A Comparative Study of AISC-360 and EC3 Strength Limit States

International Journal of Steel Structures
March 2011, Vol 11, No 1, 13-27

DOI 10.1007/S13296-011-1002-x
www.springer.com/journal/13296
A Comparative Study of AISC-360 and EC3 Strength Limit States

Cem Topkaya1,* and Serkan ahin2
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Middle East Technical University,06531, Ankara, Turkey

2
MITENG, Ankara, Turkey
Abstract
A study has been undertaken to evaluate the similarities and differences between the steel building design specifications used
in the United States and Europe. Expressions for nominal strength presented in the AISC-360 Specification and the Eurocode
3 Specification were compared for fundamental limit states. In particular, rules for cross-section classification, tension members,
compression members, I-shaped members subjected to flexure, I-shaped members subjected to shear, and fasteners were
studied. Results of the investigation revealed that, in general, both specifications provide nominal capacities that are close to
each other. Significant differences were reported for some limit states such as flexure in I-shaped members with non-compact
flanges, shear and lateral torsional buckling in I-shaped members, and bearing strength at bolt holes. In this paper, the details
of the comparative study are presented along with observations that are useful for practicing engineers.
Keywords: steel, specification, strength, limit state, building
1. Introduction
Nowadays design, fabrication, and erection of steel
structures may take place at different locations as a result
of rapid globalization. Owners may require the use of
widely accepted steel design codes regardless of the
location where the structure is going to be built.
Engineers are now faced with the challenge of being
competent with several design specifications for a
particular material type. Two of the widely used steel
design specifications for buildings are the American and
the European ones.
In the United States, Specification for Structural Steel
Buildings (2005) was developed by the American
Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). This specification,
hereafter referred to as the AISC-360 Specification,
utilizes both Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
and Allowable Strength Design (ASD) formats. In
general, limit states that govern the design under a
particular loading are given by the AISC-360 Specification
and the nominal strength based on these limit states is
either used in the LRFD or the ASD format. In the LRFD
Note.-Discussion open until August 1, 2011. This manuscript for this
paper was submitted for review and possible publication on March
25, 2010; approved on November 16, 2010.
KSSC and Springer 2011
*Corresponding author
Tel: +90-312-210 5462; Fax: +90-312-210 7991
E-mail: ctopkaya@metu.edu.tr
format, the nominal strength is multiplied by a resistance

factor (). The purpose of the resistance factor is to
include the uncertainties in the material and geometric
properties as well as the ones in modeling. Resistance
factors of 0.75 and 0.9 are used for fracture and yielding/
instability limit states, respectively.
In Europe, Design of Steel Structures, EN 1993
(2003) was developed by the European Committee for
Standardization. This specification, hereafter referred to
as the EC3 Specification, is based on limit state principles
using partial safety factors (M). In general, the characteristic
resistance is divided by a partial safety factor and then
compared with the factored loads. The partial safety
factors are used to account for the same types of
uncertainties that were explained for the resistance factors
() in the AISC-360 Specification. In other words, partial
safety factors (M) can be thought of as the inverse of
resistance factors (). The recommended M values are
1.0 for yielding, 1.0 for buckling, and 1.25 for fracture
limit states. Because Eurocodes are used in a number of
different countries, each member state has the right to
choose its own partial safety factors and publish these in
a National Annex. The EC3 Specification refers to Annex
D of EN 1990 Basis of Structural Design (2001) for
determining the characteristic resistances. In addition,
nominal values of material and geometric properties are
adopted as characteristic values in design calculations.
Because the characteristic values are replaced with the
nominal ones, the characteristic resistance provided in the
EC3 Specification is identical to the nominal resistance
14
Cem Topkaya and Serkan ahin / International Journal of Steel Structures, 11(1), 13-27, 2011
given in the AISC-360 Specification.

Based on the above discussion, it is apparent that both
the AISC-360 and the EC3 specifications utilize limit
state principles with differing factors to account for
uncertainties. A study has been undertaken with the
following objectives; (i) put together the nominal strength
expressions presented in both codes in a single document,
(ii) to identify the similarities and the differences in
calculated strengths, (iii) to facilitate rapid learning of
either of the specifications with prior knowledge of the
other. Because of the wide scope of specifications, only
fundamental failure modes are considered in this paper.
Resistance equations are directly compared with each
other wherever possible. For cases where the treatment of
specifications is entirely different, representative members
were considered for comparison purposes.
The AISC-360 Specification is an integral document

whereas the EC3 Specification consists of parts and
subparts. In general, each part is focused on a particular
structure type such as buildings, bridges, towers, silos,
and etc. General rules and rules for buildings are
specified in Part 1 of the EC3 Specification. This part is
divided into 11 subparts. Among these, subparts 1.1
(General rules and rules for buildings (2003)), 1.5 (Plated
structural elements (2004)), and 1.8 (Design of joints
(2003)) are utilized in this paper.
The definitions for cross-sections in both specifications

have similarities. Class 4 or slender cross-sections are
those in which local buckling of the plate element(s) will
occur before the attainment of yield stress. Class 3 or
non-compact cross sections are those in which the stress
in the extreme compression fiber can reach to the yield
strength, but local buckling is liable to prevent the
development of the plastic moment capacity. Class 2 or
compact sections are those which can develop their
plastic moment capacity, but have limited rotation capacity
because of local buckling. Finally, Class 1 or seismically
compact sections are those which can develop their
plastic moment capacity and provide significant amount
of rotation capacity.
Limiting width-thickness ratios of stiffened and
unstiffened elements for typical cases are summarized in
Fig. 1 together with the ratio of the limits provided by the
two specifications. According to this figure, the limits set
by the two specifications are generally close to each
other. Major differences arise for HSS members. In
addition, the Class 3 or non-compact limits for flexure in
flanges of rolled or built-up I-shapes differ significantly.
It should also be emphasized that minor differences in
the width-thickness ratio definitions are also present. For
example, in the AISC-360 Specification, half of the flange
width is used in determining the flange slenderness. In the
EC3 Specification, however, only the outstanding portion
of the flange that is measured from the toe of the fillet is
used in calculations.
3. Materials
5. Design of Members for Tension
In the United States, structural steel material should

conform to the standards set forth by the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Widely used
structural steels are A36 (Fy=248 MPa (36 ksi), Fu=400
MPa (58 ksi)), and A572 Gr50 or A992 (Fy=345 MPa (50
ksi), Fu=448 MPa (65 ksi)).
In Europe, structural steel material properties are
documented in Euronorm EN 10025 (1994). Widely used
structural steels are S235 (Fy=235 MPa (34 ksi), Fu=360
MPa (52 ksi)), S275 (Fy=275 MPa (40 ksi), Fu=430 MPa
(62 ksi)), and S355 (Fy=355 MPa (51 ksi), Fu=510 MPa
(74 ksi)).
Both specifications consider tensile yielding in the

gross section and tensile rupture in the net section as the
two primary limit states for tension members. The
nominal resistance of members to these limit states are
calculated as follows:
2. Layout of the Specifications
4. Classification of Cross-sections
Both specifications provide cross section classifications
for local buckling. In the AISC-360 Specification crosssections are classified as compact, non-compact, and slender.
In addition to the AISC-360 Specification requirements,
the Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings
(2005) (AISC-341) has an additional classification named
as seismically compact. On the other hand, in the EC3
Specification sections are classified as Class 1 through
Class 4.
Pn=AgFy (yielding) (AISC-360 and EC3)

Pn=UAnFu (fracture) (AISC-360)
Pn=0.9AnFu (fracture) (EC3)
(1)
The fundamental difference between the two specifications

comes from the way that the shear lag factor U is
calculated. In the AISC-360 Specification, a shear lag
factor of 1.0 is used if the tension load is transmitted
directly to each of the cross sectional elements. An elaborate
treatment is tabulated in the AISC-360 Specification for
other types of connections. Separate rules are presented
for I-section, L-shaped, and HSS members. Usually shear
lag factors that range between 0.6 and 0.9 are found
based on the recommended procedure. On the other hand,
a less elaborate treatment for shear lag is given in the
EC3 Specification. In general, a 10 percent reduction in
tensile fracture capacity is considered even if all cross
sectional elements are connected. Some specific rules for
single angles connected by one leg and other unsym-
15
Figure 1. Comparison of cross-section classifications.
metrically connected members are given in Part 1.8

Section 3.10.3 of the EC3 Specification. According to
these rules, the 0.9 coefficient is replaced with a reduction
factor that varies between 0.4 and 0.7.
Both specifications favor the use of s2/4g rule in
determining the net area in staggered connections. In the
AISC-360 Specification, the width of a bolt hole is taken
2 mm (1/16 in) greater than the nominal dimensions of
the hole to account for damage in hole making process.
No such damage allowance is recommended in the EC3
Specification.
6. Design of Members for Compression

A single column strength curve is given in the AISC360 Specification whereas five separate curves are
presented in the EC3 Specification. In general, both
specifications use a non-dimensional slenderness for
flexural buckling (FB) to define the reduction in capacity.
In Eurocode a unified approach has been adopted for
various forms of member buckling. In other words,
flexural buckling, torsional buckling, flexural-torsional
buckling, and lateral torsional buckling are treated using
16
a unified set of reduction factors. The nominal axial

strength for flexural buckling is computed as follows:
Pn=FyAg (AISC-360 and EC3)
(2)
The non-dimensional slenderness for flexural buckling,

FB, can be expressed as follows:
AgFy KL Fy
FB = ---------- = ------- ----Pcr r E
(3)
The reduction factor () has the following forms

depending on the specification:
= 0.658
FB
Figure 2. Comparison of column strength curves.
0.877
- FB > 1.5
FB 1.5 = -----------2
FB
(AISC-360)
(4)
7. Design of Members for Flexure
1
2
= ------------------------------- = 0.5[ 1 + (FB 0.2) + FB]
2
2
+ FB
(EC3)
compression.
(5)
An imperfection coefficient () to distinguish between

different column strength curves is utilized in the EC3
Specification. For flexural buckling, five cases termed as
ao, a, b, c, d are given for which the values are 0.13,
0.21, 0.34, 0.49, and 0.76, respectively. The choice as to
which buckling curve to adopt is dependent upon the
geometry and material properties of the cross section and
upon the axis of buckling. The rules for selecting the
appropriate column strength curve are tabulated in the
EC3 Specification. In general, curve ao is used for
rolled I-shapes made up of high strength material (Fy=460
MPa (67 ksi)). For steels with a yield strength in the
range 235 MPa (34 ksi) to 420 MPa (61 ksi) curve a is
used for major axis buckling of rolled I-shapes (tf<40 mm
(1.57 in)) and hot rolled HSS. Curve b is used for
minor axis buckling of I-shaped members (tf<40 mm
(1.57 in)) and buckling of angles. Curve c is used for
minor axis buckling of built-up I-shapes and cold formed
HSS. Curve d is used for major and minor axis
buckling of rolled I-shapes with tf>100 mm (3.94 in) and
etc. Readers should refer to the EC3 Specification for
detailed descriptions.
A comparison of reduction factors are presented in Fig.
2. According to this figure, buckling curve a is very
similar to the one of the AISC-360 Specification.
Buckling curve ao tends to give higher capacities but
the use of this curve is quite limited. All other strength
curves (b,c,d) give lower capacity values as compared
with the capacities calculated using the AISC-360
Specification.
Strictly speaking the comparisons presented in this
section are for members having no slender elements. Both
specifications have special rules for the treatment of
slender element or Class 4 sections under pure axial
According to both specifications, yielding, local buckling

and lateral torsional buckling are the three limit states for
flexural members. Yielding/local buckling and lateral
torsional buckling are treated separately herein for clarity
of comparisons.
7.1. Limit states of yielding and local bucklinglaterally supported beams

The nominal moment capacity (Mn) of a cross-section
is influenced by the slenderness of its elements. In the
AISC-360 Specification separate expressions are provided
for the nominal moment capacity depending on the web
classification of the member. A similar yet different
approach is adopted in the EC3 Specification. In this
section, members having compact flanges (Class 1 or 2
flange) are studied first by considering different web
slenderness. Later, members having compact webs (Class
1 or 2) are studied by considering different flange
slenderness. Because of the wide range of application of
the flexure strength expressions, only doubly symmetric
I-shaped members bent about their major axis were
considered.
7.1.1. Members with compact flanges (Class 1 or 2)
Both specifications allow the member to reach its
plastic moment capacity if the web is compact (Class 1 or
2). The nominal moment capacity for these types of
sections is determined as follows:
Mn=Mp=ZFy (AISC-360 and EC3)
(6)
The treatment for non-compact (Class 3) web members

is different in the two specifications. According to the
AISC-360 specification, the nominal moment capacity
reduces linearly with an increase in the web slenderness
and varies between the plastic moment capacity (Mp) and
the yield moment (My). On the contrary, the nominal
moment capacity is directly equal to the yield moment in
17
Figure 3. Effective cross-sections defined in EC3.
the EC3 Specification for Class 3 cross-sections.

The nominal moment capacity for members with noncompact webs is determined as follows:
M M
pw
M
Mn = ------p- ------p- 1 ------------------
My My
rw pw y
where My=SxFy (AISC-360)
Mn=SxFy (EC3)
(7)
While Eq. 7 is applicable to all Class 3 sections (i.e.

flange or web being Class 3) there is a special treatment
in the EC3 Specification for sections with Class 3 webs
and Class 1 or 2 flanges. These sections can be treated as
effective Class 2 cross-sections. In the effective section
shown in Fig. 3a, the proportion of the web in
compression is replaced by a part of 20tw (where =(235/
Fy)0.5, Fy in MPa) adjacent to the compression flange, and
with another part of 20tw adjacent to the plastic neutral
axis of the effective cross-section. The dark portion
shown in Fig. 3a is neglected.
For slender web members, elastic buckling of the web
occurs before any of the fibers reach to the yield stress.
According to the theoretical plate buckling solutions, the
moment carrying capacity decreases drastically with an
increase in the web slenderness. However, restrained thin
plates have significant post-buckling capacity. Both
specifications favor the use of post-buckling strength
possessed by the slender web plates under bending
stresses. Treatments for these types of members are

different in two specifications. The AISC-360 Specification
has a more direct approach for calculating the nominal
moment capacity. Basically, a bending strength reduction
factor (Rpg) is calculated to account for the loss of
strength due to the buckling of the web plate. The
nominal moment capacity is calculated as follows in the
AISC-360 Specification:
Mn=RpgFySx
aw
h
E- 1.0
----- 5.7 ---where Rpg= 1 -----------------------------
F y
1200 + 300aw tw
ht
aw = ------wbf tf
(8)
In the EC3 Specification the slender web members are

treated using the effective cross section shown in Fig. 3b.
A certain portion of the web is assumed to be ineffective.
The amount of reduction in area of the cross-section
under compression is a function of the web slenderness
(h/tw). The effective area under compression for the web
plate is determined as follows:
Ac,eff=befftw=Ac=bctw
=1.0 for p 0.673
p 0.055(3 + )
- for p > 0.673
= ------------------------------------2
p
18
h tw
235
- = -------------------------p = --------------------F
(
in
MPa)
28.4 k
y
=1 and k=23.9 for doubly symmetric sections under
pure bending
(9)
According to the effective cross section shown in Fig.
3b, 40 percent of the effective compression area is
adjacent to the compression flange, and the remaining 60
percent is adjacent to the elastic neutral axis of the cross
section. Calculation of the effective section properties
requires finding the location of the elastic neutral axis.
From equilibrium of stress resultants, the following
equation was derived to find the depth of the web under
compression (bc):
2
[0.4tw+0.12tw0.5tw] bc +[2Af+htw]bc[Afh+0.5h2tw]=0
(10)
Depending on the geometrical properties, the second
order equation can be solved for bc. After determining the
value of bc the effective inertia (Ieff) and the effective
section modulus (Seff=Ieff/bc) can be found. The nominal
moment capacity is calculated as follows:
Mn=SeffFy (EC3)
(11)
The nominal moment capacities from both specifications

were compared by considering doubly symmetric Ishaped members with different web dimensions. For all
cases, 300 mm (11.81 in) by 20 mm (0.79 in) flanges
were considered. The web height was varied between 500
mm (19.69 in) and 2000 mm (78.74 in) and the web
thickness was varied between 5 mm (0.20 in) and 20 mm
(0.79 in). A total of 89 sections were considered which
had an average, maximum, and minimum shape factor of
1.16, 1.28, and 1.07, respectively. Nominal moment
capacities of these sections were calculated according to
both specifications. The capacities were normalized by
the plastic moment capacity (Mp) and are presented in
Fig. 4 for two different yield strength values. In addition,
the ratio (EC3/AISC-360) of the capacities calculated
using both specifications is also given in this figure.
Analysis results reveal that the nominal moment capacity
calculated using the EC3 Specification is lower than the
ones calculated using the AISC-360 Specification for the
web slenderness range between 70 and 250. The opposite
is true for web slenderness values in excess of 250. The
differences are more pronounced for non-compact (Class
3) web members. Capacity estimates are the same for
web slenderness less than 70. The average, standard
deviation, maximum, and minimum of the ratios for the
89 sections are 0.96, 0.05, 1.08, and 0.83, respectively
when data points for both yield strengths are combined.
7.1.2. Members with compact webs (Class 1 or Class 2)
The effects of flange slenderness were studied by
considering compact web I-shaped members. Usually the
Figure 4. Comparison of nominal moment capacities for

compact flange members.
flanges of built-up members are designed to be compact

(Class 1 or Class 2). Non-compact or slender flanges may
be used in some cases to reduce cost of steel framing.
Each specification has a different treatment for the flange
buckling problem. In the AISC-360 Specification, the
limiting slenderness ratio for slender flanges is dependent
on the web dimensions. In other words, the rotational
restraint that is provided by the web to the flange is
explicitly taken into account using a kc factor. In the EC3
Specification, however, the limiting flange slenderness
ratios are not given as a function of the web slenderness.
In order to make a fair comparison of the capacities given
by both specifications, members with different flange and
web slenderness ratios were considered herein.
According to both specifications, a member can reach
to its plastic moment capacity if the flanges are compact
(Class 1 or Class 2). Therefore, Eq. 6 is valid for
determining the nominal moment capacity of such
members.
Treatment of non-compact flanges is similar to the
treatment on non-compact webs in both specifications.
According to the AISC-360 Specification, the nominal
moment capacity reduces linearly with an increase in the
flange slenderness and varies between the plastic moment
capacity (Mp) and the yielding moment considering
residual stresses (0.7My). On the other hand, the nominal
moment capacity is equal to the yield moment for Class

3 sections according to the EC3 Specification.
The nominal moment capacity for members with noncompact flanges is determined as follows:
pf
Mn = Mp (Mp 0.7FySx) --------------rf pf
(AISC-360)
Mn=SxFy (EC3)
(12)
For slender flange members the AISC-360 Specification

utilizes the elastic critical buckling moment approach.
According to the AISC-360 specification the nominal
moment capacity is calculated as follows:
0.9EkcSx
4
Mn = -------------------where kc = ------------- and 0.35 kc 0.76
2
h tw
(13)
In the EC3 Specification, the post-buckling reserve
strength approach is utilized. An effective cross-section
shown in Fig. 3c is considered for this purpose. In this
effective cross section, the outstanding portions of the
compression flange are assumed to be ineffective. The
nominal moment capacity for sections with Class 4
flanges is determined using the elastic section modulus
(Seff) of the effective cross section shown in Fig. 3c. The
effective area of the compression flange and the nominal
moment capacity are determined as follows:
Ac,eff=befftf=bftf
=1.0 for p 0.748
p 0.188
= ---------------------for p > 0.748
2
p
bf t f
235 - = -------------------------p = --------------------F
(
in
MPa)
28.4 k
y
k=0.43 for flanges under uniform compression
Mn=SeffFy
(14)
A total of 264 cross-sections were analyzed to study the

differences between the two specifications. The web of
the sections was selected to be compact (Class 1 or Class
2). The web height varied between 500 mm (19.7 in) and
1000 mm (39.4 in) while the web thickness varied between
8 mm (0.31 in) to 20 mm (0.79 in). The resulting webs
had a slenderness ratio that changed between 25 and 67.
Based on these web slenderness ratios the kc factor
changed between 0.49 and 0.76. Flange thickness values
between 10 mm (0.39 in) and 20 mm (0.79 in) and flange
width values between 300 mm (11.8 in) and 500 mm
(19.7 in) were considered. The shape factor for these
sections varied between 1.07 and 1.28 with an average of
1.15. Two different yield strength values were considered
and the variations of the nominal capacity for these are
19
given in Fig. 5. In this figure, the capacities calculated

using the two specifications are given separately for
clarity. In addition, the ratios (EC3/AISC-360) of the
capacities are presented. Analysis results reveal that the
nominal moment capacity based on the EC3 Specification
is less than the one based on the AISC-360 Specification
for flange slenderness values less than 20. These are
sections that generally qualify as non-compact flange
sections. For flange slenderness values greater than or
equal to 20, significant differences are observed where
the EC3 capacities are much higher than the AISC-360
ones. Contrary to previous analysis on web slenderness,
the results are dependent on the yield strength. For
Fy=345 MPa (50 ksi) the difference between the EC3 and
the AISC-360 capacities are more pronounced. It should
be mentioned that the ratios are also dependent on the
web slenderness. For slender web cases where the kc
value is low, the AISC-360 capacities tend to be lower
than the EC3 ones. As mentioned before, the primary
difference between the two specifications arise from the
fact that post-buckling capacity is considered in the EC3
Specification whereas the AISC-360 capacities are based
on elastic buckling loads.
7.2. Lateral torsional buckling of compact I-shaped

members
The two specifications have differences in the treatment
of lateral torsional buckling. The AISC-360 Specification
identifies three regimes of buckling depending on the
unbraced length of the member (Lb). For a beam under
uniform moment (Cb=1) two threshold values for unbraced
length namely Lp and Lr are defined in the AISC-360
Specification. The Lp value provides a dividing line between
plastic (no lateral buckling) and inelastic buckling behavior.
Similarly, the Lr value provides a dividing line between
inelastic and elastic buckling behavior. According to the
AISC-360 Specification, plastic moment capacity of a
compact member can develop if the unbraced length is
less than Lp. The members capacity reduces linearly
between Mp and 0.7My if the unbraced length is between
Lp and Lr. If the unbraced length is greater than Lr, then
elastic buckling is expected to occur and the capacity can
be found using elastic critical buckling moment (Mcr).
The following equations summarize the nominal moment
capacity for lateral torsional buckling as per the AISC360 Specification:
Mn=Mp=ZFy when Lb Lp
Lb Lp
Mp
Mn = Cb Mp (Mp 0.7SxFy)-------------Lr Lp
when Lp < Lb Lr
2
Lb 2
Cb E
J - ---- 1 + 0.078--------Mn = Mcr = Sx-------------2
Sxho rts
L
----b-
rts
20
Figure 5. Comparison of nominal moment capacities for compact web members.
when Lb > Lr
reduction factor approach for all buckling problems is

utilized in the EC3 Specification. The lateral torsional
buckling problem is also treated by developing a reduction
factor (LT) expression. The nominal moment capacity for
lateral torsional buckling can be found as:
E
Lp = 1.76ry ----Fy
0.7Fy Sxho 2
E - --------J - 1 + 1 + 6.76 -----------Lr = 1.95rts----------- E ---------0.7Fy Sxho
J
Iy Cw
2
rts = ------------Sx
Mn = LTMp = LTZFy
The reduction factor (LT) is defined as:
(15)
As mentioned in the compression members section, a
1
1LT = ------------------------------------------ but LT 1.0 LT ------2
2
2
LT
LT + LT LT
(16)
21
LT = 0.5[ 1 + LT(LT LT, o) + LT]

M
LT = -------pMcr
(17)
First of all, no Mcr expression is recommended in the

EC3 Specification. Any rational analysis to determine Mcr
is acceptable. In this study, the elastic critical moment
expression (Eq. 15) provided in the AISC-360 Specification
was considered to be used in the EC3 Specification
expressions. As shown in Eq. 17, the EC3 Specification
approach requires three parameters namely, LT, LT,O,
and to be used. The LT factor is dependent on the
imperfections and its value is identical to the factors
given in the compression members section. The proper
imperfection curve (i.e. type a, b, c, or d) and the values
of LT,O, and are dependent on the country of use and
are specified in the National Annex. On the other hand, a
maximum value of 0.4 for LT,O and a minimum value of
0.75 for are recommended in the absence of a National
Annex. The appropriate buckling curve as per the EC3
Specification recommendations is based on the depth to
width ratio (d/bf) of the member. For rolled I-sections,
curve b is utilized for d/bf<2 and curve c for others.
Similarly, for welded I-sections, curve c is utilized for
d/bf<2 and curve d for others.
Lateral torsional buckling resistances were compared
by making use of 266 compact W shapes. Out of these,
126 sections had d/bf<2 and the rest 140 sections had d/
bf>2. Two different yield strengths of Fy=248 MPa (36
ksi) and Fy=345 MPa (50 ksi) were considered. Lateral
torsional buckling capacities of these sections were
computed for a range of non-dimensional slenderness
(LT) between zero and three. The results are presented in
Fig. 6 for two different d/bf ratios. In each of these plots
the capacities based on two different yield strengths are
combined. The results revealed that the resistances
calculated using the EC3 Specification are lower than the
ones from the AISC-360 Specification for the range of
non-dimensional slenderness (LT) between 0.4 and 1.25.
This range corresponds to the inelastic buckling range
where the unbraced length Lb is between Lp and Lr. The
differences are more pronounced for cases with d/bf>2
because a more stringent imperfection factor is introduced
in the EC3 Specification for these cases. For the plastic
region (Lb<Lp) and the elastic buckling region (Lb>Lr) the
resistances computed from both specifications are similar.
It should be mentioned that the conclusions derived
herein are for LT,O, and values equal to 0.4 and 0.75,
respectively. These conclusions can change if different
values of LT,O, and are recommended in the National
Annex.
The comparisons provided in this paper are for beams
under uniform bending moment. For the non-uniform
moment cases, the AISC-360 Specification utilizes a Cb
factor to modify the nominal moment capacity. An
Figure 6. Comparison of lateral torsional buckling resistances.
equation is given in the AISC-360 Specification to

determine the value of the Cb factor as a function of the
variation of bending moment along the member axis. On
the other hand, in the EC3 Specification, both uniform
and non-uniform bending moment cases are handled by
making use of a Mcr expression which needs to be
determined based on a rational analysis. In other words,
designers have to resort to theoretical solutions for Mcr
under the loading case of interest. At this point utilizing
Cb factors together with the Mcr expression given in the
AISC-360 Specification can be considered as a rational
approach to determine the elastic critical moment.
Readers can refer to the Designers Guide to EN 1993-11 by Gardner and Nethercot (2005) for rational ways of
calculating lateral buckling resistance of beams under
non-uniform moment.
8. Design of Members for Shear

Two methods for calculating shear strength are presented
in the AISC-360 Specification while only one method is
presented in the EC3 Specification. In the AISC-360
Specification, the designer is given the option to consider
the post-buckling strength of the member which is
primarily due to the tension field action (TFA). Certain
requirements have to be satisfied for the use of TFA. For
example, TFA is not allowed at the end panels. For
doubly symmetric I-shape members the governing factor
22
for shear resistance is the web slenderness (h/tw). The

behavior is divided into three regimes in the two
specifications according to the following non-dimensional
slenderness.
h F
= ---- -------ytw kv E
(18)
If is less than 1.1 then the section is capable of

developing the full plastic shear capacity. If is greater
than 1.1 then the capacity is reduced due to the shear
buckling of the web plate. The nominal shear capacity is
calculated as follows:
Vn=0.6FyAwCv (AISC-360)
Fy Aw Cv
- (EC3)
Vn = ----------------3
(19)
According to Eq. 19, both specifications have the same

type of treatment except the factors 0.6 and (1/
30.5=0.577). The web shear coefficient, Cv, is dependent
on the non-dimensional slenderness and is calculated as
follows:
h F
For ---- -------y- 1.10 Cv=1 (AISC-360 and EC3)
tw kv E
1.10
h F
For 1.10 < ---- -------y- 1.37 Cv = ---------------- (AISC-360 and EC3)
tw kv E
h F
---- -------ytw kv E
1.51
h F
For ---- -------y- > 1.37 Cv = -----------------------2 (AISC-360)
tw kv E
h Fy
--- ------- tw kvE
1.10
Cv = ---------------- (EC3-NREP)
h F
---- -------ytw k v E
1.37
Cv = -------------------------------------------- (EC3-REP)
Fy
h ------0.7 + 0.78--tw kvE
(20)
Note that Cv factor is dependent on the plate buckling
coefficient, kv, which is calculated as follows:
5.0
kv = 5.0 + -------------2- (AISC-360)
(a h)
2
kv = 5.34 + 4.0(h a) for a h 1 (EC3)

2
kv = 4.0 + 5.34(h a) for a h < 1 (EC3)
(21)
The kv factors presented in the two specifications are

similar. In the EC3 Specification a more elaborate
treatment is presented which is dependent on whether the
Figure 7. Comparison of shear resistances.
a/h ratio is greater than or less than unity. The EC3

Specification equations for kv formed the basis of old
AISC specifications. Over the years these two equations
were replaced with a single one for simplicity.
Two conclusions can be derived by examining Eq. 20.
The behavior in the two regimes where is less than 1.37
is identical according to both specifications. Differences
are observed, however, for the elastic buckling range
(>1.37). It should be noted that for end panels the EC3
Specification presents two different cases depending on
the boundary conditions. These cases which are shown in
Fig. 7 are termed as rigid end post (REP) and non-rigid
end post (NREP). The rigid end post (REP) is formed by
providing a W-shape or two double sided stiffeners at the
end. There are special requirements for the size of the
stiffening elements. Basically the very end panel in
between these stiffeners is designed as a short beam
under the membrane forces produced by the web plate.
Cases that do not satisfy the REP criteria are designed as
non-rigid end post (NREP).
When Eq. 20 is examined, it is evident that the decrease
in capacity (Vn) with the non-dimensional slenderness is
quadratic in the AISC-360 Specification whereas it is
linear in the EC3 Specification. A plot of Cv as a function
on the non-dimensional slenderness is given in Fig. 7. As
expected the capacities based on the EC3 Specification

are significantly higher than the ones for the AISC-360
Specification for >1.37. In addition, the REP case offers
slightly higher capacities as compared to the NREP case.
For cases with >1.1, the AISC-360 Specification
presents the following equation for Vn that takes into
account the tension field action:
1 Cv
Vn = 0.6FyAwCv + ----------------------------------
2
1.15 1 + (a h)
23
the AISC-360 Specification. Furthermore, more simplified

and conservative rules are presented that are independent
of the loading direction. Similarly, the EC3 Specification
presents two methods namely, the Simplified Method,
and the Directional Method. The simplified methods are
compared in this paper. The nominal strength per length
of a weld segment is calculated as follows:
Rn = 0.6FEXXte (AISC-360)
(22)
In Fig. 7 the two specifications were compared for the

cases where TFA is included in the calculations. The
results are presented for stiffener spacing to web depth
ratio (a/h) of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0. Consideration
of tension field action is not permitted for a member
when a/h>3.0. This case and the EC3-NREP case are also
presented in this figure. Analysis results reveal that the
capacity curve for a/h=3.0 coincides with the EC3-NREP
curve. It can be concluded that the EC3 Specification
provides lower capacities when compared with the capacities
calculated using TFA in the AISC-360 Specification. The
opposite is true for the other cases.
It is worthwhile to note that minor differences are
present between the two specifications for calculating
shear strength. The shear area definitions are different. In
the AISC-360 Specification, the total depth is multiplied
by the web thickness to determine the shear area. On the
contrary, the area of the web and a small portion of the
flange area is utilized in the EC3 Specification. Furthermore,
the EC3 Specification presents rules for including the
contribution of the flanges to the shear resistance. In
addition, the plastic shear capacity can be increased by 20
percent according to the EC3 Specification and this
increase is determined by the rules of the National Annex.
Fu
-te (EC3)
Rn = -----------3w
(23)
The maximum of the resultant of all forces at every

point of the weld group is considered for design purposes.
In the EC3 Specification, the resistance is a function of
the ultimate tensile strength (Fu) of the weaker part joined
(i.e. base metal) whereas the AISC-360 Specification
utilizes the electrode strength (FEXX) for this purpose. In
addition, it is required to check the base metal separately
in the AISC-360 Specification. The EC3 Specification
utilizes a w factor which depends on the yield strength of
the base metal. Typical values of w are 0.8, 0.85, 0.9, 1.0
for S235 (Fy=235 MPa (34 ksi)), S275 (Fy=275 MPa (40
ksi)), S355 (Fy=355 MPa (51 ksi)), S420 (Fy=420 MPa
(61 ksi)) steels, respectively.
The directional method presented in the AISC-360
Specification is based on dividing the weld group into
segments and summing up the strength of each segment
considering its orientation. For the weld groups loaded inplane the instantaneous center of rotation method is
utilized. The methodology for welds loaded in-plane is
rigorous and takes into account the deformability of the
weld. On the contrary, the von Mises yield criterion is
applied using the normal and shear stresses on the
effective throat area in the EC3 Specification directional
method.
9. Design of Welded Connections

The American Welding Society (AWS (2004)) provisions
are adopted in the AISC-360 Specification for the
selection of matching weld (filler) metal for a particular
base (parent) metal. In general, the ultimate strength,
FEXX, of the weld metal is greater than that of the base
metal. According to the EC3 Specification, any weld
metal having strength properties equivalent or better than
that specified for the base metal can be utilized.
9.1. Fillet welds

Effective area for fillet welds is the effective length
multiplied by the effective throat thickness (te) according
to the two specifications. The primary difference between
the two specifications is on how the direction of loading
is treated. In general, the strength of a weld depends on
the direction of loading. Transversely loaded fillet welds
are stronger compared to the longitudinally loaded fillet
welds. The direction of loading is taken into account in
9.2. Complete joint penetration groove welds

The provisions provided in the two specifications for
complete joint penetration groove (butt) welds are
identical. According to the provisions the limit states for
the base metal apply for these types of connections.
10. Design of Bolted Connections

In the United States, two types of bolt grades namely,
A325 (Fy=634 MPa (92 ksi), Fu=830 MPa (120 ksi)) and
A490 (Fy=940 MPa (130 ksi), Fu=1040 MPa (150 ksi))
are widely used. The AISC-360 Specification adopts the
provisions of the Specification for Structural Joints Using
ASTM A325 or A490 Bolts (2004). The EC3 Specification
presents rules for the widely used bolt grades in Europe
that are based on International Standardization Organization
ISO-898 (1999) standard. Typical bolt grades are 4.6
(Fy=240 MPa (35 ksi), Fu=400 MPa (58 ksi)), 5.6 (Fy=
300 MPa (44 ksi), Fu=500 MPa (73 ksi)), 6.8 (Fy=480
24
MPa (70 ksi), Fu=600 MPa (87 ksi)), 8.8 (Fy=640 MPa
(93 ksi), Fu=800 MPa (116 ksi)), and 10.9 (Fy=900 MPa
(131 ksi), Fu=1000 MPa (145 ksi)). It is apparent that the
high-strength bolts A325 and 8.8 have identical strength
properties while A490 and 10.9 possess the same
strengths.
According to the AISC-360 Specification provisions
the center-to-center distance between the bolt holes
should be 2.7do (3do preferred) where do is the diameter
of the bolt. A value of 2.2do and 2.4do is recommended in
the EC3 Specification for the distance between bolts that
are parallel and perpendicular to the application of the
load, respectively. The minimum edge distance is determined
based on the manufacturing process in the AISC-360
Specification. This distance should be at least 1.75do and
1.25do for plates with sheared and rolled edges,
respectively. In the EC3 Specification a minimum edge
distance of 1.2do is recommended irrespective of the
manufacturing process.
According to the AISC-360 Specification all A325 and
A490 bolts should be pre-tensioned unless the bolts are
installed to the snug-tight condition which is permitted
for the bearing-type connections and for some applications
where loosening or fatigue due to vibration or load
fluctuations are not design considerations. The slip critical
connections can be designed based on a different criterion.
These connections are designed to prevent slip either as a
serviceability limit state or at the required strength limit
state. Similarly the EC3 Specification presents design
categories for the bolted connections. Design category
A is for bearing-type connections under shear where
the aforementioned bolt types can be utilized without pretension. Design categories B and C are for slip
critical connections under shear, utilizing 8.8 or 10.9
bolts, and are designed for serviceability and strength
limit state, respectively. Design categories D and E
are for bolts under tension designed using no-pretension
and with pre-tension, respectively.
10.1. Bolt strength under tension

Tensile rupture along the threaded portion is considered
as the ultimate limit state for bolts under the action of
tensile forces according to both specifications. In the
AISC-360 Specification the net area of the threaded
portion is estimated by considering 75 percent of the
gross area (Ab) of the bolt. In the EC3 Specification, no
specific equations or recommendations are presented and
designers have to resort to manufacturers catalogs to
determine the net area of the bolt (As). The tensile
capacity is determined as follows:
Tn=0.75FuAb (AISC-360)
Tn=0.9FuAs (EC3)
(24)
According to Eq. 24 the primary difference between the

two specifications is the use of a 0.9 factor in the EC3
Specification. This is similar to the use of this factor in
tension member provisions.
10.2. Bolt strength under shear

Shear rupture along the threaded or unthreaded portion
is considered as the ultimate limit state for bolts under the
action of shear forces according to both specifications. In
the AISC-360 Specification, equations were developed
by taking into account the reduction of shear area due to
the threads and the effect of having long connections with
multiple bolts. In the EC3 Specification the net shear area
through the threads needs to be calculated when the
threads are in the shear plane. Furthermore, a reduction
factor, LF, is proposed for long connections. The shear
capacity for high strength bolts (A325, A490, 8.8, and
10.9) is calculated as follows:
Vn=0.5FuAb (AISC-360 threads excluded)
(A325 (8.8), A490 (10.9))
Vn=LF0.6FuAb (EC-3 threads excluded)
(A325 (8.8), A490 (10.9))
Vn=0.4FuAb (AISC-360 threads included)
(A325 (8.8), A490 (10.9))
Vn=LF0.6FuAs (EC-3 threads included) (A325 (8.8))
Vn=LF0.5FuAs (EC-3 threads included) (A490 (10.9))
Lj 15do
- 0.75 LF 1
LF = 1 -----------------200do
(25)
If values of LF=0.8 and As=0.8Ab are assumed then it

is evident that the provisions of the two specifications are
identical for the threads excluded and the threads
included (A325 (8.8)) cases. For the threads included
(A490 (10.9)) case the EC3 Specification provides lower
capacity values. It is evident from Eq. 25 that the EC3
specification has a more elaborate treatment that includes
the connection length as well as the type of bolt material
used.
10.3. Combined tension and shear in bearing type

connections
There are interaction equations provided in both
specifications to assess the bolt capacity under combined
actions. Although the main body of the AISC-360
Specification presents a single expression, the commentary
to the AISC-360 Specification presents an additional
expression. In the EC3 Specification, only one equation is
given for the assessment. In order to make a fair
comparison, the general form of the expressions with the
reduction and the partial safety factors are given. The
following expressions are utilized for the resistance of
high strength bolts under combined actions:
Tu 2 V u 2
------- 1 (AISC-360)
Tn- + -------Vn
T
Vu
Tu Vu
------- 1.3 -------u- 1 -------- 1 (AISC-360)
Tn- + -------Vn
Tn
Vn
Tu V u
-------------------+ ------------- 1 (EC3)
1.4Tn M Vn M
R b = k 1 d Fu d o t
(26)
It should be noted that the recommended values for

and M are 0.75 and 1.25, respectively. The first of the
AISC-360 Specification expressions is an ellipse and the
second expression is a simplification of the first one
which consists of three straight lines. The EC3 Specification
also adopts the straight line approach. According to the
second expression in the AISC-360 Specification the
combined actions do not have an effect on each other if
either Tu<0.3Tn or Vu<0.3Vn.
10.4. High-strength bolts in slip critical connections

The treatment for the limit state of slip is identical in
both specifications. The following expressions are provided
to calculate the slip resistance:
Rsl = DuhscTbNs (AISC-360)
Rsl = hscTbNs (EC3)
Tb = 0.7Tn
(27)
The values presented for each variable can change

slightly. The slip coefficients in the AISC-360 Specification
vary between 0.35 and 0.5 while the ones in the EC3
Specification vary between 0.2 and 0.5. The hole factor
(hsc) is equal to unity for standard holes according to both
specifications. The only difference between the two
specifications is the use of a Du factor which is equal to
1.13 in the AISC-360 Specification.
10.5. Bearing strength at bolt holes

The excessive hole elongation and the hole tear-out are
considered as the two primary limit states due to bearing
at the bolt holes. The two specifications have similar yet
different approaches for calculating the bearing strength.
In the AISC-360 Specification separate rules are presented
for cases where the deformation at the bolt hole at the
service load is or is not a design consideration. The
following equations are given in the AISC-360 Specification:
Rb = 1.2LctFu 2.4dotFu
(deformation is a design consideration)
Rb = 1.5LctFu 3.0dotFu
(deformation is not a design consideration)
25
(28)
According to Eq. 28 the excessive hole elongation (i.e.

upper bound equation) governs for cases where Lc>2do. If
the recommended bolt spacing of 3do is used in design
then the governing limit state is the excessive hole
elongation. For bolts close to the edge the hole tear-out
limit state may govern. In the EC3 Specification a more
elaborate treatment for the bearing strength is given. The
following equations summarize the EC3 Specification
rules for bearing strength:
in the direction of load transfer
p1 1
e1
- --- 1
- 1 for inner bolts d = ------for end bolts d = ------3do 4
3do
in the direction perpendicular to load transfer
e
for edge bolts k1 = 2.8----2- 1.7 2.5
do
p
for inner bolts k1 = 1.4----2- 1.7 2.5
do
(29)
In the EC3 Specification expressions, the d factor is

used to account for hole tear-out whereas the k1 factor is
used to account for excessive hole elongation. It should
be noted that the upper bound on the k1 factor is 2.5. The
AISC-360 Specification expressions favor the use of
either 2.4 or 3.0 for this factor. The EC3 Specification
equations are more elaborate and take into account the
reduction in bearing stresses when the bolt holes are close
to each other or are close to an edge in a direction
perpendicular to the load application. The k1 factor is
equal to 2.5 for cases where the distance between bolt
holes (p2) is equal to 3do or the distance between a bolt
hole and an edge is equal to 1.5do. Therefore, if the
spacing values recommended by the AISC-360 Specification
are used in the EC3 Specification expression, no
reduction in the bearing stress is necessary. The reduction
in bearing stress (k1) in the EC3 Specification is used to
forestall tensile failure of the plate in between two bolt
holes or between a bolt hole and an edge.
11. Conclusions and Recommendations for

Future Work
A comparison of fundamental limit states given in the
AISC-360 Specification and the EC3 Specification was
presented. Conclusions related to each limit state were
given in the relevant section and are not repeated herein
for brevity. The comparisons show that both codes
generally lead to similar capacities, though some quite
substantial differences were found for slender sections
and lateral torsional buckling resistance. Differences in
capacities can be attributed to ways in which the
imperfections and post-buckling behavior are handled.
Readers can refer to Galambos (1988) for the basis of
codified rules in the United States. Similarly, ECCS
publications No. 44 (1986), No. 119 (2006), and No. 200
(2007) provide background information on the European
standards for plated elements and member stability.
The authors recognize that the study is limited to a few
fundamental limit states out of a plethora of failure
modes. Future research should consider the limit states
that are not studied in this paper. In addition, comparisons
26
of reduction factors (partial safety factors) and load

combinations are required.
References
AISC 360-05 (2005). Specification for Structural Steel
Buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.,
Chicago, IL.
AISC 341-05 (2005). Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel
Buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.,
Chicago, IL.
AWS D1.1/D1.1M (2004). Structural Welding Code-Steel.
American Welding Society.
ECCS (1986). Behavior and Design of Steel Plated
Structures. European Convention for Constructional
Steelwork, Publication No. 44, Brussels.
ECCS (2006). Rules for Member Stability in EN 1993-1-1:
Background Documentation and Design Guidelines.
European Convention for Constructional Steelwork,
Publication No. 119, Brussels.
ECCS (2007). Commentary and Worked Examples to EN
1993-1-5 - Plated Structural Elements. European
Convention for Constructional Steelwork, Publication
No. 200, Brussels.
EN 1990 (2001). Eurocode-Basis of Structural Design.
European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.
EN 1993-1-1 (2003). Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures
- Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings.
European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.
- Part 1-5: Plated Structural Elements. European
Committee for Standardization, Brussels.
- Part 1-8: Design of Joints. European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels.
EN 10025 (1994). Hot Rolled Products of Non-alloy
Structural Steel. European Committee for Standardization,
Brussels.
Galambos, T.V. (1988). Guide to Stability Design Criteria
for Metal Structures, 4th Edition. John Wiley & Sons,
USA.
Gardner, L. and Nethercot, D. A. (2005) Designers Guide to
EN 1993-1-1 Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures.
Thomas Telford Publishing, London, UK.
ISO 898-1 (1999). Mechanical Properties of Fasteners
Made of Carbon Steel and Alloy Steel Part 1: Bolts,
screws and studs. International Standardization
Organization.
RCSC (2004). Specification for Structural Joints Using
ASTM A325 and A490 Bolts. Research Council on
Structural Connections, Chicago, IL.
List of Symbols
Ab: nominal unthreaded body area of bolt
Ac: area in compression
Ac,eff: effective cross sectional area
Af: area of flange
Ag: gross area of member
An: net area of member
As:
Aw:
Cb:
Cv:
Cw:
Du:
net area of the bolt considering the threads

web area
Lateral torsional buckling modification factor
web shear coefficient
warping constant
multiplier that reflects the ratio of the mean
installed bolt pretension to the specified
minimum bolt pretension
E: modulus of elasticity of steel
FEXX: electrode classification number
Fy: specified minimum yield stress of the type of
steel being used
Fu: specified minimum tensile strength of the type of
steel being used
Ieff: effective moment of inertia
Iy: moment of inertia about y-axis
J:
torsional constant
K: effective length factor
L: length of the member
Lb: unbraced length
Lc: clear distance in the direction of the force,
between the edge of the hole and the edge of the
adjacent hole
Lj: length of bolted connection
Lp: limiting laterally unbraced length for the limit
state of yielding
Lr: limiting laterally unbraced length for the limit
state of inelastic lateral torsional buckling
Mcr: elastic critical lateral torsional buckling moment
Mn: nominal flexural strength
My: yield moment about the axis of bending
Mp: plastic bending moment
Ns: number of slip planes
Pcr: elastic critical buckling load
Pn: nominal axial strength
Rb: nominal bearing resistance
Rn: nominal strength per length of a fillet weld
Rpg: bending strength reduction factor
Rsl: nominal slip resistance
Seff: effective section modulus
Sx: elastic section modulus
Tb: minimum fastener tension
Tu: required tensile strength
Tn: nominal tensile strength
U: shear lag factor
Vn: nominal shear strength
Vu: required shear strength
Z: plastic section modulus about the axis of bending
a:
clear distance between transverse stiffeners
aw: ratio of web area to the flange area
bc: depth of web under compression
beff: effective plate width
bf: flange width
d:
full nominal depth of the section
do: diameter of the bolt
e1: the end distance from the center of a fastener hole
to the adjacent end of any part, measured in the

direction of load transfer
e2: the end distance from the center of a fastener hole
to the adjacent end of any part, measured at right
angles to the direction of load transfer
g:
transverse center-to-center spacing between
fastener gage lines
h:
web height
hcs: hole factor
ho: distance between flange centroids
kc: coefficient for slender unstiffened elements
kv: web plate buckling coefficient
p1: spacing between centers of fasteners in a line in
the direction of load transfer
p2: spacing measured perpendicular to the load
transfer direction between adjacent lines of
fasteners
r:
governing radius of gyration
rts: effective radius of gyration
ry: radius of gyration about y-axis (minor axis of an
I-shaped member bent about a major axis)
s:
longitudinal center-to-center spacing of any
consecutive holes
t:
thickness of the connected material
te: effective throat thickness of a fillet weld
tf:
tw:
:
LT:
:
LF:
w:
:
FB:
LT:
LT,0:
pf:
pw:
rf:
rw:
:
LT:
:
:
M:
:
27
thickness of flange
thickness of the web
imperfection factor
imperfection factor for lateral torsional buckling
a constant used for lateral torsional buckling
a reduction factor for bolted long connections
a constant used for fillet welds
slenderness parameter
non-dimensional slenderness for flexural buckling
non-dimensional slenderness for lateral torsional
buckling
non-dimensional constant for lateral torsional
buckling
limiting slenderness parameter for compact flange
limiting slenderness parameter for compact web
limiting slenderness parameter for non-compact
flange
limiting slenderness parameter for non-compact
web
reduction factor for relevant buckling mode
reduction factor for lateral torsional buckling
reduction factor for effective area
resistance factor
partial safety factor
mean slip coefficient

A Comparative Study of AISC-360 and EC3 Strength Limit States

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Comparative Study of AISC-360 and EC3 Strength Limit States

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Steel Structures

March 2011, Vol 11, No 1, 13-27