Provisions aimed at stability design have been drawn up by various countries according to many previous researches and their own practice. However, calculated results based on different codes greatly differ. Stability design for the steel compression members of steel bridges in four codes adopting the partial factor design method were outlined and comparatively analysed in this study. Calculation methods following the codes of four countries were detailed in the case of the steel box section column. The nominal strengths related to the normalized slenderness and width-thickness ratios were discussed and compared with FEA results. It is found that results following EC3 correspond with the FEA results better than other codes. The safety factors were calculated and compared with each other. In addition, the design strength and allowable strength among these codes were discussed. The results indicate that EC3 and AASHTO provide relatively high allowable strength for the compressive steel box section columns in general while JTG D64 and JRA give conservative results.

各国已根据许多先前的研究和自己的实践起草了有关稳定性设计的规定。但是，基于不同代码的计算结果差异很大。概述并比较分析了采用部分因子设计方法的四个规范中钢桥钢受压构件的稳定性设计。在钢箱型材截面柱的情况下，详细介绍了遵循四个国家/地区代码的计算方法。讨论了与规范的细长比和宽度-厚度比有关的标称强度，并将其与有限元分析结果进行了比较。可以发现，EC3之后的结果与FEA结果相比，其结果要好于其他代码。计算安全系数并相互比较。此外，讨论了这些规范中的设计强度和允许强度。结果表明，EC3和AASHTO总体上为抗压钢箱形截面柱提供了相对较高的允许强度，而JTG D64和JRA给出了保守的结果。