Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Abstract
Stainless steel’s characteristic nonlinear, rounded stress–strain behaviour requires accurate recognition in numerical modelling. Its
response to cold-working is far more pronounced than that of ordinary carbon steel and hence appropriate modelling of the cold-worked
corner regions is very important. Despite the importance of geometrical imperfections, their measurement is not a very common practice
and assumed models are generally adopted in numerical investigations—often without proper verification. This paper investigates all
important aspects for modelling stainless steel cross-sections through carefully designed parametric studies. Different cross-section types
have been considered and the numerically obtained load–deformation responses have been compared with selected experimental results;
the findings form the basis for specific guidelines. These proposals have been verified by application to all available stainless steel stub
column tests obtained from different sources. The predicted numerical results have shown excellent agreement with those obtained
experimentally.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Cross-section; Finite element; Geometric imperfection; Numerical modelling; Residual stress; Stainless steel; Structures; Stub column
0263-8231/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tws.2006.10.010
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Ashraf et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 1048–1062 1049
set of stub columns to validate the accuracy of the This equation has been found to give excellent predic-
proposed FE modelling technique. tions of stainless steel material stress–strain behaviour up
to the 0.2% proof stress s0.2 but greatly over-predicts the
2. Material modelling stresses beyond that level. Fig. 1 shows a typical
comparison between a measured stainless steel stress–strain
The development of an appropriate FE model requires curve and the Ramberg–Osgood equation (Eq. (3)).
the correct representation of the corresponding material
characteristics. Inaccurate or inappropriate modelling of 2.1.2. Modified Ramberg–Osgood model proposed by
the basic material behaviour will overshadow the perfor- Mirambell and Real
mance of even the most refined FE models. Stainless steel Mirambell and Real [5], as a part of their investigation of
exhibits a rounded stress–strain curve and strain hardens to the flexural behaviour of stainless steel beams, devised a
a considerably greater extent than carbon steel, resulting in suitable analytical model for stainless steel stress–strain
significant changes in material behaviour during cold- behaviour. The basic Ramberg–Osgood expression was
forming processes. This phenomenon leads to enhanced adopted for stresses up to s0.2 where the strain hardening
strength properties at the corner regions of stainless steel exponent n was determined using the 0.05% proof stress
sections. Special care is required to accurately model the s0.05 and s0.2. For stresses beyond s0.2 a modified
response of stainless steel cross-sections with cold-worked Ramberg–Osgood formula was adopted by moving the
corners. origin of the basic Ramberg–Osgood expression of Eq. (3)
from (0, 0) to (et0.2, s0.2), where et0.2 is the total strain at
2.1. Modelling of flat material s0.2. This is explained in Fig. 2 and the proposed
400
This basic expression was later modified by Hill [3] to Fig. 1. Comparison between the measured stress–strain curve and the
give Eq. (2) where Rp is a proof stress and c is the Ramberg–Osgood material model for an austenitic Grade 1.4301 tensile
corresponding offset (plastic) strain. coupon with s0.2 ¼ 296 N/mm2 and n ¼ 5.8.
n
s s
¼ þc . (2)
E0 Rp
In both expressions the total strain is expressed as the
E0.2
summation of elastic and plastic strains which are treated E0
separately. The power function is applied only to the
plastic strain. The Ramberg–Osgood expression is a
σ0.2
popular material model for nonlinear materials since its
constants have physical significance and it also provides a
Stress
relationship is given in Eq. (4). applies for stresses greater than s0.2.
s s0:2 s s0:2 m ðs s0:2 Þ s1:0 s0:2
¼ þ u þ t0:2 , (4) ¼ þ t1:0 t0:2
E 0:2 su s0:2 E 0:2 E 0:2
n0 0:2;1:0
where eu is the plastic strain at ultimate strength, and m is s s0:2
þ t0:2 , ð9Þ
an additional strain hardening exponent. E0.2 is the tangent s1:0 s0:2
stiffness at s0.2 which may be obtained using Eq. (5). where et0.2 and et1.0 are the total strains at s0.2 and s1.0,
s0:2 E 0 respectively and n0 0.2,1.0 is a strain-hardening exponent.
E 0:2 ¼ . (5) Eq. (9) has been found to give excellent agreement with
s0:2 þ 0:002nE 0
measured stress–strain curves in both tension and compres-
The proposed relationship was found to be in sion and is adopted in the present study.
good agreement with test results. Use of ultimate stress Ashraf [18] analysed all available coupon tests per-
su and the corresponding strain eu in Eq. (4), however, formed on stainless steel and proposed specific values for n,
makes its application limited to model tension behaviour n0 0.2,1.0 and s1.0/s0.2 for commonly used stainless steel
only. grades so that Eq. (9) can be used with the knowledge of
only 2 common parameters—s0.2 and E0. Table 1 lists the
2.1.3. Extension of modified Ramberg–Osgood model values proposed for the coefficients involved.
proposed by Rasmussen
Rasmussen [6] adopted Mirambell and Real’s proposed 2.2. Modelling of corner material
[5] model, whereby the basic Ramberg–Osgood equation
(Eq. (3)) is used up to s0.2, beyond which Eq. (4) applies. The effect of cold-work on the corner material of
Rasmussen [6] proposed that the strain hardening exponent stainless steel cross-sections has been investigated by
n be determined on the basis of the 0.01% proof stress and Ashraf et al. [19] and hence models have been proposed
s0.2. Based on tensile coupon data obtained from [7–13] to predict the enhanced corner material strength from a
Rasmussen [6] proposed Eq. (6) for the determination of knowledge of the flat material properties and the corner
the additional strain hardening exponent m. geometry. In most of the cases, Eq. (10) has been used to
s0:2 predict the corner material strength. However Eq. (11) has
m ¼ 1 þ 3:5 . (6) also been used in the case of roll-formed sections produced
su
from austenitic Grade 1.4301, where virgin material
Further expressions were also provided to determine su properties were not available.
(Eq. (7)) and eu (Eq. (8)) in terms of s0.2, E0 and n.
1:881s0:2;v
s0:2 0:2 þ 185ðs0:2 =E 0 Þ s0:2;c ¼ , (10)
¼ , (7) ðri =tÞ0:194
su 1 0:0375ðn 5Þ
s0:2;c ¼ 0:82su;f , (11)
s0:2
u ¼ 1 . (8) where s0.2,c is the 0.2% proof stress of the corner material,
su
s0.2,v is the 0.2% proof stress of the virgin material, su,f is
The resulting model is able to describe the full the ultimate stress of the flat material, ri is the internal
stress–strain curve for stainless steel alloys by using the corner radius, t is the thickness of the cross-section.
three basic parameters s0.2, E0 and n, and has been In the absence of sufficient test details to permit the
included in Annex C of prEN 1993-1-4 [14] to provide determination of n, n0 0.2,1.0 and s1.0/s0.2 values for corner
guidance for the modelling of the material behaviour of materials, the values for these parameters were taken to be
stainless steel. the same as those for the corresponding flat material.
2.1.4. Material model adopted in the present study 3. Basic aspects of FE modelling—boundary conditions and
Gardner and Nethercot [15] recognised the value of analysis technique
Mirambell and Real’s [5] two-stage model but noted that
its application was limited to the description of tensile The ends of the stub columns were fixed against all
stress–strain behaviour because of its dependency on the degrees of freedom except for the vertical displacement at
ultimate stress su and the corresponding strain eu. In the loaded edges. Typical boundary conditions for different
compression, such parameters do not exist due to the cross-section types are shown in Fig. 3. Constraint
absence of the necking phenomenon. It was therefore equations were used to ensure that all nodes at the loaded
proposed by Gardner [16] that the 1% proof stress s0.1 and end act as a group to move vertically when a concentrated
the corresponding strain et1.0 be used in place of the load was applied to one of the nodes at the top end.
ultimate stress. The resulting model as recently proposed In the present research, elastic linear analysis technique
by Gardner and Ashraf [17] is given by Eq. (9), which using the *BUCKLING command was employed to obtain
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Ashraf et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 1048–1062 1051
Table 1
Compound Ramberg–Osgood parameters obtained from coupon test results
Shell elements are generally used to model thin-walled 5. Convergence study—selecting a suitable mesh
structures. ABAQUS [1] includes general-purpose shell
elements as well as elements that are specifically formulated One of the most important aspects of FE modelling is to
to analyse ‘thick’ and ‘thin’ shell problems. The general- identify a suitable mesh size for the accurate modelling of
purpose shell elements provide robust and accurate the structural response. Finer meshes are generally
solutions to most applications although, in certain cases, preferred to obtain better predictions although there is no
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1052 M. Ashraf et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 1048–1062
Table 2
Load–deformation results obtained from FE models of stub columns using general purpose shell element S4R and thin-shell element S9R5
Section type Designation Test results General purpose shell element: S4R Thin-shell element: S9R5
general guideline for such fineness, which largely depends 6. Extent of corner enhancement
on the type of structure and analysis involved. Thus
performing a convergence study is a pre-requisite for Previous research showed that enhanced strength should
finding a suitable mesh for any FE investigation. Although be included beyond the curved corner of the numerical
finer meshes generally provide better predictions, they models to achieve the exact replication of the test results
make the whole process more expensive in terms of the [22]. Karren [23] found that for carbon steel sections the
computational time. A compromise is therefore needed effect of cold-forming extends beyond the corner to a
between the required level of accuracy and the cost of a distance approximately equal to the thickness t, whilst
solution. Abdel-Rahman and Sivakumaran [24] observed increased
Two different mesh sizes were used to simulate the yield strengths up to a distance of 0.5pri beyond the corner.
load–deformation response of stub columns considered in Stainless steel exhibits far more pronounced strain hard-
the present research. For all cross-section types, the ening than carbon steel and hence it is rather more
number of elements in the finer mesh was 4 times higher important to investigate the extent of corner enhancement.
than the corresponding coarse mesh. Each of the stub Based on the results of a numerical investigation performed
columns was analysed using both of these meshes and the on stainless steel roll-formed hollow sections, Gardner [16]
results are given in Table 3. The results show that there is a observed that if the corner properties are extended up to 2t
small improvement in predictions for both peak load Fu beyond the curved portion good agreement with test results
and the corresponding deformation du with the finer mesh. is obtained.
No further refinement was attempted since the predictions Most of the open cross-sections considered in the present
were found to be in good agreement with the test results research were formed by the press-braking process. The
and this finer mesh has been adopted in the subsequent FE manufacturing process has been observed to affect the
models. corner material properties [19] and hence a similar
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Ashraf et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 1048–1062 1053
Table 3
Load–deformation results obtained from FE models of stub columns using different meshes
t 2t
t t t
ri ri ri
t
2t
parametric study was carried out to investigate the extent studied—enhanced strength only in the curved corner
to which corner enhancement continues beyond the curved region, enhanced strength region extended to a distance t
region in the case of press-braked sections. Keeping all beyond the corner and enhanced strength region extended
other parameters the same, three different cases were to a distance 2t beyond the corner, as shown in Fig. 4.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1054 M. Ashraf et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 1048–1062
Table 4
Load–deformation results obtained from FE models of press-braked stub columns using different conditions for corner strength enhancement
Section type Designation Test results Extent of enhanced strength used in FE models
FE Fu/ test Fu FE du/ test du FE Fu/ test Fu FE du/ test du FE Fu/ test Fu FE du/ test du
Lipped channel 100 50 20 3 211.4 1.50 0.93 1.19 1.02 1.27 1.11 1.38
150 50 20 3 197.0 1.60 0.96 0.63 1.00 0.93 1.09 1.04
150 65 20 3 214.8 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.19 1.14 1.73
200 75 25 3 232.8 1.40 0.97 1.02 1.02 1.14 1.10 1.43
33 17 7 1 23.7 0.62 0.90 0.79 0.98 0.89 1.06 0.90
50 17 7 1 21.7 0.50 0.97 0.64 1.04 1.00 1.15 1.28
50 22 7 1 24.3 0.60 0.98 0.55 1.01 1.00 1.12 1.27
68 25 8 1 26.1 0.62 0.98 1.00 1.02 1.31 1.13 1.42
All Sections Average 0.95 1.00 1.01 1.11 1.07 1.21
COV 0.06 0.24 0.04 0.13 0.05 0.19
1.20
becomes more slender, the ratio of corner area to flat area
reduces, local buckling becomes more dominant and the
1.15 effect of enhanced strength corners loses its significance.
ct
1.10 any enhanced strength (FE Fu,c0) and the results were
Angles
1.05 Channels
compared to those obtained using corner enhancement up
Lipped Channels to t (FE Fu,ct). The results are shown in Fig. 5. This figure
1.00 illustrates the importance of using corner properties in the
0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40 2.80 FE models, especially for the relatively stocky cross-
Cross-section slenderness β sections. The present research uses enhanced properties
Fig. 5. Variation of the effect of corner enhancement with cross-section up to t and 2t beyond the corner for the press-braked and
slenderness b. roll-formed sections, respectively.
7. Geometric imperfections
Ultimate load carrying capacity Fu and deformation at Geometric imperfections are an inseparable property of
ultimate load du for each model are compared to the test real steel members, with the potential to significantly
results in Table 4. influence their structural behaviour. When performing
Table 4 clearly shows that for the press-braked stainless an FE analysis to predict the ultimate load, the model
steel sections, the enhanced strength needs to be extended should, in general, include both local and global initial
up to t beyond the corner to obtain the best predictions imperfections.
using FE models. The importance of inclusion of enhanced Despite the importance of initial geometrical imperfec-
strength corner properties varies with the cross-section tions, there are no general guidelines for their specification.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Ashraf et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 1048–1062 1055
Table 5
Summary of the previous research performed on local geometric imperfections
Predictions are normally conducted by either modelling the shape and magnitude of initial imperfections for stainless
structure with an assumed initial out-of-plane deflection or steel stub columns for use in FE modelling.
by using assumed small transverse forces. Accurate knowl-
edge of distribution, shape and magnitude of imperfections 7.1. Literature review
is a prerequisite for numerically simulating the response of
a structural member. In the absence of suitable measured A detailed review of measured and predicted geometric
data, the magnitude and distribution of imperfections— imperfections in steel cross-sections has been reported in
which is likely to be a complex function of the rolling and [18]. The most commonly adopted technique to define the
fabrication process, material strength and geometrical distribution of initial imperfections is to perform an elastic
properties of the cross-section—must be predicted. The buckling analysis prior to the non linear analysis and to use
present study aims to provide guidelines for predicting the one of the Eigenmodes, chosen depending on specific
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1056 M. Ashraf et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 1048–1062
criteria, as the initial shape. The main challenge is to select reported by Kuwamura [34] and Stangenberg [35] have
an appropriate Eigenmode to represent the imperfect been used to investigate the effect of initial imperfections
geometry of the structural component and to ensure that on structural response. No imperfection measurements
no buckling modes are inhibited. The maximum amplitude were available for the stub columns considered and hence
is often taken as a percentage of plate thickness; this type numerically obtained load–deformation curves were com-
of relationship is, however, always likely to be case pared to those obtained experimentally.
sensitive and no specific approach has, so far, been The most commonly used technique, employing Eigen-
reported that is generally applicable. It should be noted modes to define the initial geometry of a structure, was
that the initial geometric imperfections in numerical adopted in the present work. The Eigenmodes were
simulations are often employed not just to represent the obtained from elastic buckling analyses of the stub column
imperfect geometry of the physical structural element, but models. The worst imperfection shape, resulting in the
also to account for other features such as residual stresses, greatest reduction in load-carrying capacity, often relates
non-homogeneity of material, eccentricity of loading, etc., to the lowest Eigenmode, though it is not always the case.
which may be difficult to model explicitly. Therefore, the Fig. 6 shows some typical Eigenmodes obtained for all the
choice of maximum amplitude of imperfection, for cross-section types considered. In this study, each of the
example, will depend on whether or not these other first three Eigenmodes was used individually to investigate
features have been explicitly incorporated into the model. the effect of imperfection distribution on load–deformation
Table 5 presents a summary of the previous research response. Fig. 7 shows the typical load–deformation
performed on geometric imperfections, where t is the plate behaviour for stub columns as a result of changing the
thickness, o0 is the imperfection amplitude, s0.2 and scr are shape of the imperfection distribution.
0.2% proof stress of material and (elastic) critical plate In ABAQUS [1], the nodal displacements of an
buckling stress, respectively. Eigenmode are normalised using the maximum displace-
ment that occurs within a structure and thus the maximum
7.2. Modelling of distribution and magnitude displacement is set equal to 1. By specifying an appropriate
multiplying factor, commonly known as the amplitude, the
The load–deformation responses of stainless steel stub nodal co-ordinates of the Eigenmode under consideration
columns with angle, channel, lipped channel and I sections are scaled accordingly. The present study is also concerned
Fig. 6. Typical Eigenmodes obtained by performing elastic analysis for stainless steel open sections.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Ashraf et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 1048–1062 1057
100
magnitude of assumed initial geometric imperfections [35].
75 Both Rasmussen and Hancock [7,8] and Gardner [16]
Test result observed that the tension and compression coupons cut
50 Eigenmode 1 from finished sections were curved longitudinally because
Eigenmode 2
25 of the through-thickness bending residual stresses. During
Eigenmode 3
0 testing, however, the coupons are straightened, which
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 effectively re-introduces the bending residual stress into the
Deformation (mm) coupons. Therefore, provided the material properties are
Fig. 7. Typical variations in load–deformation behaviour of stub columns
established using coupons cut from within the cross-
as a result of using different imperfection distributions (Eigenmodes). section, the effects of bending residual stresses are
inherently present, and do not need to be defined explicitly
with devising a representative value for the amplitude to be in the numerical models. It is only the membrane stresses
used in the imperfection distribution defined using Eigen- induced through welding that need to be explicitly defined
modes. Schafer and Peköz’s [28] proposals for this in numerical models.
amplitude have been used by various researchers, but were Lagerqvist and Olsson [36] measured residual stresses in
originally devised for carbon steel cross-sections and two welded I girders of austenitic and duplex stainless steel.
should be examined before use for stainless steel. Gardner The resulting residual stress patterns resembled established
and Nethercot’s [22] proposed relationship for imperfec- models for carbon steel, but no specific guidelines were
tion amplitude includes both material and geometrical proposed. In the case of angles, channels and lipped
properties and gave good predictions for roll-formed channels no residual stresses were included in the numerical
stainless steel sections. Initial imperfections for all the stub models. However, in the case of the welded I sections, the
columns considered in the present study were modelled thermally induced residual stresses were modelled follow-
using these two approaches and were compared with the ing the established guidelines for carbon steel [37], as
test results. The obtained FE results are compared and shown in Fig. 8, since no specific guidance is available for
discussed in the following section. stainless steel. The 0.2% proof stress s0.2 was adopted for
stainless steel in place of the yield stress sy.
Each of the I section stub columns was modelled twice—
7.3. Results and analysis with and without residual stresses. The FE results are
compared to the test results in Table 8. From the
Each stub column was analysed six times, including numerically obtained results it may be observed that the
(separately) 3 Eigenmodes (Eigenmodes 1, 2 and 3) and 2 effect of residual stresses on the peak load Fu and the
imperfection amplitudes; the load–deformation results are corresponding deformation du is not very significant.
compared in Tables 6 and 7. The mean prediction of test However, inclusion of residual stress was observed to
results and coefficient of variation (COV) from the cause small reductions in the stiffness of the stub columns,
obtained FE results were also calculated and reported. which resulted in higher values for du. Overall, it may be
From the scatter (COV) of results it may be observed that observed from the cases considered that the developed
the peak load Fu is less sensitive to imperfection shape than numerical models can accurately predict the stub column
is the corresponding deformation du. For the imperfection load–deformation response without explicit recognition of
amplitude, Gardner and Nethercot’s [22] proposed techni- thermal residual stresses. Gardner and Nethercot [22]
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1058 M. Ashraf et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 1048–1062
Table 6
Load–deformation results using imperfection amplitude from Schafer and Peköz’s [28] proposed model
reached a similar conclusion when modelling stainless steel sections and 2t for the roll-formed sections beyond the
hollow sections. curved corner portions, where t is the plate thickness.
(iii) The thin-shell S9R5 element available in ABAQUS [1]
9. Proposed technique for numerical modelling and its has been observed to perform very well for the stub
verification columns considered. The general purpose S4R also
provides a similar level of accuracy. A convergence
The following proposals are made for use in the study is a pre-requisite to obtain accurate predictions.
numerical modelling of stainless steel stub columns: (iv) Initial geometric imperfections in stub columns may be
modelled using an appropriate deformed shape ob-
(i) Material behaviour may be accurately modelled using tained from elastic buckling analysis (i.e. Eigenmodes).
Eqs. (3) and (9) with the required parameters taken Eigenmode 1 may be used with an amplitude of
from Table 1. o0 ¼ 0.023(s0.2/scr)t to obtain accurate predictions for
(ii) Corner material strength s0.2,c should be incorporated load–deformation behaviour, where s0.2 is the 0.2%
for cold-formed sections and may be obtained using proof stress of the material, scr is the (elastic) critical
either Eq. (10) or (11). To obtain the complete plate buckling stress and t is the plate thickness.
stress–strain response, the modified Ramberg–Osgood (v) Bending residual stresses may be ignored in FE models
parameters may be taken from Table 1 if they are not if the material properties are taken from the coupons
available from corner coupons. The corner enhance- cut from the finished cross-section. Thermal residual
ment should be extended up to t for the press-braked stresses have been found to have an insignificant effect
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Ashraf et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 1048–1062 1059
Table 7
Load–deformation results using imperfection amplitude from Gardner and Nethercot’s [22] proposed model
d1
Web: slenderness parameter b includes both material and cross-
a1 = 0.075d1
a2 = 0.125 d1
sectional properties [25].
Given the variability in cross-section types, manufactur-
ing processes and sources for the considered 136 stub
σ0.2 columns, the overall mean prediction of 1.01 with a
bf coefficient of variation (COV) of 0.08 for the peak load
Fu may be considered to be acceptable. It should also be
Fig. 8. Assumed residual stress distribution for welded I sections. noted that the maximum scatter of prediction was observed
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1060 M. Ashraf et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 1048–1062
Table 8
Load–deformation results obtained from FE models of I section stub columns with and without residual stresses
Table 9
Summary of the predictions for peak loads for all stub columns considered
Cross-section type Production process No. of sources No. of stub columns FE Fu/test Fu
Mean COV
1.4
1.2
1.0
FE Fu / Test Fu
0.8
0.6 Angles
Channels
0.4 Lipped channels
I sections
0.2 Square hollow sections, SHS
Rectangular hollow sections, RHS
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Cross-section slenderness β
Fig. 9. Comparison of the FE predictions for stub column peak load Fu with test results.
for the welded cross-sections reported in [34]. In Kuwa- braked channel sections were welded tip-to-tip using laser
mura’s [34] testing programme, the I sections were welded beam. It is well known that welding can result in high
by laser beam and TIG welding, whilst the SHS sections residual stresses, distortion of cross-sections and localised
were formed in a rather unusual fashion—two press- reduction in material strength (when welding cold-worked
ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Ashraf et al. / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 1048–1062 1061
References
[24] Abdel-Rahman N, Sivakumaran KS. Material properties models for [32] Dubina D, Ungureanu V. Effect of imperfections on numerical
analysis of cold-formed steel members. J Struct Eng ASCE simulation of instability behaviour of cold-formed steel members.
1997;123(9):1135–43. Thin-Wall Struct 2002;40:239–62.
[25] Ashraf M, Gardner L, Nethercot DA. Compression strength of [33] Cruise R, Gardner L. Measurement and prediction of geometric
stainless steel cross-sections. J Construct Steel Res 2006;62(1–2): imperfections in structural stainless steel members. Struct Eng Mech
105–15. 2006;24(1):63–89.
[26] Dawson RG, Walker AC. Post-buckling of geometrically imperfect [34] Kuwamura H. Local buckling of thin-walled stainless steel members.
plates. J Struct Eng ASCE. 1972;98(ST1):75–94. Int J Steel Struct 2003;3:191–201.
[27] Hopperstad OS, Langseth M, Hanssen L. Ultimate compressive [35] Stangenberg H. Development of the use of stainless steel in
strength of plate elements in aluminium: correlation of finite element construction: work package 2: cross-sections—welded I sections
analyses and tests. Thin-Wall Struct 1997;29:31–46. and cold formed sheeting. ECSC report, 2000.
[28] Schafer BW, Peköz T. Computational modelling of cold-formed steel: [36] Lagerqvist O, Olsson A. Residual stresses in welded I-girders made
characterizing geometric imperfections and residual stresses. of stainless steel and structural steel. In: Proceedings of the ninth
J Construct Steel Res 1998;47:193–210. Nordic steel construction conference, Helsinki, Finland, 2001.
[29] Sun J, Butterworth JW. Behaviour of steel single angle compression p. 737–44.
members axially loaded through one leg. In: Proceedings of the [37] European Convention for Constructional Steelwork, ECCS. Ultimate
Australian structural engineering conference, Auckland, 1998. p. 859–66. limit state calculation of sway frames with rigid joints. Technical
[30] Chou SM, Chai GB, Ling L. Finite element technique for design of Committee 8—Structural Stability Technical Working Group 8.2—
stub columns. Thin-Wall Struct 2000;37:97–112. System. Publication no. 33, 1984.
[31] Kaitila O. Imperfection sensitivity analysis of lipped channel columns [38] Young B, Lui WM. Behaviour of cold-formed high strength stainless
at high temperatures. J Construct Steel Res 2002;58:333–51. steel sections. J Struct Eng ASCE 2005;131(11):1738–45.