Flexural Buckling of Wire Arc Additively

Manufactured Tubular Columns

Cheng Huang 1; Xin Meng 2; Craig Buchanan 3; and Leroy Gardner 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Del Bio Bio UBIOBIO on 11/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Wire arc additive manufacturing (WAAM) is a metal three-dimensional (3D) printing method that enables large-scale structural
elements with complex geometry to be built in a relatively efficient and cost-effective manner, offering revolutionary potential to the con-
struction industry. However, fundamental experimental data on the structural performance of WAAM elements, especially at the member
level, are lacking. Hence, an experimental study into the flexural buckling response of WAAM tubular columns has been conducted and
is presented in this paper. A total of 18 stainless steel square and circular hollow section (SHS and CHS) columns were tested under
axial compression with pin-ended boundary conditions. Regular SHS and CHS profiles were chosen to enable direct comparisons against
equivalent, conventionally manufactured sections and, hence, to isolate the influence of the additive manufacturing process, whereas the
cross-section sizes and column lengths were varied to achieve a broad spectrum of member slendernesses. Given the geometric undulations
inherent to the WAAM process, 3D laser scanning was used to determine the as-built geometry and global geometric imperfections of the
specimens; digital image correlation (DIC) was employed to monitor the surface deformations of the specimens during testing. Full details of
the column testing program, together with a detailed discussion of the experimental results, are presented. The applicability of the current
column design provisions in EN 1993-1-4 and AISC 370 to WAAM stainless steel members was assessed by comparing the test results with
the codified strength predictions. The comparisons emphasized the need to allow for the weakening effect of the inherent geometric variability
of WAAM elements to achieve safe-sided strength predictions. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0003427. © 2022 American Society of
Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: 3D printing; Wire arc additive manufacturing (WAAM); Stainless steel; Square hollow section (SHS); Circular hollow
section (CHS); Flexural buckling; Columns.

Introduction Gardner 2019). At present, a wide range of materials can be utilized

Additive manufacturing (AM), commonly known as three-
dimensional (3D) printing, refers to the construction of objects by
the sequential deposition of material in a layer-wise fashion, as op-
posed to conventional subtractive and formative manufacturing
(ASTM 2017). This novel technology is being increasingly applied
in the aerospace, biomedical, and automotive industries, and its
application has recently been explored in civil engineering (Lim
et al. 2012; Guo and Leu 2013; Ngo et al. 2018; Buchanan and
Gardner 2019; Kanyilmaz et al. 2021; Treutler and Wesling 2021).
The advantages of AM over conventional techniques are widely
recognized, including higher levels of automation, greater geomet-
ric flexibility, and reduced material wastage (Buchanan and
1
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ,
UK. Email: cheng.huang118@imperial.ac.uk
2
Research Associate, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ,
UK (corresponding author). Email: xin.meng15@imperial.ac.uk
3
Lecturer, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial
College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, UK.
Email: craig.buchanan@imperial.ac.uk
4
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial
College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, UK.
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0126-6807. Email: leroy.gardner@
imperial.ac.uk
Note. This manuscript was submitted on October 13, 2021; approved
on April 15, 2022; published online on July 9, 2022. Discussion period
open until December 9, 2022; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engi-
neering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445.
for additive manufacturing, such as polymers, ceramics, concrete,
metals, and wood. In the construction sector, additive manufactur-
ing using cementitious materials has already been employed and
studied (Lim et al. 2012; Perkins and Skitmore 2015; Delgado et al.
2017), whereas the use of metals as 3D printing feedstock material
has only emerged in recent years.
Direct energy deposition (DED) is a family of metal 3D print-
ing techniques featuring molten material deposited with the direct
feeding of either powder or wire feedstock into a focused energy
source (ASTM 2017). Wire arc additive manufacturing (WAAM), a
wire-based DED technique, enables the efficient and cost-effective
fabrication of large and complex structural elements and has been
successfully employed in a number of early structural applications
(Buchanan and Gardner 2019; Rodrigues et al. 2019; Sharma et al.
2019; Feucht et al. 2020a); a landmark example is the MX3D
bridge (Gardner et al. 2020), a stainless steel 3D printed bridge—
the first of its kind. Despite the potential of WAAM, a series of
technical challenges remain that require further research, including
variability of material and geometric properties, part accuracy and
quality, and residual stresses and distortion, among others. A num-
ber of studies into these aspects were carried out accordingly.
Kyvelou et al. (2020), Laghi et al. (2020a), and Hadjipantelis et al.
(2021) revealed a significant degree of anisotropy in WAAM stain-
less steel and a strong dependency of the obtained mechanical prop-
erties on the geometric variability. Ding et al. (2015) pointed out
that better part quality and accuracy can be achieved by optimizing
the key build process parameters (e.g., travel speed, wire diameter,
and wire feed rate) and printing strategy (i.e., deposition patterns
and sequences). High heat input and continuous heat accumula-
tion during WAAM can induce residual stresses in the built parts,

© ASCE 04022139-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(9): 04022139

 often leading to distortion; Gu et al. (2016) and Hönnige et al. Machined sheet
(2018) found that these effects could be somewhat relieved by
As-built sheet
post-rolling.

= 90°
A number of studies into the mechanical response of WAAM ma-
terials have been performed, such as by Kyvelou et al. (2020) and
Laghi et al. (2020a, b, c, d, 2021) on stainless steel, Haden et al.
(2017), Lin et al. (2019), Feucht et al. (2020b), Silvestru et al. (2021),
and Huang et al. (2022) on carbon steel and Fang et al. (2018) and
Horgar et al. (2018) on aluminum alloys. Several experimental stud-
ies into the cross-sectional behavior of WAAM components were
conducted, including Buchanan et al. (2018b) and Laghi et al.
(2020a) on circular hollow section (CHS) stub columns and Kyvelou
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Del Bio Bio UBIOBIO on 11/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

= 0°
et al. (2021) on square hollow section (SHS) stub columns. At the
structural level, full-scale load testing of the MX3D bridge was re- Print layer direction
cently undertaken (Gardner et al. 2020). Overall, fundamental data
on the structural performance of WAAM elements, especially at the
Fig. 1. As-built and machined sheet material and orientations of
member level, is currently lacking.
extracted tensile coupons.
Therefore, a series of experiments on WAAM stainless steel col-
umns consisting of ten tests on SHS members and eight tests on
CHS members has been conducted and is presented herein. The
aim of this research is to address the lack of WAAM column buck- 500
ling test data and seek suitable design rules for these WAAM
members. Tensile testing of sheet material manufactured in the
400
same fashion as the studied columns is first summarized. The pro-

Stress (MPa)
duction, geometric measurements, and flexural buckling tests on
the WAAM columns are then described, with the obtained test 300
results analyzed and discussed accordingly. Lastly, the column
test results are compared against the flexural buckling behavior 200
of conventionally produced stainless steel columns and against
the strength predictions from two current structural design 100 Machined material
specifications—EN 1993-1-4 (CEN 2020) and AISC 370 (AISC As-built material
2020). These comparisons are considered an important step in 0
understanding the performance of WAAM structural elements rel- 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
ative to conventional structural elements; however, more optimized Strain
geometries, most likely necessitating the use of more sophisticated
analyses and design methods, are recognized and envisaged to be Fig. 2. Typical measured stress-strain curves of machined and as-built
featured in the future implementation of WAAM in construction. (θ ¼ 90°) WAAM stainless steel.

Material Properties
Table 1. Average measured material properties of machined and as-built
To determine the stress-strain response of the WAAM material, θ ¼ 90° coupons
stainless steel sheet material produced in the same manner as σ0.2 σ1.0 σu
the examined columns was tested in accordance with EN ISO Coupon E (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) σu n m1.0 mu
6892-1 (CEN 2016). The material tests were carried out on both Machined 139,600 338 381 554 0.297 6.8 2.3 2.7
machined (using an end mill) and as-built coupons extracted at As-built 90,200 261 319 448 0.119 6.5 1.8 2.4
0°, 45°, and 90° to the print layer direction (see Fig. 1), allowing
the influence of material anisotropy and geometric undulations on
the resulting material properties to be studied. Full details of the see Fig. 1), which corresponds to the loading direction for the col-
testing procedure are reported in Kyvelou et al. (2020), whereas a umns tested in the present study. Note also that the mechanical
summary of the key test results is presented in this section. Typical properties of the as-built coupons were calculated on the basis of
measured stress-strain curves of the machined and as-built WAAM the average cross-sectional dimensions of the coupons, as deter-
stainless steel are represented in Fig. 2 up to a strain level of mined by laser scanning, and that these should be considered
0.10. The key mechanical properties are summarized in Table 1, “effective” properties given their dependence on the degree of sur-
including Young’s modulus E, 0.2% proof stress σ0.2 , 1.0% proof face undulation. The results clearly show that the nonuniformity in
stress σ1.0 , ultimate stress σu , and strain at the ultimate stress εu . the stress field within the coupons caused by the geometric undu-
The strain hardening exponents n, m1.0 , and mu of the two-stage lations had a detrimental influence on the effective mechanical
Ramberg-Osgood (R-O) material model (Ramberg and Osgood properties of the as-built WAAM material.
1943; Mirambell and Real 2000; Rasmussen 2003; Arrayago et al.
2015; Gardner and Yun 2018; Yun et al. 2021) are also reported in
Table 1, with the latter two exponents ensuring that the second Manufacturing of Test Specimens
stage of the R-O model passes through σ1.0 and σu , respectively.
Note that the material properties presented herein were obtained The column specimens were wire arc additively manufactured by
from the coupons tested in the 90° direction (i.e., θ ¼ 90° coupons; the Dutch company MX3D (2021) and built up in successive

© ASCE 04022139-2 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(9): 04022139

 Table 2. Process parameters for tested WAAM SHS and CHS columns
Process parameters Details
Travel speed (mm=s) 15–30
Wire feed speed (m=min) 4–8
Welding voltage (V) 18–21
Welding current (A) 100–140
Shielding gas 98% Ar þ 2% CO2
Gas flow rate (L=min) 10–20
Dwell time (s) 30
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Del Bio Bio UBIOBIO on 11/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Printing of WAAM SHS and CHS columns. (Reprinted from
Kyvelou et al. 2021, © ASCE.)
weld layers with a nominal thickness of 3.5 mm. The feedstock
material was Grade 308LSi austenitic stainless steel wire (with
a diameter of 1 mm), and the chemical composition and me-
chanical properties have been reported by Kyvelou et al. (2020).
Printing of the specimens was performed using a six-axis ABB
robot integrated with a metal inert gas (MIG) welding system
and was controlled using MX3D’s proprietary software, whereby
CAD models of the columns were sliced into layers that guided
the deposition path. During the WAAM process, the robot fol-
lowed repetitive square or circular movements with a controlled
travel speed, wire feed rate, depositing voltage, and current and
dwell times. The detailed process parameters for the test speci-
mens are given in Table 2, whereas printing of typical WAAM
columns is illustrated in Fig. 3. Following printing, the columns
were detached from their base plate using a plasma arc cutter and
prepared for testing in their as-built condition, that is, without
any surface machining.
Geometric Measurements
Measurements were taken of the specimen geometries and initial
global imperfections before testing. Advanced 3D laser scanning
was used to capture the geometries of the test specimens, whereas
Archimedes’ principle was employed to verify the overall volumes
and, hence, average cross-sectional areas. As well as geometric
characterization, the 3D scan data were also utilized to determine
the initial out-of-straightness of the specimens, as described in this
section.
© ASCE
J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(9): 04022139
Fig. 4. Laser scanning of typical WAAM SHS column. (Image by
authors.)
Specimen Geometry
A Faro ScanARM with a reported accuracy of 0.1 mm and a
resolution of 0.075 mm was used to scan the WAAM SHS and
CHS columns; laser scanning of a typical SHS specimen is illus-
trated in Fig. 4. Scanning was performed at a moderate speed to
achieve both high precision and reasonable scanning times and
was carried out at different angles to the surfaces of the specimens
to ensure that the surface undulations were fully captured. The
outer surface of each specimen was fully scanned, whereas only
data near the column ends for the interior [see Fig. 5(b)] could be
captured due to the limitation of the scanning arm head size. The
obtained point clouds were first converted into polygon objects us-
ing Geomagic Wrap and then imported into Rhino 3D (2017) for
further geometric analysis; this procedure is illustrated in Fig. 5.
The established 3D models were employed to characterize the
cross-sectional geometry of the WAAM SHS and CHS specimens.
The average cross-sectional area of each specimen was first exam-
ined. By measuring the weights and volumes of typical WAAM
stainless steel members, a consistent density of 7.80 × 103 kg=m3
was established. Note that very close agreement (all volume differ-
ences within 3%) was achieved between the results obtained from
the 3D laser scanning and Archimedes’ measurements, as also re-
ported by Kyvelou et al. (2021). With knowledge of the density and
weight of each specimen, the average cross-sectional area A of the
columns could then be determined by dividing the volume by the
member length, as reported in Tables 3 and 4 for the SHS and CHS
members, respectively.
After determining the average cross-sectional areas, the cross-
sectional dimensions of the SHS and CHS, as defined in Fig. 6,
were then derived. The height H and breadth B of the SHS and the
outer diameter D of the CHS were directly determined from the
scan data of the outer surfaces. For the SHS, the average outer cor-
ner radius R was obtained by fitting a cylinder to the scan data of
each corner region, as illustrated in Fig. 7; the inner corner radius r
was derived in a similar fashion but using the scan data of the inner
surfaces near both ends of the columns. The average wall thickness
04022139-3 J. Struct. Eng.
 Inner surface scan
Point cloud Polygon Wireframe
near column ends

(a) (b) (c)

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Del Bio Bio UBIOBIO on 11/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Procedure of scan data processing: (a) point cloud; (b) polygon object; and (c) STL model.

Table 3. Average measured geometric properties of WAAM SHS columns

Specimen H (mm) B (mm) R (mm) r (mm) tend (mm) t (mm) A (mm2 ) L (mm)
S29-1 28.6 29.0 8.43 4.62 — 4.71 409.3 1,959.5
S34-1 34.0 34.0 8.20 4.62 — 4.61 503.0 1,941.0
S39-1 39.1 38.9 7.88 4.62 — 4.59 595.7 1,490.0
S100-1 99.2 99.3 7.98 4.75 4.23 4.33 1,605.7 2,448.5
S100-2 99.4 99.3 7.32 4.36 4.39 4.25 1,586.2 1,409.0
S100-3 99.7 99.8 7.49 4.52 4.10 4.26 1,595.9 958.7
S100-4 99.9 100.0 7.86 4.70 4.44 4.59 1,718.2 743.0
S100-5 99.6 100.3 7.87 4.92 4.32 4.37 1,640.3 485.3
S100-6 99.6 99.6 8.33 4.55 3.71 3.89 1,447.1 328.0
S100-7 99.8 100.0 8.05 4.52 4.33 4.54 1,693.6 240.2

Table 4. Average measured geometric properties of WAAM CHS columns

Specimen D (mm) tend (mm) t (mm) A (mm2 ) L (mm)
C33-1 32.8 — 4.64 411.0 1,915.5 Best-fit cylinders
C38-1 38.2 — 4.66 490.5 1,910.5
C44-1 43.9 — 4.71 579.2 1,438.0
C105-1 103.6 4.06 4.10 1,282.1 2,351.2
C105-2 103.6 4.47 4.44 1,382.7 1,481.0
C105-3 103.5 4.17 4.17 1,300.6 851.0 Selected scan data for fitting
C105-4 103.6 4.42 4.38 1,366.0 640.3
C105-5 104.0 4.32 4.39 1,374.8 427.1
Fig. 7. Determination of outer corner radius R of SHS from scan data.

as denoted by tend, was also calculated directly from the scanned

r model for verification purposes. Note that for the smaller diameter
R
t t D specimens, such as S29-1 and C33-1, scan data of the inner surface
B

Axis of buckling Axis of buckling
(a) (b)
Fig. 6. Definitions of cross-section dimensions: (a) SHS; and (b) CHS.
t was back-calculated such that the cross-sectional area calculated
using an idealized geometry with the mean dimensions was equal
to the cross-sectional area derived previously using the density and
weight. The wall thickness near the SHS and CHS column ends,
could not be obtained; hence, the thickness near the ends tend is not
provided, whereas the inner corner radius r was taken equal to
the average of the measured values for the other SHS specimens.
Typical histograms of the measured wall thicknesses near the col-
umn ends (tend ) for both the SHS and CHS members, together with
the corresponding normal distributions, are plotted in Fig. 8. The
measured values of tend are shown to generally follow a normal
distribution with a standard deviation of between 0.4 and 0.6 mm;
the mean values of tend are in good agreement with the average
thicknesses t previously calculated on the basis of the weights
of the specimens, as indicated in Tables 3 and 4. All of the derived
cross-sectional dimensions, together with the specimen designa-
tions and column lengths L, are summarized in Tables 3 and 4 for
the SHS and CHS columns, respectively.

© ASCE 04022139-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(9): 04022139


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Del Bio Bio UBIOBIO on 11/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 8. Typical distributions of measured wall thicknesses for SHS and
CHS specimens.
Global Geometric Imperfections
Determination of the initial global imperfection distributions in the
studied WAAM tubular columns from the 3D models is described
in this section. For each specimen, a series of outer cross-section
contours were extracted from the 3D model along the longitudinal
direction, as illustrated in Fig. 9, and the position of the centroid
for each outer cross-section contour was calculated. A straight line
connecting the centroids of the two contours at the member ends
served as the reference line [i.e., OO 0 in Fig. 9(b)], and the devia-
tions of the contour centroids from the reference line were taken
as the initial global imperfections. Typical global imperfection
profiles for SHS Specimen S100-3 in the two perpendicular di-
rections (Y and Z) and CHS Specimen C100-2 in the Y-, Z-, and
α-directions are displayed in Figs. 10(a and b), respectively, where
α represents the radial direction with the maximum overall devi-
ation from the reference line, calculated as the square root of the
sum of the squares of the deviations in the Y and Z directions. Note
that for Specimen S100-3, the deviation in the Y-direction was sig-
nificantly larger than that in the Z-direction; no clear explanation
exists for this finding, which may have been caused by excessive
thermal distortion during printing. The maximum deviation in the
Y- and Z-directions was defined as the global geometric imperfec-
tion amplitude wg for each SHS column specimen, whereas for
each CHS column specimen, wg was taken as the maximum devi-
ation in the α-direction. The derived global geometric imperfection
amplitudes of all test specimens are reported in Table 5.
O
(a)
Fig. 9. (a) Typical 3D models of WAAM SHS and CHS specimens; and (b) typical outer contours extracted for geometric imperfection analysis.
© ASCE 04022139-5
J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(9): 04022139
The obtained values of wg are normalized by the column
lengths L and plotted against the column length L in Fig. 11. Most
data points are observed to be above the dashed line, which rep-
resents the value of L=1,000 that was adopted in the develop-
ment of the Eurocode 3 (EC3) column buckling curves (Beer and
Schulz 1970; Ziemian 2010). This finding indicates that higher
levels of global geometric imperfections should be anticipated in
WAAM members relative to conventionally produced tubular steel
profiles; an average global imperfection amplitude of approxi-
mately L=500 was obtained on the basis of the measured data,
as shown in Fig. 11.
Flexural Buckling Tests
A total of 18 WAAM column specimens, comprising ten SHS
members and eight CHS members, were tested to investigate their
flexural buckling behavior under axial compression. The regular
cross-section profiles (i.e., SHS and CHS) of the tested members
were specifically chosen to allow direct comparisons with their tra-
ditionally manufactured counterparts and the existing design spec-
ifications, hence, enabling the influence of the WAAM process on
the structural response to be isolated. The specimen cross-section
sizes and lengths were varied to cover a wide range of relative slen-
dernesses λ̄ from 0.17 to 3.81, which were calculated on the basis
of the as-built material properties using Eq. (1)
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Aσ0.2 Lcr σ0.2
λ̄ ¼ ¼ ð1Þ
N cr iπ E
where Lcr = buckling length; i = radius of gyration about the
buckling axis; σ0.2 ¼ 0.2% proof stress; E = Young’s modulus;
A = gross cross-sectional area; and N cr = Euler buckling load. All
considered cross-sections were classified as nonslender (Class 1
to 3) according to EN 1993-1-4 (CEN 2020).
Test Setup
The flexural buckling tests were undertaken using an Instron
2,000 kN testing machine in the Structures Laboratory at Imperial
College London; the experimental setup is shown in Fig. 12. The
column specimens were positioned between a pair of wedge plates,
with any existing gaps filled using stainless steel shims and with
the direction of the highest global imperfection amplitude (i.e., the
Y- or Z-directions for the SHS columns and the α-direction for
the CHS columns) aligned with the direction of the buckling. The
pin-ended support conditions were achieved through hardened steel
knife edges at both ends, which allowed only in-plane rotation of
Reference line
O’
O’
O
(b)
J. Struct. Eng.
 0.006

0.005

0.004

wg /L
0.003
wg /L = 1/500
0.002

0.001
wg /L = 1/1000
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Del Bio Bio UBIOBIO on 11/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Column length L (mm)
(a)
Fig. 11. Measured global imperfection amplitudes of WAAM SHS and
CHS columns.

Load cell

Inclinometer

Wedge plate

Two-camera
LVDT LaVision DIC system

Speckle pattern

(b) Specimen

Screw ram
Fig. 10. Initial global geometric imperfection profiles for: (a) Specimen
S100-3; and (b) Specimen C105-2.
Knife edge

Table 5. Summary of key test results for WAAM SHS and CHS columns
Specimen Lcr (mm) λ̄ab λ̄m wg (mm) wi (mm) N u (kN)
Fig. 12. Column buckling test setup. (Image by authors.)
S29-1 2,109.5 3.81 3.48 3.01 4.18 7.4
S34-1 2,091.0 3.06 2.80 3.82 3.66 14.0
S39-1 1,640.0 2.03 1.86 3.32 2.84 35.5
S100-1 2,598.5 1.15 1.06 4.83 5.24 204.3 as given in Table 5. A range of instrumentation was adopted in
S100-2 1,559.0 0.69 0.63 1.88 3.14 307.4 the experiments, including two inclinometers located on the top
S100-3 1,108.7 0.49 0.45 3.90 3.90 343.6 and bottom wedge plates to measure the end rotations, a linear var-
S100-4 893.0 0.40 0.36 2.34 2.80 394.6 iable displacement transducer (LVDT) to measure the midheight
S100-5 635.3 0.28 0.26 0.62 1.33 434.7 lateral deflection, and a load cell within the rig to measure the
S100-6 478.0 0.21 0.19 1.10 0.81 381.3 imposed load.
S100-7 390.2 0.17 0.16 1.04 0.20 438.1 Strain gauges could not be securely affixed to the surfaces of the
C33-1 2,065.5 3.50 3.20 5.23 5.06 7.9
C38-1 2,060.5 2.95 2.70 7.16 6.88 12.3
WAAM specimens or be expected to provide meaningful results
C44-1 1,588.0 1.95 1.78 3.76 3.76 33.0 due to the inherent undulating geometry; hence, a noncontact two-
C105-1 2,501.2 1.22 1.11 6.38 6.19 137.4 camera LaVision Digital Image Correlation (DIC) system was
C105-2 1,631.0 0.80 0.73 3.97 4.03 221.6 adopted to monitor the surface deformations and specimen strains.
C105-3 1,001.0 0.49 0.45 1.39 1.99 284.3 Before testing, the surfaces to be monitored by DIC were sprayed
C105-4 790.3 0.39 0.35 0.99 1.63 310.8 with white metal paint, on top of which a random black speckle
C105-5 577.1 0.28 0.26 0.67 1.16 354.0 pattern was subsequently applied. The sizes of the speckles varied
with specimen lengths to achieve an average speckle size of three to
five pixels in the acquired DIC images. During the tests, the applied
the specimens about the buckling axis. The buckling length Lcr load, the machine displacement, and the readings from the incli-
equaled the distance between the tips of the top and bottom knife nometers and the LVDT were recorded at 0.5-s intervals using an
edges, that is, the measured member length plus an additional in-house developed data logger; the DIC images were captured us-
length of 75 mm (for the thickness of the knife edge) at each end, ing Davis 8 at a frequency of 1 Hz.

© ASCE 04022139-6 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(9): 04022139

 500
Initial Loading Eccentricity S100-7
The total global imperfection amplitude wi , consisting of the out- S100-5
of-straightness (i.e., wg ) and applied initial loading eccentricity, 400
was carefully adjusted for each column specimen prior to testing. S100-6
An effective global imperfection amplitude wi of Lcr =500, which S100-4

Load N (kN)
is the mean value obtained from the imperfection measurements 300
(see Fig. 11), was applied for the specimens with a measured im- S100-3
perfection amplitude wg less than Lcr =500, whereas the measured S100-2
amplitudes wg were adopted as the target total imperfection values 200 S100-1
for those with imperfection amplitudes wg exceeding Lcr =500.
Note that further geometric and experimental data on WAAM
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Del Bio Bio UBIOBIO on 11/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

members are nonetheless needed to determine a suitable imperfec- 100

S39-1 S34-1
tion amplitude for use in the development of design methods.
The total global imperfection amplitude wi can be back-calculated S29-1
0
using Eq. (2) (Chan and Gardner 2009), where N cr denotes the
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Euler buckling load, N is the applied load and w is the measured
Mid-height lateral deflection w (mm)
midheight lateral deflection from the LVDT, noting that w ¼ 0
when N ¼ 0 Fig. 13. Load-midheight lateral deflection curves for WAAM SHS
  columns.
N cr
wi ¼ w −1 ð2Þ
N

Prior to testing, each specimen was preloaded to approximately 400

10% of the estimated failure load N u , ensuring that the specimen
remained elastic; the recorded applied load N and the correspond- C105-5
ing midheight lateral displacement w during preloading were used
in Eq. (2) to back-calculate the total global imperfection ampli- 300
C105-4
tude wi . After unloading, the specimen position was adjusted using
a screw ram at the member ends to achieve the target imperfection
Load N (kN)

C105-3
amplitude. This preloading and adjusting procedure was repeated 200 C105-2
until a total imperfection amplitude as close to the target value
as possible was achieved. The same approach was adopted by C105-1
Wang and Gardner (2017), Buchanan et al. (2018a), and Meng
and Gardner (2020, 2021). After completion of the initial loading 100
eccentricity adjustment process, the specimens were loaded at an C44-1
axial displacement rate of Lcr =2,000 mm per minute until failure. C38-1
C33-1
0
Test Results 0 20 40 60 80 100
Mid-height lateral deflection w (mm)
The key test results, including the ultimate loads N u and the applied
total imperfections wi , along with the relative slenderness values Fig. 14. Load-midheight lateral deflection curves for WAAM CHS
λ̄ab and λ̄m (calculated using Eq. (1) on the basis of the as-built and columns.
machined material properties, respectively), are reported in Table 5.
The load-lateral displacement curves obtained from the LVDT mea-
surements are shown in Figs. 13 and 14 for the SHS and CHS spec-
imens, respectively. Fig. 15 displays the deformed shapes of the Comparisons between typical load-lateral displacement curves
tested specimens. All specimens buckled in the direction dictated determined from the LVDT and DIC data are illustrated in Fig. 17,
by the global imperfections, except Specimen S100-7, which ini- showing excellent agreement between the measurements obtained
tially deflected into the direction of the imperfection but ultimately using these two methods. Typical axial strain and lateral displace-
failed in the opposite direction due to local buckling. The six most ment fields from DIC are also presented in Fig. 17, which clearly
slender columns, that is, SHS Specimens S29-1, S34-1, and S39-1, visualizes the evolution of axial strains and the development of
and CHS Specimens C33-1, C38-1, and C44-1, failed by global buckling.
buckling alone, whereas the remainder generally exhibited a global
buckling mode accompanied by local buckling either before or after
the peak load; the exceptions were Specimens C105-1 and C105-2, Column Buckling Design
for which no visible signs of local buckling were observed during
testing. Typical failure modes are shown in Fig. 16, along with the The buckling design of WAAM stainless steel tubular columns is
axial strain and lateral displacement distributions over the full col- examined in this section. The obtained column test results are first
umns obtained from the DIC data. Specimen S100-4 exhibited a compared against the existing test data on conventionally manufac-
global buckling shape, accompanied by local buckling, which de- tured stainless steel tubular columns and, subsequently, against the
veloped on the more heavily compressed side of the cross-section at strength predictions from current design specifications to assess
the midheight of the member, whereas Specimen C100-1 failed by their applicability to the stability design of WAAM columns. To be
pure global buckling. emphasized is that further member test results and more statistical

© ASCE 04022139-7 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(9): 04022139

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Del Bio Bio UBIOBIO on 11/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
200
0 0
Fig. 15. Failure modes of WAAM SHS (left) and CHS (right) columns (scale in mm).
data on the material and geometric properties of WAAM elements
are needed before reliability and safety factors can be meaningfully
addressed.
Comparisons with Conventionally Manufactured
Stainless Steel Columns
In this section, the buckling behavior of the tested WAAM columns
is compared with that of conventionally produced columns; the
experimental results collected from the literature comprise cold-
formed square and rectangular hollow sections (SHS/RHS)
(Rasmussen 2003; Liu and Young 2003; Gardner and Nethercot
2004; Gardner et al. 2006; Theofanous and Gardner 2009; Huang
and Young 2013; Zheng et al. 2020) and cold-formed and hot-
rolled CHS (Rasmussen 2003; Burgan et al. 2000; Young and
Hartono 2002; Buchanan et al. 2018a; Shu et al. 2019; Ning et al.
2021) columns, all in austenitic and duplex stainless steel. A graph-
ical comparison of the results is presented in Fig. 18, in which the
load carrying capacities of both the WAAM and conventionally
manufactured columns N u are normalized by their respective cross-
section yield loads N y (defined as the product of the 0.2% proof
stress σ0.2 and the cross-sectional area A), and are plotted against
the relative slenderness λ̄. The test results of the WAAM columns
are plotted on the basis of both their machined and as-built material
properties. Clearly seen is that, when the machined material proper-
ties are used, the WAAM columns generally underperform relative
to conventionally produced tubular columns. In contrast, the use
of as-built material properties enables the weakening effect of the
geometric undulations and local thickness variations to be captured;
thus, the data points fall within the range of the collected test data
on conventionally manufactured columns. Worth noting is that,
despite the use of the as-built material properties, the WAAM col-
umns are nonetheless shown to exhibit slightly inferior structural
performance to conventionally formed columns, which can be
attributed to the generally larger total imperfection amplitudes
© ASCE 04022139-8
J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(9): 04022139
200
applied to the tested WAAM columns and the distributions of
residual stresses in the WAAM members. However, further inves-
tigation is required to verify this.
Comparisons with EN 1993-1-4 (EC3) Strength
Predictions
The flexural buckling resistance of a column is typically expressed
as the cross-section capacity multiplied by a reduction factor to
account for member instability. In EN 1993-1-4 (CEN 2020),
the flexural buckling resistance N b;Rd of a stainless steel column
with a nonslender (i.e., Class 1-3) cross-section is calculated ac-
cording to
χAσ0.2
N b;Rd ¼ ð3Þ
γ M1
where χ = buckling reduction factor and γ M1 = partial safety factor
for member instability, taken as unity in the following comparisons.
The buckling reduction factor χ is determined using
1
χ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð4Þ
ϕ þ ϕ2 − λ̄2
with the operational parameter
ϕ ¼ ð1 þ αðλ̄ − λ̄0 Þ þ λ̄2 Þ=2 ð5Þ
where α = imperfection factor and λ̄0 = limiting slenderness
(i.e., the plateau length); the two parameters α and λ̄0 determine
the shape of the buckling curve to account for the effects of varying
degrees of material nonlinearity, residual stresses, and geometric
imperfections. Different α and λ̄0 values are set out in the latest
version of EN 1993-1-4 (CEN 2020) and applied to columns with
different cross-section types, manufacturing routes, axes of buck-
ling, and stainless steel grades (austenitic, duplex, and ferritic).
J. Struct. Eng.
 0
18

-2 16

Lateral displacement (mm)

14
-4

Axial strain (%)

10
-6
8
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Del Bio Bio UBIOBIO on 11/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Local buckling -8
6

200 4
-10

2
-12
0
0
(a)

0.2 60

0.0
50

-0.2

40

Lateral displacement (mm)

-0.4
Axial strain (%)

-0.6 30

-0.8

20
-1.0

-1.2 10

200

0 -1.4
0
(b)

Fig. 16. Typical column failure modes with DIC plots of axial strain and lateral displacements for: (a) Specimen S100-4; and (b) Specimen C105-1
(scales in mm).

The latest version of EN 1993-1-4 (CEN 2020) employs a
single column buckling curve (α ¼ 0.49 and λ̄0 ¼ 0.2) for both
hot-finished SHS and CHS stainless steel columns but different
buckling curves for cold-formed SHS (α ¼ 0.49 and λ̄0 ¼ 0.3) and
CHS (α ¼ 0.49 and λ̄0 ¼ 0.2) stainless steel columns (Afshan
et al. 2019; Buchanan et al. 2018a). As shown in Fig. 18, the test
data on the conventionally formed members are generally well
represented by the EC3 buckling curves. Their suitability for ap-
plication to WAAM SHS and CHS stainless steel columns is now
considered.
Comparisons are made between the WAAM column test results
and the EC3 buckling curves on the basis of both the machined and
as-built material properties in Fig. 19, where the normalized ulti-
mate loads are plotted against the relative slenderness. Fig. 19
clearly shows that the two EC3 buckling curves (i.e., with α ¼ 0.49
and λ̄0 ¼ 0.2 or 0.3) generally represent the trend of the data points
for the WAAM columns plotted using the as-built material proper-
ties. However, when the machined material properties are consid-
ered, both buckling curves yield rather unconservative resistance
predictions. The ratios of the ultimate loads to EC3 predicted

© ASCE 04022139-9 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(9): 04022139

 1.2
WAAM SHS, machined
EN 1993-1-4:2020 curve WAAM CHS, machined
1.0 WAAM SHS, as-built
for cold-formed SHS
WAAM CHS, as-built

Normalized resistance Nu /Ny

0.8
10
-0.1 -0.3
-1 AISC 370 curve for SHS
8 0.6
-2
-0.2 -0.6
-3
6 AISC 370 curve for CHS
-4
0.4
-0.3 -0.9
4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Del Bio Bio UBIOBIO on 11/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-5

-0.4 -1.2 -6
0.2 EN 1993-1-4:2020 curve
2
for hot-finished SHS/CHS
-7
and cold-formed CHS
-1.5 0
-0.5 0.0
0 1 2 3 4
(a) Relative slenderness

Fig. 19. Comparison of test results of WAAM columns with EN

1993-1-4 and AISC 370 buckling curves.

0.0 0 1.50
-0.3 20

-2
-0.1
15 1.25
-0.6 -4
-0.2

10
-0.3
-6 1.00
-0.9
Nu /Nu,EC3

-8
5
-0.4
0.75
-1.2 -10
-0.5 0

0.50 Machined, EC3 for hot-finished SHS

(b) Machined, EC3 for cold-formed SHS
Machined, EC3 for CHS
0.25 As-built, EC3 for hot-finished SHS
Fig. 17. Typical comparisons of load-midheight lateral deflection As-built, EC3 for cold-formed SHS
curves obtained from DIC and LVDT, with DIC plots reflecting axial As-built, EC3 for CHS
strain evolution and deformation development, shown for: (a) Specimen 0.00
S100-5; and (b) Specimen C105-5. 0 1 2 3 4
Relative slenderness

Fig. 20. Comparison of test results of WAAM columns with EC3

strength predictions for hot-finished and cold-formed tubular members.
1.4
WAAM SHS, machined
1.2 WAAM CHS, machined
WAAM SHS, as-built
EN 1993-1-4:2020 curve WAAM CHS, as-built resistances N u =N u;EC3 , calculated using either the machined (de-
Normalized resistance Nu/Ny

1.0 for cold-formed SHS Cold-formed SHS/RHS noted by N u =N u;EC3;m ) or as-built (denoted by N u =N u;EC3;ab )
Cold-formed CHS
Hot-rolled CHS material properties are plotted against the relative slenderness in
0.8 Fig. 20 and reported in Table 6, along with their mean values
EN 1993-1-4:2020 curve for and coefficients of variation (COV). The graphical and quantitative
hot-finished SHS/CHS and
0.6
cold-formed CHS
comparisons make clear that the use of machined material proper-
ties leads to consistent overpredictions of the flexural buckling
0.4 resistances of the WAAM members, with average N u =N u;EC3;m val-
ues equal to 0.73 and 0.72 using the EC3 buckling curves for hot-
0.2 finished and cold-formed tubular columns, respectively. In contrast,
the EC3 design approach with the as-built material properties pro-
0.0 vides far more reasonable and generally safe-sided resistance pre-
0 1 2 3 4 dictions, with average N u =N u;EC3;ab values equal to 1.03 and 1.02
Relative slenderness using the EC3 rules for hot-finished and cold-formed tubular col-
umns, respectively. In general, with the use of the as-built material
Fig. 18. Comparison of test results of WAAM and conventionally
properties, whereby the weakening effect of the geometric un-
produced stainless steel tubular columns with EN 1993-1-4 buckling
dulations is considered, the current EN 1993-1-4 buckling curves
curves.
are shown to provide accurate resistance predictions for WAAM

© ASCE 04022139-10 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(9): 04022139

 Table 6. Comparisons of test results with codified strength predictions for tubular columns
EC3 buckling curve for hot-finished EC3 buckling curve for cold-formed
columns columns AISC 370 buckling curve
Specimen N u =N u;EC3;m N u =N u;EC3;ab N u =N u;EC3;m N u =N u;EC3;ab N u =N u;AISC;m N u =N u;AISC;ab
S29-1 0.75 1.14 0.74 1.14 0.80 1.23
S34-1 0.76 1.16 0.76 1.15 0.78 1.21
S39-1 0.79 1.2 0.78 1.18 0.74 1.15
S100-1 0.74 1.07 0.71 1.04 0.66 0.94
S100-2 0.75 1.02 0.71 0.97 0.69 0.94
S100-3 0.73 0.97 0.69 0.92 0.67 0.89
S100-4 0.74 0.98 0.70 0.93 0.68 0.89
S100-5 0.81 1.06 0.78 1.02 0.78 1.02
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Del Bio Bio UBIOBIO on 11/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

S100-6 0.78 1.02 0.78 1.01 0.78 1.01

S100-7 0.77 0.99 0.77 0.99 0.77 0.99
C33-1 0.67 1.02 0.67 1.02 0.71 1.09
C38-1 0.64 0.98 0.64 0.98 0.66 1.02
C44-1 0.71 1.07 0.71 1.07 0.66 1.01
C105-1 0.66 0.96 0.66 0.96 0.64 0.92
C105-2 0.67 0.92 0.67 0.92 0.68 0.94
C105-3 0.74 0.99 0.74 0.99 0.73 0.98
C105-4 0.73 0.96 0.73 0.96 0.71 0.94
C105-5 0.78 1.03 0.78 1.03 0.76 0.98
Mean (SHS) 0.76 1.06 0.74 1.03 0.73 1.03
COV (SHS) 0.03 0.08 0.05 0.09 0.07 0.12
Mean (CHS) 0.70 0.99 0.70 0.99 0.69 0.99
COV (CHS) 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.06
Mean (overall) 0.73 1.03 0.72 1.02 0.72 1.01
COV (overall) 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.10

tubular columns, although further data and reliability analyses are
required to determine suitable partial safety factors.
Comparisons with AISC 370 Strength Predictions
The U.S. design specification ANSI/AISC 370 (AISC 2020) ap-
plies to welded, cold-formed, and hot-rolled austenitic and duplex
stainless steel tubular members. According to the load and resis-
tance factor design (LRFD) method, the flexural buckling resis-
tance of a member with a nonslender cross-section N u;AISC is
formulated as the product of the resistance factor ϕc (taken as unity
in the following comparisons), the member critical stress Fcr , and
the gross cross-sectional A, as given by Eq. (6)
the test results are compared against the AISC design buckling
curves, and further comparisons are presented in Fig. 21, in which
the ratios of the ultimate loads to the AISC 370 strength predictions
N u =N u;AISC are plotted against the relative slenderness. Values of
the N u =N u;AISC ratios calculated using the machined and as-built
material properties (denoted by N u =N u;AISC;m and N u =N u;AISC;ab ,
respectively) are summarized in Table 6. The mean N u =N u;AISC;m
ratio is 0.72 with the corresponding COVof 0.07, whereas the mean
N u =N u;AISC;ab ratio is 1.01 with a corresponding COV of 0.10.
The graphical comparisons and statistical results show that the

N u;AISC ¼ ϕc Fcr A ð6Þ 1.50

where the critical stress Fcr depends on the relative slenderness λ̄ 1.25
and is determined using Eq. (7) for SHS stainless steel columns
8
>
> σ0.2 λ̄ ≤ 0.38 1.00
>
<
Nu/Nu,AISC

λ̄1.38
Fcr ¼ 1.2 × 0.501 σ0.2 0.38 < λ̄ ≤ 1.79 ð7Þ
>
> 0.82 0.75
>
: σ0.2 λ̄ > 1.79
λ̄2
0.50
and Eq. (8) for CHS stainless steel columns Machined, SHS
Machined, CHS
8 0.25 As-built, SHS
>
> σ0.2 λ̄ ≤ 0.28
>
< As-built, CHS
λ̄1.16
Fcr ¼ 1.2 × 0.455 σ0.2 0.28 < λ̄ ≤ 1.79 ð8Þ 0.00
>
> 0.82
>
: σ0.2 λ̄ > 1.79
0 1 2 3 4
λ̄2 Relative slenderness

Fig. 21. Comparison of test results of WAAM columns with AISC 370
The suitability of the AISC 370 buckling curves for WAAM
flexural buckling resistance predictions.
stainless steel SHS and CHS columns is now assessed. In Fig. 19,

© ASCE 04022139-11 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(9): 04022139

 AISC design approach, similar to EC3, leads to more accurate
and safe-sided strength predictions for the WAAM columns when
using the as-built rather than the machined material properties.
However, the AISC 370 strength predictions are slightly more scat-
tered than the EC3 strength predictions. Overall, the use of as-built
material properties is shown again to effectively capture the weak-
ening effect of the geometric undulations and thickness variations.
Further data and calibration are required to assess the reliability
and determine a suitable safety factor for the application of the
AISC 370 buckling curves to the design of WAAM stainless steel
columns.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Del Bio Bio UBIOBIO on 11/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Conclusions
A comprehensive experimental study into the flexural buckling
response of WAAM stainless steel tubular members has been
conducted. A total of 18 SHS and CHS columns covering various
cross-section sizes and a wide range of member slendernesses have
been tested under axial compression with pin-ended boundary con-
ditions. Three-dimensional (3D) laser scanning and digital image
correlation (DIC) were employed in the testing program for the
digital capture of the as-built geometric properties and full-field
deformation responses of the specimens, respectively.
The test results were used to assess the applicability of the cur-
rent column buckling design rules in European and U.S. structural
stainless steel design specifications to WAAM SHS and CHS mem-
bers. The assessments were carried out using both machined and
as-built material properties, with the latter including the influence
of the geometric undulations inherent to the WAAM process. Given
the use of as-built material properties, the column buckling curves
developed for either hot- or cold-finished stainless steel tubular sec-
tions, as set out in the latest version of EN 1993-1-4, were shown to
provide generally accurate strength predictions for WAAM SHS
and CHS columns, whereas the design formulae in AISC 370 also
yielded good—but slightly more scattered—predictions. In con-
trast, the use of the machined material properties led to average
overpredictions of column buckling strength of almost 30%, high-
lighting the need to allow for the weakening effect of the as-built
geometric undulations in the structural design of WAAM elements.
This study addresses the lack of flexural buckling test data on
WAAM columns and provides a sound basis for the development
of numerical models and more suitable structural design rules for
WAAM elements in future work.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this
study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable
request.
Acknowledgments
This experimental program was possible thanks to the funding
and support from the China Scholarship Council (CSC) and the
Data Centric Engineering program at the Alan Turing Institute
(ATI). This research also benefitted from Engineering and Physical
Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) funding under Grant No. EP/
R010161/1 and from the UK Collaboratorium for Research on
Infrastructure and Cities (UKCRIC) Coordination Node EPSRC
grant under EP/R017727/1. The authors gratefully acknowledge
MX3D for providing the test specimens and thank Wing Wang,
© ASCE 04022139-12
J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(9): 04022139
Les Clark, and Gordon Herbert for their assistance during the
experiments.
References
Afshan, S., O. Zhao, and L. Gardner. 2019. “Standardised material proper-
ties for numerical parametric studies of stainless steel structures and
buckling curves for tubular columns.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 152 (Jan):
2–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.02.019.
AISC. 2020. Specification for structural stainless steel buildings. ANSI/
AISC 370. Chicago: AISC.
Arrayago, I., E. Real, and L. Gardner. 2015. “Description of stress-strain
curves for stainless steel alloys.” Mater. Des. 87 (Dec): 540–552.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2015.08.001.
ASTM. 2017. Additive manufacturing—general principles—terminology.
ISO/ASTM 52900. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
Beer, H., and G. Schulz. 1970. “Bases théoriques des courbes européennes
de flambement.” [In French.] Constr. Mét. 3 (Sep): 37–57.
Buchanan, C., and L. Gardner. 2019. “Metal 3D printing in construction:
A review of methods, research, applications, opportunities and chal-
lenges.” Eng. Struct. 180 (3): 332–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.engstruct.2018.11.045.
Buchanan, C., E. Real, and L. Gardner. 2018a. “Testing, simulation
and design of cold-formed stainless steel CHS columns.” Thin Walled
Struct. 130 (Sep): 297–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2018.05.006.
Buchanan, C., W. Wan, and L. Gardner. 2018b. “Testing of wire and arc
additively manufactured stainless steel material and cross-sections.”
In Proc., 9th Int. Conf. on Advances in Steel Structures (ICASS2018),
Hong Kong, China: The Hong Kong Institute of Steel Construction.
Burgan, B. A., N. R. Baddoo, and K. A. Gilsenan. 2000. “Structural design
of stainless steel members—comparison between Eurocode 3, Part 1.4
and test results.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 54 (1): 51–73. https://doi.org/10
.1016/S0143-974X(99)00055-3.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). 2016. Metallic
materials—tensile testing part 1: Method of test at room temperature.
EN ISO 6892-1:2016. Brussels, Belgium: CEN.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). 2020. Eurocode 3—
design of steel structures—Part 1-4: General rules—supplementary
rules for stainless steel. EN 1993-1-4:2006+A2:2020. Brussels,
Belgium: CEN.
Chan, T. M., and L. Gardner. 2009. “Flexural buckling of elliptical hollow
section columns.” J. Struct. Eng. 135 (5): 546–557. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000005.
Delgado, D., P. Clayton, W. O. Brien, R. Ferron, and M. Juenger.
2017. “Applications of additive manufacturing in the construction
industry—a prospective review.” In Proc., 34th Int. Symp. on Automa-
tion and Robotics in Construction (ISARC2017), Bogota, Colombia:
International Association for Automation and Robotics in Construction
(IAARC).
Ding, D., Z. Pan, D. Cuiuri, and H. Li. 2015. “Wire-feed additive
manufacturing of metal components: Technologies, developments and
future interests.” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 81 (1): 465–481. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7077-3.
Fang, X., L. Zhang, H. Li, C. Li, K. Huang, and B. Lu. 2018.
“Microstructure evolution and mechanical behavior of 2219 aluminum
alloys additively fabricated by the cold metal transfer process.” Materi-
als 11 (5): 812. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma11050812.
Feucht, T., J. Lange, M. Erven, C. B. Costanzi, U. Knaack, and B.
Waldschmitt. 2020a. “Additive manufacturing by means of parametric
robot programming.” Constr. Rob. 4 (1): 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s41693-020-00033-w.
Feucht, T., J. Lange, B. Waldschmitt, A. K. Schudlich, M. Klein, and
M. Oechsner. 2020b. “Welding process for the additive manufacturing
of cantilevered components with the WAAM.” In Vol. 125 of Advanced
joining processes, 67–78. Singapore: Springer.
Gardner, L., P. Kyvelou, G. Herbert, and C. Buchanan. 2020. “Testing
and initial verification of the world’s first metal 3D printed bridge.”
J. Constr. Steel Res. 172 (Sep): 106233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr
.2020.106233.
J. Struct. Eng.
 Gardner, L., and D. A. Nethercot. 2004. “Experiments on stainless steel
hollow sections—Part 2: Member behaviour of columns and beams.”
J. Constr. Steel Res. 60 (9): 1319–1332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr
.2003.11.007.
Gardner, L., A. Talja, and N. R. Baddoo. 2006. “Structural design of high-
strength austenitic stainless steel.” Thin Walled Struct. 44 (5): 517–528.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2006.04.014.
Gardner, L., and X. Yun. 2018. “Description of stress-strain curves for cold-
formed steels.” Constr. Build. Mater. 189 (Nov): 527–538. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.08.195.
Gu, J., J. Ding, S. W. Williams, H. Gu, J. Bai, Y. Zhai, and P. Ma. 2016.
“The strengthening effect of inter-layer cold working and post-
deposition heat treatment on the additively manufactured Al–6.3Cu
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Del Bio Bio UBIOBIO on 11/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
alloy.” Mater. Sci. Eng. A 651 (Jan): 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.msea.2015.10.101.
Guo, N., and M. C. Leu. 2013. “Additive manufacturing: Technology,
applications and research needs.” Front. Mech. Eng. 8 (3): 215–243.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11465-013-0248-8.
Haden, C. V., G. Zeng, F. M. C. Iii, C. Ruhl, B. A. Krick, and D. G. Harlow.
2017. “Wire and arc additive manufactured steel: Tensile and wear
properties.” Addit. Manuf. 16 (Aug): 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.addma.2017.05.010.
Hadjipantelis, N., B. Weber, C. Buchanan, and L. Gardner. 2021. “Descrip-
tion of anisotropic material response of wire and arc additively manu-
factured thin-walled stainless steel elements.” Thin Walled Struct.
171 (Feb): 108634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2021.108634.
Hönnige, J. R., P. A. Colegrove, B. Ahmad, M. E. Fitzpatrick, S. Ganguly,
T. L. Lee, and S. W. Williams. 2018. “Residual stress and texture con-
trol in Ti-6Al-4V wire + arc additively manufactured intersections by
stress relief and rolling.” Mater. Des. 150 (Jul): 193–205. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.matdes.2018.03.065.
Horgar, A., H. Fostervoll, B. Nyhus, X. Ren, M. Eriksson, and O. M.
Akselsen. 2018. “Additive manufacturing using WAAM with AA5183
wire.” J. Mater. Process. Technol. 259 (4): 68–74. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.jmatprotec.2018.04.014.
Huang, C., P. Kyvelou, R. Zhang, T. B. Britton, and L. Gardner. 2022.
“Mechanical testing and microstructural analysis of wire arc additively
manufactured steels.” Mater. Des. 216 (Apr): 110544. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.matdes.2022.110544.
Huang, Y., and B. Young. 2013. “Tests of pin-ended cold-formed lean du-
plex stainless steel columns.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 82 (Mar): 203–215.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2013.01.001.
Kanyilma, A., et al. 2021. “Role of metal 3D printing to increase quality
and resource-efficiency in the construction sector.” Addit. Manuf.
50 (Feb): 102541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2021.102541.
Kyvelou, P., C. Huang, L. Gardner, and C. Buchanan. 2021. “Structural
testing and design of wire arc additively manufactured square hollow
sections.” J. Struct. Eng. 147 (12): 04021218. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0003188.
Kyvelou, P., H. Slack, D. D. Mountanou, M. A. Wadee, T. B. Britton,
C. Buchanan, and L. Gardner. 2020. “Mechanical and microstructural
testing of wire and arc additively manufactured sheet material.” Mater.
Des. 192 (Jul): 108675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2020.108675.
Laghi, V., M. Palermo, G. Gasparini, V. A. Girelli, and T. Trombetti.
2020a. “Experimental results for structural design of wire-and-arc
additive manufactured stainless steel members.” J. Constr. Steel Res.
167 (Apr): 105858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.105858.
Laghi, V., M. Palermo, G. Gasparini, V. A. Girelli, and T. Trombetti. 2021.
“On the influence of the geometrical irregularities in the mechanical
response of wire-and-arc additively manufactured planar elements.”
J. Constr. Steel Res. 178 (Mar): 106490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr
.2020.106490.
Laghi, V., M. Palermo, G. Gasparini, and T. Trombetti. 2020b. “Computa-
tional design and manufacturing of a half-scaled 3D-printed stainless
steel diagrid column.” Addit. Manuf. 36 (Dec): 101505. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.addma.2020.101505.
Laghi, V., M. Palermo, G. Gasparini, M. Veljkovic, and T. Trombetti.
2020c. “Assessment of design mechanical parameters and partial safety
factors for wire-and-arc additive manufactured stainless steel.” Eng.
© ASCE 04022139-13
J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(9): 04022139
Struct. 225 (Dec): 111314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020
.111314.
Laghi, V., M. Palermo, L. Tonelli, G. Gasparini, L. Ceschini, and T.
Trombetti. 2020d. “Tensile properties and microstructural features of
304L austenitic stainless steel produced by wire-and-arc additive manu-
facturing.” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 106 (9): 3693–3705. https://doi
.org/10.1007/s00170-019-04868-8.
Lim, S., R. A. Buswell, T. T. Le, S. A. Austin, A. G. F. Gibb, and T. Thorpe.
2012. “Developments in construction-scale additive manufacturing
processes.” Autom. Constr. 21 (Jan): 262–268. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.autcon.2011.06.010.
Lin, Z., C. Goulas, W. Ya, and M. J. M. Hermans. 2019. “Microstructure
and mechanical properties of medium carbon steel deposits obtained via
wire and arc additive manufacturing using metal-cored wire.” Metals
9 (6): 673. https://doi.org/10.3390/met9060673.
Liu, Y., and B. Young. 2003. “Buckling of stainless steel square hollow
section compression members.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 59 (2): 165–177.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0143-974X(02)00031-7.
Meng, X., and L. Gardner. 2020. “Behavior and design of normal-and
high-strength steel SHS and RHS columns.” J. Struct. Eng. 146 (11):
04020227. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002728.
Meng, X., and L. Gardner. 2021. “Testing, modelling and design of normal
and high strength steel tubular beam-columns.” J. Constr. Steel Res.
183 (Aug): 106735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2021.106735.
Mirambell, E., and E. Real. 2000. “On the calculation of deflections in
structural stainless steel beams: An experimental and numerical inves-
tigation.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 54 (1): 109–133. https://doi.org/10.1016
/S0143-974X(99)00051-6.
MX3D. 2021. “About MX3D.” Accessed May 20, 2021. https://mx3d.com
/company/about/.
Ngo, T. D., A. Kashani, G. Imbalzano, K. T. Q. Nguyen, and D. Hui. 2018.
“Additive manufacturing (3D printing): A review of materials, methods,
applications and challenges.” Compos., Part B 143 (2): 172–196.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.02.012.
Ning, K., L. Yang, J. Wang, P. Dai, and Y. Sun. 2021. “Experimental
and numerical study of hot-rolled duplex stainless steel CHS columns.”
J. Constr. Steel Res. 180 (May): 106579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr
.2021.106579.
Perkins, I., and M. Skitmore. 2015. “Three-dimensional printing in the
construction industry: A review.” Int. J. Constr. Manage. 15 (1): 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2015.1012136.
Ramberg, W., and W. R. Osgood. 1943. Description of stress-strain curves
by three parameters. Technical Note No. 902. Washington, DC:
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics.
Rasmussen, K. J. R. 2003. “Full-range stress-strain curves for stainless steel
alloys.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 59 (1): 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016
/S0143-974X(02)00018-4.
Rodrigues, T. A., V. Duarte, R. M. Miranda, T. G. Santos, and J. P. Oliveira.
2019. “Current status and perspectives on wire and arc additive manu-
facturing (WAAM).” Materials 12 (7): 1121. https://doi.org/10.3390
/ma12071121.
Sharma, R., L. Oster, K. Ronny, M. Feldmann, S. Citarelli, and U. Reisgen.
2019. “3D printing in steel construction with the automated wire arc
additive manufacturing.” In Vol. 3 of Proc., Special Issue: Proc. Nordic
Steel 2019, 577–583. Berlin, Germany: Ernst and Sohn Verlag für
Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH.
Shu, G., Y. Gu, Y. Zhang, X. Jin, B. Zheng, and Q. Jiang. 2019. “Exper-
imental study of cold-drawn duplex stainless steel circular tubes under
axial compression.” Thin Walled Struct. 138 (May): 95–104. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.tws.2019.01.038.
Silvestru, V. A., I. Ariza, J. Vienne, L. Michel, A. M. A. Sanchez, U. Angst,
R. Rust, F. Gramazio, M. Kohler, and A. Taras. 2021. “Performance
under tensile loading of point-by-point wire and arc additively manu-
factured steel bars for structural components.” Mater. Des. 205 (Jul):
109740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2021.109740.
Theofanous, M., and L. Gardner. 2009. “Testing and numerical modelling
of lean duplex stainless steel hollow section columns.” Eng. Struct.
31 (12): 3047–3058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.08.004.
J. Struct. Eng.
 Treutler, K., and V. Wesling. 2021. “The current state of research of wire arc
additive manufacturing (WAAM): A review.” Appl. Sci. 11 (18): 8619.
https://doi.org/10.3390/app11188619.
Wang, J., and L. Gardner. 2017. “Flexural buckling of hot-finished
high-strength steel SHS and RHS columns.” J. Struct. Eng. 143 (6):
04017028. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001763.
Young, B., and W. Hartono. 2002. “Compression tests of stainless steel
tubular members.” J. Struct. Eng. 128 (6): 754–761. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:6(754).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Del Bio Bio UBIOBIO on 11/05/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Yun, X., Z. Wang, and L. Gardner. 2021. “Full-range stress-strain curves for
aluminum alloys.” J. Struct. Eng. 147 (6): 04021060. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002999.
Zheng, B., G. Shu, F. Xie, and Q. Jiang. 2020. “Design of cold-
rolled stainless steel rectangular hollow section columns.” J. Constr.
Steel Res. 170 (Jul): 106072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2020
.106072.
Ziemian, R. D. 2010. Guide to stability design criteria for metal structures.
6th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

© ASCE 04022139-14 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2022, 148(9): 04022139