H., Lindner, J., Glitsch, T.,
Kindmann, R., Wolf, C.: Untersuchungen zum Einfluß der
Torsionseffekte auf die plastische Querschnittstragfähigkeit
und Bauteiltragfähigkeit von Stahlprofile“, Forschungsvorha-
ben P554. Forschungsvereinigung Stahlanwendung e. V., Ger-
many, 2004.
[11] Ungermann, D., Strohmann, J.: Zur Stabilität von biegebe-
anspruchten I-Trägern mit und ohne Voute-Entwicklung von
Bemessungshilfen für den Ersatzstabnachweis. Fosta-Projekt
P690, Lehrstuhl für Stahlbau, Dortmund TU & Ingenieur-
büro PSP, Aachen.
[12] Strohmann, I.: Zum Biegedrillknicken von biegebean-
spruchten I-Trägern mit und ohne Voute. Doctoral thesis (in
preparation), Dortmund TU.
[13] Bouras, H.: Lateral-torsional buckling of coped beams
with fin plates as end support connection. MSc thesis, Delft
TU, July 2008.
Keywords: general method; equivalent geometrical imperfec-
tions; flexural buckling; lateral-torsional buckling; European
buckling curve; combined compression; biaxial bending and
torsion; test evaluation; safety screening of alternative rules
Authors:
Prof. Frans S. K. Bijlaard, Department of Structural and Building Engineer-
ing – Steel and Timber Structures, Faculty of Civil Engineering and
Geosciences, Delft University of Technology, PO Box 5048, 2600 GS Delft,
The Netherlands
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Markus Feldmann, Dr.-Ing. Johannes Naumes, Prof. em.
Dr.-Ing. Dr. h. c. Gerhard Sedlacek, Chair of Steel & Lightweight Metal
Design, RWTH Aachen University, Institute of Steel Structures
Steel Construction 3 (2010), No. 1 33