STABILITY AND DUCTILITY OF STEEL STRUCTURES

D. Camotim et al. (Eds.)

Lisbon, Portugal, September 6-8, 2006

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF AISC-LRFD AND EC3 APPROACHES TO
BEAM-COLUMN BUCKLING RESISTANCE
Danny J. Yong, Aitziber Lpez and Miguel A. Serna
Tecnun University of Navarra, Spain
e-mails: djyong@tecnun.es, alopez@tecnun.es, maserna@tecnun.es
Keywords: Beam-columns; Steel members; Steelwork Standards; Interaction formulae; Stability.
Abstract. The paper presents a comparative study of a well-established steelwork design standard, the
American AISC LRFD, and the new European code for the design of steel structures, Eurocode 3. First,
the paper compares the formulation of both codes in order to identify similarities and differences. Then
the comparative study is performed for a rolled I-section with different slenderness. Most frequent cases
of linear and parabolic moment distributions are considered. The results are presented graphically by
means of interaction diagrams to facilitate their interpretation and to detect differences in resistance.
The comparative study shows that the resistance capacities given by LRFD and the two methods of EC3
can differ appreciably when slenderness is high and the member is subjected to linear moment
distribution with opposite end-moments. Finally the paper presents a LRFD-EC3 combined approach
which can be used to estimate the resistance of beam-columns.
1 INTRODUCTION
Based on investigations done in Germany, the first version of Eurocode 3 [1] incorporated interaction
formulae for members subjected to combined axial compression and bending. These first interaction
formulae often provided conservative strength estimates, leading to moderately uneconomical designs,
especially in members subjected to biaxial bending and compression [2,3]. In order to correct this
undesirable situation, Technical Committee 8 of the European Convention for Constructional Steelwork
(ECCS - TC 8), led by Prof. Lindner at TU Berlin, presented a design methodology based on two levels
of interaction formulae which were called Level 1 and Level 2. The Level 1 formulae were developed by
an Austrian-German research team [4,5,6,7,8,9] whose approach is based on theoretical investigations
combined with the test results originally available at the time. The Austrian-German research team carried
out numerical simulations of the elastic-plastic behaviour of single members, taking into account
geometric nonlinearity, initial imperfections, residual stresses and plastic zones along the length of the
member [10,11]. The results were evaluated statistically [9]. The physical effects of the instability
problems were taken into account by means of a compact coefficient which makes the Level 1 formulae
simple and user-friendly for the practical design [8]. The Level 2 formulae, which were developed by a
French-Belgian research team [12,13] and are based on a second-order in-plane elastic theory, have been
progressively extended to spatial and elastic-plastic behaviour. Each constitutive coefficient is normally
associated with a single physical effect of instability, which gives the Level 2 formulae a physical
transparency [13]. The two levels of interaction formulae were included in the new Eurocode 3 (EC3)
[14] as Method 1 for Level 2 and Method 2 for Level 1. Both levels of interaction formulae do not
incorporate the cross-section resistance. Therefore, EC3 establishes that the cross-sections resistance limit
state must be checked.
In contrast, the AISC LRFD [15,16] gives a simple bi-linear interaction formula to assess all the
possible modes of failure, namely cross-section resistance and member buckling resistance. AISC LRFD
formulae may be derived following the procedures shown by Liew [17] and has its origin in the
D.J. Yong et al.

experimental work performed by Kanchanalai [18]. A comparison of general philosophies and procedures
for the design of beam-columns is presented by White and Clarke [19,20].
2 CONSIDERATIONS ON SECOND-ORDER EFFECTS AND IMPERFECTIONS
Before dealing with the formulae provided by the standards to check the buckling resistance of beam-
columns, it is needed to clarify how each code considers second-order effects.
EC3 (Section 5.2.2) establishes that the verification of the stability of frames or their parts should be
carried out considering imperfections and second-order effects. Second-order effects and imperfections
may be accounted for by one of the following methods: both totally by the global analysis; partially by
the global analysis and partially through stability checks; and, for basic cases, by individual stability
checks using appropriate buckling lengths based on a global buckling mode of the frame. Accordingly,
when internal forces are obtained by taking both P- effects and frame imperfections into account, but
not P- effects or member imperfections, a stability check of individual members is needed; in this case
member stability may be based on a buckling length equal to the system length. Frame imperfections may
be replaced by equivalent horizontal forces, a method called the notional load approach [21].
AISC LRFD (Specifications, Chapter C) requires that internal forces should be obtained by
considering P- and P- second-order effects. Frame imperfection and member imperfections are not
considered. Consequently, buckling checks require the use of the concept of effective length. If full
second-order analysis is not performed, AISC LRFD allows P- and P- effects to be obtained by means
of amplification factors, B
1
and B
2
, applied to moments obtained with first-order analysis. B
1
multiplies
first-order moments not associated with sidesway and B
2
multiplies first-order moments produced by
forces causing sidesway.
3 EC3 AND AISC LRFD DESIGN FORMULAE FOR BEAM-COLUMNS
According to EC3, the resistance of a member subjected to combined axial compression and bending
is determined using interaction formulae which assess the buckling resistance of the member. In addition,
the resistance of the cross-section must be checked at each end of the member. AISC LRFD, in Chapter H
of its Specifications, however, provides a simple bi-linear interaction scheme to determine the resistance
of a structural member and to check all possible modes of failure.
EC3 (Section 6.3.3) provides two interaction formulae to check buckling resistance of members
subjected to axial compression and bending. Each interaction formula is related to one axis of buckling.
The interaction formulae have the following expressions
1
1
,
,
1
,
,
1
+ +
M
Rk z
Ed z
yz
M
Rk y LT
Ed y
yy
M
Rk y
Ed
M
M
k
M
M
k
N
N

for y-y axis (1)

1
1
,
,
1
,
,
1
+ +
M
Rk z
Ed z
zz
M
Rk y LT
Ed y
zy
M
Rk z
Ed
M
M
k
M
M
k
N
N

for z-z axis (2)

where N
Ed
is the design axial compression; M
y,Ed
and M
z,Ed
are the design bending moments, which
include frame imperfections and P- second order effects; N
Rk
, M
y,Rk
and M
z,Rk
are the characteristic
resistances for compression and bending, respectively;
y
,
z
and
LT
are the reduction factors due to
flexural buckling and lateral-torsional buckling and are equal to or less than unity;
M1
is a partial safety
factor and is equal to one for building; and k
yy
, k
yz
, k
zy
and k
zz
are the interaction factors. N
Rk
is equal to the
cross-sectional area multiplied by the yield stress, and M
Rk
is equal to the section modulus multiplied by
D.J. Yong et al.

the yield stress. The section modulus is either the plastic modulus if the cross-section is class 1 or class 2,
or the elastic modulus if the cross-section is class 3.
EC3 provides two methods to calculate the interaction factors: Method 1 and Method 2. The methods
are described in two annexes of Eurocode 3 and are referred to as informative (i.e., non-compulsory) in
character; as a consequence the designer may use any other well-established procedure to obtain their
value. The methods proposed by EC3 differ in the kind of presentation of the different structural effects:
flexural buckling, torsional buckling, etc. While Method 1 uses specific coefficients for each
phenomenon, Method 2 makes use of a compact interaction factor. As an example of the kind of
expressions used to obtain the interaction factors, Table 1 provides the values of the interaction factors k
yy

and k
zy
given by both methods for sections of class 1 and 2. The value of the EC3 interaction factors k
yy

and k
zy
, as is the case for all other EC3 interactions factors, depends on parameters such as the equivalent
moment factors (C
my
and C
mLT
), the elastic flexural buckling loads (N
cr,y
), the plasticity coefficients (C
yy

and C
zy
) and other different auxiliary terms, like
y
,
z
, w
y
and w
z
.
Table 1: Example of EC3 interaction factors

EC3 interaction factor k
yy
EC3 interaction factor k
zy

Method 1
yy
y cr
Ed
y
mLT my
C
N
N
C C
1
1
,

z
y
zy
y cr
Ed
z
mLT my
w
w
C
N
N
C C 6 . 0
1
1
,

Method 2 ( )

+
1
/
2 . 0 1
M Rk y
Ed
y my
N
N
C


( )

1
/ 25 . 0
1 . 0
1
M Rk z
Ed
mLT
z
N
N
C

AISC LRFD checks the resistance of beam-columns by means of the following equations, which
depend on the P
u
/
c
P
n
ratio,
for 2 . 0
n c
u
P
P

1
9
8
,
,
,
,

+ +
z n b
z u
y n b
y u
n c
u
M
M
M
M
P
P

(3)
for 2 . 0 <
n c
u
P
P

1
2
,
,
,
,

+ +
z n b
z u
y n b
y u
n c
u
M
M
M
M
P
P

(4)
where P
u
is the required compressive resistance; M
u,y
and M
u,z
are the required flexural resistances,
including all second-order effects; P
n
, M
n,y
and M
n,z
are the nominal resistances for compression and
bending, respectively;
c
is the compression resistance factor whose value is 0.85; and
b
is the bending
resistance factor, which is equal to 0.90.
4 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF INTERACTION DIAGRAMS
This section presents the comparative analysis of the design formulae proposed by EC3 and AISC
LRFD to determine the resistance of structural members subjected to combined axial compression and
bending. It also presents a combined approach that can be used to estimate the resistance of beam-
columns. All comparative results are presented graphically by means of interaction diagrams.
4.1 Comparative analysis of design formulae
To compare Equations (1) and (2) with Equations (3) and (4) it is necessary to establish a relation
between M
u
of AISC LRFD and M
Ed
of EC3. For this reason, in what follows it is assumed that beam-
D.J. Yong et al.

columns have simply-supported end-conditions. With this assumption, M
u
will be equivalent to B
1
M
Ed
,
where B
1
is the amplification factor corresponding to the nonsway first-order moment. In addition, beam-
columns, for the sake of simplicity, will be bent with respect to the major axis only. Since P
u
of AISC
LRFD is equivalent to N
Ed
of EC3, Equations (3) and (4) can be expressed as
for 2 . 0
n c
Ed
P
N

1
9
8
,
, 1

+
y n b
Ed y y
n c
Ed
M
M B
P
N

(5)
for 2 . 0 <
n c
Ed
P
N

1
2
,
, 1

+
y n b
Ed y y
n c
Ed
M
M B
P
N

(6)
The comparison between resistances of beam-columns proposed by EC3 [14] and AISC LRFD
[15,16] is not possible to perform in a theoretical way unless the properties of cross-section are specified.
For this reason, the comparative study has been performed for various European sections and different
non-dimensional slenderness values; here, the paper presents the results obtained for HEB 300, which
consider a cross-section group of wide flange profiles. The steel used in all cases was S275.
Figure 1 shows two cases of loading in a beam-column. For comparative study the following moment
distributions are considered: lineal moment distributions with =1 (case 1) and =-1 (case 2); and
parabolic moment distributions with =1 (case 3) and =0 (case 4). The comparative results are
presented in Section 4.3.

Figure 1: Beam-columns with end moments and transverse load
4.2 Combined approach for beam-columns
Both EC3 methods are more complicated than AISC LRFD approach. As an indication of this
complexity, Method 1 requires the computation of more than fifteen auxiliary terms. Combining the
simplicity of the bi-lineal approach of AISC LRFD and the buckling curves of EC3 the following
formulae can be considered
for 2 . 0
min

b
Ed
N
N
1
9
8
,
, 1
min

+
Rd b
Ed y y
b
Ed
M
M B
N
N
(7)
for 2 . 0
min
<
b
Ed
N
N
1
2
,
, 1
min

+
Rd b
Ed y y
b
Ed
M
M B
N
N
(8)
where N
b min
is the smaller buckling resistance of EC3 for members subjected to pure axial compression;
M
b,Rd
is the buckling resistance for members subjected to pure bending; and B
1y
is an amplification factor
used in AISC LRFD which takes into account the second order effect in members. This amplification
factor is defined by the following expression
1
/ 1
,
1

=
y cr Ed
m
y
N N
C
B (9)
M
N N
M
M
N N
M
a ) Lineal moment distribution b ) Parabolic moment distribution
q = 12M /L
2
D.J. Yong et al.

where C
m
is the equivalent moment factor. For member subjected to transverse loading between their
supports, the value of C
m
is equal to 0.85 when their ends are restrained; and equal to 1 when their ends
are unrestrained. For a lineal moment distribution, C
m
is computed by the following expression
4 . 0 6 . 0 + =
m
C (10)
The factor is the ratio of the smaller to larger moments at the ends of member as indicated in Figure 1(a).
4.3 Results
Figures 2 to 4 show the interaction curves for different non-dimensional slenderness values and
moment distributions. Each Figure presents four curves, each of which represents the maximum values of
combined bending moment and axial compression, relative to pure compression resistance and pure
bending resistance. The design internal forces, N
Ed
and M
y,Ed
, are expressed in a non-dimensional way by
dividing their values by N
b,Rd,z
and M
b,Rd
, which are the buckling resistances according to EC3 for
members subjected to pure compression and pure bending, respectively. Two curves correspond to EC3
and refer to the limits imposed by buckling resistance (EC3-Method 1 and EC3-Method 2). As indicated
above, AISC LRFD only requires a single interaction curve to check all modes of failure. The curve
drawn in dashed line (LRFD/EC3 in the Figures) corresponds to the simple bi-linear approach proposed
in Section 4.2. In all cases, EC3 partial safety factor has been taken as
M1
=1.00 and EC3 modified
lateral-torsional reduction factor,
LT, mod
, has been considered. Finally, as a result of the beam-column
end-condition, the following considerations apply: (1) members are only loaded in-plane, but they may
fail in either out-of-plane mode or in-plane mode; and (2) lateral-torsional buckling effective length is
equal to member length.
Figure 2 presents the comparison results corresponding to section HEB 300 with uniform moment
and non-dimensional slenderness values of 0.50 and 1.50. EC3-Method 1 and EC3-Method 2 give results
very similar to each other. For non-dimensional slenderness value of 0.50, two methods of EC3 give
higher resistances than AISC LRFD whereas for non-dimensional slenderness value of 1.50 is contrary.
The differences between the two standards may be in the order of 10%. As can be seen, LRFD/EC3
combined approach gives satisfactory results with respect to both EC3 methods.
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
EC3 - Method 1 EC3 - Method 2 AISC LRFD LRFD/EC3
N
Ed
y,Ed
M
N
Ed
y,Ed
M

z
=0.5










M
y
,
E
d

/

M
b
,
R
d
N
Ed
/ N
b,Rd,z

0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
EC3 - Method 1 EC3 - Method 2 AISC LRFD LRFD/EC3
N
Ed
y,Ed
M
N
Ed
y,Ed
M

z
=1.5
N
Ed
/ N
b,Rd,z










M
y
,
E
d

/

M
b
,
R
d

Figure 2: Beam-column resistance (HEB 300, 50 . 0 =
z
and 50 . 1 =
z
, case 1)
The comparison results corresponding to linear moment distribution with opposite end-moments are
presented in Figure 3. It can be seen in the Figure that while the interaction curves corresponding to
AISC LRFD keep the bi-linear shape, EC3 buckling interaction curves adopt a parabolic shape, with the
greater differences for values of N
Ed
/N
b,Rd,z
between 0.50 and 0.80. In addition, AISC LRFD becomes
more conservative than EC3 for all range of combinations. The maximum difference between values
given by AISC LRFD and EC3 is about 25%. Even more striking is the fact that differences between the
D.J. Yong et al.

two methods proposed by EC3 may reach values greater than 10%. In general, EC3 method 1, whose
application requires a complex procedure to be followed, leads to bigger buckling resistance than EC3
method 2. The differences in moment resistance for a given axial compression load are also noteworthy.
For the slenderness value of 0.5 and a high value of N
Ed
/N
b,Rd,z
, the allowable moment resistance may vary
significantly; as an example, for N
Ed
/N
b,Rd,z
equal to 0.80, AISC LRFD would reach the ultimate limit
state for a relative bending moment of M
y,Ed
/M
b,Rd
of 0.12, while EC3 method 1 and EC3 method 2 would
give 0.42 and 0.27, which represent differences closer to 250% in moment resistance. The results of the
LRFD/EC3 combined approach and EC3 method 2 are very similar for a slenderness value of 0.5. For
higher slenderness values, as 1.50, the LRFD/EC3 combined approach is more conservative than both
EC3 methods but less conservative than AISC LRFD in a quite range of N
Ed
/N
b,Rd,z
.
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
EC3 - Method 1 EC3 - Method 2 AISC LRFD LRFD/EC3
N
Ed
y,Ed
M
N
Ed
y,Ed
M

z
=0.5
N
Ed
/ N
b,Rd,z










M
y
,
E
d

/

M
b
,
R
d

0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
EC3 - Method 1 EC3 - Method 2 AISC LRFD LRFD/EC3
N
Ed
y,Ed
M
N
Ed
y,Ed
M

z
=1.5










M
y
,
E
d

/

M
b
,
R
d
N
Ed
/ N
b,Rd,z

Figure 3: Beam-column resistance (HEB 300, 50 . 0 =
z
and 50 . 1 =
z
, case 2)
The comparison results corresponding to parabolic distributions are presented in Figure 4. For both
AISC LRFD and LRFD/EC3 combined approach, the value of equivalent moment factor, C
m
, has been
taken as 1, which corresponds to members with unrestrained ends. Figure 4 corresponds to a member
slenderness of 1.50.
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
EC3 - Method 1 EC3 - Method 2 AISC LRFD LRFD/EC3
N
Ed
/ N
b,Rd,z










M
y
,
E
d

/

M
b
,
R
d

z
=1.5
L/2
0.5 M
y,Ed
My,Ed
My,Ed
N
Ed
N
Ed

0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
EC3 - Method 1 EC3 - Method 2 AISC LRFD LRFD/EC3

z
=1.5
N
Ed
/ N
b,Rd,z










M
y
,
E
d

/

M
b
,
R
d
(7/12)L
(24/25)My,Ed
My,Ed
N
Ed
N
Ed

.Figure 4: Beam-column resistance (HEB 300, 50 . 1 =
z
, case 3 and case 4)
As it can be seen, the interaction curves given by AISC LRFD and LRFD/EC3 combined approach
keep the bi-linear shape. For parabolic distribution with two equal end moments (case 3), the maximum
difference between values given by AISC LRFD and EC3 is about 10%. This difference appears for
values of N
Ed
/N
b,Rd,z
between 0.60 and 0.70. AISC LRFD is more conservative than EC3 in a quite range
of N
Ed
/N
b,Rd,z
. The LRFD/EC3 combined approach provides resistance values very similar to AISC LRFD.
D.J. Yong et al.

For parabolic distribution with one end moment (case 4), the maximum difference between values given
by AISC LRFD and EC3 is about 12%. This difference appears for lower values of N
Ed
/N
b,Rd,z
. EC3 is
more conservative than AISC LRFD. The LRFD/EC3 combined approach gives acceptable resistance
values in accordance with the EC3.
For cases were EC3 is conservative, differences between EC3 resistance and AISC LRFD resistance
are even greater for narrow flange section. This is due to the fact that geometrical characteristics of
narrow flange section make them prone to lateral-torsional buckling, something that is more penalized in
EC3 than in AISC LRFD.
5 CONCLUSIONS
In order to point out similarities and disparities, the first objective of this paper has been to present
the design philosophies of the American AISC LRFD and the European EC3 for the design of steel
members subjected to combined axial compression and bending. As a first major difference between the
two standards, EC3 maintains two ultimate limit states (ULS) for all loading situations: cross-section
resistance ULS and buckling resistance ULS. In contrast, AISC LRFD integrates both ultimate limit states
in its specifications. Regarding interaction formulae for beam-column design, both codes make use of
interaction factors; but while AISC LRFD uses a simple bi-linear approach, EC3 proposes two relatively
complex procedures: a French-Belgian method (method 1) and a German-Austrian method (method 2).
Together with design procedures, the paper has presented a comparative study of results obtained
using both standards. It has been shown how EC3 and AISC LRFD may appreciably disagree. For
uniform moment distribution with a slenderness value of 0.5, AISC LRFD is more conservative than
EC3, but it is the opposite with a slenderness value of 1.5. For linear moment distribution with reverse
end-moments, the American standard is more conservative. Differences in predicted resistance may be as
high as 25% for the interaction formulae. For parabolic distributions EC3 may be more or less
conservative than AISC LRFD. The disparities also are present when the two EC3 methods are compared.
Based on the simplicity of the AISC LRFD bilinear procedure, which may be more than enough to obtain
reasonable results for most cases, the paper has finally suggested a combined LRFD/EC3 approach that
gives acceptable results.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of this research by the Arcelor Chair of the
University of Navarra.
REFERENCES
[1] EC3, European Committee for Standardization, ENV 1993-1-1, Eurocode 3: Design of steel
structures. Part 1-1: General Rules and rules for buildings, Brussels, 1992.
[2] Lindner J., Design of beams and beam columns, Progress in Structural Engineering and
Materials, 5, 38-47, 2003.
[3] Gonalves R. and Camotim D., On the application of beam-column interaction formulae to steel
members with arbitrary loading and support conditions, Journal of Constructional Steel Research,
60, 433-450, 2004.
[4] Greiner R., Ofner R. and Salzgeber G., Lateral torsional buckling of beam-columns: Theoretical
background, ECCS-Validation Group, Report 5, 1999.
[5] Greiner R. and Lindner J., Proposal for buckling resistance of members: Flexural and lateral
torsional buckling, ECCS-Validation Group, Report 7, 2000.
D.J. Yong et al.

[6] Greiner R. and Ofner R., Validation of design rules for member stability of European Standards-
Proposal for buckling rules, Stability and Ductility of Steel Structures, D. Dubina and M. Ivnyi
(eds.), Timisoara, Romania: Elsevier, 1999.
[7] Greiner R. and Lechner A., Elastic-plastic beam-column behaviour within structural systems,
ECCS TC 8, Paper N TC 8-2002-19, Graz University of Technology, 2002.
[8] Greiner R., Background information on the beam-column interaction formulae at Level 1, ECCS
TC 8, Paper N TC 8-2001, Technical University Graz, 2001.
[9] Lindner J., Evaluation of interaction formulae al Level 1 approach with regard to ultimate load
calculations and test results: Flexural buckling and lateral torsional buckling, Report 2144E, TU
Berlin, 2001.
[10] Ofner R., Results of a parametric study of steel beams under axial compression and biaxial
bending Comparisons with code regulations, Eurosteel Conference, Prague, 1999.
[11] Ofner R., Buckling check of members and frame based on numerical simulations, Institute for
Steel, Timber and Shell Structures, Graz University of Technology, 2003.
[12] Boissonnade N., Jaspart J.-P. Muzeau J.-P. and Villette M., Improvement of the interaction
formulae for beam columns in Eurocode 3, Computers and Structures, 80, 2375-2385, 2002.
[13] Boissonnade N., Jaspart J.-P., Muzeau J.-P. and Villette M., New interaction formulae for beam-
columns in Eurocode 3: The French-Belgian approach, Journal of Constructional Steel Research,
60, 421-431, 2004.
[14] EC3, European Committee for Standardization, prNV 1993-1-1, Eurocode 3: Design of steel
structures. Part 1-1: General Rules and rules for buildings (draft), Brussels, 2005.
[15] AISC LRFD, American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), Load and Resistance Factor Design,
AISC, Chicago, 1994.
[16] ANSI/AISC, American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), Specification for Structural Steel
Buildings, AISC, Chicago, 2005.
[17] Liew J.Y.R., White D.W. and Chen W.F., Beam-Columns design in steel frameworks-Insights on
current methods and trends, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 18(4), 269-308, 1991.
[18] Kanchanalai T., The design and behavior of beam-columns in unbraced steel frames, AISI Project
No. 189, Report No. 2, Civil Engineering/Structures Research Lab, University of Texas-Austin,
1977.
[19] White D.W. and Clarke M.J., Design of beam-columns in steel frames. I: Philosophies and
procedures, Journal of Structural Engineering, 123(12), 1556-1564, 1997.
[20] White D.W. and Clarke M.J., Design of beam-columns in steel frames. II: Comparison of
standards, Journal of Structural Engineering, 123(12), 1565-1575, 1997.
[21] ASCE, Effective length and notional load approaches for assessing frame stability: Implications
for American steel design, ASCE, New York, 1997.