Journal of Constructional Steel Research 157 (2019) 347–358

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Buckling resistance of steel H-section beam–columns: In-plane

buckling resistance
M.A. Gizejowski ⁎, Z. Stachura, R.B. Szczerba, M.D. Gajewski
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Buckling resistance predictions resulting from flexural and flexural–torsional buckling of double tee section
Received 12 February 2019 members subjected to compression and bending are considered. A novel analytical model is developed for estab-
Accepted 3 March 2019 lishing design criteria based on decomposition of the member buckling behaviour into in-plane and out-of-plane
Available online xxxx
resistance. The former is based on second-order bending relationships of load effects of structural members with
in-plane equivalent imperfections, while the latter is based on the stability theory of thin-walled open sections.
Keywords:
Steel structures
First part of this study presents an analytical formulation of the in-plane buckling resistance of beam–columns. In
Imperfect beam–columns this regard, further decomposition is postulated for the in-plane first-order bending moment diagram that results
In-plane resistance in the loading state to be the superposition of two components. The first component is related to symmetrical
FEM nonlinear analysis loading and the second to antisymmetric loading. To consider the second-order effects, prebuckling displace-
Eurocodes ments generated by the abovementioned loading components are amplified with regard to the inversion of
the residuum of the buckling force utilisation ratio in order to obtain approximate values of second-order
displacements and internal moments. As a result, the in-plane interaction curve, expressed in dimensionless
coordinates, that describes the beam–column in-plane flexural buckling resistance without considering
lateral–torsional buckling effects, is obtained. The results of nonlinear finite element simulations are used for
the verification of the developed analytical formulation. It is concluded that this proposal yields less conservative
predictions than those based on the interaction relationships of clause 6.3.3 of Eurocode 3, Part 1–1.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction In the former approach, two interpolation formulas of clause 6.3.3

The buckling resistance of columns and beams in EN 1993-1-1 [1] is
described by the analytical Ayrton–Perry model [2] of the behaviour of
initially crooked members with profile imperfections described by the
lowest eigenmode, the amplitude of which has an equivalent value
representing globally the influence of all the imperfections of material
and geometric nature. As the direct application of Ayrton–Perry analyt-
ical formulation for intermediate cases of beam–columns, for which the
element is subjected to nonzero values of both the axial compressive
force and the bending moment about the y-y axis, yields a highly com-
plex analytical solution, the Eurocode verification criteria are based on
two approaches. In the case of mono-axial bending about a major axis
they are as follows:
1. A set of interpolation formulas of [1], regarding clauses 6.2.9 dealing
with the cross-sectional resistance and 6.3.3 dealing with the mem-
ber buckling resistance, for the moment load effect Mz,Ed = 0.
2. The so-called general method of clause 6.3.4 [1].
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: m.gajewski@il.pw.edu.pl (M.A. Gizejowski).
[1] deal with the member buckling resistance as a linear combination
of the two stability utilisation ratio components:
a) axial compression buckling resistance utilisation ratio, and.,
b) lateral–torsional buckling (LTB) utilisation ratio for moment about
the y-y axis multiplied by the interaction coefficients kij for ij = yy
or zy that consider the nonlinear character and complexity of the be-
haviour of steel beam–column elements of actual structural systems.
The kij coefficients were derived from the general second-order rela-
tionships and presented in [1] in the form of two methods: Method 1
from Annex A, which is more accurate but also more complicated for
hand calculations, or Method 2 from Annex B, which is more suitable
for quick resistance verification. These coefficients contain the so-
called equivalent uniform bending moment factors and are dependent
upon a number of other parameters, which are identified through a sen-
sitivity analysis as the most critical factors influencing the accuracy of
design interpolation criteria. The verification of the accuracy of these
design method was reported in [3,4].
The in-plane behaviour of beam–columns is critical in engineering
practice and the design of steel structures, e.g. planar portal and

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.03.002
0143-974X/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
348 M.A. Gizejowski et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 157 (2019) 347–358
multi-storey frames. Chen and Atsuta [5] reported the in-plane behav-
iour of beam–columns with perfect geometry. Guidelines for the stabil-
ity and design of imperfect elements are reported in [6,7]. Columns and
beam–columns in the case of in-plane behaviour are sensitive to flex-
ural buckling (FB). A review of the development of the column stability
criteria contained in studies and design codes was reported by
Bjorhovde [8]. An experimental and numerical study of stocky beam–
columns made of hot-rolled steel I-sections under combined compres-
sion and bending moment was reported by Yun et al. [9]. Experimental
and numerical studies of laterally restrained steel columns with variable
web-tapered I cross-section were reported in [10,11]. The buckling
behaviour of high-strength compression steel columns was experimen-
tally investigated by Ban et al. [12,13].
An investigation considering the application of the so-called “Level 1”
[14] and “Level 2” [15] beam–column interaction formulae to isolated
members with arbitrary loading and end support conditions was
reported by Goncalves and Camotim [16]. They compared the analytical
in-plane resistance of members with values yielding from second-order
plastic zone finite element analyses to the use of the initial bow imper-
fection and residual stress distributions. In their study, attention was
paid to issues related to the correct choice and determination of the
equivalent moment factor that is used in analytical interaction formulae.
A safety assessment of EN 1993-1-1 [1] rules for FB of columns made
of hot-rolled I-shaped cross sections was reported by Silva et al. [17]. It
was shown that the Eurocode imperfection factors currently prescribed
in [1] for FB about the minor axis of steel-columns made of S460 steel
are inadequate and they proposed that buckling curves were more suit-
able. In the current version of EN 1993-1-1 [1], FB curves for hot-rolled I-
shaped cross sections with height-to-width ratios h/bf N 1.2 and flange
thicknesses tf N 100 mm are not available. Proposals for these types of
heavy I-shaped cross sections made from mild and high-strength steel
were reported in [18,19] with the use of existing European buckling
curves [1]. Taras and Greiner [20] reported that the European buckling
curves from [1] do not satisfactorily represent torsional and flexural–
torsional buckling phenomena of laterally restrained columns. A new
flexural–torsional buckling (FTB) curve for columns subjected to uni-
form compression, which is fully consistent with the background and
methodology of the European column buckling curves, was presented
by Greiner and Taras [21].
According to EN 1993-1-1 [1], the resistance of steel columns and
beam–columns can be calculated by second-order analysis considering
equivalent initial bow imperfections. Verification of FB according to [1]
using bow imperfections was made by Lindner et al. [22]. However,
the use of equivalent imperfections according to [1] could be conserva-
tive [22,23]. In [23], it was suggested that structural analysis could be
performed with equivalent column bow imperfections extracted di-
rectly from the Ayrton–Perry formulation. Chladny and Stujberova
[24] presented the procedure using the equivalent unique global and
local imperfection in the shape of the elastic buckling mode. A design
example of a planar steel multi-storey frame was considered. It was
noted that it could be necessary to consider the shape of the imperfec-
tion given by buckling modes higher than the lowest mode [25]. A pro-
posal for the generalisation of an overall imperfection method utilising
linear buckling analysis for columns, beams, and beam–columns was re-
ported by Papp [26]. Lechner [27] reported the application of the
Eurocode design methods in [1] to determine the FB resistance of a
steel planar portal frame. Effects of geometric imperfections on FB resis-
tance of laterally braced columns can be found in [28]. The influence of
initial imperfections variability on the behaviour of steel columns was
verified by a Sobol sensitivity analysis and reported by Kala [29].
In-plane resistance of structural steel elements can be verified with
the use of both stiffness reduction [30,31] and direct strength [32]
methods. Recently, Tankova et al. [33] reported a novel general formu-
lation that is based on stress utilisation, with the buckling mode as the
shape of the initial imperfection that can be used to check in-plane resis-
tance of beam–columns.
In the case of mono-axial bending and in-plane buckling resistance,
as considered in Part 1 of this study, the Eurocode LTB reduction factor
in [1] becomes equal to one and the formulae for interaction factors kij
become simplified. The safety level of the Eurocode approach with the
use of these simplified interpolation formulas is compared in this part
of the study with that of the analytical formulation developed herein,
and verified by the results of a wide range of finite element simulations
conducted specifically for this study. Issues related to the assumptions
used in the finite element simulations of the in-plane flexural resistance
were reported in [34].
The application of the general method approach proposed in [1] re-
lates to the out-of-plane buckling resistance. The background of this
method was explained in detail by Bijlaard et al. [35], Simoes da Silva
et al. [36], and in the ECCS design manual [37]. Papp and Szalai [38] illus-
trated the use of the general method by means of a number of examples
and compared them with the classical method of [1].
Recently, research efforts for establishing design criteria for beam–
column resistance have been focused on the Ayrton–Perry approach
to stability problems. Tankova et al. [39] presented a simplification of
the “exact solution” yielded from the differential equilibrium state
of crooked beam–column elements for their use in the codification of
FTB resistance of beam–columns. The method proposed in [39] is closely
based on the theoretical derivation of the generalisation of the Ayrton–
Perry formula reported by Szalai and Papp [40] and referenced to LTB
problems of beams and beam–columns. A complete closed-form
universal Ayrton–Perry format-type solution for all types of buckling
modes of steel beam–columns was derived by Szalai [41]. Simple con-
cepts of the Ayrton–Perry analytical formulation were developed in
[42] for FB of columns and in [43] for FTB resistance of beam–columns.
These concepts are further investigated in this study and presented in
two parts as a unified approach to predicting the resistance of beam–
columns with regard to their in-plane and out-of-plane failure modes.
Part 1 of this study considers design criteria for in-plane bending
behaviour. In terms of the Eurocode 3 approach, such criteria are
based on the second-order bending relationship of imperfect struc-
tural members with in-plane equivalent imperfections discussed
below. The obtained general solution can be simplified to one that
is also valid for the in-plane buckling resistance of perfect beam–
columns. The out-of-plane stability criterion in the second part of
this study [44] utilises:
a) the perfect member in-plane inelastic resistance without LTB effects
considered, and.,
b) the elastic FTB limit curve formulation according to the thin-walled
sections theory,
as the basis for the development of the general method approach ap-
plied for the refined FTB resistance assessment.
The analytical model is verified by the results of finite element sim-
ulations. Comparisons of results from the proposed analytical model
and the Eurocode design criteria according to Method 1 and Method 2
[1] are also presented.
2. Buckling resistance criterion based on generalised Ayrton–Perry
formulation
We present a hypothetical situation of the independent treatment
of ultimate limit states referring to the in-plane inelastic behaviour
(bending and buckling about the major axis discussed below and
identified by the subscript ip = y) and the out-of-plane stability be-
haviour of I-section beam–columns (flexural-torsional instability
discussed in second part of this study [44] and identified therein by
the subscript op). These two independent solutions are combined in
[44] to form the Ayrton–Perry approach for a single design criterion
of the beam–column FTB resistance verification.
 M.A. Gizejowski et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 157 (2019) 347–358
2.1. Background to evaluation of in-plane buckling resistance
Let us consider a simply supported beam–column under compres-
sion and bending about the y-y axis that is subjected to a moment gra-
dient resulting from the application of two different end moments: Myd,L
at the left support, and Myd,R at the right support (see Fig. 1a). The inter-
nal bending moments at the left and right ends, being in equilibrium
with the applied moments, are My,Ed,L and My,Ed,R, respectively (see
Fig. 1b). The assumption of the maximum absolute value of the left
end moment is adopted and it assigned as being positive, therefore,
the distribution of first order moment can be described by a single mo-
ment gradient ratio (ψy), as follows:
h
 i
MIy;Ed ðξÞ ¼ 0:5My;Ed 1 þ ψy þ 1−ψy ð1−ξÞ
where ξ = 2×/L is the dimensionless member coordinate (L is the beam
length); X(ξ) is the X variable being a function of ξ; and ψy = My,Ed,R/
My,Ed,L, the major axis support moments ratio (My,Ed,L = My,Ed,max =
My,Ed and My,Ed,R = My,Ed,min = ψy My,Ed,max = ψy My,Ed).
By decomposition, the first order moment can be represented by
symmetric Mys,Ed and antisymmetric Mya,Ed components, as follows:


Mys;Ed ¼ 0:5 1 þ ψy My;Ed


Mya;Ed ¼ 0:5 1−ψy M y;Ed
so that Eq. (1) can be rewritten as:
MIy;Ed ðξÞ ¼ Mys;Ed þ ð1−ξÞM ya;Ed
Fig. 1. Loading case considered: a) loading, b) first order moment diagram, and c) first order displacement profile.
349
Fig. 1c shows the decomposition of the deflection state produced
byan arbitrary moment gradient case (general case of bending about
the y-y axis, denoted by GMY) into the linear combination of two bend-
ing moment diagram components, namely a symmetric component
(denoted by SMY) and an antisymmetric one (denoted by AMY), each
corresponding to the respective components of the first order in-plane
internal moment state.
The ultimate strength of the beam–column can be represented by
the resistance utilisation ratio UF equated to unity. The UF ratio is a linear
combination of the elementary resistance utilisation ratios defined in
accordance with the type of analysis introduced in clause 2.2 of EN
1993-1-6 [45] of the following form:
ð1Þ U F ¼ U M þ U P‐δ þ U imp ð5Þ
where UM corresponds to the first order moment under applied Myd,L
and Myd,R, UP–δ to the moment produced by the Px,d −δz,Ed effect, and
Uimp to the moment from an equivalent imperfection profile (denoted
Udist in the case of a quasi-perfect element, i.e. the element with an infin-
itesimally small value of the imperfection amplitude that ensures the
convergence of numerical solutions for the perfect model inelastic buck-
ling load estimate).
Table 1 presents the structure of the elementary utilisation factor com-
ð2Þ ponents to be used in the analytical formulations according to different
types of analysis. Additional symbols to those of clause 2.2 of EN 1993–1-
ð3Þ 6 [45] are introduced, namely LA+ and MNA+, and GNA+ and GMNA+.
The first two symbols refer to the inclusion of unamplified Px, d − δIz, Ed mo-
ments, and the latter two refer to the inclusion of the disturbance of the first
order moment of an infinitesimally small value in order to obtain numeri-
cally stable solutions for the buckling resistance of perfect members evalu-
ð4Þ ated in the case of compression without bending moments.
350 M.A. Gizejowski et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 157 (2019) 347–358

Table 1 moments do not exist:

Resistance utilisation ratio components.
2 3
Analysis type UM UP–δ Uimp(Udist) MIIys;dist 1 þ ψy 1−ψy
mIIys;dist ¼ ¼ my;dis 4 2
þ 2
5 ð11Þ
LA, MNA mIy;Ed – – Mcy;Rk 1−nEd λy 1−0:25nEd λy
mN;cy;Rk
LA+, MNA+ mIy;Ed mIyδ;Ed – where my,dis is the dimensionless disturbing moment (the value 10−6 is
mN;cy;Rk mN;cy;Rk suggested hereafter),
GNA, GMNAa mIy;Ed mIIy;Ed –
nEd – dimensionless axial force:
mN;cy;Rk mN;cy;Rk
GNA+, GMNA+b mIy;Ed mIIy;Ed mIIys;dist N Ed
mN;cy;Rk mN;cy;Rk mN;cy;Rk
nEd ¼ ð12Þ
Nc;Rk
GNIA mIy;Ed mIIy;Ed mIIys;imp
mN;y;el;Rk mN;y;el;Rk mN;y;el;Rk where Nc,Rk is the cross-sectional resistance in compression according
GMNIA mIy;Ed mIIy;Ed mIIys;imp to [1],
mN;y;pl;Rk mN;y;pl;Rk mN;y;el;Rk mN,cy,Rk – section class dependent reduced moment resistance
−2
a
Applied for mIy, Ed N 0 while for mIy, Ed = 0 the solution is nEd ¼ λy ≤1. defined as follows:
b
Applied for mIy, Ed ≥ 0.
M N;cy;Rk
mN;cy;Rk ¼ ð13Þ
M cy;Rk
Regarding the introduced decomposition of the load and load effect
components, the following notation is used in Table 1: that for class 1 and 2 cross-sections and plastic design (analysis types
mIy, Ed– dimensionless first order moment: MNA, MNA+, GMNA, GMNA+, GMNIA) is, according to [1], given by:

MN;y;pl;Rk n −ay
M Iy;Ed ðξmax Þ
Mys;Ed þ ð1  ξmax ÞM ya;Ed mN;cy;Rk ¼ mN;y;pl;Rk ¼ ¼ 1− Ed but mN;cy;Rk ≤1 ð14Þ
mIy;Ed ¼ ¼ ¼ Mcy;pl;Rk 1−ay
M cy;Rk M cy;Rk
¼ mys;Ed þ hð1  ξmax Þm ð6Þ

ya;Ed ¼ i where ay = 0.5a, where a is the section parameter according to [1],
¼ 0:5my;Ed 1 þ ψy þ 1  ψy ð1  ξmax Þ while for class 3 and 4 cross-sections and elastic design (LA, LA+,
GNA, GNA+, GNIA) or any conservative design situation regardless of
where Mcy,Rk is the cross-sectional resistance in bending according to the section class:
[1], and the dimensionless bending moment is calculated as follows:
MN;y;el;Rk
mN;cy;Rk ¼ mN;y;el;Rk ¼ ¼ 1−nEd ð15Þ
M cy;el;Rk
My;Ed
my;Ed ¼ ð7Þ
Mcy;Rk
MN,y,pl,Rk, MN,y,el,Rk – reduced plastic or elastic cross-section resistance
in bending expressed according to [1], respectively,
mIyδ, Ed– dimensionless first order moment because of Px, d − δIz, Ed Mcy,pl,Rk, Mcy,el,Rk – plastic or elastic section resistance in bending
effect: about the y-y axis according to [1], respectively.
h i The first order deflections produced by applied moments Myd,L and
NEd δIzs;Ed ðξmax Þ þ δIza;Ed ðξmax Þ
 Myd,R can be calculated by superposition of symmetric and antisymmet-
mIyδ;Ed ¼ ¼ nEd ηIys;Ed þ ηIya;Ed ð8Þ ric components and represented in dimensionless format according to
M cy;Rk
the following approximate relationships:

where NEd is the axial compressive force; for nEd, ηIys,Ed, and ηIya,Ed see Nc;Rk δIzs;Ed; max
Eqs. (12), (16), and (17), respectively, ηIys;Ed ¼ ηys ws ðξmax Þ ¼ ws ðξmax Þ ð16Þ
M cy;Rk
mIIy, Ed – dimensionless second-order moment because of amplified
Px, d − δIz, Ed effect: Nc;Rk δIza;Ed; max
ηIya;Ed ¼ ηya wa ðξmax Þ ¼ wa ðξmax Þ ð17Þ
h i M cy;Rk
NEd δIIzs;Ed ðξmax Þ þ δIIza;Ed ðξmax Þ

mIIy;Ed ¼ ¼ nEd ηIIys;Ed þ ηIIya;Ed ð9Þ where ws ðξmax Þ, wa ðξmax Þ, δIzs,Ed,max, and δIza,Ed,max are expressed by
M cy;Rk
Eqs. (23)–(26), respectively.
Their second-order counterparts are the amplified ηIys,Ed and ηIya,Ed
where ηIIys,Ed and ηIIya,Ed are presented in Eqs. (18) and (19),
components, which can be approximated by:
mIIys,imp – dimensionless second-order bending moment from the
equivalent geometric bow imperfections at the lowest eigenmode pro- ηIys;Ed
file: ηIIys;Ed ¼ 2
ð18Þ
1−nEd λy
NEd wimp ðξmax Þ nEd ηys;imp
mIIys;imp ¼ ¼ ð10Þ ηIya;Ed
Mcy;Rk N 1−nEd λy
2
1− Ed ηIIya;Ed ¼ 2
ð19Þ
Ny 1−0:25nEd λy

where Ny is the elastic critical force for the relevant buckling mode; λy is
the flexural slenderness ratio about the y-y axis according to [1]; and
wimp(ξmax) and ηys,imp are expressed by Eqs. (20) and (22),
mIIys,dist – dimensionless second-order bending moment, being
a disturbing factor for the ideal beam–column when the applied
An additional dimensionless parameter ηys,imp is introduced and is
associated with the equivalent imperfection profile of the lowest buck-
ling mode that, for pure compression, reproduces the buckling curve
used for design of actual (imperfect) structural members of steel struc-
tures in [1]. For the element considered herein, simple (fork type)
 M.A. Gizejowski et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 157 (2019) 347–358
boundary conditions are used, for which the in-plane eigenmodes re-
lated to in-plane buckling about the y-y axis are defined by a sine-
function series of the following form:
  X  
πξ iπξ
wimp ðξÞ ¼ e0y sin þ e0y;i sin
2 i≥2
2 American, Japanese, and Chinese codes) was made by Chen et al. [50].
where, for i = 1, the amplitude of the lowest eigenmode imperfection
profile is given by:
M cy;Rk
e0y ¼ ηy
Nc;Rk
The dimensionless Maquoi–Rondal equivalent amplitude is ηy ¼
α y ðλy −0:2Þ, where αy is the imperfection factor associated with the
buckling curve according to [1]. Therefore, the following relationship
holds for the parameter ηys, imp:
Nc;Rk e0y
ηys;imp ¼ ws ðξmax Þ ¼ ηy sinð0:5πξmax Þ
Mcy;Rk
As the imperfection-related resistance utilisation ratio component is
represented by the sine function, it is convenient to use trigonometric
shape functions when describing the beam–column deflected shapes
under symmetric and antisymmetric loading components. The two low-
est eigenmodes are therefore considered hereafter as shape functions:
ws;Ed ðξmax Þ ¼ δIzs;Ed; max ws ðξmax Þ ¼ δIzs;Ed; max sinð0:5πξmax Þ
wa;Ed ðξmax Þ ¼ δIza;Ed; max wa ðξmax Þ ¼ δIza;Ed; max sinðπξmax Þ
where the first order amplitudes corresponding to the symmetric and
antisymmetric loading components are given by:
M y;Ed L2

δIzs;Ed; max ¼ 1 þ ψy
16EIy
My;Ed L2
 alent amplitudes will yield similar results to those obtained when using
δIza;Ed; max ¼ 1−ψy
128EIy
in which the other notations are according to [1].
All the components presented in Table 1 will be calculated for the
section at the highest stress the dimensionless coordinate of which is
ξ = ξmax. For a given section, the value of the ξmax coordinate depends
on ψy as well as the ratio of nEd/my,Ed. It is calculated by expressing the
buckling resistance utilisation ratio UF in terms of an arbitrary ξ coordi-
nate, finding the function of its first derivative over ξ, equating (d/dξ)UF
to zero, and solving for ξ = ξmax. If the equation (d/dξ)UF = 0 has no
positive solution, the most stressed section is at the beginning of beam
(at My,Ed,max, see Fig. 1), therefore for the coordinate ξ = ξmax = 0.
2.2. Aspects of finite element modelling affecting in-plane buckling
resistance
Finite element methods are currently the most common methods
used in steelwork verification of analytical models, as laboratory exper-
imental investigations are both costly and time consuming. The latest
recommendations and useful guidelines for finite element modelling
techniques, simulations, and results verification are reported in
[46–48]. This technique is also used for obtaining the numerical results
used for verifying the analytical model developed in the preceding
subsection.
As an example, we consider the in-plane buckling resistance about
the y-y axis of an HEB 300 section of S235 grade steel. Typically, in the
case of bending and axial force, the parameter describing the portion
351
of the cross section under compression (the parameter necessary for
classification of a cross section subjected to bending and compression
according to [1]) can be estimated according to [49] for I- and
H-sections. A review of cross-sectional classifications based on the sec-
tion ductility in four major current design specifications (European,
ð20Þ
A novel concept of section classification based on the member ductility
rather than on the section ductility is reported in [51]. The section con-
sidered here is of class 1 according to the abovementioned classification
criteria.
The beam–column resistance of the HEB 300 section investigated in
ð21Þ
[42] considered two finite element types, beam and shell elements, in
numerical simulations using ABAQUS software. The constitutive steel
model was piece-wise-linear elastic-plastic with isotropic hardening.
The imperfection amplitude was calculated according to Eq. (21) using
the plastic properties of the section. It was observed that, for small
values of the axial force, the beam model (BM) produces a resistance
curve that is below that produced by the shell model (SM). This can
be attributed to the fact that the SM cannot represent the gradual yield-
ð22Þ ing of flange fibres through the thickness. In modelling of imperfections
by the equivalent geometric initial profile, yielding of the flange in SM
occurs abruptly and encompasses all the fibres simultaneously, while
yielding in BM is gradual and represented by the through-thickness nu-
merical integrations at Gauss points. However, the differences are small,
so that the shell modelling technique, which is more general, is consid-
ered hereafter for the calibration of the proposed analytical formulation
of the beam–column in-plane buckling resistance.
The other issue in finite element modelling (FEM) and analytical for-
ð23Þ
mulation is related to the adoption of the imperfection profile and its
amplitude. The effect of a single eigenmode and a superposition of mul-
ð24Þ tiple eigenmodes for representing the imperfection profile was reported
in [52], using the equivalent lowest mode amplitude according to
Eq. (21), and the superposition of multiple eigenmodes according to
Eq. (20) for i ≤ 2 (together with the plastic section properties). The re-
sults of finite element simulations indicated that the most important
imperfection profile is that corresponding to the lowest eigenmode, re-
ð25Þ
gardless of the shape of the bending moment diagram. The question is
whether the application of plastic properties in the evaluation of equiv-
ð26Þ
elastic properties. On one hand, it was shown that the adoption of elastic
section bending resistance yields results for the reduction factor χy =
Nby,Rk/Nc,Rk (where Nby,Rk is the buckling resistance) that are in good
agreement with the Eurocode buckling curves [1] for slender members,
and marginally above those of the buckling curve for stocky members.
On the other hand, the adoption of plastic section bending resistance
yields results for stocky members and members characterised by a me-
dium slenderness ratio, and are less than those from the application of
the elastic section bending resistance. In addition, it was concluded
that the numerical results for slender members were similar to each
other and to the buckling curve of [1]. The results obtained using equiv-
alent amplitude based on the plastic bending moment resistance are
used hereafter for calibration of the model parameters and verification
of the refined analytical formulation (RAF) developed in the following
section.
2.3. Analytical formulation of in-plane buckling resistance
The in-plane buckling resistance evaluation considers beam–
columns of the section class 1 or 2, for which option GMNIA in Table 1
is relevant. The resistance utilisation ratio in GMNIA is normalised
with the plastic moment resistance Mcy,Rk = Mcy,pl,Rk. Because the resis-
tance utilisation ratio component Uimp in compression has to be at the
elastic level, regardless of the section class, this term in Table 1 has
the same format for GNIA and GMNIA, in order to analytically evaluate
the resistance, as that of clause 6.3.1 in [1].
352 M.A. Gizejowski et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 157 (2019) 347–358

The analytical model originally developed assumes concentrated so that the interrelationship between dimensionless stress resultants
plasticity for members of both class 1 or 2 sections, i.e. the beam– can be expressed as the functions of αEd:
column ultimate limit state is reached when the plastic hinge is formed
in the most stressed cross section under the interactive action of com- α Ed
my;Ed ¼ n ð31Þ
pression and bending (so-called full-plastic resistance). Therefore, the 1−α Ed Ed
ultimate limit state criterion of the in-plane bending and buckling
about the y-y axis is described by UF = 1 as: 1−α Ed
nEd ¼ my;Ed ð32Þ
α Ed
h
 i

0:5my;Ed 1 þ ψy þ 1  ψy ð1  ξmax Þ þ nEd ηIIys;Ed þ ηIIya;Ed
mN;y;pl;Rk Eq. (27) can now be expressed as a function of αEd for each propor-
ð27Þ
nEd ηys;imp tion of nEd and my,Ed and solved accordingly. Repeating the procedure for
þ ¼1 different values of nEd and αEd, or my,Ed and αEd, the dimensionless values
 2 nEd
mN;y;el;Rk 1  λ
y
of the applied bending moment Myd,L = My,Ed or the applied force Px,d =
NEd can be calculated.
where the reduced plastic moment resistance mN,y,pl,Rk according to The ultimate limit strength curves from the presented analytical for-
Eq. (14) is applied by rearranging the relationship given in the Eurocode mulation are compared in Fig. 2 with the results of the FEM simulations.
[1]: The concentrated plasticity approach referring to the ultimate limit
8 strength curves is based on two versions of the inelastic interaction
<1 for α n ≤ay curves at the plastic hinge formation. The “full-plastic resistance” (de-
mN;y;pl;Rk ¼ nEd −ay ð28Þ
: 1− for α n Nay noted by FPR) curves are based on the bilinear interaction of My,Ed–NEd
1−ay in cross-sectional resistance of [1], while the “partial-plastic resistance”
(denoted by PPR) is based on the conservative linear interaction of the
where: bending moment and the axial force at the plastic hinge formation.
The former gives the analytical upper bound and the latter the analytical
nEd
αn ¼ ð29Þ lower bound. Bounds created by the results of the above two stated ver-
my;Ed
sions of the analytical formulation GMNIA presented in Table 1, and the
results from FEM simulations using the plastic amplitude of the equiva-
Using the factor αEd ranging from zero to unity, the current load lent imperfection profile, correspond to three different values of ψy. The
effects can be expressed as functions of that factor. Let us consider the areas between the upper and lower bounds are shaded. The analytical
following relationship for αEd: formulation using the linear elastic cross-sectional resistance and
GNIA is the most conservative, and not referred to in Fig. 2.
1 In conclusion, using GMNIA and the linear plastic cross-sectional
α Ed ¼ ð30Þ
1 þ αn resistance relationship yields the conservative solution, however, it is

Fig. 2. Comparison of buckling resistance curves using different assumptions of most stressed cross-section ultimate limit state curve: a) ψy = 1.0, b) ψy = 0.0, and c) ψy = −1.0.
 M.A. Gizejowski et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 157 (2019) 347–358 353

significantly closer to that obtained from FEM simulations than that cal-
culated with GNIA and the linear elastic cross-sectional resistance. The
most appropriate approach is that using the bilinear plastic cross-
sectional resistance relationship (according to clause 6.2.9.1 [1]) that
constitutes the upper bound solution in reference to FEM results,
allowing for the attainment of plastic hinge moment resistance for
low values of the dimensionless axial force. Observations made with re-
gard to the results from the analytical formulation based on the bilinear
plastic hinge moment resistance and FEM simulations suggest that the
analytical results are on the safe side, particularly for low values of
axial force and members with high slenderness ratios. This can be
clearly seen for a negative value of ψy, when the member is bent in a
double curvature. The observation of plasticity development in the
most stressed section and along the member length indicates that, for
more slender elements, the member ultimate limit state is associated
with an inelastic distribution of stresses in the most stressed section
being below that corresponding to the full plastic redistribution, and
with the plastic zones being less extensive over the member length.
A refinement is therefore needed to better represent the effects of dis-
tributed plasticity, both in the most stressed section, and along the lon-
gitudinal axis on both sides of the most stressed section. Such a
refinement can be carried out by shifting the section limit curve down-
wards towards the linear one and increasing the value of second-order
displacements for members with greater slenderness ratios. Therefore,
the following refinements are used:
1. The resistance utilisation ratio UM remains to be normalised with
the use of the unreduced plastic resistance in the bending about the
y-y axis, My,pl,Rk.
2. The resistance utilisation ratio UP-δ is normalised with the reduced
elastic–plastic resistance in bending MN,y,el-pl,Rk, in which:
a) the effect of inelastic section redistribution of stresses is accounted
for by the factor:
8
> 1 for λy ≤0:2
>
>
W y;pl < W y;pl
¼ 1−
W y;el−pl >> W y;pl W y;el
>
: þ   for λy N0:2
W y;el 1 þ cγcy λy −0:2
b) and the effect of the plastic zones by the factor:
3. Verification of developed refined formulation using finite element
simulations
3.1. Verification by finite element modelling of in-plane resistance
The developed FEM technique discussed in Section2.2 is adopted for
simulation of the in-plane resistance of beam–columns under compres-
sion and mono-axial bending about the y-y axis. Three cases of the mo-
ment gradient are investigated. They are characterised by ψy = 1, 0, and
− 1, and the imperfection profile being the lowest eigenmode with the
amplitude in line with that of Maquoi–Rondal of [1]. The proposed RAF
considering the distributed plasticity (see Section2.3 above) is verified
with the use of FEM simulations based on the plastic equivalent imper-
fection amplitude. The results are presented in Fig. 3.
Using the refined analytical model, the buckling resistance curves
can be accurately reproduced taking into consideration the fact that,
for small values of nEd, the FEM SM simulations are somewhat less con-
servative. This is because they are unable to reproduce gradual yielding
through the flange thickness, and the cross-section resistance is repre-
sented by the bilinear relationship that overestimates the actual resis-
tance in the neighbourhood of αn = ay [cf. Eq. (28)]. Therefore, it is
concluded that the developed refined model can reproduce FEM results
more accurately than the original plastic hinge approach. In addition, it
provides results on the safe side and, more importantly, for all values of
the moment gradient and slenderness ratios, the shape of ultimate limit
curves remains similar to that obtained from the FEM simulations.
It can be seen that, for my,Ed = ηIIys,Ed = ηIIya,Ed = 0, Eq. (35) is being
reduced to that for the characteristic resistance evaluation of imperfect
columns in accordance with the original Ayrton–Perry approach, the so-
lution of which is used in clause 6.3.1 [1]. On the other hand, the devel-
oped formulation can also be used for the evaluation of the buckling
resistance curves of perfect beam–columns where my,Ed, ηIIys,Ed, and/or
ηIIya,Ed are greater than zero. The refined formulation presented in
Section2.3 has to be modified in this case in accordance with GMNA+
by applying the disturbing resistance utilisation ratio component Udist.
Therefore, the following relationship holds:
ð33Þ h i
0:5my;Ed 1 þ ψy þ 1  ψy 1  ξmax
þ
mN;y;pl;Rk
W y;pl γ nEd ηys;Ed þ ηya;Ed
II II
þ þ ð36Þ
W y;elpl 2 mN;y;elpl;Rk 3
my;dis 4 1 þ ψy 1  ψy
5¼1
þ þ
mN;y;pl;Rk 1  n λ  2 1  0:25nEd λ
Ed y
2
y

8
>
< mN;y;pl;Rk for λy ≤0:2
The verification of perfect beam–column buckling resistance is
mN;y;el−pl;Rk ¼ mN;y;pl;Rk −mN;y;el;Rk ð34Þ
>
: mN;y;el;Rk þ   for λy N0:2 shown in Fig. 4, where the FEM curves are reproduced from [34] and
1 þ cby λy −0:2 the analytical results are calculated by Eq. (36).
It can be seen that the refined analytical solution developed in this
where γ, ccy, and cby are constants fitted to the FEM resistance curves. study covers a wide range of specific design situations, not only those
Considering the HEB 300 section, the following model parameters related to buckling of imperfect beam–columns, but also to buckling of
are proposed: ccy = cby = 3.75, and γ = 2. The original formulation perfect beam–columns. It can be seen that, for my,Ed = ηIIys,Ed = ηIIys,Ed
presented above is therefore refined by replacing Eq. (27) with the fol- = 0, Eq. (36) is reduced to that allowing the dimensionless resistance
lowing equation: −2
evaluation of perfect columns to be 0:25λy ≤1 in the case of an anti-
symmetric bending moment diagram (Udist component for ψy = −1.0
h
 i −2
0:5my;Ed 1 þ ψy þ 1  ψy ð1  ξmax Þ corresponds to the second lowest eigenmode) and λy ≤1 in other
þ cases of bending moment diagrams (Udist component for ψy N −1.0 cor-
mN;y;pl;Rk

  responds to the lowest eigenmode).
W y;pl γ nEd ηys;Ed þ ηya;Ed
II II
ð35Þ
þ þ
W y;elpl mN;y;elpl;Rk 3.2. FEM equilibrium paths and development of plasticity in most stressed
nEd ηys;imp
þ ¼1 section
 2 nEd
mN;y;el;Rk 1  λ
y
Fig. 5 shows the comparison of the numerical results of the exem-
plary equilibrium paths from the FEM incremental analysis related to
354 M.A. Gizejowski et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 157 (2019) 347–358

Fig. 3. Numerical results for imperfect beam–column resistance based on single lowest buckling mode imperfection profile (solid line) and developed analytical model (dashed line):
a) ψy = 1.0, b) ψy = 0.0, and c) ψy = −1.0.

Fig. 4. Numerical results for perfect beam–column resistance [34] (solid line) and developed analytical model (dashed line): a) ψy = 1.0, b) ψy = 0.0, and c) ψy = −1.0.
 M.A. Gizejowski et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 157 (2019) 347–358 355

SM simulations for a chosen ψy and slenderness ratio. The stress distri-
bution patterns in the bulk of the stressed cross-sections at the ultimate
limit state are discussed below. It can be seen that, for the members
with higher slenderness ratios, the buckling resistance is associated
with an inelastic redistribution of stresses in the most stressed section
and is farther from that corresponding to the plastic hinge. This supports
the way in which refinements have been introduced to the plastic hinge
formulation in order to define the developed analytical modelling
technique.
Prediction of the most stressed section coordinate ξmax by the FEM
simulations is presented in Figs. 6 and 7 for two values of ψy, namely
ψy = 0 and ψy = −1. The curves presented in Figs. 6 and 7 are for the
slenderness ratio equal to unity.
For ψy = 1, mya,Ed and ηya,Ed are equal to zero and mys,Ed and ηys,Ed are
nonzero. The most stressed section coordinate is at mid-length, regard-
less of the value of the dimensionless moment, therefore ξmax = 1.0.
It can be seen that the refined analytical model accurately predicts
the most stressed section coordinate, and how the value of this coordi-
nate travels from mid-length (ξmax = 1 when ψy = 1) to the left end
section of the maximum applied moment (ξmax → 0 when ψy → –1).
3.3. Comparison of proposed refined analytical formulation and Eurocode's
results
The refined analytical model is used in this subsection for the verifi-
cation of the results from Eurocode interpolation Method 1 and Method
2 [1].

Fig. 5. Comparison of equilibrium path and stress distribution pattern in most stressed section in case of my,Ed = 0.8: a) ψy = 1.0, b) ψy = 0.0, and c) ψy = −1.0.
356 M.A. Gizejowski et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 157 (2019) 347–358
Fig. 6. Comparison of estimation of most stressed section coordinate ξmax, for ψy = 0: a) loading case, and b) value of coordinate ξmax depending on my,Ed.
Fig. 8 shows the comparison of the RAF developed herein and the
results of the Eurocode interpolation relationships according to
Method 1.
The verification of the analytical model presented in Section3.1
indicates that the developed model represents the behaviour of im-
perfect beam–columns with sufficient accuracy for practical appli-
cations for ψ y or member slenderness ratio. The comparison in
this section indicates that the developed analytical model is less
conservative than that of Eurocode Method 1, and represents the
behaviour of imperfect beam–columns with a better accuracy for
practical applications for any ψy or member slenderness ratio. The
advantage of such a formulation is primarily that there is no need
for the introduction of the so-called equivalent uniform moment
factor, as used in the Eurocodes model. Application of this factor
renders the Eurocode Method 1 results more conservative, with
the difference increasing with decreasing ψy (antisymmetric load-
ing component is more pronounced).
Fig. 9 shows the comparison of the RAF developed herein and the
results of the Eurocode interpolation relationships according to
Method 2.
The results shown in Fig. 9 indicate that the developed model
is considerably less conservative than that of Eurocode Method
2. The comparison of results in Figs. 8 and 9 clearly supports the
conclusion that the concept of an equivalent uniform moment re-
sults in significantly conservative results, specifically for the neg-
ative moment gradient ratio and when Eurocodes Method 2 is
used.
Fig. 7. Comparison of estimation of most stressed section coordinate ξmax for ψy = −1: a) loading case, and b) value of coordinate ξmax depending on my,Ed.
4. Summary and conclusions
In this, Part 1 of the study, the authors focussed on issues related
to the stability resistance of single-span steel members which are
sufficiently laterally and torsionally restrained and subjected to
axial compression and bending about the y-y axis, which is the stron-
ger inertia axis. Because of the adopted assumptions, the considered
elements were only sensitive to in-plane interaction of buckling and
bending about the y-y axis (no out-of-plane effects occur; thus lat-
eral, torsional, and lateral–torsional buckling were not taken into
consideration).
The authors proposed the novel analytical model based on the RAF,
which allows for the estimation of in-plane beam–column buckling re-
sistance. To stabilise the various parameters of the formulation, numer-
ous FEM analyses were conducted with beam and shell finite elements,
considering different load conditions (uniform, triangle, and antisym-
metric bending moment diagrams were considered). To make the prob-
lem more general, perfect and imperfect (with initial crookedness based
on scaled buckling modes) members were analysed. The results of the
numerical calculations and their comparison with the proposed analyt-
ical model were discussed in detail and presented in the study.
The results obtained from the developed analytical approach were
compared with those from EN 1993-1-1 [1] analytical procedures
based on interpolation relationships. The proposed analytical model
has only one design condition because the concept of equivalent uni-
form moment is no longer maintained. Therefore, the cross-section ca-
pacity and the overall stability are not required to be checked
 M.A. Gizejowski et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 157 (2019) 347–358 357

Fig. 8. Comparison of refined analytical formulation and Eurocode Method 1: a) ψy = 1.0, b) ψy = 0.0, and c) ψy = −1.0.

Fig. 9. Comparison of refined analytical formulation and Eurocode Method 2: a) ψy = 1.0, b) ψy = 0.0, and c) ψy = −1.0.
358 M.A. Gizejowski et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 157 (2019) 347–358
separately, which is obligatory when using EN 1993-1-1 [1] procedures.
In addition, the proposal of the authors, as opposed to the standard ap-
proach, has a simple physical interpretation. Detailed conclusions are
presented in the relevant subsections.
This part of the study is the introduction to second part [44], in
which the authors present the issues related to the out-of-plane buck-
ling resistance criteria of elements sensitive to lateral–torsional
deformations.
References
[1] Eurocode 3, EN 1993-1-1: Design of Steel Structures, Pat 1-1: General Rules and
Rules for Buildings, CEN, 2005.
[2] W.E. Ayrton, J. Perry, On struts, Engineer 62 (1886) 464–465.
[3] A. Boissonnade, J.-P. Jaspart, J.-P. Muzeau, M. Villette, New interaction formulae for
beam-columns in Eurocode 3: the French-Belgian approach, J. Constr. Steel Res. 60
(2004) 421–431.
[4] R. Greiner, J. Lindner, Interaction formulae for members subjected to bending and
axial compression in Eurocode 3 – the method 2 approach, J. Constr. Steel Res. 62
(2006) 757–770.
[5] W.F. Chen, T. Atsuta, Theory of Beam-Columns, Vol. 1, In-Plane Behavior and Design,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1976.
[6] N.S. Trahair, M.A. Bradford, D.A. Nethercot, L. Gardner, The Behaviour and Design of
Steel Structures to EC3, Taylor & Francism, London– New York, 2008.
[7] R.D. Ziemian, Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures, 6th ed. John
Wiley & Sons Inc, New York, 2010.
[8] R. Bjorhovde, Evolution and state-of-the-art of column stability criteria, J. Civ. Eng.
Manag. 16 (2010) 159–165.
[9] X. Yun, L. Gardner, N. Boissonnade, Ultimate capacity of I-sections under combined
loading – part 1: experiments and FE model validation, J. Constr. Steel Res. 147
(2018) 408–421.
[10] I.M. Cristutiu, D.L. Nunes, A. Dogariu, Experimental study on laterally restrained
steel columns with variable I cross sections, Steel Compos. Struct. 13 (2012).
[11] T. Tankova, J.P. Martins, L. Simões da Silva, R. Simões, H.D. Craveiro, Experimental
buckling behaviour of web tapered I-section steel columns, J. Constr. Steel Res.
147 (2018) 293–312.
[12] H. Ban, G. Shi, Y. Shi, Y. Wang, Overall buckling behavior of 460MPa high strength
steel columns: experimental investigation and design method, J. Constr. Steel Res.
74 (2012) 140–150.
[13] H. Ban, G. Shi, Overall buckling behaviour and design of high-strength steel welded
section columns, J. Constr. Steel Res. 143 (2018) 180–195.
[14] R. Greiner, Background Information on the Beam-Column Interaction Formulae at
Level 1, Report TC8–2001-002, ECCS Technical Committee 8, 2001.
[15] A. Boissonnade, J.-P. Jaspart, J.-P. Muzeau, M. Villette, Improvement of the interac-
tion formulae for beam columns in Eurocode 3, Comput. Struct. 80 (2002)
2375–2385.
[16] R. Gonçalves, D. Camotim, On the application of beam-column interaction formulae
to steel members with arbitrary loading and support conditions, J. Constr. Steel Res.
60 (2004) 433–450.
[17] L. Simões da Silva, T. Tankova, L. Marques, C. Rebelo, Safety assessment of Eurocode
3 stability design rules for the flexural buckling of columns, Adv. Steel Constr. 12
(2016) 328–358.
[18] H.H. Snijder, L.G. Cajot, N. Poppa, R.C. Spoorenberg, Buckling curves for heavy wide
flange steel columns, Rom. J. Tech. Sci. Appl. Mech. 59 (1/2) (2014) 178–204.
[19] R.C. Spoorenberg, H.H. Snijder, L.G. Cajot, N. Popa, Buckling curves for heavy wide
flange QST columns based on statistical evaluation, J. Constr. Steel Res. 101 (2014)
280–289.
[20] A. Taras, R. Greiner, Torsional and flexural torsional buckling – a study on laterally
restrained I-sections, J. Constr. Steel Res. 64 (2008) 725–731.
[21] R. Greiner, A. Taras, New design curves for LT and TF buckling with consistent der-
ivation and code-conform formulation, Steel Constr. 3 (3) (2010) 176–186.
[22] J. Lindner, U. Kuhlmann, A. Just, Verification of flexural buckling according to
Eurocode 3 part 1-1 using bow imperfections, Steel Constr. 9 (2016) 349–362.
[23] J. Jönsson, T.-C. Stan, European column buckling curves and finite element model-
ling including high strength steels, J. Constr. Steel Res. 128 (2017) 136–151.
[24] E. Chladny, M. Stujberova, Frames with unique global and local imperfection in the
shape of the elastic buckling mode, Stahlbau 82 (8) (2013) 609–617.
[25] A. Aguero, L. Pallares, F.J. Pallares, Equivalent geometric imperfection definition in
steel structures sensitive to flexural and/or torsional buckling due to compression,
Eng. Struct. 96 (2015) 160–177.
[26] F. Papp, Buckling assessment of steel members through overall imperfection
method, Eng. Struct. 106 (2016) 124–136.
[27] A. Lechner, Flexural buckling of frames according to the new EC3 rules – a compar-
ative, parametric study, Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Stability
and Ductility of Steel Structures, Lisbon, Portugal, 2006.
[28] C. Dou, Y. Pi, Effects of geometric imperfections on flexural buckling resistance of lat-
erally braced columns, J. Struct. Eng. 142 (9) (2016).
[29] Z. Kala, Sensitivity assessment of steel members under compression, Eng. Struct. 31
(2009) 1344–1348.
[30] M. Kucukler, L. Gardner, L. Macorini, A stiffness reduction method for the in-plane
design of structural steel elements, Eng. Struct. 73 (2014) 72–84.
[31] M. Kucukler, L. Gardner, L. Macorini, Development and assessment of a practical
stiffness reduction method for the in-plane design of steel frames, J. Constr. Steel
Res. 126 (2016) 187–200.
[32] A. Taras, Derivation of DSM-type resistance functions for in-plane global buckling of
steel beam-columns, J. Constr. Steel Res. 125 (2016) 95–113.
[33] T. Tankova, L. Simões da Silva, L. Marques, Buckling resistance of non-uniform steel
members based on stress utilization: general formulation, J. Constr. Steel Res. 149
(2018) 239–256.
[34] M.A. Gizejowski, R.B. Szczerba, M.D. Gajewski, Z. Stachura, Buckling resistance as-
sessment of steel I-section beam-columns not susceptible to LT-buckling, Arch.
Civ. Mech. Eng. 17 (2017) 205–221.
[35] F. Bijlaard, M. Feldmann, J. Naumes, G. 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, Steel Constr. 3 (2010)
19–33.
[36] L. Simoes da Silva, L. Marques, C. Rebelo, Numerical validation of the general method
in EC3-1-1 for prismatic members, J. Constr. Steel Res. 66 (2010) 575–590.
[37] L. Simoes da Silva, R. Simoes, H. Gervasio, Design of Steel Structures, Eurocode 3: De-
sign of Steel Structures, Pat 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings, 2nd ed. ECCS,
Ernst & Sohn, 2016.
[38] F. Papp, A. Rubert, J. Szalai, DIN EN 1993–1-1 based integrated stability analysis of
2D/3D steel structures, Stahlbau (2014) 325–342 Part 1–83 (1) (2014) 1–15; Part
2–83 (2) (2014) 122–141; Part 3–83 (5), in German.
[39] T. Tankova, L. Marques, A. Andrade, L. Simoes da Silva, A consistent methodology for
the out-of-plane buckling resistance of prismatic steel beam-columns, J. Constr.
Steel Res. 128 (2017) 839–852.
[40] J. Szalai, R. Papp, On the theoretical background of the generalization of Ayrton-
Perry type resistance formulas, J. Constr. Steel Res. 66 (2010) 670–679.
[41] J. Szalai, Complete generalization of the Ayrton-Perry formula for beam-column
buckling problems, Eng. Struct. 153 (2017) 205–223.
[42] M.A. Gizejowski, Z. Stachura, M.D. Gajewski, R.B. Szczerba, A new method of buck-
ling resistance evaluation of laterally restrained beam-columns, in: M.A.
Gizejowski, A. Kozlowski, J. Marcinowski, J. Ziolko (Eds.), Recent Progress in Steel
and Composite Structures, Taylor & Francis Group, London 2016, pp. 102–103 , (e-
book on CD: 197–205).
[43] M.A. Gizejowski, Z. Stachura, Generalized Ayrton-Perry approach for the evaluation
of beam-column resistance, in: A. Zingoni (Ed.), Insights and Innovations in Struc-
tural Engineering, Mechanics and Computation, Taylor & Francis Group, London
2016, pp. 253–254 , (e-book on CD: 713-719).
[44] M.A. Gizejowski, Z. Stachura, R.B. Szczerba, M.D. Gajewski, Buckling resistance of
steel H-section beam–columns: Out-of-plane buckling resistance, J. Constr. Steel
Res. (submitted).
[45] Eurocode 3, EN 1993–1-6: Design of Steel Structures, Part 1–6: Strength and Stabil-
ity of Shell Structures, CEN, 2007.
[46] R. Kindmann, M. Kraus, Steel Structures – Design Using FEM, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin,
2012.
[47] E. Ellobody, R. Feng, B. Young, Finite Element Analysis and Design of Metal Struc-
tures, Butterworth-Heinemann, Waltham, 2014.
[48] M. Abambres, M.R. Arruda, Finite element analysis – steel structures – a reviewof
useful guidelines, Int. J. Struct. Integr. 7 (2016) 490–515.
[49] L. Gardner, D.A. Nethercot, Designers' Guide to EN 1993-1-1 Eurocode 3: Design of
Steel Structures: General Rules and Rules for Buildings, Thomas Telford, SCI,
London, 2005.
[50] Y. Chen, X. Cheng, D.A. Nethercot, An overview study on cross-section classification
of steel H-sections, J. Constr. Steel Res. 80 (2013) 386–393.
[51] M. Shokouhian, Y. Shi, Classification of I-section flexural members based on member
ductility, J. Constr. Steel Res. 95 (2014) 198–210.
[52] M.A. Gizejowski, R.B. Szczerba, M.D. Gajewski, Z. Stachura, Beam-columnin-plane
resistance based on the concept of equivalent geometric imperfections, Arch. Civ.
Eng. 62 (2016) 35–71.