 ## Part 2 – Imperfection factors

The Eurocode EN 1993-1-1 offers basically two methods for the buckling verification of members:

(1) based on buckling reduction factors (buckling curves) and

(2) based on equivalent geometrical imperfections.

In the first part of this article, we reviewed the utilization difference and showed the relationship between the two methods. It was concluded that the method of chapters 6.3.1 (reduction factor) and 5.3.2 (11) (buckling mode based equivalent imperfection) are consistent at the load level equal to the buckling resistance of the member, so when the member utilization is 100%. The basic result of the procedure in 5.3.2 (11) is the amplitude (largest deflection value) of the equivalent geometrical imperfection. However, the Eurocode gives another simpler alternative for the calculation of this amplitude for compressed members in section 5.3.2(3) b) in Table 5.1, where the amplitude of an initial bow is defined as a portion of the member length for each buckling curves (Fig. 1.). We use the first column (“elastic analysis”) including smaller amplitude values.

It is an obvious expectation that these two standard procedures should yield at least similar results for the same problem. However, this is by far not the case in general.

In order to show the significance of the imperfection amplitudes this part is dealing with these two calculation methods, the variation of their values and the effect on the buckling utilization.

Let’s see again the simple example of Part 1: a simply supported, compressed column with a Class 2 cross-section (plastic resistance calculation allowed). The column is 6 meters high and has an IPE300 cross-section made of S235 steel. The two methods are implemented into Consteel and on Figure 2. it can be seen, that the two values for the amplitude of the geometrical imperfection is very different – e0 = 24 mm by the 5.3.2(3) b) Table 5.1 (L/250) and e0 = 13,4 mm by the 5.3.2 (11) (same as in Part 1).