2.

INSTABILITY OF BARS

Chapter 2

INSTABILITY OF BARS

2.1. TORSION

Generally, torsion is avoided in structural metal (steel or aluminium alloy) members.

There are basically two types of torsion:
• St. Venant torsion (torsiunea cu deplanare liberă);
• warping torsion (torsiunea cu deplanare împiedicată).

As a simplification, in the case of a member with a closed hollow cross-section, such

as a structural hollow section, it may be assumed that the effects of torsional warping
can be neglected; similarly, in the case of a member with open cross section, such
as I or H, it may be assumed that the effects of St. Venant torsion can be neglected.

2.1.1. St. Venant torsion

It occurs when all the following assumptions are accomplished (Fig. 2.1):
• the torsion moment is constant along the bar;
• the area of the cross-section is constant along the bar;
• there are no connections at the ends or along the bar that could prevent
warping.

the flanges remain rectangles

Fig. 2.1. St. Venant torsion

19
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

2.1.1.1. Stress and strain state

The following aspects can be noticed:

• there is no increase or reduction of the length of the fibres (as there is no
longitudinal force):
ε x = 0 → σx = 0 (2.1)
• warping (deplanarea) of the cross-section is a result of the assumption εx = 0
(in order to keep the geometry);

T Ed = ∫ τ × r ⋅ dA (2.2)
A

Fig. 2.2. St. Venant torsion – stress state

• each cross-section rotates like a rigid disk (it goes out of plane but the shape
does not change);
• the rotation between neighbour cross-section is the same along the bar.
dϕ
θ= = const. (2.3)
dx

2.1.2. Warping torsion

It occurs anytime when at least one of the St. Venant assumptions is not fulfilled
(Fig. 2.3).

20
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

Fig. 2.3. Warping torsion

2.1.2.1. Stress and strain state

The following aspects can be noticed:

• there are longitudinal stresses and strains (Fig. 2.4):
εx ≠ 0 → σx ≠ 0 → σw; τw (2.4)
• the rotation between neighbour cross-section is variable along the bar.
dϕ
θ= ≠ const. (2.5)
dx

Fig. 2.4. Warping torsion – stress state

21
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

2.1.2.2. Equilibrium equations

The following aspects can be noticed:

• there is no axial force acting on the bar:

∑X Ed ,i = 0 ⇒ N Ed = 0 ⇒ ∫ σ w dA = 0 (2.6)
A

• there are no bending moments acting on the bar:

∑M y , Ed ,i = 0 ⇒ M y, Ed = 0 ⇒ ∫ σ w ⋅ zdA = 0 (2.7)
A

∑M z , Ed ,i = 0 ⇒ M z , Ed = 0 ⇒ ∫ σ w ⋅ ydA = 0 (2.8)
A

• in each cross-section, the torsion moment is the sum of the St. Venant
component and the warping component (Fig. 2.5):

TEd = ∫ τ ⋅ r ⋅ dA + Vw ⋅ h e = 0 (2.9)
A

TEd = Tt , Ed + Tw , Ed (2.10)

where:
Tt,Ed – the internal St. Venant torsion;
Tw,Ed – the internal warping torsion.

Fig. 2.5. St. Venant torsion and warping torsion

2.1.3. Torsion and bending

2.1.3.1. Bi-symmetrical cross-section subject to bending moment and shear force

22
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

The force F, acting in the plane xOz, generates only bending moment about the y – y
axis (and shear force) and no torsion moment, as the resultant forces Vw on the
flanges are balanced (Fig. 2.6).

Fig. 2.6. Shear stresses in a bisymmetrical cross-section in bending

2.1.3.2. Mono-symmetrical cross-section subject to bending moment and shear force

A force F, acting in the plane xOz in the centre of gravity of a mono-symmetrical

cross-section, generates not only bending moment about the y – y axis (and shear
force) but torsion moment too (Fig. 2.7).

Fig. 2.7. Shear stresses for force acting in the centre of gravity

TEd = Ff ⋅ h e + Fw ⋅ e (2.11)

The shear centre (centrul de tăiere, centrul de încovoiere-răsucire) is the point

through which the applied loads must pass to produce bending without twisting. A
force F, acting in the plane xOz in the shear centre of a mono-symmetrical cross-
section, generates only bending moment about the y – y axis (and shear force) and
no torsion moment (Fig. 2.8).

23
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

Fig. 2.8. Shear stresses for force acting in the shear centre

TEd = VEd ⋅ c (2.12)

VEd ⋅ c = Ff ⋅ h e + Fw ⋅ e (2.13)

Ff ⋅ h e + Fw ⋅ e
c= (2.14)
VEd

Ff
Notations: α= ; Fw = VEd (2.15)
VEd
α ⋅ VEd ⋅ h e + VEd ⋅ e
c= (2.16)
VEd

c = α ⋅ he + e (2.17)

F acting in the centre of gravity F acting in the shear centre

Fig. 2.9. Effects of a force acting in or outside of the shear centre

24
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

2.1.4. Torsion – calculation

2.1.4.1. St. Venant torsion

The case of open cross-sections

a) Rectangular cross-section
t TEd ⋅ t
τ max = t = minimum edge (2.18)
IT

1
b IT = ⋅ b ⋅ t3 (2.19)
3
dϕ T
θ= = ϕ′ = Ed = const. (2.20)
dx G ⋅ IT

TEd = G ⋅ I T ⋅ ϕ′ (2.21)

b) Cross-section made of several rectangles

Rigid disk assumptions (simplifying assumptions):
1. each cross-section rotates one about the other;
1
2. the rotation varies from one cross-section to the other but it is constant
i for all the points on the same cross-section; the cross-section does not

n change its shape in plane but it can go out of plane;

3. the rotation occurs around an axis parallel to the axis of the bar.
As a result of assumption 2,
n

TEd ,1 TEd ,n ∑T Ed ,i
TEd
θ= = ... = = i
= (2.22)
G ⋅ I T ,1 G ⋅ I T ,n n
G ⋅ IT
G ⋅ ∑ I T ,i
1

1 n
I T = ⋅ ∑ b i ⋅ t 3i (2.23)
3 1
Remark: For hot-rolled shapes,
α n
IT = ⋅ ∑ b i ⋅ t 3i α = 1,1 … 1,3 (2.24)
3 1
TEd ⋅ t max
τ max = tmax = maximum thickness (2.25)
IT

TEd = G ⋅ I T ⋅ ϕ′ (2.26)

25
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

The case of hollow sections (Fig. 2.10)

TEd = Va ⋅ b + Vb ⋅ a (2.27)

Fig. 2.10. Torsion of hollow sections

It is accepted that: (Bredt relation)

TEd
Va ⋅ b = Vb ⋅ a = (2.28)
2
TEd T
Va = ; Vb = Ed (2.29)
2⋅b 2⋅a
Va TEd
τa = = (2.30)
a ⋅ ta 2 ⋅ b ⋅ a ⋅ ta
Vb TEd
τb = = (2.31)
b ⋅ tb 2 ⋅ a ⋅ b ⋅ tb
TEd
τ max = (2.32)
2 ⋅ A ⋅ t min

2.1.4.2. Warping torsion

An exact calculation would consider the bar as a sum of shells (Fig. 2.11).

Fig. 2.11. Shell modelling of a bar in torsion

26
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

In daily practice a simplified approach is used, based on the Vlasov theory. The
simplifying assumptions are the following ones:
1. rigid disk behaviour:
• each cross-section rotates one about the other;
• the rotation varies from one cross-section to the other but it is constant
for all the points on the same cross-section;
• the rotation occurs around an axis parallel to the axis of the bar (Fig.
2.12);

Fig. 2.12. Axis of rotation of the bar

2. the shear deformations are zero in the mid-line of the cross-section (Fig.
2.13);

mid-line

Fig. 2.13. Mid-line of the cross-section

3. σw and τw are constant on the thickness of the cross-section, because it is

thin (the mid-line is representative for the cross-section);
4. when calculating σw, it is assumed that τw = 0.

27
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

Based on these assumptions, the cross-section of the bar is reduced to its mid-line
(Fig. 2.14) and the following relations can be written between in-plane strains and
longitudinal ones (Fig. 2.15), considering rotation around point C:
nn ' = dv (2.33)
du dv
= (2.34)
ds dx
nn' = nn ′′ ⋅ cos α (2.35)
dv = nn ' = nn ′′ ⋅ cos α (2.36)

mid-line

Fig. 2.14. Mid-surface of the member

nn ′′ = Cn ⋅ dϕ (2.37)
dv = nn ' = Cn ⋅ dϕ ⋅ cos α (2.38)
r = Cn ⋅ cos α (2.39)
dv = r ⋅ dϕ (2.40)
du r ⋅ dϕ dϕ
= ⇒ du = r ⋅ ds ⋅ (2.41)
ds dx dx
du
ε= ⇒ ε = ω ⋅ ϕ′′ (2.45)
dx

du

Fig. 2.15. Geometric relations

28
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

By definition (Fig. 2.15),

r ⋅ ds
r ⋅ ds = dω = 2 ⋅ (2 × area of the triangle) (2.42)
2
Notation (Fig. 2.15):

[ ]
s s
ω = ∫ r ⋅ ds = ∫ dω L2 normalised warping function (coordonată sectorială) (2.43)
0 0

du = r ⋅ ds ⋅ ϕ′ = dω ⋅ ϕ′ ⇒ u = ω ⋅ ϕ′ (2.44)
Expressing σw and τw
σ x = σ w = E ⋅ ε = E ⋅ ω ⋅ ϕ′′ (2.46)

σ w ⋅ ω ⋅ dA = E ⋅ ϕ′′ ⋅ ω2 ⋅ dA (2.47)

B = ∫ σ w ⋅ ω ⋅ dA = E ⋅ ϕ′′ ⋅ ∫ ω2 ⋅ dA (bimoment) (2.48)

A A

(bimoment de încovoiere-răsucire)

I w = ∫ ω2 ⋅ dA (warping constant [L6]) (2.49)

A

(moment de inerţie sectorial)

Parallel between bending moment and warping torsion
M y, Ed B
σx = ⋅z σw = ⋅ω (2.50)
Iy Iw

Vz , Ed ⋅ S y M w , Ed ⋅ S w
τz = τw = (2.51)
t ⋅ Iy t ⋅ Iw

S w = ∫ ω ⋅ dA (warping static moment [L4]) (2.52)

A

Sw = … [L4] (moment static sectorial)

The coordinates of the shear centre about the centre of gravity are:

∫ ω ⋅ z ⋅ dA
yC = A
(2.53)
Iy

∫ ω ⋅ y ⋅ dA
zC = A
(2.54)
Iz

2.1.5. Cross-section characteristics associated to torsion

29
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

Considering a mono-symmetrical cross-section (Fig. 2.16), the following can be

calculated:

Fig. 2.16. Mono-symmetrical cross-section (SN030a-EN-EU [14])

• the position of the shear centre S from the bottom fibre of the cross-section:
t2 b3 ⋅ t
z SC = + hs ⋅ 3 1 13 (2.55)
2 b 2 ⋅ t 2 + b1 ⋅ t 1

• the St. Venant torsional constant:

b1 ⋅ t 13 + b 2 ⋅ t 32 + h w ⋅ t 3w
IT = (2.56)
3
• the warping constant (SN030a-EN-EU [14]):
b13 ⋅ t 1 ⋅ b 32 ⋅ t 2
Iw = h ⋅ Iz ⋅
2
(2.57)
s
(b 3
1 ⋅ t 1 + b 32 ⋅ t 2 )
2

2.2. BUCKLING LENGTH

The first known theoretical approach for solving a bar in compression belongs to
Euler (1744) [1]. He started by writing the following equilibrium equation (Fig. 2.17)
for a pin connected bar axially loaded in compression:

30
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

d2v
dx 2 M 1
=− = (2.58)
  dv  2 32
 EI ρ
1 +   
  dx  
where:
M = F⋅ v (2.59)

L
F x

e0
Fig. 2.17. The equilibrium of a pin connected bar in compression

The solution he obtained is the very well known:

π 2 ⋅ EI
Fcr = (2.60)
L2

for the critical force that generates buckling of the bar and:
π⋅x
z = e 0 ⋅ sin (2.61)
L
for the deformed shape of the bar.

This relation was then extended to other types of restraints at the ends, by inscribing
the bar on an equivalent pin-connected bar (Fig. 2.18). To allow this, the buckling
length was defined as a concept. All these theoretical approaches are based on the
theory of bifurcation of equilibrium.

The system length (EN 1993-1-1 [6] def. 1.5.5) is the distance in a
given plane between two adjacent points at which a member is
braced against lateral displacement in this plane, or between one
Definition such point and the end of the member.

The buckling length (Lcr) (EN 1993-1-1 [6] def. 1.5.6) is the system
length of an otherwise similar member with pinned ends, which has
the same buckling resistance as a given member or segment of
Definition member.

31
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

It is also defined as the distance between two consecutive inflection

points along the deformed shape of a bar. Sometimes, in practice, it
is replaced by the system length.

Euler’s relation is then expressed as:

π 2 ⋅ EI
Fcr = 2 (2.62)
L cr
where Lcr = kL is the buckling length (Fig. 2.18).
k – end fixity condition.

k = 1,0 k = 0,7 k = 2,0 k = 0,5 k = 1,0

Fig. 2.18. Different values of the buckling length factor

2.2.1. Buckling length of columns

In everyday situations, bars are part of a structure, they are connected to other bars
and so the joints are not purely fixed or purely pinned. As a result, the buckling
length of an element depends on its loading state and on the stiffness of the
neighbour bars. Relations for calculating it are given in different books and were
given in Annexe E (informative) of the previous version of Eurocode 3 – ENV 1993-
1-1 [111]. For defining the buckling length of a column, (parts of) structures are
separated in sway and non-sway, depending whether the (lateral) displacements of
the joints at the end of the bar are permitted or not. This separation is done by
means of stiffness criteria that will be presented later. Usually, the non-sway

32
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

behaviour is guaranteed by means of bracings. The distribution factors used in figure

2.19 – 2.22 are calculated using the following relations:
KC
η1 = (ENV 1993-1-1 [3], rel. (E.1)) (2.63)
K C + K11 + K12

KC
η2 = (ENV 1993-1-1 [3], rel. (E.2)) (2.64)
K C + K 21 + K 22
where:
KC – stiffness of the column (I/L);
Kij – stiffness of the beam ij.
Remark: A more precise formulation for Kij would be stiffness of the connection
between beam ij and column, as semi-rigid connections could be used. In this case a
more careful analysis should be carried out.

The buckling length for non-sway buckling mode is presented in figure 2.19 [111].

Fig. 2.19. Non-sway buckling mode (ENV 1993-1-1 [111] Fig. E.2.3)

The buckling length for sway buckling mode is presented in figure 2.20 [111].

33
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

Fig. 2.20. Sway buckling mode (ENV 1993-1-1 [111] Fig. E.2.3)

Fig. 2.21. End fixity condition, k, for non-sway buckling (ENV 1993-1-1 [111] Fig.
E.2.1)

34
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

Fig. 2.22. End fixity condition, k, for sway buckling (ENV 1993-1-1 [111] Fig. E.2.2)

This model can be expanded to continuous columns, presuming the loading factor
N/Ncr is constant on their entire length. If this does not happen (which is the actual
case) the procedure is conservative for the most critical part of the column [111]. In
this case, the distribution factors are calculated using the following relations:
K C + K1
η1 = (ENV 1993-1-1 [3], rel. (E.3)) (2.65)
K C + K1 + K11 + K12

KC + K2
η2 = (ENV 1993-1-1 [3], rel. (E.4)) (2.66)
K C + K 2 + K 21 + K 22
where K1 and K2 are the values of the stiffness of the neighbour columns (Fig. 2.23).

35
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

Fig. 2.23. Distribution factors for continuous columns (ENV 1993-1-1 [111] Fig.
E.2.4)

2.2.2. Buckling length of beams

Presuming the beams are not subject to axial forces, their stiffness can be taken
from table 2.1, as long as they remain in the elastic range [111].

Table 2.1. Stiffness of a beam in the elastic range (ENV 1993-1-1 [111] Tab. E.1)

Connection at the other end of the beam Stiffness K of the beam

Fixed 1,0 × I/L
Pinned 0,75 × I/L
Rotation equal to the adjacent one (double curvature) 1,5 × I/L
Rotation equal and opposite to the adjacent one 0,5 × I/L
(simple curvature)

36
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

General case: θa rotation at the adjacent end and θb (1,0 + 0,5 × θa/θb) × I/L
rotation at the opposite end
For regular buildings with rectangular frames and reinforced concrete floors, subject
to uniform loads, it is accepted to consider the stiffness of the beams given in table
2.2.

Table 2.2. Stiffness K of beams – structures with reinforced concrete floors ([111]
Tab. E.2)

Loading condition of the beam Non-sway buckling Sway buckling mode

mode
Beams supporting directly the 1,0 × I/L 1,0 × I/L
reinforced concrete slabs
Other beams under direct loads 0,75 × I/L 1,0 × I/L
Beams subjected only to 0,50 × I/L 1,5 × I/L
bending moments at the ends

When the beams are subject to axial forces, stability functions must be used for
expressing their stiffness. A simplified conservative approach is proposed in ENV
1993-1-1 [111], neglecting the increase of stiffness generated by tension and
considering only compression in the beams. Based on these assumptions, the
values in table 2.3 can be considered.

Table 2.3. Stiffness of beams in compression (ENV 1993-1-1 [111] Tab. E.3)

Connection at the other end of the beam Stiffness K of the beam

Fixed 1,0 × I/L × (1,0 – 0,4 × N/NE)
Pinned 0,75 × I/L × (1,0 – 1,0 × N/NE)
Rotation equal to the adjacent one (double 1,5 × I/L × (1,0 – 0,2 × N/NE)
curvature)
Rotation equal and opposite to the adjacent one 0,5 × I/L × (1,0 – 1,0 × N/NE)
(simple curvature)

where:
π2 ⋅ EI
NE = (2.67)
L2

37
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

2.2.3. Empirical relations for the buckling length of columns

ENV 1993-1-1 [111] provides empirical expressions as safe approximations that can
be used as an alternative to the values from figures 2.21 and 2.22. The k coefficient
for the buckling length can be calculated by the following relations:
a. for non-sway buckling mode (Fig. 2.21)
k = 0,5 + 0,14 ⋅ (η1 + η2 ) + 0,055 ⋅ (η1 + η2 )
2
([111], rel. (E.5)) (2.68)
or, alternatively,
1,0 + 0,145 ⋅ (η1 + η2 ) − 0,265 ⋅ η1 ⋅ η2
k= ([111], rel. (E.6)) (2.69)
2,0 − 0,364 ⋅ (η1 + η2 ) − 0,247 ⋅ η1 ⋅ η2
b. for sway buckling mode (Fig. 2.22)

1,0 − 0,2 ⋅ (η1 + η2 ) − 0,12 ⋅ η1 ⋅ η2 

0,5

k=  ([111], rel. (E.7)) (2.70)

1,0 − 0,8 ⋅ (η1 + η2 ) + 0,60 ⋅ η1 ⋅ η2 

2.2.4. Comments on the buckling length of beams

If the buckling length is generally easy to identify for members subject to axial
compression forces, the effective lateral buckling length is a more delicate subject,
given the complexity of the deformed shape (at the same time buckling and torsion).
This leads to a temptation to simplified approaches, like considering the effective
lateral buckling length as equal to the distance between points of zero (Fig. 2.24) in
the bending moment diagram, or between inflection points of the strong axis
deformed shape [8].

In order to prevent this, the American code ANSI/AISC 360-10 [7]

states in the 6.3 commentary: “In members subjected to double
curvature bending, the inflection point shall not be considered a
Important brace point.”

38
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

Fig. 2.24. Zero bending moment points along a beam [8]

2.2.5. Present day practical buckling design

The previous approaches are valid only in the elastic range, using the theory of
bifurcation of equilibrium. Several researchers tried to express buckling when at least
one of Euler’s requirements for the bifurcation of equilibrium:
• the axis of the member is rigorously straight;
• the compression load acts strictly in the centre of gravity of the cross-section;
• the cross-section is bi-symmetrical;
• the moment of inertia of the cross-section is constant all along the bar;
• the deflected shape is a sinusoid;
• the material is homogenous and has a perfectly elastic behaviour (E = constant).
is not fulfilled.

Several researchers focused on buckling in the elasto-plastic range; the following

ones can be mentioned [2]: Engesser and Considère (1889), Tetmayer (1890), von
Kàrmàn and Iassinski at the same time with Engesser (1910), Shanley (1946).

A different approach, based on the theory of divergence of equilibrium, was

considered by ECCS (European Convention for Steel Structures) which conducted
an experimental analysis in seven countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Great

39
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

Britain, Italy, Netherlands and Yugoslavia) during the decade 1960 – 1970. Following
this, at the beginning one buckling curve and then several ones were drawn,
depending on:
• the shape of the cross-section;
• the axis of the cross-section (the plane of buckling);
• the yield limit of the steel grade.

Present day practical buckling design codes approach is a compromise of two

distinct concepts:
• buckling length, usually based on the equilibrium bifurcation model, built
around the perfect member idea;
• buckling (reduction) factors, based on the equilibrium divergence model,
taking into account the actual imperfect member.
In fact, the old classical stability analysis consists of two main steps: a stress and
deflections analysis (often using a computer program) and a conventional code
analysis on isolated members [8].

2.2.6. Buckling length of bars with changes in cross-section

There are situations in practice when a bar in compression does not have the same
cross-section on its entire length. This could be the case of a column with a change
in cross-section (Fig. 2.25) or of a pin-connected member, like a bar connected on
gusset plates at its ends (Fig. 2.26). In such cases, an equivalent buckling length can
be used, based on the theoretical approaches of Timoshenko [10].

I2 I1
P

L2 L1
Fig. 2.25. Column with a change in cross-section

Considering the notations in figure 2.25, Timoshenko writes the following equilibrium
equations:

40
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

d 2 y1
E ⋅ I1 ⋅ 2 = P ⋅ (δ − y1 )
dx
(2.71)
d 2 y2
E ⋅ I2 ⋅ = P ⋅ (δ − y 2 )
dx 2
where:
δ – the displacement at the free end of the column;
y1 – the deformed shape of part 1;
y2 – the deformed shape of part 2.
L = L1 + L2
Using the notations,
P P
k 12 = k 22 = (2.72)
E ⋅ I1 E ⋅ I2
the following transcendental equation is obtained for determining the critical load:

tan (k 1 ⋅ L1 ) × tan (k 2 ⋅ L 2 ) =
k1
(2.73)
k2
Replacing the following (Fig. 2.26):
a L−a
L2 → and L1 → (2.74)
2 2
the critical force can be expressed as (in this case, δ is the displacement in the
middle of the length of the bar):
m ⋅ E ⋅ I2
Pcr = (2.75)
L2
where the values of the factor m are given in table 2.4.

I1 I2 I1
P P

Fig. 2.26. Pin-connected member (bar connected on gusset plates)

As a result, the buckling length can be expressed as:

L cr = β × L (2.76)

41
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

where:
π
β= (2.77)
m

Table 2.4. Values for the m factor [10] for figure 2.26

a/L
0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8
I1/I2
0,01 0,15 0,27 0,60 2,25
0,1 1,47 2,40 4,50 8,59
0,2 2,80 4,22 6,69 9,33
0,4 5,09 6,68 8,51 9,67
0,6 6,98 8,19 9,24 9,78
0,8 8,55 9,18 9,63 9,84

The previous equations are written using the elastic approach, by writing elastic
equilibrium equations. An alternative solution can be obtained using the energy
method. In this idea, the deformed shape in figure 2.26 is considered [10]:
 π⋅x 
y = δ ⋅ 1 − cos  (2.78)
 2⋅L
As a result, for the problem in figure 2.26, the critical force is obtained [10]:
π2 ⋅ E ⋅ I 2 1
Pcr = ⋅ (2.79)
4⋅L 2
L 2 L1 I 2 1  I 2  π ⋅ L2
+ ⋅ − ⋅  − 1 ⋅ sin
L L I1 π  I1  L

and the β factor in relation (2.76) is:

L 2 L1 I 2 1  I 2  π ⋅ L2
β = 2⋅ + ⋅ − ⋅  − 1 ⋅ sin (2.80)
L L I1 π  I1  L

Similarly, for the problem in figure 2.26, the critical force is [10]:
π2 ⋅ E ⋅ I 2 1
Pcr = ⋅ (2.81)
a L − a I2 1  I2  π⋅a
2
L
+ ⋅ − ⋅  − 1 ⋅ sin
L L I1 π  I1  L

and the β factor in relation (2.76) is:

a L − a I2 1  I2  π⋅a
β= + ⋅ − ⋅  − 1 ⋅ sin (2.82)
L L I1 π  I1  L

42
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

It is known that the energy approaches generally overestimate the value of the
critical force, leading to values superior to the actual ones.

2.2.7. Buckling length of bars with continuous varying cross-section

There are situations in practice when a bar in compression has a continuous

variation of the cross-section on its entire length (Fig. 2.27).

L a
x
Fig. 2.27. Column with a continuous variation of the cross-section

Using the notations in figure 2.27, the variation of the cross-section is described by:
n
x
I(x ) = I1 ⋅   (2.83)
a
where I1 is the second moment of the area (moment of inertia) of the top cross-
section of the column (where x = a).
Timoshenko [10] writes the following equilibrium equation:
n
x d y
2
E ⋅ I1 ⋅   ⋅ 2 = −P ⋅ y (2.84)
 a  dx
In the general case, the equation can be solved using Bessel functions for any value
of n. For the particular case of n = 2, that would correspond to an I-shape with
constant flanges and continuous variation of the height of the web, the critical force
can be expressed [10] as:
m ⋅ E ⋅ I2
Pcr = (2.85)
L2
where I2 is the second moment of the area (moment of inertia) of the bottom cross-
section of the column (where x = a + L). The buckling length can be expressed using
relations (2.76) and (2.77) and values of the factor m are given in table 2.5.

43
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

Table 2.5. Values for the m factor [10] for figure 2.27 and n = 2

I1/I2 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0
m 0,250 1,350 1,593 1,763 1,904 2,023 2,128 2,223 2,311 2,392 π2/4

The behaviour of a solid conical bar is described by making n = 4 in relations (2.83)

and (2.84).

2.2.8. Buckling length of bars with intermediate compressive force

There are situations in practice when a bar in compression does not have the same
cross-section on its entire. This could be the case of a bar

2.3. STABILITY BRACING

Bracings are essential components for the structural stability control. They can
provide the lateral supports that are needed for preventing buckling.

Various criteria are used for classifying bracings, as: nodal or relative; punctual or
continuous; against translation, against rotation or against both, specific for buckling
or for lateral buckling etc. Usually, the main supports have also stability functions. A
standard case is that of the classical fork support (Fig. 2.28). Some usual bracing
cases are presented in figure 2.28.

Two main requirements apply on bracing systems:

• strength – the bracing system must be able to resist the forces (or moments)
generated by the buckling trend;
• stiffness – the displacements of the “supports” provided by the bracing system
must be low, otherwise buckling occurs.
In many cases, the stiffness requirement is more severe than the strength one.

44
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

Fig. 2.28. Usual bracing systems [8]

Complex bracings systems could be investigated using the spring composition

procedure. Two strategies are available in dealing with stability bracings:
• requiring minimum values for the strength and the stiffness of the bracings to
allow the consideration of the analysis unbraced length as the distance between
two consecutive braces (ANSI/AISC 360-10 [7], appendix 6);
• establishing the load capacity of the structure taking into account the bracing
system as it is [6].

2.3.1. The bow imperfection (imperfecțiunea inițială în arc)

45
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

To take into account the fact that the bar is not perfectly straight, EN 1993-1-1 [6]
uses an equivalent bow imperfection (Fig. 2.29).
P P N P
H H

q α
q

e0 e0
L L

Fig. 2.29. Bow imperfection for a pinned member [8]

Considering a sine-function for the buckling shape (Fig. 2.29):

π⋅x
z = e 0 ⋅ sin (2.86)
L
The associated shear force on the supports is:
dz π π⋅x
H = N⋅ = N ⋅ e0 ⋅ ⋅ cos (2.87)
dx L L
e0
H max = π ⋅ N ⋅ (2.88)
L
If a parabola is considered as initial deformed shape (Fig. 2.29), the value of Hmax
increases a little and the following relation, given in figure 5.4 from EN 1993-1-1 [6],
can be obtained:
e0
H max = 4 ⋅ N ⋅ (2.89)
L
To manage this bow imperfection, EN 1993-1-1 [6] uses an equivalent lateral load
(Fig. 2.29) that would produce a bending moment equal to N × e0.
q ⋅ L2
M max = N ⋅ e0 = (2.90)
8

46
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

The values recommended for e0 are given in table 2.6.

Table 2.6. Recommended values for bow imperfection (EN 1993-1-1 [6] Tab. 5.1)

Buckling curve Elastic analysis Plastic analysis

e0 / L e0 / L
a0 1 / 350 1 / 300
a 1 / 300 1 / 250
b 1 / 250 1 / 200
c 1 / 200 1 / 150
d 1 / 150 1 / 100

For the buckling curves given in EN 1993-1-1 [6], Hmax results as (0.9...2.7)% of the
compression force.

2.3.2. The sway imperfection (imperfecțiunea inițială datorată abaterii de la axa

verticală)

To take into account the fact that the force does not act exactly on the centroid line
of the bar, EN 1993-1-1 [6] uses an equivalent sway imperfection (Fig. 2.30).
P P
H

Fig. 2.30. Sway imperfection for a pinned member [8]

47
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

H = φ⋅P (2.91)
where:
φ = φ0 ⋅ α h ⋅ α m (EN 1993-1-1 [6], rel. (5.5)) (2.92)
ϕ0 – basic value, ϕ0 = 1/200;
αh – the reduction factor for height h (h = L in Fig. 2.30) applicable to columns:
2 2
αh = but ≤ αh ≤ 1 (2.93)
h 3
h – “the height of the structure in meters”; in this case, h = L;
αm – “the reduction factor for the number of columns in a row”;

 1
α m = 0,5 ⋅ 1 +  (2.94)
 m
m – “the number of columns in a row including only those columns which carry a
vertical load NEd not less than 50% of the average value of the column in the
vertical plane considered” (Fig. 2.31).

Fig. 2.31. Equivalent sway imperfections (EN 1993-1-1 [6] Fig. 5.2)

According to EN 1993-1-1 [6], for building frames may be disregarded where:

H Ed ≥ 0,15 ⋅ VEd (EN 1993-1-1 [6], rel. (5.7)) (2.95)

where:
HEd – “the design value of the horizontal reaction at the bottom of the storey to the
horizontal loads and fictitious horizontal loads”;
VEd – “the total design vertical load on the structure on the bottom of the storey”;

2.4. STRUCTURAL STABILITY ANALYSES

48
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

The present day computer programs for structural analysis and computing devices
used to run these applications allow analysing a structure by writing the equilibrium
equations on its deformed shape. However, this type of analysis is not always
necessary. In general, two types of analyses can be carried out on a structure:
• first order analysis – equilibrium is expressed on the initial shape of the
structure (efforts increase because of the displacements);
• second order analysis – equilibrium is expressed on the deformed shape of
the structure;

According to EN 1993-1-1 [6], it is not necessary to perform a second order analysis

in situations when:
Fcr
α cr = ≥ 10 for elastic analysis
FEd
(EN 1993-1-1 [6], rel. (5.1)) (2.96)
Fcr
α cr = ≥ 15 for plastic analysis
FEd
where:
αcr – the factor by which the design loading would have to be increased to cause
elastic instability in a global mode;
FEd – the design loading on the structure;
Fcr – the elastic critical buckling load for global instability mode based on initial
values of the elastic stiffness.
These requirements must be fulfilled on each floor of a building.

Provided that the compression forces in the beams are not important, αcr for portal
frames with shallow roof slopes can be calculated with the following approximative
formula (Fig. 2.32):

H   h 
α cr =  Ed  ⋅  
 (EN 1993-1-1 [6], rel. (5.2)) (2.97)
V δ
 Ed   H ,Ed 

49
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

Fig. 2.32. Notations for determining αcr (EN 1993-1-1 [6] Fig. 5.1)

where:
HEd – the design value of the horizontal reaction at the bottom of the storey to the
horizontal loads and fictitious horizontal loads;
VEd – the total design vertical load on the structure on the bottom of the storey;
h – the storey height;
δH,Ed – the horizontal displacement at the top of the storey, relative to the bottom of
the storey, when the frame is loaded with horizontal loads and fictitious
horizontal loads which are applied at each floor level.

The previous limitation for the compression force in the beams is considered to be
satisfied if:
A ⋅ fy
λ ≥ 0,3 ⋅ (EN 1993-1-1 [6], rel. (5.3)) (2.98)
N Ed

where:
λ – the in-plane non dimensional slenderness calculated for the beam considered
as hinged at its ends of the system length measured along the beam;
NEd – the design value of the compression force.

For single storey frames, in the elastic range, if αcr ≥ 3,0, second order sway effects
due to vertical loads may be calculated by increasing the horizontal loads HEd and
equivalent loads φ × VEd due to imperfections by the factor:

50
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

1
(EN 1993-1-1 [6], rel. (5.4)) (2.99)
1
1−
α cr

“When performing the global analysis for determining end forces and end moments
to be used in member checks, local bow imperfections may be neglected. However
for frames sensitive to second order effects local bow imperfections of members
additionally to global sway imperfections should be introduced in the structural
analysis of the frame for each compressed member where the following conditions
are met:
• at least one moment resistant joint at one member end;
A fy
• λ > 0,5 (EN 1993-1-1 [6], rel. (5.8)) (2.100)
N Ed

where:
λ – the in-plane non-dimensional slenderness calculated for the member
considered as hinged at its ends;
NEd – the design value of the compression force”.

2.5. THE UNIQUE GLOBAL AND LOCAL IMPERFECTION

EN 1993-1-1 [6] accepts a unique imperfection approach, as an alternative to the two

types of imperfections – bow and sway ones, using the following relation:
N cr e N Rk
ηinit = e0 ⋅ ⋅ηcr = 02 ⋅ ⋅ηcr (EN 1993-1-1 [6], rel. (5.9)) (2.101)
E ⋅ I ⋅ η′cr′ ,max λ E ⋅ I ⋅ η′cr′ ,max

where:
χ ⋅ λ2
1−
γ M1
e 0 = α ⋅ (λ − 0,2) ⋅
M Rk
⋅ for λ > 0,2 (EN 1993-1-1 [6], rel. (5.10)) (2.102)
N Rk 1 − χ ⋅ λ2

α ult ,k
λ= is the relative slenderness (EN 1993-1-1 [6], rel. (5.11)) (2.103)
α cr

α – the imperfection factor for the relevant buckling curve;

χ – the reduction factor for the relevant buckling curve for that cross-section;

51
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

αult,k – the minimum force amplifier for the axial force configuration NEd in members
to reach the characteristic resistance NRk of the most axially stressed cross
section without taking buckling into account;
αcr – the minimum force amplifier for the axial force configuration NEd in members
to reach the elastic critical buckling;
MRk – the characteristic moment resistance of the critical cross section (Mel,Rd or
Mpl,Rd);
NRk – the characteristic resistance to axial force;
E ⋅ I ⋅ η′cr′ ,max – the bending moment due to ηcr at the critical cross section;

ηcr – the shape of elastic critical buckling mode.

2.6. LATERAL-TORSIONAL BUCKLING OF BEAMS

Lateral-torsional buckling may occur in the case of beams or lattice girders. It can be
prevented either by performing checks using suitable relations, or by introducing
lateral bracings whose purpose is to reduce the distance on which this phenomenon
may occur.

The relation given in EN 1993-1-1 [6] for the lateral-torsional buckling resistance is:
fy
M b ,Rd = χ LT ⋅ Wy ⋅ (EN 1993-1-1 [6], rel. (6.55)) (2.104)
γ M1
where:
χLT – the reduction factor for lateral-torsional buckling;
Wy – the appropriate section modulus:
Wy = W pl,y for Class 1 or 2 cross-sections
Wy = W el,y for Class 3 cross-sections
Wy = W eff,y for Class 4 cross-sections
fy – the yielding limit;
γM1 – the partial safety factor for resistance of members to instability assessed by
member checks (γM1 = 1,0 in the National Annex of EN 1993-1-1 [6]);
χLT is taken form the appropriate buckling curve, based on the non-dimensional
slenderness:

52
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

Wy ⋅ f y
λ LT = (2.105)
M cr

where Mcr is the elastic critical moment for lateral-torsional buckling, whose
expression is not given in EN 1993-1-1 [6]. Under these circumstances, it can be
taken from recognised sources like publications, or computer programs. Some
examples of such sources are the following ones:
• the previous version of Eurocode 3 - ENV 1993-1-1 [111];
• published books (ex. Timoshenko, Gere [10] etc.);
• „Non-Contradictory Complementary Contribution” documents (NCCI), ex.
SN003b-EN-EU [11];
• computer programs like LTBEAM [12], developed at CTICM (Centre
Technique Industriel de la Construction Métallique).
The relation recommended by SN003b-EN-EU [11] is:
 
π 2 ⋅ E ⋅ I z   k z  I w (k z ⋅ L ) ⋅ G ⋅ I T
2

+ (C 2 ⋅ z g ) − C 2 ⋅ z g  (2.106)
2
M cr = C1 ⋅   ⋅ +
2

(k z ⋅ L )2   k w  I z π2 ⋅ E ⋅ I z 
 
where:
E – modulus of elasticity (Young’s modulus E =210000N/mm2);
G – shear modulus (G =81000N/mm2);
Iz – the second moment of the area about the weak axis (z – z);
IT – the torsion constant;
Iw – the warping constant;
L – the beam length between points which have lateral restraints;
kz – the effective length factor that refers to the end rotation about the z – z axis;
kw – the effective length factor that refers to the end warping;
zg – the distance between the point of load application and the shear centre;
C1, C2 – coefficients depending on the loading and end restraint conditions.
It is to note that the value of the critical moment is influenced by the position of the
loading point. The load can have a stabilizing or a destabilizing effect (Fig. 2.33).

53
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

destabilizing stabilizing
compression flange
effect effect

tension flange

Fig. 2.33. Influence of the position of the loading point

The relation (2.104), given in EN 1993-1-1 [6], can be used by means of three
methods given in the code.

2.6.1. The general method

For all cross-sections, unless otherwise specified, the following relation can be used:
1
χ LT = but χ LT ≤ 1,0 (EN 1993-1-1 [6], rel. (6.56)) (2.107)
2
Φ LT + Φ 2LT − λ LT

where:

[ ( ) 2
Φ LT = 0,5 ⋅ 1 + α LT ⋅ λ LT − 0,2 + λ LT ] (2.108)
αLT – imperfection factor, given in the (Romanian) National Annex of EN 1993-1-1
[6]; the recommended values can be taken from table 2.7.

Table 2.7. Values for lateral torsional buckling (EN 1993-1-1 [6] Tab. 6.3)

Buckling curve a b c d
Imperfection factor αLT 0,21 0,34 0,49 0,76

54
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

The proper buckling curve, depending on the type of cross-section, is chosen based
on the recommendations given in table 2.8.

Table 2.8. Recommended values for lateral torsional buckling curves for cross-
sections using relation (2.107) (EN 1993-1-1 [6] Tab. 6.4)

Cross-section Limits Buckling curve

Rolled I-sections h/b ≤ 2 a
h/b > 2 b
Welded I-sections h/b ≤ 2 c
h/b > 2 d
Other cross-sections - d

M Ed 2
For values of the slenderness λ LT ≤ λ LT ,0 or for ≤ λ LT , 0 , lateral torsional buckling
M cr
effects may be ignored and only cross sectional checks apply. The maximum

recommended value for λ LT , 0 , which was adopted in the Romanian National Annex
of EN 1993-1-1 [6] is 0,4.

2.6.2. The specific method for rolled sections or equivalent welded sections

This method is a particular case for rolled sections or equivalent welded section. In
this case,
χ LT ≤ 1,0
1 
χ LT = but  1 (EN 1993-1-1 [6], rel. (6.57)) (2.109)
2
 χ ≤
Φ LT + Φ 2
−β⋅λ LT 2
λ LT
LT LT

where:

[ ( ) 2
Φ LT = 0,5 ⋅ 1 + α LT ⋅ λ LT − λ LT 0 + β ⋅ λ LT ] (2.110)
αLT – imperfection factor.
λ LT 0 ≤ 0,4 the value in the Romanian National Annex of EN 1993-1-1 [6] λ LT 0 = 0,4
β ≥ 0,75 the value in the Romanian National Annex of EN 1993-1-1 [6] β = 0,75
The values of αLT are taken from table 2.7, depending on the proper buckling curve,
chosen based on the recommendations given in table 2.9.

55
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

Table 2.9. Recommended values for lateral torsional buckling curves for cross-
sections using relation (2.109) (EN 1993-1-1 [6] Tab. 6.5)

Cross-section Limits Buckling curve

Rolled I-sections h/b ≤ 2 b
h/b > 2 c
Welded I-sections h/b ≤ 2 c
h/b > 2 d

2.6.3. The modified specific method

This method is also specific for rolled sections or equivalent welded section. A
correction is introduced, to take into account the bending moment diagram along the
bar. In this idea, a modified reduction factor is calculated, as follows:
χ LT
χ LT , mod = but χ LT , mod ≤ 1,0 (EN 1993-1-1 [6], rel. (6.57)) (2.111)
f
where:
χ LT – the reduction factor obtained at 2.6.2, using relation 2.109;

[ (
f = 1 − 0,5 ⋅ (1 − k c ) ⋅ 1 − 2,0 ⋅ λ LT − 0,8 )]
2
but f ≤ 1,0 (2.112)

kc is given in table 2.10, depending on the bending moment diagram.

Table 2.10. Correction factor kc (EN 1993-1-1 [6] Tab. 6.6)

Moment distribution kc

1,0
ψ=1
1
1,33 − 0,33ψ
-1 ≤ ψ ≤ 1
0,94
0,90
0,91
0,86
0,77

56
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

0,82

2.6.4. Simplified assessment methods for beams with restraints in buildings

In the case where the compressed flange is provided with discrete lateral restraints
(the recommended situation) at a distance Lc between two consecutive ones, the
beam is not susceptible to lateral-torsional buckling if:
k cLc M c ,Rd
λf = ≤ λ c0 (EN 1993-1-1 [6], rel. (6.59)) (2.113)
i f ,z λ 1 M y ,Ed

where:
My,Ed– the maximum design value of the bending moment within the restraint
spacing;
fy
M c , Rd = Wy ⋅ ;
γ M1
kc – a slenderness correction factor for moment distribution between restraints,
given in table 2.10;
if,z – the radius of gyration of the equivalent compression flange composed of the
compression flange plus 1/3 of the compressed part of the web area, about
the minor axis of the section;
λ c 0 – a slenderness limit of the equivalent compression flange defined as follows; it
is given in the National Annex of EN 1993-1-1 [6]; the recommended value is
λ c 0 = λ LT ,0 + 0,1 ;

E
λ1 = π = 93,9ε ;
fy

235
ε= (fy in N/mm2).
fy

If the requirements from relation (2.113) are not fulfilled, the design buckling
resistance moment is expressed as:
M b,Rd = k fl ⋅ χ ⋅ M c ,Rd but M b.Rd ≤ M c.Rd (EN 1993-1-1 [6], rel. (6.60)) (2.114)

where:

57
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

χ – the reduction factor of the equivalent compression flange determined with λ f ;

kfℓ – the modification factor accounting for the conservatism of the equivalent
compression flange method.
The recommended value is kfℓ = 1,10 and it was adopted in the National Annex of
EN 1993-1-1 [6]. χ is determined based on λ f , using curve d for welded sections
h
having ≤ 44ε and curve c for all other situations, where:
tf
h – the overall depth of the cross-section;
tf – the thickness of the compression flange.

2.7. STABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR BRACING SYSTEMS

Buckling and lateral-torsional buckling checks strongly depend on the position of the
bracing points along the structural member in discussion. The requirements for a
bracing system are not only in terms of strength but stiffness too. In fact, if a system
needs important displacements to resist against forces generated by the buckling
trend of an element, buckling of the braced element could occur.

Following the strength calculation according to relations given in EN 1993-1-1 [6], it

could be considered that, globally, a mean force of about 2% of the axial load (1.6%
corresponding to the bow imperfection and 0.5% for the sway imperfection) is going
to the support of a pin-connected member. On this basis, it could be appreciated that
some required strengths for bracings in ANSI/AISC 360-10 [7] are under-evaluated
by EN 1993-1-1 [6], as in the American code requirements are expressed not only as
strength but as stiffness too. Winter, Yura and others [9] showed that the minimum
theoretical stiffness of bracings, evaluated for the ideal member, is not enough for
the actual imperfect member. Figure 2.34 and table 2.11 show examples [8] of
strength and stiffness requirements for bracing systems in ANSI/AISC 360-10 [7].

58
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

P P

P
Lb Pr,b
βbr
Lb
Pr,b
βbr
P P Lb
Pr,b Pr,b
βbr βbr Lb Pr,b
Lb Lb Lb Lb
Lb Pr,b βbr
βbr Pr,b
βbr
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
Fig. 2.34. Strength and stiffness requirements in ANSI/AISC 360-10 [7]

In table 2.11, the notations have the following meanings:

Pr,b – required brace strength (N);
Pr – required strength in axial compression (N);
Lb – unbraced length (mm);
βbr – required brace stiffness (N/mm);
ϕ – resistance factor (ϕ = 0,75);
Mr – required flexural strength (Nmm);
Cd = 1,0, except in the following case;
= 2,0, for the brace closest to the inflection point in a beam subject to double
curvature bending;
h0 – distance between flange (chord) centroids (mm).

Table 2.11. Strength and stiffness requirements in ANSI/AISC 360-10 [7]

Case Required strength Required stiffness

(a) Pr ,b = 0,004 ⋅ Pr ([7], rel. (A-6-1)) 1  2 ⋅ Pr 
β br = ⋅  ([7], rel. (A-6-2))
φ  L b 
(b) Pr ,b = 0,004 ⋅ Pr ([7], rel. (A-6-1)) 1  2 ⋅ Pr 
β br = ⋅  ([7], rel. (A-6-2))
φ  L b 
c) Pr ,b = 0,01 ⋅ Pr ([7], rel. (A-6-3)) 1  8 ⋅ Pr

β br = ⋅  ([7], rel. (A-6-4))
φ  L b
(d) M r ⋅ Cd 1  4 ⋅ M r ⋅ Cd 
Pr ,b = 0,008 ⋅ ([7], rel. (A-6-5)) β br = ⋅   ([7], rel. (A-6-6))
h0 φ  L b ⋅ h 0 

59
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

(e) M r ⋅ Cd 1  10 ⋅ M r ⋅ C d 
Pr ,b = 0,02 ⋅ ([7], rel. (A-6-7)) β br = ⋅  ([7], rel. (A-6-8))
h0 φ  L b ⋅ h 0 

In figure 2.34 and table 2.11, case (d) refers to relative brace while case (e) is for
nodal brace. Relative brace – brace that controls the relative movement of two
adjacent brace points along the length of a beam or column or the relative lateral
displacement of two stories in a frame (ANSI/AISC 360-10 [7]). Nodal brace – brace
that prevents lateral movement or twist independently of other braces at adjacent
brace points (ANSI/AISC 360-10 [7]). Bracing – members or system that provides
stiffness and strength to limit the out-of-plane movement of another member at a
brace point (ANSI/AISC 360-10 [7]).

2.8. MEMBERS IN COMPRESSION AND BENDING

If checking stability of a member in compression or in bending is quite well controlled

by means of mathematical approaches and test data that are available, the
behaviour of a member in compression and bending is much more difficult to handle.
The checking relations try to merge buckling of member in compression with lateral-
torsional buckling of members in bending and, generally, this is not done in a single
formula; in most of the cases, codes use a pair of two stability relations. However, all
these “built-up” formulae have their limits, as they try to describe a complex
phenomenon which cannot be seen as a simple sum of the two ones previously
mentions. Moreover, there are situations when the most severe check for a member
in compression and bending is the strength check, therefore they are briefly
presented here.

2.8.1. Resistance of cross-sections in compression and bending

The resistance checking relations given in EN 1993-1-1 [6] for members in

compression and bending are as follows:
• for class 1 and class 2 cross-sections, the general relation is:

60
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

M Ed ≤ M N , Rd (EN 1993-1-1 [6], rel. (6.31)) (5.555)

where MN,Rd is the design plastic moment resistance reduced due to the axial
force NEd;
• for class 3 and class 4 cross-sections, in the absence of shear force, the general
relation is:
fy
σ x ,Ed ≤ (EN 1993-1-1 [6], rel. (6.42), (6,43)) (5.555)
γ M0
where σx,Ed is the design value of the local longitudinal stress due to moment
and axial force taking account of fastener holes where relevant.
For doubly symmetrical I- and H- sections or other flanges sections, no reduction of
the plastic resistance moment MN,y,Rd about the y-y axis needs to be done when both
the following criteria are satisfied:
N Ed ≤ 0,25 ⋅ N pl , Rd and (EN 1993-1-1 [6], rel. (6.33)) (5.555)

0,5 ⋅ h w ⋅ t w⋅ f y
N Ed ≤ (EN 1993-1-1 [6], rel. (6.34)) (5.555)
γ M0
For doubly symmetrical I- and H- sections or other flanges sections, no reduction of
the plastic resistance moment MN,z,Rd about the z-z axis needs to be done if:
hw ⋅ tw ⋅ fy
N Ed ≤ (EN 1993-1-1 [6], rel. (6.35)) (5.555)
γ M0
Otherwise, if the requirements in relations (5.555), (5.555), or (5.555) are not fulfilled,
the following reductions must be done:
1− n
M N , y , Rd = M pl , y, Rd ⋅ but M N , y , Rd ≤ M pl , y, Rd ( EN 1993-1-1 [6], rel. (6.36))(5.555)
1 − 0,5 ⋅ a
for n ≤ a: M N ,z , Rd = M pl ,z , Rd (EN 1993-1-1 [6], rel. (6.37)) (5.555)

  n − a 2 
for n > a: M N ,z , Rd = M pl ,z , Rd ⋅ 1 −    (EN 1993-1-1 [6], rel. (6.38)) (5.555)
  1 − a  
where:
N Ed
n=
N pl , Rd

A − 2 ⋅ b ⋅ tf
a= but a ≤ 0,5
A
For bi-axial bending:

61
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

α β
 M y, Ed   M z , Ed 
  +  ≤1 (EN 1993-1-1 [6], rel. (6.41)) (5.555)
 M N , y , Rd   M N ,z , Rd 
in which α and β are constants, which may conservatively be taken as unity,
otherwise as follows:

• I and H sections:

α = 2 ; β = 5n but β ≥ 1

• circular hollow sections:

α = 2 ;β = 2

• rectangular hollow sections:

1,66
α=β= but α = β ≤ 6
1 − 1,13 n 2

2.8.2. Buckling checks according to EN 1993-1-1 [6]

EN 1993-1-1 [6] uses a pair of two relations for buckling check of a member in
compression and bending. These relations can lead to different results, as some of
the factors that intervene can be calculated according to two different procedures,
given in Annexes A and B. The checking relations are the following ones:
N Ed M y, Ed + ∆M y , Ed M + ∆M z , Ed
+ k yy + k yz z , Ed ≤1
χ y N Rk M y , Rk M z , Rk
χ LT
γ M1 γ M1 γ M1

(EN 1993-1-1 [6], rel. (6.61)) (5.555)

N Ed M y, Ed + ∆M y, Ed M + ∆M z , Ed
+ k zy + k zz z , Ed ≤1
χ z N Rk M y , Rk M z , Rk
χ LT
γ M1 γ M1 γ M1

(EN 1993-1-1 [6], rel. (6.62)) (5.555)

where NEd, My,Ed and Mz,Ed are the design values of the compression force and the
maximum moments about the y-y and z-z axis along the
member, respectively

62
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

∆My,Ed, ∆Mz,Ed are the moments due to the shift of the centroidal axis for
class 4 sections

χy and χz are the reduction factors due to flexural buckling

χLT is the reduction factor due to lateral torsional buckling

kyy, kyz, kzy, kzz are the interaction factors that depend on the chosen
method (from Annex A or from Annex B)
In the Romanian National Annex, the method in Annex A is recommended.
Depending on the class of the cross-section, characteristics given in table 5.55
should be used.

Table 5.55. Values for NRk = fy Ai, Mi,Rk = fy W i and ∆Mi,Ed (EN 1993-1-1 [6], Tab. 6.7)

Class 1 2 3 4
Ai A A A Aeff
Wy Wpl,y Wpl,y Wel,y Weff,y
Wz Wpl,z Wpl,z Wel,z Weff,z
∆My,Ed 0 0 0 eN,y NEd
∆Mz,Ed 0 0 0 eN,z NEd

Figure 5.66 illustrates the values of the maximum bending moment that can be
acting on a bar in the presence of an axial compression force having different values.
The shape of the bending moment diagram is triangular, with the maximum value at
one end and 0 (zero) at the other end. The cross-section of the bar has a 10 × 400
mm web and the flanges are 20 × 300 mm. The length of the bar considered in this
example is 5m.

It can be noticed that there are important differences among the values obtained
using the five different checking relations:
• one relation for resistance;
• two buckling relations for buckling using Annex A factors;
• two buckling relations for buckling using Annex B factors.
The resistance of the bar is obtained as the minimum given by the three relations,
depending on the Annex that is used.

63
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

Fig. 5.66. Interaction N – M diagram

2.8.3. Buckling checks according to ANSI/AISC 360-10 [7]

ANSI/AISC 360-10 [7] uses the following relations for buckling check of members in
compression and bending:
a) when Pr/Pc ≥ 0,2:

Pr 8  M rx M ry 
+ ⋅ + ≤ 1,0 (ANSI/AISC 360-10 [7], rel. (H1-1a)) (5.555)
Pc 9  M cx M cy 

b) when Pr/Pc < 0,2:

Pr M M ry 
+  rx +  ≤ 1,0 (ANSI/AISC 360-10 [7], rel. (H1-1b)) (5.555)
2 ⋅ Pc  M cx M cy 

where:
Pr – required axial strength;
Pc – available axial strength;
Mr – required flexural strength;
Mc – available flexural strength;
x – subscript relating symbol to major axis bending;
y – subscript relating symbol to major axis bending.

64
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

2.8.4. Commentary

Given the complexity of the interaction formulae for checking for

compression and bending, it is not easy to define the most
unfavourable load combination (design situation). In most of the
Important situations, it is defined either by the maximum value of the bending
moment MEd,max and the corresponding value of the axial force NEd,
or by the maximum value of the axial force NEd,max and the
corresponding value of the bending moment MEd. However, nobody
guarantees that a combination having a smaller value of the
bending moment and a smaller value of the axial is not more
unfavourable, as the shape of the bending moment diagram has a
major influence on the results. Therefore, the safest approach is to
perform the checks in all the load combinations that were
considered.

2.9. THE USE OF BUCKLING LENGTH FOR ARCHES AND FRAMES

There are situations when simplified relations are useful for the design of arches or
single storey frames. The following relations can be used [13].
• Arches – for two- and three-hinged arches (Fig. 2.35) with the ratio h/L
between 0,15 and 0,5 and essentially uniform cross-section, the in-plane
buckling length may be taken as:
L cr = 1,25 ⋅ s (2.115)

where s is half of the arch length;

65
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

Fig. 2.35. Buckling length for a two-hinged arch [13]

• Two- and three-hinged frames – if the inclination of the columns is less than
15°, the following relation can be used for the column buckling length (Fig.
2.36):

I⋅s E⋅I
L cr = h ⋅ 4 + 3,2 ⋅ + 10 ⋅ (2.116)
I0 ⋅ h h ⋅ Kr

where Kr is the stiffness of the semi-rigid connection in the joint;

Fig. 2.36. Buckling length for a three-hinged frame [13]

For the buckling length of the rafter, the following relation can be used:

I⋅s E⋅I I ⋅N
L cr = h ⋅ 4 + 3,2 ⋅ + 10 ⋅ ⋅ 0 (2.117)
I0 ⋅ h h ⋅ Kr I ⋅ N0

where N and N0 are the axial forces in the column and in the rafter; in the
case of tapered cross-sections, the cross-sections at 0,65h or 0,65s (Fig.
2.36) respectively should be used;

66
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

• Columns or rafters with knee bracing – the in-plane buckling length for
columns (Fig. 2.37(a)) and for rafters (Fig. 2.37(b)) can be estimated as:
L cr = 2 ⋅ s l + 0,7 ⋅ s 0 (2.118)

(a) (b)
Fig. 2.37. Portal frame (a) and frame with V-shaped columns (b) [13]

• Torsional buckling of spatial frames – for the rotational buckling of axi-

symmetrical spatial structures (Fig. 2.38), the following approximate relation
can be used for determining the buckling length factor k, provided that 1 < k <
2 and a/s < 0,2.

Fig. 2.38. Rotationally symmetric spatial frame [13]

a 3 ⋅ π2 ⋅ a ⋅ E ⋅ I
k = 1 + 2 ⋅ + 10 ⋅ (2.119)
s 4 ⋅ s 2 ⋅ (1 + a s ) ⋅ K r

67
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

where EI is the bending stiffness of the rafter for bending about the vertical
axis and Kr is the rotational stiffness of the connection between the rafter and
the compression ring for bending about the vertical axis.

1. Dalban C., Dima S., Chesaru E., Şerbescu C. – Construcţii cu

structura metalică, Ed. Didactică şi Pedagogică, 1997
2. Dima, Ş., Ştefănescu B. – Steel Structures – basic elements,
Conspress Bucureşti, 2005
Bibliography
3. ESDEP – The European Steel Design Education Programme,
http://www.haiyangshiyou.com/esdep/master/toc.htm
4. Tien T. Lan – Space Frame Structures, Structural Engineering
Handbook, Ed. Chen-Wai Fah, 1999, pag. 24-32
5. P100-1/2013 – Cod de proiectare seismică – Partea 1 –
Prevederi de proiectare pentru clădiri
6. EN 1993-1-1 – Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures – Part 1-1:
General rules and rules for buildings
7. ENV 1993-1-1 – Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures and
National Application Document – Part 1-1: General rules and
rules for buildings
8. Diacu I., Ștefănescu B. – Stability bracing in practice, Steel – A
New and Traditional Material for Building, Proceedings of the
International Conference in Metal Structures – Poiana Brașov,
România, September 20-22, 2006, D. Dubină, V. Ungureanu
Editors, Taylor & Francis Group, 2006, pag. 109-117
9. ANSI/AISC 360-10. Specification for Structural Steel Buildings.
AISC, USA, 2010
10. Timoshenko, S.P., Gere, J.M. – Theory of elastic stability, 2nd
Edition. McGraw-Hill, 1961
11. SN003b-EN-EU – Elastic critical moment for lateral torsional
buckling
12. LTBEAM – http://www.cticm.com/content/ltbeam-version-1011
13. Blass H.J. – Timber Engineering STEP 1: Basis of design,
material properties, structural components and joints, Almere:

68
 2. INSTABILITY OF BARS

Centrum Hout, 1995

14. SN030a-EN-EU – Mono-symmetrical uniform members under
bending and axial compression

69