Engineering Structures 286 (2023) 116128

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Experimental and numerical study of laser-welded stainless steel slender

I-section beam-columns
Hongdong Ran a, b, Zhanpeng Chen a, Yunmei Ma c, Eugene OBrien d, Yao Sun d, *
a
School of Civil Engineering, Xi’an University of Architecture and Technology, Xi’an 710055, China
b
Key Lab of Structural Engineering and Earthquake Resistance, Ministry of Education (XAUXT), Xi’an 710055, China
c
China Northwest Architecture Design and Research Institute Co., Ltd, Xi’an 710018, China
d
School of Civil Engineering, University College Dublin, Dublin D04 V1W8, Ireland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper reports on an experimental and numerical study on the structural behaviour and resistances of laser-
Beam-column test welded stainless steel slender I-section beam-columns under combined compression and minor-axis bending. A
Design code testing programme was firstly conducted, including imperfection measurements and sixteen beam-column tests.
Interaction curves
Following the testing programme, a numerical modelling programme was conducted, where finite-element
Laser-welded I-section
Slender
models were developed and validated. The validated finite-element models were then used to perform para­
Stainless steel metric studies to derive more numerical data. The obtained test and numerical data were employed to conduct an
in-depth design analysis, where the relevant interaction curves in the European and American standards for laser-
welded stainless steel slender I-section beam-columns were examined. The design analysis results indicate that
the European and American interaction curves lead to significant inaccuracies and scattering of the ultimate load
predictions, due to inappropriate bending end points. A new interaction curve is developed, anchored to a more
accurate bending end point. The new curve is shown to offer greatly improved design accuracy and consistency
over the current European and American curves.

1. Introduction
Stainless steel has been widely adopted in bridge engineering,
offshore engineering and other fields in recent years. This is due to its
desirable mechanical properties, in combination with excellent dura­
bility and corrosion resistance [1–3], which can significantly reduce the
need for inspection and maintenance work. As an advanced fabrication
technique, laser welding can minimise the input heat, which leads to
reduced heat affected zones and thus low residual stresses and thermal
distortions [4,5]. Consequently, laser welding, which is also highly
precise, is increasingly adopted for joining stainless steels to form
various welded built-up section profiles. Extensive research work on
laser-welded stainless steel components with different sections sub­
jected to different loading conditions has been performed, in order to
verify their structural behaviour, assess the applicability of codified
design provisions and develop improved design methods. A brief review
of previous experimental investigations is presented herein. Gardner
et al. [4] and Ran et al. [6] conducted stub column tests on laser-welded
stainless steel I-sections to investigate their local stability and
compressive resistances. Theofanous et al. [5] and Bu and Gardner [7]
performed in-plane bending tests on laser-welded stainless steel angle,
channel and I-section beams and studied their bending behaviour. Liang
et al. [8] and Ran et al. [9] experimentally investigated the local
buckling response of laser-welded stainless steel channel and I-sections
under combined loading. The global stability of laser-welded stainless
steel I- and angle section columns was examined by Gardner et al. [4],
Ran et al. [6] and Filipović et al. [10] through a series of pin-ended
column tests. Bu and Gardner [11] explored the structural perfor­
mance of laser-welded stainless steel non-slender I-section beam-
columns under minor-axis combined loading. The literature review
revealed that although comprehensive research into laser-welded
stainless steel structural members has been previously conducted, the
structural behaviour and load-carrying capacities of laser-welded
stainless steel slender I-section beam-columns remain unexplored, and
therefore the present study is initiated.
In this study, a testing programme was firstly conducted, involving
sixteen beam-column tests and complementary initial geometric
imperfection measurements. The experimentally obtained data were

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: yao.sun@ucd.ie (Y. Sun).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.116128
Received 17 January 2023; Received in revised form 29 March 2023; Accepted 5 April 2023
Available online 15 April 2023
0141-0296/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
H. Ran et al. Engineering Structures 286 (2023) 116128

analysed and used in a numerical modelling programme to develop and

validate finite-element (FE) models. Upon validation, the FE models
were used to carry out systematic parametric studies to generate more
numerical data. Based on the obtained test and numerical data, the
design interaction curves in the European code EN 1993-1-4 (EC3) [12]
and American specification AISC 370-21 (AISC) [13] for laser-welded
stainless steel slender I-section beam-columns were evaluated.
Inherent shortcomings are identified, and an improved interaction curve
developed.

2. Testing programme

2.1. General

A testing programme was firstly conducted to experimentally

investigate the structural behaviour and load-carrying capacities of
laser-welded stainless steel slender I-section beam-columns. Two
different I-sections, I-90 × 90 × 3 × 3 and I-120 × 90 × 3 × 3 were used
in this programme. They were fabricated through laser welding from EN
1.4301 austenitic stainless steel plates, with the welding procedures and
techniques following those given in EN ISO 13919-1 [14]. The two used
I-sections are classified as slender, based on the AISC and EC3 cross-
section classification frameworks [12,13], as reported in Table 1. The
detailed classification procedures have been previously described by the
authors [15]. Sixteen beam-column specimens were fabricated, with
eight specimens for each I-section. For each specimen, the geometric
sizes were measured, involving the specimen length L, the section outer
height h, the flange width b, the flange and web thicknesses tf and tw (see Fig. 1. Notations of laser-welded I-section.
Fig. 1), as presented in Table 2. Note that the identifier used for each
beam-column specimen consists of the cross-section label, the nominal predictive model reported in Gardner et al. [4] for laser-welded stainless
specimen length and a number to differentiate notionally identical steel I-sections, with the model pattern displayed in Fig. 3 and the dis­
specimens. Overall, the testing program comprised imperfection mea­ tribution parameters (a–d) given in Table 4.
surements and sixteen beam-column tests. Detailed descriptions of the
key observations and the adopted procedures and setups are provided in
the following sections. 2.3. Initial geometric imperfection measurements

Geometric imperfections may affect structural performance and are

2.2. Material testing and residual stress measurements
Material tensile coupon tests were conducted to obtain the material
properties of the austenitic stainless steel used. The test setup, proced­
ures and results have been reported in Ran et al. [6] and are briefly
summarised herein. Two material coupons were extracted longitudi­
nally from the original sheets, with their geometric sizes complying with
those specified in EN ISO 6892-1 [16], and then tested in a 300 kN
displacement-controlled testing machine. Fig. 2 gives the stress–strain
curves obtained from the material tensile coupon tests, while the key
material properties, involving the Young’s modulus E, the 0.2 % proof
strength fy, the 1.0 % proof strength f1.0, the ultimate strength fu, the
strain corresponding to the ultimate strength εu, the fracture strain εf,
and the R–O parameters n and m1.0 (derived based on the analytical
expressions in [17–19]), are averaged and summarised in Table 3.
Following the material tensile coupon tests, the residual stresses in the
laser-welded stainless steel I-sections were measured through the
sectioning method. This has been extensively employed in previous
relevant residual stress measurements [4,20–22], with the detailed
procedures and results presented in Ran et al. [6]. The measured re­
sidual stress data were found to be well captured by the residual stress
an inevitable feature of steel thin-walled components. Measurements of
initial global geometric imperfections were therefore conducted on the
sixteen beam-column specimens, adopting the measurement setup and
procedures similar to those used in previous global imperfection mea­
surements [4,6,23–25]. Fig. 4 shows the measurement setup, where a
specimen is fixed on the moving bench of a milling machine by a vice
and a percentage gauge with 0.01 mm precision is mounted tightly onto
the machine head, attached to the specimen web. The global imperfec­
tion measurements were carried out by moving the beam-column
specimen longitudinally through the fixed gauge, with readings at the
two ends and mid-height recorded. The amplitude of the mid-height
global geometric imperfection, ωg was taken as the deviation from the
data point monitored at mid-height relative to a reference line linking
the data points recorded at both ends, as reported in Table 2. The global
imperfection-to-member length ratios of the beam-column specimens,
ωg/L are also reported in Table 2, with the mean ratio of 1/2623. It is
worth noting that the common ωg/L ratio for a conventional welded I-
section member is around 1/1000 [26–28] while the ωg/L ratios of the
laser-welded I-section specimens are relatively lower. This has also been
reported in previous studies on laser-welded I-section members
[4,6,11]. It may be contributed to that laser welding is highly precise

Table 1
Cross-section classification of used I-sections.
Cross-section Plate slendernesses EC3 non-slender/slender limits EC3 classification AISC non-slender/slender limits AISC classification

Web Flange Web Flange Web Flange

I-90 × 90 × 3 × 3 28.0 14.5 32.9 12.5 Slender 31.3 10.3 Slender

I-120 × 90 × 3 × 3 38.0 14.5 32.9 12.5 Slender 31.3 10.3 Slender

2
H. Ran et al. Engineering Structures 286 (2023) 116128

Table 2
Geometric properties of laser-welded stainless steel slender I-section beam-column specimens.
Cross-section Specimen ID L (mm) h (mm) bf (mm) tw (mm) tf (mm) ωg (mm) ωg/L
I-90 × 90 × 3 × 3 I-90 × 90-720-1 718 89.3 90.1 2.76 2.80 0.31 1/2316
I-90 × 90-720-2 717 89.5 90.1 2.77 2.78 0.25 1/2868
I-90 × 90-720-3 717 89.4 90.2 2.76 2.83 0.30 1/2390
I-90 × 90-720-4 717 89.2 90.1 2.77 2.78 0.37 1/1938
I-90 × 90-1500-1 1497 89.3 90.1 2.78 2.77 0.60 1/2495
I-90 × 90-1500-2 1497 89.7 90.1 2.78 2.79 0.50 1/2994
I-90 × 90-1500-3 1499 89.2 90.2 2.76 2.77 0.64 1/2342
I-90 × 90-1500-4 1497 89.7 90.2 2.75 2.80 0.72 1/2079
I-120 × 90 × 3 × 3 I-120 × 90-700-1 700 119.2 90.2 2.75 2.78 0.21 1/3333
I-120 × 90-700-2 699 119.2 90.1 2.79 2.81 0.19 1/3679
I-120 × 90-700-3 698 119.8 90.2 2.78 2.78 0.34 1/2053
I-120 × 90-700-4 703 119.9 90.1 2.78 2.79 0.28 1/2511
I-120 × 90-1400-1 1398 119.8 90.2 2.80 2.78 0.62 1/2255
I-120 × 90-1400-2 1398 120.2 90.1 2.78 2.82 0.42 1/3329
I-120 × 90-1400-3 1399 119.2 90.2 2.80 2.87 0.58 1/2412
I-120 × 90-1400-4 1398 119.0 90.0 2.77 2.86 0.47 1/2974

Fig. 2. Measured stress–strain curves [6].

Table 3
Key measured material properties. Fig. 3. Residual stress predictive model for laser-welded stainless steel I-sec­
tions [4].
E fy f1.0 fu εu εf R–O coefficients

(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (%) (%) n m1.0

189,000 297 349 704 37.7 60.0 5.3 2.9 Table 4

Membrane residual stress predictive model for laser-welded stainless steel I-
sections [4].
and thus results in less imperfection during the welding process [4,11]. fft = fwt ffc = fwc a b c d
(tension) (compression)

2.4. Beam-column tests 0.5fy From equilibrium 0.1bf 0.075bf 0.0375hw 0.1hw

Beam-column tests were performed on the sixteen specimens with

member alignment. Then, each specimen was tightly fixed to the rocker
bending about the minor axis, in order to investigate their structural
supports through bolting. Note that the distance between the rocker
behaviour and load-carrying capacities under minor-axis combined
support and the specimen end is 86 mm (see Fig. 5), leading to the
loading. All the beam-column tests were conducted in a testing machine,
effective member length Le = L + 172 mm.
which applied eccentric compression forces to the specimen ends. The
Fig. 5 shows the main instrumentation used in the beam-column
adopted initial loading eccentricities varied from 0.5 mm to 80 mm and
tests, involving five LVDTs and four strain gauges. The strain gauges
thus an extensive variety of loading combinations were considered in the
were affixed to the exterior faces of the two flanges at the specimen mid-
tests. Pin-ended boundary conditions were applied to each test spec­
height to measure the corresponding longitudinal strains. Four LVDTs
imen; this was achieved through the employment of two rocker sup­
(LVDT-1 – LVDT-4) were used to measure the end rotations, while one
ports, which were mounted at the two ends of the testing machine, as
LVDT (LVDT-5) was attached to the specimen mid-height to record the
shown in Fig. 5. Before testing, each specimen was firstly placed be­
corresponding lateral deflection. A loading rate of 0.15 mm/min was
tween the top and bottom rocker supports, their relative position
used to drive the testing machine to eccentrically compress each test
adjusted to achieve the prespecified loading eccentricity and proper

3
H. Ran et al.
Fig. 4. Geometric imperfection measurement setup.
specimen. The LVDT and strain gauge readings were used to determine
the actual initial loading eccentricity, e0 of each beam-column specimen,
according to Eq. (1) [11], where N is the eccentric compression load, Iz is
the second moment of area about the minor axis, ε1, ε2, ε3 and ε4 are the
longitudinal strains obtained from strain gauges SG-1, SG-2, SG-3 and
SG-4, respectively, ds is the distance from the strain gauge centreline to
the adjacent flange edge, and Δ is the mid-height lateral deflection
monitored with LVDT-5. Given that Eq. (1) was derived based on an
assumption that the specimens are linear elastic, it is suggested that the
eccentric compression loads, N used in the calculation of e0 may be less
than 15 % of the estimated ultimate loads [11,24].
Fig. 5. Beam-column test setup.
4
Engineering Structures 286 (2023) 116128
EIz (ε1 + ε2 − ε3 − ε4 )
e0 = ( ) − Δ − ωg (1)
N bf − 2ds
The failure modes of the tested beam-column specimens are dis­
played in Fig. 6. They exhibit significant local–global interactive buck­
ling, coupled with overall flexural deformation about the minor axis.
Fig. 7 presents the full load versus mid-height lateral deflection re­
sponses for the sixteen beam-column specimens, grouped by specimen
cross-section size and length. Finally, Table 5 presents the key test re­
sults, involving the ultimate loads Nu, the corresponding mid-height
lateral deflections Δu, and the corresponding mid-height first-order
elastic and second-order inelastic bending moments Mu,1st = Nu(e0 + ωg)
and Mu,2nd = Nu(e0 + ωg + Δu). As can be seen from Fig. 7 and Table 5,
within each specimen group, the beam-columns with greater initial
loading eccentricities have lower ultimate loads but greater lateral de­
flections at mid-height, due to the increased effect of minor-axis bending
moment.
3. Numerical modelling programme
3.1. General
In order to supplement the testing programme and expand the ob­
tained data pool, a numerical modelling programme was performed
using the ABAQUS FE package [29]. FE models on laser-welded stainless
steel slender I-section beam-column specimens under combined loading
were developed and validated against the obtained test results. Upon
validation, the developed FE models were used to carry out parametric
studies to generate additional numerical data over a wide range of cross-
sectional dimensions, member lengths and loading combinations.
H. Ran et al. Engineering Structures 286 (2023) 116128

steel members [6–9,11,21,24,25,30,31] and was thus used herein. Based

on a prior study on the mesh sensitivity, the element size was selected as
t, which was found to (i) enable accurate modelling of residual stresses
and (ii) lead to appropriate computational accuracy and efficiency.
Regarding the material modelling, the engineering stress–strain
response, as obtained from the material testing on tensile coupon #1,
was converted into the true stress–strain response [5,6] and afterwards
assigned to the FE models. Since residual stresses may affect the
behaviour of thin-walled steel components, they were incorporated into
the FE models through the command of ‘INITIAL CONDITION’ in
ABAQUS [29], with their patterns and amplitudes derived from the
predictive model shown in Fig. 3. Fig. 8 shows the residual stresses
included in the numerically modelled specimen, I-120 × 90-700-1.
The pin-ended boundary conditions adopted in the beam-column
tests were accurately represented in the FE models. Specifically, each
end section of the numerical models was coupled to one reference point.
Each reference point was located (i) longitudinally at a distance of 86
mm away from the corresponding end section and (ii) with the eccen­
tricity of the corresponding measured e0 to the minor axis. The top
reference point can translate longitudinally and rotate about the minor
axis, while the bottom reference point only has the rotation about the
Fig. 6. Failure modes of laser-welded stainless steel I-section beam-
minor axis – see Fig. 8. Initial global geometric imperfections were also
column specimens.
incorporated into each beam-column FE model, with the distribution
profile given as the lowest global buckling mode acquired from an
3.2. Development and validation of FE models
elastic eigenvalue analysis and factored by the corresponding measured
imperfection amplitude.
As provided in the ABAQUS element library [29], the ‘S4R’ shell
Once the FE models were developed, the materially and
element has been extensively used to simulate various types of stainless

Fig. 7. Test and FE load–mid-height deflection curves.

5
H. Ran et al. Engineering Structures 286 (2023) 116128

Table 5 ultimate loads the experimentally obtained failure modes were also
Key beam-column test results. found to be accurately simulated by the FE models, as depicted in Fig. 9
Cross- Specimen ID e0 Nu Δu Mu,1st,el Mu,2nd,inel for two typical specimens. Overall, the developed FE models were shown
section (mm) (kN) (mm) (kNm) (kNm) to simulate well the performance of laser-welded stainless steel slender
I-90 × 90 I-90 × 90- 0.2 173.8 4.2 0.1 0.8 I-section beam-columns under minor-axis combined loading and were
×3×3 720-1 therefore demonstrated to be validated.
I-90 × 90- 23.3 83.9 10.4 2.0 2.8
720-2 3.3. Parametric studies
I-90 × 90- 43.5 57.6 11.7 2.5 3.1
720-3
I-90 × 90- 72.0 36.7 12.6 2.7 3.2 Upon validation of the FE models, systematic parametric studies
720-4 were conducted to expand the data bank over a broader range of cross-
I-90 × 90- 0.5 117.1 14.1 0.1 1.8 sectional dimensions, member lengths and loading combinations,
1500-1
beyond those examined in the testing programme. For the modelled I-
I-90 × 90- 15.1 69.5 21.9 1.1 2.6
1500-2 sections, their geometric dimensions were selected carefully to ensure
I-90 × 90- 40.8 42.3 28.3 1.8 3.0 that they are categorised as slender I-sections according to both the EC3
1500-3 and AISC cross-section classification frameworks [12,13]. Specifically,
I-90 × 90- 64.8 32.1 35.8 2.1 3.3 the outer section heights ranged from 120 and 240 mm, the flange
1500-4
I-120 × 90 I-120 × 90- 0.6 187.1 3.2 0.2 0.8
widths from 60 to 120 mm and the thicknesses from 2 to 4 mm, enabling
×3×3 700-1 an extensive spectrum of cross-sectional geometries and aspect ratios to
I-120 × 90- 23.8 94.6 9.4 2.3 3.2 be examined. The effective model length fell within the range of 600 to
700-2 5800 mm, resulting in a variety of member slendernesses. Many loading
I-120 × 90- 48.3 54.2 11.4 2.6 3.3
combinations were also considered, with initial loading eccentricities
700-3
I-120 × 90- 81.4 34.5 12.9 2.8 3.3 varied from 0.5 to 100 mm. All modelled beam-columns were developed
700-4 using the aforementioned modelling techniques, procedures and as­
I-120 × 90- 0.6 127.0 11.3 0.2 1.6 sumptions. Note that the engineering stress–strain response measured
1400-1 from the material test on coupon #1 (see Fig. 1) was converted into the
I-120 × 90- 28.1 58.4 24.8 1.7 3.0
1400-2
true stress–strain response and then used in the parametric studies. In
I-120 × 90- 51.4 39.7 26.2 2.1 3.1 total, numerical data for 624 laser-welded stainless steel slender I-sec­
1400-3 tion beam-columns were derived through parametric studies.
I-120 × 90- 67.5 32.2 29.6 2.2 3.1
1400-4
4. Design analysis

geometrically nonlinear ‘Static, Riks’ analysis was used to derive the
numerical results, including numerical failure modes and loads as well
as load–mid-height lateral deflection curves. The accuracy of the nu­
merical results from the FE models was evaluated through comparison
with the test results. Graphical comparisons between the test and nu­
merical load–mid-height deflection curves for the tested sixteen beam-
column specimens are displayed in Fig. 7, where the test curves are
found to be well captured by their FE counterparts. The mean test-to-FE
ultimate load ratio is equal to 1.01, demonstrating that the developed FE
models can provide good predictions of the ultimate loads. In addition to
the good agreements between the test and FE load–deflection curves and
4.1. General
Based on the testing and numerical modelling programme, an in-
depth design analysis is conducted in this section. The design interac­
tion curves given in EN 1993-1-4 [12] and AISC 370-21 [13] for laser-
welded stainless steel slender I-section beam-columns under minor-
axis combined loading are firstly described, and their applicability
assessed using the experimental and numerical data. The shortcomings
of the EC3 and AISC interaction curves are highlighted and discussed,
and an improved approach is devised. The quantitative assessments of
the two considered design standards [12,13] and the new proposal are
presented in Table 6, where the mean test/FE-to-predicted ultimate load

Fig. 8. Residual stresses (in MPa) and boundary conditions for modelled specimen I-120 × 90-700-1.

6
H. Ran et al. Engineering Structures 286 (2023) 116128

Fig. 9. Test and FE failure modes of typical beam-column specimens.

ratios Nu/Nu,pred, and their COVs are reported. Figs. 10–12 give the
graphical assessment results, with the test and numerical results plotted
against the angular parameter, θ = tan–1[(Nu,pred/NR)/(Mu,pred/MR)],
where MR and NR are the member resistances under pure bending and
pure compression, respectively. The corresponding predicted values are
Nu,pred and Mu,pred, respectively. As illustrated in Fig. 13, θ reflects the
relative magnitudes of minor-axis bending and compression load. Note
that the applied loading changes from pure bending to pure compression
as the angular parameter θ varies from 0◦ to 90◦ .

4.2. EN 1993-1-4

EN 1993-1-4 [12] is a European code established specifically for

stainless steel structures. For stainless steel I-section beam-columns
under minor-axis combined loading, the interaction curve utilized in
EN 1993-1-4 [12] is expressed by Eq. (2). The notation used in this
equation is as follows: Nb is the I-section column buckling resistance
about the minor axis, which can be calculated using the EC3 column
buckling curve with the limiting slenderness, λ0 = 0.20 and the imper­ Fig. 10. Comparison of test/FE ultimate loads with EC3 predicted ulti­
fection factor, α = 0.60 in combination with the EC3 effective width mate loads.
method. Meff,z is the effective minor-axis bending resistance, determined
based on the EC3 effective width method. The interaction factor, kz calculated from Eq. (3), where λz,EC3 is the EC3 member slenderness and
considers the interaction between compression and bending, and is can be derived from Eq. (4), in which Aeff,EC3 is the cross-sectional
effective area, which can be calculated based on the EC3 effective
Table 6 width method.
Comparisons of test/FE ultimate loads with predicted ultimate loads.
Nu,pred Mu,pred
(a) EN 1993-1-4 [12] + kz =1 (2)
Nb Meff ,z
Test data FE data Nu/Nu,pred
( ) Nu,pred 1.96Nu,pred
Mean COV kz = 1 + 2.8 λz,EC3 − 0.5 ⩽1 + (3)
Nb Nb
16 624 1.20 0.10
(b) AISC 370-21 [13] √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
Aeff ,EC3 fy L2e
Test data FE data Nu/Nu,pred λz,EC3 = (4)
π2 EIz
Mean COV

16 624 1.23 0.18 The quantitative assessment results, including the mean ultimate
(c) New proposal load ratio Nu/Nu,pred and its COV, are reported in Table 6(a), with the
Test data FE data Nu/Nu,pred
variation of the ratio with θ shown in Fig. 10. It can be seen from the
figure that the EC3 interaction curve yields scattered and highly con­
Mean COV
servative ultimate load predictions for laser-welded stainless steel
16 624 1.07 0.06 slender I-section beam-columns. In this case, there is a strong correlation

7
H. Ran et al. Engineering Structures 286 (2023) 116128

Fig. 11. Comparison of test/FE ultimate loads with AISC predicted ulti­
mate loads.

Fig. 13. Definition of θ.

Fig. 12. Comparison of test/FE ultimate loads with new proposal ulti­
mate loads.

between the EC3-inferred results and θ, with much greater conservatism

associated with low values (dominance of bending). It can be seen from
Fig. 14 that the EC3 interaction curve results in significant conservatism Fig. 14. Comparison of test data with EC3 interaction curve.
and scatter for the sixteen beam-column specimens, mainly due to the
employment of the conservative bending end point [7]. It is worth accordance with Clause F6 of AISC 370-21 [13] for slender I-sections of
noting that the EC3 interaction curve in Fig. 14 is an average curve since different flange classes. α = 1/(1–Nu,pred/Ncr) is the amplification factor
the curve shape may change due to the variations in the values of kz for I- adopted in AISC 370-21 [13] to take into account the second-order ef­
section beam-columns with different member slendernesses. fects, in which Ncr = π 2EIz/Le2 is the Euler buckling resistance about the
minor axis.
⎧
4.3. AISC 370-21 ⎪ Nu,pred 8 αMu,pred Nu,pred
⎪
⎨ Nc + 9 Mc,z = 1 for Nc ⩾0.2
⎪
AISC 370-21 [13] is a recently developed national specification in (5)
⎪
⎪ Nu,pred αMu,pred Nu,pred
American for stainless steel structures, replacing the previous design ⎪
⎩ + =1 for < 0.2
2Nc Mc,z Nc
guide, AISC 27 [32]. For slender I-section beam-columns under minor-
axis combined loading, a bi-linear interaction curve is used in AISC ⎧ 2
⎪ fcr = fy for λz,AISC ⩽0.058
370-21 [13], as expressed by Eq. (5). The notation used in this equation ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ( 0.56 )
is as follows: Nc = Aeff,AISCfcr is the nominal compressive resistance of the ⎪
⎨
fcr = 1.2 0.409λz,AISC fy
2
for 0.058 < λz,AISC ⩽3.20
member, where Aeff,AISC is the AISC effective cross-sectional area based (6)
⎪
⎪
on reduced effective widths, according to Clause E7 of AISC 370-21 ⎪
⎪
⎪ 0.69σ0.2 2
⎪ fcr = 2
⎩ for λz,AISC > 3.20
[13], and fcr is the critical stress, as given by Eq. (6), in which λz,AISC is λz,AISC
the AISC member slenderness and can be derived from Eq. (7). Mc,z is the
nominal flexural resistance of the member, which can be calculated in

8
H. Ran et al. Engineering Structures 286 (2023) 116128

√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
maximum attainable compressive strain is taken as the yield strain
Aeff ,AISC fy L2e
λz,AISC = (7) multiplied by a coefficient Cy = 3 and (ii) the plastic compressive region
π2 EIz
is at a distance of ecc = 0.225bf from the web centreline, with the region
Based on the test and FE data, the applicability of the AISC interac­ width, be determined from Eq. (9). The location of the neutral axis can be
tion curve for laser-welded stainless steel I-section beam-columns is then determined from equilibrium, and is given by Eq. (10). The effec­
assessed. A quantitative assessment is firstly carried out, with the results, tive minor-axis bending capacity Mp,eff,z can then be calculated by
including the mean test/FE-to-predicted ultimate load ratio Nu/Nu,pred integrating the stress distribution, as given by Eqs. (11)–(16). It is worth
and its COV, given in Table 6(b). The results show a significant under- noting that the notation used in Eqs (10)–(16) is illustrated graphically
estimation of the mean capacity and considerable inconsistency. in Fig. 16.
Fig. 11 shows that the conservatism tends to be greater at lower θ values,
(9)
− 0.75
i.e. when bending is more dominant. Moreover, the AISC interaction be = 0.2bf λp
curve is also plotted together with the test data in Fig. 15. The graphical [( / ) ( / )] / ( ) /
assessment evidently demonstrates that the AISC interaction curve 2be tf bf − be 2 − bf 2 − be − ecc + b2f tf 4 + h − 2tf tw bf 2
yields rather conservative and scattered ultimate load predictions for xp = ( )
2be tf + bf tf + h − 2tf tw
laser-welded stainless steel slender I-section beam-columns.
(10)

4.4. New proposal (

be
) (
bp
)
2 2 (
Mp,eff ,z = 2be tf fy ecc + + c + 2bp tf fy xp − + b2g fy tf + c2 fw tf + h
2 2 3 3
The results presented in Section 4.2 show that the EC3 design )
− 2tf tw fw c
interaction curve for laser-welded stainless steel slender I-section beam-
columns adopts an accurate compression end point [6] but a conserva­ (11)
tive bending end point [7]. To address the inherent conservatism, an
where
improved design approach is proposed by employing a more accurate
bending end point. As highlighted in previous studies on the behaviour bp = xp − bg (12)
of slender steel I-sections under minor-axis bending [33,34], it is /
incorrect to assume a linear elastic stress distribution within the slender bg = εy K (13)
outstand flanges – plasticity can develop in both compressive and tensile
parts. The plastic effective width approach [33] was developed to K=
Cy εy
(14)
consider the plastic reserve capacity of slender steel I-sections under 0.5bf − xp + ecc + be
minor-axis bending, and has been proven to yield accurate bending /
capacity predictions when applied to stainless steel slender I-sections in c = bf 2 − bg − bp (15)
minor-axis bending [34]. Therefore, the plastic effective width approach
is ideal for determining the new minor-axis bending end points. The new fw = cKE (16)
interaction curve is given by Eq. (8), in which Mp,eff,z is the effective The accuracy and consistency of the new interaction curve are
minor-axis bending capacity determined by the plastic effective width assessed with reference to the experimental and numerical data. Table 6
method, while Nb is the EC3 column buckling resistance, same as that in (c) summarises the quantitative assessment results, comprising the mean
Eq. (2). test/FE-to-predicted ultimate load ratio Nu/Nu,pred and the correspond­
Nu,pred Mu,pred ing COV. It is evident that the new interaction curve offers improved
+ kz =1 (8) design accuracy and consistency over the EC3 and AISC curves. This can
Nb Mp,eff ,z
also be observed in Fig. 12. The new interaction curve is considered to be
In the calculation of Mp,eff,z, the plastic effective width method de­ capable of consistently offering accurate ultimate load predictions.
termines the effective cross-section based on the strain and stress dis­ The reliability of the new design interaction curve when applied to
tributions depicted in Fig. 16 [33,34]. It is assumed that (i) the laser-welded stainless steel slender I-section beam columns under
minor-axis combined loading was assessed herein, according to the re­
quirements and procedures given in EN 1990 [35]. In the present reli­
ability analysis, the material over-strength ratio for austenitic stainless
steel and the corresponding COV were taken as 1.3 and 0.06, respec­
tively, and the COV of the geometric properties of stainless steel cross-
sections was taken as 0.05, following the recommendations of Afshan
et al. [36]. The key statistical parameters calculated according to EN
1990 [35] are presented in Table 7, where kd,n is the design (ultimate
limit state) fractile factor, br is the mean ratio of the test and numerical
to design model resistances, Vδ is the COV of the test and numerical
resistances relative to the resistance model, Vr is the combined COV
incorporating both model and basic variable uncertainties, and γ M1 is the
partial safety factor. The resulting (required) partial safety factor for the
EC3 design rules, as reported in Table 7, is equal to 0.99, less than the
currently used value of 1.1 in EN 1993-1-4 [12], therefore demon­
strating the reliability of the new design method when applied to laser-
welded stainless steel slender I-section beam-columns under minor-axis
combined loading.

5. Conclusions

The structural behaviour and resistances of laser-welded stainless

Fig. 15. Comparison of test data with AISC interaction curve.

9
H. Ran et al.
Fig. 16. Strain and stress distributions in slender flanges.
Table 7
Reliability analysis results for new proposal according to EN 1990 [35].
No. of test and FE data kd,n br Vδ Vr
640 3.14 1.06 0.06 0.10
steel slender I-section beam-columns under combined compression and
minor-axis bending have been investigated through experimental and
numerical studies. A testing programme, involving sixteen beam-column
tests and supplementary initial geometric imperfection measurements,
was firstly conducted. The testing programme was complemented by
numerical modelling, with FE models developed and validated with
reference to the test results. Upon validation, the FE models were
adopted to conduct parametric studies to generate additional data over a
wide range of cross-sectional dimensions, member lengths and loading
combinations. The test and numerical data were adopted to assess the
design interaction curves set out in EN 1993-1-4 [12] and AISC 370-21
[13]. The results show that the codified interaction curves yield con­
servative and greatly scattered predictions of ultimate loads, mainly
owing to the use of conservative bending end points. A new interaction
curve is proposed that uses a more accurate bending end point. The new
interaction curve is found to be capable of yielding more accurate and
consistent ultimate load predictions than its EN 1993-1-4 and AISC 370-
21 counterparts.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Hongdong Ran: Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Re­
sources, Writing – original draft. Zhanpeng Chen: Formal analysis,
Investigation, Methodology, Resources. Yunmei Ma: Formal analysis,
Investigation, Resources. Eugene OBrien: Formal analysis, Investiga­
tion, Writing – review & editing. Yao Sun: Conceptualization, Formal
analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Resources,
Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Engineering Structures 286 (2023) 116128
References
[1] Gardner L. The use of stainless steel in structures. Prog Struct Eng Mater 2005;7(2):
γM1 45–55.
[2] Soufeiani L, Foliente G, Nguyen KTQ, Nicolas RS. Corrosion protection of steel
0.99 elements in façade systems–A review. J Build Eng 2020;32:101759.
[3] Sun Y, Liu Z, Liang Y, Zhao O. Experimental and numerical investigations of hot-
rolled austenitic stainless steel equal-leg angle sections. Thin-Walled Struct 2019;
144:106225.
[4] Gardner L, Bu Y, Theofanous M. Laser-welded stainless steel I-sections: Residual
stress measurements and column buckling tests. Eng Struct 2016;127:536–48.
[5] Theofanous M, Liew A, Gardner L. Experimental study of stainless steel angles and
channels in bending. Structures 2015;4:80–90.
[6] Ran H, Chen Z, Ma Y. Experimental and numerical studies of laser-welded slender
stainless steel I-section columns. Thin-Walled Struct 2022;171:108832.
[7] Bu Y, Gardner L. Local stability of laser-welded stainless steel I-sections in bending.
J Constr Steel Res 2018;148:49–64.
[8] Liang Y, Zhao O, Long Y, Gardner L. Stainless steel channel sections under
combined compression and minor axis bending – Part 1: Experimental study and
numerical modelling. J Constr Steel Res 2019;152:154–61.
[9] Ran H, Chen Z, Ma Y, Di Sarno L, Sun Y. Local stability of laser-welded stainless
steel slender I-sections under combined loading. J Constr Steel Res 2023;200:
107649.
[10] Filipović A, Dobrić J, Buđevac D, Fric N, Baddoo N. Experimental study of laser-
welded stainless steel angle columns. Thin-Walled Struct 2021;164:107777.
[11] Bu Y, Gardner L. Laser-welded stainless steel I-sections beam-columns: Testing,
simulation and design. Eng Struct 2019;179:23–36.
[12] prEN 1993-1-4:2021, Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures — Part 1-4: General
Rules – Supplementary Rules for Stainless Steels, European Committee for
Standardization (CEN), Brussels, 2021.
[13] ANSI/AISC 370-21, Specification for Structural Stainless Steel Buildings, American
Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), 2021.
[14] ISO 13919-1:2019, Electron and laser-beam welded joints – Requirements and
recommendations on quality levels for imperfections – Part 1: Steel, nickel,
titanium and their alloys, European Committee for Standardization (CEN),
Brussels, 2019.
[15] Sun Y, Zhao O. Material response and local stability of high-chromium stainless
steel welded I-sections. Eng Struct 2019;178:212–26.
[16] EN ISO 6892-1: 2016, Metallic materials: Tensile Testing – Part 1: Method of Test
at Room Temperature, European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels,
2016.
[17] W. Ramberg, W.R. Osgood, Description of stress–strain curves by three parameters,
Natl. Adv. Commit. Aeronau. (NACA), Techn. note, 902 (1943), Washington.
[18] Rasmussen KJR. Full-range stress–strain curves for stainless steel alloys. J Constr
Steel Res 2003;59(1):47–61.
[19] Arrayago I, Real E, Gardner L. Description of stress–strain curves for stainless steel
alloys. Mater Des 2015;87:540–52.
[20] Ziemian RD. Guide to stability design criteria for metal structures. 6th ed. John
Wiley & Sons; 2010.
[21] Yuan HX, Wang YQ, Shi YJ, Gardner L. Stub column tests on stainless steel built-up
sections. Thin-Walled Struct 2014;83:103–14.
[22] Sun Y, Liang Y, Zhao O. Testing, numerical modelling and design of S690 high
strength steel welded I-section stub columns. J Constr Steel Res 2019;159:521–33.
[23] Schafer B, Peköz T. Computational modeling of cold-formed steel: characterizing
geometric imperfections and residual stresses. J Constr Steel Res 1998;47(3):
193–210.
[24] Sun Y, Jiang K, Liang Y, Zhao O. Experimental and numerical studies of high-
chromium stainless steel welded I-section beam-columns. Eng Struct 2021;236:
112065.
[25] H. Ran, L. Jian, Y. Ma, Y. Sun. Behavior of stainless-steel hot-rolled channel section
beam-columns: Testing, modeling, and design, J. Struct. Eng. (ASCE), 149(2),
04022247.
10
H. Ran et al.
[26] Rasmussen KJR, Hancock GJ. Tests of high strength steel columns. J Constr Steel
Res 1995;34(1):27–52.
[27] Sun Y, He A, Liang Y, Zhao O. Flexural buckling behaviour of high-chromium
stainless steel welded I-section columns. Thin-Walled Struct 2020;154:106812.
[28] Yun X, Zhu Y, Meng X, Gardner L. Welded steel I-section columns: residual stresses,
testing, simulation and design. Eng Struct 2023;282:115631.
[29] Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc. ABAQUS/Standard user’s Manual Volumes I-III
and ABAQUS CAE Manual, Version 6.14, Pawtucket (USA); 2014.
[30] Sun Y, Liang Y, Zhao O. Local–flexural interactive buckling behaviour and
resistances of high-chromium stainless steel slender welded I-section columns. Eng
Struct 2020;220:111022.
11
Engineering Structures 286 (2023) 116128
[31] Sun Y, Liang Y, Zhao O, Young B. Cross-sectional behavior of austenitic stainless
steel welded I-sections under major-axis combined loading. J Struct Eng (ASCE)
2021;147(12):04021202.
[32] AISC Design Guide 27: Structural Stainless Steel, American Institute of Steel
Construction (AISC), 2013.
[33] Bambach MR, Rasmussen KJ, Ungureanu V. Inelastic behaviour and design of
slender I-sections in minor axis bending. J Constr Steel Res 2007;63(1):1–12.
[34] Gkantou M, Bock M, Theofanous M. Design of stainless steel cross-sections with
outstand elements under stress gradients. J Constr Steel Res 2021;179:106491.
[35] EN 1990:2002+A1:2005, Eurocode – Basis of structural design, European
Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, 2005.
[36] Afshan S, Francis P, Baddoo NR, Gardner L. Reliability analysis of structural
stainless steel design provisions. J Constr Steel Res 2015;114:293–304.