ARTICLE IN PRESS

Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 290302

www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

Lateral buckling of thin-walled beam-column elements

under combined axial and bending loads
Foudil Mohria,c,, Cherif Bouzerirab, Michel Potier-Ferryc
a

Departement Genie Civil. Le Montet, Nancy-universite, Universite Henri Poincare, IUT Nancy-Brabois, Rue du Doyen Urion CS 90137,
54601 Villers les Nancy, France
b
Non-Destructive Tests Laboratory, Civil Engineering Department, Jijel University, Algeria
c
LPMM, UMR CNRS 7554, ISGMP, Universite Paul Verlaine-Metz, Ile du Saulcy, 57045 Metz, France
Received 20 October 2006; received in revised form 29 June 2007; accepted 4 July 2007
Available online 24 October 2007

Abstract
Based on a non-linear stability model, analytical solutions are derived for simply supported beam-column elements with bi-symmetric I
sections under combined bending and axial forces. An unique compact closed-form is used for some representative load cases needed in
design. It includes rst-order bending distribution, load height level, pre-buckling deection effects and presence of axial loads. The
proposed solutions are validated by recourse to non-linear FEM software where shell elements are used in mesh process. The agreement
of the proposed solutions with bifurcations observed on non-linear equilibrium paths is good. It is proved that classical linear stability
solutions underestimate the real resistance of such element in lateral buckling stability especially for I section with large anges.
Numerical study of incidence of axial forces on lateral buckling resistance of redundant beams is carried out. When axial displacements
of a beam are prevented important tension axial forces are generated in the beam. This results in important reduction of displacements
and for some sections, the beam behaviour becomes non-linear without any bifurcation.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Beam-column; Finite element; Non linear; Open section; Stability; Thin-wall

1. Introduction
The continued importance and vitality of research on
stability problems is due to technical and economic
developments that demand the use of ever stronger and
ever higher structures in an increasingly wider range of
applications. Such an expansion of use is made possible by
developments in manufacturing, fabrication technology,
computer-aided-design, economic competition and construction efciency. These developments continually do not
only change the way in which traditional structures are
designed and built, but they also make possible the
economical use of material in other areas of application,
Corresponding author. Departement Genie Civil. Le Montet, Nancyuniversite, Universite Henri Poincare, IUT Nancy-Brabois, Rue du Doyen
Urion CS 90137, 54601 Villers les Nancy, France. Tel.: +33 3 83 68 25 77;
fax: +33 3 83 68 25 32.
E-mail address: foudil.mohri@iutnb.uhp-nancy.fr (F. Mohri).

0263-8231/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tws.2007.07.017

such as offshore structures, transportation vehicles, and

outer-space structures. In all these applications, needs for
higher strength and lighter weight, inexorably lead to
structures in which a consideration of stability must play a
crucial role in design. Increased strength and slenderness
invariably spell more problems with instability. Beam
columns are dened as members subjected to a combination of axial and bending forces. They therefore provide a
link between a column under pure axial load and a beam
under lateral loads. When an unrestrained I section beam is
bent about its major axis there exists a tendency for it to
fail by deecting sideways and twisting, phenomenon
currently called lateral buckling instability. The presence
of a compressive axial load when such a member is used as
a beam-column will only serve to accentuate this tendency,
since the preferred mode of failure under pure axial load
would normally be by buckling about the minor axis.
Unrestrained beam-column elements loaded in strong
axis bending therefore exhibit an interaction between

ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Mohri et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 290302

column buckling and beam lateral buckling. In literature,

the elastic critical load for a member subject to compressive
load and uniform bending moment is the only case for
which closed-form analytical solution exist [13]. Theoretical backgrounds on the subject can be found in reference
books [48]. In Europe, friendliness design rules are
adopted in Eurocode 3 [9] for the stability of beam-column
elements including of buckling and lateral buckling
interaction for many load cases and some boundary
conditions. Since publication of such user design solutions,
extensive research has been carried out by the technical
committee 8 of the European convention for constructional
steelwork. It has been proved clearly that such formulas are
often very conservative and lead to uneconomical material
uses. More recently, two improved solutions have been
proposed separately [1013]. These solutions have been
developed for simply supported beam-column elements.
Gonc- alves and Camotim [14] discussed extensively them in
the case of plane behaviour but excluding the interaction
with lateral buckling stability and proposed some solutions
for the equivalent moment factor when boundary conditions are arbitrary.
Regard to linear stability models, many important
factors that inuence the strength of a beam to lateral
buckling have been considered. Among them are prebuckling deections and load height parameter effects. For
this purpose, more complex models have been developed in
non-linear context and some other solutions have been
derived taking them into account. The inuence of load
height parameter in lateral buckling instability is due to
torsion moment due to second-order effects. The phenomenon of pre-buckling deection has been linked to the
geometric ratio of the principal second moments of area
(Iz/Iy), where y and z denote the strong and the weak
principal axes of the cross section. It has been proved that
when the stability of beams with a small ratio Iz/Iy are
investigated, pre-buckling deections are not important
and linear and non-linear stability models lead to close
buckling moments. This is the case of sections with short
anges (I sections, Fig. 1a). However, when this ratio
becomes quite important as for sections with large anges
(H sections, Fig. 1b), the effect of pre-buckling deections
becomes relevant that neglecting such effect may result in
impressive underestimation of the real lateral buckling
resistance. This parameter is probably the useful tool to
assess the self-evident truth that the tendency to the lateral
buckling phenomenon is more pronounced for I section
than for H section (Fig. 1c) and in extreme case when Iz/Iy
is equal to unity beam lateral buckling is not possible.
Considering pre-buckling deections effects, some analytical solutions have been investigated for I beams. Trahair
and Woolcock [15] established closed-form solutions for
lateral buckling simply supported beams under uniform
bending. Some other load distributions and boundary
conditions have been investigated numerically with nite
integral method in [16]. Roberts and Burt [17] investigated
beam stability using RayleighRitz method and derived

291

loads
z

loads
z

Fundamental state

Lateral buckling state

Fig. 1. Bi-symmetric section beams with short and large anges: (a) short
anges I section, small ratio Iz/Iy; (b) large anges sections (H sections),
high ratio Iz/Iy; and (c) lateral buckling instability is more frequent for I
section with short anges.

closed solutions for uniform bending, uniformly distributed and central concentrated loads. Mohri et al. [18]
developed a non-linear model for post-buckling behaviour
of beams under uniformly distributed loads. Analytical
solutions have been derived for bisymmetric I beam
sections in lateral buckling behaviour. The inuence of
pre-buckling and load height parameters has been included. This model has been extended to other load
distribution and accurate closed-form solutions have been
obtained in [19]. The effects of pre-buckling and shear
deformation on lateral buckling of composite beams with
bisymmetric I sections solutions are investigated in [20].
Looking to the fact that in steel buildings, H sections are
more appropriate for beam-column elements, the stability
of this type of elements must combine the effect of prebuckling deections and the interaction between axial load
and lateral buckling and eventually interaction between
buckling and lateral buckling when axial compressive loads
hold. Again, in reality, it is admitted that the axial forces
act concentrically, but lateral loads are applied on top or
bottom anges, as in case of column under compressive

ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Mohri et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 290302

292

gravity loads and lateral bending loads resulting from wind

actions.
To writers knowledge, except the solution carried out in
[15] for stability of beam-column element combining
uniform bending and axial loads, no other closed-form
solutions exist in literature for exuraltorsional beamcolumn stability including effects of pre-buckling deections, load height level and axial loads. In this framework,
a non-linear model is investigated in the present work.
Equilibrium equations are derived from stationary conditions. Closed-form solutions are established for the lateral
buckling loads of an element with bisymmetric section,
in presence of a known axial load. Due to non-linear
context of the equilibrium equations, these solutions
are carried out from the singularity of the tangent stiffness
matrix. The obtained solutions take into account for
pre-buckling deection, load height level and interaction
between buckling and lateral buckling. The case of
simply supported element in both bending and torsion is
considered. Different load cases are investigated: uniformly
distributed load, concentrated loads and uniform
bending. The proposed solutions are validated by recourse
to non-linear nite element software. The model is
extended for stability of redundant beams when important
axial forces are generated in the beam due to non-linear
deformations.

A straight thin-walled element with length L and an open

cross section A is pictured in Fig. 2. A direct rectangular
co-ordinate system has been chosen where x denotes the
initial longitudinal axis and y and z the principal bending
axes. The origin of these axes is located at the centre G.
The shear centre with co-ordinates (yc, zc) in Gyz is denoted
as C. Consider M, a point on the section contour with its
co-ordinates (y, z, o), where o denotes the sectorial coordinate of the point used in Vlasovs model for nonuniform torsion. The main assumptions adopted in the
model are:







The contour of the cross section is rigid in its own plane.

Local and distorsional deformations of the section are
not included. This means that only slender beams are
then concerned in the study.
There are no shear deformations in the mean surface of
the section.
Displacements and twist angle can be large but
deformations are assured to be small.
Elastic behaviour is assumed.

According to these conditions, components displacements of point M are derived from those of the shear centre
as
uM u  yv0 cos yx w0 sin yx
 zw0 cos yx  v0 sin yx  oy0x ,

2.1. Deformation fields

vM v  z  zc sin yx  y  yc 1  cos yx ,

(2)

In a previous work, Vlasovs model has been extended to

large displacements and non-linear stability analyses [21].

wM w y  yc sin yx  z  zc 1  cos yx .

(3)

2. A non-linear model for beam-column elements

qz
s
z
M

/2

C(yc, zc )
qx

y
u

qz
ey

qz
qx

ez
C

In these formulations, u is the axial displacement of

centroid G. v, w are displacement components of shear
centre C in y and z directions and yx is the torsion angle.
The x-derivative is denoted (.). Displacements of M given
by (1)(3) are then non-linear and depend on the
approximation done for circular functions cos yx and
sin yx. Let us remind that Vlasovs relationships can be
obtained from (1)(3) by using the approximation cos yx=1
and sin yx=yx and by disregarding the resulting non-linear
terms.
In thin-walled beams with bi-symmetric sections the
shear point is coincident with centroid, Greens strain
tensor which incorporates large displacements is reduced to
the following components:
xx u0  yv00 cos yx w00 sin yx  zw00 cos yx
1
2
 v00 sin yx  oy00x v0 2 w0 2 R2 y0 x ,
2




1
qo 0
1
qo 0
z
y
xy 
yx ; xz
y ,
2
qy
2
qz x

(5,6)

where
Fig. 2. (a) Open section beam and (b) view of applied loads in bisymmetric
cross section.

R2 y2 z2 .

(7)

ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Mohri et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 290302

2.2. Elastic equilibrium equations

Equilibrium equations are formulated from the stationary conditions:
dU  W 0,

(8)

where d denotes virtual variation. U is the beam strain

energy and W is the external load work. They are detailed
below separately.
The variation of the strain energy of the beam element
with slenderness L and cross area A is dened as
Z Z
dU
sxx dxx 2sxy dxy 2sxz dxz dA dx,
(9)
L

where sxx , sxy and sxz are the PiolaKirchhoff stress

tensor components. Referred to (4)(6), strain variations
dexx, dexy and dexz are computed and put as
dxx du0 dv0 v0 dw0 w0  ydv00 cos yx dw00 sin yx
 yw00 cos yx  v00 sin yx dyx
 zdw00 cos yx  dv00 sin yx zw00 sin yx

dxy

v00 cos yx dyx  ody00x R2 y0x dy0x ,

10




1
qo
1
qo
z
y

dy0x and dxz
dy0x .
2
qy
2
qz
(11,12)

In beam theory, the strain energy variation is always

formulated in term of the stress resultants (section forces)
acting on cross-section of the beam in the deformed state.
Doing integration of stresses over the cross area A, one
denes the following components:
Z
Z
Z
N
sxx dA; M y
sxx z dA; M z  sxx y dA,
A

(13a2c)
Z

Bo 
A

and
M sv

sxx R2 dA

MR

sxx o dA;




Z  
qo
qo
sxz y 
 sxy z
dA.
qz
qy
A

13d; f

N is the axial force, My and Mz are the bending

moments, Bo is the bimoment and Msv is the St-Venant
torsion moment. MR is a higher order stress resultant called
Wagners moment. Another formulation for dU in term of
stress resultants is carried out:
Z

dU

00

Ndu v dv w dw dx  M y dw cos yx
L
Z
00
00
 dv sin yx dx M y w sin yx v00 cos yx dyx dx
L
Z
Z
00
M z dv cos yx dw00 sin yx dx M z w00 cos yx
L
Z
Z L
00
00
 v sin yx dyx dx Bo dyx dx M R y0x dy0x dx
L
L
Z
0
14
M sv dyx dx.
L

293

Since the study is devoted to beam-column stability,

applied loads are reduced to distributed loads qx and qz
acting in axial and lateral directions x and z. Again, it is
admitted that axial loads qx are applied on centre line
without any eccentricity but lateral loads qz act along line
(ss0 ) located on section contour (Fig. 2a). The external
work variation dW is dened by the relationship:
Z
dW qx du qz dws dx
(15)
L

in which, ws is the vertical displacement of (ss0 ) line. It is

derived from relationship (3). After computation of dws,
one gets for dW:
Z
Z
dW
qx du dx qz dw dx
L
L
Z
16
qz ey cos yx  ez sin yx dyx dx.
L

ey and ez denote eccentricities of lateral loads qz from the

shear point C (Fig. 2b). According to (14) and (16), the
total potential variation is then function of virtual
displacements and their derivatives. Integrating by parts
the relationship (14), one gets an expression in terms of
virtual displacements du, dv, dw and dyx. Equilibrium
equations are derived from (8) are:
N 0 qx ,
(17a)
M z cos yx 00 M y sin yx 00  Nv00 0,

(17b)

M y cos yx 00 M z sin yx 00  Nw00 qz ,

(17c)

B00o  M sv 0  M R y0x 0 M y w00 sin yx v00 cos yx

M z w00 cos yx  v00 sin yx qz ey cos yx  ez sin yx .
17d
These equations are established for bisymmetric sections
without any simplifying assumptions on torsion angle.
They are all non-linear and strongly coupled. In linear
stability models, the coupling results from the difference
between geometric and shear centre (geometric coupling).
In the present model, it results also from the twist angle yx
(kinematic coupling). In the case of elastic behaviour, with
E and G being the Youngs and shear modulus respectively,
the expression of the stress resultants of a bi-symmetric
section are:


1 02
02
0
02
N EA u v w I 0 y x ,
(18a)
2
M y EI y w00 cos yx  v00 sin yx ;
M z EI z v00 cos yx w00 sin yx ;
Bo EI o y00x ;

M sv GJy0x ;

(18b,c)
2

M R NI 0 12EI t y0 x .
(18d2f)

These relationships are formulated in the principal axes.

Iy and Iz are the second moments of area about the
principal axes y and z. J and Io, are respectively, St-Venant
torsion and warping constants. I0 is the polar moment of
area about shear centre. It is a higher geometric constant

ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Mohri et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 290302

294

[21]. In numerical approach, circular functions cos yx and

sin yx are approximated by
y2x
; sin yx yx .
(19a,b)
2
When axial loads are reduced to a concentric axial load
P at end beam and distributed lateral load qz at level ez
applied (Fig. 3a and b), the following elastic exural
torsional equilibrium equations result when non-linear
terms are conserved until cubic order:
N P,
(20a)
cos yx 1 

EI z v4 Pv00 EI z  EI y w4 yx 2w000 y0x w00 y00x

2

 v4 y2x  4v000 yx y0x  2v00 yx y00x  2v00 y0 x 0,

20b

EI y w4 Pw00 EI z  EI y v4 yx 2v000 y0x v00 y00x

2

w4 y2x 4w000 yx y0x 2w00 yx y00x 2w00 y0 x qz ,

20c

00
0 00
00
3
EI o y4
x  GJyx  2EI t y x yx PI 0 yx EI z
2

 EI y v00 w00  v00 yx w00 yx qz ez yx .

00

20d
(4)

000

In these differential equations, (.) , (.) and (.) denote

successive x-derivative of order 2, 3 and 4. The positive sign
is admitted for compressive load P. The model is applied to
simply supported beams in both bending and torsion with
free warping. In this case, a realistic function for
displacements v, w and yx in the rst mode are:
 x
v
w
yx

sin p ,
(21a2c)
v0 w0 y0
L
where v0, w0 and y0 are the associated displacement
amplitudes. According to Galerkins method, coupled
algebraic equilibrium equations are obtained from system
(20). After needed simplications, they are written in
compact form as


8
3
2
w 0 y0  v 0 y0 00 ,
Pz  Pv0 Pz  Py
(22a)
3p
4


8
3
32
2
v0 y0 w0 y0  3 M 0 0,
Py  Pw0 Pz  Py
3p
4
p
(22b)
3p2 EI t 3
I 0 Py  Py0
y Pz  Py
8 L2 0


8
3
3
8
2
2
v0 w0  y0 v0 y0 w0 2 ez y0 M 0 0.

3p
4
4
p

22c

In this system, Py and Pz, are the Eulers classical

buckling loads of a simply supported element. Py is the

qz
P

ez
x

p2 EI y
p2 EI z
;
P

,
z
L2
L2
1 p2 EI o
q L2
Py 2 GJ and M 0 z .
I0 L
8
Py

23a2d

At this stage, it is important to mention, that from (22),

algebraic equilibrium equations of a strut with a bisymmetric
section under an axial load can be easily obtained by putting
M0=0. Also, the same system can be used in order to
establish the algebraic system governing the beam lateral
buckling by just vanishing the axial load P. Again, one can
remark that in the torsion equilibrium Eq. (22c) a cubic term
in y0 is present. This term is called either the shortening term,
or non-linear warping. Its inuence is important in nonlinear torsion and post-buckling behaviour.
When one deals with non-linear equations, one can
observe that the solution is not unique and becomes more
complex with the presence of singular points. First, when
this is possible, analyst can be helped when the singular
points can be estimated. In the case of beam-column
behaviour, critical bending M0 can be obtained when a
prescribed axial load P is applied. This leads to an
interaction between lateral buckling moment M0 and load
P. This process is claried hereafter.
2.3. Computation of lateral buckling loads
The interaction of the lateral buckling behaviour with
the axial load P of a beam-column element is considered
according to the system (22) with (M060; P60). Due to the
fact that the system governing the beam-column behaviour
is non-linear, the buckling loads are carried out according
to singularity of the tangent stiffness matrix.
In lateral buckling behaviour of a beam, when the load
qz or the equivalent bending moment M0 is applied, the
deformation of the beam increases with the load and the
beam moves vertically. This deformation stage corresponds
to the pre-buckling state, also called the fundamental
state. But when the buckling load is reached, the section
suddenly twists and the behaviour goes from pure bending
to exuraltorsional. Then, in the fundamental state the
displacements components of the beam are limited to {v0,
w0, y0}t={0, w0, 0}.
According to this condition, the obtained tangent
stiffness matrix terms derived from the algebraic equilibrium Eqs. (22) are the following:
2

qz

pure torsion buckling load. M0 is the rst-order bending

moment at the mid-length of the beam. They are given by
the following relationships:

3
8
0
Pz  P
3p w0 Pz  Py
6
7
7.
0
Py  P 0
K t  6
4
5
8ez
8
3
2
w
P

P

0
I
P

P

P

P
w
z
y
0
y
0
z
y
0
3p 0
4
p2

(24)
Fig. 3. Beam-column element under concentrated axial and distributed
loads: (a) beam-column element and (b) denition of load height level.

The buckling moments of the element for a known axial

load P are computed according to the singularity of the

ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Mohri et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 290302

tangent matrix [Kt]. After vanishing the determinant of

[Kt], one gets the following quadratic equation in w0:


8
Pz  P I 0 Py  P 2 M 0 ez
p


64
3
 2  Pz  Py 2 w20 Pz  PPz  Py  w20 0.
9p
4

295

Terms k1 and G(P) are given by:





Iz
P
P
P 1
k1 1  ; GP 1 
.
1
1
Py
Pz
Py
Iy
(31a,b)

This expression is usual in beam lateral buckling with a new

term F(P) which is function on the axial load P and given by




P
P
P
F P 1 
1
1
.
(29b)
Py
Pz
Py

One can observe that the coefcient C1 depends only on

pre-buckling deections represented by the k1 parameter,
but C2 relationship (30b) includes not only pre-buckling
deections effect but also has a strong interaction with
axial force P. If the axial force P vanishes, functions F(P)
and G(P) are reduced to 1.0. One yields the same
coefcients obtained in [18] for beam lateral buckling
stability. This means that the beam lateral buckling is
viewed as a particular case of a beam-column element.
According to Trahair [6], an approximate expression is
presented from linear stability for simply supported beams
under uniformly distributed load of central concentrated
load. Buckling moment is obtained from solution of
quadratic equations. After solution for distributed load,
one gets for C1 and C2 (C1 1.13, C 2 0:451  P=Pz ).
These values are quite different to (30a,b) since prebuckling deection effects are omitted and a linear
interaction between axial load and load height level is
admitted in C2. In the present model which includes the
effects of the pre-buckling deections, load height level and
the presence of the axial load P, a coefcient C2 is present
in addition to C1 in the analytical solution (29). As
established in (30a,b), these coefcients are not constant
but depend on the section shape and the axial load P.
According to (30a), for I sections (IybIz), the term k1 is
close to 1.0 and C1 term are reduced to the constant value
usually found in linear stability (C1 1.14). But, for H
sections (IyEIz), this term C1 is quite different to the usual
constant values used in linear stability. When loads act far
from shear point, C2 term in (30b) intervene in buckling
moment solutions. Again, this term is derived in term of k1
and axial load P. To our knowledge, relationship similar to
(30b) is not available in literature. When I sections with
sort anges are investigated,pk
1 is close to unity and one
gets for this term C 2 0:46 GP. But when H sections
are considered, the term k1 is very p
less
than unity, the C2

term is then much higher than 0:46 GP. The difference

between the linear and non-linear stability should be then
important.
Again, the present model can be employed in lateral
buckling of beams under concentrated loads. In such
situations, Diracs function is used and the same procedure
can be followed as in [22]. As an example, in the case of a
beam under two concentrated loads Qz applied at L/4 from
each end, the relationship (26) is fullled but the relationships (Qz, M0) and (M0, w0) are the following:

One gets for coefcients C1 and C2 the following

relationships:

M 0 Qz

25
This relationship can be simplied as indicated below.
Firstly, we can check that the last two terms can be
combined to get:


64
Pz  Py 2 w20 34Pz  PPz  Py w20
9p2
64
2 Pz  Py Py  Pw20 .
9p

26

Secondly, in the fundamental state, the bending moment

M0 and the deection w0 are not independent. Using rstorder assumptions in Eq. (22b), one obtains:
w0

32 M 0
.
p3 Py  P

(27)

Taking into account for (26) and (27), Eq. (25) becomes:
65; 536
8
Pz  Py M 20 2 Pz  PPy  PM 0 ez
9p8
p
I 0 Pz  PPy  PPy  P 0.

28a

After needed simplications and considering that the

ratio Pz =Py I z =I y , this yields to:





65; 536
Iz
8
P
P
2

1
M 0 2 Pz 1 
1
M 0 ez
9p8
p
Pz
Py
Iy




P
P
P
I 0 Py Pz 1 
1
1
0.
28b
Pz
Py
Py
Buckling moments are derived from solutions of (28b)
and yield to:
p2 EI z
M 0;b P C 1
2
2 L

s
3

2
Io
GJL 5
4C 2 ez  C 2 ez 2
1 2
Iz
p EI o
p
 F P.
29a

1:14
C 1 p ;
k1

0:46 p
C 2 p GP.
k1

(30a2b)

L
;
4

w0

11p2 M 0
.
96 Py  P

(32a,b)

One arrives to a quadratic equation similar to (28b).

Then, the relationship (29) for buckling moments holds

ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Mohri et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 290302

296

Table 1
Formulation of coefcients C1 and C2 needed for lateral buckling stability
of a beam-column element under some representative load cases
C1

C2

1:13
p

k1

0:46
p

p
GP

Qz L4

1:36
p

k1

0:55
p

p
GP

Qz L4

1:05
p

k1

0:43
p

p
GP

Qz L3

1:10
p


0:50
p

p
GP

M0

p1:0 

M0

Load case

qz

L2

(*): k1 1  I z =I y ; GP

k1

k1

k1

k1

k1

k1

1P=Py 1P=Pz
1P=Py

but the coefcients C1 and C2 are exchanged, respectively,

into:
1:04
C 1 p ;
k1

0:42 p
C 2 p GP.
k1

(33a2b)

Terms k1 and G(P) are the same as in (31a,b). The same

procedure is followed for other load cases encountered and
coefcients C1 and C2 are derived. Their values are
presented in Table 1.
At this stage, an analytical solution has been derived for
lateral buckling stability of simply supported beam-column
elements with bi-symmetric sections. It takes into account
for pre-buckling deformation, load height level and the
interaction with the presence of axial loads. This compact
formulation is established for the more useful design load
cases such as distributed, concentrated loads and uniform
bending moments. Different coefcients C1 and C2 are
given for these load cases. Once more, notice that in the
literature, the stability of beam-column elements including
pre-buckling deections is restricted to uniform bending.
The present analytical solution developed from a nonlinear model includes pre-buckling deections and load
height level is then more general and constitutes an original
contribution to the stability of beam-column elements
independently to the section shape of the element.

3. Numerical investigations
3.1. Numerical procedure
In numerical computations, effects of axial loads, prebuckling deection and load height level on beam lateral
buckling resistance are studied. For this aim, analytical
lateral buckling solutions are computed according to linear
and non-linear solutions for different values of the axial
load P. These analytical solutions are compared to
numerical simulations. In numerical simulations, Abaqus
nite element code [23] is customized. For the purpose,
each beam is modelled with thin-walled shell elements
(S8R5) and uniform mesh has been assumed for web and
anges (Fig. 4). The numerical buckling loads are obtained
from path following of the non-linear behaviour of the
beam. In pre-buckling state, the beam response is
essentially exural. The displacement components are
reduced to a deection w in z direction. When the buckling
load is reached, the exuraltorsional behaviour arises and
additional displacements v in y-axis and twist angle yx
appear in post-buckling range. In order to initiate the
exuraltorsional behaviour of the beam, initial torsion
moment and concentrated load in y directions are applied
at mid-span. These loads lead to initial small imperfections.
In analysis, loads are applied in two non-linear steps. In
rst step, imperfections and the axial load P are applied to
the beam and an imperfect beam is then obtained. In the
second step, the path following of the beam behaviour
under lateral loads is investigated. Displacements v0 and w0
of shear point at the middle of the beam are followed and
their variations with respect to lateral loads are pictured.
Due to the nature of the equilibrium equations and the
presence of singular points, Riks method is adopted in the
procedure. Load case 1 and 2 of Table 1 are considered in
the study: beam under uniformly distributed load and
concentrated load at mid-span. The results are similar for
the other load cases. For validation process, a bisymmetric
I section with large anges (HEA 200) is considered. This
section presents a high ratio Iz/Iy of order 0.38. The

qz

3
2
1

Fig. 4. View of the uniform shell mesh adopted for beam I section.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Mohri et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 290302

geometric characteristics of the sections are computed

according to the numerical procedure originally developed
in [21]. The steel elastic constants used are E 210,
G 80.77 GPa.

H200

250
200
M0 (kNm)

P=0
150

P = 0.5 Pz

118.13

100
74.81

50

qz

qz

v
L=6m

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

v (m)

H200

250

P=0

M0 (kNm)

200
150
118.13

P = 0.5 Pz

100
74..81

50

L=6m

0.05

qz

qz

0
0.10

w
0.15
w (m)

P=0
250
M0 (kNm)

For this load case, analytical solutions have been

validated for different values of the axial load P,
respectively, equal to 0.0, 0.2Pz, 0.5Pz and 0.75Pz. As an
example, the equilibrium paths (M0, v0) in pre-buckling
and post-buckling states are plotted in Fig. 5a, for a beam
slenderness L 6 m modelled with shell elements for two
values of P when the axial load is equal to 0.0 and 0.5Pz.
The distributed loads are applied on top ange. The
equilibrium paths (M0, w0) in pre-buckling and postbuckling states are depicted in Fig. 5b, for the two values of
P and the same load position. Similar curves are carried
out when loads are applied on bottom anges. They are
viewed in Fig. 6a and b. One can observe that the
displacements v0 are present only in post-buckling range.
Again, in the pre-buckling range, the deection w0 is
linearly dependant on the axial load P and agrees well with
relationship (27).
For the considered cross section and slenderness, one
gets Pz 767.64 kN. For load position on top anges
(Fig. 5a and b), the numerical bifurcations are observed at

0.20

0.25

0.30

Fig. 5. (a) (M0,v) curve variations in pre- and post-buckling ranges in

presence of initial axial compressive load P, distributed loads on top
ange. (b) Moment deection variations in pre- and post-buckling ranges
in presence of initial axial compressive load P, distributed loads on top
ange.

H200

300
238.97

200
150

124.20

P = 0.5 Pz

100

50

v
L=6m

qz

0
0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

v (m)
300

H200

P=0

250
M0 (kNm)

3.2. Beam under distributed loads

297

238.97

200
150

124.20

P = 0.5 Pz

100

50

qz
qz

L=6m

0
-

0.05

0.10

0.15
w (m)

0.20

0.25

0.30

Fig. 6. (a) (M0,v) curve variations in pre- and post-buckling ranges in

presence of initial axial compressive load P, distributed loads on bottom
ange. (b) Moment deection variations in pre- and post-buckling ranges
in presence of initial axial compressive load P, distributed loads on bottom
ange.

118.13 when P 0 and 74.81 kN m when P 0.5Pz.

Referred to the pure lateral buckling moment at P 0,
the presence of axial compressive load decreases the beam
lateral buckling resistance to the average of 37%. The
analytical buckling moments resulting from linear and nonlinear stability models have been computed and compared
to shell results. The buckling moment of the beam-column
element according to non-linear stability are computed
from the analytical solution (29) and the related coefcients
C1 and C2 shown in the rst line of Table 1. Here, as
mentioned in the model, these coefcients include prebuckling deections and the axial load P. One gets for
the analytical buckling moments, respectively, 119.88 when
P 0 and 75.49 kN m when P 0.5Pz. These values agree
well with numerical values. Buckling moments resulting
from classical linear stability are obtained from relationship (29) and omitting k1 forpcoefcients
C1 and C2

(i.e. C1=1.13 and C 2 0:46 GP). For this load

position, one obtains for the analytical lateral buckling
moments, respectively, 94.98 when P=0.0 and 65.09 kN m
when P=0.5Pz. These values are very conservative when
they are compared to non-linear stability and numerical
bifurcations.
When distributed loads act on bottom anges (Fig. 6a
and b), numerical bifurcations are observed, respectively,
at 238.97 when P 0 and 124.20 kN m when P 0.5Pz.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Mohri et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 290302

298

26% when load is applied on bottom ange. For

sections with large ratio Iz/Iy, the lateral buckling
resistance of beams is predominated by pre-buckling
deformations. The linear stability is not able to predict
correctly the real lateral buckling resistance.

Table 2
Numerical and analytical buckling moments variation with P when load qz
act on top ange
P/Pz

Numeric
(Abaqus)

Proposed
(NLS)

Analytic (LS)

0.0
0.2
0.5
0.75

118.13
98.73
74.81
49.55

119.88
101.97
75.25
50.51

101.77
86.41
62.86
41.45

NLS: non-linear stability, LS: linear stability, Pz 767.64 kN.

Table 3
Numerical and analytical buckling moment variations with P when load qz
act on bottom ange
P/Pz

Numeric
(Abaqus)

Proposed
(NLS)

Analytic (LS)

0.0
0.2
0.5
0.75

238.97
190.22
124.20
71.64

241.33
191.64
124.88
72.33

177.68
142.59
93.70
55.09

NLS: non-linear stability, LS: linear stability, Pz 767.64 kN.

The analytical buckling moments computed from nonlinear stability are 241.33 for P 0 and 124.88 kN m for
P 0.5Pz. These values are close to numerical bifurcations. Again, according to linear stability model, one
obtains lower values, respectively, 177.68 when P 0 and
93.70 kN m when P 0.5Pz. In numerical validation, the
same procedure has been followed for the other values of
P. Nevertheless, due to time consuming, the path following
of the non-linear equilibrium curves in post-buckling range
is stopped when displacements v at the mid-length reach
5 mm. The numerical and analytical buckling moment
variation of the beam-column element for P varying from
0.0 to 0.75Pz are summarized in Table 2 for load acting on
top ange. Values relating to load acting on bottom ange
follow in Table 3, for the same values of P. The following
remarks hold:

Numerical buckling moments resulting from bifurcations relating to non-linear behaviour agrees with
analytical proposed solutions derived from non-linear
stability.
In spite of imperfections, bifurcations deduced from
non-linear shell behaviour lead to higher buckling
moments than those predicted by linear stability. This
means that linear stability solutions underestimate
tremendously the real lateral buckling resistance of
beams for which the behaviour is predominated by prebuckling deections like H sections. For this slenderness, referred to non-linear solutions, the difference is of
order 16% when load is on top ange and can reach

3.3. Beam under a central concentrated load

The stability of the beam-column element with the
previous section under central concentrated load is
investigated. For this load case, analytical solutions
according to linear and non-linear stability are compared
to shell elements where buckling moments are related to
singular points observed on non-linear equilibrium paths of
the beam in the pre-buckling and post-buckling ranges. For
this load case, a slenderness L 6 m is again chosen and
the same procedure for uniformly distributed load has been
followed.
Analytical buckling moments resulting from linear and
non-linear stability models have been computed. Nonlinear stability buckling moments are computed according
to relationship (29). Coefcients C1 and C2 related to this
load case shown in the second line of Table 1 include prebuckling deection effects and axial load P. For linear
stability solutions, closed-form Eq. (29) is used but
coefcients C1 and C2 are kept independent
to coefcient
p
k1, respectively, C1=1.36 and C 2 0:55 GP. Analytical
and numerical results are summarized in Table 4 for load
acting at top ange and bottom ange. One can remark:

The numerical buckling moments relating to bifurcations observed on equilibrium paths agree with analytical solutions proposed from non-linear stability. The
difference is less than 2%.
Linear stability solutions are lower than non-linear
stability values. For this slenderness (L 6 m), referred
to non-linear stability solutions and numerical bifurcations, the difference is of the same order as for the
previous load case for the two load levels. It is proved
again that classical linear stability solutions are no
longer valid for prediction of stability of beam-column
elements with large anges, where the behaviour is
predominated by pre-buckling deection.

3.4. Elastic lateral buckling interaction with axial load

The elastic lateral buckling interaction of a beam-column
element with axial load P has been presented in the case of
a beam under lateral loads or under uniform bending
moments. The same relationship (29) is proposed for all
load cases. Coefcients C1 and C2 needed are given in
Table 1. Nevertheless, when loads act on shear centre
(ez 0), the compact relationship (29) leads to the same
interaction between lateral buckling and the axial load
either in compression or tension for all the load cases
depicted in Table 1. Considering ez 0, C2 term has no

ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Mohri et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 290302

299

Table 4
Numerical and analytical buckling moment variation with P for a beam column element under a central concentrated load Qz
P/Pz

Load on top ange

0.00
0.20
0.50
0.75

Load on bottom ange

Numeric (Abaqus)

Proposed (NLS)

Analytic (LS)

Numeric (Abaqus)

Proposed (NLS)

Analytic (LS)

131.00
113.85
84.45
58.20

134.60
115.76
86.25
58.48

115.70
98.74
72.51
48.34

297.46
237.00
154.50
88.55

309.14
244.92
157.16
89.85

224.79
179.47
116.84
67.94

NLS: non-linear stability, LS: linear stability, Pz 767.64 kN.

2.00

1.0

H200

Mb(P) / Mb(0)

1.75

M0.b(P)/M0.b(0)

1.50
1.25

P in compression

P in tension
1.00

Pz /P = 0.2

0.75

Pz/P = 0.5

-0.40

-0.20

0.20

0.40

qz

qz

L = 6m

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

P/Pz

Pz/P=1.0

0.00
-0.60

qz
0.4

0.0
-

0.25

-0.80

0.6

0.2

0.50

-1.00

qz

0.8

0.60

P/Pz
0.80

1.00

Fig. 8. Effect of load height parameter on curves interaction of lateral

buckling resistance and axial load P.

Fig. 7. Interaction of lateral buckling resistance with axial load P.

incidence. One can put:

s




M 0;b P p
P
P
P
.
F P
1
1
1
M 0;b 0
Py
Pz
Py
(34)
Here M0,b(0) is the pure lateral buckling moment. This
relationship is well known in literature. Interaction curves
of the selected section for some slenderness represented by
the ratio Pz/Py are depicted in Fig. 7. Under compressive
load, interaction curves decrease from the pure lateral
buckling resistance when P is null to the vanished value
when P reaches its critical value Pz. Under tensile load the
lateral buckling resistance increases and becomes unbounded until yielding arises. Similar results can be found
in [7,8].
However, when loads act on anges, the elastic lateral
buckling resistance depends on load height parameter ez
and the related coefcient C2. The relationship (34) is then
no longer valid. As shown in Table 1, C2 coefcient is
related to the axial load P by function G(P). Interaction
curves of the lateral buckling with P are then highly
dependant on ez. Effect of load height level on interaction
curves of lateral buckling moment and axial load P is
plotted in Fig. 8 for three load positions of a beam under
uniform loads and the same cross section. The incidence of
ez is then evident.

At this stage, it is important to compare the proposal

solutions with existing solutions. According to Trahair [6],
an approximate expression is presented from linear
stability for simply supported beams under uniformly
distributed load or central concentrated load. Buckling
moment is obtained from solution of a quadratic equation.
After solution the compact solution (29) holds, but the
C2 are, respectively, C1=1.13, C 2
coefcients

C1
and

0:45 1  P=Pz

for distributed loads and C1=1.35, C 2

0:54 1  P=Pz for a central concentrated load. These
values are quite different to writers proposal summarized
in Table 1 where pre-buckling deections are considered
and a strong non linear interaction relationship is found
between axial load and height load level in C2 term.
Considering the two load cases, the proposal solutions
derived here for load height level are compared to Trahairs
relationships. For this aim, in addition to the section
considered earlier which is very sensitive to pre-buckling
deections, another section with small anges called
IPE300 is studied. This section (with ratio Iz/Iy of order
0.075) is not sensitive to pre-buckling deections. The C2
variation versus load ratio P/Pz is depicted in Fig. 9a for
IPE300 beam with slenderness L 6 m. It is evident that
for Trahairs curves, coefcient C2 decreases for the two
load cases linearly from 0.45 and 0.54 when P/Pz 0.0 to
0.0 when P/Pz 1.0. In the proposal solutions, the
coefcient C2 decreases non-linearly from values slightly
higher than 0.45 and 0.55 when P/Pz 0.0 to 0.0 when
P/Pz 1.0. The proposal solutions are close to Trahairs

ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Mohri et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 290302

300

0.6

I300,L = 6m
P

Qz
6m

C2

0.4

0.2

qz
6m
Trahair (1993)
Proposal

0.0
-

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P/Pz
0.8

H200,L=6m
Qz

0.6
C2

6m

0.4
0.2

qz
6m
Trahair (1993)
Proposal

0.0
-

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

P/Pz

Fig. 9. (a) Variation of height load level coefcient C2 versus load P for
simply supported beams under uniformly ditributed and central concentrated loads (IPE300 section). (b) Variation of height load level coefcient
C2 versus load P for simply supported beams under uniformly distributed
and central concentrated loads (HEA 200 section).

predictions only at P/Pz 0.0 and 1.0. Important difference is observed elsewhere.
The variation of C2 versus P/Pz is pictured in Fig. 9b for
HEA200 section with the same slenderness. In Trahairs
formulation, coefcient C2 is independent to section shape
the same curves are obtained as for section IPE300. In the
proposal solutions which account for pre-buckling deections, the coefcient C2 decreases non-linearly from 0.58
for distributed loads to 0.0. Under central concentrated
load, it decreases from 0.70 to 0.0. Important difference is
remarked between the different solutions. The linear curves
are more questionable.
3.5. Case of redundant beams
Previous studies have outlined effects of applied axial
loads on lateral buckling of determinate beams. Beam
lateral buckling resistance increases when the axial load is
in tension and decreases in presence of compressive axial
load. Nevertheless, in redundant beams, section axial
forces arise from non-linear deformations either the beam
is initially in pure bending. Most of analytical solutions
carried out for beam lateral buckling neglect the effect of
axial force resulting from non-linear beam deformation. In
numerical analysis, such solutions are fullled with free

axial displacement at one beam end (component u, Fig. 2a).

In the present model, the relationship between the section
axial load N and beam deformation are derived in
Eq. (18a). In what follows, effects of section axial forces
on beam lateral buckling is studied in the case of simply
supported beams under central concentrated loads applied
at shear point. For each boundary condition, post-buckling
behaviour of the beam is depicted by considering the axial
displacement u free or prevented. The variation of the
maximum axial force N in the beam and displacements in
lateral and vertical displacements versus the applied load is
pictured. For this studies, a more slender steel beam is
adopted L 8 m. Due to their important behaviour,
IPE300 and HEA200 are reconsidered.
The effect of axial boundary conditions on IPE300 beam
response is depicted in Fig. 10a for (Qz, v0) and in Fig. 10b
beam deection. One can remark that for this section
shape, axial boundary condition has no incidence on
buckling load which is observed at Qz 40 kN. This value
is in accordance with non-linear stability solutions and
slightly higher than linear stability and eigenvalue problem
predictions. Nevertheless, the beam response in the postbuckling range is highly dependant on axial boundary
condition. The curves pass from at to a stable hardening
shape, particularly for lateral displacement v which
becomes very limited when the axial displacement is
prevented regard to the free condition. Axial forces N
resulting from beam deformations according to the two
boundary conditions are quite different (Fig. 10c). In free
boundary condition, the axial forces intensity developed in
post-buckling range are very limited and do not exceed
8 kN at the end of the process. In prevented boundary
condition, important tension axial forces are generated in
the beam especially in post-buckling range. Their incidence
is then evident on reducing lateral buckling effects, in
particular the component v and torsion (not shown here).
The effect of the axial displacement on the equilibrium
paths (Qz, v0) in pre-buckling and post-buckling states are
plotted in Fig. 11a for the case of simply supported beam
with HEA200 section. The equilibrium paths (Qz, w0)
follow in Fig. 11b under the same conditions. One can
observe that when the axial displacement is free, a lateral
buckling load holds at Qz 70 kN. This value agrees well
with the non-linear stability solutions derived in [19],
taking into account for pre-buckling deection effects in
beam lateral buckling. This value is higher than linear
stability and eigenvalue problem predication. The postbuckling curve is rather at and the displacement increase
highly without signicant increase of load. When the axial
displacement u is prevented, beam lateral buckling
resistance is improved and the lateral displacement v is
very limited. Again, the beam deection becomes highly
non-linear, hardening without any critical load. The
variation of the axial force N at mid-length section has
been studied for the two boundary conditions. When the
axial displacement u is free, the axial force N is not
signicant and reaches 5 kN at the end of the process.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Mohri et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 290302

Qz

200

200

I 300, L = 8m

I 300, L = 8m

150

100
Qz

Qz (kN)

150
Q (kN)

301

100

Qz

50

50

0
-

0.05

200

0.10
v

0.15

0.20

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

I300, L = 8m
Qz

Qz (kN)

150

100
Qz

100

Zoom of origine zone

Qz

75

Qz

50
50
25
0
-

200

400

600

800

1000

10

15

20

N (kN)

Fig. 10. Incidence axial boundary conditions on beam lateral buckling resistance (I beam): (a) (Qz,v) equilibrium curves; (b) variation of beam deection;
and (c) variation of section force N with zoom of origine zone.

250

250
Qz

Qz
200

150
Qz
100

Q (kN)

Q (kN)

200

150

Qz

100

50

50

0
-

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.10

0.20

0.30

250
Qz

Qz

Qz (kN)

200

100
Qz

150

75

100

50

50

25

Zoom of origine zone

Qz

0
-

200

400

600

800

1000

10

15

20

25

N (kN)

Fig. 11. Incidence axial boundary conditions on beam lateral buckling response (HEA beam): (a) (Qz,v) equilibrium curves for HEA beam; (b) deection
variations for HEA beam; and (c) variation of section force N with zoom of origine zone.

However, when the axial displacement is locked, important

tension forces N in the beam have been developed.
Variation of N at mid-length section versus load Qz is
viewed at Fig. 11c. The curve is non-linear in the whole

process. These tension section forces have evident incidence

on beam response. These examples permit us to admit that
lateral buckling resistance can be improved by axial
boundary conditions.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
302

F. Mohri et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 46 (2008) 290302

4. Conclusions
A non-linear model for the stability analysis of beamcolumn elements with bi-symmetric cross sections has been
investigated. The equilibrium equations for axial and bending
loads are deduced in the context of large displacements,
taking into account for warping, shortening and couplings
between bending and torsion. This permitted one to study
lateral buckling and buckling interaction of a beam-column
element. It has been established that the lateral buckling
resistance of a beam-column element is highly dependant on
presence of axial load P bending distribution, on load height
parameter and on pre-buckling deections. Improved analytical solutions are provided for the lateral buckling resistance
of beams with bisymmetric I sections taking into account for
such parameters. The coefcients C1 and C2 are given for
some representative load cases. These coefcients are function
on the geometric ratio k1 (k1 1Iz/Iy) that represents prebuckling effects and the axial load P. When these coefcients
are omitted, the classical linear stability solutions of beam
lateral buckling are recovered.
The proposed analytical solutions have been compared
to linear stability ones and to non-linear nite element
results using shell elements. Numerical buckling moments
have been computed from singular points observed along
the non-linear equilibrium paths. Attention has been
focused on effects of load height parameter and the
intensity of the axial load P. The proposed solutions
predict well beam lateral buckling resistance independently
of section shape. These solutions are close to FEM results.
The classical linear stability solutions underestimate
tremendously the resistance of beam-column element to
lateral buckling especially for H sections for which the
behaviour is predominated by pre-buckling deections.
The study is extended to the effect of axial boundary
conditions on lateral buckling resistance of redundant beams.
It is proved that when axial displacements of a beam are
prevented important tension axial forces are generated in the
beam. This results in impressive reduction of displacements
and for a section with high coefcient Iz/Iy, the beam response
curves are highly non-linear without any bifurcation.
References
[1] Hill HN, Clark JW. Lateral buckling of eccentrically loaded I-section
columns. Transactions of ASCE 1951;116:1179.
[2] Salvadori MG. Lateral buckling of eccentrically loaded I columns.
ASCE Transactions 1956;121:116378.

[3] Campus F, Massonnet C. Recherches sur le ambement des colonnes

an acier A37 a` prol en double Te sollicites obliquement. CR Rech.
IRSIA, 1956, April.
[4] Timoshenko SP, Gere JM. Theory of elastic stability. 2nd ed.
New York: McGraw-Hill; 1961.
[5] Chen WF, Atsuta T. Theory of beam-columns, vol. 1: in-plane
behaviour and design; vol. 2, space behaviour and design. New York:
McGraw-Hill; 1977.
[6] Trahair NS. Flexuraltorsional buckling of structures. London:
Chapman & Hall; 1993.
[7] Trahair NS, Bradford MA. The behaviour and design of steel
structures to AS 4100. London: E&FN Spon; 1998.
[8] Galambos TV. Guide to stability design criteria for metal structures.
1st ed. New York: Wiley; 1998.
[9] Eurocode3Design of steel structures, Part 1.1: General rules for
buildings. European Committee for standardization. Draft Document ENV 1993-1-1, Brussels, 1992.
[10] Boissonnade N, Jaspart J-P, Muzeau J-P, Villette M. Improvement of
the interaction formulae for beam-columns in Eurocode 3. Comput
Struct 2002;80:237585.
[11] Boissonnade N, Jaspart J-P, Muzeau J-P, Villette M. New interaction
formulae for beam-columns in Eurocode 3: the FrenchBelgian
approach. J Construct Steel Res 2004;60:42131.
[12] Greiner R, Ofner R. Validation of design rules for member stability
of European standards proposal for buckling rules. In: Dubina D,
Ivanyi M, editors. Stability and ductility of steel structures.
New York: Elsevier; 1999. p. 818.
[13] Lindner J, Rusch A. New European design concepts for beam
columns subjected to compression and bending. Adv Struct Eng
2001;4:2041.
[14] Gonc- alves R, Camotim D. On the application of beam-column
interaction formulae to steel members with arbitrary loading and
support conditions. J Construct Steel Res 2004;60:43350.
[15] Trahair NS, Woolcock ST. Effect of major axis curvature on I-beam
stability. J Eng Mech Div ASCE 1973;99(1):8598.
[16] Vacharajittiphan P, Woolcock ST, Trahair NS. Effect of in-plane
deformation on lateral buckling. J Struct Mech ASCE 1974;3(11):
2960.
[17] Roberts TM, Burt CA. Instability of mono symmetric beams and
cantilevers. Int J Mech Sci 1985;27(5):31324.
[18] Mohri F, Azrar L, Potier-Ferry M. Lateral post-buckling analysis
of thin-walled open section beams. Thin-Walled Struct 2002;40:
101336.
[19] Mohri F, Potier-Ferry M. Effects of load height application and prebuckling deections on lateral buckling of thin-walled beams. Steel
Composite Struct 2006;6(5):40115.
[20] Machado SP, Cort nez VH. Lateral buckling of thin-walled
composite bisymmetric beams with prebuckling and shear deformation. Eng Struct 2005;27:118596.
[21] Mohri F, Azrar L, Potier-Ferry M. Flexuraltorsional post-buckling
analysis of thin-walled elements with open sections. Thin-Walled
Struct 2001;39:90738.
[22] Mohri F, Brouki A, Roth JC. Theoretical and numerical stability
analyses of unrestrained, mono-symmetric thin-walled beams.
J Construct Steel Res 2003;59:6390.
[23] Hibbit, Karlsson and Sorensen Inc. Abaqus standard users manual,
version 6.4. Pawtucket, RI, USA: Abaqus; 2003.