Journal of Constructional Steel Research 122 (2016) 379–394

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Behavior of Q690 high-strength steel columns: Part 2: Parametric study

and design recommendations
Tian-Ji Li a,c, Si-Wei Liu c, Guo-Qiang Li a,b,⁎, Siu-Lai Chan c, Yan-Bo Wang a
a
College of Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
b
State Key Laboratory for Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, China
c
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Prediction of the column strength, associated with buckling and material yielding, is vital in a successful design. In
Received 28 December 2015 this paper, a completely numerical analysis technique is employed for simulating the compressive behavior of
Received in revised form 16 March 2016 Q690 high-strength steel columns with box- and H-sections, and its accuracy is verified by the experimental
Accepted 21 March 2016
results as presented in the part 1 of the companion papers. To this, the curved Pointwise-Equilibrating-
Polynomial (PEP) is introduced for representing the column deformations with an explicit simulation on the
Keywords:
High-strength steel
member initial imperfection. Further, the refined plastic hinge model combined with the use of sectional yield
Imperfections surfaces is employed to reflect inelastic yielding at the critical location. A cross-sectional analysis approach
Welded sections allowing for residual stresses modeling is also incorporated into the numerical method. Sequentially, a paramet-
Residual stress ric study is conducted extensively for the Q690 high-strength steel welded columns. At last, the buckling curves
Numerical analysis from Chinese (GB 50017-2003), European (Eurocode 3), and American (ANSI/AISC 360-10) codes are examined,
Design and some recommendations for design of Q690 high-strength steel columns are presented.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Adoption of high-strength steel in construction could bring
certain benefits in terms of constructional cost and speed, structural
efficiency, quality control and environmental protection and so on.
This is the second part of the companion papers focusing on the
numerical simulation and practical design of Q690 high-strength
steel columns with box- and H-sections. The experimental results,
reported in the part 1 paper, will be introduced for verifying the
current analytical model.
To accurately reflect the behavior of compressive columns, an
advanced analysis approach is employed, which is also called as direct
analysis method (DAM) and studied by several researchers (e.g. White
et al. [1], Cuong et al. [2], Liu et al. [3–6], Li et al. [7,8], etc). The philoso-
phy of this approach is to consider all the vital factors inheriting to the
columns, such as imperfections, residual stress, material yielding and
geometric nonlinearity and so on, in the analysis.
In the present study, the curved Pointwise-Equilibrating-Polynomial
(PEP) element is introduced for simulating the column deformations
with an explicit simulation on member initial imperfections, which is
⁎ Corresponding author at: College of Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai,
China.
E-mail address: gqli@mail.tongji.edu.cn (G.-Q. Li).
URL: http://www.steelpro.net/content.aspx?info_lb=48&flag=2 (G.-Q. Li).
proposed by Chan and Zhou [9] for studying the second-order behavior
of steel frames. A predominant feature of the PEP element is its auto-
matic reflection of primary linear and secondary nonlinear stresses
and the assumption of column effective length and K-factors are elimi-
nated. Since the element is formulated by a high-order shape function,
column can be modeled by a single element with a considerable saving
in the computational expense and modeling effort.
Sectional yielding at the critical location along the column should be
properly simulated; otherwise, the column compressive strength would
be over-estimated. To this, the refined plastic hinge model, by Liew et al.
[10,11], is employed, which has been widely studied for proving its effi-
ciency and validity by several researchers, e.g. Chan and Chui [12], Liu
et al. [13], etc. In this approach, zero-length plastic hinges is inserted
at the element ends, while the hinge stiffness is determined according
to the current stressing level, which will be elaborated in the following
section.
To examine the gradual yielding of a section, initial yield and failure
criteria should be determined. Unlike the conventional research using
simplified linear integration equations for describing the yielding crite-
rion, the present study employs accurate and rigorous sectional yield
surfaces for representing the elastic-limit and plastic strengths of a
cross section. For generating the sectional yield surface, an analysis
approach based on the Quasi-Newton interactive scheme is adopted,
which has been studied by Liu et al. [4] and Li et al. [8]. In a cross section
model, steel plates will be automatically divided into several fibers for
stress integration in the analysis. Besides, the residual stress model

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2016.03.027
0143-974X/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
380 T.-J. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 122 (2016) 379–394
Fig. 1. Relations between basic forces versus displacements in the PEP element.
can be further incorporated into the cross-section model, such that its
influence can be directly considered in the analysis.
For design of steel columns, the current design approach in codes
such as China GB50017-2003 [14], Eurocode 3 Part 1–1 [15], and
America ANSI/AISC 360-10 [16] are applicable for the yielding strength
of steel within 460 MPa design, which constraints the application of
high-strength steel members in practice. Furthermore, Eurocode 3
Parts 1–12 [17] simply extends its utilization to steel grade up to
700 MPa. Most codes use equivalent imperfection approach to consider
the effect of residual stress and out-of-plumpness which is generally
assumed as 1‰ of member length. However, this equivalent value for
residual stress would be over-enlarged for high-strength steel
members, according to the research by Li et al. [18]. This may bring
over-conservative results. In the present study, the buckling curves for
welded Q690 high-strength steel members are provided, and design
recommendations for the use of Q690 high-strength column based on
the codified design methods will be presented.
In this paper, the numerical analysis framework for simulating the
compressive behavior of columns is elaborated. The accuracy of the
numerical model is verified by the experimental results as presented
in the part 1 of the companion papers. A parametric study is extensively
conducted for the Q690 high-strength steel welded columns. The major
factors, including initial geometric imperfections, residual stresses, and
sectional width-to-thickness and member slenderness ratios on the
ultimate strength of such columns, are discussed. At last, the buckling
curves from Chinese (GB 50017-2003 [14]), European (Eurocode 3
[17]), and American (ANSI/AISC 360-10 [16]) codes are studied, and
design recommendations for Q690 high-strength steel columns are
given.
Fig. 2. Internal forces of an element with end-section springs.
2. Assumptions
In the present study, the following assumptions are made: (1) El-
ement derivation is based on the Euler–Bernoulli hypothesis and to
be prismatic and elastic; (2) Strains in the element are small, but
the deformations can be moderately large; (3) Applied loads are con-
servative and nodal in nature; (4) Twisting effect and deformations
due to the warping and shear actions are neglected; and (5) Material
nonlinearity is modeled by plastic hinge springs, and the element
remains elastic.
3. Numerical analysis framework
3.1. Pointwise-Equilibrating-Polynomial (PEP) element
In order to simulate reliably the member deformation under force
actions, the vital effects are considered, e.g. initial imperfections
and large deflections. To this, the Pointwise-Equilibrating-Polynomial
(PEP) Element proposed by Chan and Zhou [19], as shown in Fig. 1, is
adopted, which can explicitly model the initial member imperfection.
The initial deflection of the element can be written as


v0 ¼ vmo 1−t 2 t ¼ 2x=L and –L=2 ≤x≤L=2 ð1Þ
in which v0 represents the initial curvature perpendicular to the mem-
ber, t denotes the non-dimensional distance along the element, vmo is
the amplitude of initial curvature at mid-span, and L is the member
length.
 T.-J. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 122 (2016) 379–394 381

Fig. 3. Initial yield and failure surfaces of steel sections.

In the PEP element, six conditions including four compatibility By applying the compatibility and equilibrium conditions, the shape
conditions and two equilibrium conditions are expressed as follows. function can be expressed thus:
For compatibility:

L v ¼ N1 ðLθ1 Þ þ N2 ðLθ2 Þ þ N0 vm0 ð7Þ

At x ¼  ; v ¼ 0 ð2Þ
2

L
At x ¼  ; v0 ¼ 0: ð3Þ
2

For equilibrium:

 
M1 þ M2 L
Elv″ ¼ Nx ðv þ v0 Þ þ þ x −M1 ð4Þ
L 2

M1 þ M2
EIv″ ¼ N x v0 þ ð5Þ
L

where, E is Young's modulus of steel, I is second moment of area, v is lat-

eral displacement function of PEP element, v′ is the first derivative for v,
M1 and M2 are the moments at element nodes 1 and 2, and Nx is the axial
force.
A fifth-order polynomial function is assumed as

v ¼ a0 þ a1 x þ a2 x2 þ a3 x3 þ a4 x4 þ a5 x5 ð6Þ

in which, a0–a5 are the coefficients in the polynomial function. Fig. 4. Loading path between initial and full yield surfaces under given moment.
382 T.-J. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 122 (2016) 379–394

Table 2
Residual stress ratios of H-sections.

Specimen label α1 α2 β1 β2

R-H-6 0.432 0.060 −0.136 −0.027

R-H-7 0.311 0.101 −0.078 −0.063
R-H-8 0.286 0.070 −0.103 −0.012

Table 3
Comparison of test and prediction results of box-column specimens.

Specimen label Test results Predict capacity Ratio

(kN) (kN)

B-30-1 5771.5 6352.3 1.10

B-30-2 9751.5 9602.7 0.98
B-50-1 6444.5 6895.7 1.07
B-50-2 7180.0 7234.2 1.01
B-70-1 3258.5 3455.7 1.06
B-70-2 2897.0 3311.2 1.14
Mean 1.06
Standard deviation 0.05

A B
N2 ¼ þ ð9Þ
H1 H2

2
N0 ¼ −q 1−t 2 =H2 ð10Þ

in which

x x3 x5
A ¼ −20 þ ð80−qÞ þ 4q ð11Þ
L L L

1 x2 x4
B ¼ 6− þ ð48−qÞ þ 2q ð12Þ
2 L L

H 1 ¼ 80 þ q ð13Þ

H 2 ¼ 48 þ q ð14Þ

PL2
q¼ : ð15Þ
EI

3.2. Refined plastic hinge model

In plastic analysis, it is essential to monitor gradual yielding of a

section. Fig. 2 illustrates that the plastic hinge is modeled by a
sectional spring and inserted at the ends of a PEP element. In the
Fig. 5. Residual stress models, (a) Model for a box-section; (b) Model for a H-section.

where, θ1 and θ2 are the rotations of the element at nodes 1 and 2,

respectively, and N1, N2, and N0 are given by
Table 4
Comparison of test and prediction results of H-column specimens.
A B
N1 ¼ þ ð8Þ
H1 H2 Specimen label Test results Predict capacity Ratio
(kN) (kN)

H-30-1 8493.0 8559.4 1.01

Table 1 H-30-2 8994.0 8922.9 0.99
Residual stress ratios of box-sections. H-50-1 7207.0 7815.5 1.08
H-50-2 7124.5 7616.7 1.07
Specimen label α β
H-70-1 3039.0 3505.4 1.15
R-B-7 0.394 −0.137 H-70-2 3690.0 3856.6 1.05
R-B-10 0.445 −0.126 Mean 1.06
R-B-13 0.496 −0.119 Standard deviation 0.05
 T.-J. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 122 (2016) 379–394 383

present study, a refined plastic hinge method is adopted, which hinge stiffness. This technique is more efficient than the plastic
presumes simplified criteria to check material yielding at hinge zone approach and more precise than the traditional plastic hinge
positions and uses the sectional yield surfaces to control the method.

Fig. 6. Comparison with the test results of the box-column specimens, (a) B-30-2; (b) B- Fig. 7. Comparison with the test results of the H-column specimens, (a) H-30-2; (b) H-50-
50-2; (c) B-70-1. 2; (c) H-70-2.
384 T.-J. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 122 (2016) 379–394

Table 5
Dimensions of box-columns.

Specimen B (mm) h (mm) t (mm) h/t A (mm2) Iu (cm4)

label

B-7 140.88 108.74 16.07 6.8 8023 2118

B-10 192.37 160.33 16.02 10.0 11,301 5906
B-13 236.47 204.27 16.10 12.7 14,192 11,548

Table 6
Dimensions of H-columns.

Specimen B (mm) bf (mm) H (mm) h (mm) tf, tw bf/tf h/tw A (mm2)

label (mm)

H-6 209.38 96.57 205.24 172.76 16.24 5.9 10.6 9606

H-7 240.47 112.16 238.15 205.83 16.16 6.9 12.7 11,098
H-8 260.82 122.29 260.35 227.85 16.25 7.5 14.0 12,179
Fig. 9. Elastic-ideally plastic stress–strain relation of Q690 steel.

3.2.1. Sectional yield surfaces

For each steel section subjected to a given axial load, the correspond-
ing moments can be determined by the present sectional analysis
method [8]. The axial load and corresponding moments of a section
can be described by the sectional yield surfaces shown in Fig. 3, where
the outmost surface is the failure surface that describes the ultimate
state of the section. This surface is used to reflect the full plastic failure
of a section. It is significant for obtaining the load capacity of a section
in traditional steel structure designs.
Another strength criterion is the initial yield surface (Fig. 3). Within
this surface generating from a specific load combination, the corre-
sponding section maintains elastic. In the process of the generation of
the initial yield surfaces, all fibers of a section are checked and onset
of strains exceeding the elastic limitation is monitored. The internal
force and moments are determined by integrating stresses along the
cross-section. Subsequently, sectional capacity can be obtained from
the initial yield condition.

3.2.2. Elastic and plastic moments

Failure and initial yield surfaces divide a loading space into three
zones: elastic, elasto-plastic, and plastic zones, as shown in Fig. 4. The

Fig. 8. Sectional symbols of columns, (a) Box-section; (b) H-section. Fig. 10. The effect of residual stresses on box-columns.
 T.-J. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 122 (2016) 379–394
Fig. 11. The effect of residual stresses on H-columns, (a) Buckling about minor axis;
(b) Buckling about major axis.
hinge stiffness depends on the present loading location in the loading
space. If the load point falls within the elastic zone, the section remains
elastic and the hinge stiffness is infinite without the reduction of the
Fig. 12. Effects of width-to-thickness of box-sections without residual stress.
385
Fig. 13. Effects of width-to-thickness of H-sections without residual stress, (a) Buckling
about minor axis; (b) Buckling about major axis.
stiffness. This indicates that the plasticization of the section has not
occurred at the hinge position. When the load point falls in the elastic-
plastic zone, some fibers of the section start to yield and the hinge
Fig. 14. Box-column response of various steel grades to initial deflections.
386 T.-J. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 122 (2016) 379–394

stiffness is degraded. Once the load point exceeds the elasto-plastic

zone, the section will be completely yielded. For the case without con-
sideration of strain hardening of materials, the hinge stiffness in the
plastic zone is defined as a very small value to avoid numerical overflow.
The elastic and plastic moments corresponding to minimum moment
and maximum moment capacity can be employed to update the hinge
stiffness.

3.2.3. Hinge spring stiffness

Gradual yielding of the section can be modeled by the degeneration
of hinge stiffness. The sectional spring stiffness, Ss, is formulated as

Ss ¼ 10þ10 EI=L ; For M i ≤Mier ð16Þ

 i 
EI M pr −Mi 
Ss ¼   ; For M ier ≤Mi ≤Mipr ð17Þ
L Mi −Mier 

Ss ¼ 10−10 EI=L ; For Mi ≤Mipr ð18Þ

where, Mi is the internal moment at the hinge location; Mier and Mipr are
the reduced initial and full yielding moments under axial force.

3.3. Cross-sectional analysis technique

The cross-section analysis for arbitrary steel sections can generate

initial yield and failure surfaces.

3.3.1. Stress resultants in local and global systems

The whole section is meshed into many triangular fibers and its
stress resultants can be calculated as

X
n
Nx ¼ σ i Ai ð19Þ
i¼1

X
n
Mu ¼ σ i Ai v i ð20Þ
i¼1

X
n
Fig. 15. H-column response of various steel grades to initial deflections, (a) Buckling about Mv ¼ σ i Ai u i ð21Þ
minor axis; (b) Buckling about major axis. i¼1

in which σi denotes the resultant of residual and load-induced stresses

and Ai represents the area of individual fibers. The stress σi is a function
of the strain εi comprising of three parts as

σ i ¼ f ðεi Þ ð22Þ

εi ¼ ε ai þ εri þ ϕi vi ð23Þ

where εai is the axial strain; εri is the residual strain; and ϕi is the
curvature.
The total moments on the cross-section are given by the following
expressions:

Mz ¼ M u cosθn −Mv sinθn !

Xn X
n
¼− σ i Ai vi  cosθn þ σ i Ai ui  sinθn ð24Þ
i¼1 i¼1

Xn
My ¼ M u sinθn −Mv cosθn ¼ − σ i Ai vi  sinθn
i¼1
X
n
þ σ i Ai ui  cosθn ð25Þ
i¼1

X
n
Nx ¼ σ i Ai ð27Þ
Fig. 16. Comparison between test results of box-columns and GB 50017-2003. i¼1
 T.-J. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 122 (2016) 379–394 387

Table 7
Comparison of numerical results and GB 50017–2003 for box-columns.

λ λ χ Ratio Ratio

B-7 B-10 B-13 a curve b curve B-7/a curve B-10/a curve B-13/a curve B-7/b curve B-10/b curve B-13/b curve

20 0.366 0.943 0.938 0.940 0.954 0.921 0.99 0.98 0.98 1.02 1.02 1.02
30 0.549 0.911 0.915 0.913 0.913 0.851 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.07 1.07 1.07
40 0.732 0.867 0.869 0.871 0.849 0.762 1.02 1.02 1.03 1.14 1.14 1.14
50 0.915 0.794 0.797 0.803 0.749 0.654 1.06 1.06 1.07 1.21 1.22 1.23
60 1.098 0.676 0.680 0.681 0.621 0.541 1.09 1.10 1.10 1.25 1.26 1.26
70 1.281 0.542 0.543 0.544 0.499 0.441 1.08 1.09 1.09 1.23 1.23 1.23
80 1.464 0.431 0.432 0.432 0.401 0.360 1.07 1.08 1.08 1.20 1.20 1.20
90 1.647 0.348 0.348 0.348 0.326 0.297 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.17 1.17 1.17
100 1.830 0.285 0.285 0.286 0.269 0.248 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.15 1.15 1.16
110 2.013 0.238 0.238 0.239 0.226 0.210 1.05 1.05 1.06 1.13 1.13 1.14
120 2.196 0.201 0.202 0.202 0.192 0.179 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.12 1.13 1.13
130 2.379 0.172 0.173 0.172 0.165 0.155 1.04 1.05 1.05 1.11 1.12 1.11
Mean 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.15 1.15 1.15
Standard deviation 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.07

λ λ χ Ratio

B-7 B-10 B-13 c curve B-7/c curve B-10/c curve B-13/c curve

20 0.366 0.943 0.938 0.940 0.877 1.07 1.07 1.07

30 0.549 0.911 0.915 0.913 0.768 1.19 1.19 1.19
40 0.732 0.867 0.869 0.871 0.655 1.32 1.33 1.33
50 0.915 0.794 0.797 0.803 0.546 1.45 1.46 1.47
60 1.098 0.676 0.680 0.681 0.453 1.49 1.50 1.50
70 1.281 0.542 0.543 0.544 0.382 1.42 1.42 1.42
80 1.464 0.431 0.432 0.432 0.321 1.34 1.34 1.35
90 1.647 0.348 0.348 0.348 0.271 1.28 1.28 1.29
100 1.830 0.285 0.285 0.286 0.230 1.24 1.24 1.25
110 2.013 0.238 0.238 0.239 0.197 1.21 1.21 1.21
120 2.196 0.201 0.202 0.202 0.170 1.18 1.19 1.19
130 2.379 0.172 0.173 0.172 0.148 1.16 1.17 1.17
Mean 1.28 1.28 1.29
Standard deviation 0.12 0.13 0.13

where Mu, Mv, and Nx represent the bending moments and axial force
with respect to the UOV system; and Mz and My are the global moments
referred to the geometric centroid.

3.3.2. Iterative strategy

To determine sectional capacity, the depth dn of neutral axis can be
obtained by changing orientation θn from 0° to 360°. The Regula–Falsi
method is adopted in the sectional analysis and the procedure of the
cross-sectional analysis refers to Ref. [7]. The axial force capacity Nx
can be iterated with reference to dn by the following equation.

dng −dns
dnk ¼ dns þ ðN −Nxs Þ ð27Þ
Nxg −Nxs xd

where dnk is the depth of updated neutral axis; Nxs and Nxg denote the
axial force determined at dns and dng, and Nxd represents the design
axial load; and dns and dng are the depths of neutral axis corresponding
to the axial capacity being smaller and greater than the design axial
load.

3.3.3. Residual stress model

The residual stress distributions of the box- and H-sections that
relate to the columns presented in the first part of two companion pa-
pers were measured by authors [18]. The six residual stress specimens
involving three box-sections and three H-sections were welded with
the identical nominal sectional sizes and welding procedures as the
experimental columns. Based on the measurement results, the authors
proposed the simplified residual stress models for the box- and H-
sections made of Q690 steels as shown in Fig. 5 where the width of
the tensile zone, w, can be obtained by equilibrium conditions.
Tables 1 and 2 list the ratios of the tensile and compressive residual
stresses about the measured yield strength, where R-B-7, R-B-10, and Fig. 17. Comparison between test results of H-columns and GB 50017-2003, (a) Buckling
R-B-13 denote the width-to-thickness ratio of the specimens to be 7, about minor axis; (b) Buckling about major axis.
388 T.-J. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 122 (2016) 379–394

Table 8
Comparison of numerical results and GB 50017-2003 for H-columns about minor axis.

λv λv χv Ratio Ratio

H-6 H-7 H-8 a curve b curve H-6/a curve H-7/a curve H-8/a curve H-6/b curve H-7/b curve H-8/b curve

20 0.366 0.937 0.945 0.940 0.954 0.921 0.98 0.99 0.98 1.02 1.03 1.02
30 0.549 0.921 0.927 0.924 0.913 0.851 1.01 1.02 1.01 1.08 1.09 1.09
40 0.732 0.881 0.896 0.886 0.849 0.762 1.04 1.06 1.04 1.16 1.18 1.16
50 0.915 0.801 0.820 0.809 0.749 0.654 1.07 1.09 1.08 1.23 1.25 1.24
60 1.098 0.669 0.677 0.671 0.621 0.541 1.08 1.09 1.08 1.24 1.25 1.24
70 1.281 0.531 0.534 0.531 0.499 0.441 1.06 1.07 1.06 1.20 1.21 1.20
80 1.464 0.422 0.423 0.421 0.401 0.360 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.17 1.17 1.17
90 1.647 0.340 0.341 0.340 0.326 0.297 1.04 1.05 1.04 1.15 1.15 1.14
100 1.830 0.280 0.280 0.279 0.269 0.248 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.13 1.13 1.13
110 2.013 0.233 0.234 0.233 0.226 0.210 1.03 1.04 1.03 1.11 1.12 1.11
120 2.196 0.198 0.198 0.197 0.192 0.179 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.10 1.10 1.10
130 2.379 0.169 0.169 0.169 0.165 0.155 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.09 1.10 1.09
Mean 1.04 1.05 1.04 1.14 1.15 1.14
Standard deviation 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.07 0.06

Table 9
Comparison of numerical results and GB 50017-2003 for H-columns about major axis.

λu λu χu Ratio Ratio

H-6 H-7 H-8 a curve b curve H-6/a curve H-7/a curve H-8/a curve H-6/b curve H-7/b curve H-8/b curve

20 0.366 0.937 0.932 0.932 0.954 0.921 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.02 1.01 1.01
30 0.549 0.908 0.915 0.913 0.913 0.851 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.07 1.07 1.07
40 0.732 0.880 0.883 0.878 0.849 0.762 1.04 1.04 1.03 1.15 1.16 1.15
50 0.915 0.800 0.816 0.809 0.749 0.654 1.07 1.09 1.08 1.22 1.25 1.24
60 1.098 0.682 0.690 0.685 0.621 0.541 1.10 1.11 1.10 1.26 1.28 1.27
70 1.281 0.545 0.549 0.547 0.499 0.441 1.09 1.10 1.09 1.24 1.24 1.24
80 1.464 0.433 0.435 0.434 0.401 0.360 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.20 1.21 1.20
90 1.647 0.349 0.350 0.349 0.326 0.297 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.18 1.18 1.18
100 1.830 0.286 0.287 0.286 0.269 0.248 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.15 1.16 1.15
110 2.013 0.238 0.239 0.238 0.226 0.210 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.14 1.14 1.14
120 2.196 0.201 0.202 0.202 0.192 0.179 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.12 1.13 1.13
130 2.379 0.172 0.173 0.173 0.165 0.155 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.11 1.12 1.12
Mean 1.05 1.06 1.06 1.16 1.16 1.16
Standard deviation 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.07

10, and 13 respectively, and R-H-6, R-H-7, and R-H-8 represent the
width-to-thickness ratio of flanges of the specimens to be 6, 7, and 8,
respectively. These ratios of the specimens for residual stress measure-
ment are the same with those of the specimens for ultimate strength
test.
4.2. Comparison of load-deflection curves
Load-deflection curves that present variations in bearing capacity,
stiffness, and post-buckling mechanical behaviors of members usually
are used to illustrate the overall buckling behavior of members. The

4. Model verification

The feasibility of the present method for predicting the overall buck-
ling behavior of Q690 high-strength steel welded box- and H-columns is
confirmed by comparing the numerical and experimental results on
ultimate bearing capacities and load-deflection curves.

4.1. Comparison of ultimate bearing capacities

As one of the parameters for reflecting the mechanical characteris-

tics of members, ultimate bearing capacity is significant. Tables 3 and
4 list the comparisons between the predicted ultimate bearing capaci-
ties and test results of Q690 welded box- and H-column specimens
subjected to axial compression, respectively.
It can be seen that the numerical method exhibits good practicability
to predict the ultimate bearing capacity of the Q690 high-strength steel
welded box- and H-columns. For the box- and H-columns, the average
numerical prediction to test result ratios are 1.06 and 1.06, with
standard deviations of 0.05 and 0.05, respectively. This demonstrates
that the numerical model can give accurate and effective predictions
for axially loaded columns fabricated with Q690 high-strength steel. Fig. 18. Comparison between test results of box-columns and Eurocode 3.
 T.-J. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 122 (2016) 379–394 389

Table 10
Comparison of numerical results and Eurocode 3 for box-columns.

λ λ χ Ratio Ratio

B-7 B-10 B-13 a0 curve a curve B-7/a0 curve B-10/a0 curve B-13/a0 curve B-7/a curve B-10/a curve B-13/a curve

20 0.366 0.943 0.938 0.940 0.976 0.962 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.98 0.98 0.98
30 0.549 0.911 0.915 0.913 0.940 0.908 0.97 0.97 0.97 1.00 1.01 1.00
40 0.732 0.867 0.869 0.871 0.884 0.832 0.98 0.98 0.99 1.04 1.04 1.05
50 0.915 0.794 0.797 0.803 0.786 0.724 1.01 1.01 1.02 1.10 1.10 1.11
60 1.098 0.676 0.680 0.681 0.650 0.597 1.04 1.05 1.05 1.13 1.14 1.14
70 1.281 0.542 0.543 0.544 0.517 0.481 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.13 1.13 1.13
80 1.464 0.431 0.432 0.432 0.413 0.388 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.11 1.11 1.11
90 1.647 0.348 0.348 0.348 0.334 0.317 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.10 1.10 1.10
100 1.830 0.285 0.285 0.286 0.275 0.262 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.09 1.09 1.09
110 2.013 0.238 0.238 0.239 0.229 0.220 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.08 1.08 1.08
120 2.196 0.201 0.202 0.202 0.194 0.187 1.03 1.04 1.04 1.07 1.08 1.08
130 2.379 0.172 0.173 0.172 0.167 0.161 1.03 1.04 1.03 1.07 1.07 1.07
Mean 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.07 1.08 1.08
Standard deviation 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.05

λ λ χ Ratio Ratio

B-7 B-10 B-13 b curve c curve B-7/b curve B-10/b curve B-13/b curve B-7/c curve B-10/c curve B-13/c curve

20 0.366 0.943 0.938 0.940 0.939 0.915 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.03 1.03 1.03
30 0.549 0.911 0.915 0.913 0.862 0.815 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.12 1.12 1.12
40 0.732 0.867 0.869 0.871 0.765 0.705 1.13 1.14 1.14 1.23 1.23 1.24
50 0.915 0.794 0.797 0.803 0.651 0.591 1.22 1.22 1.23 1.34 1.35 1.36
60 1.098 0.676 0.680 0.681 0.536 0.485 1.26 1.27 1.27 1.39 1.40 1.40
70 1.281 0.542 0.543 0.544 0.436 0.397 1.24 1.25 1.25 1.36 1.37 1.37
80 1.464 0.431 0.432 0.432 0.356 0.326 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.32 1.32 1.32
90 1.647 0.348 0.348 0.348 0.293 0.271 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.28 1.28 1.28
100 1.830 0.285 0.285 0.286 0.245 0.228 1.16 1.16 1.17 1.25 1.25 1.26
110 2.013 0.238 0.238 0.239 0.207 0.194 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.22 1.22 1.23
120 2.196 0.201 0.202 0.202 0.177 0.167 1.13 1.14 1.14 1.20 1.21 1.21
130 2.379 0.172 0.173 0.172 0.153 0.145 1.12 1.13 1.13 1.19 1.19 1.19
Mean 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.25 1.25 1.25
Standard deviation 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.10

load-deflection curves are depicted by the test data and numerical
results obtained by the present model as shown in Figs. 6 and 7.
Fig. 6(a)-(c) displays the load-deflection curves of the Q690 high-
strength steel welded box-columns with 30, 50, and 70 slenderness
ratios. For the Q690 high-strength steel welded H-columns with 30,
50, and 70 slenderness ratios, the curves are shown in Fig. 7(a)-(c).
It can be observed from Figs. 6 and 7 that the failure modes of the
box- and H-columns related to the numerical analyses and experiment
data are overall instability. The load-deflection curves based on the nu-
merical simulation and experiment results possess the similar shape
and path. For certain slender columns, however, the stiffness changes
of the curves obtained from the numerical analyses do not ideally
agree with those from the test data due to the loading eccentricities
from the unavoidable loading end of the universal testing machine. On
the basis of the comparison, consequently, it is found that the presented
numerical model can be considered effective approach for designing
and analyzing Q690 steel welded box- and H-columns.
5. Parametric analysis
Parametric analysis is conducted to investigate the effects of initial
geometric imperfections and residual stresses on the ultimate bearing
capacities of the Q690 high-strength steel welded columns. Thirty-six
welded box-columns and 36 welded H-columns under axial compres-
sion are adopted in parametric study. The box-columns comprise
three sectional width-to-thickness ratios (7–13) and 12 slenderness
ratios (20–130). The H-columns also contain three width-to- thickness
ratios ranging from 6 to 8 and 12 slenderness ratios with a range
from 20 to 130. Tables 5 and 6 list the sectional dimensions of box-
and H-columns. Fig. 8(a) and (b) represents the cross-sections of the
box- and H-columns, respectively. An elastic-ideally plastic stress–
strain relation based on the material measurement, as shown in Fig. 9,
is applied in analysis.
5.1. Effects of residual stresses
To study the effect of residual stresses on the ultimate bearing
capacities of Q690 welded box- and H-columns, the models include
box-columns (section types: B-7, B-10, and B-13) and H columns
(section types: H-6, H-7, and H-8) bent about the minor and major
axes with 12 slenderness ratios. The models are divided into two
groups: one that takes into account initial curvature (Le/1000) and
another that considers combined initial curvature and residual stresses.
Fig. 10 displays the simulation results of the box-columns, which
indicate that the effect of residual stresses on the box-columns is
concentrated on the non-dimensional slenderness ratios with a range
from 0.5 to 1.2. The buckling reduction factor with consideration of re-
sidual stresses is lower than that without consideration of the stresses
by a maximum of 3.9%. Fig. 11(a) and (b) demonstrates that the analysis
results of the H-columns bent about the minor and major axes. For the
minor axis, the reduction factor of the H-columns allowing for residual
stresses decreases by a maximum of 2.0%. For the major axis, the factor
decreases by a maximum of 2.8%.
5.2. Effects of width-to-thickness of sections without residual stress
5.2.1. Box-columns
Three series of box-column models with only initial geometric im-
perfection are built and analyzed for studying the effects of sectional
width-to-thickness on buckling curves. The initial deflection is 1‰ of
390 T.-J. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 122 (2016) 379–394
Fig. 19. Comparison between test results of H-columns and Eurocode 3, (a) Buckling about
minor axis; (b) Buckling about major axis.
the corresponding column length. The material properties of the Q690
box-columns are presented in Fig. 9. The analysis results shown in
Fig. 12 indicate that the three buckling curves for the section B-7, B-10,
and B-13 are very close, which shows the effects of width-to-thickness
of sections without residual stress is negligibly small.
5.2.2. H-columns
Three series of H-column models bending about the minor and
major axes are established, in which only initial geometric imperfec-
tions are considered. The initial curvature applied in the models is
set as 1‰ of the related column length. The material properties of
the H-columns are identical with the corresponding box-columns.
The analysis results for the minor and major axes are shown in
Fig. 13(a) and (b), respectively. It can be concluded that the width-to-
thickness of sections without residual stress has very small influence
in the buckling curves for the section H-6, H-7, and H-8 buckling
about the minor and major axes.
5.3. Response of various steel grades to initial deflections
5.3.1. Box-columns
Three series of box-column models with three steel grades (Q690,
Q460, and Q235) are built and analyzed, in which the section B-10
with only initial geometric imperfections are selected. The initial
deflection is 1‰ of the corresponding column length. The material
properties of the Q690 box-columns are presented in Fig. 9. The
Young's modulus of the Q460 and Q235 columns is 206 GPa. The
yield strengths of the Q460 and Q235 columns are 460 and
235 MPa, respectively.
It can be observed from Fig. 14 that the buckling curve of the Q690
box-columns is higher than the Q460 columns, which is higher than
that of the Q235 columns. A large difference occurs among the buckling
reduction factors of the Q690, Q460, and Q235 box-columns for the
non-dimensional slenderness ratios ranging from 0.5 to 1.5. The buck-
ling curves of the Q690 and Q460 columns are higher than that of the
Q235 columns by 6.9% and 4.4%, respectively. These findings suggest
that the sensitivity of the box-columns to the initial geometric imperfec-
tions tends to decrease with increasing yield strength.
5.3.2. H-columns
Three series of H-column models with three steel grades (Q690,
Q460, and Q235) are built, in which the section H-7 bending about the
minor and major axes are adopted and only initial geometric imperfec-
tions are allowed for. The initial curvature applied in the models is set as
1‰ of the related column length. The material properties of the Q690,
Q460, and Q235 H-columns are identical with the corresponding box-
columns.
As indicated in Fig. 15(a) and (b), the buckling curve of the Q690 H-
columns is higher than the Q460 column curve. Likewise, the Q460
column curve is higher than the Q235 column curve. When the non-
dimensional slenderness ratios range from 0.5 to 1.5, a large difference
exists among the buckling reduction factors of the Q690, Q460, and
Q235 H-columns. For the reduction factor about the minor axis, the larg-
est ratio between the factor of the Q460 and Q235 columns reaches
1.041 and that between the Q690 and Q235 columns reaches 1.072.
For the columns buckling about the major axis, the maximum ratios of
the reduction factors between the Q460 and Q235 columns amount to
1.047 and 1.073, respectively. These findings reveal that the columns
are less sensitive to the initial geometric imperfections with increasing
yield strength.
6. Comparison with design codes
To determine an applicable buckling curve for designing Q690 high-
strength steel welded columns, a series of numerical models with the
same sizes listed in Tables 5 and 6 was created and analyzed. The initial
deflection with 1‰ column length and the residual stress patterns
depicted in Fig. 5 were applied in the models.
6.1. Comparison with GB 50017-2003 code
As specified in GB 50017-2003, buckling curve “c” is suggested to
design welded box-columns with a width-to-thickness ratio b20. In
order to evaluate the feasibility of the item for Q690 welded box-
columns, the analysis results that involve the section B-7, B-10, and
B-13 are compared with buckling curves “a”, “b”, and “c” in the
code (Fig. 16). Table 7 lists the calculation results. It can be seen
from Fig. 16 and Table 7 that the buckling reduction factors based
on the numerical simulation are higher than the buckling curves
“a”, “b”, and “c” by an average of 5%, 15%, and 28%, respectively. Thus,
for design of Q690 welded box-columns in GB 50017-2003, buckling
curve “a” is appropriate.
For flame-cut welded H-column with plates of lower than 40 mm in
GB 50017-2003, buckling curve “b” is recommended. H-6, H-7, and H-8
series bent about the minor and major axes are adopted in the numeri-
cal analysis. The comparison between the analysis results and buckling
curves “a” and “b” are carried out as shown in Fig. 17(a) and (b).
Tables 8 and 9 list the analysis data. As shown in the figures and tables,
the numerical results of the H-columns bent about the minor and major
 T.-J. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 122 (2016) 379–394 391

Table 11
Comparison of numerical results and Eurocode 3 for H-columns about minor axis.

λv λv χv Ratio Ratio

H-6 H-7 H-8 a0 curve a curve H-6/a0 curve H-7/a0 curve H-8/a0 curve H-6/a curve H-7/a curve H-8/a curve

20 0.366 0.937 0.945 0.940 0.976 0.962 0.96 0.97 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.98
30 0.549 0.921 0.927 0.924 0.940 0.908 0.98 0.99 0.98 1.01 1.02 1.02
40 0.732 0.881 0.896 0.886 0.884 0.832 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.06 1.08 1.07
50 0.915 0.801 0.820 0.809 0.786 0.724 1.02 1.04 1.03 1.11 1.13 1.12
60 1.098 0.669 0.677 0.671 0.650 0.597 1.03 1.04 1.03 1.12 1.13 1.12
70 1.281 0.531 0.534 0.531 0.517 0.481 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.10 1.11 1.10
80 1.464 0.422 0.423 0.421 0.413 0.388 1.02 1.03 1.02 1.09 1.09 1.09
90 1.647 0.340 0.341 0.340 0.334 0.317 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.07 1.08 1.07
100 1.830 0.280 0.280 0.279 0.275 0.262 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.07 1.07 1.06
110 2.013 0.233 0.234 0.233 0.229 0.220 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.06 1.06 1.06
120 2.196 0.198 0.198 0.197 0.194 0.187 1.02 1.02 1.01 1.05 1.06 1.05
130 2.379 0.169 0.169 0.169 0.167 0.161 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.05 1.05 1.05
Mean 1.01 1.02 1.01 1.06 1.07 1.07
Standard deviation 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04

λv λv χv Ratio Ratio

H-6 H-7 H-8 b curve c curve H-6/b curve H-7/b curve H-8/b curve H-6/c curve H-7/c curve H-8/c curve

20 0.366 0.937 0.945 0.940 0.939 0.915 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.02 1.03 1.03
30 0.549 0.921 0.927 0.924 0.862 0.815 1.07 1.08 1.07 1.13 1.14 1.13
40 0.732 0.881 0.896 0.886 0.765 0.705 1.15 1.17 1.16 1.25 1.27 1.26
50 0.915 0.801 0.820 0.809 0.651 0.591 1.23 1.26 1.24 1.36 1.39 1.37
60 1.098 0.669 0.677 0.671 0.536 0.485 1.25 1.26 1.25 1.38 1.40 1.38
70 1.281 0.531 0.534 0.531 0.436 0.397 1.22 1.23 1.22 1.34 1.35 1.34
80 1.464 0.422 0.423 0.421 0.356 0.326 1.19 1.19 1.18 1.29 1.30 1.29
90 1.647 0.340 0.341 0.340 0.293 0.271 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.25 1.26 1.25
100 1.830 0.280 0.280 0.279 0.245 0.228 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.23 1.23 1.22
110 2.013 0.233 0.234 0.233 0.207 0.194 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.20 1.20 1.20
120 2.196 0.198 0.198 0.197 0.177 0.167 1.12 1.12 1.11 1.18 1.19 1.18
130 2.379 0.169 0.169 0.169 0.153 0.145 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.17 1.17 1.17
Mean 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.23 1.24 1.24
Standard deviation 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.10

axes are higher than the buckling curves “a” and “b”. On average, the nu-
merical results for the minor axis yield percentages of 4% and 14% and
those for the major axis yield percentages of 6% and 16%. Consequently,
buckling curve “a” is suitable for design of Q690 welded H-columns with
reference to GB 50017-2003.
factors for the major axis are higher than buckling curves “a0”, “a”, and
“b” by 3%, 8%, and 16% in average, respectively. Considering a potential
risk of overestimating the ultimate capacities of Q690 flame-cut welded
H-columns in slenderness ratios with a range from 20 to 30, curve “a” is
a advisable choice for design of such columns.

6.2. Comparison with Eurocode 3 6.3. Comparison with ANSI/AISC 360–10

Eurocode 3 suggests that buckling curve “c” is appropriate for
welded box-columns with a width-to-thickness ratio lower than 30.
However, the provision for box-columns welded by Q690 steel needs
to be validated. The columns with sections B-7, B-10, and B-13 are ana-
lyzed, after which the analysis data are compared to buckling curves
“a0”, “a”, “b”, and “c” (Fig. 18). Numerical data are listed in Table 10.
The figure and table show that the analysis results of Q690 welded
box-columns are higher than buckling curves “a0”, “a”, “b”, and “c” by
2%, 8%, 16%, and 25% in average, respectively. For the use of curve “a0”,
a potential risk exists in overestimating the ultimate capacities of the
box-columns with slenderness ratios ranging from 20 to 40. According-
ly, curve “a” should be selected as a reasonable design curve for Q690
welded box-columns.
As indicated in Eurocode 3, buckling curves “c” and “b” are respec-
tively recommended to design flame-cut welded H-columns (plate
thickness b 40 mm) bent about the minor and major axes. To verify
the item, Fig. 19 plots the numerical results for H-6, H-7, and H-8 series
buckling about the minor and major axes against curves “a0”, “a”, “b”,
and “c”. Tables 11 and 12 present the analysis data. As shown in the
figure and tables, the buckling reduction factors of the H-columns
bent about the minor axis are higher than buckling curves “a0”, “a”,
“b”, and “c” by an average of 1%, 7%, 15%, and 24%, respectively. The
Only one single curve is adopted in ANSI/AISC 360–10. To verify the
feasibility of the code for Q690 box- and H-columns buckling about the
minor and major axes, the analysis results (B-7, B-10, B-13, H-6, H-7,
and H-8 series) are compared with the buckling curve, as shown in
Figs. 20 and 21 and Tables 13-15. It is found that the numerical results
of box-columns and H-columns bent about the minor and major axes
are higher than the buckling curve by 8%, 7%, and 9% in average, respec-
tively. Therefore, applying the curve to design such columns is relatively
safe.
7. Conclusions
A complete numerical analysis technique, based on the PEP element,
refined plastic hinge model with the utilization of sectional yield
surfaces, is employed to study the overall buckling behavior of box-
and H-columns made by Q690 high-strength steel. The results of
experimental investigation on overall buckling behavior of Q690 high-
strength steel welded box- and H-columns in Part one of the companion
papers are used to verify the efficiency and accuracy of the presented
numerical analysis method. The parametric analysis utilizing the pro-
posed numerical method was conducted to determine the sensitivity
of the column capacity to residual stresses, width-to-thickness of
392 T.-J. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 122 (2016) 379–394

Table 12
Comparison of numerical results and Eurocode 3 for H-columns about major axis.

λu λu χu Ratio Ratio

H-6 H-7 H-8 a0 curve a curve H-6/a0 curve H-7/a0 curve H-8/a0 curve H-6/a curve H-7/a curve H-8/a curve

20 0.366 0.937 0.932 0.932 0.976 0.962 0.96 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.97
30 0.549 0.908 0.915 0.913 0.940 0.908 0.97 0.97 0.97 1.00 1.01 1.00
40 0.732 0.880 0.883 0.878 0.884 0.832 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.06 1.06 1.05
50 0.915 0.800 0.816 0.809 0.786 0.724 1.02 1.04 1.03 1.11 1.13 1.12
60 1.098 0.682 0.690 0.685 0.650 0.597 1.05 1.06 1.06 1.14 1.16 1.15
70 1.281 0.545 0.549 0.547 0.517 0.481 1.05 1.06 1.06 1.13 1.14 1.14
80 1.464 0.433 0.435 0.434 0.413 0.388 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.12 1.12 1.12
90 1.647 0.349 0.350 0.349 0.334 0.317 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.10 1.11 1.10
100 1.830 0.286 0.287 0.286 0.275 0.262 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.09 1.09 1.09
110 2.013 0.238 0.239 0.238 0.229 0.220 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.08 1.08 1.08
120 2.196 0.201 0.202 0.202 0.194 0.187 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.08 1.08 1.08
130 2.379 0.172 0.173 0.173 0.167 0.161 1.03 1.04 1.04 1.07 1.07 1.07
Mean 1.02 1.03 1.03 1.08 1.08 1.08
Standard deviation 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.05

λu λu χu Ratio

H-6 H-7 H-8 b curve H-6/b curve H-7/b curve H-8/b curve

20 0.366 0.937 0.932 0.932 0.939 1.00 0.99 0.99

30 0.549 0.908 0.915 0.913 0.862 1.05 1.06 1.06
40 0.732 0.880 0.883 0.878 0.765 1.15 1.15 1.15
50 0.915 0.800 0.816 0.809 0.651 1.23 1.25 1.24
60 1.098 0.682 0.690 0.685 0.536 1.27 1.29 1.28
70 1.281 0.545 0.549 0.547 0.436 1.25 1.26 1.25
80 1.464 0.433 0.435 0.434 0.356 1.22 1.22 1.22
90 1.647 0.349 0.350 0.349 0.293 1.19 1.19 1.19
100 1.830 0.286 0.287 0.286 0.245 1.17 1.17 1.17
110 2.013 0.238 0.239 0.238 0.207 1.15 1.15 1.15
120 2.196 0.201 0.202 0.202 0.177 1.14 1.14 1.14
130 2.379 0.172 0.173 0.173 0.153 1.13 1.13 1.13
Mean 1.16 1.17 1.16
Standard deviation 0.08 0.08 0.08

sections without residual stress and the response of various steel grades
to initial deflections. It is found that for the box-columns and H-columns
buckling about the minor and major axes, the largest influence of
residual stresses respectively accounts for 3.9%, 2.0%, and 2.8% of
ultimate capacities. The width-to-thickness of sections without residual
stress has very slight influence in the buckling curves for the section B-7,
B-10, and B-13 and the section H-6, H-7, and H-8 buckling about the
minor and major axes. In terms of the Q690, Q460, and Q235 steel
box- and H-columns without residual stress effects, the higher yield
strength columns exhibit the lower sensitivity to initial geometric
imperfections.
To evaluate the practicability of the Chinese (GB 50017-2003, 2003
[14]), European (Eurocode 3 [17]), and American (ANSI/AISC 360-10,
2010 [16]) codes for designing Q690 welded box- and H-columns, the
further parametric analysis was executed, in which initial curvature of
1‰ of the column length and the proposed residual stress pattern
were considered. By comparing of the analysis results and the three
codes, it is found that buckling curve “a” specified in the Chinese code
is suitable for design of Q690 welded box- and H-columns. In terms of
the European code, buckling curve “a” is recommended for the safety
of intermediate and stocky columns. The buckling curve suggested in
the American code can be used to design such columns with more
margin of safety.

Acknowledgements

Fig. 20. Comparison between test results of box-columns and ANSI/AISC 360-10.
The authors are grateful to the financial support by the National Key
Technology R&D Program of Ministry of Science and Technology of
China (Grant No. 2012BAJ13B02) and National Natural Science Founda-
tion of China (Grant No. 51378378). This second author would like to
appreciate the financial support by the Faculty of Construction and
Environment through the project “FCE Postdoctoral Fellow Scheme”.
The forth author is grateful to the financial supports by the Research
Grant Council of the Hong Kong SAR Government on the project
“Second-order and Advanced Analysis of Arches and Curved Structures
(PolyU 152012/14E)”.
 T.-J. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 122 (2016) 379–394 393

Table 14
Comparison of numerical results and ANSI/AISC 360–10 for H-columns about minor axis.

λv λv χv Ratio

H-6 H-7 H-8 curve H-6/curve H-7/curve H-8/curve

20 0.366 0.937 0.945 0.940 0.945 0.99 1.00 0.99

30 0.549 0.921 0.927 0.924 0.881 1.04 1.05 1.05
40 0.732 0.881 0.896 0.886 0.799 1.10 1.12 1.11
50 0.915 0.801 0.820 0.809 0.704 1.14 1.16 1.15
60 1.098 0.669 0.677 0.671 0.604 1.11 1.12 1.11
70 1.281 0.531 0.534 0.531 0.503 1.05 1.06 1.06
80 1.464 0.422 0.423 0.421 0.408 1.03 1.04 1.03
90 1.647 0.340 0.341 0.340 0.323 1.05 1.06 1.05
100 1.830 0.280 0.280 0.279 0.262 1.07 1.07 1.07
110 2.013 0.233 0.234 0.233 0.216 1.08 1.08 1.08
120 2.196 0.198 0.198 0.197 0.182 1.09 1.09 1.08
130 2.379 0.169 0.169 0.169 0.155 1.09 1.09 1.09
Mean 1.07 1.08 1.07
Standard deviation 0.04 0.04 0.04

Table 15
Comparison of numerical results and ANSI/AISC 360-10 for H-columns about major axis.

λu λu χu Ratio

H-6 H-7 H-8 curve H-6/curve H-7/curve H-8/curve

20 0.366 0.937 0.932 0.932 0.945 0.99 0.99 0.99

30 0.549 0.908 0.915 0.913 0.881 1.03 1.04 1.04
40 0.732 0.880 0.883 0.878 0.799 1.10 1.10 1.10
50 0.915 0.800 0.816 0.809 0.704 1.14 1.16 1.15
60 1.098 0.682 0.690 0.685 0.604 1.13 1.14 1.14
70 1.281 0.545 0.549 0.547 0.503 1.08 1.09 1.09
80 1.464 0.433 0.435 0.434 0.408 1.06 1.07 1.06
90 1.647 0.349 0.350 0.349 0.323 1.08 1.08 1.08
100 1.830 0.286 0.287 0.286 0.262 1.09 1.10 1.09
110 2.013 0.238 0.239 0.238 0.216 1.10 1.10 1.10
120 2.196 0.201 0.202 0.202 0.182 1.11 1.11 1.11
130 2.379 0.172 0.173 0.173 0.155 1.11 1.12 1.12
Mean 1.09 1.09 1.09
Standard deviation 0.04 0.04 0.04

References
Fig. 21. Comparison between test results of H-columns and ANSI/AISC 360-10, [1] D.W. White, A.E. Surovek, B.N. Alemdar, C.-J. Chang, Y.D. Kim, G.H. Kuchenbecker,
(a) Buckling about minor axis; (b) Buckling about major axis. Stability analysis and design of steel building frames using the 2005 AISC Specifica-
tion, Steel Struct. 6 (2006) 71–91.
[2] N.H. Cuong, S.E. Kim, J.R. Oh, Nonlinear analysis of space steel frames using fiber
plastic hinge concept, Eng. Struct. 29 (2007) 649–657.
[3] S.W. Liu, Y.P. Liu, S.L. Chan, Advanced analysis of hybrid steel and concrete frames:
part 2: refined plastic hinge and advanced analysis, J. Constr. Steel Res. 70 (2012)
337–349.
[4] S.W. Liu, Y.P. Liu, S.L. Chan, Advanced analysis of hybrid steel and concrete frames:
part 1: cross-section analysis technique and second-order analysis, J. Constr. Steel
Res. 70 (2012) 326–336.
Table 13 [5] S.W. Liu, Y.P. Liu, S.L. Chan, Direct analysis by an arbitrarily-located-plastic-hinge
Comparison of numerical results and ANSI/AISC 360–10 for box-columns. element: part 1: planar analysis, J. Constr. Steel Res. 103 (2014) 303–315.
[6] S.W. Liu, Y.P. Liu, S.L. Chan, Direct analysis by an arbitrarily-located-plastic-hinge
λ λ χ Ratio element: part 2: spatial analysis, J. Constr. Steel Res. 103 (2014) 316–326.
[7] T.J. Li, S.W. Liu, S.L. Chan, Direct analysis for high-strength steel frames with explicit-
B-7 B-10 B-13 curve B-7/curve B-10/curve B-13/curve model of residual stresses, Eng. Struct. 100 (2015) 342–355.
[8] T.J. Li, S.W. Liu, S.L. Chan, Cross-sectional analysis of arbitrary sections allowing for
20 0.366 0.943 0.938 0.940 0.945 1.00 0.99 0.99
residual stresses, Steel Compos. Struct. 18 (2015) 985–1000.
30 0.549 0.911 0.915 0.913 0.881 1.03 1.04 1.04
[9] S.L. Chan, Z.H. Zhou, 2nd-order elastic analysis of frames using single imperfect
40 0.732 0.867 0.869 0.871 0.799 1.09 1.09 1.09
element per member, J. Struct. Eng. ASCE 121 (1995) 939–945.
50 0.915 0.794 0.797 0.803 0.704 1.13 1.13 1.14 [10] J.Y.R. Liew, D.W. White, W.F. Chen, Second-order refined plastic-hinge analysis for
60 1.098 0.676 0.680 0.681 0.604 1.12 1.13 1.13 frame design. Part I, J. Struct. Eng. ASCE 119 (1993) 3196–3216.
70 1.281 0.542 0.543 0.544 0.503 1.08 1.08 1.08 [11] J.Y.R. Liew, D.W. White, W.F. Chen, Second-order refined plastic-hinge analysis for
80 1.464 0.431 0.432 0.432 0.408 1.06 1.06 1.06 frame design. Part II, J. Struct. Eng. ASCE 119 (1993) 3217–3236.
90 1.647 0.348 0.348 0.348 0.323 1.08 1.08 1.08 [12] S.L. Chan, P.P.T. Chui, A generalized design-based elastoplastic analysis of steel
100 1.830 0.285 0.285 0.286 0.262 1.09 1.09 1.09 frames by section assemblage concept, Eng. Struct. 19 (1997) 628–636.
110 2.013 0.238 0.238 0.239 0.216 1.10 1.10 1.10 [13] S.W. Liu, Y.P. Liu, S.L. Chan, Pushover analysis by one element per member for
120 2.196 0.201 0.202 0.202 0.182 1.10 1.11 1.11 performance-based seismic design, Int. J. Struct. Stab. Dyn. 10 (2010) 111–126.
130 2.379 0.172 0.173 0.172 0.155 1.11 1.11 1.11 [14] GB 50017-2003, Code for design of steel structures, China Architecture & Building
Mean 1.08 1.08 1.09 Press, Beijing, 2003 (in Chinese).
[15] Eurocode 3, Design of steel structures: Part 1–1: General rules and rules for
Standard deviation 0.04 0.04 0.04
buildings, EN 1993–1-1, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 2005.
394 T.-J. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 122 (2016) 379–394

[16] ANSI/AISC 360-10, Specification for structural steel buildings, AISC, Chicago, 2010. [18] T.J. Li, G.Q. Li, Y.B. Wang, Residual stress tests of welded Q690 high-strength steel
[17] Eurocode 3, Design of steel structures, Part 1–12: Additional rules for the extension box- and H-sections, J. Constr. Steel Res. 115 (2015) 283–289.
of EN 1993 up to steel grades S700, EN 1993–1-12, European Committee for [19] S.L. Chan, Z.H. Zhou, Pointwise equilibrating polynomial element for nonlinear
Standardization, Brussels, 2007. analysis of frames, J. Struct. Eng. ASCE 120 (1994) 1703–1717.