Articles

Joachim Lindner DOI: 10.1002/stco.201600004

Ulrike Kuhlmann
Adrian Just*

Verification of flexural buckling according to Eurocode

3 part 1-1 using bow imperfections
The resistance of compression members may be calculated by the
design buckling resistance based on the reduction factor χ, which is made for various cross-sections, types of interaction, steel
depends on the slenderness, or by the cross-section resistance grades and buckling directions.
based on internal forces according to a second-order analysis tak- Furthermore, FEM ultimate load calculations are car-
ing into account equivalent initial bow imperfections as well. The ried out taking into account plasticizing within the
second way is especially advantageous in the case of axial forces cross-section and along the longitudinal axis, residual
and bending. Values for equivalent initial bow imperfections are stresses, the linear elastic–ideal plastic constitutive law and
given in codes such as Eurocode 3 [5] or DIN 18800 [4]. For compar- L/1000 as the bow imperfection. These “real” load-carry-
ison, initial bow imperfections are derived here from the buckling ing capacities are also compared with the different ap-
curves for compression members with different cross-sections, proaches for bow imperfections. Parts of these investiga-
buckling directions and steel grades based on different types of tions have already been published [8].
cross-sectional interaction. The results are discussed and com- In the past, initial bow imperfections were derived for
mented with regard to the design of compression members. Fur- members loaded by axial forces only. This was also the
thermore, investigations are carried out for cases of axial compres- basis for Table 5.1 in [5]. Here, extensive investigations
sion and bending moments My or Mz. Data available from ultimate were carried out where the effects of bending moments My
load calculations are used for comparison. The consequences for or Mz acting in combination with the axial compression
the assumed design verification according to second-order theory force N are taken into account.
are discussed and a proposal is presented.
2 Derivation of the bow imperfection
1 Introduction
The accurate determination of the equivalent imperfection
According to Eurocode 3, Part 1-1, a member subjected to is carried out on the basis of centrally loaded struts, see
an axial compression force may be verified by two different Fig. 1, where a sine curve for the initial bow with the max-
approaches: an analysis based on the European buckling imum value e0 is assumed.
curves given in EN 1993-1-1, section 6.3.1 (also called The equivalent bow imperfection is determined by in-
“equivalent member method”), or a cross-sectional analysis troducing the moment M, calculated by second-order the-
according to EN 1993-1-1, section 6.2, with bending mo- ory, in an appropriate interaction formula. This procedure
ments according to second-order theory assuming initial is used as an example of the linear imperfection of Eq. (1)
bow imperfections e0 according to EN 1993-1-1, section [6], [10], [12], [19].
5.3. The consistency of these two approaches is investi-
gated in the following. N M
+
(1) ≤1
In this paper it is presupposed that the buckling curves Npl Mpl
used for the equivalent member method, which depend on
a statistical evaluation of many tests and a mechanical 1 1
M = N·e0 ·
(2) = N·e0 ·
model, are “correct”. Assuming that the cross-sectional anal- 1 N
1− 1−
ysis according to second-order theory (and including an in- α cr Ncr
itial bow imperfection) also results in the same load-carrying
capacity Nu, an imperfection e0 can be derived depending using
–
on the relative slenderness “l”. These imperfections are com-
pared with the values given in EN 1993-1-1, Table 5.1, which N = χ ·Npl
(3)
do not depend on the relative slenderness. This comparison

Shortened version of this paper selected and reviewed by

the Scientific Committee of SDDS 2016, the International
Colloquium on Stability and Ductility of Steel Structures,
Timişoara, Romania
* Corresponding author: adrian.just@ke.uni-stuttgart.de Fig. 1. Centrally loaded member

© Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin · Steel Construction 9 (2016), No. 4 349
J. Lindner/U. Kuhlmann/A. Just · Verification of flexural buckling according to Eurocode 3 part 1-1 using bow imperfections

χ = f (λ) reduction factor for critical buckling direction (4) (Eq. (6.39) in [5]), and for bending of rectangular hollow
sections about the weak axis z-z, Eq. (10b) may be used
Npl with h instead of b and t instead of tf.
λ=
(5) normalized relative slenderness For circular hollow sections (CHS):
Ncr
ψ = 1 − χ1,7
(10d)
leads to
Non-linear plastic interaction for rectangular solid sec-
e =
(6)
(1 − χ) · (1 − χ · λ 2) · Mpl tions:
0
χ Npl
ψ = 1 − χ2
(10e)
Generally, this equation may be written as
The German code DIN 18800-1 [4] contains the following
e0 =
(7)
(
ψ · 1 − χ · λ 2 Mpl
·
) solutions:
χ Npl For bending of I- or H-sections about the strong axis
y-y:
where y is the interaction factor for the interaction for-
mula used: 1− χ
ψ=
(10f) but ψ ≤ 1.0
0.9
Mpl,N
ψ=
(8)
Mpl For bending of I- or H-sections about the weak axis z-z:

To compare the different influences, it is more appropriate 1 − χ2

ψ=
(10g) but ψ ≤ 1.0
to use the non-dimensional value 0.91

L The following proposals for improvements have been sub-

j=
(9)
e0 mitted for the new Eurocode generation, which could be
released around 2021.
instead of the absolute value of e0. In contrast to [19], no Kindmann/Stroetmann [18] made proposals to mod-
partial safety factor was taken into account in the deriva- ify the rules in EN 1993-1-1, section 6.2.9.1, as follows:
tion used here. This means that the amplification factor acr For bending of I- or H-sections about the strong axis
was chosen as the system factor, independent of γM0 or y-y:
γM1, similarly to the other derivations [1], [6], [17].
h N · 1− χ 
ψ= −
(10h)
pl ( ) (
 · 1− χ ·
Npl
)
3 Interaction factors for different interaction formulae  2 4 · b· fy  Mpl,y

For the linear plastic interaction as shown above, y has to

be taken from Eq. (10a): for χ >
(
t w · h − 2· t f )
A
ψ =1− χ
(10a)
 Mpl,y χ ·Npl  Npl
EN 1993-1-1 [5], section 6.2.9.1, contains various interac- ψ= −  ·χ·
(10i)
 χ ·Npl 4 · t w · fy  Mpl,y
tion formulae for class 1 and 2 sections:
For bending of I- or H-sections about the strong axis
y-y (Eq. (6.36) in [5]): for χ ≤
(
t w · h − 2· t f )
A
1− χ
ψ=
(10b) but ψ ≤ 1.0
1 − 0.5·a For bending of I- or H-sections about the weak axis z-z:

where:  b N · 1− χ 
ψ= −
(10j)
pl ( ) (
 · 1− χ ·
Npl
)
 2 8· t f · fy  Mpl,z
A − 2· b· t f
a =
A
t w · h + 0.7· r 2
for χ >
For bending of I- or H-sections about the weak axis z-z A
(Eqs. (6.37) and (6.38) in [5]):
 Mpl,z χ ·Npl  Npl
2
 χ − a ψ=
(10k) −  ·χ·
ψ =1− 
(10c) but ψ ≤ 1.0  χ ·Npl 4 · h · fy  Mpl,z
 1 − a 

For bending of rectangular hollow sections about the t w · h + 0.7· r 2

for χ ≤
strong axis y-y (Eq. (10b)), t may be chosen instead of tf A

350 Steel Construction 9 (2016), No. 4

 J. Lindner/U. Kuhlmann/A. Just · Verification of flexural buckling according to Eurocode 3 part 1-1 using bow imperfections

Bureau/CTICM proposed a set of formulae for strong axis

buckling which are relatively close to those of the existing
code [2]:

ψ = 1.0 if ≤ min 0.1; 0.35·a′

(10l) ( )
 χ2 
ψ = 1 −
(10m)
 (
a′ · 2 − a′ 
( )
if min 0.1; 0.35·a < χ ≤ a′
)
1− χ
ψ=
(10n) if χ > a′
1 − 0.5·a′
Fig. 2. Non-dimensional representative value j = L/e0 of ini-
where: tial bow imperfections for sections associated with buckling
–
curve “a”, S235, depending on the relative slenderness l
a′ =
(h − t f ) · t w
A

Lindner also proposed the following for strong axis buck-

ling y-y [2]:

ψ = 1.0 if χ ≤ 0.1
(10o)

ψ = 1.087 − 0.87· χ if 0.1 < χ ≤ 0.3

(10p)

(10q) (
ψ = 1.18· 1 − χ if χ > 0.3)
For circular hollow sections (CHS), the exact solution, ir-
respective of the code, is given by Eq. (10r): Fig. 3. Non-dimensional representative value j = L/e0 of ini-
tial bow imperfections for sections associated with buckling
–
(
ψ = cos 0.5· χ · π
(10r) ) curve “b”, S235, depending on the relative slenderness l

4 Influence of the cross-section

As shown above for flexural buckling, the interaction fac-
tor y depends on the reduction factor c, based on the
relevant buckling curve. For rolled and welded I-sections,
the buckling curve has to be chosen from Table 6.2 [5]
depending on their dimensions, buckling direction and
steel grade.
For the normal steel grade S235, buckling curves “a”,
“b” and “c” are relevant for I-sections up to a flange thick-
ness tf = 100 mm. Therefore, all “normal” rolled I- and
H-sections were investigated regarding these three buck-
ling curves for the following sections: IPE 80 to IPE 600,
IPEo 180 to IPEo 600, IPEv 400 to IPEv 600, HEA 100 to
HEA 1000, HEB 100 to HEB 1000, HEM 100 to HEM
1000 and HEAA 100 to HEAA 1000.
For simplicity, the results contained in this section
only refer to the interaction formulae given in EN 1993-1-
1, section 6.2.9.1 [5], i.e. Eqs. (10b) and (10c) were used.
For all three buckling curves “a”, “b” and “c”, the re-
sults of the non-dimensional value j = L/e0 (Eq. (10)) are
–
given depending on the relative slenderness l for a selec-
tion of sections.
The results for buckling curve “a” are shown in Fig. 2.
Different rolled I-sections and CHS and RHS sections be-
have very similarly, with a minimum value j = 417. Addi-
tional investigations involving CHS sections [12] show that
different diameters D and ratios D/t have very little influ-
ence on the value of j. The value j = 250 proposed in Table
5.1 of EC3 is much smaller than the values derived from
the buckling curves depending on the slenderness.
The results for buckling curve “b” are given in Fig. 3.
Two groups of results can be recognized: One group of
sections associated with buckling direction z-z, e.g. HEB
1000 with a minimum value j ≈ 196, and another group of
sections associated with buckling direction y-y, e.g. HEA
160 with a minimum value j ≈ 270. The differences be-
tween different sections in each group are rather small.
The value j = 200 proposed in Table 5.1 of EC3 lies in the
range of the results given here.
The results for the non-dimensional value j = L/e0 (Eq.
(10)) for typical rolled I-sections associated with curve “c”
for buckling direction z-z lead to a minimum value j ≈ 160,
as shown in Fig. 4. Circular hollow sections (CHS) behave
similarly to I-sections with a slightly higher value j ≈ 185.
Rectangular hollow sections (RHS) behave similarly, too,
with a value j ≈ 180. The value j = 150 proposed in Table
5.1 of EC3 for curve “c” lies in the range of the results
given here.
The results calculated and compared support to a
great extent the values given in Table 5.1 of EC3.
5 Influence of different interaction equations
The type of interaction equation assumed for the cross-sec-
tion verification based on second-order analysis has a great
influence on the calculated value of the initial bow imper-
fection e0 or on the relative value j = L/e0. In addition to
the interactions mentioned in section 3, the mechanically
exact interaction is taken into account when calculating
the imperfection derived from reduction factor cu based on

Steel Construction 9 (2016), No. 4 351

J. Lindner/U. Kuhlmann/A. Just · Verification of flexural buckling according to Eurocode 3 part 1-1 using bow imperfections

Fig. 4. Non-dimensional representative value j = L/e0 of ini- Fig. 7. Non-dimensional values j = L/e0 of initial bow im-
tial bow imperfections for sections associated with buckling perfections for HEB 400, buckling direction z-z, buckling
–
curve “c”, S235, depending on the relative slenderness l curve “b”, steel grade S235, for different types of interaction

FEM calculations (as described shortly in the introduc-

tion). In all cases, a yield strength fy = 235 N/mm2 has been
assumed. Other yield strengths will be dealt with later.
The results for all interaction formulae mentioned in
section 3 for I- and H-sections were determined and com-
pared with the values in Table 5.1 of EC3 for plastic and
elastic verification.
As examples of the results of many calculations car-
ried out, results are given for…
–– HEA 400, buckling direction y-y, buckling curve “a” in
Fig. 5
–– HEA 120 , buckling direction y-y, buckling curve “b” in Fig. 8. Non-dimensional values j = L/e0 of initial bow im-
Fig. 6 perfections for HEM 120, buckling direction z-z, buckling
–– HEB 400, buckling direction z-z, buckling curve “b” in curve “c”, steel grade S235, for different types of interaction
Fig. 7

–– HEM 120, buckling direction z‑z, buckling curve “c” in

Fig. 8

Example 1
A detailed numerical example for HEA 400 (buckling
­direction y-y, S235, buckling curve “a”) shows how the
­values can be calculated. Results may be compared with
Fig. 5.
i) Basic data:
Fig. 5. Non-dimensional values j = L/e0 of initial bow im-
perfections for HEA 400, buckling direction y-y, buckling A = 159 cm2
curve “a”, steel grade S235, for different types of interaction
Wel,y = 2310 cm3

Wpl,y = 2562 cm3

iy = 16.836 cm

Npl,k = 159 · 23.5 = 3736.5 kN

Mpl,y = 2562 · 23.5 = 60207 kNcm

–
l = 1.0

Fig. 6. Non-dimensional values j = L/e0 of initial bow im- Buckling curve “a”
perfections for HEA 120, buckling direction y-y, buckling
curve “b”, steel grade S235, for different types of interaction χ = 0.665603

352 Steel Construction 9 (2016), No. 4

 J. Lindner/U. Kuhlmann/A. Just · Verification of flexural buckling according to Eurocode 3 part 1-1 using bow imperfections

v) Linear elastic interaction:

E 21000
λa = π · = π· = 93.913
fy,k 23.5 Wpl,y 2562
j = jplastic interaction · = 584.08· = 647.5
Wel,y 2310
Assuming
Comparing the various results in Fig. 5 to Fig. 8, it can
1 1 be stated that in nearly all cases the interaction of
Mpl,N = N·e0 · = N·e0 ·
1 N EN 1993-1-1, section 6.2.9.1 [5], leads to the minimum
1− 1−
α cr Ncr values of j. Comparable values are derived from the inter-
actions of Kindmann/Stroetmann [18], Bureau [2] and
with Lindner [2].
In general, the following conclusions may be drawn:
N = χ · Npl –– The results would remain valid even if the interaction
equation of EN 1993-1-1 [5] would in future be replaced
Here, j may be determined depending on the inter­ by one of the equations discussed so far.
action factor ψ for different interaction equations: –– The values derived from FEM calculations are more fa-
vourable.
L j –– Linear plastic interaction gives higher values of j, lead-
j= = 1
e0 ψ ing to smaller values of initial bow imperfection e0.
–– If the load-carrying capacity is limited to the yield
Npl strength, a linear elastic interaction governs. In this case
j1 = χ · λ · λ a · i y ·
((1 − χ · λ ) ·M )
2
pl
the j value for plastic linear interaction may be multi-
plied by a factor Mpl/Mel.
–
L = l · la · iy = 1.0 · 93.913 · 16.836 = 1581.119 cm
6 Influence of steel grade
j1 = 0.665603·1.0· 93.913·16.836
All previous results depend on the non-dimensional slen-
3736.5 –
= 195.315 derness l. In Eq. (9) the relative bow imperfection j de-
((1 − 0.665603·1 ) ·60207)
·
2
pends on L in the form j = L/e0, where L can be written as
given in Eq. (11):
ii) Linear plastic interaction:
235
L = λ · λ1 · i = λ · i· 93.91·
(11)
ψ = 1 – χ = 1 – 0.665603 = 0.334397 fy,act

j1 195.315 where:
j= = = 584.1 –
ψ 0.334397 l non-dimensional slenderness

iii) Interaction according to EN 1993-1-1, section 6.2.9.1, E 235

λ1 = π · = 93.91· ε and ε =
Eq. (6.36): fy fy,act

2· b· t 2· 30·1.9 i radius of gyration

a =1− =1− = 0.283 < 0.5
A 159
Consequently, the values of j for steel grades higher than
n = 0.6656 > a 0 0.283 S235 may be calculated based on the values of j derived
from the various interaction formulae of section 3 for S235
1− χ 1 − 0.665603 by multiplying those by a factor e, where e = 0.924 for
ψ= = = 0.3895
λ − 0.5·a 1.0 − 0.5·0.283 S275, 0.814 for S355 and 0.748 for S420. Special buckling
curves for S460 are given in EN 1993-1-1 [5]. Therefore, for
j1 195.315 these buckling curves “a0”, “a” and “b”, all rolled I- and
j= = = 501.5
ψ 0.3895 H-sections mentioned in section 4 are also investigated
here. Furthermore, cold-formed CHS and RHS sections
iv) Interaction according to DIN 18800-1: associated with buckling curve “c” have been taken into
account.
1 − χ 1 − 0.665603
ψ= = = 0.37155
0.9 0.9 Steel grades S275, S355 and S420
Fig. 9 and Fig. 10 show examples of comparisons for se-
j1 195.315 lected sections in steel grade S355.
j= = = 525.7
ψ 0.37155 Fig. 9 again shows that the results for all four interac-
tions under discussion in EN 1993-1-1 are close together
and still well above the reference value of EN 1993-1-1,
Table 5.1. Fig. 10 shows that the results from EN 1993-1-1

Steel Construction 9 (2016), No. 4 353

J. Lindner/U. Kuhlmann/A. Just · Verification of flexural buckling according to Eurocode 3 part 1-1 using bow imperfections
Fig. 9. Non-dimensional values j = L/e0 of initial bow im-
perfections for HEA 400, buckling direction y-y, buckling
curve “a”, steel grade S355, for different interaction formulae
Fig. 10. Non-dimensional values j = L/e0 of initial bow im-
perfections for HEB 400, buckling direction z-z, buckling
curve “b”, steel grade S355, for different interaction formulae
are not confirmed (178 < 200), but the FEM loadbearing
capacity achieves more favourable results.
Steel grade S460, I- and H-sections
Fig. 11 to Fig. 16 show results for steel grade S460 in a
similar way to those of Fig. 2 to Fig. 8 for grade S235. As
before, the comparison refers only to the interaction for-
mulae given in EN 1993-1-1, section 6.2.9.1 [5], which
means Eqs. (10b) and (10c) were used.
The influence of the type of cross-section can be seen
in Fig. 11 to Fig. 13.
The min j values in Fig. 12 (217 < 250) and Fig. 13
(157 < 200) are smaller than those in Table 5.1 in [5].
Therefore, a correction should be discussed. More clarity
Fig. 11. Non-dimensional values j = L/e0 of initial bow im-
perfections for sections associated with buckling curve a0”,
steel grade S460, depending on the non-dimensional slen-
–
derness l
354 Steel Construction 9 (2016), No. 4
Fig. 12. Non-dimensional values j = L/e0 of initial bow im-
perfections for sections associated with buckling curve “a”,
steel grade S460, depending on the non-dimensional slen-
–
derness l
Fig. 13. Non-dimensional values j = L/e0 of initial bow im-
perfections for sections associated with buckling curve “b”,
steel grade S460, depending on the non-dimensional slen-
–
derness l
can be achieved by looking at different interaction equa-
tions, and the results are given in Figs. 14 to 16.
Fig. 14 shows that the results for an IPE 140 section,
buckling direction y-y, associated with buckling curve “a0”
for the interactions according to EN 1993-1-1, Kindmann/
Stroetmann [18], Bureau and Lindner [2] are relatively
close together, although not as close as for steel grade S235
from Fig. 6.
Fig. 15 shows the results for an IPE 500 section, buck-
ling direction z-z, in steel grade S460, where this section is
classified as buckling curve “a”. This considers that the
classification in EN 1993-1-1, Table 6.2, is incorrect and
must be adjusted [6], [9]; it will be changed according to a
recent amendment already decided in TC 250/SC 3 [3].
Fig. 16 shows the results for an HEA 360 section, buckling
direction z-z, where this section is classified as buckling
curve “b”.
In both cases the results according to EN 1993-1-1,
section 6.9.2.1 [5], and Kindmann/Stroetmann [18] are
close together, whereas the plastic linear interaction leads
to much higher j values. Obviously, the constant values of
EC3, Table 5.1, for the plastic verification (j = 200 for curve
“b” and j = 250 for curve “a”) do not cover the results of
the non-linear plastic interaction sufficiently.
Therefore, the comparison with the “real” values de-
rived by FEM calculations is of interest. Regarding the
FEM calculations, special conditions exist for rolled I- and
H-sections. As shown earlier by ECCS, explained in [10],
the residual stresses do not change their absolute values if
 J. Lindner/U. Kuhlmann/A. Just · Verification of flexural buckling according to Eurocode 3 part 1-1 using bow imperfections
Fig. 14. Non-dimensional values j = L/e0 of initial bow im-
perfections for IPE 140, buckling direction y-y, buckling
curve “a0”, steel grade S460 and different interaction formu-
lae
Fig. 15. Non-dimensional values j = L/e0 of initial bow im-
perfections for IPE 500, buckling direction z-z, buckling
curve “a”, steel grade S460 and different interaction formu-
lae
Fig. 16. Non-dimensional values j = L/e0 of initial bow im-
perfections for HEA 360, buckling direction z-z, buckling
curve “b”, steel grade S460 and different interaction formu-
lae
higher steel grades are used, but they are approximately
the same as for S235. Therefore, several FEM ultimate
load calculations for higher steel grades were carried out
again, but this time using the residual stresses of S235.
Some of the results are shown in Fig. 14 and Fig. 15.
Fig. 15 shows that the j value in EC3 for plastic capac-
ity is not confirmed. The FEM results are more favourable
and therefore no reduction in the EC3 value seems neces-
sary.
The results for IPE 500 for steel grade S460 are calcu-
lated for the full cross-section, neglecting the fact that the
c/t ratio of the web exceeds the value of EN 1993-1-1, Ta-
ble 5.2: c/t = 426/10.2 = 41.8 > 27.2 (= 38 e). Additionally,
FEM calculations were carried out taking into account
that the web is categorized as a class 4 web. The results are
also given in Fig. 15. In fact, the differences between both
FEM calculations are small and may be neglected. How-
ever, regarding Fig. 15, the j value in EC3, Table 5.1, seems
to be too optimistic and should be corrected, although the
result for the class 4 web in this special case confirms the
EC3 value (min j = 257 > 250).
Steel grade S460, CHS and RHS sections
It was shown earlier [12] that different sections only have
a small influence on j values. Therefore, only the following
sections were investigated: CHS 711.1x20, CHS 355.6x25.0,
RHS 300x10 and RHS 200x6. For cold-formed sections,
they are associated with buckling curve “c”. Taking into
account the interaction of EN 1993-1-1, section 6.2.9.1,
and the range of non-dimensional slenderness between 0.5
and 3.0, the j values vary between j = 190 and min j = 129.
This min j value is smaller than that in Table 5.1 with a
value j = 150.
Load-carrying aspects
The smaller j values compared with those of EN 1993-1-1,
Table 5.1, only show a tendency for the load-carrying ca-
pacity to be smaller than it should be. Therefore, ultimate
load calculations were also carried out, where the correct
j values were used instead of those in Table 5.1 in EC3-1-1.
This leads to the factor hul, where values > 1.0 indicate that
results are on the unsafe side. Results for one unfavourable
section associated with each buckling curve are given in
Fig. 17.
The utilization rate hul is defined by Eq. (12):
n u,j [EC3,Tab.5.1]
ηul =
(12)
n u,j [FEM]
Eq. (12) shows that values hul > 1.0 represent results on the
unsafe side; the most unfavourable result is hul = 1.056.
Regarding the influence of steel grade, the following
conclusions may be drawn:
–– For S235 the constant values of initial bow imperfec-
tions given in Table 5.1 of EN 1993-1-1 lie mainly in the
range of values calculated here, irrespective of the as-
sumed interaction formulae. Slight deviations – see, for
example, buckling curve “b”, buckling direction z-z in
Fig. 3 – may be acceptable.
Fig. 17. Utilization rate hul according to Eq. (12) for differ-
ent sections, buckling curves and yield stresses
Steel Construction 9 (2016), No. 4 355
J. Lindner/U. Kuhlmann/A. Just · Verification of flexural buckling according to Eurocode 3 part 1-1 using bow imperfections

Table 1. Correction factor δ

Load case

d 0.273 0.032 –0.189 –0.090 –0.420 –0.650 –0.210

–– For steel grades higher than S235, the constant values mate loads because representative initial imperfections
in Table 5.1 of EC3, Part 1, may nevertheless be retained were used instead of residual stresses and the effects of
for rolled I- and H-sections only based on the results of plasticizing. Therefore, the results of [20] are too unfa-
refined FEM calculations. Exceptions were identified vourable.
for grade S460 sections in buckling direction z-z. In the following, the bending moment according to
–– In other cases, for all sections with steel grades higher second-order theory, caused by a compression force N, a
than S235, the j values given in Table 5.1 of EN 1993-1-1 bow imperfection e0 and an external bending moment Mex,
have to be multiplied by ε, with ε = 0.924 (S275), 0.814 is added to Mpl,N. This Mpl,N value describes the basis for
(S355) and 0.748 (S420). further investigations, indicated by the interaction factor in
Eq. (8). The analysis according to second-order theory may
be carried out by a commercial computer program. To sim-
7 Axial compression and bending plify utilization, it is helpful to apply a formula. Therefore,
7.1 General Mpl,N is given by Eq. (13), which consists of two parts: one
for the bending moment due to compression force N and
All results shown in the previous sections are based on its bow imperfection as in Eq. (2), and one for Mex result-
investigations involving centrally loaded members. If bend- ing from external loads. This formulation is used for load
ing moments are present, the results may be less favoura- cases 1 to 7 according to Table 2.
ble, because a larger part of the cross-section in the longi-
tudinal direction may be plasticized, thus leading to a stiff- N
1 + δ·
ness reduction and therefore higher necessary bow L 1 Ncr
Mpl,N = N· ·
(13) + Mex ·
imperfections for simplified calculations. If this stiffness j N N
1− 1−
reduction is neglected, the calculated load-carrying capac- Ncr Ncr
ity might be too high.
Intensive additional investigations were carried out by where:
Lindner [10], [13] for the German code DIN 18800-2 [4], d correction factor, also called “Dischinger factor”, see Ta-
leading to a maximum deviation of up to approx. 5 % for ble 1
constant moment distribution and very slender members.
At the time this was also discussed in great detail in TC8 Introducing the relative capacities nu with Eq. (14a) and
of ECCS [11]. In the end it was decided to neglect this ef- mu with Eq. (14b):
fect of axial compression and bending because bigger er-
rors seem to occur for very special cases only. But it has to N
nu =
(14a)
be stated clearly that these moderate differences were only χ ·Npl
possible and acceptable because…
–– the plastic shape factor of I-sections subjected to bend- M
m u = ex
(14b)
ing about the weak axis z-z was limited in DIN 18800 Mpl
[4] to apl,z = 1.25,
–– in the original version of the new DIN 18800-2 (1990), and N/Ncr with Eq. (15):
no steel grade S460 was included and therefore the less
favourable results of S460 compared with S235 have no N
= nu · χ · λ2
(15)
effect, and Ncr
–– Eurocode 3 does not limit the plastic shape factor and
has not taken consequences from the fact that the re- leads to Eq. (16):
sults for S460 are less favourable than those for S235.
Mpl,N Npl L 1
(16) = nu · χ · · ·
Since those discussions, many more numerical results for Mpl Mpl j 1 − n u · χ · λ 2
compression and bending have become available. The in-
teraction equations for compression and biaxial bending in 1 + δ · nu · χ · λ 2
+m u ·
EN 1993-1-1, Annexes A and B [5], are mostly based on 1 − nu · χ · λ 2
numerical FEM results that were calculated by Lindner in
Berlin [13] and by Ofner in Graz [15]. Finally, the following Eq. (17) must be fulfilled:
During the elaboration of the German NA to EN
1993-1-1, a paper by Wagenknecht [20] dealt with the Npl L 1 1 + δ · nu · χ · λ 2
problem of bow imperfections based on diagrams first nu · χ ·
(17) · · + mu ·
Mpl j 1 − n u · χ · λ 2 1 − nu · χ · λ 2
published by Roik and Wagenknecht [16]. Unfortunately, = 1.0
ψ
the results of charts in [16], [20] do not present real ulti-

356 Steel Construction 9 (2016), No. 4

 J. Lindner/U. Kuhlmann/A. Just · Verification of flexural buckling according to Eurocode 3 part 1-1 using bow imperfections

The value 0.9114 means that when using the interaction

equation from EN 1993-1-1, section 6.2.9.1, in Eq. (17), the
load may still be increased and therefore this result is on
the unsafe side compared with the load combination of the
FEM calculation.
Iteration results in hul = 1.060 > 1.0, where hul is de-
fined by Eq. (18):

U.L.[interaction]
ηul =
(18)
U.L.[FEM]
Fig. 18. Structural system and loading for example 2
U.L.[interaction] ultimate load calculated by the
It should be mentioned that contrary to sections 3 to 5, in relevant interaction formula (19a)
this case the interaction factor y must be multiplied by the
value of the relative axial force nu. U.L.[FEM] ultimate load calculated by FEM
analysis(19b)
7.2 Example 2
7.3 Systematic investigations
Compression force N and bending moment My caused by a 7.3.1 Steel grade S235
distributed load (load case 2, Table 2), are given in Fig. 18
(IPE 500, buckling direction y-y, S235, buckling curve “a”). For detailed investigations, the results of Ofner [15] in the
The load calculations of Ofner [15], [1], neglecting the presentation of [1] were used here. The following sections
–
radii r, lead to the following ultimate loads: for slenderness values l = 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 were taken into
account:
nu = 0.3195 –– IPE 200 and IPE 500, buckling direction y-y, buckling
curve “a”
mu = 0.6190 –– IPE 200 and IPE 500, buckling direction z-z, buckling
curve “b”
χ = 0.6783 –– HEB 300, buckling direction y-y, buckling curve “b”
–– HEB 300, buckling direction z-z, buckling curve “c”
–
l = 1.0
Additional results for RHS 200 × 10 from [15], [1] are not
The basic data are similar to those of example 1 in section evaluated here.
5: Ofner [15] considered six different load cases (Nos. 1,
2, 3, 6, 8 and 9 from Table 2).
A = 2 · 20 · 1.6 + (50 – 2 · 1.6) · 1.02 = 111.74 cm2 Additionally, results from Lindner [13] are taken into
account, which are calculated for different sections and all
–
64 load cases shown in Table 2 for slenderness values l = 0.6,
a = 1.0 − = 0.4272
111.74 0.8, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0:
–– IPE 300, buckling direction y-y, buckling curve “a”, load
Mpl = 49521.8 kNcm cases 2, 4
–– IPE 300, buckling direction z-z, buckling curve “b”, load
Npl = 2625.8 kN cases 1, 2, 8
–– HEM 340, buckling direction y-y, buckling curve “a”,
L = 1909.8 cm load case 1
–– HEB 200, buckling direction y-y, buckling curve “b”,
Interaction according to EN 1993-1-1, section 6.2.9.1 (see load cases 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11
Eq. (10b)): –– HEB 200, buckling direction z-z, buckling curve “c”,
load cases 1, 9, 10, 11
1 − 0.6783·0.3195 0.7833 –– HEM 140, buckling direction y-y, buckling curve “b”,
ψ= = = 0.9961
1 − 0.5·0.4272 0.7864 load case 1
–– HEM 200, buckling direction z-z, buckling curve “c”,
Correction factor d = 0.032 (Table 1): load case 1

2625.8 1 There are two restrictions in the investigations mentioned:

0.3195·0.6783· ·(1909.8 / 250)·
49, 251.8 1 − 0.3195·0.6783 the work of Ofner [15] was limited to a non-dimensional
–
slenderness l = 1.5 and the calculations by Lindner [13] were
1 + 0.032·0.3195·0.6783
+0.6190· mainly calculated for nu = 0.4. Therefore, additional ultimate
1 − 0.3195·0.6783
load calculations (taking into account residual stresses, ini-
0.9961
tial bow imperfection L/1000, plasticizing within the
0.1121 + 0.7957 cross-section and along the length of the member) were car-
= = 0.9114 < 1.0
0.9961 ried out similarly to those in section 7.3.2, see Lindner [7]:

Steel Construction 9 (2016), No. 4 357

J. Lindner/U. Kuhlmann/A. Just · Verification of flexural buckling according to Eurocode 3 part 1-1 using bow imperfections
Table 2. Load cases investigated
LC 1 LC 2
LC 3 LC 4
LC 5 LC 6
LC 7 LC 8
LC 9 LC 10
LC 11 LC = load case
–– IPE 140, buckling direction y-y, buckling curve “a”
–– IPE 140, buckling direction z-z, buckling curve “b”
–– HEA 360, buckling direction y-y, buckling curve “b”
–– HEA 360, buckling direction z-z, buckling curve “c”
These investigations were executed within a slenderness
–
range l = 0.5 to 3.0 and for an axial force proportion nu ≈
0.15 to 0.85
In the previous sections it was mentioned that five
types of interaction nearly reach comparable results each
time, see Fig. 3:
–– Interaction according to EN 1993-1-1 (EC3-1-1), section
6.2.9.1, see Eqs. (10b) and (10c)
–– Interaction proposal by Kindmann/Stroetmann, see
Eqs. (10h) and (10j)
–– Interaction proposal by Bureau, see Eqs. (10n) to (10q)
–– Interaction proposal by Lindner, see Eqs. (10r) to (10t)
–– Interaction according to DIN 18800-1, see Eqs. (10f)
and (10g)
In order to minimize the number of results, normally only
the interaction from EC3-1-1 is used for the following eval-
uations. The following diagrams give the ratio ηul of the
ultimate load calculated by the relevant interaction for-
mula of EC3-1-1 to the ultimate load calculated by FEM
analysis, see Eq. (18). A utilization ratio value ηul < 1.0
shows that the verification according to second-order the-
ory is on the safe side. With a utilization ratio ηul > 1.0, the
verification may lead to load combinations exceeding the
FEM results, which means they are on the unsafe side. The
results were calculated assuming that for second-order the-
ory, an initial bow imperfection is based on j values given
in EC3-1-1, Table 5.1.
In Fig. 19 the results for constant bending moment My
distribution utilization rates > 1 occur in all cases for the
highest investigated value of the non-dimensional slender-
–
ness l = 3.0, although for IPE 300, hul also lies on the un-
–
safe side for the smallest value l = 0.6.
Results for other moment distributions are more satis-
factory, see Fig. 20. The figure shows that small values of
nu, e.g. nu = 0.2, 0.4, are less favourable than values such
as nu = 0.6, 0.8.
358 Steel Construction 9 (2016), No. 4
Fig. 19. Utilization rate hul for different I-sections, S235, de-
–
pending on the non-dimensional slenderness l , axial com-
pression N (nu = 0.4) and bending moment My (not men-
tioned in detail), buckling direction y-y [13]
Fig. 20. Utilization rate hul for HEB 300, S235, depending
–
on the non-dimensional slenderness l , axial compression N,
considering different nu values and bending moment My (not
mentioned in detail), buckling direction y-y [13]
The following two diagrams again show results for the
basic case of buckling direction y-y (strong axis), steel
grade S235 and depending on the proportion of the axial
load nu. Using FEM data from Ofner [15], the tendency
could be mentioned that in nearly all cases the non-dimen-
–
sional slenderness l = 1.0 was less favourable than the
other two slenderness values (0.5, 1.5). Therefore, in the
–
following, only the results for “l” = 1.0 are commented in
detail.
Fig. 21 shows that for an IPE 200 section and buck-
ling direction y-y, different load cases LC 1, 2, 3 and 8 ac-
cording to Table 1 have only a small influence on the most
unfavourable value of the utilization rate hul, which
reaches a maximum in the range nu = 0.3 to 0.4 with hul =
1.056 > 1.0. In addition to the h1 results (representing the
plastic interaction according to EN 1993-1-1 (EC3-1-1),
section 6.2.9.1, see Eq. (10b)), h2 results for the linear plas-
tic interaction (see Eq. (1)) are also given as dashed lines
in the diagram. All of them fall well below 1.0, indicating
that the linear plastic interaction leads here to rather con-
servative results.
As load case 1 (constant moment distribution) does
not dominate in practical design, load case 2 has been cho-
sen for all further comparisons.
Therefore, the results for different sections are com-
pared in Fig. 22 for load case 2. For buckling curve “a”, IPE
200 and IPE 500 nearly lead to the same most unfavoura-
ble value; however, the result for IPE 140 is worse, leading
 J. Lindner/U. Kuhlmann/A. Just · Verification of flexural buckling according to Eurocode 3 part 1-1 using bow imperfections
Fig. 21. The hl values for IPE 200, S235, different nu values,
–
depending on the non-dimensional slenderness l , axial
compression N (plotted as nu) and bending moment My, dif-
ferent load cases (numerical data mu not mentioned in de-
tail), buckling direction y-y, Ofner [15], [1]
Fig. 22. Utilization rate hul for different sections, S235, de-
pending on different values of axial compression N (plotted
– –
as nu), non-dimensional slenderness l , = 1.0 and bending
moment My, load case 2 (numerical data not mentioned in
detail), buckling direction y-y, based on Ofner [15], [1] and
Lindner [7]
to a value h1 = 1.074 > 1.0, which is on the unsafe side.
HEB 300 and HEA 360, which are associated with buck-
ling curve “b”, are less favourable. All results for h2 (linear
plastic interaction) are on the safe side.
In addition, Fig. 23 shows the dependency of the re-
–
sults concerning the non-dimensional slenderness l for the
same critical sections as in Fig. 22. For the plastic interac-
tion according to EN 1993-1-1 (EC3-1-1), section 6.2.9.1,
Eq. (10b) utilization rate h1 (solid lines), the most unfa-
–
vourable result occurs for l = 1.0. In contrast to this, for h2
(dashed lines) with linear plastic interaction and j = 250,
–
the high slenderness values l > 2.15 result in values on the
unsafe side, with h2 ≈ 1.03 > 1.0. The attempt to avoid
these small unsafe results by increasing the initial bow im-
perfection requires very small j factors (or high imperfec-
–
tion values) up to j = 100 for l = 3.0, whereas j = 500 would
–
be sufficient for l = 1.5 and linear plastic interaction. This
also indicates that the modification of the initial bow im-
perfection is not the way to solve the exceedance in the
case of bending and compression.
The following diagrams summarize the investigations
for buckling direction z-z for sections in steel grade S235.
Fig. 24 shows that for an IPE 200 section and buckling
direction z-z (buckling curve “b”), different load cases 1, 2,
Fig. 23. Utilization rate hul for IPE 140 (buckling curve “a”)
and HEA 360 (buckling curve “b”), S235, depending on
–
non-dimensional slenderness l , different values of axial
compression N (given as nu) and bending moment My, load
case 2 (numerical data not mentioned in detail), buckling
direction y-y, Lindner [7]
Fig. 24. Utilization rate hul for IPE 200, S235, depending on
different values of axial compression N (plotted as nu) for
non-dimensional slenderness l = 1.0 and bending moment
Mz for different load cases (numerical data mu not men-
tioned in detail), buckling direction z-z, Ofner [15], [1]
3 and 8 according to Table 1 only have a small influence
on the most unfavourable value of the utilization hul,
which lies in the range nu = 0.6 to 0.7 with a maximum hul
= 1.094 > 1.0. Load case 1 (constant moment distribution)
is not considered applicable because it seldom appears in
practical design. Again, load case 2 (distributed load) was
chosen to be used for all further comparisons.
Therefore, the results for different sections are com-
pared in Fig. 25 for load case 2. IPE 200 and IPE 500
(buckling curve “b”) and HEB 300 (buckling curve “c”)
result in an almost identical unfavourable value h = 1.081
> 1.0, which is on the unsafe side. The results for sections
IPE 140 and HEA 360 (investigations by Lindner [7]) are
not plotted here but give comparable results.
It can be observed that the values relating to the inter-
action of EN 1993-1-1 (EC 3-1-1), 6.2.9.1, Eq. (10c), utili-
zation rate η1 (solid lines), exceed the border of 1.0, which
leads to the question of how far the results may be changed
through the choice of another type of interaction. Fig. 26
shows results for an IPE 140 (buckling curve “b”) depend-
–
ing on the non-dimensional slenderness l for different
­values of the proportional axial force nu. For interaction
due to EN 1993-1-1 (EC3-1-1), section 6.2.9.1, Eq. (10c),
the maximum value is max h1 = 1.111, but is reduced to
Steel Construction 9 (2016), No. 4 359
J. Lindner/U. Kuhlmann/A. Just · Verification of flexural buckling according to Eurocode 3 part 1-1 using bow imperfections
Fig. 25. Utilization rate hul for different sections, S235, de-
pending on different values of axial compression N (plotted
– being remarkably higher than the results for S235 in sec-
as nu), non-dimensional slenderness l , = 1.0 and bending
moment Mz, load case 2 (numerical data not mentioned in
detail), buckling direction z-z, Ofner [15], [1]
Fig. 26. The hl values for IPE 140, S235, different values of
axial compression N given as nu, depending on non-dimen-
– lines)
sional slenderness l and bending moment Mz, load case 2
(numerical data mu not mentioned in detail), buckling direc-
tion z-z, Lindner [7]
h2 = 1.094 > 1.0 for linear plastic interaction (dashed lines).
If similar to the restriction in DIN 18800 [4], the plastic
shape factor is limited to apl,z = 1.25, but for the interaction
according to EN 1993-1-1 (see chain-dot lines), the most
unfavourable value max h3 = 0.953 < 1.0 is sufficient.
All results for second-order theory were calculated
with the initial bow imperfections, i.e. j-values, contained
in EC3-1-1, Table 5.1. Further investigations show that
greater initial bow imperfections, i.e. smaller j values, only
have a small influence on the unfavourable results, espe-
cially in the range of small axial forces nu.
Two main results can be summarized:
–– The exceedance on the unsafe side cannot be corrected
effectively by smaller j values because these values
would be extremely small.
–– The exceedance on the unsafe side of around 10 % is so
high that special measures should be taken.
7.3.2 Steel grade S460
No detailed data from earlier investigations are available
for steel grade S460. Therefore, FEM calculations were
carried out [14]. It was shown earlier in this paper, see Fig.
11 to Fig. 13, that within one group of sections, the results
are very close together. Therefore, two typical sections
were chosen for this calculation and subjected to y-y and
z-z buckling:
360 Steel Construction 9 (2016), No. 4
–– IPE 140, buckling direction y-y, buckling curve “a0”
–– IPE 140, buckling direction z-z, buckling curve “a”
–– HEA 360, buckling direction y-y, buckling curve “a”
–– HEA 360, buckling direction z-z, buckling curve “b”
Some of the results are shown in Fig. 25 and Fig. 26.
Fig. 27 shows the results for the non-dimensional slen-
–
derness l = 1.0 for IPE 140 and HEA 360 sections, both
buckling directions y-y and z-z, and for the interaction
from EC3-1-1 (solid lines) and linear plastic interaction
(dashed lines). It shows that for buckling direction y-y, the
most unfavourable result is h = 1.103, whereas for buckling
direction z-z, the maximum value is η = 1.156, both values
tion 7.3.1. In order to avoid these excessive values, a solu-
tion seems to be the linear plastic interaction given by the
dashed lines. However, these sufficient results are given for
–
a non-dimensional slenderness l = 1.0. Whether other slen-
–
derness values, e.g. high ones such as l = 3.0, show a less
favourable effect is investigated in the following, with the
results given in Fig. 28.
Fig. 28 shows the results for IPE 140, buckling direc-
tion z-z, buckling curve “a” and load case 2 (distributed
–
load) depending on different slenderness values l = 0.5,
1.0, 1.5 and 3.0 for the relative axial forces nu ~ 0.25, ~ 0.4,
~ 0.53 and ~ 0.65. Furthermore, three different interaction
equations are taken into account:
–– Interaction according to EC3-1-1, section 6.2.9.1, see
Eq. (10c) (solid lines)
–– Linear plastic interaction, see Eqs. (1) and (10a) (dashed
–– Interaction according to DIN 18800-1 [4] with a re-
duced shape factor apl = 1.25, the interaction according
to EN 1993-1-1 gives similar results (chain-dot lines)
–
The most unfavourable result occurs for l = 1.0, nu =
0.67 (~ 0.65), with h = 1.156 > 1.0 on the unsafe side, but
the results for other nu values are similar. This finding for
nu is similar to S235 in Fig. 25. It is important to recognize
that the linear plastic interaction gives significantly smaller
–
values within the range l = 0.5 to 1.0. Unfortunately, this
–
does not apply within the range l = 1.5 to 3.0, where the
worst result is h = 1.124 and thus only marginally smaller
than h = 1.156. When a reduced plastic shape factor of
1.25 similar to DIN 18800-1 [4] is taken into account, then
the worst value diminishes to h = 0.990 < 1.0!
8 Summary and conclusions
Investigations were carried out concerning the necessary
numerical values for initial bow imperfections e0, given as
the non-dimensional, representative bow imperfection j =
L/e0. The influences of different rolled I-sections, different
interaction equations and different steel grades were con-
sidered. Only for high axial forces are these imperfections
important. For steel grades S235 and higher, the constant
values in Table 5.1 of EC3, Part 1-1, may be retained for
rolled I- and H-sections, partly based on the results of re-
fined FEM calculations. Exceptions were identified for
sections in buckling direction z-z and for steel grade S460.
Special attention was paid to loading by compression
and bending moments assuming the j values as bow imper-
 J. Lindner/U. Kuhlmann/A. Just · Verification of flexural buckling according to Eurocode 3 part 1-1 using bow imperfections

Fig. 27. Utilization rate hul for IPE 140 and HEA 360, S460,
different values of axial compression N given as nu, non-di-
–
mensional slenderness l = 1.0 and bending moment Mz,
load case 2 (numerical data mu not mentioned in detail),
buckling directions y-y and z-z, Lindner [7]
Fig. 28. Utilization rate hul for IPE 140, S460, depending on
–
the non-dimensional slenderness l , different values of axial
compression N given as nu and bending moment Mz, load
case 2 (numerical data mu not mentioned in detail), buck-
ling direction z-z, Lindner [7]

Table 3. Options for the design of members loaded in compression and bending

Buckling Option 1 – ULRF Option 2 – type of interaction

Buckling curve ­perpendicular S235, S275, S355, S235, S275, S355,
to axis for I-sections S460 S460
S420 S420
1 2 3 4 5 6
a0 y-y - 1.10 - linear plastic
y-y 1.08 1.05 linear plastic linear plastic
a
z-z - 1.15 - any, but apl,z = 1.25
y-y 1.05 - linear plastic -
b
z-z 1.10 1.15 any, but apl,z = 1.25 any, but apl,z = 1.25
c z-z 1.10 - any, but apl,z = 1.25 -

fections given so far in Table 5.1 of EC3-1-1. In nearly all
load cases the results for a combined loading of axial force
plus bending moment are less favourable than for mem-
bers loaded by axial force only and, furthermore, lie on the
unsafe side. The discrepancies can be observed for both
buckling directions, different buckling curves, various slen-
derness ranges and different proportions of axial forces.
The highest h values occur for buckling direction z-z and
steel grade S460.
The following choices can be offered:
Option 1: Utilization rates hul > 1 are accounted for by
dividing the right-hand side of the interaction equation by
a factor called ULRF > 1.0 (ultimate limit reduction factor)
which covers the maximum discrepancies on the safe side.
For linear interaction, Eq. (1) changes to Eq. (1*):
N M 1 As a conservative solution (Option 3) it is always suf-
+
(1*) ≤
Npl Mpl ULRF
The same effect is reached by dividing the interaction fac-
tor y by ULRF, leading to y* = y/ULRF.
Table 3 gives values for ULRF derived from the inves-
tigations shown in section 7. Using the given values, small
deviations up to 3 % in special cases nevertheless occur
and are not accounted for.
Option 2: Utilization rates hul > 1 are accounted for by
using a variation of the type of interaction. The greatest
discrepancies occur for buckling direction z-z and grade
S460. These discrepancies are higher than for mild steels
(S235 etc.), see Table 3. This may be explained by the large
plasticized zones when for buckling direction z-z the plas-
tic shape factor apl,z is high and there is a large difference
between the deformations of plastic hinge theory, on which
the interactions are based, and the deformations of FEM
calculations considering plastic zones. In these cases lim-
iting the plastic shape factor to, maybe, apl ≤ 1.25, similarly
to DIN 18800-1 [4], can be of help, see Fig. 26 and Fig. 28.
Then any kind of plastic interaction may be used.
This method is not efficient for buckling direction y-y,
as the shape factors are usually in the range apl,y = 1.14 to
1.18. Here, the application of a linear plastic interaction
instead of the use of the interaction equation in EN 1993-
1-1, section 6.2.9.1, may solve the discrepancies, see Fig. 22
to Fig. 25 and Fig. 27.
ficient to use a linear elastic interaction equation.
These two options are shown in detail in Table 3. For
reasons of economy, a distinction should be made between
buckling directions y-y and z-z and two groups of steel
grades: S235 (up to S420) und S460. This table may be
shortened by not differentiating between buckling direc-
tions y-y and z-z and/or by not differentiating between
steel grades. But in these cases the results are less eco-
nomic.
These results may be used for all rolled I- and H-sec-
tions. In other cases, for all welded profiles with steel

Steel Construction 9 (2016), No. 4 361

J. Lindner/U. Kuhlmann/A. Just · Verification of flexural buckling according to Eurocode 3 part 1-1 using bow imperfections
grades higher than S235, the j values given in Table 5.1 of
Eurocode 3, Part 1-1, have to be multiplied by ε, with ε =
0.924 (S275), 0.814 (S355) and 0.748 (S420).
Additional investigations for welded sections would
allow the approach to be confirmed and improved.
Keywords: stability; initial bow imperfection; flexural buckling;
Eurocode 3; second-order theory
References
[1] Boissonnade, N.; Greiner, R.; Jaspart, J. P.; Lindner, J.: ECCS
TC 8, No. 119: Rules for member stability in EN 1993-1-1,
Background documentation and design guidelines. ECCS
pub., Brussels, 2006.
[2] Bureau, A., et al: N+My interaction for cross section resis­
tance of doubly symmetric I-profiles. Working doc. No. [24a]
Working Group 1 of CEN/TC 250/SC 3, Zurich, 14 Oct 2013.
[3] CEN/TC 250/SC 3, Doc. N2164: Classification of rolled
I-Profiles fabricated in steel grade S460 within Table 6.2 of EN
1993-1-1, Decision 19/2015 on Amendment AM-1-1-2015-
001, 2015.
[4] DIN 18800:2008-11: Stahlbauten, – Teil 1 Bemessung und
Konstruktion, – Teil 2: Stabilitätsfälle – Knicken von Stäben
und Stabwerken (Steel structures, – Part 1 Design and Con-
struction, – Part 2: Stability – Buckling of bars and skeletal
structures.
[5] EN 1993-1-1:2009, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures –
Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings.
[6] Kuhlmann, U.; Feldmann, M.; Lindner, J.; Müller, C.; Stroet-
mann, R., (assisted by Just, A.): Eurocode 3: Bemessung und
Konstruktion von Stahlbauten, Band 1: Allgemeine Regeln
und Hochbau. DIN EN 1993-1-1 mit Nationalem Anhang.
Kommentar und Beispiele. Pub.: bauforumstahl, Beuth Ver-
lag/Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, 2014.
[7] Lindner, J.: Ultimate load calculations concerning compres-
sion and uniaxial bending, IPE 140 and HEA 360 of steel
grade S235 and S460, Background document, Berlin, 2016
(unpublished).
[8] Lindner, J.; Just, A.; Kuhlmann, U.: Bow imperfections for
flexural buckling according to Eurocode 3 part 1-1. Proc. of
SDDS 2016: Intl. Coll. on Stability & Ductility of Steel Struc-
tures, Timisoara, 2016, pp. 525–532.
[9] Lindner, J.: Classification of rolled I-profiles fabricated in
steel grade S460 within table 6.2 of EN 1993-1-1 – rev. 3, Mar
2015, Working doc. N0037, Working Group 1-1 of CEN/
TC 250/SC 3.
[10] Lindner, J.; Scheer, J.; Schmidt, H.: Stahlbauten, Erläuter-
ungen zu DIN 18800 Teil 1 bis Teil 4 (Steel structures, Com-
mentary to DIN 18800 Part 1 to Part 4). Beuth Verlag/Ernst
& Sohn, 3rd ed., Berlin, 1998.
[11] Lindner, J.; Lagae, G.: Minutes of TC 8 meeting in Luxem-
bourg, 22 May 1998, paper TC8-1998-001.
[12] Lindner, J.: Equivalent initial bow imperfections for hollow
sections. Tubular Structures VI, Proc. of 6th Intl. Symp. on
Tubular Structures, Melbourne, Australia, 1994, Balkema Rot-
terdam, pp. 159–162.
362 Steel Construction 9 (2016), No. 4
[13] Lindner, J.: Vergleiche verschiedener Nachweise für Druck
und einachsige Biegung (Comparison of different design
checks for beams subjected to compression and uniaxial bend-
ing). Report 2059A, Fachgebiet Stahlbau, TU Berlin, 1984,
documented in [1] as ref. [45].
[14] Lindner, J.: LIDUR. EDV-Programm zur Berechnung der
Traglasten von beliebig gelagerten geraden Stabsystemen.
(computer program for ultimate load calculations concerning
straight systems with any boundary condition). TU Berlin,
Fachgebiet Stahlbau, ver. 07/14 “LIDALL4” (unpublished).
[15] Ofner, R.: Traglast von Stäben aus Stahl bei Druck und
Biegung. (Ultimate load of steel members subjected to axial
compression and bending). Diss., Institut für Stahlbau, Holz-
bau & Flächentragwerke der TU Graz, No. 9, 1997, docu-
mented as ref. [60] on a CD in [1].
[16] Roik, K.; Wagenknecht, G.: Traglastdiagramme zur Bemes-
sung von Druckstäben mit doppeltsymmetrischem Quer-
schnitt aus Baustahl (ultimate load diagrams for design of
compression members of doubly symmetrical steel cross sec-
tion and uniaxial bending). Konstruktiver Ingenieurbau Be­
richte No. 27, Vulkan-Verlag, Essen, 1977.
[17] Sedlacek, G.: Consistency of the equivalent geometric im-
perfection used in design and in the tolerances for geometric
imperfection used in execution. Doc. ECCS-TC8-2010-06-001,
Feb 2010.
[18] Stroetmann, R.; Faßl, T.: Influence of the interaction formu-
las for the plastic cross section resistance to the assumption
of bow imperfection for flexural buckling. Working doc.
N0019, Working Group 1-1 of CEN/TC 250/SC 3, Oct. 2014.
[19] Taras, A.; Kuhlmann, U.; Just, A.: Design of Compression
Members by 2nd Order Analysis – Imperfection Amplitudes,
Material Dependency, Influence of gM1. Doc. ECCS – TC8,
TC8-2013-06-005, June 2013.
[20] Wagenknecht, G.: Imperfektionsannahmen im Stahlbau für
Biegeknicken (Assumptions for imperfections in steel struc-
tures for flexural buckling). Berichte FH Gießen-Friedberg,
No. 1, 2014, Working doc. DIN NA 005-08-16 AA N 1108.
Authors
Univ.-Prof. Dr.-Ing. Joachim Lindner
j.lindner-berlin@t-online.de
Consulting engineer
Formerly: Technische Universität Berlin, Chair of steel structures
Wallot-Str. 3
14193 Berlin
Germany
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Ulrike Kuhlmann
sekretariat@ke.uni-stuttgart.de
Dipl.-Ing. Adrian Just
adrian.just@ke.uni-stuttgart.de
University of Stuttgart
Institute of Structural Design
Pfaffenwaldring 7
70569 Stuttgart
Germany