Design Manual For Structural Stainless Steel - 3rd

Design_Manual_GB_2006.qxd 14.05.
2006 21:46 Uhr Seite 1
Design Manual for Structural Stainless Steel – Third Edition

Design Manual for Structural
Stainless Steel – Third Edition
The Steel
Construction
Institute
ISBN 2-87997-204-3
Diamant Building · Bd A. Reyers 80 · 1030 Brussels · Belgium · Phone +32 2 706 82 67 · Fax +32 2 706 82 67 · [email protected] · www.euro-inox.org Building Series, Vol. 11
Design Manual For Structural
Stainless Steel - Commentary
(Third Edition, March 2007)
© 2006 Euro Inox and The Steel Construction Institute
Euro Inox and The Steel Construction Institute have made every effort to ensure that the information presented here is
technically correct. However, the reader is advised that the material contained therein is for general information purposes
only. Euro Inox, The Steel Construction Institute and any other contributor specifically disclaim any liability or
responsibility for loss, damage or injury, resulting from the use of the information contained in this publication.
ii
PREFACE
Third Edition
This Third Edition of the Design Manual has been prepared by The Steel Construction
Institute as a deliverable of the RFCS Project - Valorisation Project – Structural design of
cold worked austenitic stainless steel (contract RFS2-CT-2005-00036). It is a complete
revision of the Second Edition, extending the scope to include cold worked austenitic
stainless steels and updating all the references to draft Eurocodes. The Third Edition
refers to the relevant parts of EN 1990, EN 1991 and EN 1993. The structural fire
design approach in Section 7 has been updated and new sections on the durability of
stainless steel in soil and life cycle costing have been added.
Three new design examples have been included to demonstrate the appropriate use of
cold worked stainless steel. They were completed by the following partners:
• Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC)

• The Swedish Institute of Steel Construction (SBI)
• Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT)
A project steering committee, including representatives from each partner and sponsoring
organisation, oversaw the work and contributed to the development of the Design
Manual. The following organizations participated in the preparation of the Third Edition:
• The Steel Construction Institute (SCI) (Project co-ordinator)

• Centro Sviluppo Materiali (CSM)
• CUST, Blaise Pascal University
• Euro Inox
• RWTH Aachen, Institute of Steel Construction
• VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland
• The Swedish Institute of Steel Construction (SBI)
• Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC)
Preface to the Second Edition

This Design Manual has been prepared by The Steel Construction Institute as a
deliverable of the ECSC funded project, Valorisation Project – Development of the use of
stainless steel in construction (contract 7215-PP-056). It is a complete revision of the
Design manual for structural stainless steel, which was prepared by The Steel
Construction Institute between 1989 and 1992 and published by Euro Inox in 1994.
This new edition takes into account advances in understanding in the structural behaviour
of stainless steel over the last 10 years. In particular, it includes the new design
recommendations from the recently completed ECSC funded project, Development of the
use of stainless steel in construction (contract 7210-SA/842), which has led to the scope
of the Design Manual being extended to cover circular hollow sections and fire resistant
design. Over the last ten years a great many new European standards have been issued
iii
covering stainless steel material, fasteners, fabrication, erection, welding etc. The
Design Manual has been updated to make reference to current standards and data in these
standards.
A project steering committee, including representatives from each partner, sub-contractor

and sponsoring organisation, oversaw the work and contributed to the development of the
Design Manual.
The worked examples were completed by the following partners:

• Centre Technique Industrial de la Construction Métallique (CTICM)
• Luleå Institute of Technology
• RWTH Aachen
• Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT)
• The Steel Construction Institute (SCI)
The following people were members of the steering committee and/or completed the
design examples:
Nancy Baddoo The Steel Construction Institute
Massimo Barteri Centro Sviluppo Materiali (CSM)
Bassam Burgan The Steel Construction Institute
Helena Burstrand Knutsson The Swedish Institute of Steel Construction (SBI)
Lars Hamrebjörk The Swedish Institute of Steel Construction (SBI)
Jouko Kouhi Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT)
Roland Martland Health and Safety Executive (UK)
Enrique Mirambell Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC)
Anders Olsson AvestaPolarit AB (publ)
(formerly, Luleå Institute of Technology)
Thomas Pauly Euro Inox
Esther Real Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC)
Ivor Ryan Centre Technique Industrial de la Construction Métallique
Heiko Stangenberg RWTH Aachen Institute of Steel Construction
Asko Talja Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT)
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The following organisations provided financial support for the Third Edition of the
Design Manual and their assistance is gratefully acknowledged:
• Research Fund for Coal and Steel (RFCS) (formerly, European Coal and Steel
Community (ECSC))
• Euro Inox
The contribution made to this and the previous two editions by the European stainless
steel producers and other organisations is also gratefully acknowledged.
The following people assisted in the preparation of the Commentary to the Third Edition:
• Dr Leroy Gardner (Imperial College)
• Marios Theofanous (Imperial College)
• Benoit van Hecke (Euro Inox)
Their assistance is gratefully acknowledged.
FOREWORD
This Design Manual has been prepared for the guidance of engineers experienced in the
design of carbon steel structural steelwork though not necessarily in stainless steel
structures. It is not in any way intended to have a legal status or absolve the engineer of
responsibility to ensure that a safe and functional structure results.
The Manual is divided into two parts:

• Part I - Recommendations
• Part II - Design Examples
The Recommendations in Part I are formulated in terms of limit state philosophy and,
where appropriate, are in compliance with the following Parts of Eurocode 3 Design of
steel structures:
EN 1993-1-1 Design of steel structures: General rules and rules for buildings
EN 1993-1-2 Design of steel structures: Structural fire design
EN 1993-1-3 Design of steel structures: General rules: Supplementary rules for

cold-formed members and sheeting
EN 1993-1-4 Design of steel structures: General rules: Supplementary rules for

stainless steels
v
EN 1993-1-5 Design of steel structures: Plated structural elements
EN 1993-1-8 Design of steel structures: Design of joints
EN 1993-1-9 Design of steel structures: Fatigue
EN 1993-1-10 Design of steel structures: Material toughness and through-thickness

properties
This Design Manual gives recommended values for certain factors. These values may be
subject to modification at a national level by the National Annexes.
The Design Examples contained in Part II demonstrate the use of the recommendations.
A cross-reference system locates that section of the examples corresponding to a
particular recommendation.
The Recommendations and Design Examples are available at www.steel-

stainless.org/designmanual. They are also available at Steelbiz, an SCI technical
information system (www.steelbiz.org), and from the Euro Inox web site (www.euro-
inox.org).
A Commentary to the Recommendations, which includes a full set of references, is also

available online at these web sites. The purpose of the Commentary is to allow the
designer to assess the basis of the recommendations and to facilitate the development of
revisions as and when new data become available. Opportunity is taken to present the
results of various test programmes conducted specifically to provide background data for
the Design Manual. The Recommendations, Design Examples and Commentary are also
available on CD from Euro Inox.
An online design facility is available at www.steel-stainless.org/software for designing

cold-formed stainless steel members subject to axial tension, bending or axial
compression. The design facility calculates section properties and member resistances in
accordance with the Recommendations in this Design Manual.
The design recommendations presented in this document are based upon the best
knowledge available at the time of publication. However, no responsibility of any kind
for injury, death, loss, damage or delay, however caused, resulting from the use of the
recommendations can be accepted by the project partners or others associated with its
preparation.
vi
Contents
Page No.
PREFACE iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v
FOREWORD v
C.1 INTRODUCTION 1
C.1.1 Scope 1
C.1.2 Symbols and conventions for member axes 1
C.2 BASIS OF DESIGN 2

C.2.1 General requirements 2
C.2.2 Limit state design 2
C.2.3 Loading 3
C.3 MATERIALS: PROPERTIES AND SELECTION 4

C.3.1 Material grades 4
C.3.2 Mechanical behaviour and design values of properties 6
C.3.3 Physical properties 15
C.3.4 Effects of temperature 15
C.3.5 Life cycle costing 16
C.3.6 Selection of materials 16
C.3.7 Durability 19
C.4 PROPERTIES OF SECTIONS 23

C.4.1 General 23
C.4.2 Maximum width-to-thickness ratios 23
C.4.3 Classification of cross-sections 24
C.4.4 Effective widths 32
C.4.5 Stiffened elements 37
C.4.6 Calculation of section properties 37
C.4.7 Resistance of cross-sections 38
C.5 MEMBER DESIGN 40

C.5.1 Introduction 40
C.5.2 Tension members 42
C.5.3 Compression members 43
C.5.4 Flexural members 53
C.5.5 Members subject to combinations of axial loads and bending
moments 59
C.6 JOINT DESIGN 60

C.6.1 General recommendations 60
C.6.2 Bolted connections 60
C.6.3 Mechanical fasteners for thin gauge material 75
C.6.4 Welded connections 75
vii
C.7 FIRE RESISTANT DESIGN 77
C.7.1 General 77
C.7.2 Mechanical properties at elevated temperatures 77
C.7.3 Thermal properties at elevated temperatures 78
C.7.4 Determination of structural fire resistance 78
C.8 FATIGUE 83
C.8.2 S-N data for stainless steels 83
C.8.3 S-N data for cold worked stainless steels 85
C.8.4 Fatigue crack growth data for stainless steels 85
C.9 TESTING 91
C.10 FABRICATION ASPECTS 92

C.10.2 Storage and handling 92
C.10.3 Shaping operations 92
C.10.4 Welding 92
C.10.5 Galling and seizure 93
C.10.6 Finishing 93
APPENDIX A Correlation between stainless steel designations 94
APPENDIX B Lateral-torsional buckling slenderness, λLT 95
APPENDIX C Material data for deflection calculations 96
REFERENCES 97
viii
C.1 INTRODUCTION
C.1.1 Scope
There are many different types and grades of stainless steel (see Section
C.3.1.1). These have been formulated over the last 80 years or so to optimise
certain characteristics such as corrosion resistance in specific environments,
weldability and mechanical properties. The Recommendations in this Design
Manual are applicable to the grades of stainless steel commonly used in
construction, as given in Table 3.1.
The Design Manual concentrates on the design of members and elements, not
on the behaviour and design of frameworks. Thus no recommendations are
given for elastic or plastic global analysis (except that elastic global analysis
should be used) and reference should be made to carbon steel codes as
necessary. In particular, the designer will need to consider second order effects
in stainless steel sway frames. These could be potentially greater than in carbon
steel frames if the steel is stressed into the non-linear portion of the stress-strain
curve.
No limits to thickness are given; the normal limitations for carbon steel do not
apply due to the superior performance of stainless steel materials. However,
there will be practical limits for the cold forming of members (approximately
20 mm for the austenitic grades and 15 mm for duplex grade 1.4462).
Pressure vessels, pipework and structures within nuclear installations are not
covered. Other codes, such as the ASME pressure vessel code1, may be
consulted.
C.1.2 Symbols and conventions for member axes

As stated, the notation of EN 1993-1-12 has been generally adopted, in which
extensive use is made of subscripts. It is not necessary to use the subscripts if
clarity is not impaired.
Attention is drawn to the use of the x axis as being along the length of the
member, and the major axis of bending as being about y-y.
1
C.2 BASIS OF DESIGN
C.2.1 General requirements

The aims in designing a stainless steel structure are no different from those in
carbon steel structures. That is a safe, serviceable and durable structure should
result. As well as the more obvious considerations such as strength and
stability, the design of a structure should take account of the following:
• Safe transport and handling.
• Safe means of interconnection.
• Stability during erection.
One designer should be responsible for ensuring the overall stability of the
structure, particularly if stainless steel is used in conjunction with other
materials. In the design of the stainless steel structure, the assumed restraint
and stability afforded by other materials should be clearly stated and made
known to the engineer responsible.
C.2.2 Limit state design

In limit state design, the performance or capacity of the structure or its
components is assessed against various criteria (the limit states) at appropriate
load levels. For carbon steel structures, the designer is mainly concerned with
the ultimate limit states, which potentially could lead to loss of life, and
serviceability limit states, which could lead to loss of function. The reduction
in structural performance of carbon steel building structures due to corrosion is
not usually specifically considered by the structural designer, reliance instead
being place upon paint or other protective coatings. Where corrosion is likely
to affect performance, as for marine or offshore structures, the use of a
sacrificial corrosion allowance on the thickness or of cathodic protection is
common. However, for stainless steel, anti-corrosion measures should form an
integral part of the design, from material selection to detailing of member and
joints, and must be carried through fabrication and erection. Thus, in Section
2.2 of the Recommendations, the durability limit state is on an equal footing to
the ultimate and serviceability limit states.
In Section 2.2, creep is given as an example of a serviceability limit state.

Stainless steel can exhibit noticeable creep-like deformations at room
temperature if stresses exceed approximately two thirds of the 0,2% proof
strength. It is arguable as to whether creep should be considered as an ultimate
limit state or as a serviceability limit state. For pressure vessels, creep rupture
is clearly an ultimate limit state. In other structures, the situation is not as
clear. For instance, in a column any additional creep deformation will influence
the load carrying capacity of that column and hence creep should perhaps be
considered at the ultimate limit state. However, for beams, creep deformations
are manifested by increased beam deflections that may exceed permissible
levels; in this instance creep has to be considered at the serviceability limit
state. In this Design Manual, the view has been taken that the ultimate limit
state can be exceeded by a short-term overload condition, and that creep
deformations would be manifested before the overload condition occurs. Thus,
if creep were considered at the serviceability limit state it would not be
significant at the ultimate limit state for the load factors used in this Design
Manual.
2
The values of the partial safety factor for resistance, γM, given in Table 2.1 are
the recommend values in EN 1993-1-43. Note that certain European countries
may specify modified γM values in their National Annexes, and, where this is
the case, these values must be used in the place of the values given in EN 1993-
1-4.
C.2.3 Loading
It is the responsibility of the designer to consider all load effects (dead loads,
imposed loads, effects of temperature and settlement, etc.) and establish the
most onerous load case for each member.
As for the γM factors, different values of γF may be set in the National Annex
for the country for which the structure is being designed.
For offshore applications, the partial safety factor for loads for the in-place
condition are taken from API RP2A4. API RP2A also recommends factors for
transportation, earthquake loadings, etc. and should therefore be consulted.
Generally, the offshore factors are higher than those onshore. This is generally
intended to achieve a higher level of reliability.
3
C.3 MATERIALS: PROPERTIES AND
SELECTION
C.3.1 Material grades

C.3.1.1 Introduction
Stainless steels can be classified into five groups, according to their chemical
composition (see Figure C.3.1) and thermomechanical treatment. Each group
has different properties, particularly in respect of strength, corrosion resistance
and ease of fabrication.
20
% Ni
Austenitic steels
15
Ferritic-
austenitic
10 steels
Precipitation
hardening
steels
5
Martensitic Ferritic
steels steels
0
10 15 20 25 30
% Cr
Figure C.3.1 Classification of stainless steels according to nickel and
chromium content
The five groups can be summarised thus:

Austenitic stainless steels
These are the most commonly used stainless steels. They have an austenitic
microstructure at room temperature and generally contain relatively high
amounts of nickel. They have high ductility, are easily formed, are readily
weldable and offer good corrosion resistance. Their strengths are reasonable
and they can only be hardened (i.e. made stronger) by cold working.
Ferritic stainless steels

The ferritic stainless steels contain relatively little nickel and have a ferritic
microstructure. Ductility, strength, formability and weldability are not as good
as in the austenitic steels. Although they are generally not as corrosion resistant
as the austenitic grades, they are superior when considering stress corrosion
cracking. As for the austenitic grades, they can only be hardened by cold
working.
4
Martensitic stainless steels
These steels can be hardened by heat treatment and are not normally used in
welded fabrication. High strengths can be achieved with these steels but in
other respects they are poorer than the other groups.
Duplex stainless steels

These steels have a mixed microstructure and combine the best of the properties
of the austenitic and ferritic groups. Compared to the austenitic group they
have higher mechanical strengths, similar weldability, lower formability and
similar or higher corrosion resistance especially with respect to stress corrosion
cracking. They are hardened by cold working.
Precipitation hardening steels

These offer the highest strengths, obtained by suitable heat treatments. They
are not normally used in welded fabrications.
Further information on the various groups and types of stainless steels may be
found in standard texts5,6.
Most structural applications use austenitic grades 1.4301, 1.4401 or their low
carbon variants 1.4307 and 1.4404. A wide range of product forms is available
in these grades. (Note that in Germany, the low carbon version of 1.4301
widely used is grade 1.4306, a slightly higher alloyed version of 1.4307.)
Experience of duplex grades 1.4462 and 1.4362 has been gathered in the
offshore industry; they offer advantages in mechanical strength and have
superior resistance to stress corrosion cracking. For large volume applications
requiring high strength, the austenitic grade 1.4318 or a lean duplex such as
grade 1.4162 can prove very cost effective.
If there is any doubt as to which of these grades, or indeed any other grade, is
suitable for a particular application, specialist advice should be sought.
Stainless steel producers commonly give such advice, often free of charge.
The Recommendations are only intended for the rolled forms of the selected
alloys. Cast forms generally have equivalent corrosion resistance to that of the
rolled forms but several differences exist. One of the more important of these
is that the microstructure of cast austenitic stainless steels contains a greater
amount of ferrite. This not only facilitates weld repair of castings but also
increases the resistance to stress corrosion cracking. Cast steels also differ in
mechanical properties, physical properties and chemical composition. Because
of the formation of larger grain sizes and other differences in microstructure,
mechanical properties of cast steels exhibit a wider range and are generally
inferior to rolled steels.
C.3.1.2 Relevant standards

The European material standard for stainless steel is EN 10088, Stainless Steels7
and this covers flat products and long products. Fasteners are covered in EN
ISO 3506, Corrosion-resistant stainless steel fasteners8.
5
When specifying for ordering purposes it is important to provide a complete
specification that should include:
• The desired quantity.
• The type of manufacture (hot rolled or cold rolled) and the product form
(strip or sheet/plate).
• Where an appropriate dimensional standard is available, the number of the
standard, plus any choice of requirements.
• If there is no dimensional standard, the nominal dimensions and tolerances
required.
• The type of material (steel) and its name or number designation with the
relevant European standard (EN 10088).
• If, for the relevant grade, more than one treatment condition is covered, the
symbol for the desired heat treatment or cold worked condition.
• The desired process route and surface finish.
• If an inspection document is required, its designation according to
EN 102049.
Reference 10 gives tables of chemical compositions, mechanical and physical
properties for stainless steels to EN 10088; an interactive database of properties
is also available at www.euro-inox.org/technical_tables .
C.3.2 Mechanical behaviour and design values of

properties
C.3.2.1 Basic stress-strain behaviour
As well as non-linearity, the stress-strain characteristics of stainless steels also
display non-symmetry of tensile and compressive behaviour and anisotropy
(differences in behaviour of coupons aligned parallel and transverse to the
rolling direction). In the annealed (softened) condition, the stress-strain curves
tend to be more non-linear in tension than in compression. Tests on both cold
and hot rolled material indicate higher strengths transverse to the rolling
direction than in the direction of rolling11. Unidirectional work hardening
results in a reduced proof stress in the direction opposite to the work hardening
direction. As for other stainless steel grades, even for small levels of work
hardening, this reduction can be such that the proof stress in compression of a
plate work hardened by stretching is below its original value before work
hardening12.
The degree of non-linearity, non-symmetry and anisotropy varies between

grades of stainless steel. For an annealed material, the differences due to non-
symmetry and anisotropy are not large but nevertheless they have been taken
into account in Appendix C. Except for thin sheets (less than, say, 4 mm for
which work hardening imparted during rolling may have an impact), there does
not appear to be a significant thickness effect on the relationship between the
four basic stress-strain curves13,14.
In discussing the form of the stress-strain curve, it is helpful to consider the

Ramberg-Osgood idealised form15 given by:
n
σ ⎛ σ ⎞
ε = + 0,002⎜⎜ ⎟
⎟
E ⎝ σ 0, 2 ⎠
6
Inspection of this equation shows that there are three independent parameters
required to define a particular stress-strain curve, i.e.
E is Young’s modulus
σ0,2 is the 0,2% proof strength
n is an index
The degree of non-linearity of the stress-strain curve is characterised by the
index n; lower n values imply a greater degree of non-linearity, see Figure
C.3.2.
σ /f y
1,0
n = Ramberg/Osgood coeff.
5
10
25
∞
0 1,0 2,0 3,0
ε E/f y
Figure C.3.2 Effect of the parameter n on the non-linearity of the
stress-strain curve
The value of n may be obtained from the ratio of the stress at the limit of
proportionality (conventionally the 0,01% proof strength, σ0,01) to the 0,2%
proof strength, σ0,2, as follows:
log( 0,05)
n=
log(σ 0,01 / σ 0,2 )
and thus the ratio σ0,01/σ0,2 may also be used as an indicator of the degree of
non-linearity.
Table C.3.1 shows the averaged stress-strain characteristics obtained from the
test programme specifically carried out for the First Edition of this Design
Manual14.
7
Table C.3.1 Representative values of stress-strain characteristics for
materials in the annealed condition
Material Direction & 0,2% Proof Modulus of σ 0,01 Index

Sense of strength elasticity n
Stress (N/mm2) (kN/mm2) σ 0, 2
1.4307 LT 262 194 0,65 7,1
LC 250 0,62 6,3
TT 259 198 0,71 8,8

TC 255 0,72 9,0
1.4404 LT 277 193 0,65 6,9

LC 285 0,71 8,6
TT 286 198 0,70 8,5

TC 297 0,74 10,0
1.4462 LT 518 199 0,57 5,4

LC 525 0,56 5,2
TT 544 207 0,54 4,8

TC 540 0,59 5,7
LT - Longitudinal tension
LC - Longitudinal compression
TT - Transverse tension
TC - Transverse compression
Note these values should be considered as representative and not as typical or

characteristic values. Other data sources were also examined to select the
design values in Appendix C14.
From a structural point of view, the results in Table C.3.1 suggest that
anisotropy and non-symmetry of annealed materials are not as important as the
non-linearity.
The rounded stress-strain curve affects the strength and stiffness of a member,
depending on the stress level in the member. In a compression member for
instance, buckling failure is related to the associated value of the tangent
modulus; thus, for failure stresses below the proof strength, it can be expected
that a stainless steel column will tend to be weaker than a similar carbon steel
column of the same proof strength. On the other hand, for failure stresses
above the proof strength, a stainless steel column will be stronger than the
corresponding carbon steel one. Further explanation is given in
Section C.5.3.1.
Although the Ramberg-Osgood formulation gives excellent agreement with

experimental stress-strain data up to the 0,2% proof strength, at higher strains
the model generally over estimates the stress corresponding to a given level of
strain. Mirambell and Real16 recently proposed the use of two adjoining
Ramberg-Osgood curves to achieve improved modelling accuracy at strains
above the 0,2% proof strength. The basic Ramberg-Osgood expression is used
up to the 0,2%proof stress, then a modified expression re-defines the origin for
the second curve as the point of 0,2% proof stress, and ensures continuity of
gradients. Figure C.3.3 demonstrates the improved accuracy at higher strains
of this compound Ramberg-Osgood expression. Gardner17 has proposed a
modification to Mirambell and Real’s model to describe compressive stress-
strain behaviour.
8
700
600
Stress (N/mm²)
Basic Ramberg-Osgood curve
based on 0,01% and 0,2% strains
500
400
Compound Ramberg-Osgood
curve
300
Experimental stress-strain data points
200
100
0
0 0,005 0,01 0,015 0,020 0,025
Strain
Figure C.3.3 Comparison between compound and basic Ramberg-
Osgood models
C.3.2.2 Factors affecting stress-strain behaviour

Further information on cold working stainless steel and strain rate effects is
available from Euro Inox18,19.
Cold working
Stainless steels are generally supplied in the annealed (softened) condition and
the mechanical properties given in EN 10088 mostly relate to material in this
condition. However, austenitic stainless steels (and to a lesser extent duplex
steels) develop high mechanical strengths when cold worked. In part this is due
to a partial transformation of austenite to martensite. The degree of strength
enhancement is affected by chemical composition13,20. Austenite stabilising
elements, such as nickel, manganese, carbon and nitrogen tend to lower the rate
of strength enhancement.
Figure C.3.4, taken from Reference 13, shows the effect of cold work on the
0,2% proof strength, the ultimate tensile strength and elongation at failure for a
specific sample of 1.4307. Similar relationships apply to grade 1.4404. The
corresponding curves for duplex 1.4462 are shown in Figure C.3.5 obtained
from manufacturer’s literature.
In general, anisotropy and non-symmetry increase with cold work. It is

important to remember that welding or certain heat treatments will anneal, or
partially anneal, the cold worked material. This will reduce the strength to
some extent, but not below the strength in the annealed unwelded state21,22.
Deflections may frequently govern the design of cold worked stainless steel
rather than strength.
Cold working can occur at two stages in the production of a structural
component - during production of the flat product and/or during fabrication of
the finished structural component.
9
1200
th
e ng
r
st
Strength N/mm²
th
s ile eng
1000 n r
te f st
e
at oo
l tim Pr
U
800 2%
0,
600 60
Elongation %
400 40
200 Elo 20
nga
t io
n
0 0
0 20 40 60
Cold work %
Figure C.3.4 Effect of cold working on a sample of 1.4307 material
1000
Strength N/mm²
th
900 t r eng
s h
ile t
tens reng th
ate s t e ng
im f t r
800 Ult oo fs 40
Pr ro
o
1% % P
2
0,
700 30
Elongation %
Elo
ng
600 ati 20
on
500 10
400 0
0 5 10 15 20
Cold work %
Figure C.3.5 Effect of cold working on a sample of duplex 1.4462
material
Cold working during production of the flat product

Stainless steel can be cold worked during production of the strip by a temper
rolling or stretching process; the former process is more common. EN 10088
specifies five 0,2% proof strength conditions (CP350, 500, 700, 900 and 1100)
for cold worked material. Alternatively, the standard allows material to be
specified by its tensile strength level (C700, C850, C1000, C1150 and C1300).
Table C.3.2 gives the strengths associated with these conditions, compared with
the cold worked conditions or tempers given in the American Code23.
10
Table C.3.2 European and American specifications for strength levels in
the cold worked condition for standard austenitic grades
Nominal 0,2% proof Ultimate tensile
strength class strength 1) 2) strength 3) 4)
(N/mm2) (N/mm2)
Annealed 210-240 520-750

CP350 350-500 5)
CP500 500-700 5)
CP700 700-900 5)
CP900 900-1100 5)
EN 10088-2 CP1100 1100-1300 5)
5)
C700 700-850
5)
C850 850-1000
5)
C1000 1000-1150
5)
C1150 1150-1300
5)
C1300 1300-1500
Annealed 207 571
1/16 hard 276 552-586

SEI/ASCE - 8 - 02
1/4 hard 517 862
1/2 hard 759 1034
1) Intermediate proof strength values may be agreed

2) The maximum product thickness for each proof strength level decreases with the proof
strength
3) Intermediate tensile strength values may be agreed
4) Maximum product thickness for each tensile strength level decreases with the tensile
strength.
5) Not specified
A recently completed ECSC-funded project studied the behaviour of cold

worked stainless steel in the context of structural design in order to develop
economic guidance22. Experimental and numerical analyses were carried out on
material specimens, structural members and connections at room temperature
and in fire in order to determine whether the design guidance in the Second
Edition of the Design Manual was applicable to cold worked material up to the
C850 or CP500 strength conditions. Generally the guidance was shown to be
safely applicable, provided the effect of anisotropy was taken into account in the
way described in Section 3.2.4.
The use of cold worked material for structural applications has great potential
that has not yet been exploited.
Cold working during fabrication of the finished structural component

This is generally known as cold forming, and typically occurs at the corners of
sections where the 0,2% proof strength can rise between 20% and 100% higher
than the 0,2% proof strength of the flat regions. Work has been carried out to
11
develop an expression to predict the corner mechanical properties of cold
formed stainless steel material17,24,25,. The increased strength is, however,
localised at the position of bending (e.g. the corners of rectangular hollow
sections). Note also that the increase in strength is dependent on the method of
manufacture. For example, Gardner found that sections fabricated (from
annealed material) by first forming the material into a circular hollow section,
and then shaping it into a rectangular hollow section showed moderate strength
enhancements in the flat regions and large enhancements in the corners. By
comparison, sections fabricated by direct bending from a flat sheet had
essentially unchanged properties in the flat regions, with large strength
enhancements at the corners (but not as large as the enhancement with the
indirect fabrication method)17.
Strain-rate sensitivity
Most investigations of strain-rate effects have been concerned with fast strain-
rates and have concentrated primarily on the plastic deformation region26,27,28,29.
Typical stress-strain plots for 1.430727 and 1.440429 at room temperature are
given in Figure C.3.6. More recent test results are shown in Figure C.3.7 and
Figure C.3.830. (The cyclic fluctuations in the 0 to 20% strain range in these
latter two Figures are due to the dynamic response of the testing machine.) The
Figures show that stainless steels have a strong strain rate dependency; strengths
are increased (particularly in the region of the 0,2% proof strain) and the
rupture strain reduced at higher strain rates. In the design of stainless steel
blast walls, where the predominant loading is at a high strain rate, it is
customary to apply a strain rate enhancement factor to the design strength in
order to take advantage of the increase in strength at higher strain rates.
800
Stress (N/mm²)
4
600
3
5 Curve Strain rate (sec - 1 )

400
2 1 1 10 - 4
2 10 - 2
1.4307 3 50
200
4 140
5 502
0
15 30 45 60 75
Strain %
800
Stress (N/mm²)
600
4 3
1 Curve Strain rate (sec )
-1
400 -2
1 0,4 x 10
2 2 15
1.4404 3 44
200
4 420
0
15 30 45 60 75
Strain %
Figure C.3.6 Strain rate effects on grades 1.4307 and 1.4404
12
800
Stress (N/mm²)
700
600
500
400 Low strain rate

.
300
ε y = 1,38 x 10 - 4 s -1
High strain rate .

. ε u = 2,77 x 10 - 4 s -1
200 ε y = 6,91 s -1
.
100 ε u = 21,3 s -1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Strain %
Figure C.3.7 Strain rate effects on grade 1.4404
1000
900
800
Stress (N/mm²)
700
High strain rate
600 .
ε y = 6,88 s -1
500 . Low strain rate
ε u = 14,6 s -1 .
400
ε y = 1,38 x 10 - 4 s -1
.
ε u = 2,77 x 10 - 4 s -1
300
200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Strain %
Figure C.3.8 Strain rate effects on grade 1.4462
Rather fewer investigations have examined the behaviour under slow strain-
rates. The most well-known work is due to Krempl31, in which annealed type
1.4301 stainless steel was tested at strain-rates of 10-3, 10-5 and 10-8 per second
(note the maximum equivalent strain-rate allowed in specifications is usually 1,5
x 10-4 per second). The decreases in the measured 0,2% proof stress due to a
change in strain-rate from 10-3 to 10-5 per second and from 10-3 to 10-8 per
second are about 15% and 30% respectively, i.e. averages per order change of
strain-rate of 7,5% and 6% respectively.
In the tests carried out specifically for the First Edition of this Design Manual14,
constant stress-rates of 0,3 to 30 N/mm2 per second were used. These
correspond to strain-rates, in the elastic region, of 1,5 x 10-6 and 1,5 x 10-4 per
second. Although an order change of stress rate gave, in isolated instances, a
6% change in the 0,2% proof stress, on average it was approximately 4%.
This average figure applies equally to the three materials tested (1.4307, 1.4404
and duplex 1.4462) and would appear, on the evidence, to apply equally to the
longitudinal and transverse directions and to tension or compression.
It should be noted that a constant strain-rate and a constant stress-rate are not
equivalent past the proportional limit, even if they correspond to the same rate
in the elastic region. A constant stress-rate will give ever increasing equivalent
13
strain-rates as loading continues, since plastic straining does not contribute to
stress. Thus constant stress rates generally will lead to higher measured proof
stresses than constant strain-rates. This effect disappears at temperatures above
about 200oC, as can be seen in Figure C.3.9 for grade 1.4401 material.
300
Constant stress rate 360 N/mm²/min
0,2% proof strength (N/mm²) Constant stain rate 2x10 -3 /min
200
100
0
0 200 400 600
Temperature (°C)
Figure C.3.9 Effect of loading procedure on the 0,2% proof stress
C.3.2.3 Typical values of properties

For the First Edition of the Design Manual, mill data was collected and
analysed from several European stainless steel producers
C.3.2.4 Design values of properties

Flat products
Three options are offered for defining the design strength. Options (ii) and (iii)
can only be used if the actual material to be used in the structure is identified
and available at the time of design; however, these options will generally give
the more economical use of material.
Figure 3.2 shows the non-symmetry and aniostropy of stainless steel grade
1.4318 cold worked to strength level C850; Reference 32 studies this in greater
detail). For cold worked material in the longitudinal (rolling) direction, the
strength in compression lies below the strength in tension. Material standards
such as EN 10088 typically quote minimum specified values in the transverse
tension direction. Therefore, when designing members where compression is a
likely stress condition, it is necessary to factor down the quoted minimum
specified 0,2% proof strength unless that strength is guaranteed in tension and
compression, transverse and parallel to the rolling direction.
From the recent ECSC project22, it was suggested that along the length of
a tubular member, the compression strength fyLC is about 85% of the
strength in tension fyLT and 78% of the strength in tension transverse to
the axis of the tube fyTT, i.e.
For C850 material (fy = 530 N/mm2): f y LC = 0.78 f y TT
These figures were based on very few test data, but were in agreement with
additional test data from the Finnish manufacturer of cold worked rectangular
hollow sections, Stalatube.
14
The American design code addresses this issue of asymmetry by giving lower
strengths for material stressed in longitudinal compression (even in the annealed
condition), and higher strengths for material stressed in transverse compression
(Table C.3.3). Note that the longitudinal compression strength reduces relative
to the transverse tensile strength as the level of cold working increases. It
specifies a greater reduction in fyLC relative to fyTT than European data suggests:
For fy = 350 N/mm2: f y LC = 0.84 f y TT
For fy = 500 N/mm2: f y LC = 0.68 f y TT
Table C.3.3 Specified yield strengths (N/mm2) of stainless steel in

the American design code for grades 1.4301 and
1.4401
Direction of stress Annealed 1/16 hard 1/4 hard 1/2 hard
Longitudinal tension 206.9 310.3 517.1 758.5

Transverse tension 206.9 310.3 517.1 758.5
Transverse compression 206.9 310.3 620.7 827.6
Longitudinal compression 193.1 282.7 344.8 448.2
Fasteners
It is important that connections in steelwork are ductile at the Ultimate Limit
State. For this reason it is traditional to have high factors of safety associated
with fasteners. In EN 1993-1-1 the factor of safety is approximately 1,9 to 2,1,
the effects of prying action being explicitly calculated.
The provisions in EN 1993-1-1 should give a satisfactory factor of safety

against tension failure for stainless steel bolts, especially as stainless steel is
more ductile than normal structural bolt materials. Therefore the resistance of
fasteners should be based on the ultimate tensile strength of the material as in
EN 1993-1-1.
C.3.3 Physical properties

Compared to carbon steels, the higher coefficients of thermal expansion for the
austenitic steels (e.g. 1.4301 and 1.4401), and the lower thermal conductivities,
give rise to greater welding distortions, see Section 10.4.4 in the
Recommendations.
Cold working produces phase transformation (see C.3.2.2). These strain

induced phases are magnetic and thus cold worked austenitic stainless steels
generally have different magnetic properties from those in the annealed
condition. However, unless the application is critical, moderate amounts of
cold working may still provide adequate magnetic properties. Annealing has the
effect of reversing the phase transformation and thus restoring the non-magnetic
properties.
C.3.4 Effects of temperature

Other properties to be considered in elevated temperature applications include
creep strength, rupture strength, scaling resistance, etc. Useful information on
these and other properties may be found in References 5, 33 and 34.
15
Information for cryogenic applications may be found in References 5, 34 and
35.
C.3.5 Life cycle costing

Software for carrying out life cycle costing calculations, accompanied by a case
study and supplementary guidance is available36.
C.3.6 Selection of materials

C.3.6.1 Grades
Table 3.7 in the Recommendations is extracted from Reference 37, which also
considers other types of stainless steel. It is based on long term exposure of
stainless steel sheet samples at a variety of locations.
For environments other than atmospheric, it is advisable to seek the advice of a

corrosion engineer or obtain information from stainless steel producers.
Reference 38 gives some details of service experience obtained in the following
industries:
• Oil and gas industry;
• Food and beverage industry;
• Pharmaceutical industry;
• Power industry;
• Pulp and paper industry;
• Automotive industry;
• Shipping and aerospace industry.
C.3.6.2 Availability of product forms

Table C.3.4 and Table C.3.5 give the standard and special finishes available,
taken from EN 10088-27. Note that the availability and cost of the finishes
represented in Table C.3.5 may be considerably different from the ones in
Table C.3.4; see Section 10.6 of the Recommendations. Further guidance on
finishes is also available39,40.
When investigating product availability, it may be prudent to check delivery

times.
16
Table C.3.4 Type of process route and surface finish for sheet,
plate and strip: hot and cold rolled finishes1)
Abbreviation Type of Surface Notes
in process route finish
EN 10088-2
2)
1U Hot rolled, not Covered Suitable for products which are to be

heat treated, with the further worked, e.g. strip for rerolling
not descaled rolling
scale
1C Hot rolled, heat Covered Suitable for parts which will be descaled
treated, not with the or machined in subsequent production or
descaled rolling for certain heat-resisting applications.
scale
1E Hot rolled, heat Free of The type of mechanical descaling, e.g.
treated, scale coarse grinding or shot blasting, depends
mechanically on the steel grade and the product, and is
descaled left to the manufacturer’s discretion,
unless otherwise agreed.
1D Hot rolled, heat Free of Usually standard for most steel types to
treated, pickled scale ensure good corrosion resistance; also
common finish for further processing. It is
permissible for grinding marks to be
present. Not as smooth as 2D or 2B.
2H Work hardened Bright Cold worked to obtain higher strength
level.
2C Cold rolled, Smooth Suitable for parts which will be descaled
heat treated, with scale or machined in subsequent production or
not descaled from heat for certain heat-resisting applications.
treatment
2E Cold rolled, Rough and Usually applied to steels with a scale
heat treated, dull which is very resistant to pickling
mechanically solutions. May be followed by pickling.
descaled
2D Cold rolled, Smooth Finish for good ductility, but not as
heat treated, smooth as 2B or 2R.
pickled
2B Cold rolled, Smoother Most common finish for most steel types
heat treated, than 2D to ensure good corrosion resistance,
pickled, skin smoothness and flatness. Also common
passed finish for further processing. Skin passing
may be by tension levelling.
2R Cold rolled, Smooth, Smoother and brighter than 2B. Also
bright bright, common finish for further processing.
annealed3) reflective
2Q Cold rolled, Free of Either hardened and tempered in a
hardened and scale protective atmosphere or descaled after
tempered, scale heat treatment.
free
Notes:
1) Not all process routes and surface finishes are available for all steels
2) First digit, 1 = hot rolled, 2 = cold rolled
3) May be skin passed
17
Table C.3.5 Type of process route and surface finish for sheet, plate
and strip: special finishes1)
Abbreviation Type of Surface Notes
in process route finish
EN 10088-2
2)
4)
1G or 2G Ground Grade of grit or surface roughness can be
specified. Unidirectional texture, not very
reflective.
1J or 2J Brushed or dull Smoother Grade of brush or polishing belt or surface

polished than roughness can be specified. Unidirectional
ground.4) texture, not very reflective. Typically
specified for internal applications.
4)
1K or 2K Satin polish Additional specific requirements to a ‘J’
type finish, in order to achieve adequate
corrosion resistance for marine and
external architectural applications.
Transverse Ra < 0.5 μm with clean cut
surface finish. Typically specified for
external applications.
4)
1P or 2P Bright polished Mechanical polishing. Process or surface
roughness can be specified. Non-
directional finish, reflective with high
degree of image clarity.
2F Cold rolled, Uniform Heat treatment by bright annealing or by
heat treated, non- annealing and pickling.
skin passed on reflective
roughened rolls matt
surface
1M Design to Chequer plates used for floors
Patterned be agreed,
second
surface flat
2M Patterned Design to A fine texture finish mainly used for
be agreed, architectural applications
second
surface flat
2W Corrugated Design to Used to increase strength and/or for
be agreed cosmetic effect.
2L Coloured3) Colour to
be agreed
1S or 2S Surface Coated with e.g. tin, aluminium
coated3)
Notes:
1) Not all process routes and surface finishes are available for all steels
2) First digit, 1 = hot rolled, 2 = cold rolled
3) One surface only, unless specifically agreed at the time of enquiry and order
4) Within each finish description, the surface characteristics can vary, and more specific
requirements may need to be agreed between manufacturer and purchaser (e.g. grade of grit or
surface roughness)
18
C.3.7 Durability
C.3.7.1 Introduction
Although stainless steel will perform satisfactorily in the great majority of
applications, there are potential difficulties with corrosion mechanisms in
specific environments. It is the intention of Section 3.7 in the
Recommendations to bring to the designer an awareness of these mechanisms
and the possible pitfalls in the application of stainless steel, without being
unduly alarmist. Good design will avoid potential problems.
C.3.7.2 Types of corrosion

The corrosion resistance of stainless steel arises from a passive, chromium-rich,
oxide film that forms on the surface of the steel41,42. The film is strongly
adherent, usually self-repairing, and generally highly resistant to chemical
attack. If it is broken down and not repaired, corrosion will occur.
The presence of oxygen is essential to the corrosion resistance of a stainless

steel. The corrosion resistance is at its maximum when the steel is boldly
exposed and the surface is maintained free of deposits by a flowing bulk
environment (e.g. rainwater). Covering a portion of the surface, for example
by biofouling, painting, or installing a gasket, produces an oxygen-depleted
region under the covered region, and a higher level of alloy content is required
to prevent corrosion.
Molybdenum is used to increase the stability of the film and thus grades 1.4401
and 1.4404 exhibit greater corrosion resistance than grades 1.4301 and 1.4307.
Duplex 1.4462 is even better in terms of corrosion resistance.
General (uniform) corrosion

Passivity exists under certain conditions for particular environments. When
conditions are favourable for maintaining passivity, stainless steels exhibit
extremely low corrosion rates. If passivity is destroyed under certain conditions
that do not permit the restoration of the passive film (as may occur in strongly
acid or alkaline environments), stainless steel will corrode, much like a carbon
or low alloy steel.
The corrosion rate in chemical environments can be expressed as either mass

loss per unit surface area per unit time (normally g/m2h) or thickness loss per
unit time (normally mm/year). Iso-corrosion curves are available43 for
particular corrosive media that show constant rates of corrosion as a function of,
for example, temperature and concentration. It should be noted that these
curves can be significantly affected by impurities or additives in the medium.
Abrasive corrosion
Abrasive corrosion could occur, for instance, in flowing water containing
suspended particles such as in some rivers, coastal areas, etc.
Pitting corrosion
Pitting initiation is influenced by surface conditions, including the presence of
deposits, and by temperature. For a particular grade of stainless steel and a
given environment, tests show that pitting will not initiate below a certain
‘critical pitting temperature’ (CPT). This, however, is of limited use when
considering chloride-induced attack, as the corrosivity of a particular
concentration of chloride solution can be greatly affected by other chemical
19
species. Also, very commonly, the chloride solution may be locally
concentrated, such as occurs when evaporation takes place.
In short, for the types of environment for which this Design Manual was
prepared, resistance to pitting is best characterised by service experience44,45.
Crevice corrosion
A crevice will only present a corrosion hazard if it is wide enough to permit
entry of a liquid and sufficiently narrow to maintain a stagnant zone. For these
reasons crevice corrosion will usually only occur at openings a few tens of
microns or less in width and rarely within gaps that are several millimetres
wide. As with other types of corrosion, crevice corrosion cannot occur without
a liquid corrodant; if the liquid is excluded from the crevice no trouble will
occur.
It is therefore possible for some gaps, which may be defined as crevices, to be

relatively safe but a precise decision is not really possible without experience of
the situation involved and thus the general tendency is to recommend their
elimination. It may be possible to seal crevices (see 3.7.3, Design for corrosion
control).
As for pitting, a ‘critical crevice temperature’ similarly exists for this form of
corrosion and which is specific to the geometry and nature of the crevice and
the precise corrosion environment for each grade. Again, this can give a useful
guide to preliminary alloy selection in chemical environments.
Intergranular corrosion (sensitisation)

The fact that the selected grades do not generally become sensitised is beneficial
not only for intergranular corrosion but also for other forms of corrosion. This
is because the low carbon content limits the amount of chromium that is
precipitated out, leaving a relatively high amount in solution for imparting
corrosion resistance.
Where service temperatures of more than 425°C are required, consideration

should be given to the so-called stabilised grades. These grades, commonly
designated 1.4541 and 1.4571, have additions of titanium which preferentially
form carbide precipitates to chromium.
Bimetallic corrosion
Under certain circumstances, most metals can be vulnerable to this form of
corrosion46.
The severity of bimetallic corrosion depends on:

Potential difference
The greater the potential difference between the metals (or other materials), the
higher is the rate of corrosion. Figure C.3.10 shows the potentials of various
materials in seawater at 10°C to 25°C, flowing at 2,5 to 4m/s47.
Electrolyte
Increased conductivity of the electrolyte will raise the corrosion rate. Brackish
waters and seawaters are very conductive. Fresh water can also be very
conductive depending on the level of contaminants; rain can absorb atmospheric
pollutants and may become conductive. The period of exposure to the
electrolyte, including the effectiveness of drainage and evaporation and the
retention of moisture in crevices, is an important parameter.
20
Magnesium
Aluminium alloys
Low-carbon steel, cast iron
Low-alloy steel
90 Cu - 10 Ni
80Cu - 20 Ni
Stainlesss steel (1.4016)
70Cu - 30 Ni
Stainless steel
(Types 1.4301, 1.4541, 1.4550)
Stainless steel (1.4401)
Graphite
0,2 0 -0,2 -0,4 -0,6 -0,8 -1,0 -1,2 -1,4 -1,6
Potential E, (Volts) versus SCE
The black bars indicate potential in low velocity or poorly aerated water and in shielded areas
Figure C.3.10 Corrosion potentials of various materials in flowing

seawater; potentials are measured against saturated
calomel electrode (SCE)
Area relationship
The role of area relationship is discussed in the Recommendations.
Stress corrosion cracking

It is difficult to predict when stress corrosion cracking (SCC) may occur but
experience48,49 would suggest that it should certainly be considered for marine
and other environments contaminated by chloride ions, as these are known to
promote SCC.
As for other forms of corrosion the period of wetness (including that due to
condensation) can affect SCC, as does the concentration of the damaging species
(e.g. chloride). It should be noted that SCC can be caused by solutions having
initially low chloride concentrations, even as low as parts-per-million levels.
This is because the solution may become concentrated due to evaporation.
Relatively high amounts of δ-ferrite are required to effectively block the paths
of the cracks. Around 50% δ-ferrite content is the optimum amount50. This is
approximately the amount of δ-ferrite present in duplex 1.4462 which as a result
is much more resistant to SCC than the austenitic grades. Naturally, the
morphology and the distribution of the δ-ferrite, particularly at and within
weldments, must be carefully controlled to achieve such benefits. This calls for
adequate welding procedures to be utilised.
Detailed guidance on the use of stainless steel in swimming pool buildings,

taking due regard of the risk of SCC, was published in 199551, however, the
recommendations in this reference on grade selection are now superseded. A
guidance note on SCC of stainless steels in swimming pool buildings, including
preventative measures and inspection procedures, has also been published52.
21
Up-to-date guidance on grade selection is given in Reference 53 which aligns
with clause A.4.1(10) in the Informative Annex A to EN 1993-1-4.
C.3.7.3 Corrosion in selected environments

General guidance is given in this section of the Recommendations and no
further comment is given here.
C.3.7.4 Design for corrosion control

Many of the recommendations given in this section are simply a matter of good
engineering practice and also apply to the design of carbon steel structures.
However, they assume more importance with stainless steel structures.
Fabrication processes play an important part in corrosion resistance and

reference should also be made to Section 10 in the Recommendations.
22
C.4 PROPERTIES OF SECTIONS
C.4.1 General
Section 4 of the Recommendations is concerned with the local behaviour of
members; overall buckling is addressed in Section 5. For a member not subject
to overall buckling, e.g. a stub column, the resistance (strength capacity) is
solely dictated by local behaviour and therefore the provisions of Section 4 are
sufficient for its determination.
The local capacity of a member, i.e. the cross-sectional resistance, is dependent

on the resistances of the constituent elements that make up the cross-section.
Elements, and hence the cross-section, may be affected by certain structural
phenomena, such as local buckling and shear lag, which reduce their
effectiveness to carry load. As in the case of carbon steel rules, these
phenomena are catered for in the Recommendations by the use of effective
widths.
In deriving the First Edition of the Design Manual in Section 4, carbon steel
codes2,54,55, stainless steel codes23 and experimental data for stainless steel
members have been consulted. When revising the Recommendations for the
Second Edition, further test data were available, generated in the Development
of the use of stainless steel in construction project56. In addition, the ENVs for
cold formed carbon steel, fire resistant design, stainless steel and plated
structures were also used57,58,59,60. When revising the Recommendations for the
Third Edition, new test data were available from the Structural design of cold
worked austenitic stainless steel project22 as well as the following parts of
Eurocode 3: EN 1993-1-12, -261, -362, -43, -563, -864, -965 and -1266.
C.4.2 Maximum width-to-thickness ratios

Limiting width-to-thickness ratios are provided for various types of elements.
Limits are placed not so much that thinner sheets cannot be used but because the
rules may become inaccurate. The ratios have been set as the smaller of the
limiting values given in EN 1993-1-3 for cold formed, thin gauge carbon steel
and the American cold formed stainless steel specification23.
It can be argued that at the low stresses associated with the high slendernesses,
carbon and stainless steel elements should behave very similarly and thus justify
the use of the greater ratios of EN 1993-1-3 for all stainless steel elements. It
is, however, considered prudent to use the values in Reference 23, where they
are more limiting, due to the paucity of data relating to stainless steel and the
fact that experience has already been gained with these values in a previous
version of the American provisions.
The note concerning b/t ratios and visual distortion is based on Reference 23
and the b/t values are derived from the critical stress in the flange elements.
23
C.4.3 Classification of cross-sections
C.4.3.1 General
The classification of cross-sections according to their ability to resist local
buckling and to sustain load with deformation has proved a useful concept for
the design of carbon steel members and indeed for members of other metals
(e.g. Ref. 67). Classification is usually defined in terms of a cross-section’s
moment capacity, i.e. whether it can reach the plastic moment (with and without
rotation capacity), the elastic moment, or a lower value due to the onset of
buckling.
As the definition of yield strength of non-linear materials is rather arbitrary, so

are the definitions of yield and plastic moments for members composed of such
materials. The obvious definitions to apply are the elastic and plastic section
moduli multiplied by a proof stress, conventionally defined as the stress giving a
0,2% permanent strain. This is discussed further in C.4.7.
The cross-section’s moment capacity is a function of the behaviour of the

elements that constitute the cross-section.
Table 4.2 gives limiting width-to-thickness ratios for the classification of

elements according to their type. The limiting ratios for Class 3 elements given
in the table are derived from experimental stainless steel data whereas the
limiting ratios for Classes 1 and 2 have been derived by making reference to
other data and applying engineering argument.
In Table 4.2, the Class 3 limiting ratios for elements under pure compression
are found when the reduction factor ρ in Section 4.4.1 is set equal to unity.
Thus, for an internal element such as a web (for which the buckling factor
kσ = 4):
0,772 0,125 d / tw d / tw
ρ= − = 1 and λ p = =
λp
2
λp 28,4ε kσ 56,8ε
which solves to give d/tw = 30,7 ε
The Class 3 limiting ratios for outstand elements under compression are
similarly derived. The Class 3 limiting ratios for elements in bending, or
bending and compression, are inferred from the pure compression values by
using the buckling factor kσ. For example, for the web element considered
above in pure bending, kσ = 23,9 and therefore the limiting ratio is calculated
as:
d/tw = 30,7ε × 23,9 / 4 = 75,0 ε

(A minor adjustment has been made in Table 4.2, in which the value is shown
as 74,8, to remove inconsistencies arising from rounding errors in the factors
given for combined bending and compression.)
The use of the buckling factor in the above manner, for deriving limiting width-
to-thickness ratios for elements subject to a degree of bending, removes
anomalies present in carbon steel codes (e.g. Refs. 2 and 54). These relate to
the existence of vertical cut-offs in the design curve of the reduction factor, ρ
for bending elements in the carbon steel codes. In effect, the limiting ratios are
increased in the carbon steel codes when bending is present. A similar increase
24
may, in fact, also be applicable to stainless steel elements in bending, but there
are no available data to support or to quantify this.
There are insufficient data to establish experimentally the Class 1 and Class 2
limiting ratios for stainless steel. However, numerical and experimental
studies68,69,70 on element load/end-shortening behaviour confirm that strain
hardening materials exhibit longer plateaus and less steep unloading
characteristics than non-hardening materials such as carbon steel.
Thus, if a carbon steel element may be classified as a Class 1 element, then a

stainless steel element of the same slenderness will have at least as great a
deformation capacity and likewise be classified as Class 1. It may be noted that
with lower Class 3 limits, but with the same Class 1 limits, a smaller range
between Class 1 and 3 exists for stainless steel than for carbon steel. There
even exists the possibility that Classes 1 and 2 could collapse to a single class
for stainless steel, though this potential simplification is left for future research.
In the absence of suitable data, a prudent approach has been taken in defining
the Class 1 and 2 limits for stainless steel. Starting with outstand elements, the
Class 1 limits for compression are the same as given for carbon steel in EN-
1993-1-1. The Class 2 limits are set in the same proportions between the
Class 1 and Class 3 limits that apply to carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1. For
internal elements in compression, the Class 1 limits for carbon steel are already
higher than those for Class 3 stainless steel elements. This is evidence for the
collapse of classes for strain hardening materials referred to above. For these
elements, therefore, the Class 1 and Class 2 limits for stainless steel were
derived using the same proportions pertaining to outstand elements in
compression.
The Class 1 and 2 limits in bending were established from the compression
limits by applying the same factors that relate the carbon steel limits in EN
1993-1-1 to each other. Finally, for Class 1 and 2 stainless steel elements
under combined bending and compression, suitable interaction formulae were
established having the same form (linear, reciprocal functions, etc) as used in
EN 1993-1-1 for carbon steel.
Since there is no sharply defined yield point, placing cross-sections into discrete
behavioural classes is less appropriate for stainless steel than it is for carbon
steel. Gardner17 has proposed a continuous method of cross-section
classification and member design: using a more appropriate material model,
member strengths are assessed using a local buckling strength derived from the
deformation capacity of the cross-section. It can be viewed as a continuous
method of section classification and member design.
C.4.3.2 Classification limits for parts of cross-sections

The classification limits in the Design Manual have been verified against all
available experimental results to ensure safe design. These include both stub
column tests, by means of which the limits for Class 3 parts (internal, outstand,
CHS, angles) under pure compression are verified, and in-plane bending tests,
by means of which the actual limits for elastic (Class 3) and plastic (Class 2)
moment resistance are compared to the ones in the present guidance. For both
stub column and in-plane bending tests, the ultimate resistance normalised by
the relevant theoretical resistance is plotted against the slenderness of the most
slender element of the cross-section. The relevant class limit is also depicted in
the graphs.
25
The aforementioned experiments and the accompanying graphs are described
below:
Internal elements (stub column tests)

Seven sources of data exist for internal elements under pure compression (see
Figure C.4.1). These include SHS, RHS, lipped channel sections and H-shaped
sections.
Two 80×80×3 SHS stub column tests were reported by Rasmussen and
Hancock102.
Kuwamura71 tested twelve SHS, sixteen H-shaped sections and eight lipped
channel sections in 3 mm nominal thickness and grades 1.4301 and 1.4318
material. Four more tests on lipped channel section stub columns in 1 mm
nominal thickness and grade 1.4301 were also reported. The SHS were cold-
formed and laser welded ranging from 50×50 to 200×200, the H-shaped
sections were fabricated by laser or TIG welding of individual plate elements
ranging from 50×50 to 200×150 and the lipped channel sections were press-
braked ranging from 100×50×20 to 200×75×25.
Gardner and Nethercot17, 72 reported seventeen SHS (80×80 to 150×150) and

sixteen RHS (60×40 to 150×100) stub column tests in 2-8 mm nominal
thickness and grade 1.4301 material. Talja and Salmi73 reported three stub
column tests (60×60×5, 150×100×3 and 150×100×6) in grade 1.4301.
Young and Liu74 tested four 70×70 SHS in 2 and 5 mm thickness and eight
roll-formed RHS (120×40 and 120×80) in 2-6 mm thickness. All specimens
were in grade 1.4301 material. Young and Lui75 reported six SHS stub column
tests in 1.5-6 mm thickness and 1.4301 and duplex material grades. The
sections tested range from 40×40×2 to 150×150×6. Two RHS (140×80×3
and 160×80×3) in duplex and one 200×110×4 in grade 1.4301 were also
reported.
Recent test results reported by Gardner, Talja and Baddoo76 include four SHS
(80×80 and 100×100) and four RHS (120×80 and 140×60) stub columns in 3
mm thickness and grade 1.4318 (in either annealed or cold-worked condition).
26
2.0
SHS
Fu/Aσ0.2 1.8
RHS
1.6 class3 limit
1.4 lipped channels (web)
H (web)
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
c/tε
Figure C.4.1 Experimental resistance over squash load vs. web width
to thickness ratio
Outstand elements (stub column tests)

The relevant stub column test data plotted in Figure C.4.2 include eight of the
total sixteen H-shaped section tests conducted by Kuwamura71 (described above)
and eleven tests on channel sections in 3 mm thickness and grades 1.4301 and
1.4318 material. The sections range from 50×25×3 to 150×50×3 as reported
in reference 7071.
1.8
channels
Fu/Aσ0.21.6
H (flanges)
1.4
class3 limit
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
c/tε
Figure C.4.2 Experimental resistance over squash load vs. flange

width to thickness ratio
Angles (stub column tests)

Twelve angle specimens in grades 1.4301 and 1.4318 ranging from 25×25×3
to 60×60×3 were tested by Kuwamura71. Since the class 3 limit for equal
angles in pure compression is stricter than the respective limit for outstand
elements the relevant angle stub column results are depicted separately in Figure
C.4.3.
27
1.8
Fu/Aσ0.2 angles
1.6
class3 limit
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
c/tε
Figure C.4.3 Experimental resistance over squash load vs. angle leg
width to thickness ratio
CHS (stub column tests)

Four researchers have reported tests on CHS stub columns. Rasmussen and
Hancock102 tested two CHS 101.6×2.85 stub columns in grade 1.4301.
Kawamura71 tested ten CHS specimens in grades 1.4301 and 1.4318 ranging
form 49×1.5 to 166×1.5. Young and Hartono77 tested four CHS stub columns
in 1.4301 material ranging from 89×2.78 to 322.8×4.32. Gardner17 reported
four CHS tests in 1.5 mm thickness and grade 1.4301. The diameters examined
were 103 and 153 mm. The results are depicted in Figure C.4.4.
1.4
Fu/Aσ0.2
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
Young and Hartono
0.4 Rasmussen and Hancock
Gardner
0.2 Kuwamura
class 3 limit
0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
c/tε
Figure C.4.4 Experimental resistance over squash load vs. CHS

diameter to thickness ratio
CHS (bending tests)

Chryssanthopoulos and Kiymaz78 reported eight bending tests on stainless steel
CHS, four of which were grade 1.4301 and the remaining four were duplex
grade. The specimens ranged from 103×1.5 to 219.1×3.76 and failed
predominantly by local buckling or combined yielding and buckling, with the
exception of the 219.1×2.5 specimen which failed underneath the loading
28
collars as a result of bearing. Talja91 conducted three CHS bending tests. The
CHS 140×4 was grade 1.4541, whilst the CHS 140×3 and CHS 140×2 were
1.4435. Rasmussen and Hancock102 reported one CHS 101.6×2.85 test in
grade 1.4301. All specimens were subjected to 4 point-bending. The reported
failure moments normalised by the plastic moment resistance and elastic
moment resistance versus the diameter to thickness ratio are depicted in Figure
C.4.5 and Figure C.4.6 respectively.
1.4
Mu/Mpl
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
Kiymaz
0.4 class 2 limit
Kiymaz (failiure at bearing)
0.2 Talja
Rasmussen and Hancock
0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
d/tε2
Figure C.4.5 Experimental moment resistance over plastic moment

resistance vs. CHS diameter to thickness ratio
1.6
Mu/Mel
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
Kiymaz
0.6 class 3 limit
0.4 Kiymaz (failiure at bearing)
0.2 Talja
0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
d/tε2
Figure C.4.6 Experimental moment resistance over elastic moment

29
Internal elements (bending tests)
Six series of tests on beams comprising internal elements exist, including both
SHS and RHS. Real113 reported two SHS 80×80×3 and two RHS 120×80×4
simply supported bending tests in grade 1.4301. Three SHS 60×60×5, three
RHS 150x100x3 and three RHS 150×100×6 in grade 1.4301 bending tests
were reported by Talja and Salmi.73 Gardner17 reported five SHS (80×80 to
100×100) and four RHS (60×40 to 100×50) in-plane bending tests in 2-8 mm
nominal thickness and grade 1.4301 material. Zhou and Young79 reported eight
SHS bending tests (from 40×40 to 150×150) in 1.5-6 mm thickness and seven
RHS bending tests (100×50×2 to 200x110x4). All specimens were in 1.4301
and duplex grades. Gardner, Talja and Baddoo76 tested two SHS 100×100×3
and four RHS beams (120×80×3 and 140×60×3) in grade 1.4318 (both
annealed and cold-worked condition). One SHS 80×80×3 beam test reported
by Rasmussen and Hancock102 is also included in Figure C.4.7 and Figure
C.4.8, the first depicting test moment normalised by plastic moment and the
second by the elastic moment versus flange width to thickness ratio.
2.0
Mu/Mpl RHS
SHS
1.5
class 2 limit
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
c/tε

resistance vs. flange width to thickness ratio
2.5
Mu/Mel RHS
2.0 SHS
class 3 limit
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
c/tε
Figure C.4.8 Experimental moment resistance over elastic moment

resistance vs. flange width to thickness ratio
30
Outstand elements (bending tests)
Two test series comprising a total of six I-section in-plane bending tests have
been reported. The specimens were subjected to four-point bending and were
short enough not to be susceptible to lateral torsional buckling. Talja91, 80
conducted experiments on three I-sections (160×80, 160×160 and 320×160)
with 10 mm flange and 6 mm web thickness in grade 1.4301 and one 160×160
with 10 mm flange and 7 mm web thickness in grade 1.4462. Real113 reported
two tests on I 100×100 beams in 8 mm thickness. The experimental ultimate
moments normalised by the plastic moment are plotted against the flange width
to thickness ratio in Figure C.4.9. The Class 2 and Class 3 limits for outstand
elements are also depicted.
1.4
Mu/Mpl
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4 Talja
Real
0.2 class 2 limit
class 3 limit
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
c/tε

As shown in Figure C.4.1 to Figure C.4.9, the design rules for cross-sectional
classification are safe for the vast majority of the reported experimental results.
All of the stub column sections consisting of flat parts classified as Class 3 or
above easily surpass the squash load, as did some sections classified as Class 4.
This is largely due to the effect of the cold-worked corners which have a greater
proof stress than the flat parts of the cross-sections and to the effect of strain-
hardening. Both enhanced corner properties and strain-hardening are not
explicitly accounted for in the design procedure. Ashraf, Gardner and
Nethercot24 proposed simplified formulae to account for the enhanced corner
properties. Only two CHS stub column classified as Class 1-3 did not reach the
theoretical squash load. The absence of corners in these cross-sections partly
explains the moderate underestimations (and the two specimens failing
prematurely) in the cross-sectional resistance, compared to the rest of the stub
columns (with corner properties), for which the guidance is more conservative.
The in-plane bending tests demonstrate the significant moment resistance of

stainless steel beams due to strain hardening. All of the specimens performed
better than expected. Even some Class 4 specimens surpassed the plastic
moment resistance. Again the specimens including corner regions (SHS and
RHS sections) displayed an enhanced resistance, sometimes surpassing the
plastic moment by more than 50%. All of the SHS and RHS classified as Class
2 surpassed the Mpl by at least 20%. The I-sections and CHS performance is
closer to the predicted one.
31
C.4.4 Effective widths
C.4.4.1 Effective widths of elements in Class 4 cross-sections
The use of effective widths and effective cross-sections is well established for
the structural design of Class 4 cross-sections. The concept is illustrated in
Figure C.4.10 for an internal element under pure compression. In general,
rules are required for calculating both the magnitude of the effective width as a
function of element slenderness and stress distribution, and on how the effective
width is distributed over the element. For the simple case in Figure C.4.10, the
effective width is distributed as two equal zones, located at each unloaded edge
of the element. Tables 4.3 and 4.4 give distribution rules for other cases and
are the same as those used in EN 1993-1-5.
Simplified
Actual stress equivalent
distribution stresses
beff /2
beff /2
fy ≈b ≈b fy fy
Figure C.4.10 The effective width concept
The effective width is normally found by applying a reduction factor, ρ, to the

full width. An examination of the reduction factor given by Winter81 for carbon
steels and the American stainless steel code23 has found it unsatisfactory for use
with stainless steel. Rather, three separate expressions have been derived for
various types of elements (cold formed or welded; internal; or outstand) by
fitting characteristic curves to experimental data.
a b
The curves are expressed in the form ρ = − where a and b are
2
λp λp
constants and λp is a non-dimensional plate slenderness in order to resemble the
corresponding expression in EN 1993-1-5.
The λp parameter has been proven numerically, as well as experimentally, to

be suitable for (non strain hardening) carbon steel elements. It is not strictly
accurate for strain hardening materials where the ‘yield’ strength is given in
terms of an offset proof strength (as used throughout this Design Manual);
rather a secant proof strength should be used69. However, it has been shown82
that the offset proof strength gives sufficiently accurate results for design
purposes, even for materials having a wide range of E values and yield
strengths. In particular, Reference 83 describes one series of tests on
magnesium, aluminium and stainless steel alloys with 0,2% proof strengths
ranging from 184 to 1340 N/mm2; the results are closely banded with λp based
on the 0,2% proof strength.
The recommended curves, and their experimental basis, are described below:
Cold formed elements - Internal elements

Two sources of data exist for cold formed internal elements. Johnson and
Winter84 tested ten flexural hat members in grade 1.4301 material. Only four
32
tests were reported in sufficient detail to allow the effective widths to be
assessed. The sheet thicknesses used for these four tests were 0,78 and
1,25 mm. In Figure C.4.11 only the effective widths at the maximum applied
loads are shown; these are not necessarily the ultimate loads. Nine internal
element tests were carried out by Wang and Winter85 of which seven tests were
for members in flexure and two for members in compression. Beam materials
included grade 1.4310 (formerly known as grade 301) (½ hard) in thicknesses
0,83 to 1,6 mm and grade 1.4301 of thickness 0,8 mm. Column materials were
grade 1.4310 (½ hard) in thicknesses 8,2 mm and 15,7 mm. It may be noted
that the 1.4310 (½ hard) grade had pronounced anisotropy. The results shown
in Figure C.4.11 include sub-ultimate values found by substituting the yield
strength in λp by the measured edge stress. Superimposed on the experimental
data are the carbon steel curve from EN 1993-1-5 and the recommended curve
for stainless steel given by Equation 4.1a in the Recommendations. The
inclusion of the elastic data shows that the recommended curve is valid for
subcritical stresses.
1,2
ρ 1,0
Johnson and Winter
0,8
0,6
Carbon steel
(EN1993-1-5)
0,4
0,2
Stainless steel
(Euro Inox Design Manual,
Eqn. 4.1a)
0,0
0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0
λp
Figure C.4.11 Reduction factor versus plate slenderness for cold
formed internal elements
Cold formed elements - Outstand elements

Johnson and Winter86 tested sixteen columns, each comprising two channels,
glued back-to-back, brake pressed from 1.4301 material nominally 0,9mm thick.
Wang and Winter85 carried out four tests on similar columns but in nominally
0,83mm thick 1.4310 (½ hard) material. The results, again including sub-
ultimate values, are shown in Figure C.4.12. A design curve for stainless steel
lying very close to the EN 1993-1-5 curve for carbon steel is recommended.
33
1,2
ρ 1,0 Wang and Winter

Johnson and Winter
0,8
Carbon steel
(EN 1993-1-5)
0,6
0,4
Stainless steel
0,2 (Euro Inox Design Manual,
Eqn. 4.1b)
0,0
0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0
λp
Figure C.4.12 Reduction factor versus plate slenderness for cold
formed outstand elements
Welded elements
Only one series of tests is known in which local buckling of welded stainless
steel elements is considered87. Twenty four stub columns, with various
permutations of flange and web slendernesses, were fabricated in 1.4301 type
materials of 2 and 3 mm thicknesses. It is not possible to evaluate how the load
is shared between the flanges and web in any one test but it may be assumed
that it is in the same ratio that is calculated from a design line, say the EN
1993-1-5 curve for carbon steel. For an individual test this does not yield any
further useful information but when several results are processed, involving
specimens of various combinations of flange and web slendernesses, a pattern
emerges. It is particularly useful when the average value of the inferred
reduction factors pertaining to each web or flange slenderness is considered.
The results obtained with this procedure, more fully detailed in Reference 88,
are shown in Figure C.4.13.
34
1,2
Stainless steel
welded outstand Yamada et al
ρ 1,0 (Euro Inox Design Manual, Flange
Eqn. 4.1c)
Web
0,8
Carbon steel
(EN1993-1-5)
0,6
0,4
Stainless steel
welded internal
0,2 (Euro Inox Design Manual,
Eqn. 4.1a)
0,0
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0
λp
Figure C.4.13 Reduction factor versus plate slenderness for welded
elements
Superimposed on the figure are: (a) the EN 1993-1-5 design curve for carbon
steel elements, (b) the recommended stainless steel internal element curve
discussed above for cold formed elements, which is to be compared with the
web data, and (c) the recommended curve for welded stainless steel outstands,
which is to be compared with the flange data. It is seen that the recommended
internal element curve appears satisfactory for both cold formed and welded
elements. However, the data supports that cold formed and welded outstands
should be treated differently. This is partially recognised for carbon steel
outstands where different Class 3 limits are given in EN 1993-1-1, i.e. different
vertical cut-off lines are used, though only one design curve is applied.
The results from the stub column tests described in C.4.3.2 are utilized to
verify that the design curves for the effective width of Class 4 elements are
safe. All stub columns with one flat part (or symmetric flat parts) classified as
Class 4, are used to derive the actual width reduction factor for the Class 4
element which is plotted against the relevant plate slenderness. For consistency
with the guidance in the Design Manual, the enhanced strength of the corner
regions and the strain-hardening behaviour of the material are ignored, i.e. the
corners are assumed to have the same proof stress as the flat plate elements, the
fully effective parts of the cross-sections are assumed to be stressed up to the
proof stress and the Class 4 parts are assumed to carry more load than they
really do. These assumptions are not conservative for stocky elements, but will
be more accurate for the slender sections, since the slender elements buckle
below the 0.2% proof stress. Since the corner properties and the strain-
hardening material behaviour are not explicitly accounted for in design, the
described approach is considered adequate for slender plate elements. The
effective width factor ρ is plotted against element slenderness λ p in Figure
C.4.14 and Figure C.4.15 for internal and outstand parts respectively.
35
p 1.8
ρ
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6 I (webs)
0.4 theoretical-internal
SHS
0.2 lipped channel webs
RHS webs
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
λpp
Figure C.4.14 Reduction factor versus non-dimensional plate

slenderness for internal elements
1.6
ρ
p
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6 angles
0.4 I (flanges)
theoretical-cold-formed outstands
0.2 theoretical-welded outstands
class 4 channels
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
λpp
λ
Figure C.4.15 Reduction factor versus non-dimensional plate
slenderness for outstand elements
The design curves in the Design Manual are safe for the vast majority of the
experimental results considered.
C.4.4.2 Effects of shear lag

Shear lag is a phenomenon that has been widely studied in the context of
aeronautical, ship and bridge structures89. Rather fewer studies have examined
the problem of interaction effects between shear lag and local buckling.
Although no work is known which specifically looks at the effects of strain
hardening on shear lag behaviour, studies on elements under combined shear
and compression68,90 would suggest that no significant difference exists between
hardening and non-hardening materials.
The guidance in EN 1993-1-5 is considered applicable to stainless steel.
36
C.4.4.3 Flange curling
When a beam is subject to bending, the out-of-plane stress components arising
from flange curvature deflect those parts of the flange remote from the web
towards the neutral axis. This gives rise to flange curling as illustrated in
Figure C.4.16. It only becomes significant for unusually wide thin flanges or
where the appearance of the section is important.
N A
Figure C.4.16 Deformations in flange curling
The guidance in EN 1993-1-3 is considered applicable to stainless steel.
C.4.5 Stiffened elements

Guidance is given to ensure that edge stiffeners are adequate if a flange is to be
treated as an internal element, see Figure C.4.17.
Buckled shape P Buckled shape P
ge edg
e
te d ed rted
por p o
Su p Sup
P P Junction does not

Junction remains
straight remain straight
Adequate lip Inadequate lip
Figure C.4.17 Adequate and inadequate lips
Talja91 carried out single span tests on three different stainless steel trapezoidal
sheeting profiles (unstiffened, one stiffener in the flanges, one stiffener in the
flanges and two in the webs). The mean value of the plate thickness was
0,61 mm. The bending resistance of the sheeting was determined under gravity
loading and uplift. Further tests were subsequently carried out on profiles of
thickness 0,5 and 0,8 mm92. The test results were compared with the
resistances predicted by EN 1993-1-3; good agreement was found, so it was
concluded that the guidance for carbon steel is applicable to stainless steel. The
guidance in Section 4.5.3 is taken from EN 1993-1-3. Note that the effective
width formulae for stainless steel given in Section 4.4.1 should be used when
assessing the effectiveness of stiffeners.
Test programmes on stiffened and unstiffened trapezoidal profiles made from

cold worked stainless steel confirmed the applicability of these recommendations
for cold worked material up to strength level CP500 (C850)22.
C.4.6 Calculation of section properties

Cross section properties are used to calculate member slendernesses for overall
buckling; net areas are used for local tensile strength; and the effective section
is used for local and member buckling resistance of Class 4 cross-sections.
Being material independent, the geometric properties of a stainless steel section

may be calculated by the same formulae as used for carbon steel members.
Nevertheless, when considering thin gauge cold formed sections, some formulae
and techniques may be unfamiliar, due to the nature of these products. This
37
particularly applies to linear methods of calculation (in which the properties of
line elements are multiplied by the sheet thickness to derive cross-section
properties), and to the calculation of the warping constant. For the former, a
good source of information is the AISI cold formed specification93 and, for the
latter, standard texts (e.g. Reference 94) may be consulted.
The simplifications given in the Recommendations for ignoring or

approximating the rounding of corners are as given in EN 1993-1-3.
The recommendations given in Section 4.6.4 for calculating the net area follow
those given in EN 1993-1-1.
C.4.7 Resistance of cross-sections

The resistance of a cross-section under various forces and moments, as given in
4.7.2 to 4.7.6 inclusive, is limited either by plasticity or local buckling. The
formulae are generally based on EN 1993-1-1 and follow common sense.
For cross-sections in bending, the appropriate second moment of area (Wpl, Wel
or Weff) must be taken for the neutral axis about which the moment acts.
Class 4 cross-sections which are not doubly symmetric will, under external
compression, experience a shift in the neutral axis giving rise to a secondary
moment. These sections should thus be assessed using the provisions of 4.7.6.
The shift in the neutral axis depends on the effective widths, which themselves
depend on the assumed stress distribution across the cross-section. To avoid
undue iteration, the provisions in Section 4.4.1 should be used; these are based
on studies carried out for carbon steel members95.
The expression for the ultimate resistance of the net cross-section at holes for
fasteners contains a new parameter, kr, which is discussed in Section C.6.2.3.
The potential benefits of taking the strain hardening properties of stainless steel
into consideration are recognised in 4.7.7.
It has already been noted in the commentary to Section 4.3 that the proof stress
is conventionally defined. For structural purposes, the 0,2% proof stress is
normally used, whereas the 1% proof stress is favoured for pressure vessels;
pressure vessels do not usually suffer from instability and changes in overall
diameter are acceptable. Therefore, if a structure is not subject to instability
and deformations are not critical, larger proof stresses than the 0,2% value
should be permissible. The difficulty is to define to what degree strain
hardening can be utilised. For extremely stocky members, this could be high
but a lack of suitable data does not permit precise guidance to be given.
For the First Edition of the Design Manual, a limit of 1,2 times the 0,2% proof
stress for the design strength was suggested. This was based on the results of
the beam tests carried out for the First Edition of the Design Manual96. In these
tests, Class 3 and Class 4 cold formed and welded beams exceeded the
enhanced plastic moment (1,2 f0.2 Wpl). The fact that the Class 3 and even the
Class 4 cross-sections exceeded Mp is a reflection of the variability of test data.
The results, shown in Figure C.4.18, also support the suspicions concerning the
collapse of classes mentioned in C.4.3. It should be noted that for the
particular material (6,3 mm thick 1.4404), 1.2 times the 0,2% proof stress
corresponds approximately to the 1% proof stress. Thus, large deformations
should be expected where enhanced strength is to be taken. The limit of 1,2
times the proof strength in Section 4.7.7 was removed in the Second Edition of
38
the Design Manual, on the basis that it was unnecessarily conservative for
certain situations.
Enhanced strength should not be used for long term loading, because of creep
considerations.
1,4
M/M p
1,2
B
(1,1)
1,0 Spec B
h BB1 122
0,8 BB2 132
BB3 162
0,6 B
FB1 122
0,4 FB2 132
h
All specimens
0,2 h = 187 mm t = 6,28 mm
f y = 299 N/mm²
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
δ/δ p
Figure C.4.18 Moment/deflection response of tested beams
39
C.5 MEMBER DESIGN
C.5.1 Introduction
No matter what the material of the member, a structural member essentially
supports loads much in the same manner (e.g. by flexure or strut action). It is
therefore perhaps a rather obvious statement that similar checks have to be
carried out for stainless steel members as those for members in carbon steel.
However, the designer should be aware of possible differences in design
behaviour, such as second order effects or overall frame stability that are not
covered in this Design Manual, but may be found in some carbon steel
structural codes2.
Elastic global analysis is recommended for establishing forces and moments in

members. Although in principle plastic global analysis could be used, there are
presently certain difficulties to be addressed in design. These difficulties are
associated with the strain hardening properties of stainless steel and in particular
the moment-rotation characteristic of a stainless steel beam likewise displaying
hardening behaviour. In the formation of a plastic mechanism, plastic hinges
are required to undergo various degrees of rotation. Thus, where strain
hardening occurs, the moments at the hinges will be above the nominal plastic
moment (plastic modulus multiplied by the 0,2% proof stress) by amounts
depending on the degrees of rotation. Therefore the calculation of the
distribution of moments around a frame would involve kinematic considerations.
With further study, it may be possible to enable bounds to be put on the
additional moments (above the nominal plastic moment) to circumvent these
analytical difficulties. Connections would have to resist the enhanced moment.
Alternatively, it may be possible to show that connections can provide the
required rotation to realise the mechanism.
In considering instability caused by member buckling, reference is made to the

tangent modulus approach. This approach is adopted by the American code for
cold formed stainless steel23. The approach is based on replacing Young’s
modulus (in carbon steel buckling provisions) by the tangent modulus Et
corresponding to the buckling stress in the stainless steel member. Since Et
varies with stress and the buckling stress is a function of Et, the approach
generally requires iterations to find the solution.
In some of the recommendations given in this Design Manual, an effective

design curve was derived by the tangent modulus approach, the necessary
iterations having already been carried out for the designer. The derivation can
be best demonstrated by way of an example.
Suppose it is required to find the stainless steel curve corresponding to the Euler
buckling curve for carbon steel columns. For carbon steel (and any linear
elastic material), the limiting stress flim is given by:
⎛ l ⎞
f lim = π 2 E ⎜ 2 ⎟
⎝i ⎠
40
Defining non-dimensional parameters:
f lim l/i fy
χ= and λ =
fy π E
gives the limiting (Euler) curve, expressed as:
1
χ=
λ2
For stainless steel, E is replaced by the tangent modulus Et:
⎛ l ⎞
f lim = π 2 Et ⎜ 2 ⎟
⎝i ⎠
Using the Ramberg-Osgood relationship for describing the stress-strain curve
n
f ⎛ f ⎞
ε = + 0,002⎜ ⎟
E ⎜ fy ⎟
⎝ ⎠
the tangent modulus can be derived as
n −1 ⎤ −1
⎡
df ⎢ 1 0,002 n ⎛⎜ f ⎞⎟ ⎥
Et = = +
dε ⎢ E f y ⎜⎝ f y ⎟⎠ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
and therefore
⎡ n −1 ⎤ −1
Et ⎢ nE ⎛ f ⎞
= 1 + 0,002 ⎜ ⎟ ⎥
E ⎢ fy ⎜ fy ⎟ ⎥
⎣ ⎝ ⎠ ⎦
1 ⎛ Et ⎞
But, at buckling f = flim , (flim /fy) = χ and χ = ⎜ ⎟ so
λ2⎝ E ⎠
−1
1 ⎡ nE ⎤
χ = 2 ⎢1 + 0,002 χ n −1 ⎥
λ ⎢⎣ fy ⎥⎦
In general, to solve χ = function (λ ) , an iterative approach is required since χ
appears on both sides. However, on rearrangement:
−1 / 2
⎡ nE ⎤
λ = ⎢ χ + 0,002 χ n ⎥
⎣⎢ fy ⎦⎥
From this equation, a family of curves can be generated for each value of n
depending on the ratio of E/fy. Some example curves are compared with the
original Euler curve for carbon steel in Figure C.5.1. All the designer has to
do now is to calculate λ using the initial modulus value (the modulus of
elasticity within the limit of proportionality) and then find χ directly using the
appropriate curve.
41
1,2 Euler curve
1,0
E Y
Limit for carbon steel columns
χ = f /f
0,8 n = 15
E = 200 kN/mm²
0,6 f y = 200 N/mm²
f y = 500 N/mm²
n=5
0,4
0,2
0
0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0
λ = l/i f y
π E
Figure C.5.1 Effective ‘design’ curves for Euler column buckling in
stainless steel
As can be seen the curves with the lower n value, which implies a lower limit
of proportionality, diverge from the carbon steel curve at lower stresses than do
the curves associated with the higher n value. However, at stresses above
0,9 fy, the curves with low n value lie above those of high n; this follows from
the fact that the tangent modulus of the low n material is greater than that of the
high n material in this stress range. It may be noted that a carbon steel stress-
strain curve may be closely approximated by very high n values (say > 30), in
which case the design curve departs from the Euler curve and becomes a
horizontal plateau at χ=1,0.
Although the above technique has been occasionally used to derive effective
design curves, greater credence has been attached to establishing the
recommended curves with available experimental data. For instance, it is
known that the Euler curve discussed above is a poor representation of the true
strength of columns within the practical slenderness range because of the
influence of factors including initial out-of straightness, eccentricity of loading
and residual stresses.
The last paragraph in Section 5.1 states that the design recommendations should
not be applied to members having cross-sections not possessing any axis of
symmetry. Carbon steel codes are similarly restricted.
C.5.2 Tension members

In general, tension members and their connections should be detailed such that
the applied load acts along the member’s centroidal axis. This is not always
possible and the eccentric load will induce bending, which should be allowed
for by reference to 4.7.6.
However, in the case of angles, recommendations are given for simple design,
ignoring the moments due to eccentricity, using a modified expression for the
ultimate tensile resistance in Section 6.2.3.
42
C.5.3 Compression members
C.5.3.1 General
The various forms of buckling listed in the Recommendations are in common
with those pertinent to carbon steel columns. Indeed, the behaviour of stainless
steel columns and carbon steel columns can be expected to be broadly similar,
differing only in quantitative aspects. It may be helpful to consider how the
non-linear stress-strain curve of stainless steel affects the comparison between
the buckling strengths of similar stainless steel and carbon steel columns and
members in general. There are three distinct regions of slenderness:
(a) At high slendernesses, i.e. when the axial strength is low, stresses in the
stainless steel member are sufficiently low so that they fall in the linear part of
the stress-strain curve. In this range, little difference would be expected
between the strengths of stainless and carbon steel members assuming similar
levels of geometric and residual stress imperfections. The limiting slenderness
beyond which similar behaviour can be expected depends on the limit of
proportionality and hence the n factor in the Ramberg-Osgood representation of
the stress-strain curve. This dependence can be seen in Figure C.5.1.
(b) At low slenderness, i.e. when columns attain or exceed the squash load
(area x proof strength), the benefits of strain hardening become apparent. For
very low slenderness, materials with higher hardening rates, i.e. materials of
low n factors, will give superior column strengths to materials having high n
factors and in particular carbon steels.
(c) At intermediate slendernesses, i.e. when the average stress in the
column lies between the limit of proportionality and the 0,2% proof strength,
stainless steel is ‘softer’ than carbon steel. This leads to reduced column
strengths compared to similar carbon steel columns.
C.5.3.2 Flexural buckling

The buckling resistance in the Recommendations is given as the product of a
reduction factor (χ) and the stub column resistance (βA Ag fy) divided by the
‘material’ factor for buckling (γM1). The reduction χ depends on the non-
dimensional column slenderness λ and the appropriate column curve selected
according to the constants given in Table 5.1. The reduction factor is derived
from the lower root of the following equation and is based on the work of
Ayrton and Perry (1886) in the UK and others on the continent:
(py - pc) (pE - pc) = η pE pc

in which:
py = βA fy
pc = χ py
pE = π2E/( l /i)2
η is an empirically defined imperfection coefficient, each buckling curve
having its associated value.
The equation is based on column failure being attained when the maximum
stress in the compression fibre reaches py and takes into account the
amplification of secondary ‘imperfection’ moments by the axial load.
43
The reduction factor is given as a function of the non-dimensional slenderness
λ which is proportional to the effective length l of the column. The effective
length of a column is the length of a pin-ended member, of the same cross-
section, that has the same buckling resistance as the actual member under
consideration. Note that the length of a compression member, and hence the
effective length, may be different for the two planes of buckling. The effective
length factor of a compression member is dependent upon the conditions of
restraint afforded to the member at its restraints and theoretically may vary
from 0,5 to infinity. In practical structures the variation is somewhat less,
ranging from 0,7 to perhaps no more than about 5.
Six idealised cases are illustrated in Figure C.5.2. For rigid jointed frames the
restraining influence of incoming beams may be taken into account by reference
to, for example, ENV 1993-1-1: Annex E.
Buckled shape of column

is shown by dashed line
Theoretical effective 0,5 0,7 1,0 1,0 2,0 2,0

length factor
Effective length factor 0,7 0,85 1,0 1,2 2,0 2,0

for use in design
Figure C.5.2 Effective length factors
In some carbon steel codes2, effective non dimensional slendernesses, λeff , are
given for angles in compression such that the effects of secondary moments,
induced at the ends due to connection eccentricity, do not have to be explicitly
considered. These expressions are empirical and cannot be verified for stainless
steel angles, due to lack of data. Based on other evidence, it is likely that
λeff would be slightly larger for stainless steel.
The constants α (imperfection coefficient) and λ0 (length of plateau region) in

Table 5.1 were chosen after considering available data as follows.
Cold formed members (α = 0,49, λ0 = 0,40)

Hammer and Petersen97
This paper contains by far the largest single source of column test data for
stainless steel. Over 200 specimens of annealed, ¼ hard, ½ hard and fully
hard type 1.4310 stainless steel were tested in slenderness ratios ( l /i) varying
from 15 to 120. Specimens were prepared parallel and transversely to the
rolling direction. Material thicknesses varied from 0,5 mm to 1,9 mm. All
columns were built up from two cold formed hat sections spot welded to form a
closed member. The section dimensions were designed so as to avoid local
buckling of elements.
44
The non-dimensionalised results are plotted in Figure C.5.3. In the paper, no
stub column proof loads are given; only the sheet proof strengths in the various
tempers can be ascertained and these vary from 203 N/mm2 (annealed condition)
to 1571 N/mm2 (fully hard condition, transverse direction). The close banding
of the results confirms the adequacy of the non-dimensional variables. The
apparent conservatism of the recommended design curve at intermediate
slendernesses arises from the fact that sheet proof strengths, rather than stub
column proof strengths, are used in the non-dimensional variables and hence
strength enhancement in the cold worked corners of the specimens is ignored.
2
χ
1,5
0,5
0
0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0
Non dimensional slenderness λ
Euro Inox Design Manual, Eqns 5.3 and 5.4,

Cold formed sections: α = 0,49, λ0 = 0,40
Figure C.5.3 Reduction factor versus non-dimensional slenderness

for cold formed sections from grade 1.4310 material 97
Johnson and Winter98,99

A total of 15 column tests were carried out on type 1.4301 annealed stainless
steel. The columns were built up using 1,5 mm thick cold formed channel
sections. These were placed back to back to produce 11 I-sections and placed
(nested) together to form 4 box sections. The two pieces were joined by means
of a structural adhesive. The range of slenderness ratios ( l /i) tested was from
28 to 177. All sections were designed to be Class 2, i.e. to avoid local
buckling.
The proof strength used in the non-dimensional quantities is based on the

‘typical’ stress-strain curve given in the references. The results of the column
tests are shown in Figure C.5.4.
45
2
I Selection shape
χ
1,5
Box section shape

1
Plate
Symbol Section σ 0,2 thickness
shape N/mm² mm
0,5 I
Box
238
238
1,55
1,53
E 0 = 204 100 N/mm²

(= 29600 ksi)
0
0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 Material Properties


for cold formed sections from 1.4301 material 98,99
Coetzee et al100
A total of 30 column tests were performed on three different grades of stainless
steel. The materials under consideration were grades 1.4301, 1.4401 and the
ferritic grade 1.4003. Ten lipped channel sections were produced from each
material by a press braking process and cut into lengths which gave slenderness
ratios ( l /i) ranging from 10 to 104. All materials used were approximately
2,5mm thick.
The results are given in Figure C.5.5.
2
χ
1,5
Section shape
1
E σ 0.2
Symbol Material kN/mm² N/mm²
0,5
1.4301 208,3 308
1.4401 196,3 269
1.4003 201,1 309
0

Figure C.5.5 Reduction factor versus non-dimensional slenderness for cold

formed sections from grades 1.4301,1.4401 and 1.4003
materials 100
46
Rhodes, Macdonald and McNiff101
A total of 22 pin-ended lipped channel section columns in grade 1.4301 material
were tested in minor axis buckling. The specimens consisted of eleven
28×15×8×2.5 (2.5 mm nominal thickness) and eleven 38×17×10×3 (3 mm
nominal thickness) lipped channel sections, covering a broad range of
slenderness. The results are shown in Figure C.5.6.
1.5
χ
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Figure C.5.6 Reduction factor versus non-dimensional slenderness for cold

formed sections from grade 1.4301
Cold formed and seam welded members ( α = 0,49, λ0 = 0,40)
Rasmussen and Hancock102

A total of 18 hollow section columns in 1.4307 material were tested. The
specimens consisted of 8 square hollow sections of 80 mm x 3 mm and 10
circular hollow sections of 101,6 mm x 2,85 mm, of various lengths. They
were formed by cold rolling and subsequent seam welding. The specimens
were paired with one specimen in each pair tested with a slight eccentricity of
load to simulate a geometric imperfection. The results are shown in Figure
C.5.7.
Talja91 and Way 103
Nine circular hollow sections of diameter 140 mm and thickness varying from 2
to 4 mm in grades 1.4541 (a stabilised version of grade 1.4301) and 1.4435 (a
slightly higher alloyed version of 1.4404) were tested. The test results are also
shown on Figure C.5.6. The 4 circular hollow sections of 140 mm x 2 mm in
grade 1.4435 were classified as class 4 cross-sections and as there is no
guidance on the calculation of the effective cross-sectional area for Class 4
CHS, the results were not plotted. All sections were loaded concentrically in
compression.
Young and Hartono77

Twelve fixed-ended circular hollow section columns in grade 1.4301 material
were tested. The specimens consisted of five CHS 89×2.78, three CHS
168.7×3.34 and four CHS 322.8×4.32 and their non-dimensional slenderness
ranged from 0.08 to 0.59. The results of all CHS tests are shown in Figure
C.5.7. Many of these test results fall below the design curve for cold formed
47
and seam welded members. Consideration should be given to reducing the
limiting non-dimensional slenderness λ0 from 0,4 to 0,2 in future revisions of
this Design Manual and EN 1993-1-4.
1.2
χ Young and Hartono
1.0
0.8
Talja and Way
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Cold formed and seam welded sections: α = 0,49, λ0 = 0,40

for circular hollow section columns
Square and Rectangular hollow sections from cold worked material22,80

12 flexural buckling tests were carried out on SHS from cold worked austenitic
material C700 and C850. The tests and subsequent numerical analysis showed
that the expressions for calculating the flexural buckling resistance for annealed
material are equally applicable to cold worked material.
Further tests on Square and Rectangular hollow sections

Further test results, as reported by Gardner and Nethercot17, 104 (eight SHS and
fourteen RHS pin-ended specimens in 1.4301 material), Talja and Salmi73 (three
SHS and six RHS major axis pin-ended specimens in 1.4301 material), Young
and Liu74 (eight SHS and sixteen RHS minor axis fixed ended specimens in
1.4301 material) and Young and Lui75 (sixteen SHS and eight RHS fixed ended
specimens in duplex grade) are depicted in Figure C.5.8. The cross-sections
considered are essentially identical to the relevant stub column tests described
in: C.4.3.2. As shown in Figure C.5.8, the buckling curve for cold formed and
seam welded members ( α = 0,49, λ0 = 0,40) ensures safe design for both
square and rectangular hollow sections.
48
1.6
χ
1.4 SHS RHS
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Cold formed and seam welded sections: α = 0,49, λ0 = 0,40

for square and rectangular hollow section columns
Members fabricated by welding ( α = 0,76, λ0 = 0,20 minor axis,

α = 0,49, λ0 = 0,20 major axis)
105
van den Berg et al
A total of 13 column tests were carried out on I section columns fabricated from
type 1.4003 material. The columns buckled about the minor axis. Seven
columns were nominally sized 140 x 70 mm and the remaining six were sized
180 x 90 mm. Both section sizes used different plate thicknesses for web and
flange. Column slendernesses ( l /i) varied from 24 to 230.
It should be noted that the section sizes used in the column tests were not
categorically stated anywhere in the paper. The sizes quoted above were
inferred from the predicted failure loads given and the geometrical properties of
the sections used. The results are shown in Figure C.5.9.
2
χ
1,5
Section shape
1
Symbol Section
size
0,5 180 x 90
140 x 70
E0 = 194100 N/mm²
σ = 285 N/mm²
0

Welded sections, minor axis buckling: α = 0,76, λ0 = 0,20

for welded columns from grade 1.4003 material105
49
Steel Construction Institute96
Three welded columns in 6,28 mm thick 1.4404 material, having the same
cross-section but different lengths, were designed and tested to provide
information for the First Edition of the Design Manual. All cross-sections were
of 187 mm overall depth x 132 mm flange width. The columns buckled about
the minor axis. The measured 0,2% compressive proof strength was
299 N/mm2. The results are shown in Figure C.5.10.
1,2
1,0
χ
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0


for welded columns in grade 1.4404 material96
The curve recommended for welded stainless steel columns buckling about the
minor axis (α = 0,76) is somewhat below the curve in EN 1993-1-1 for similar
carbon steel cold formed columns. The welded stainless steel columns were
measured as being reasonably straight and it may be inferred that the reduced
strengths were due to the presence of the severe residual welding stresses to be
expected in austenitic stainless steel welds (see Section 10.4.4 in the
Recommendations). It is to be noted that the ferritic stainless steel columns in
Figure C.5.9, in which residual stresses would have been closer to those found
in carbon steel columns, did not suffer the same degree of reduction in capacity.
Furthermore, it may be conjectured that duplex 1.4462 columns would perform
similarly to ferritic steel. However, in the absence of data, it is recommended
to use the α = 0,76 curve for minor axis buckling, even for duplex 1.4462
welded columns. Finally, it is also possible that the 0,76 curve is too
conservative for hot produced products as, again, residual stresses would not be
expected to be as severe as those in welded columns.
Talja91 and Stangenberg106

Recent tests were carried out on welded I section columns fabricated from
grades 1.4301 and 1.4462. Three sections of 160 x 80 mm and 3 sections of
160 x 160 mm in 1.4301 material and 3 sections of 160 x 160 mm in grade
1.4462 were tested for buckling about the major axis. The results are shown in
Figure C.5.11. In addition, three welded I sections of 160 x 80 mm and 3 of
160 x 160 mm in grade 1.4301 were tested for buckling about the minor axis
(Figure C.5.12). In all cases, the sections were loaded in concentric
compression.
The tests were modelled using a finite element analysis program and good
agreement was obtained between the numerical model and test results. A
50
parametric study looked at a wider range of slendernesses than that tested. The
results of this numerical study are also shown on the Figures. The results of
the tests and numerical analysis indicate that for major axis buckling, a more
favourable buckling curve, α=0,49 can be used.
1,4
1.4301
1,2 1.4462
χ Numerical analysis
1,0
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0,0
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5

Welded sections, major axis buckling: α = 0,49, λ0 = 0,20

for welded columns buckling about the major axis
1,4
Tests
1,2 Numerical analysis
χ
1,0
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0,0
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5


for welded columns buckling about the minor axis
C.5.3.3
51
C.5.3.4 Torsional and torsional-flexural buckling
The torsional and torsional-flexural buckling modes are treated in a very similar
manner to the flexural buckling mode in 5.3.3. That is, the elastic critical
stresses pertaining to these modes are used instead of the flexural critical stress
(the Euler stress) in the Perry-type column analysis.
The column curve selected (α = 0,34 and λ0 = 0,2) for these modes is the
same as that given for carbon steel columns in EN 1993-1-3. This
recommendation is based on an assessment of the test data reported in
References 107 and 108. These data were obtained from tests on cold formed
hat sections produced from four different types of stainless steel and a carbon
steel. Up to three sizes of hat sections were used with any one material. The
results are presented in Figure C.5.13 in terms of the reduction factor χ and
torsional-flexural slenderness λTF , the stub-column proof strengths being used
in all calculations.
It should be noted that λTF is a function of the effective length for twisting
which, for the tests, is difficult to be precise about, due to the nature of the
supports used - a ball bearing at each end. It was assumed that the axial load
would provide sufficient friction at the bearings to prevent twisting at the ends
of each column and thus an effective length factor for twisting of 0,7 (see
C.5.4.2) was taken. It should be noted that different assumptions for the
effective length for twisting would displace the data points either to the left or
right of their positions in Figure C.5.13. Thus the design line and the data
points should not be regarded as being fixed relative to each other. However,
the above assumption is considered to be probably conservative but, more
importantly, the inclusion of carbon steel columns and their ensuing results
gives confidence that stainless steel columns are at least equal in strength to
carbon steel columns for torsional-flexural failure.
1,2
1,1
χ
1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0
0 1 2 3 4
λ TF
1.4301 1.4003
1.4512 1.4016 Carbon steel


for torsional-flexural buckling
52
C.5.4 Flexural members
C.5.4.1 General
Again, checks for establishing the resistance of a stainless steel beam are similar
to those carried out for carbon steel beams.
With respect to overall member buckling (i.e. lateral-torsional buckling), the

general comments given in C.5.3.1 also apply here.
C.5.4.2 Lateral-torsional buckling

When the compression flange of a beam is not fully restrained, it has a tendency
to buckle sideways. The tension flange, on the other hand, tries to remain
straight, with the net effect that the beam twists about its longitudinal axis as the
beam buckles laterally. Restraints may be considered to be effective against
lateral-torsional buckling if they provide either resistance to lateral movement or
prevent twisting of the section. No guidance is given in the Recommendations
as to what constitutes an adequate restraint but there is no reason why rules
developed for carbon steel beams should not suffice, e.g. lateral restraints
should be capable of sustaining a nominal force of 2½% of the compression
flange force and should be connected to a stiff part of the structure.
Note that lateral-torsional buckling is not a possibility when bending is about the
minor axis; in this case flexural buckling always governs.
For an idealised perfectly straight elastic beam, there are no out-of-plane

deformations until the applied moment reaches the critical moment Mcr when the
beam buckles by deflecting laterally and twisting. The failure of an initially
straight slender beam is initiated when the additional stress induced by elastic
buckling reaches yield. An initially straight beam of intermediate slenderness
may yield before the critical load is reached, because of the combined effects of
in-plane bending stresses and residual stresses, and may subsequently buckle
inelastically. For very stocky beams, the inelastic buckling load may be higher
than the in-plane plastic collapse load and the resistance moment of the beam is
not affected by lateral-torsional buckling. Real beams differ from the idealised
beams in much the same way as real compression members differ from idealised
struts. Following the approach adopted for column design, beam design to
5.4.2 is based on an empirical adaptation of the Perry formula.
In a strut, the compression is generally constant throughout its length, but in a

beam the bending moment and therefore the force in the compression flange
usually varies along its length. The variation of the flange compression along
the beam affects the buckling load of the member. This is taken account when
calculating the slenderness λLT in Appendix B. Likewise the effect of various
restraint conditions and whether the load is destabilising or not are also
accounted for in the calculation of λLT .
Tests by van Wyk et al109 involved beams in three materials (types 1.4301,
1.4016 and 1.4003) of lengths ranging from 300 mm to 1600 mm under three
point bending. The same cross-section was used in all tests and comprised two
cold formed 50 mm x 15 mm channels joined back-to-back. The load was
applied above the top flange and could move with the beam as it buckled, i.e. it
was a destabilising load. The results are shown in Figure C.5.14. Note that
the ordinate is a reduction factor applied to the plastic moment of resistance.
The other data available at the time of preparing the First Edition was Japanese
data110 for short welded I beams. Discounting those beams which failed
53
prematurely by local flange buckling, the Japanese data fall around λLT = 0,18
in Figure C.5.14. There were no other data available at the time the First
Edition was written relating to lateral-torsional buckling of welded stainless steel
beams.
The design line proposed in the First Edition for cold formed sections was
based on an imperfection coefficient of α = 0,34 and a limiting slenderness
λ0,LT = 0,2 (as compared to α = 0,21 and λ0,LT = 0,2 for cold formed
carbon steel members in EN 1993-1-1). However, carbon steel data suggested
that the plateau region is much longer and in EN 1993-1-1 no allowance needs
to be made for lateral torsional buckling when λLT ≤ 0,4 . A vertical step is
thus introduced into the design curve. For stainless steel there were insufficient
data to support this and a more conservative requirement that no allowance
needed to be made for lateral torsional buckling when λLT ≤ 0,3 was
introduced, again leading to a vertical step in the design curve.
Since the buckling curve recommended for stainless steel cold formed sections
(α = 0,34) was the next lower curve to that for carbon steel cold formed
sections (α = 0,21), it was suggested that α = 0,76 may be suitable for welded
stainless steel sections (compared to α = 0,49 for welded carbon steel sections).
The Japanese data verified that no allowance needed to be made for lateral
torsional buckling when λLT ≤ 0,3 for welded beams and hence also was
conservative for cold formed beams.
1,4
Numerical analysis
I-160x80 tests
1,2 I-160x160 tests
χ LT I-320x160 tests
1,0 van Wyk et al (1988), Austenitic
van Wyk et al (1998), Ferritic
Japanese data (JIA), 1988
0,8 Euro Inox design curve (welded sections)
Euro Inox design curve (cold formed sections)
0,6
0,4
0,2
0,0
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0
λ LT

Welded sections: α = 0,76, λ0 = 0,40
Figure C.5.14 Reduction factor versus non-dimensional slenderness for

lateral torsional buckling
For the Second Edition of the Design Manual, tests were carried out on three
different sized welded I sections91,106. Three sections of 160 x 80 mm, 3 of 160
x 160 mm and 3 of 320 x 160 mm in 1.4301 material were tested. Also 3
welded I sections of 160 x 160 mm in grade 1.4462 were tested. These beams
were tested in four-point bending. The levels under the force were free to
move in the horizontal plane. There was also free rotation about the vertical
axis, free movement in the horizontal plane and sideways translation. The
results are plotted also in Figure C.5.14. These tests were modelled using a
54
finite element analysis program and good agreement was obtained between the
predicted results and test results. A parametric study looked at a wider range of
slendernesses. The results of this study are also shown on the Figure.
The results of the tests and numerical analysis indicate that it is safe to increase
the limiting slenderness, λ0,LT to 0,4 and increase the limit on λLT above
which it is necessary to allow for lateral torsional buckling from 0,3 to 0,4.
The vertical step in the design curve in the First Edition was thus removed.
C.5.4.3 Shear resistance
The general approach for establishing the shear resistance of webs is based on
the simple post-critical method of EN 1993-1-1. In comparison to the
alternative tension field method, the simple post-critical method is more widely
applicable (the tension field method is restricted for web panel aspect ratios a/d
between an absolute lower limit of 1,0 and an economic upper limit of 3,0) and
is simpler in application.
In common with other forms of plate buckling, slender plates under shear are
able to reach ultimate strengths higher than the elastic critical stress values.
The method takes advantage of this in the design line for carbon steel. This
enhancement is also to be expected for slender stainless steel webs, as the
stresses are low (see C.5.3.1). However, where web slendernesses are such
that the elastic critical stress is approximately equal to the yield stress (at
λw = 1,0), a relatively large reduction in strength occurs.
There are few data on the shear behaviour of stainless steel webs. Whilst it is
true that a number of tests have been conducted on beams, these have been to
examine flange behaviour; flange failure prevented the development of high
shears in the webs.
Carvalho et al111 tested short span cold formed beams of varying depths in three
materials (stainless steel grades 1.4301, 1.4016 and 1.4003). Each half of the
beams was of square aspect ratio. When the First Edition of the Design Manual
was prepared, these were the only shear buckling test data available and
consequently a design curve was derived which gave a satisfactory lower bound
to the experimental data. The design curve was subsequently adopted in ENV
1993-1-4. Since then, the validity of these data has been questioned. For
example, the short member lengths led to results which were difficult to analyse
correctly because the basic kinematic assumption by Bernoulli was less accurate.
The method chosen to transfer the load into the webs also led to difficulties in
analysing the results. In addition, the test specimens were cold formed profiles
with internal radii which gave less favourable conditions for a tension field to
develop, compared to an I-section.
A later test programme by Olsson112 included 8 tests on welded I-sections. Four

different cross-sections and two different stainless steel grades (1.4301 and
1.4462) were considered. The beams were doubly symmetric, with the same
flange dimensions and the same web height. The web slenderness hw/tw varied
between 37,5 and 200, and the web aspect ratio varied between 2 and 3. The
test results showed that the existing design procedure was very conservative.
The tests were modelled using a finite element program and good agreement
was achieved between the predicted results and test results. A subsequent
parametric study analysed the shear buckling resistance in a wider range of I-
section beams than was tested.
55
A new design procedure was developed which did not take into account the
work carried out by Carvalho et al. The new procedure is closely based on the
procedure in ENV 1993-1-5 (and subsequently retained in EN 1993-1-5).
Figure C.5.15 shows the test results and design curves in ENV 1993-1-5 (for
carbon steel), the previous conservative approach included in ENV 1993-1-4
and the new design curve. This design approach was subsequently adopted in
EN 1993-1-4.
Real has also carried out an experimental and numerical investigation to study
the response of stainless steel plated girders subjected to shear load113. A
method for predicting the shear resistance of stainless steel beams based on the
tension field method in ENV 1993-1-1 is proposed by Real, including new
design expressions to determine the initial shear buckling stress.
1,8
Tests - Grade 1.4301

1,6
Tests - Grade 1.4462
χw Euro Inox design curve
1,4
ENV 1993-1-4
ENV 1993-1-5
1,2 Numerical analysis - Grade 1.4301
Numerical analysis - Grade 1.4462
1,0
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0,0
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0
λw
Figure C.5.15 Reduction factor versus non-dimensional slenderness for

shear buckling of webs
C.5.4.4 Web crushing and crippling

When the First Edition of this Design Manual was written, there were no
relevant test data on stainless steel webs, and so the use of guidance for carbon
steel was recommended. Since then, a test programme was carried out to
measure the web crushing and crippling resistance of stainless steel plate
girders114. Nine grade 1.4301 welded I-section beams were subjected to
concentrated point loads. On five of the beams, the load was applied far from
the girder end (patch loading) and on the remaining four beams the load was
applied near an unstiffened end (end patch loading).
For the patch loading, the beams were doubly symmetric, with hw/tw varying
from 50 to 110 and the lengths of the beams varying from 996 mm to
1682 mm. Both ends of the beams were stiffened with vertical steel plates.
Loading plates of width 40 mm and 80 mm were used. The load was applied at
the midspan of the simply supported beam, on the upper flange, centrally over
the web.
For the end patch loading, the beams were doubly symmetric with hw/tw varying
from 50 and 80 and the lengths of the beams varying from 996 mm to
1682 mm. The width of the loading plates varied from 20 mm to 60 mm. One
56
end of the beam was stiffened with a vertical steel plate and the load applied at
varying distances from the unstiffened beam end.
The patch load tests were modelled using a finite element analysis program and
good agreement with the test results was obtained. A parametric study was
carried out to study the behaviour of a wider range of web slendernesses.
The test and numerical results were analysed and comparisons made with the
guidance given in ENV 1993-1-12, ENV 1993-1-1 Annex J and ENV 1993-1-
559. (The existing guidance given in ENV 1993-1-4 refers simply to ENV 1993-
1-1.) The results indicated that the design procedure given in ENV 1993-1-5
(and subsequently retained in EN 1993-1-5) gives the best agreement between
test and predicted values for both patch loading and end patch loading. In this
model the characteristic resistance, Fr is a function of the yield resistance Fy, the
elastic buckling load, Fcr and a resistance function χ(λ). Figure C.5.16 shows
the results of the tests, numerical analyses and the design curve.
1,20
Numerical analysis - varying hw
Numerical analysis - varying tf
Numerical analysis - varying s
1,00 Numerical analysis - varying a
F u /Fy
Tests
Numerical analysis - tests
ENV 1993-1-5
0,80
0,60
0,40
1,20
0,00
0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50
λ
Figure C.5.16 Web crippling of stainless steel beams – test data and
design curve
C.5.4.5 Transverse stiffeners

In essence, transverse stiffeners are to be treated as compression members
requiring a check on cross-sectional resistance (bearing check) and buckling
resistance. For intermediate stiffeners not subject to external loads, the axial
loads are fed in gradually via shear in the web and the bearing check can be
dispensed with.
The effective cross-section of the stiffener includes a proportion of web plate of

up to 11ε t w on either side of the stiffener flat. This effective width of web
plate corresponds to the Class 3 limiting width for outstands in Table 4.2 of the
Recommendations, i.e. the portion of web plate that can develop its proof load.
The buckling check is to be carried according to 5.3.3 or 5.5.2 depending on

whether symmetric stiffeners or asymmetric stiffeners are used. In the latter
case an eccentricity moment of M = Nse has to be allowed for, where Ns is the
57
axial force in the stiffener and e is the distance of the centroid of the effective
stiffener section from the mid thickness of the web.
The expression given for the force in an intermediate stiffener with no external
loading is taken from EN 1993-1-5.
The requirements given for the minimum second moment of area are to ensure
that the stiffeners are sufficiently rigid to prevent web buckling. They are the
same empirical expressions as those used in EN 1993-1-5 and other steel codes.
C.5.4.6 Determination of deflections

The accurate calculation of the deflections of members composed of stainless
steel materials is a complex matter. The shape of the load-deflection curve is
affected by the non-linear material stress-strain relationship115 and may be
influenced by local buckling effects in the compression flange. Whereas in the
case of carbon steel members the modulus is constant (i.e. equal to Young’s
modulus) down the beam depth and along the length of the beam, for stainless
steel members the (tangent) modulus may vary throughout the beam according
to the value of stress at each point. An accurate deflection calculation will
generally require the use of iterative techniques and this is unsuitable for design.
In the Recommendations an approximate method is given. It uses the secant

moduli (see Figure C.5.17) corresponding to the stresses in the extreme fibres
as a basis for estimating deflections. This approach has been shown99 to give
adequate deflection estimates for design purposes. It should be borne in mind
that deflection calculations can only provide estimates of the actual deflection
that will occur in practice. Uncertainties in member restraint, element
thicknesses, material behaviour (Appendix C), let alone the loading, imply that
it is unreasonable to expect or seek mathematical exactitude in estimating
deflections.
Calculating deflections by using a unique value of the secant modulus

appropriate for the most highly stressed cross-section in the member leads to an
over-estimation of deflections. The magnitude of the over-estimation depends
on the distribution of the bending moment along the member; for example, the
error is less significant for a beam with a uniform bending moment. A new
methodology for calculating deflections in stainless steel beams, which takes
fully into account the material non-linearity, has been proposed by Real113. It is
based on an analytical expression for the moment-curvature relationship for
stainless steel cross-sections. A new expression for an equivalent elastic
modulus, which represents the general behaviour of the beam, is defined. The
procedure involves integration along the length of the member. This method
has been shown to give more accurate predictions of the deflections in stainless
steel beams than the simple method given in the Recommendations.
It should be noted that beams may suffer some permanent deflection on removal
of the load; this will be approximately (1 - Es/E) times the estimated total
deflection (see Figure C.5.17).
58
Et
E 1
1
σ P
Es
1 E = Modulus of elasticity
E t = tangent modulus at point P
E s = secant modulus at point P
ε
Figure C.5.17 Young’s tangent and secant moduli
C.5.5 Members subject to combinations of axial

loads and bending moments
C.5.5.1 Axial tension and bending
The expression is taken from EN 1993-1-1.
C.5.5.2 Axial compression and bending

The formulae given in the Recommendations for combined compression and
bending are derived from the interaction formulae given in EN 1993-1-1. The
interaction factors ky, kz and kLT are complex functions dependent on the
slenderness of the member and are a synthesis of the results of numerical work
carried out by Greiner116 and others.
For the Second Edition, six beam column tests were carried out on welded I-
sections in grade 1.4301 stainless steel91,106. Three of the tests were numerically
modelled and satisfactory agreement with the test results was obtained. In
addition, eight pin-ended CHS columns were tested, with an axial load applied
eccentrically through the centre of the wall thickness91,103.
Both sets of test results were compared against the results predicted by the
expressions in the existing Recommendations, and it was concluded that the
design method predicted results with a satisfactory margin of safety106,103.
59
C.6 JOINT DESIGN
C.6.1 General recommendations

C.6.1.1 Durability
The designer should consider ways of preventing corrosion at all stages of
connection design.
Corrosion problems are most likely to occur at connections, whether they are
bolted or welded connections. This is due to a number of potential deleterious
features at connections such as crevices, dissimilar metal contact, heat affected
zones, etc. As always, corrosion only occurs if there is a source of moisture.
Sections 3.7 and 10.4 contain further information.
C.6.1.2 Design assumptions

The general recommendations given here are no different from those for carbon
steel. Connections work, even where the assumed path is not actually realised,
because of steel’s great ductility and hence the potential for stress redistribution.
In this respect, stainless steel, and particularly austenitic grade, is superior to
carbon steel. Nevertheless, the deformation capacity of the fastening elements
should be considered; it is not generally safe to share the load in a connection
between different types of fasteners. For example, in a hybrid connection, fillet
welds could fail before bolts in shear have taken up the clearances in the bolt
holes.
C.6.1.3 Intersection and splices

Reducing bending moments at intersections and splices by avoiding
eccentricities reflects good engineering practice.
At mid-height, the extreme fibres of a column are fully stressed (to fy) at the
ultimate limit state, even for a slender column (the reduction in strength due to
column slenderness is matched by the stress due to the moment arising from
strut action). Thus, any splice at mid-height has to be designed for forces and
moments corresponding to the full design resistance.
C.6.1.4 Other general considerations

Although standardised details can be advantageous for carbon steelwork, the
greater material cost of stainless steel favours a move away from uniformity of
details to reduce such costs, even if increased labour charges result.
Again, the designer should be aware of the requirements of fabrication as given

in Section 10. Control of welding distortion in particular should be noted, see
Section 10.4.
C.6.2 Bolted connections

C.6.2.1 General
A variety of stainless steel fasteners is available, including bolts, rivets and self-
tapping screws. The recommendations apply to bolts or set screws with
washers under both the bolt head and the nut. Because of the soft surface of
annealed austenitic stainless steel grades, hardened washers may be necessary to
prevent any tendency to dig into the plate surface.
60
Stainless steel members will be connected to each other with bolted connections
having similar geometric forms to those used in carbon steel structures. This
being so, and with the expected broad similarity between stainless steel and
carbon steel connection behaviour, the recommendations have been developed
by verifying through testing the existing rules for carbon steel as set out in EN
1993-1-8. New provisions are introduced to limit bearing deformations.
C.6.2.2 Preloaded bolts

In carbon steel structures subject to vibration, high strength friction grip bolted
connections are a viable option. The requirement that testing be carried out to
prove the acceptability of stainless steel connections designed as slip resistant
arises from the following concerns:
• Variable torque characteristics of stainless steel bolts.
• Stress relaxation in stainless steel bolts.
• Low coefficients of friction for stainless steel.
• The possibility of fretting corrosion.
Note also that welding the nut to the bolt to prevent the former from unscrewing
is a practice to be avoided.
C.6.2.3 Connected parts

Holes
The standard hole sizes are in common with carbon steel values. For holes with
greater clearances or for slotted holes, there are no data yet available for
stainless steel and specific testing would have to be carried out.
Position of holes
The minimum criteria for pitch, end and edge distance are given for the
following reasons:
• To give sufficient clearance for tightening bolts.
• To limit any adverse interaction between high bearing stresses on
neighbouring bolts.
• To eliminate any tendency for bursting or in-plane deformation during
drilling or punching; this reason particularly relates to minimum edge
distance criteria.
• To provide adequate resistance to tear-out of the bolts.
These reasons are common to carbon steelwork117. The minimum spacings have
been aligned with those for carbon steel in EN 1993-1-8 for the Third Edition
of the Design Manual.
Maximum criteria are set for carbon steelwork to eliminate local buckling of the
plies and to ensure that a continuous paint film is maintained across the plies,
thus preventing corrosion at the interface. For stainless steel, the latter reason
does not really apply and therefore the criteria in the Design Manual may be
relaxed.
The position of holes is expressed in terms of the bolt hole diameter, d0 rather
than the bolt diameter, d, in accordance with EN 1993-1-8.
61
Bearing resistance
The great ductility of stainless steel permits a greater degree of redistribution of
forces between fasteners than is the case with carbon steel. This allows the
resistance of a connection to be assessed by summing the individual resistances
at each bolt instead of taking the lowest resistance and multiplying it by the
number of bolts. Nevertheless, care needs to be exercised, as failure by bolt
shearing, in which the deformation is low compared to other failure modes,
would limit the degree of redistribution possible.
The various failure modes that need to be considered for a bolted connection are
illustrated in Figure C.6.1. These apply equally to connections in stainless steel
or carbon steel.
It Is
Mode I - end failure Mode II - bearing failure
(tearing or shear)
Mode III - net section failure Mode IV - bolt failure
Mode V - block tear out Mode VI - bolt pull-through

(multibolt)
Figure C.6.1 Bolted connection failure modes
Excluding failure mode types III and IV (which are dealt with in Section 6.2.3
Tension resistance and 6.2.4 respectively), the bearing resistance is related to
the α factor, which is given as follows:
mode I: α = e1/3d
mode II: α = 1,0
mode V: α = p1/3d - ¼
mode VI: α = 0,6
The suitability of these factors is verified for stainless steel bolted connections
by reference to the following data:
118
Tests conducted for the First Edition of the Design Manual
Some thirty-one bolted connection specimens were designed to fail in variety of
modes, as shown in Table C.6.1. Specimens 1 to 25 were single bolt;
specimens 26 to 31 had two or three bolts. Since the connected plies were
under test, rather than the bolt, all bolts were of carbon steel up to grade 12.9.
62
Table C.6.1 Summary of bolted connection tests118
Nominal dimensions
(mm)
Failure mode1) ∀exp αexp/αpredicted
Specimen Steel e1
No grade (0,4 Φmax Comments
W t d
d Predicted Actual bearing/fu)
Predicted Actual
mode mode
1 1.4307 90 2 12 1,5 I It 0,73 1,43 1,43

2 1.4307 90 2 12 2,5 VI (I) VI 1,09 1,81 1,81
3 1.4307 90 2 12 3,5 VI (II) Spec 3 scrapped
4 1.4307 90 2 12 4,5 VI (II) VI 0,98 1,63 1,63
5 1.4307 40 2 12 4,5 VI (III) VI 0,89 1,48 1,48
6 1.4307 40 2 12 4,5 VI (III) III 0,88 1,46 1,02
7 1.4404 90 2 12 1,5 I I 0,76 1,46 1,46
8 1.4404 90 2 12 2,5 VI (I) VI 1,17 1,95 1,95
9 1.4404 90 2 12 3,5 VI (II) VI 1,06 1,76 1,76
10 1.4404 90 2 12 4,5 VI (II) VI 1,16 1,94 1,94
11 1.4404 40 2 12 4,5 VI (III) III 0,88 1,47 1,03
12 1.4404 40 2 12 4,5 VI (III) III 0,91 1,52 1,07
13 1.4404 100 6,3 20 1,5 I It 0,69 1,38 1,38
14 1.4404 100 6,3 24 3,5 VI (II) VI 0,72 1,19 1,19
15 1.4404 75 6,3 24 3,5 VI (III) VI 0,69 1,16 1,16
16 1.4462 90 2 12 1,5 I It 0,74 1,43 1,43
17 1.4462 90 2 12 2,5 VI (I) IV 0,98 1,63 - bolt failure
18 1.4462 90 2 12 3,5 VI (II) VI 1,05 1,75 1,75
19 1.4462 90 2 12 4,5 VI (II) IV 0,95 1,58 - bolt failure
20 1.4462 40 2 12 4,5 VI (III) III 0,87 1,45 0,99
21 1.4462 40 2 12 4,5 VI (III) III 0,85 1,41 0,99
22 1.4462 90 5,2 24 1,0 I Is 0,45 1,25 1,25
23 1.4462 90 5,2 24 2,0 VI (I) VI 0,73 1,21 1,21
24 1.4462 100 5,2 24 3,5 VI (II) VI 0,76 1,26 1,26
25 1.4462 100 5,2 24 4,5 VI (II) VI 0,75 1,26 1,26
26 1.4404 90 2 12 (2L) 2,5 V V 0,86 1,24 1,24 2 bolts longitudinally, p1/d = 2.5
27 1.4404 90 2 12 (3L) 2,5 V III 0,73 1,09 0,86 3 bolts longitudinally, p1/d = 2.5
30 1.4404 80 2 12 (2T) 3,5 VI (III) III 0,95 1,58 1,09 2 bolts transversely
31 1.4404 120 6,3 20 (2T) 3,5 VI (III) VI 0,67 1,11 1,11 2 bolts transversely
Notes:
1) See Figure C.6.1. Mode IV excluded from predicted mode. Mode shown in brackets is next critical predicted mode after VI.
2) All ∀ factors based on actual dimensions.
3) Net section failure load is taken as Anet fu.
Inspection of the α factors will show that, for a single bolt specimen, mode II is
not obtainable, as mode VI always intervenes. Indeed, this proved to be true
because mode II never occurred. Nevertheless, it would appear that the margin
of strength over and above the predicted failure load for mode VI is highly
variable, and in some instances the predicted failure load for mode II also was
exceeded.
The bearing stress at failure divided by the ultimate tensile strength of the
material for each specimen is shown in Figure C.6.2, together with the design
lines (with α= 1) for modes I, II and VI. In all cases, the experimental value
exceeds the design value (as can be seen in the tenth column of Table C.6.1).
However this is only made possible by modifying the carbon steel rules for
mode VI. In ENV 1993-1-1, this rule is worded to apply only to lap joints
containing a single bolt (it is understood that this may not in fact be the
intention). In specimen 31, containing two bolts, the critical mode would then
become a net section failure for which 0,9 Anet fu = 258 kN, whereas only
253 kN was actually measured in the test. Although the shortfall is marginal
(–2%), this result should be compared to other net section failure data which
generally show an excess of +3% (+9% in the case of specimen 30). Since
specimen 31 actually failed in mode VI, the carbon steel rules are extended
from single bolt lap joints to include any number of bolts in a single line lying
transversely to the direction of stress.
Specimens 26 to 29, comprising two or more bolts disposed in the direction of

stress, demonstrate that summing the individual bolt loads leads to conservative
design values for the connections’ resistances. The relatively low utilisation of
the net section strength is discussed under Tension resistance, below.
63
3,0
Bearing stress at failure/f u

8 10
2
9 18 Mode II
2,5 17
30 4
I 19 12
e
od
5 11 & 20
6
2,0 M 21
7 21
1 16 23 25
14
13 15
31 Mode VI
1,5
22
1,0
Mode I predicted, mode I actual
Mode VI predicted, mode VI actual
0,5 Mode VI predicted, other mode actual
0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0

e1 /d
Figure C.6.2 Comparison of experimental data with design lines
The above is concerned with rupture, or extreme gross deformation, of the

connection at the ultimate limit state. If the design rules were based on fu, no
rupture would occur but severe deformation would still be apparent at the
ultimate limit state and an unacceptable level of deformation would exist at
serviceability loads. The Recommendations therefore include provisions for
using a reduced value of fu (i.e. fur = 0,5 fy + 0,6 fu) to limit deformation.
This formula has been derived by examining the loads at which the deformation
is 3 mm for those specimens undergoing bearing deformation (i.e. specimens
suffering net section failures are excluded). The formula is an approximation to
the ‘best fit’ line through the data and the degree of fit is shown in Figure
C.6.3. At the ultimate limit state, the deformation will be rather less than
3 mm because of the application of γMb. At serviceability loads the deformation
will be substantially less, due to the ‘absence’ of the load factor γF, and is likely
to be of the order of 1 mm. This must be seen in the context of a possible slip
of up to 2 mm (for M16 bolts and upwards) as the bolt goes into bearing.
17&19
900
16
f ur (N/mm²)
800
18
700 29
9 4
600 8
2
10
23
1
500
7
26
400 27
28
e
lin
300
gni
es
D
200
100
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

0,5f y + 0,6f u (N/mm²)
Figure C.6.3 Comparison of fur design line and experimental data
64
Errera et al 119,21
An investigation into the connection behaviour of thin gauge (up to
approximately 1,5 mm thick) grade 1.4310 ½ hard stainless steel sheets was
undertaken. (½ hard relates to a temper or strength obtained by work
hardening in cold rolling. It is used in America but not in Europe.) The results
of specimens which were reported to have failed in mode I or mode II are
shown in Figure C.6.4. Although the material exhibited pronounced anisotropy,
and almost all specimens were single shear lap specimens so that mode VI
would play a part, the results generally support the findings reported in the tests
carried out for the First Edition of the Design Manual.
3,5
3,0
Bearing stress at failure/f u
2,5 Mode II
2,0
1,5
1,0 I
e
od
M not idealised failure mode
0,5
0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0

e1 /d
Figure C.6.4 Comparison of experimental data from Cornell

University data with design lines21
van der Merwe 120

Some 66 tests on bolted connections in ferritic stainless steels (types 1.4016,
1.4512 and 1.4003) are reported. Single shear and double shear specimens,
with and without washers, were designed to fail in either mode I, II or III.
Most specimens had one or two bolts, though three had four bolts. Insufficient
information is given to permit graphical representation. However, all mode I
specimens (30 in number) exceeded the design values (with γ = 1) by ratios
ranging from unity (for the 4 bolt specimens) to 1,84, with a mean at 1,38.
The mode II specimens with washers again exceeded the design values but
reduced bearing strengths were found for specimens without washers. The
mode III results are discussed under Tension resistance, below.
New test data from CTICM121

Tests were carried out on bolted cover plate connections in austenitic (grade
1.4306), duplex (grade 1.4462) and ferritic (grade 1.4016) stainless steels.
Twelve cover plate connections with bolts in double shear were tested in each
grade of steel. The number of bolts in the connections was varied from 2 (two
different configurations) to 4. Table C.6.2 gives a summary of the test
specimens and Table C.6.3 and Table C.6.4 gives the test results and predicted
resistances for the tests on the austenitic and duplex grades.
The behaviour under test of this connection was typical of many of the other
tests in austenitic and ferritic steels. Overall yielding of the gross section was
first attained, followed by bearing failure. There was clear evidence of
increased deformations occurring just beyond the predicted gross section
yielding load. Final rupture was by bolt shear. The predicted ultimate net
65
section resistance of the connection was exceeded when failure of the bolts
occurred. The specimen however had suffered significant necking at the net
sections prior to failure. The bolt holes were considerably ovalised, indicating
that bearing also contributed to the overall deformations of the specimen. The
outer plies (cover plates) showed a pronounced ‘dishing’ effect in the part
beyond the end bolt, i.e. the plate bends out from the central ply.
It was generally observed in these tests that the actual ultimate resistance of the
net section always exceeded the calculated value by a significant amount
(sometimes 20% or more). This may be partially explained by the high
ductility of the stainless steels used, but further investigation of the actual steel
strengths may be advisable.
The test results showed that the design expressions for bearing are safe. Higher
bearing resistances for drilled holes were measured than those for punched
holes. It was proposed that 1,75 mm permanent deformation of a cover plate
connection is acceptable at the serviceability limit state and a 5 mm permanent
bearing deformation is acceptable at the ultimate limit state.
The test programme also confirmed that the design rules for austenitic and
duplex stainless steel bolted joints could be applied to ferritic stainless steels.
Table C.6.2 Summary of test specimens for the cover plate tests121
Connection e1 p1 d1 e2 p2 b h
Bolts Holes Identification mm
A2L-12, F2L-12, D2L-12 22,5 45 55 22,5 - 45 190
M12x40 M14 A2T-12, F2T-12, D2T-12 22,5 - 55 22,5 45 90 100
A3-12, F3-12, D3-12 22,5 45 55 22,5 45 90 190
A4-12, F4-12, D4-12 22,5 45 55 22,5 45 90 190
A2L-16, F2L-16, D2L-16 27,5 55 65 27,5 - 55 230
M16x50 M18 A2T-16, F2T-16, D2T-16 27,5 - 65 27,5 55 110 120
A3-16, F3-16, D3-16 27,5 55 65 27,5 55 110 230
A4-16, F4-16, D4-16 27,5 55 65 27,5 55 110 230
A2L-20, F2L-20, D2L-20 35 70 80 35 - 70 290
M20x50 M22 A2T-20, F2T-20, D2T-20 35 - 80 35 70 140 150
A3-20, F3-20, D3-20 35 70 80 35 70 140 290
A4-20, F4-20, D4-20 35 80 80 35 70 140 290
Plate nominal thickness (mm): Central plate Cover plate
Type A 10 5
Type F 8 4
Type D 12,5 6
Specimen numbering system:
The first letter indicates type of steel (A=austenitic, D=duplex, F=ferritic). The number
following gives the number of bolts in the connection. For the 2 bolt specimens, L indicates the
bolts are parallel to the load direction, T indicates they are transverse to the load. The final 2
numbers give the bolt diameter.
66
Table C.6.3 Summary of test results and predicted resistances for
cover plate tests on austenitic stainless steel 121
Steel: Thickness. Austenitic : nom = 5/10/5 mm ; meas. 5,2/9,85/5,2
Strength Austenitic 1.4306 =304L: Measured fy and fu used
Test Config. A-2L A-2T A-3 A-4
Bolt Element Calculated Resistance in kN : Gamma = 1,0
Bolt shear 174,6 174,6 261,9 349,2
Bearing 158,3/200,6 158,3 237,5/306,1 316,7/401,1
Gross sect. 122 243,9 243,9 243,9
12 Net section 162 322 322 322
Serv.x1,5 126 252 252 252
Fu_Test 173,9 179,4 269,6 345,6
Failure Yield<Net sect.< Bearing< Yield <Bearing? Yield <net sect
Mode(s) Bolt shear Bolt shear <Bolt shear <bolt shear
Bolt shear 359,8 359,8 539,8 719,7
Bearing 200,7/251,8 200,7 301/397,7 401,4/503,5
Gross sect. 149,1 298,1 298,1 298,1
16 Net section 192,1 384,3 384,3 384,3
Serv.x1,5 150 301 301 301
Fu_Test 234,4 341,9 496 475,8
Failure Yield<Net section Bearing<yield Yield<Net.<Bear Yield<Net sect.
Mode(s) Central plate fail. <Bolt shear Ext. plate failure (not full rupture)
Bolt shear 501 501 751,5 1002
Bearing 261,2/330,3 261,2 391,8/507,5 522,5/660,5
Gross sect. 189,7 379,4 379,4 379,4
20 Net section 249,3 498,5 498,5 498,5
Serv.x1,5 195 390 390 390
Fu_Test 297,1 444,5 583,6 580,9
Failure Yield<Net sect. Bear.<Yield Yield.<Bear<Net Yield<Net sect.
Mode(s) Central plate fail. (not full rupture) (not full rupture) (not full rupture)
Note: Measured Yield and Tensile strengths used in N/mm2
Yield 0,2% Ult. Tensile Elongation %
Steel 5mm plate Measured 271 577 63%
Properties actual Min specified 200 500 45%
5,2mm
10mm plate Measured 288 581 62%
actual Min specified 200 500 45%
9,85 mm
67
cover plate tests on duplex stainless steel121
Steel: Thicknesses Duplex 1.4462 : 6/12,5/6 mm
Strength Measured fy and fu used
Test Config. D-2L D-2T D-3 D-4
Bolt Element Resistance in kN :Calculated with gamma of unity
Bolt shear 174,6 174,6 261,9 349,2
Bearing 357,7 282,4 568,8 715,5
Gross sect. 297 594 594 /594
12 Net section 255,1 364,3/510,2 510,2 510,2
Fu_Test 192,2 188,7 280,3 373,9
Failure Bolt shear Bolt shear Bolt shear Bolt shear
Mode
Bolt shear 359,8 359,8 539,8 719,7
Bearing 449,1 358 739 898,2
Gross sect. 363 726 726 726
16 Net section 304,5 609 609 434,8/609
Fu_Test 357,9 361,7 534,3 581,3*
Failure Net sect. Bear. Bolt shear *Test ended
Mode <Bolt shear <Bolt shear Net section?
Bolt shear 501 501 751,5 1002
Bearing 589,1 465,9 943 1178,2
Gross sect. 462 924 924 924
Net section 395 790 790 790
20 Fu_Test 499 504,6 577,3* 580,9*
Failure Net sect.<Yld Bear. *Test ended *Test ended
Mode Cl.Plate <Bolt shear Bolt shear ? <Net sect.?
Note: Measured Yield and Tensile strengths used in N/mm2
Yield 0,2% Ult. Tensile Elongation %
Steel 6mm plate Measured 550 762 36%
Properties actual 6,3 Min specified 460 640 25%
12,5mm pl, Measured 590 770 not given

Actual Min specified 460 640 25%
12,85
The expressions for bearing resistance were modified slightly in the Third
Edition of the Design Manual to align with the expressions in EN 1993-1-8.
Tension resistance
Two rules are provided for calculating the tensile resistance of connected parts
in tension. The second of these limits the stress in the gross section to fy in
order to limit plastic deformation. Note that some plastic deformation (in fact
0,2%) would occur if the element were stressed to fy.
The First Edition of the Design Manual gave the following expression for the
ultimate resistance of the net cross-section at holes for fasteners:
0,9 k r Anet f u
N u,Rd = where kr = (1 – 0,9r + 3rd/s)
γ M2
The kr factor has long been used by the thin gauge cold formed design fraternity
and relates to bolted connections with washers under both the bolt head and nut.
The factor recognises the deleterious effect of the stress concentrations when the
load in the member is taken out through a bolt (or bolts) as opposed to no load
removal in a tension member just containing a hole. The latter situation may
arise, for instance, in two diagonal bracings joined at their middle by a bolt (the
bolt taking little or no load).
68
For a single bolt r = 1 and for two bolts (with the bolts aligned parallel to the
direction of stress) r = ½, etc. The factor kr is less than unity if d/s is 0,3 or
smaller, no matter what value r may take.
The justification for using kr for stainless steel is based on experimental data.
In Table C.6.1, use of the kr factor would change the experimental to predicted
α ratios for the actual mode (eleventh column) for specimens 27, 28 and 29
from 0,86, 0,74 and 0,72 to 1,04, 0,99 and 0,96 respectively. These would
then all be above unity when the 0,9 factor is introduced. Furthermore, with
the 0,9 and kr factors, specimens 27 and 28 would have been predicted to fail in
the observed mode.
The net section failures of thin gauge type 1.4310 ½ hard stainless steel
connections in the series of tests carried out by Errera et al119,21 also indicate
that the factor kr is necessary, see Figure C.6.5. As can be seen, there is a
substantial difference between the single shear and double shear specimens with
3 of the 4 single shear specimens falling below the characteristic design line.
These low single shear results are all due to the effects of distortion in the thin
gauge specimens and in fact are governed by failure mode VI (see Figure
C.6.1). As such, it would be inappropriate to use these results to justify a
lowering of the design curve. The double shear specimens, for which mode VI
is not a possibility, corroborate the design recommendations for net failure.
1,2
Average stress at net section/f u
1,0
0,8
0,6 kr
(r=1)
0,4
Design line for First Edition of Design Manual
(0,9kr )
r=1 for all specimens
0,2 Double shear specimen
Single shear specimen
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4

d/s
Figure C.6.5 Cornell University data for net section failure21
Figure C.6.6 shows the results for connections in ferritic stainless steel for
specimens having washers under both bolt head and nut120. All but one
specimen had two bolts, for which r = 0,5. Again, a reduction in load is
indicated for d/s values below 0,3.
However, the recent tests reported by Ryan121 do not justify the retention of the
0,9 factor in addition to the kr factor in the expression for the ultimate resistance
of the net cross-section. The equivalent expression in EN 1993-1-1 includes the
0,9 factor, but not the kr term in the expression. Conversely, EN 1993-1-3
includes the kr term but does not include the 0,9 factor. The tests reported in
Reference 118 indicated that the 0,9 factor may not be needed, although it was
retained to maintain compatibility with EN 1993-1-1, account for variables such
as strain rate effects and limit gross deformation at the net section. It was
therefore concluded during the drafting of the Second Edition of the Design
Manual that there was sufficient evidence for removing the 0,9 factor from the
expression for the ultimate resistance of the net cross-section. In the Second
69
Edition, the expression for kr was re-arranged and modified slightly to align
with the definition given in EN 1993-1-3 which includes the bolt hole diameter
as opposed to the bolt diameter.
1,2
Average stress at net section/f u
1,0 r=1 specimen
kr
0,8 (r=0,5)
0,6
kr
0,4 (r=1) Design lines for First Edition of Design Manual
(0,9kr )
r=0,5 for all specimens
except for that indicated
0,2 Double shear specimen
Single shear specimen
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4

d/s
120
Figure C.6.6 Net section failure data by van der Merwe
Design for block tearing

There are no specific test data for stainless steel in shear rupture. Guidance in
EN 1993-1-8 is recommended.
Angles connected by one leg and other unsymmetrically connected

members in tension
Ryan121 tested bolted gusset plate connections to angle and tee sections in
austenitic stainless steel. The twelve test specimens comprised tee or angle
sections connected to one side of a gusset plate by bolts acting in single shear.
Each specimen consisted of a 1500 mm length of section with a gusset plate
bolted at each end. The specimens were loaded by applying tension to the
gusset plates. The plates and sections were austenitic stainless steel grades
1.4306 and 1.4307. Some of the sections were cut from UPN type, I-sections
or rectangular hollow sections. The number of bolts (A4 property class 80) in
the connections varied from 4 to 8. Table C.6.5 gives a summary of the test
specimens.
The test results were compared to the resistances predicted by two methods:
ENV 1993-1-4 and First Edition of the Design Manual

This approach allows the member to be treated as concentrically loaded
provided the following expression for Anet is used to calculate the net section
resistance:
Anet = net area of connected leg + 0,5 gross area of shorter leg
ENV 1993-1-1
This approach calculates an effective concentrically loaded section that depends
on the net section of the entire angle and on the number and spacing of the
bolts. The rule is given in full in Section 6.2.3, Equations 6.6, 6.7 and 6.8.
70
Table C.6.6 summarises the test results and predicted resistances. For the
reinforced angle connections, the following modifications were made to the
ENV 1993-1-1 and ENV 1993-1-4 rules to allow for the fact that the outstand
leg was also attached to the gusset via a cleat:
• In the ENV 1993-1-1 method, the β factor was taken as 0,7 (the highest
value proposed for angles attached by one leg).
• In the ENV 1993-1-4 method, the efficiency of the outstanding leg area
was increased from 50% to 70%.
Table C.6.5 Test specimens for gusset plate tests121
Test Section Bolts Remark
C1-6/20 Angle 100x100x10 6 M20-1 line Staggered row of bolts

CR1-4/20 Angle 100x100x10 Line of 2 M20 Reinforced by a cleat
on each leg Cleat with 2M20 to gusset
CR2-6/20 Angle 100x100x10 Line of 3 M20 Reinforced by a cleat
UC1-4/20 Angle 80x65 4 M20 - 1 line Section cut from UPN 160x65
-65mm leg bolted
UCR1-4/20 Angle 80x65 Line of 2 M20 Section cut from UPN 160x85
UCR2-6/20 Angle 80x65 Line of 3 M20 Cut from UPN 160x85
RC1-3/16 Angle 110x50x4 3 M16 Section cut from 120x60x4
- 1 line rect.tube- 110mm leg bolted
RC2-4/16 Angle 110x50x4 2 lines of 2 M16 Section cut from 120x60x4
on attached leg rect.tube- 110mm leg bolted
T1-6/12 T 100x100x10 2 lines of 3 M12 Flange bolted
T2-8/12 T 100x100x10 2 lines of 4 M12 Flange bolted
IT-4/12 T 80x82 2 lines of2 M12 Cut from I 160x82
82 mm flange bolted
IT-8/12 T 80x82 2 lines of 4 M12 Cut from I 160x82
82 mm flange bolted
71
gusset plate tests121
Predicted ultimate resistances kN Comparison of ENV 1993-1-4 with tests results
Ratio of
Test Bearing Bolt shear Net** Net** Pred.*** Test Test/Pred. Failure
Section Section Resist.kN kN for actual mode
Part 1-4 Part 1-1 Part 1-4 failure
modes
C1 803,5 751,5 755,8 514,1 751,5 642 0,854** Net section
CR1 559,7 501 773,0* 626,5* 501 322 0,643 Bolt shear
CR2 839,5 751,5 773,0* 626,5* 751,5 556,7 0,741 Bolt shear
UC1 629,2 501 448,7 298,2 448,7 441,8 0,985** Net section
UCR1 629,2 501 438,1* 322,2* 438,1* 339,5 0,678 Bolt shear
UCR2 943,8 751,5 431,2* 320,4* 431,2* 514,9 1,194** Net section
RC1 177,0 269,9 376,7 245,4 177/269,9 275 1,554/1,019 Bearing/bolt
shear
RC2 236,0 359,8 317,5 274,1* 236/317,5 308,6 1,308/0,972 Bearing/Net
** sect.
T1 489,5 261,9 642,7 499,7 261,9 274,9 1,050 Bolt shear
T2 652,6 349,2 642,7 499,7 349,2 356,2 1,020 Bolt shear
IT1 328,0 174,6 620,4 400,4 174,6 162,2 0,929 Bolt shear
IT2 655,9 349,2 623,6 462,8 349,2 369,8 1,059 Bolt shear
Notes :
* By modified ENV rule
** Without 0,9 factor
*** Not necessarily for the failure mode
The test results showed that the guidance in ENV 1993-1-4 may be unsafe and
would lead to excessively large permanent deformations in some cases, possibly
even at the serviceability limit state. The ENV 1993-1-4 guidance always gives
higher resistances than the guidance in ENV 1993-1-1, in particular for many
standard angles with short connections, for which it predicts resistances up to
twice those predicted by the ENV 1993-1-1 guidance. However, the guidance
in ENV 1993-1-1 showed acceptable agreement with the test results, although it
did not always properly account for the length of the connection. It therefore
replaces the ENV 1993-1-4 rule in the Second Edition of the Design Manual.
The expression for β2 was modified slightly in the Third Edition to ensure
alignment with EN 1993-1-8.
C.6.2.4 Fasteners
Net areas
The tensile stress areas for stainless steel bolts to EN ISO 35068 are set out in
Table C.6.7.
72
Table C.6.7 Tensile stress area for bolts to EN ISO 3506
Thread Size (Coarse Series) Stress Area, As (mm2)
M6 20,1
M8 36,6
M10 58,0
M12 84,3
M16 157,0
M20 245,0
M24 353,0
M30 561,0
M36 817,0
Shear, tension and shear/tension resistance

The recommendations given in these sections are all similar to rules given in
EN 1993-1-8 for common structural bolts.
A limited test programme on the strength of stainless steel bolts was conducted
to generate information for the First Edition of the Design Manual118. The
number and type of tests are set out in Table C.6.8 and the results are
summarised in Figure C.6.7.
Table C.6.8 Number of tests on stainless steel bolts
Supplier
Key to
Fastener
Fig A B C
(set screws)
C.6.7
T S T/S T S T/S T S T/S
M20, A4-80 8 8 8 5 5 5 8 3 2
M16, A4-80 8 7 5 5 2
M16, A4-70 6 2
Notes:
T = Tension test, S = double shear test
T/S = Combined tension and shear
73
Tensile resistance (kN)
A Symbol* Fastener
B
200 M20, A4-80
M16, A4-80
M16, A4-70
*Letter indicates supplier

C
150
A B
C
M2
A
B
0,
C
A4
100
C
-80
M1
M1
6,
A4
6,
-8 0
A4
-70
50
C B A C BA
0
50 100 150
Shear resistance (kN)
Figure C.6.7 Results of tests on stainless steel bolts
The lines of Figure C.6.7 correspond to the interaction formula given in Section
6.2.4 Combined shear and tension but using the specified tensile capacity8 for
the ordinate and 0,6 times that for the abscissa. (The provision in 6.2.4 Tensile
resistance applies a 0,9 scaling factor to the ordinate.)
Given any particular batch and test type, the results were remarkably consistent,
typically within ± 2kN for tension and ± 5kN for shear about the respective
averages. Tests at loading rates differing by an order of magnitude showed
little effect on failure loads.
In one instance (supplier C of M20 A4-80 set screws), the measured tensile
capacity is less than the minimum specified level. This led to the
recommendation in 3.1.2 to have samples independently tested. Nevertheless,
even this batch was satisfactory in pure shear and in combined tension and shear
(for the ratio tested, T = S).
More recently, Ryan121 carried out tension and shear tests on individual bolt/nut
assemblies. Some of the shear tests were carried out with the plates loaded in
tension, and some in compression. Bolt diameters M12, M16 and M20 were
tested; all the bolts were austenitic A4 property class 80 to EN ISO 3506. The
results of the bolt tension and shear tests showed good agreement with the
predicted values.
Long joints and large grip lengths

The shear flow in long joints is such that the fasteners at each end take more
shear than the average shear of all the fasteners. Since stainless steel is more
ductile than carbon steel, and hence permits a greater degree of force
redistribution, stainless steel long joints should be at least of equal performance
to those in carbon steel.
74
Likewise, there is no reason to think stainless steel bolts with large grip lengths
behave any worse than normal structural bolts.
C.6.3 Mechanical fasteners for thin gauge material

In general, the guidance in EN 1993-1-3 has been shown to be applicable to
annealed and cold worked stainless steel22.
C.6.4 Welded connections

The Recommendations adopt the approach for determining the strength of a
fillet weld for carbon steel given in EN 1993-1-8. Additionally,
recommendations are given against the use of intermittent welds and partial
penetration butt welds in certain circumstances, to reduce the potential for
corrosion.
The provisions are primarily intended for sheet and plate of 4 mm thickness and
over.
It is important that good quality welds are made using verified procedures, see
Section 10.4, for the provisions to be realised.
Tests by SCI for the First Edition of the Design Manual

Since there were no available data on welded joints in the relevant grades of
stainless steel when the First Edition of the Design Manual was being written, a
limited test programme was conducted118. The fifteen specimens included a
variety of different types of joints as shown in Table C.6.9.
Only full penetration butt weld tests were carried out on grades 1.4307 and
1.4404 material. Welds in duplex 1.4462 material were tested in all
configurations. All specimens were prepared individually, without using run-off
tabs, so that starting and finishing defects would be present. The results
generally confirm the assertion that the strength of a weld may be considered as
equal to the parent material. The lowest ratio of measured failure load to
predicted failure load is 0,91 for specimen 7. Some of this discrepancy may be
attributed to strain rate effects, as some specimens that failed away from the
weld only reached a ratio of 0,95.
Tests on grade 1.4310 and ferritic stainless steels

References 119, 21 and 120 contain results of weld test programmes.
References 119 and 21 report on a test programme on ¼ hard and ½ hard
1.4310 stainless steel and Reference 120 reports on ferritic stainless steels.
The tests on the 1.4310 material show that the welding process has a partial
annealing effect on the cold worked stainless steel with a consequent reduction
in the cold worked strength.
75
Table C.6.9 Welded connection test programme
Specimen Steel t (mm) Weld Measured Schematic

Number Grade Throat a Load
(mm)
Predicted
Load
1 1.4307 4,2 Full Pen. 0,97 4 mm

2 1.4307 10,4 Full Pen. 0,95
3 1.4404 4,2 Full Pen. 1,03 10 mm
4 1.4404 10,4 Full Pen. 0,97

a
5 1.4462 2,0 1,4 1,00
6 1.4462 10,6 7,1 0,92
7 1.4462 2,0 1,4 0,91

8 1.4462 10,6 7,1 -
9 1.4462 2,0 1,4 0,99 45°

45°
10 1.4462 10,6 7,1 0,96
a
11 1.4462 10,6 5,0 1,08
12 1.4462 10,6 3,9 1,02
t=10 mm
a
13 1.4462 10,6 2,6 1,09
14 1.4462 10,6 3,5 1,06
15 1.4462 10,6 Full Pen. 0,96
Tests by RWTH
More recently, 46 stainless steel fillet welded connections were tested at
RWTH122. The test programme comprised 22 single lap joints with welds
parallel to the loading direction, and 24 double lap joints with welds transverse
to the loading direction. Two different base material grades with two electrode
material grades were tested: grade 1.4301 base material with grade 1.4316
electrodes, and grade 1.4462 base material with grade 1.4462 electrodes.
Tensile coupon tests in accordance with EN 10002-1123 were conducted on the
base material (with coupons prepared both transversely and longitudinally to
rolling direction), on the electrode material, and on the actual weld material.
The approach for determining the strength of a fillet weld in the

Recommendations is that for carbon steel given in EN 1993-1-1, but with the
correlation factor, βw set to 1,0 for all grades of stainless steel. For the RWTH
tests, the ratios of experimental failure load to predicted failure load were
calculated. These ratios were much higher for welds transverse to the load
direction (varying from 1,42 to 1,69) than for those parallel to the load
direction (varying from 1,01 to 1,12). This behaviour is also apparent with
carbon steels. In EN 1993-1-1 different βw values are given for different grades
of carbon steel and βw is independent of the weld configuration. Statistical
analysis of the SCI and RWTH test results concluded that βw =1,0 should be
used for determining the resistance of stainless steel fillet welded connections122.
This approach is very conservative for welds that are transverse to the direction
of loading, but economic for longitudinal welds.
Welding cold worked stainless steel

References 22 and 124 describe experimental studies of the structural behaviour
of welds in cold worked material and confirm the design approach given in
Section 6.4.4.
76
C.7 FIRE RESISTANT DESIGN
C.7.1 General
Guidance in this Section follows that given in EN 1993-1-2 except where
highlighted in Section C.7.4. Annex C of EN 1993-1-2 gives stainless steel
properties at elevated temperatures. For the purposes of design, it is assumed
that the actions are taken from EN 1991-1-2125.
C.7.2 Mechanical properties at elevated

temperatures
The derivation of the mechanical properties at elevated temperatures given in
the Recommendations is fully reported by Zhao126. Tests were carried out on
five grades of stainless steel: 1.4301, 1.4401, 1.4571, 1.4462 and 1.4003. The
test programme consisted of tensile tests at room temperature, isothermal tests
at elevated temperature and anisothermal tests at elevated temperatures. Based
on the test results, a mathematical model was generated for describing the
stress-strain relationship for stainless steel at elevated temperatures. The model
is closely aligned to that for carbon steel in EN 1993-1-2 and is divided into
two non-linear parts, (strains from zero to ec, and strains from ec to eu), as
shown in Figure C.7.1 and Table C.7.1. From the model, the strength and
stiffness retention factors were generated for the grades tested (given in Table
7.1 of the Recommendations).
The advantages of this model are that it gives an accurate prediction of the
stress-strain relationships of stainless steel at elevated temperatures, whilst
remaining compatible with the familiar carbon steel model from EN 1993-1-2.
f u (θ)
Strength
α = arctan (E ct ( θ ))
f 0,2p (θ)
α = arctan (E( θ))
ε c ( θ) ε u ( θ)
ε
Figure C.7.1 Definition of stress-strain parameters
77
Table C.7.1 Mathematical stress-strain model
Strain range ε Stress σ Tangent Modulus Et
ε ≤ εc Eε E (1 + aε b − ab ε b )
1 + aε b (1 + aε b ) 2
εc ≤ ε ≤ ε u d d + (ε u − ε )
f 0,2 p − e + c 2 − (ε u − ε )2
c c c 2 − (ε u − ε )2
where:
( E ε c − f 0,2 p ) (1 − Ect ε c / f 0,2 p ) E ε c
a= b=
f 0,2 p ε c b ( E ε c / f 0,2 p − 1) f 0,2 p
⎛ e ⎞
c 2 = (ε u − ε c ) ⎜⎜ ε u − ε c + ⎟
⎟ d 2 = e (ε u − ε c ) Ect + e 2
⎝ Ect ⎠
e=
( f u − f0,2p ) 2 with ε c = f 0,2 p / E + 0,002
(ε u − ε c ) Ect − 2( f u − f0,2 p )
fu,θ is the tensile strength at temperature θ
f0,2p,θ is the 0,2% proof strength at temperature θ
Eθ is the slope of the linear elastic range
Ect,θ is the slope at the 0,2% proof strength
εc,θ is the total strain at the 0,2% proof strength
εu ,θ is the ultimate strain
Tensile tests on cold formed stainless steel at elevated temperatures reported by

Ala-Outinen127 showed that the increased strength due to the cold forming
process remains constant up to 600°C, after which the strength begins to
decrease and the influence of cold forming totally disappears at 900°C.
Table 7.1 was extended in the Third Edition of the Design Manual to cover
grade 1.4318 (annealed and C850) and grade 1.4571 (C850) based on tests
carried out and reported in Reference 22.
C.7.3 Thermal properties at elevated temperatures

The thermal properties are those given in EN 1993-1-2. A comparison of the
thermal properties of stainless steels with those of carbon steels is given by Ala-
Outinen127. Note that the thermal elongation values apply to austenitic stainless
steel and not to duplex grades. Data for duplex grades should be sought from a
stainless steel producer.
C.7.4 Determination of structural fire resistance

The behaviour of unprotected stainless steel members was first studied by Ala-
Outinen and Oksanen128. They tested six 40x40x4 mm RHS columns in grade
1.4301 stainless steel with a buckling length of approximately 890 mm. They
also studied the behaviour of butt welded joints at elevated temperatures,
concluding that the joints did not have an adverse effect on the behaviour of the
member in fire.
The behaviour of unprotected stainless steel beams and columns in fire was
studied by Baddoo and Gardner129. Fire tests were carried out on six stainless
steel columns and four stainless steel beams. All the members were grade
1.4301 stainless steel. Four of the columns were fixed and two were pinned.
78
Three of the beams were simply supported and one was continuous over two
spans. The fire tests on four of the columns and two of the beams were
subsequently modelled using finite element analysis. Reasonably good
agreement was obtained between the test results and numerical analysis. A
parametric study analysed the effects of varying the overall slenderness of
columns, the load ratio (the applied load divided by the room temperature
resistance) and the cross-sectional slenderness.
Using the material properties for stainless steel derived in Reference 126, design
guidance for carbon steel in EN 1993-1-2 was shown to be applicable to
stainless steel columns (cold formed open and hollow cross-sections only) and
stainless steel beams supporting a concrete slab. Figure C.7.2 shows the
column design curves against the results of the tests and numerical analyses. (A
family of design curves is needed because the critical temperature is a function
of both load ratio and non-dimensional slenderness, λ .) Figure C.7.3 shows
the beam design curves against the results of the tests and numerical analyses.
1200
Critical temperature °C
1000
0,61
0,56 1,27
1,38 0,64
800 0,61 0,46
0,92 0,64
0,46
0,46
600 0,46
Tests
Numerical analysis
400 Euro Inox Design Curve λ = 0,5
0,46
Euro Inox Design Curve λ = 0,8
Euro Inox Design Curve λ = 1,2
200
0
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9
Load ratio
Note: Values of λ given next to each test and FE point
Figure C.7.2 Test data, results of numerical analyses and design
curve for stainless steel columns
79
1200
Critical temperature °C
1000
Continuous beam
800
600
Tests
400 Numerical analysis
Euro Inox design curve
200
0
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2
Load ratio
Figure C.7.3 Test data, results of numerical analyses and design

curve for stainless steel beams
However, for the column tested with a welded, open cross-section, this design
approach was found to over-estimate the measured resistance and further work
is necessary before definitive design recommendations can be made for stainless
steel columns with this type of cross-section.
Note that EN 1993-1-2 uses the characteristic strength at 2% total strain to

determine the structural fire resistance for all modes of loading of steel
members with Classes 1, 2 and 3 cross-sections. This was the approach
adopted in the Second Edition of the Design Manual for stainless steel. Fire
tests on structural members indicate that the strain at failure is strongly
dependent on the loading mode. For example, beams supporting concrete or
composite floors experience very high strains at failure (>2%). Load tests on
columns show they behave rather differently in that relatively low strains are
experienced at failure. It is conventional Eurocode practice to use empirical
factors to adjust the applied loads (or the resistances) to obtain better agreement
between tests and the basic material properties at 2% strain.
However, from the results of fire tests on members made from cold worked
stainless steel, a less conservative design approach was derived based on the
0,2% proof strength for all cross-section classes and using the room temperature
buckling curves rather than the fire buckling curves derived for carbon steel22.
These two approaches to fire resistant design were compared against all
available test data from stainless steel fire tests. Generally, the method in the
Second Edition of the Design Manual gave slightly more conservative results
than the new method, although there is not a huge difference between the design
curves (Figure C.7.4 and Figure C.7.5). (Note: In these Figures the method in
the Second Edition is called ‘Euro Inox’, and the new method is called
‘CTICM’.) The Design Manual method is a little more complicated because it
involves the evaluation of the stress reduction factor at a total elongation (elastic
and plastic) equal to 2% (k2%θ) which implies the knowledge of the actual value
of fu, while the new method does not. The new method is not sensitive to fu at
all.
80
Figure C.7.4 Column buckling tests at elevated temperature from
VTT: Comparison between Euro Inox method (from 2nd
Ed of Design Manual) and new approach (CTICM):
grade 1.4301
Figure C.7.5 Column buckling tests at elevated temperature from

VTT: Comparison between Euro Inox method (from 2nd
Ed of Design Manual) and new approach (CTICM):
grade 1.4571
Design curves in EN 1993-1-2 and EN 1994-1-2 were derived by the relevant

Project Teams from a ‘mean’ assessment of the predictions against the test data
points with no further reliability statistical analysis. Assuming a ‘mean’
assessment gives an acceptable level of safety, the new approach gives an
adequately safe prediction of the behaviour of stainless steel columns in fire. It
was therefore decided to adopt this approach in this project and the forthcoming
Third Edition of the Design Manual for Structural Stainless Steel.
The approach is summarised in Table C.7.2. It represents advances in

understanding of the behaviour of stainless steel members in fire and is less
conservative than the approach in EN 1993-1-2.
81
Table C.7.2 New approach for fire resistant design
Member Strength and buckling curve for use in design
Columns f0,2proof,θ (all cross-section classes) and the appropriate
room temperature buckling curve
Restrained beams f2,θ (class 1-3) and f0,2proof,θ (class 4)
Unrestrained beams f0,2proof,θ (all cross-section classes) and the appropriate
room temperature lateral torsional buckling curve
Tension members f2,θ (all cross-section classes)
This is the only part of the Design Manual which deviates from the
recommendations in Eurocode 3.
Although there are no relevant test data, the Recommendations also give
guidance on the:
• shear resistance,
• lateral torsional buckling resistance and
• resistance to combined axial compression and bending
of stainless steel members in fire, based on the recommendations for carbon
steel in EN 1991-1-2.
Section 7.4.7 of the Recommendations is the approach given for carbon steels in
EN 1993-1-2.
The heating up characteristics of a range of stainless steel sections with section

factors varying from around 200 m-1 to 700 m-1 were studied in a test
programme129. Numerical modelling agreed well with the tests. Furthermore, it
was shown that for a given section factor, a stainless steel section heats up at a
very similar rate to a carbon steel section. Further studies were carried out by
Gardner and Ng130 in which the recommendation was made that a value of 02
was more appropriate for the emissivity of stainless steel than the value of 0,4
given in EN 1993-1-2.
For advanced calculation methods, the guidance given in EN 1993-1-2 can be

followed.
82
C.8 FATIGUE
C.8.1 Introduction
Austenitic and duplex stainless steels are widely used in the fabrication of
structures that are subjected to repeated loading and must therefore be designed
to avoid fatigue failure. Many fatigue data exist for welded joints in structural
carbon steels131. There is also an increasing body of stainless steel data132,133,134.
Fatigue behaviour of welded joints is dominated by joint geometry. Similar

crack growth behaviour occurs in carbon and stainless steel. The test data show
that welded joints in stainless steel have fatigue strengths very similar to those
in carbon steels and well established design rules for carbon steels are
applicable to stainless steels.
The guidance on fatigue strengths apply to structures operating under normal

atmospheric conditions and with sufficient corrosion protection and regular
maintenance. The effect of seawater corrosion is not covered. Microstructural
damage from high temperatures (>150°C) is not covered. Furthermore, almost
all the fatigue tests on stainless steel joints which were found in the literature
had been performed in air. In the presence of a corrosive environment, fatigue
strength is reduced, the magnitude of reduction depending on materials,
environment, loading frequency etc. The effect of sea water on carbon steel,
which has been most widely investigated, is to reduce fatigue life by a factor of
2 under freely corroding conditions.
The fatigue strength of welded joints is usually determined by a fatigue life-

stress range curve, a so-called S-N curve, which is presented as a log-log graph.
In Eurocode terminology, S-N curves are known as ΔσR-NR curves. A fatigue
strength curve is applied to each detail category. Each detail category is
designated by a number that represents, in N/mm2, the stress range that
corresponds to a fatigue strength of 2 million cycles. For example, a joint
assigned a detail category 80 (also designated FAT 80) would have a fatigue life
of 2 million cycles when subject to a constant amplitude stress range of
80 N/mm2.
C.8.2 S-N data for stainless steels

In a recent test programme, fatigue strengths of shielded metal arc welded
(SMAW) joints from stainless steel grades 1.4301, 1.4436 and 1.4462 were
determined using constant amplitude loading and axial tension fatigue tests135.
Results from more than 50 test specimens were analysed. Test specimens were
longitudinal and transverse non-load carrying fillet welds. As there are no
standard S-N curves for stainless steel, the test results were compared to the
carbon steel fatigue class given in EN 1993-1-9 (FAT 80 for transverse fillet
welds and FAT 71 for longitudinal fillet welds). The results are shown in
Figure C.8.1 and Figure C.8.2. The test results were analysed to determine the
characteristic fatigue class FAT95% (the stress range at a 95% survival
probability). The characteristic fatigue classes exceeded the carbon steel
standard classes.
Other test programmes generally support this behaviour136,137,138 although some

test programmes have shown the class of austenitic stainless steel longitudinal
fillet welds to be slightly lower than that of carbon steel139,140. However, more
recent studies have not confirmed this (Figure C.8.3), throwing some doubt on
83
the earlier sets of results, both of which happened to be obtained at the same
laboratory in the 1970s. Thus the general trend is to apply fatigue design rules
for carbon steels to welded stainless steels (excluding environmental
considerations)137. This is the approach adopted in EN 1993-1-9.
1000
Stress range, N/mm²
100
Grade 1.4301, included

Grade 1.4301, not included
Duplex 1.4462, included
Duplex 1.4462, not included
Grade 1.4436, included, t=12
Grade 1.4436, included, t = 12
Grade 1.4436, not included, t=8
Reference, FAT80
10
10000 100000 1000000 10000000
Endurance, cycles
Figure C.8.1 Fatigue endurance data for transverse fillet welds

(grades 1.4301, 1.4436 and 1.4462)
1000
100
Grade 1.4301, included

Grade 1.4301, not included
Duplex 1.4462, included
Duplex 1.4462, not included
Grade 1.4436, included, t=8
Grade 1.4436, included, t = 12
Reference, FAT71
10
10000 100000 1000000 10000000
Endurance, cycles
Figure C.8.2 Fatigue endurance data for longitudinal fillet welds

(grades 1.4301, 1.4436 and 1.4462)
84
300

250
R=0
200
150
Data presented in Ref 113

100 Ref. 119 & 120 data from one lab.
New TWI results (unpublished)
GMA welded
SMA welded
GTA welded
Unbroken 95% confidence intervals
enclosing data for C-Mn steels
60
10 4 10 5 10 6 10 7
Endurance, cycles
Note: 95% confidence intervals are taken from Reference 141
Figure C.8.3 Fatigue test results for austenitic stainless steel plates
with longitudinal fillet welded attachments137
C.8.3 S-N data for cold worked stainless steels

Reference 22 describes fatigue tests on intermittent and continuous longitudinal
load-carrying fillet welds on grade 1.4318 stainless steel cold worked to strength
level C850. The study concluded that the guidance in EN 1993-1-9 can safely
be applied to cold worked stainless steel, in fact the resistance of the cold
worked joints was considerably higher than the relevant Eurocode
classifications.
C.8.4 Fatigue crack growth data for stainless

steels
An alternative method, although less commonly used, for fatigue assessment is
the fracture mechanics approach. It is based on the observed relationship
between the range in the stress intensity factor, ΔK, and the rate of growth of
fatigue cracks, da/dN. This usually takes a sigmoidal form in a log ΔK versus
log da/dN plot. Below a threshold stress intensity factor range, ΔKth, no crack
growth occurs. For intermediate values of ΔK, growth rate is idealised by a
straight line in the log/log plot such that:
da
= C (ΔK ) n
dN
For a crack at the toe of a welded joint:
ΔK = M k Y ΔS π a
where
ΔS is the applied stress range,
a is the crack depth,
Y is a correction function dependent on crack size, shape and loading
85
Mk is a special function that allows for the stress concentration effect of
the welded joint and depends on crack size, plate thickness, joint
geometry and loading.
Solutions for Y for semi-elliptical cracks of the type which occur at the toes of
welds and solutions for Mk for a range of welded joint geometries are available.
Combining the above two equations and integrating gives:
af
∫
da
= CΔS n N
ai (MkY πa ) n
where
ai is the initial crack depth
af is the final crack depth corresponding to failure
Thus, if a welded joint contains a crack or crack-like flaw, its fatigue life can
be predicted assuming that the life consists of fatigue crack growth from the
pre-existing crack, if the initial crack size is known.
Following a review of data pertaining to the fatigue crack growth behaviour of

stainless steels, values of C and n are given in Table C.8.1. It is recommended
to use a ΔKth value of 63,2 N/mm3/2 (2MN/m3/2) for all grades of stainless steel.
Table C.8.1 Values for C and n (in air)

R C n
Range
Upper 95% Mean Lower 95%
confidence limit confidence limit
0 < R ≤ 0,1 4,75 x 10-15 2,31 x 10-15 1,12 x 10-15 3,66

R = 0,5 1,60 x 10-14 8,57 x 10-15 4,53 x 10-15 3,60
Notes:
1. R = algebraic stress ratio, fmin / fmax (tension positive)
2. da/dN = C(ΔK)n
3. ΔK in N/mm3/2, da/dN in mm/cycle
4. Valid for 300 ≤ K ≤ 1800 N/mm3/2
Figure C.8.4 shows the crack propagation data obtained for stainless steels in
air below 100°C. The scatter band for crack growth data obtained from carbon
steel142 is also shown for comparison. Fatigue crack growth behaviour of type
1.4301 and comparison of type 1.4301 with 1.4401143 are illustrated in Figure
C.8.5 and Figure C.8.6 respectively. Propagation data relating specifically to
duplex 1.4462 144 are shown in Figure C.8.7.
The review of data on crack growth behaviour in air below 100°C indicates that
the growth rates in stainless and carbon steel are similar (as shown in Figure
C.8.4). This suggests that the well established Paris Law coefficients n and C
for carbon steels142 may be used for the fracture mechanics analysis of stainless
steels (Table C.8.1).
A review of threshold stress intensity factors ΔKth for the stainless steel types
was also carried out145 and the results are tabulated in Table C.8.2 and
illustrated in Figure C.8.8. These values are similar to those for carbon steels.
The recommended value of ΔKth = 2MN/m3/2 for use with welded structures is
86
a lower bound to the values in Table C.8.2 and Figure C.8.8 (and in particular
to higher values of R) and is the same as that used for the assessment of crack
behaviour in carbon steels.
10-2
Fatigue crack growth rate, da/dN, mm/cycle
10-3
Scatterband for
structural steel
10-4
10-5
10-6
1,0 10 100
Stress intensity factor range, Δ K, MN/m³ /²
Figure C.8.4 Crack growth rate data for stainless steels in air at
temperatures less than 100°C
87
10-2
Scatterband for annealed

type 1.4301 stainless steel
at room temperature

Scatterband for
structural steel
10-3
10-4
10-5
10 1 10 2
Figure C.8.5 Fatigue crack growth behaviour of stainless steel grade

1.4301 at room temperature
10-2
Annealed type 1.4401 stainless steel,
37°C, R - 0,04
Laboratory air environment
NaCl, CaCl, KCl solution
Annealed type 1.4301 stainless steel,

25°C, R - 0
Dry air environment
Humid air environment
10-3
Scatterband for
structural steel
10-4
10-5
10 1 10 2
Figure C.8.6 Comparison of fatigue growth behaviour of austenitic

stainless steels
88
10 -3
(a) Hot rolled

(b) Quench annealed
(c) Cold rolled
(d) Cold rolled and annealed
Scatterband for
structural steel
10 -4
10 -5
10 -6
a b c d
10 -7
10 -8
3 10 20 30
Stress intensity factor range, ΔK, MN/m³ /²
Figure C.8.7 Fatigue crack growth behaviour of duplex grade 1.4462
89
Table C.8.2 Fatigue threshold values for stainless steel in air at
room temperature
Material Yield Strength Stress Ratio ΔKth (MN/m3/2)
(N/mm2) R
1.4401 (18Cr, 12Ni) 268 0,08 5,2
0,1 5,0
0,2 4,3
0,38 3,2
0,5 3,3
1.4401, as previous; aged 292 0,12 3,7
0,33 3,4
0,55 2,7
0,68 2,7
1.4401 (18Cr, 12Ni) 255 0,05 6,8
0,05 6,1
0,2 5,3
0,35 4,5
0,6 3,0
1.4401 (18Cr, 12Ni) 198 0,02 8,1
0,2 6,9
0,33 6,2
0,35 5,9
0,61 3,8
1.4301 (18,5Cr, 8,8Ni) 222 0,0 5,5
0,5 3,1
0,8 2,9
0,9 2,3
1.4301 (20,2Cr, 8,5Ni) 265 0,0 3,5
0,4 3,5
0,8 4,0
1.4301 (19,2Cr, 10,3Ni) 221 0,0 5,6
0,17 4,5
0,37 4,2
0,80 2,8
Threshhold stress intensity factor range, Δ K th MN/m³ / ²
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0
Stress ratio, R
Figure C.8.8 Variation of threshold stress intensity factor range with

stress ratio for stainless steels in air
90
C.9 TESTING
The guidance given in the Recommendations has been formulated with the
benefit of experience gained in various test programmes that supplied
background data for the First, Second and Third Editions of the Design Manual.
It should be appreciated that it is difficult to obtain an accurate stress-strain

curve. In particular, it is difficult to obtain a reliable measurement of modulus
using extensometry. Other techniques, such as strain gauging or acoustic
resonance methods, may prove more satisfactory.
91
C.10 FABRICATION ASPECTS
C.10.1 Introduction
A broad overview of the precautions to be observed during fabrication is given
in the Recommendations and not much further is added in this commentary.
It is emphasised that fabrication should be considered early in the design process

as it may affect choice of material grade and structural form (cold formed or
welded).
Advice should always be sought if in doubt. Information and literature is freely

available from stainless steel producers, weld consumable manufacturers and
fabricators. Indeed, much of the information presented in the Recommendations
is gathered from such sources. The European specification for fabrication and
erection of structural stainless steel, ENV 1090-6146, covers materials, storage
and handling, forming, cutting, joining methods, tolerances and inspection and
testing. All the parts of ENV 1090 are currently being converted into EN 1090
and the requirements for the execution of steel and stainless steel structures will
be contained in EN 1090-2147 with EN 1090-1148 covering rules for using CE
marks on steel structures. Reference 149 is a handbook on the erection and
installation of stainless steel components which interprets and amplifies the
guidance in EN 1090-2 for stainless steel. Reference 150 gives general
information about working with stainless steel.
C.10.2 Storage and handling

The use of appropriate storage and handling procedures will avoid iron
contamination and surface damage, both of which may subsequently initiate
corrosion. Whereas embedded iron can be relatively easily removed (by
pickling), scratches may prove troublesome and costly to rectify on surfaces
with fine finishes. Iron contamination is discussed in Reference 151. More
information on pickling and passivation is given in Reference 152.
Advice on selecting appropriate protective coatings, and their removal, may be

found in Reference 153.
C.10.3 Shaping operations

Stainless steel can be machined by all the usual techniques, though different
cutting speeds and feeds to those used for carbon steel are normally required.
Note that stainless steel swarf is dangerous by virtue of its length and sharpness.
Commonly, brake presses are of 3 m length capacity. However, more powerful

machines which cold form longer lengths are available. Discussions with
fabricators are recommended to establish plate width and thickness limits.
C.10.4 Welding
The area of stainless steel fabrication where most care is required is welding.
That is not to say it is difficult, but rather that corrosion and metallurgical
aspects also have to be considered. In general, fabricators who have had
92
experience of working with stainless steels are well informed of the possible
pitfalls and their advice should be heeded.
As noted above, steel suppliers and consumable manufacturers produce

informative literature. This ranges from brief non-technical pamphlets, through
more detailed guidance on recommended joint types and welding parameters, to
very technical papers such as the effect of alloying elements on corrosion
resistance in specific environments. There is also a wealth of literature in
journals, conference proceedings, etc. However, it is fair to say that most of
the literature in journals and conference proceedings has little immediate
practical relevance to the structural applications for which this Design Manual
has been prepared.
EN 1011-3154 contains much useful information about arc welding stainless

steels. EN ISO 15609-1155 covers welding procedures and EN 287-1156 covers
approval testing of welders. Reference 157 gives general information about
welding stainless steel. A comparison of the performance of common manual
welding processes for stainless steel is given in Reference 158. As well as
examining the technical performance, the study considered economic aspects of
each process. The report also contains numerous practical comments for
welders and welding engineers.
Tuthill151 discusses various post weld treatment techniques (mechanical abrasion

methods and pickling) to restore the corrosion resistance of the stainless steel.
Examples are given of corrosion attacks where simple cleaning procedures were
not followed. Reference 152 is also relevant.
Ultrasonics is not normally used for inspecting welds in stainless steel because
the grain size in the welds is comparable to the wavelength of the beam which
is thus strongly scattered. However, new techniques have been developed159 for
use in critical applications.
C.10.5 Galling and seizure

Reference 160 contains relevant information.
C.10.6 Finishing
Reference 161 describes more fully the various options for finishing a fabricated
component.
93
APPENDIX A Correlation between
stainless steel designations
Table A.1 is taken from ENV 1993-1-4.
94
APPENDIX B Lateral-torsional buckling
slenderness, λLT
The various formulae presented in the Recommendations are taken from the
June 2002 version of prEN 1993-1-1162, which was approved by CEN’s sub-
committee SC3. These formulae were subsequently removed from the final
version of EN 1993-1-1 to allow greater scope of sources of values.
95
APPENDIX C Material data for deflection
calculations
The formula for estimating the secant modulus (using the constants given in
Table C.1) is derived from the Ramberg-Osgood description of non-linear
stress-strain curves15:
⎡ n −1
⎛ E ⎞⎛ σ ⎞ ⎤
n
σ ⎛σ ⎞ σ ⎢
ε = + 0,002⎜ ⎟ or ε = 1 + 0,002 ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ ⎥
E ⎜ fy ⎟ E ⎢ ⎜ f y ⎟⎜ f y ⎟ ⎥
⎝ ⎠ ⎣ ⎝ ⎠⎝ ⎠ ⎦
The secant modulus, ES, is thus
σ E
ES = =
ε [1 + k (σ / f ) ]
y
n −1
where k = 0,002 E/fy

The k factors in Table C.1 of the Recommendations are derived from the
minimum 0,2% proof strengths given in EN 10088-2 for hot rolled strip/plate
and E=200 000 N/mm2 as given in EN 10088-1 (Sections 3.1.2 and 3.2.4 of
the Recommendations). The secant moduli in Table C.2 of the
Recommendations were derived from the given formula and the constants in
Table C.1.
The n factors are the exponents of fitted Ramberg-Osgood curves to

experimental data14. It may be noted that a range of n factors can be found
depending on how the curve fitting is carried out. For instance, fitting a curve
to a number of points on the experimental stress-strain curve up to and beyond
the 0,2% proof strength results in relatively high n values. However, forcing
the fitted curve to simulate the observed departure from linearity (conventionally
taken at the 0,01% proof stress) results in rather lower n values. The latter
method was adopted for reasons of conservatism as deflection calculations are
carried out at stresses below the 0,2% proof stress (for greater stresses, higher
n factors are more conservative).
The constants E, k and n are necessarily derived from short term stress-strain
curves and thus do not allow for the effects of room temperature creep. This
need only be of concern when there is long term loading at a high level of
stress.
96
REFERENCES
1 2004 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 2004
2 EN 1993-1-1:2005 Eurocode 3. Design of Steel Structures: Part 1-1 General

rules and rules for buildings
CEN, 2005
3 EN 1993-1-4:2006 Eurocode 3. Design of steel structures: General rules.

Supplementary rules for stainless steels.
CEN, 2006
4 API RP2A – LRFD. Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and

Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms - Load and Resistance Factor Design
American Petroleum Institute, 1993
5 Metals Handbook, 10th Edition. Properties and Selection: Irons, Steels, and
High-Performance Alloys
American Society for Metals, Ohio, 1990. Volume 1
6 Cunat, Pierre-Jean, The Euro Inox handbook of stainless steel,

Luxembourg: Euro Inox 2002 (Materials and Applications Series, Volume 1)
7 EN 10088: Stainless steels

EN 10088-1:2005: List of stainless steels
EN 10088-2:2005: Technical delivery conditions for sheet/plate and strip of
corrosion resisting steels for general purposes
EN 10088-3:2005: Stainless steels. Technical delivery conditions for semi-
finished products, bars, rods and sections for general purposes
CEN, 2005
8 EN ISO 3506:1998: Mechanical properties of corrosion-resistant stainless steel

fasteners – Specifications
CEN, 1998
9 EN 10204:1991: Metallic products. Types of inspection documents.

CEN, 1991
10 Euro Inox (ed.),

Tables of Technical Properties,
Materials and Applications Series, Volume 5, Luxembourg: Euro Inox
2005
Also available as an interactive online database at www.euro-inox.org
11 Olsson, A.
WP1: Constitutive model for material behaviour
(ECSC Project – Development of the use of stainless steel in construction,
Contract no. 7210 SA/903)
Lulea Institute of Technology, March 2000
12 Granlund, J
Structural steel plasticity – Experimental study and theoretical modelling
Doctoral Thesis, Luleå University of Technology, 1997. Thesis 1997:24
13 Mechanical and Physical Properties of Austenitic Chromium-Nickel Stainless

Steels at Ambient Temperatures (Inco Databook)
Inco Europe Limited, 1963
97
(Distributed by the Nickel Development Institute)
14 Technical Report 30: Results from Test Programme on Materials (SCI-RT251)

The Steel Construction Institute, November 1991
15 Ramberg, W. and Osgood, R.

Description of Stress-Strain Curves by Three Parameters (NACA Technical
Note 902)
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 1943
16 Mirambell, E. and Real, E.

On the calculation of deflections in structural stainless steel beams: an
experimental and numerical investigation.
Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Elsevier, 2000. Volume 54, pp 109-133
17 Gardner, L.
A new approach to structural stainless steel design
PhD Thesis, Imperial College London, 2002
18 Euro Inox (ed.)

Stainless steel for structural automotive applications - properties and case studies
Luxembourg, Euro Inox, 3nd Edition 2006 (CD ROM)
19 Van Hecke, B
The forming potential of stainless steel
Materials and Applications Series, Volume 8
Luxembourg, Euro Inox, 2006
20 Holmes, B. and Gladman, T.

Effect of Nickel and Chromium on the Work Hardening Characteristics of
Austenitic Steels
British Steel, May 1970. Publication ref: SF 732,
21 Errera, S.J., Popowich, D.W. and Winter, G.

Bolted and Welded Stainless Steel Connections.
Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil
Engineers, 1974. Vol.100, No. ST6. pp 1279-1296
22 Structural design of cold worked austenitic stainless steel

Final Summary Report
ECSC Project Contract 7210-PR/318
EC, 2005
23 SEI/ASCE - 8 - 02: Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Stainless Steel

Structural Members, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2002.
24 Ashraf, M, Gardner, L. and Nethercot, D. A.

Strength enhancement of the corner regions of stainless steel cross-sections.
Journal of Constructional Steel Research. 61(1). 37-52, 2005
25 van den Berg, G.J. and van der Merwe, P.

The prediction of corner mechanical properties for stainless steels due to cold
forming
Proceedings of the 11th International Speciality Conference on cold formed steel
structures, St Louis, Missouri, USA, 1992
26 Dodd, B., Stone, R.C. and Campbell, J.D.

The Strain-Rate Sensitivity of 304L Austenitic Stainless Steel in Uniaxial Tension
(Engineering Laboratory Report No. 1069/73)
University of Oxford, August 1973
98
27 Albertini, C. and Montagnani, M.
Wave Propagation Effects in Dynamic Loading.
Nuclear Engineering and Design, 1976. Vol.37, pp 115-124
28 Stout, M.G. and Follansbee, P.S.

Strain Rate Sensitivity, Strain Hardening, and Yield Behaviour of 304L Stainless
Steel
Transactions of the Amercian Society of Mechanical Engineeers, Journal of
Engineering Materials and Technology, 1986. Vol.108, pp 344-353
29 Marshall, P.
Austenitic Stainless Steels. Microstructure and Mechanical Properties
Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, 1984
30 Design guide for stainless steel blast walls

(Fire and Blast Information Group Technical Note 5)
The Steel Construction Institute, 1999
31 Krempl, E.
An Experimental Study of Room-Temperature Rate-Sensitivity, Creep and
Relaxation of AISI Type 304 Stainless Steel
Journal of the mechanics and physics of solids, 1979. Vol.27 pp 363-375
32 Tero Taulavuori, Pasi Aspegren, Jukka Säynäjäkangas, Jussi Salmén, Pentti

Karjalainen
The anisotropic behaviour of the nitrogen alloyed stainless steel grade 1.4318
High Nitrogen Steels 2004 – Ostend, Belgium, September 19-22, 2004
33 Inco Europe Limited

Austenitic Chromium-Nickel Stainless Steels - Engineering Properties at Elevated
Temperatures
Inco Databooks, distributed by the Nickel Development Institute, 1963
34 Sanderson, G.P. and Llewellyn, D.T.

Mechanical Properties of Standard Austenitic Stainless Steels in the Temperature
range −196° to +800°C
Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute, August 1969
35 Materials for Cryogenic Service - Engineering Properties of Austenitic Stainless

Steels (Inco Databook)
Inco Europe Limited, 1974
(Distributed by the Nickel Development Institute)
36 The life cycle costing of stainless steel

International Chromium Development Association, Euro Inox and Southern
Africa Stainless Steel Development Association, 2005 (CD ROM)
37 An Architect’s Guide on Corrosion Resistance

Nickel Development Institute, 1990
38 Outokumpu Stainless Corrosion Handbook

9th Edition
Outokumpu, Tornio, 2005
39 Guide to stainless steel finishes

Building Series, Volume 1
Luxembourg, Euro Inox, Second Edition, 2002
40 Baddoo, N. R., Burgan, R. and Ogden, R. O.

Architects’ guide to stainless steel
Steel Construction Institute, P179, 1995
99
(Available online at www.steel-stainless.org/architects )
41 Euro Inox (ed.)

The self-passivation of stainless steel,
Luxembourg, Euro Inox, 2002 (CD-ROM)
42 Euro Inox (ed.)

Stainless steel against corrosion,
Luxembourg, Euro Inox 2000 (CD-ROM)
43 Corrosion Tables for Stainless Steels and Titanium

Jernkontoret, Stockholm, Sweden, 1979
44 Needham, N.G. et al.

Atmospheric Corrosion Resistance of Stainless Steels
Stainless Steels ‘87, Proceedings of Conference held at York, September 1987
The Institute of Metals, 1988
45 Sheffield Research Laboratories

Stainless Steels Offshore Long Term Corrosion Tests (Technical Note SM/4/81)
British Steel Corporation, August 1981
46 BS PD 6484:1979: Commentary on Corrosion at Bimetallic Contacts and its

alleviation
BSI, 1979
47 Tuthill, A.H. and Schillmoller, C.M.

Guidelines for Selection of Marine Materials
The International Nickel Company, Inc., 1971
48 Stone, P.G., Hudson, R.M. and Johns, D.R.

Performance of Stainless Steels in Topside Construction Offshore
Stainless Steels ‘84. Proceedings of Conference held at Göteborg, September
1984
The Institute of Metals, 1985
49 Money, K.L. and Kirk, W.W.

Stress Corrosion Cracking Behaviour of Wrought Fe-Cr-Ni Alloys in Marine
Atmosphere
Material Performance, 1978. Vol. 17, pp.28-36
50 Suzuki, T. et al.
Austenitic-Ferritic Stainless Steels with High-Chromium Low-Nickel Content
Nippon Kinzoku Gakkaishi, 1968. Vol. 32, No. 11, pp. 1171-1177
51 Nickel Development Institute (Now Nickel Institute)

Stainless steel in swimming pool buildings (Pub. No. 12010)
NiDI, 1995
52 Stress corrosion cracking of stainless steels in swimming pool buildings

(Sector Information Minute, SIM 5/2002/18, Version 1: 02/08/2002)
Health and Safety Executive, Field Operations Directorate, Food and
Entertainment Sector, 2002
The Stationery Office, 2002
53 Baddoo, N R and Cutler, C P

Stainless steel in indoor swimming pool buildings
The Structural Engineer
May 2004
100
54 BS 5950-1:2000 Structural Use of Steelwork in Building. Code of practice for
design – rolled and welded sections
BSI, 2001
55 BS 5950-5:1998 Structural Use of Steelwork in Building. Code of practice for

design of cold formed thin gauge sections
BSI, 1998
56 Development of the use of stainless steel in construction

Final report, Directorate-General for Research,
European Commission, Technical Steel Research EUR 20030 EN, 2001
57 ENV 1993-1-3: 1996 Eurocode 3. Design of Steel Structures. General rules.

Supplementary rules for cold formed thin gauge members and sheeting
CEN, 1996
58 ENV 1993-1-2: 1995 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. Structural fire

design
CEN, 1995
59 ENV 1993-1-4:1996: Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. General rules.

Supplementary rules for stainless steels
CEN, 1996
60 ENV 1993-1-5:1997: Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. General rules.

Supplementary rules for plated planar structures without transverse loading
CEN, 1997
61 EN 1993-1-2:2005 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part -1-2: General

rules – Structural fire design
CEN 2005
62 EN 1993-1-3:2006 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-3: General

rules – Supplementary rules for cold formed members and sheeting
CEN, to be published in 2006
63 EN 1993-1-5:2006 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-5: Plated

structural elements
CEN, 2006
64 EN 1993-1-8:2005 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-8: Design of

joints
CEN 2005
65 EN 1993-1-9:2005 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-9: Fatigue

CEN’ 2005
66 EN 1993-1-12: 2005 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1-12:

Additional rules for the extension of EN 1993 up to steel grades S700
CEN, to be published in 2006
67 BS 8118:1991 Code of Practice for the Design of Aluminium Structures

BSI, 1991
68 Dier, A. F.
Comparison of Steel and Aluminium Plate Strengths
Proceedings of International Conference on Steel and Aluminium Structures,
Cardiff, UK, 8-10 July 1987
69 Little, G. H.
Collapse Behaviour of Aluminium Plates
101
International journal of mechanical science, 1982. Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 37–45
70 Moffin, D. S. and Dwight, J. B.

Buckling of Aluminium Plates in Compression
In: Rhodes and Spence (eds): Behaviour of Thin-Walled Structures
Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, 1984
71 Kuwamura, H.
Local buckling consideration in design of thin-walled stainless steel members
Lecture at Pusan National University, 8 February, 2001
72 Gardner, L. and Nethercot, D.A.

Experiments on stainless steel hollow sections-Part1: Material and cross-sectional
behaviour
Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 60 1293-1318, 2004
73 Talja, A. and Salmi, P.

Design of stainless steel RHS beams, columns and beam-columns
Research Note 1619, VTT Building Technology, Finland, 1995
74 Young, B. and Liu, Y.

Experimental investigation of cold-formed stainless steel columns
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol 129, No. 2, pp. 169-176, 2003
75 Young, B. and Lui, W.M.

Tests on cold formed high strength stainless steel compression members
Thin-Walled Structures 44, 224-234, 2006
76 Gardner, L., Talja, A. and Baddoo, N.

Structural design of high-strength austenitic stainless steel
Thin-Walled Structures, 44,517-528, 2006
77 Young,B. and Hartono,W.

Compression tests of stainless steel tubular members
Journal of structural engineering, ASCE, vol128, No.6 (754), 2002
78 Kiymaz, G.
Strength and stability criteria for thin-walled stainless steel circular hollow
section members under bending,
Thin-Walled Structures 43 (2005) 1534-1549, 2005
79 Zhou, F. and Young, B.

Tests of cold-formed stainless steel tubular flexural members
Thin-Walled Structures 43 (2005) 1325-1337, 2005
80 Burgan, B.A., Baddoo, N.R. and Gilsenan, K.A.

Structural design of stainless steel members-comparison between Eurocode 3,
Part 1.4 and test results
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 54, 51-73, 2000
81 Winter, G.
Thin-Walled Structures, Theoretical Solutions and Test Results
In: Proc. IABSE Eighth Congress, 9 -14 September, 1968
International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, 1968
82 Dier, A. F.
Collapse of Metal Plates
Ph.D. Thesis, University of London, 1981
83 Anderson, R. A. and Anderson, M. S.

Correlation of Crippling Strength of Plate Structures with Material Properties
102
(NACA Technical Note 3600)
National Advisory Committee of Aeronautics, 1956
84 Johnson, A. L. and Winter, G.

Behaviour of Stainless Steel Columns and Beams
Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil
Engineers
ASCE, October 1966
85 Wang, S. T. and Winter, G.

Cold rolled Austenitic Stainless Steel: Material Properties and Structural
Performance (Report No 334)
Department of Structural Engineering, Cornell University, July 1969.

The Structural Performance of Austenitic Stainless Steel Members (Report
No. 327)
Department of Structural Engineering, School of Civil Engineering, Cornell
University, 1966
87 Yamada, S. et al.
Ultimate Strength of H-shaped Stub-columns of Stainless Steel
Proceedings of the Institute of Architects, Japan, October 1988
88 Technical Report 22 - Local Buckling of Stainless Steel Elements (SCI-RT158)

The Steel Construction Institute, September 1990
89 Dowling, P. J. and Burgan, B. A.

Shear Lag in Steel and Composite Structures: A State of the Art Review.
Proceedings of International Conference on Steel and Aluminium Structures,
Cardiff, UK, 8-10 July 1987
90 Harding, J. E., Hobbs, R. E., Neal, B. G. and Slatford, J. E.

Parametric Study on Plates under Combined Direct and Shear In-Plane Loading
(Engineering Structures Laboratories Report No. BG 44).
Civil Engineering Department, Imperial College, October 1976
91 Talja, A.
Test report on welded I and CHS beams, columns and beam-columns (Report to
the ECSC)
Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT), Finland, December 1997.
92 Talja, A
Design of stainless steel members and sheetings
(Internal project summary report No RTE38-IR-6/2000)
Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT), Finland, 2000
93 Cold-Formed Steel Design Manual

American Iron and Steel Institute, 1986
94 Young, W. C. and Budynas. R. G.

Roark’s Formulas for Stress and Strain (7th edition)
McGraw-Hill International Book Company, 1976
95 Eurocode 3 Part 1
Background Documentation - Chapter 5, Document 5.04
Prepared for the Commission of the European Communities by the Eurocode 3
Editorial Group
CEN TC/250/SC3 committee document
96 Technical Report 29: Tests on Stainless Steel Beams and Columns (SCI-RT231)
103
The Steel Construction Institute, July 1991
97 Hammer, E. W. Jr. and Petersen, R. E.

Column Curves for Type 301 Stainless Steel
Aeronautical Engineering Review, 19955. Vol. 14, Part 12, pp 33-39, 45, 48

Behaviour of Stainless Steel Columns and Beams
Journal of the Structural Division
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, October 1966

The Structural Performance of Austenitic Stainless Steel Members (Report
No. 327)
Department of Structural Engineering, School of Civil Engineering, Cornell
University, November 1966
100 Coetzee, J. S., van den Berg, G. J., and van der Merwe, P.
The Behaviour of Stainless Steel Lipped Channel Axially Loaded Compression
Members
Faculty of Engineering, Rand Afrikaans University, March 1990. Report MD-55
101 Rhodes, J., Macdonald, M., McNiff, W.

Buckling of cold-formed stainless steel columns under concentric and eccentric
loading
Fifteenth international specialty conference on cold-formed steel structures, St.
Louis, Missouri, USA, October 19-20, 2000.
102 Rasmussen, K. J. R. and Hancock, G. J.

Stainless Steel Tubular Columns - Tests and Design
Tenth International Speciality Conference on Cold-Formed Steel Structures, St.
Louis, Missouri, USA, October 1990
103 Way, J
WP3.1, 3.2, 3.3: Beams, columns and beam-columns – CHS
Contract number 7210SA/842)
SCI, March, 2000
104 Gardner, L. and Nethercot, D.A.

Experiments on stainless steel hollow sections-Part2: Member behaviour of
columns and beams
Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 60 1319-1332, 2004
105 van den Berg, G. J., van der Merwe, P. and Bredenkamp, P. J.
The Strength of Type 3CR12 Corrosion Resisting Steel Built-up I-Section
Column and Beams
Faculty of Engineering, Rand Afrikaans University, March 1990. Report MD-51
106 Stangenberg, H.
WP3.1, 3.1 &3.3 Beams, columns and beam-columns – welded I-sections
RWTH, March 2000
107 van den Berg, G. J.

The Torsional Flexural Buckling Strength of Cold-Formed Stainless Steel
Columns
Ph.D Thesis, Faculty of Engineering, Rand Afrikaans University, 1988
108 van den Berg, G. J. and van der Merwe, P.

104
The Torsional Flexural Buckling Strength of Cold-Formed Stainless Steel
Columns
Faculty of Engineering, Rand Afrikaans University, June 1988. Report MD-47
109 van Wyk, M. L., van den Berg, G. J. and van der Merwe, P.
The Lateral Torsional Buckling Strength of Doubly Symmetric Stainless Steel
Beams
Faculty of Engineering, Rand Afrikaans University, May 1990. Report MD-58
110 Strength and Deformation of H-shaped Stainless Steel Beams

Journal of the Kanto Branch, Japanese Institution of Architecture, 1988
(In Japanese.)
111 Carvalho, E. C. G., van den Berg, G. J. and van der Merwe, P.
Local Shear Buckling in Cold-Formed Stainless Steel Beam Webs
Proceedings of the Annual Technical Session, Structural Stability Research
Council, April 1990
112 Olsson, A.
Stainless steel plasticity – Material modelling and structural applications
Doctoral Thesis, Luleå University of Technology, 2001. Thesis 2001:19
113 Real, E.
Aportaciones al estudio del comportamiento en flexión de estructuras de acero
inoxidable.
Tesis Doctoral, Departamento de Ingeniería de la Construcción, UPC-ETSECCP.
Barcelona, May 2001.
114 Selen, E.
WP3.5: Web crippling
(ECSC Project – Development of the use of stainless steel in construction
Contract no. 7210 SA/903)
Lulea Institute of Technology, March 2000
115 Timoshenko, S.
Strength of Materials. Part II Advanced Theory and Problems (3rd Edition)
Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1956. pp 366-374
116 Greiner, R
Proposal for buckling rules in EN 1993-1-4
ECCS/TC8-2005-005 Committee Document
University of Graz, March 2005
117 Owens, G. W. and Cheal, B. D.

Structural Steelwork Connections
Butterworth & Company Limited, 1989
118 Technical Report 21: Interim Results from Test Programme on Connections
(SCI-RT157)
The Steel Construction Institute, September 1990
119 Errera, S. J., Tang, B. M. and Popowich, D. W.

Strength of Bolted and Welded Connections in Stainless Steel
Dept. Structural Engineering, Cornell University, August 1970. Report No. 335
120 van der Merwe, P.

Development of Design Criteria for Ferritic Stainless Steel Cold-Formed
Structural Members and Connections
PhD Thesis, University of Missouri-Rolla, 1987
121 Ryan, I.
105
WP4.2: Bolted connections
CTICM, March, 2000
122 Stangenberg, H.
WP4.1: Welded connections
RWTH, March, 2000
123 EN 10002-1: 2001 Tensile testing of metallic materials. Method of test at

ambient temperature
CEN, 2001
124 Talja, A, Vilpas, M, Huhtala, L and Yrjölä, P. Design of Welded Connections

of Cold worked Stainless Steel RHS Members, Stainless Steel in Structures –
International Experts Seminar, Ascot, SCI, 2003
125 EN 1991-1-2:2002 Eurocode 1. Actions on structures. General actions. Actions

on structures exposed to fire
CEN, 2002
126 Zhao, B.
WP5.1: Material behaviour at elevated temperatures
CTICM, March 2000
127 Ala-Outinen, T.
Fire resistance of austenitic stainless steels Polarit 725 (EN 1.4301) and Polarit
761 (EN 1.4571) (Research Notes 1760)
Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT), Finland 1996
128 Ala-Outinen, T and Oksanen, T.

Stainless steel compression members exposed to fire (Research Notes 1864)
Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT), Finland 1997
129 Gardner, L. and Baddoo, N. R

Fire testing and design of stainless steel structures.
Journal of Constructional Steel Research. 62(6), 532-543, 2006
130 Gardner, L. and Ng, K. T.

Temperature development in structural stainless steel sections exposed to fire.
Fire Safety Journal. 41(3), 185-203, 2006
131 Gurney, T. R.
Fatigue of welded structures (2nd edition)
Cambridge University Press, 1978
132 Koskimäki M. and Kyröläinen, A.

The fatigue endurance of stainless steels
In: Kähönen A, Sipilä S. (eds) Väsymismitoitus (Fatigue design), VTT
Symposium 137, Espoo, Finland, 1993
Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT), 1993. pp 217-38
133 Koskimäki M. and Niemi E.

Fatigue strength of welded joints in three types of stainless Steel Construction
Institute
International Institute of Welding, 1995. IIW Document No XIII-1603-95
106
134 Razmjoo, G.
Design guidance on fatigue of welded stainless steel joints
Proceedings of Offshore Mechanical and Arctic Engineering Conference (OMAE
‘95), Vol 3, Materials Engineering
ASME 1995. pp 163-171
135 Lihavainen, V., Niemi, E. and Viherma, R.

WP7: Fatigue
Contract no 7210 SA/904)
Outokumpu, March 2000
136 Koskimäki M.,

Ruostumattomien terästen hitsausliitosten väsymisominaisuudet,
Thesis for the degree of Licenciate of Technology, Lappeenranta University of
Technology, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Lappeenranta 1995
(in Finnish)
137 Maddox S. J.,

Developments in fatigue design codes and fitness-for-service assessment methods,
Proceedings of the International Conference on Performance of Dynamically
loaded Welded Structures, San Francisco, July 1997 (IIW 50th Annual Assembly
Conference)
138 Marquis G.B.,

High cycle spectrum fatigue of welded components,
Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Technology, published as VTT
publication 240
Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT), Espoo 1995
139 James, E.A. and Jubb J.E.M.,

The fatigue strength of fillet welded joints in 18-8 type austenitic steels, ambient
and low temperatures
Australian Welding Journal, 1972. Vol 10, No 7, pp 19-21
140 Mathers, E. and Jubb, J.E.M.,

The fatigue of stainless steel fillet welds at low temperatures
Proc Conference Welding low temperature containment plant
The Welding Institute, 1973. pp 130-139
141 Gurney, T. R. and Maddox, S. J.

A re-analysis of fatigue data for welded joints in steel
Welding Research International, Vol 3, No 4, 1973. pp 1-54
142 Maddox, S.J.

Fatigue crack propagation data obtained from parent plate weld metal and HAZ
in structural steels
Welding Research International, 1974. 4 36
143 James, L.A.

Fatigue crack propagation in austenitic stainless steel
Atomic Energy Review, 1976. 14 (1) pp 37-86
144 Wasén, J., Karlsson, B. and Nyström, M.

Fatigue crack growth properties of SAF 1.4462
Nordic Symposium on Mechanical Properties of Stainless Steels, Sigtuna,
Sweden, October 1990
145 Taylor, D.
A compendium of fatigue thresholds and crack growth
EMAS
107
146 ENV 1090-6:2001 Execution of steel structures. Supplementary rules for stainless
steel
CEN, 2001
147 prEN 1090 – 2 Execution of steel structures and aluminium structures. Technical
requirements for the execution of steel structures,
April 2005.
148 prEN 1090 – 1 Steel and aluminium structural components. : General delivery
conditions,
September 2004.
149 Baddoo, N R
Erection and installation of stainless steel components,
Building Series, Volume 10, Luxembourg,: Euro Inox, 2006
150 Working with stainless steel

Material and Applications Series, Volume 2
La Société d'Ingéniérie, de Recherche, de Prospective et d' Edition, Paris
Euro Inox,1998
151 Tuthill, A.H.

Fabrication and Post-Fabrication Cleanup of Stainless Steels
Chemical Engineering, 1986. Vol.93, No.18
(Also available from the Nickel Development Institute, NiDI Technical Series
No. 10004.)
152 Crookes, R
Pickling and passivating stainless steel,
Materials and Applications Series, Volume 4
Luxembourg:, Euro Inox, 2004
153 Stott, D.M.

Protection Masks for Metal Surfaces - Application, Selection and Removal
Stainless Steel Industry, May 1979
154 EN 1011-3:2000 Welding. Recommendations for welding of metallic materials. :

Arc welding of stainless steels
CEN, 2000
155 EN ISO 15609-1:2004 Specification and qualification of welding procedures for

metallic materials. Welding procedure specification. Arc welding
CEN, 2004
156 EN 287-1:2004 Qualification test of welders. Fusion welding. Steels

CEN, 2004
157 Welding of stainless steel

Material and Applications Series, Volume 3
Luxembourg, Euro Inox, Second Edition, 2002
158 McClintock, A., Scholz, W. and Hayward, P.

Comparison of Stainless Steel Welding Processes (HERA Report R8-03.)
New Zealand Heavy Engineering Research Association, Auckland, New Zealand
159 Stringfellow, M. and Hawker, B.

New Ultrasonic Scanner for Inspection of Austenitic Steel
Joining and Materials, October 1988. pp 170-173
160 White, P.E. and Hemingway, R.D.

108
Mechanical Joints in Stainless Steel
Stainless Steels, Iron and Steel Institute publication 117, 1969, pp 85-93
161 Lehnen, K.W.

Mechanical Finishing of Stainless Steel Fabrications
Metal Construction, June 1987, pp 319-323
162 prEN 1993-1-1 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. General rules and rules
for buildings
CEN TC/250/SC3 committee document, 2002
109

Design Manual For Structural Stainless Steel - 3rd

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design Manual For Structural Stainless Steel - 3rd

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design Manual For Structural Stainless Steel - 3rd

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design_Manual_GB_2006.qxd 14.05.

2006 21:46 Uhr Seite 1

Design Manual for Structural Stainless Steel – Third Edition

• Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC)

• The Steel Construction Institute (SCI) (Project co-ordinator)

Preface to the Second Edition

A project steering committee, including representatives from each partner, sub-contractor

The worked examples were completed by the following partners:

Their assistance is gratefully acknowledged.

The Manual is divided into two parts:

EN 1993-1-2 Design of steel structures: Structural fire design

EN 1993-1-3 Design of steel structures: General rules: Supplementary rules for

EN 1993-1-4 Design of steel structures: General rules: Supplementary rules for

EN 1993-1-8 Design of steel structures: Design of joints

EN 1993-1-9 Design of steel structures: Fatigue

EN 1993-1-10 Design of steel structures: Material toughness and through-thickness

The Recommendations and Design Examples are available at www.steel-

A Commentary to the Recommendations, which includes a full set of references, is also

An online design facility is available at www.steel-stainless.org/software for designing

C.2 BASIS OF DESIGN 2

C.3 MATERIALS: PROPERTIES AND SELECTION 4

C.4 PROPERTIES OF SECTIONS 23

C.5 MEMBER DESIGN 40

C.6 JOINT DESIGN 60

C.10 FABRICATION ASPECTS 92

APPENDIX A Correlation between stainless steel designations 94

APPENDIX B Lateral-torsional buckling slenderness, λLT 95

APPENDIX C Material data for deflection calculations 96

C.1.2 Symbols and conventions for member axes

C.2.1 General requirements

C.2.2 Limit state design

In Section 2.2, creep is given as an example of a serviceability limit state.

C.3.1 Material grades

The five groups can be summarised thus:

Ferritic stainless steels

Duplex stainless steels

Precipitation hardening steels

C.3.1.2 Relevant standards

C.3.2 Mechanical behaviour and design values of

The degree of non-linearity, non-symmetry and anisotropy varies between

In discussing the form of the stress-strain curve, it is helpful to consider the

Material Direction & 0,2% Proof Modulus of σ 0,01 Index

TT 259 198 0,71 8,8

1.4404 LT 277 193 0,65 6,9

TT 286 198 0,70 8,5

1.4462 LT 518 199 0,57 5,4

TT 544 207 0,54 4,8

Note these values should be considered as representative and not as typical or

Although the Ramberg-Osgood formulation gives excellent agreement with

C.3.2.2 Factors affecting stress-strain behaviour

In general, anisotropy and non-symmetry increase with cold work. It is

Cold working during production of the flat product

Annealed 210-240 520-750

EN 10088-2 CP1100 1100-1300 5)

Annealed 207 571

1/16 hard 276 552-586

1/2 hard 759 1034

1) Intermediate proof strength values may be agreed

A recently completed ECSC-funded project studied the behaviour of cold