Developments in Structural Design of Beam-columns:

a review from CAD point of view

F. Papp1 and M. Iványi2
1, 2
Department of Structural Engineering, Budapest University of Technology and Economics
Budapest, Hungary

ABSTRACT

The computer aided design of structures composed of beam-column members is supported by three
main components such as the constructional design (3D detailing), the finite element analysis (FEA)
and the structural design. The paper reviews the developments in structural design of beam-column
structures concerning the components of FEA and the structural design. The traditional design
methodology follows the simple sequence of global modelling, finite element analysis, cross-section
design, member design and joint design. The direct interpretation of the formulas of design codes may
results in a ‘hand’ procedure being an obstacle developing advanced CAD application - phase of
member design includes a break point since the global analysis does not provide direct and exact
information about member restraints required for the design interaction equations. The paper proves
that the traditional method of member design based on the isolation of members can be neglected: the
procedure may be divided into two phases. The first phase is implemented into the 3D global elastic
analysis, the second phase can be implemented into the cross-section design. The proposed formula
turns into a complex automatic computer procedure that keeps the design as well as the safety
philosophy of the Structural Eurocodes.

KEYWORDS

Beam-Columns, Finite Element Analysis, Interaction Design Equations, Computer Aided Design

INTRODUCTION

Beam-Columns used frequently in structural steel frameworks have been subject to extensive research
in the past 50 years. This research was carried out by different approaches. One of the characteristic
research aspects was the Advanced Analysis. Attempts have been made among others by Attala et. al.
(1996) to extend the traditional plastic hinge method to the nonlinear frame analysis with beam-
column behaviour expressed as torsional-flexural buckling. However, the plastic hinge methods have
not been proved accuracy enough for the practical use. Basic investigation was made by Barsoum and
Galagher (1970) and later Rajasekaran and Murray (1973) on finite element formulation of beam-
columns using nonlinear elastic material law. Chen and Atsuta (1977) published a well-established
thin-walled beam-column finite element developed by Rajasekaran who expressed the stiffness matrix
in explicit form. Later some attempts have been made developing plastic zone methods to take the
spread of plasticity in planar steel frames among others by White (1986). Meek and Lin (1990)
included the geometric and material nonlinearity using the updated Lagrangian formulation. Bild et.
al. (1992) applied the total Lagrangian formulation to predict the ultimate load for bi-axial bending
and torsion. More and more sophisticated procedures have been published - Pi and Trahair (1994)
used rotation transformation relationship to study the inelastic nonuniform torsion problems, Izzudin
and Smith (1996) adapted the Eulerian approach for large displacement analysis of thin-walled
frames. However, most of the research on spread-of-plasticity analysis focussed on member behaviour
and planar frames. One of the most recent investigation on large-scale 3D steel frames was published
by Jiang, Chen and Liew (2002) using mixed element technique: elastic beam-column element is used
for elastic-behaviour, spread-of-plasticity finite element is used at certain members where the
plasticity is often concentrated. More recent research is in progress to extend the capability of the
advanced analysis to include the inelastic behaviour associated with full 3D deformation (interaction
of column buckling, lateral-torsional buckling and local buckling). Furthermore, using shell element
modelling more sophisticated advanced analysis may be established excluding the definite arising of
the traditional buckling forms. However, more and more accurate techniques are available for
advanced design requiring more and more time and cost. Consequently, the advanced analysis has
been remained a tool for researchers rather than for practitioners. The other main characteristic
research aspect is the Structural Design based on elastic global nonlinear analysis and standard
design equations specified by current design codes such as the Structural Eurocodes. This paper
reviews the developments of this approach from CAD point of view.

BACKGROUND OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN

The Eurocode 3 (1992) specifies the basic level of structural design of beam-columns as the iterative
sequence of global elastic analysis and evaluation of the design equations for resistance of cross-
sections and members. This design philosophy states that the internal design forces of members may
be evaluated by global elastic analysis taking the effect of normal forces on global deformations into
consideration (P-∆ effect). This procedure gives a restricted second order response that may neglect
the effect of the normal force on deformation along the members. However, the phase of analysis is a
well-established action of standard design of large-scale frameworks. In the second phase the designer
should use the appropriate design equations concerning the isolated cross-sections and members. In
case of global buckling failing of members the design equations contain the design slenderness as the
generalised parameter of member geometry and the end restraints. The tests and the simulation based
design equations predict the resistance of column buckling (pure compression of member) and of
lateral-torsional buckling (pure bending of member) accurately if the end conditions reflect the real
interaction between the member and the global structure. In more practical case the member is
subjected to compression force and bending moment and the interaction design equations should be
used. In spite of pure cases of column buckling and lateral-torsional buckling, the design of the
coupled problem does not established well – few tests and simulations were carried out. The
consequence of this fact is the commonly accepted design paradigm that assumes the resistance of the
coupled problem as the nonlinear interaction of the pure problems such as

α β
 M y .Sd   
  +  M z .Sd  ≤ 1 (1)
M  M
 Ny .Rd   Nz .Rd 

for Class 1 and 2 cross-sections, and the linear interaction such as

N Sd M y .Sd M
+ + z .Sd ≤ 1 (2)
N Rd M y .Rd M cz .Rd
for resistance of Class 3 or 4 cross-sections, where NSd, My.Sd and Mcz.Sd are the design forces, RD in
index denotes the resistance and N in index denotes the normal force reduction. The interaction for
buckling problems are expressed by the coupled formula

N Sd M y .Sd M z .Sd
+ ky + kz ≤1 (3)
N b .Rd M y .Rd M cz .Rd

where Nb.Rd is the column buckling strength, My.Rd is the bending strength or lateral-torsional strength,
Mz.Rd is the bending strength about miner axis, k factors are the corresponding modifiers. From CAD
point if view Eqs.1-2 are well defined: following the 3D full second order analysis (in lack of
considerable torsion) the formulations are automatically computed. In Eq.3 k factor as the coefficient
of (P-δ) effect and the pure buckling resistances are the function of the reduced slenderness such as

N* M*
λ = and λ LT = (4)
N cr M cr

for column buckling and lateral torsional buckling, respectively, where (*) denotes the cross-section
strength. The interaction between the actually designed member and the global structure is taken into
consideration by Ncr and Mcr critical forces: Eqs.4 are the application of the generalised hypothesis of
elastic extrapolation. The design philosophy reflected in Eq.3 leads to four serious contradictions:

(1) It considers the column buckling and the lateral-torsional buckling as two individual
phenomena’s where the coupled phenomena can be expressed as the factored sum resulting in
linear, or slightly convex (rarely concave) interaction curves.
(2) The buckling phenomena can be isolated from the full structural behaviour using ‘appropriate’
elastic restraints in the isolated member model that appearances in the critical forces of Ncr and
Mcr. As a consequence, the (P-δ) effect as second order effect of the normal force on the
bending moment should be taken the formulation into consideration (see ky and kz).
(3) The design Eqs.1-2 and Eq.3 do not meet in the same value when the member length as well as
the slenderness keep zero.
(4) The behaviour of the member should tend in a continuous way from plasticity to pure elasticity
when length and axial force increasing.

The background of the above contradictions is clear: the interaction design equation Eq.3 is a simple
formula to predict the resistance using pure hand calculation or computer calculation based on hand
procedure.

CRITIQUE OF DESIGN INTERACTION EQUATIONS FROM CAD POINT OF VIEW

The computer aided design of steel frameworks based on standard structural design methodology has
two main phases: (i) global second order elastic analysis using finite element method, (ii) structural
design using design equations specified by building codes. The first phase is supported by well-
established graphics user programs where the computation is fully ‘automatic’ after defining the
structural model on the advanced GUIs. This has aroused the demands of the designers on similarly
automatic structural design phase. The developers during establishing an automatic structural design
phase face up to the following contradictions:

(a) Since the interaction design equations involve the (P-δ) second order effect the global second
order elastic analysis should simplified to the (P-∆) procedure, otherwise the design will be too
conservative.
(b) The interaction design equations are based on the independent critical forces Ncr and Mcr,
otherwise the design will be too conservative.

Both of the above contradictions are against to applying advanced global nonlinear elastic analysis of
large-scale steel frameworks though more advanced procedure were developed in seventies and
eighties - for example by Rajasekaran (1977). Furthermore, more and more standard developers such
as Baptista et. al. (1999) have realised the need of the advanced stability analysis getting the critical
forces in Eq.4. However, the design philosophy reflected in interaction Eq.3 is conservative and it is
against to the development automatic CAD applications for steel frameworks.

DEVELOPMENT IN INTERACTION DESIGN EQUATIONS

The researchers have realised the natural contradictions in the interaction design equations mentioned
above. The so-called ‘Belgian-French’ group has improved the beam-column design formula of Eq.3
harmonising the cross-section strength to the coupled buckling problem. The new formula published
by Boissonnade et. al. (2000) is based on elastic second order theory of the isolated member that is
extended to special behaviour and to plasticity. The formula allows full continuity between the cross-
section classes, smooth transitions from plasticity to elasticity when slenderness and axial force
increase. The accuracy of the formula was checked by large number of numerical simulations. While
the improvement resulted in a more accurate formula the basic concept has not changed: the member
is isolated form the full structure and it is designed on base of local second order analysis. The new
formula extended to lateral-torsional behaviour gives an improved ‘hand’ oriented alternative for Eq.3
but it loses the advantage of simplicity. However, it seems to be that the final version of Eurocode 3
will adapt it in Annex as an alternative method. Considerable development has been published by
Hasham and Rasmussen (2002) on interaction curves for locally buckled I-section beam-columns.
Using two slender (Class 4), one non-compact (Class 3) and one compact (Class1 and 2) cross-
sections and geometrically and materially nonlinear finite element analysis the researchers suggested
using an improved coupled formulation such as

α β α β
 M y .Sd     M y .Sd   
  +  N Sd  ≤ 1 and   +  N Sd  ≤ 1 (5)
 M cy .Rd  N  M b .Rd  N
   Rd     b .Rd 

The expressions for the exponents α and β are given in function of

N Sd
η= (6)
N Rd

For proposed capacity of slender sections α = 1 + η and β = 1.15 - 0.45η while of compact sections
α = 1 + 0.6η and β = 1.2 - 0.75η are suggested. The theoretical results showed that the shape of the
interaction curves for slender beam-columns failing by local and in-plane bending was slightly
convex. The interaction curves for non-compact and compact cross-sections failing by in-plane
bending were also convex, especially at short members. The shape of the interaction curve at out of
plane lateral-torsional buckling was convex or linear for all types of cross-sections at all slenderness.
The linear curve was generally conservative in the region of intermediate axial force and bending
moment. However, the Asian type design concept may be hardly adopted in the European structural
codes though its ‘hand’ oriented approach is similar to those.
AN ALTERNATIVE CAD ORIENTED APPROACH

The governing idea and the evolution aspects of a heuristic Generalised Design Equation (GDE) may
be based on the following:

critical forces (axial and bending) should be allowed to compute from design load
combinations applying one-parameter load process - concept of coherent critical forces,

flexural and lateral torsional buckling are coherent failing modes, in other words: they are
characteristic aspects of the general 3D buckling mode,

effects of stress resultants on member buckling can be summarised on the level of longitudinal
normal stress.

However, the proposed Generalised Design Equation takes the following form:

σ Nc ..max
Sd + σ My .Sd
c . max

+ σ Mz .Sd + σ B .Sd ≤ K bc f yd
c . max c . max
(7)
χ bc

where σc.max denotes the components of the longitudinal design normal stress in the most compressed
cross-section point using full 3D second order elastic analysis and elastic cross-section properties. In
Eq.(7) B denotes the warping effect due to torsion, χbc denotes the generalised buckling reduction
factor, fyd is the design strength (including appropriate partial safety factor) and Kbc denotes the
generalised plasticity factor of the cross-section.

Generalised buckling reduction factor

The χbc generalised buckling reduction factor may be computed applying the Rondal-Maquoi formula
established in Eurocode 3 (1992) where the generalised slenderness is

fy (8)
λ bc =
σ cr

where σcr is the critical normal stress in the most compressed cross-section point due to the critical
load given by full 3D global elastic stability analysis. The application of the exact linear stability
analysis in design of steel plane frames was concluded among others by Baptista et. al. (1999). The
Eq.(8) is just the generalisation of this concept for 3D behaviour of beam-columns. However, the
design formula of the two characteristic buckling modes (flexural and the lateral torsional) are based
on strong theoretical and experimental background encapsulated partially in the values of α and αLT
imperfection factors. However, the generalised imperfection factor may be interpolated as
1

0,8

0,6
NSd=150 kN IPE 300, L=6000 mm NSd Eq.10
0,4 Eq.9
My.Sd=30 kNm My .
0,2
Sd
0
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1
NSd/Nb.Rd

Fig. 1 An illustrative example for r (Eq.10) and αbc (Eq.9) coefficients

 α bc = α + r( α LT − α ) (9)

where r factor varies from 0 to 1 providing a linear interpolation between the two characteristic
buckling forms
σ My .cr (10)
r=
σ My .cr + σ N .cr
where σ N.cr and σMy.cr denote the coherent components of the elastic critical normal stress in Eq.(8)
due to the interaction of axial force and bending moment. For a simple beam-column with IPE 160
cross-section the r factor and αbc generalised imperfection factor are dotted in terms of ratio of the
design normal force NSd and the corresponding buckling resistance Nb.Rd. Non-linearity of r throws
light on the convexity of the interaction between elastic buckling modes of beam-columns, mainly
about the mostly compressed and slightly bent range. The convexity depends on both the shape and
the slenderness of the member. However, the design formula Eq.(7) using the reduction factor Eq.(5-
7) gives back the simple flexural and the lateral torsional buckling formulas established in Eurocode 3
(1993).

Generalised plasticity factor Kbc

The tension part of all the Classes and the compressed part of Class 1 and 2 shapes may have full or
partial plasticity resulted in higher resistance than that computed from the elastic stress distribution.
When the cross-section properties are used in the buckling formula, the development and effect of
plasticity depend on the actual slenderness – at higher slenderness the buckling starts in elastic range,
consequently elastic section properties should be used. However, the generalised Kbc plasticity factor
should depend firstly on the complex stress distribution in the plate segments of the actual cross-
section, secondly on the slenderness and axial forces. Boissonnade et. al. (2000) suggested a calibrated
coefficient that allows the behaviour of the member to tend in a continuous way from plasticity to
pure elasticity when length and axial force increasing. With some modification the generalised
plasticity factor may be written as

2
K bc = 1 + ( K − 1 )( 1 − λ bc ) ≥ 1.0 (11)

where K factor is the ratio of the plastic cross-section resistance to the elastic cross-section resistance,
it is the function of the cross-section topology and the actual stress resultants. To ensure the continuity
between the cross-section resistance and the global stability resistance the K should be determined
from the corresponding cross-section design equation using the following iterative procedure:

step 1: compute the appropriate design stress resultants NSd, M y.Sd, Mz.Sd and MB.Sd,
step 2: compute the uniform p loading factor when the factored design stress resultants p*NSd,
p*My.Sd, p*Mz.Sd and p*MB.Sd just satisfy the appropriate cross-section design equation,
step 3: compute the K factor as
N Sd M y .Sd M z .Sd B
+ + +
A W y .el W z .el Wω .el
K=p (12)
f yd

For example it is easy to check that for a hot rolled Class 1 H section bent about the major axis
K=Wy.pl/Wy.el will be given. Fig.2 shows the K factor for the compressed and biaxially bended IPE 300
(S 235) shape using the design Eq.(5.35) of Eurocode 3 (1993) as
 2,2

1,8
n=0.0
n=0.3
K 1,6
n=0.5
1,4

1,2

1
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1
Mz.Sd/Mzc.Rd

Fig. 2 Generalised plasticity factor K for IPE 300 shape according to design equation for biaxial
bending and compression (n=NSd/Npl.Rd) applying Eq.5.35 of Eurocode 3 (1992).

2 max( 5 n ,1 )
 p * M y .Sd   p * M z .Sd 
  +  =1 (13)
 M Ny .Rd   M Nz .Rd 

where the plastic resistance moments are reduced by the effect of the actual normal and shear forces
according to Eq.(5.25-26) of Eurocode 3 (1992).

Practical application

The design method based on Generalised Design Equation Eq.(7) conceptually differs from the
conventional method: the analysis on every relevant load combinations has two phases. The first
phase is the full 3D elastic second order stress analysis; the second phase is the global stability
analysis. The second phase continues the procedure of the first phase as far as the elastic critical load
is achieved. The two phases result in a complex database for structural design. However, the GDE
method allocates the conventional member design partially into the phase of global stability analysis
and partially into the design phase of cross-sections. Consequently, the conventional procedure of the
member design may be neglected. To illustrate the practical application of the GDE method let’s
apply Eq.(7) for the illustrative example shown in Fig.1 but let the member length L vary. In Fig.3 the
appropriate beam-column reduced strength (σSd/fyd) is dotted to length of member. In the example
Mz.Sd was zero and we applied the interaction design Eq.5.25-26 of Eurocode 3 (1992) to determine the
cross-section resistance and the generalised plasticity factor Kbc. Considering the results shown in
Fig.3 we can draw the following conclusion:

(1) In case of pure bending resulting in lateral torsional buckling Eq.5.48 of Eurocode 3 (1992)
coincides with Eq.(7) except the range of the middle reduced slenderness (0.6<λ <1.6) where
Eq.(7) gives about 5% lower resistance (see the first diagram in Fig.5).
(2) In case of slight axial compression (NSd/Nb.Rd≅0.3) and at lower reduced slenderness (λ <1.2)
Eq.(7) gives higher resistance: at lower slenderness the effect of the cross-section plasticity
lifts up the curve (see the second diagram in Fig.5).
(3) In case of higher axial compression (NSd/Nb.Rd>0.5) Eq.(7) gives higher curve: at lower
slenderness the effect of cross-section plasticity, at greater slenderness the N-M interaction lift
up the curve. The difference is approximately 5-20% with increasing of slenderness (see the
third diagram in Fig.5).
 Nsd /Nb.Rd.z = 0 Nsd/Nb.Rd.z = 0.3

1,2 1,4

1 1,2

Reduced strength
Reduced strength

1
0,8
EC3 0,8 EC3
0,6
Eq.4 0,6 Eq.4.
0,4
0,4
0,2 0,2
0 0
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2
Re duce d slenderne ss Reduced slenderness

Nsd/Nb.Rd.z = 0.7

1,4
1,2
Reduced strength

1
0,8 EC3
0,6 Eq.4.
0,4
0,2
0
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2
Reduced slenderness

Fig. 3 Beam-column reduced strength (σSd/fy) plotted against the

reduced slenderness (λw/λ1) of the member IPE 160

Verification

The verification of Eq.(7) needs an extended and time consumable work. The column buckling
problem has a strongly established background based on tests and numerical simulations. The beam
(lateral-torsional) buckling problem has also some test background. The most practical beam-column
buckling problem has pure test background - therefore the numerical simulation seems to be the
adequate tool for verification. The simulation model may be calibrated by the test results. In the
framework of the present research Eq.(7) was verified for hot rolled Class 1 and Class 2 I sections
using thin-walled bema-column finite element and Monte Carlo method. The details of the verification
have been published by Papp (2002). The concept of verification followed the strategy below:

(i) Use the distributions functions of model parameters established by Strating and Vos (1973) for
IPE 160 shape.
(ii) Repeat the simulation of column buckling curve simulated by the Stevin laboratory.
(iii) Establish the design distribution functions of model parameters.
(iv) Compare the simulated curves to the column and lateral torsional buckling curves of Eurocode
3 (1992).
(v) Use the calibrated simulation model applying the design distribution functions to simulate
beam-column buckling problems and compare the simulated curves to the Eq.7. Fig.4 shows
some typical results of simulation.
 IPE160 beam-column (NSd/Npl,Rd=0.3) IPE160 beam-column (Nsd/Npl.Rd=0.7)

Simulation2 EC3 GDE Simulation2 EC3 GDE

1,4 1,4

1,2 1,2

1 1

Reduced strength
Reduced strength

0,8 0,8

0,6 0,6

0,4 0,4

0,2 0,2

0 0
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2
Reduced slenderness Reduced slenderness

Fig.4 Simulated beam-column buckling curves for slightly and strongly

compressed member with IPE 160 shape

CONCLUSION

The advanced CAD applications require the proposed Generalised Design Equation (Eq.7) that is an
adequate formula from computational technology point of view and it is conservative formula from
engineering point of view. The complex verification of the formula seems to be a time and cost
consumable work. In this paper we introduced the result of the preliminary verification for beam-
columns with IPE 160 shape. The verification shows the following results:

- at the simulation - as the tool of verification – we should use standard distribution functions as
model parameters where the characteristic values coincide with the standard design values (for
example the characteristic yield stress should be fy),
- the standard simulation curves can safely approximate the Eurocode 3 design curves for column and
lateral torsional buckling,
- the standard simulation curves are conservative enough to justify the GDE design curves that are
more optimistic than Eurocode 3 curves for beam-columns.

However, the GDE curves are conservative but more economic than the Eurocode 3 interaction
curves. On the other hand, the GDE design equation is a proper formula as a component in advanced
automatic CAD systems. For practice the formula should be verified for other shapes with further
extensive work including numerical simulation and real laboratory tests as well.

Acknowledgement

The support provided by the following foundation is gratefully acknowledged: OTKA T29326 project
on Analysis and Optimal Design of Steel Structures in Concurrent and Object Oriented Environment.
References

Attalla M.R., Deierlein G.G. and McGuire W. (1996), Nonlinear frame analysis with torsional-
flexural member behaviour, Proceedings of the Fifth International Colloquium on Stability and
Metal Structures, Lehigh University, SSRC, 1996: 11-9.
Barsoum R.S. and Galagher (1970) R.H., Finite element analysis of torsional and torsional-flexural
stability problems, Int. Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 2. pp. 335-352,
Wiley & Sons 1970.
Rajasekaran S. and Murray D.W. (1973), Finite element solution of inelastic beam equations, Journal
of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 99., No T6, June, pp. 1024-1042, 1973.
Chen W.F. and Atsuta T. (1977), Theory of Beam-Columns: Space behaviour and design, Vol 2.,
McGraw-Hill 1977.
White D.W. (1986), Material and geometric nonlinear analysis of local planar behaviour in steel
frames using interactive computer graphics, Report No. 86-4. Ithaca, NY:Department of Structural
Engineering, Cornell University, 1986.
Meek J.L. and Lin L.W. (1990), Geometric and material nonlinear analysis of thin-walled beam-
columns, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 1990, 116(6):1473-90.
Bild S., Chen G. and Trahair N.S. (1992), Out-of-plane strength of steel beams, ASCE Journal of
Structural Engineering, 1992, 118(8):1987-2003.
Strating,J. and Vos,H. (1973), Computer simulation of the E.C.C.S. Buckling curves using a Monte-
Carlo Method, HERON Vol.19., No.2, 1973.
Izzudin B.A. and Smith D.L. (1996), Large-displacement analysis of elastoplastic thin-walled frames,
Part I. and Part II., ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 1996, 122(8):905-925.
Jiang X.M., Chen H. and Liew J.Y.R. (2002), Spread-of-plasticity analysis of three-dimensional steel
frames, Journal of Structural Steel Research, 58 (2202), pp.193-212,
Eurocode 3 (1992), Design of steel structures, Part 1.1: General rules and rules for buildings, ENV
1993-1-1, 1992
Baptista, A., Camotim, J., Muzeau J.P., Silvestre N. (1999), On the use of the buckling length concept
in the design or safety checking of steel plane frames”, Proceedings of the Fourth International
Conference on Steel and Aluminium Structures, Espoo, Finland 20-23 June 1999, Edited by P.
Makelainen and P. Hassinen, Elsevier 1999, pp. 61-68
Boissonnade, N., Jaspart, J.P., Muzeau, J.P., Villette, M. (2000), “A proposal for beam-column
interaction formulae”, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Coupled Instabilities
in Metal Structures CIMS’ 2000, 21-23 September 2000, Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 697-704
Boissonnade, N. and Muzeau, J.P. (2000), “Development of new interaction formulae for beam-
columns”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Steel Structures of the 2000’s, 11-13
September 2000, Istanbul, pp. 233-238
Hasham, A.S. and Rasmussen K.J.R. (2002), Interaction curves for locally buckled I-section beam-
columns, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 58 (2002) pp. 213-241
Papp, F. (2002), An advanced CAD formula for automatic design of steel beam-column structures,
Research Report OTKA T29326, Department of Structural Engineering, Budapest University of
Technology and Economics, Hungary 2002, An Int. Journal of Steel and Composite Structures,
(submitted for publication)