See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/285877690

Structural stainless steel design: A new approach

Article  in  Structural Engineer · November 2004

CITATIONS READS

74 1,065

2 authors:

Leroy Gardner D.A. Nethercot

Imperial College London Imperial College London
275 PUBLICATIONS   5,512 CITATIONS    347 PUBLICATIONS   4,965 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Interactive buckling in I-section beams View project

HILONG High Strength Long Span Structures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Leroy Gardner on 10 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Gardner, L. and Nethercot, D. A. (2004). Stainless steel structural design: A new approach. The Structural
Engineer. 82(21), 21-28.

Structural stainless steel design:

A new approach

L. Gardner BEng, MSc, PhD, DIC, CEng, MICE

Imperial College London

D. A. Nethercot PhD, DSc, FCGI, FREng, FICE, FIStructE

Imperial College London

Abstract

Current stainless steel structural design guidance is based largely on assumed analogies

with carbon steel; the result is that the particular material properties that stainless steel

exhibits are not being fully utilised. This paper describes a new approach to stainless steel

structural design that adopts a more accurate material model and a continuous system of

section classification and member design. The new method requires no iteration, involves

a similar volume of calculations to current methods, and offers improvements in design

efficiency of over 20%. The method has been validated against all available test results

and has been subjected to a statistical analysis in line with the Eurocode requirements.

Worked examples have been included to illustrate the method.

 2

Introduction

At present, stainless steel is commonly regarded as an extravagant solution to structural

engineering problems. Changing attitudes within the construction industry and a global

transition towards sustainable development and reduction in environmental impacts are

sure to bring increased interest in the use of stainless steel. Nonetheless there is a clear

need to improve the efficiency of structural stainless steel design guidance and to develop

the availability and diversity of the current product range in order to encourage more

widespread use. This paper relates directly to this challenge by describing a new, rational

and efficient approach to the design of stainless steel structural components.

Current structural stainless steel design codes are based largely on assumed analogies with

carbon steel behaviour, but unlike carbon steel, stainless steel exhibits a rounded stress-

strain curve with considerable strain hardening. The new design approach recognises that

use of the elastic, perfectly plastic material model and placing cross-sections into discrete

behavioural classes, as is customary for carbon steel, is inappropriate for stainless steel,

due to the absence of a sharply defined yield point. Instead, with a more accurate material

model, member strengths are assessed on the basis of a local buckling strength derived

from the deformation capacity of the cross-section, in conjunction with appropriate

buckling curves. The new approach may therefore be viewed as a continuous method of

cross-section classification and member design. Additional refinement has been achieved

by taking account of the interaction between the elements that make up a cross-section.
 3

Overview of new design method

An important step towards enhancing the understanding and use of stainless steel in

structures has been the development and publication of design guidance, including the

European1, Australia/New Zealand2 and North American3 codes, and that provided by The

Steel Construction Institute4. However, since they were ‘first generation’ design guides,

an important factor in their development was to ensure that a designer familiar with the

carbon steel rules would be able to make a straightforward transition to stainless steel

structural design. As a result, the authors were obliged to use a simplified elastic,

perfectly plastic material model. This model is acceptable for carbon steel that exhibits a

sharply defined yield point, followed by a plastic yield plateau. For stainless steel,

though, where there is no sharply defined yield point and substantial strain hardening

occurs, this model leads to overly conservative designs. Figure 1 compares the material

stress-strain response of carbon steel with that of stainless steel

The European, Australia/New Zealand and North American structural stainless steel

design codes place cross-sections into discrete behavioural classes on the basis of

individual element slendernesses; a procedure known as cross-section classification.

Eurocode 3 defines four discrete behavioural classes of cross-sections, as shown in Figure

2. Cross-sections with very high deformation capacity are classified as Class 1. They are

fully effective under pure compression and are capable of reaching and maintaining their

full plastic moment in bending. Class 2 cross-sections have a somewhat lower

deformation capacity, but are also fully effective in pure compression and capable of
 4

reaching their full plastic moment in bending. Class 3 cross-sections are fully effective in

pure compression, but local buckling prevents attainment of the full plastic moment in

bending. Bending moment resistance is therefore limited to the yield moment. For Class

4 cross-sections, local buckling occurs in the elastic range. An effective cross-section is

defined based on the width-to-thickness ratios of individual plate elements, and this is

used to determine the cross-sectional resistance.

In view of the continuous nature of the stainless steel stress-strain curve, it seemed rational

that a continuous, rather than a discretised system of design should be adopted. The new

design method therefore replaces the discrete classes by a single numerical value that is a

measure of the deformation capacity of the cross-section. The deformation capacity is

based upon the slenderness of individual plate elements and the interaction between

elements within the cross-section. The relationship between cross-section slenderness and

cross-section deformation capacity has been derived on the basis of stub column tests.

For design purposes, cross-section resistances are determined using a local buckling

strength derived from the cross-section deformation capacity, in conjunction with an

accurate material model appropriate for stainless steels. The adopted material model,

described by Gardner and Nethercot5, is a compound Ramberg-Osgood formulation, and it

enables stresses greater than the 0.2% proof stress to be exploited in design. Member

strengths are determined using the local buckling strength (raised to a power) in

combination with overall buckling curves. For bending resistance, the concept of a

generalised shape factor, originally devised by Mazzolani6, into which material as well as

geometric properties of a cross-section are incorporated, is used. The resistances of

members subjected to a combination of axial load plus bending moments are determined
 5

through an interaction of the component loadings. Full details of the development of the

design method are reported by Gardner7.

Figure 3 shows a schematic representation of the design procedure, where b and t are

internal element width and thickness respectively, A is cross-sectional area, Wel is elastic

section modulus, 0.2 is the material 0.2% proof strength and E0 is the material Young’s

modulus.

The proposed method is currently limited in scope to the classification and design of

circular, square and rectangular hollow sections, CHS, SHS and RHS respectively, though

in principle, the design method can be extended to cover all types of cross-sections. It

should also be noted that hollow sections are the most widely used type of structural

stainless steel cross-section in construction. Progress towards extension of the method to

include open sections is described by Gardner et al.8.

Design Method

The design method that is presented in this paper adopts the same symbols and

conventions as have been implemented in Eurocode 3 and where possible and appropriate,

consistency with the general Eurocode 3 approach has been maintained. In addition to

allowing straightforward hand calculations, the nature of the design method is such that it

is also readily programmable.

 6

Cross-section slenderness 

Cross-section slenderness  shall be determined for all internal elements from Equation 1

(for SHS and RHS) and Equation 2 (for CHS).

 b   0.2 4 .0
For SHS and RHS,     (1)
 t  E0 k

 R   
For CHS,      0.2  (2)
 t  E0 

where 0.2 is the material 0.2% proof stress in compression

E0 is the material Young’s modulus

b is the flat face width measured between centrelines of adjacent faces

R is the radius of the CHS measured to the centreline of the wall thickness

t is the wall thickness of the cross-section

k is the buckling coefficient from Table 1

The buckling coefficient k is a means of taking into account stress distributions other than

that of pure compression. The coefficients are taken from ENV 1993-1-1 (1992)9 and are

based on conventional elastic critical plate buckling theory.

Cross-section deformation capacity LB

The relationship between cross-section slenderness  (defined by Equations 1 and 2) and

cross-section deformation capacity LB (defined as the compressive local buckling strain at
 7

ultimate load, as shown by Figure 4) has been derived on the basis of stub column results,

generated by testing and numerical modelling. The numerical modelling programme has

been described by Gardner and Nethercot10. For each cross-section LB was determined by

dividing the end shortening at ultimate load u by the stub column length, L. The resulting

relationships are plotted in Figure 5 for SHS and RHS and in Figure 6 for CHS. The

graphs are presented with normalised local buckling strain (=LB/0), where 0 is the elastic

strain at the material compressive 0.2% proof stress, on the vertical axis, versus cross-

section slenderness , on the horizontal axis.

For design, cross-section deformation capacity LB may be determined from Equation 3

(SHS and RHS) or Equation 4 (CHS), based on  for the most slender element in the

cross-section. For RHS subjected to pure compression only, allowance may be made for

enhanced element edge restraint, brought about by the additional stiffness of the shorter

faces of RHS, by taking  equal to the aspect ratio of the cross-section. Strictly  is the

ratio of the stiffness of the longer face of the RHS to the stiffness of the shorter face, but

for uniform material properties and thickness, this simplifies to the aspect ratio. For all

other cases,  should be taken as 1.0. Equations 3 and 4 have been derived on the basis of

stub column tests.

 LB 7.07 0 .5
SHS and RHS,   0.30 (3)
0  2.13  0.21

 LB 0.116
CHS,  1.21 1.69 
(4)
0 
 8

where  is the cross-section aspect ratio for RHS subjected to pure compression

and is taken as 1.0 for all other cases

0 is the elastic strain at the material compressive 0.2% proof stress = 0.2/E0

LB is the cross-section local buckling strain

Local buckling stress LB

Local buckling stress LB is determined from Table 2 (SHS and RHS) or Table 3 (CHS).

Tables 2 and 3 simply present compound Ramberg-Osgood stress-strain curves in a

tabular format. A typical measured stress-strain curve with its corresponding compound

Ramberg-Osgood curve is shown in Figure 7.

Generalised shape factors

To determine the bending moment resistance of a cross-section formed from material with

non-linear stress-strain characteristics, the concept of a generalised shape factor ag was

proposed by Mazzolani6. The generalised shape factor is essentially a means by which the

material characteristics, as well as the geometric characteristics of a cross-section can be

incorporated into a single numerical value. Increasing deformation capacity LB/0

(governed by the most slender compression element) clearly brings about a higher

generalised shape factor. Additionally, higher generalised shape factors are synonymous

with materials that possess a high degree of strain hardening.

The geometric shape factor ap of a cross-section is the ratio of its plastic modulus Wpl to

its elastic modulus Wel. For a given material model the generalised shape factor can be
 9

calculated in terms of the geometric shape factor and the limiting outer-fibre cross-section

deformation capacity LB/0 and presented to a designer in tabular or graphical form.

Direct use of the material model is not necessary. Ultimate bending moment resistance is

therefore defined by Mu = ag 0.2 Wel. Figure 8 shows a typical graph of bending moment

versus outer-fibre strain. The generalised shape factor is represented by the factor

Mu/M0.2, where M0.2 = 0.2 Wel.

There is no closed-form analytical solution to the compound Ramberg-Osgood expression

over a linearly varying strain gradient. Generalised shape factors must therefore be

generated for a series of outer-fibre strain limits by means of numerical integration. A

typical non-linear bending stress distribution generated from the compound Ramberg-

Osgood expression is shown in Figure 9.

Figure 10 shows a graphical means of determining the generalised shape factor of a cross-

section (with E0 = 200000 N/mm2 and 0.2 = 400 N/mm2), for limiting outer-fibre strains

of 0.005, 0.010, 0.020, and 0.030. The example included on Figure 10 shows that for a

cross-section with a geometric shape factor of 1.28 and an outer fibre strain limit LB of

0.020, a generalised shape factor of 1.63 may be adopted. The lines labelled ‘Plastic’ and

‘Elastic’ represent the discretised classification system given in Eurocode 3.

The generalised shape factor ag of a cross-section may hence be used (in conjunction with

0.2 in compression and Wel) to determine its ultimate bending resistance. For design

purposes, the generalised shape factor has been presented in the form given by Equation 7,

where the four constants A1, A2, A3 and A4 are determined from Tables 4 or 5. It should
 10

be noted that for beams with very slender cross-sections (say  > 2.0), the proposed

method becomes overly conservative, and more efficient designs may be achieved using

an effective width approach.

Cross-section resistance

Compression

Compression resistance Nc,Rd is given by Equation 5.

Nc,Rd = ALB / M0 (5)

where A is the gross area of the cross section

LB is the local buckling stress (from Table 2 or 3)

M0 is a partial safety factor

Bending

In-plane bending resistance Mc,Rd is given by Equation 6.

Mc,Rd = Wel 0.2 ag / M0 (6)

where Wel is the elastic section modulus

ag is the generalised shape factor (from Table 4 or 5 and Equation 7)

The generalised shape factor ag may be calculated using Equation 7, where the constants

A1 to A4 may be determined from Table 4 for SHS and RHS and Table 5 for CHS.
 11

ag = A1 + A20 + A3ap + A40ap (7)

where ap is the geometric shape factor of the cross-section

0 = 0.2/E0

Combined compression and bending

For cross-sections subjected to combined compression and bending, the linear interaction

formula based on the component resistances, as used in Eurocode 3, has been adopted.

Therefore, in such cases Equation 8 should be satisfied.

N Sd M y ,Sd M z ,Sd
   1 (8)
 LB A  M 0 Wel, y  0.2 a gy  M 0 Wel,z  0.2 a gz  M 0

where NSd is the applied axial compression

My,Sd is the applied bending moment about the y-axis

Mz,Sd is the applied bending moment about the z-axis

Wel,y is the elastic modulus about the y-axis

Wel,z is the elastic modulus about the z-axis

agy is the generalised shape factor about the y-axis

agz is the generalised shape factor about the z-axis

Member buckling resistance

Compression (flexural buckling)

Flexural buckling of stainless steel structural members involves an interaction between

overall member buckling and local plate buckling. In Eurocode 3, the structural steel and
 12

stainless steel design rules account for this interaction through cross-section classification.

For members with Class 1-3 cross-sections (of a given type), flexural buckling resistance

is given by a single Perry based buckling curve (termed for convenience the ‘base

buckling curve’). Since the constituent plate elements are capable of reaching the full

material yield stress (or 0.2% proof stress) in pure compression before local buckling

occurs, no reduction is made to the basic flexural buckling strength. For members with

Class 4 cross-sections local buckling of the constituent plate elements occurs below the

material yield stress (or 0.2% proof stress) and an effective area is therefore used to reduce

the basic flexural buckling strength.

In the proposed design method the interaction between global member buckling and local

plate buckling is governed by LB, which is dependent upon the cross-section slenderness

parameter . As in Eurocode 3, the proposed design method defines a single base

buckling curve. However, in addition to reducing the flexural buckling strength for cross-

sections that buckle locally in the elastic range, an increase in flexural buckling resistance

is also possible, when the local buckling resistance of the cross-section exceeds the

material 0.2% proof stress. Following analysis of test results, it was found that modifying

base flexural buckling strengths of SHS and RHS columns by a factor of (LB/0.2)0.32

gave best agreement between test and predicted values. Similarly, for CHS columns a

factor of (LB/0.2)0.80 was determined.

The Eurocode 3 flexural buckling curves are defined by an imperfection factor  and a

limiting slenderness  0 . For the Eurocode purposes, the parameters  and  0 , were fixed

so that the curves may be employed to determine the buckling strength for members with

Class 1-3 cross-sections. For the proposed design method, however, the base buckling
 13

curves are required to predict the mean buckling strength for members whose cross-

sections fail locally at the material 0.2% proof stress. For this purpose, best fit to

appropriate SHS and RHS column buckling test results was achieved with  = 0.70 and

 0 = 0.44, and to CHS column test results with  = 0.50 and  0 = -0.10 (see Table 6).

The fact that  0 is negative for the CHS base buckling curve is of no real significance; it

simply reflects the buckling behaviour of CHS members whose cross-sections fail locally

at the material 0.2% proof stress. Figure 11 demonstrates the effect of variation in cross-

section slenderness  on the flexural buckling curve for SHS and RHS columns.

The buckling resistances of SHS and RHS compression members and CHS compression

members are therefore given by Equations 9 and 10 respectively.

 A  0.2 ( LB  0.2 ) 0.32

SHS and RHS, Nb.Rd = (9)
 M1

 A  0.2 ( LB  0.2 ) 0.80

CHS, Nb.Rd = (10)
 M1

where  is the buckling reduction factor given by Equation 11 (not limited to  1.0)

M1 is a partial safety factor

1
  (11)
  [  2 ] 0.5
2
 14

where  = 0.5[1 + (    0 ) + 2 ]

 is an imperfection factor (Table 6)

0 is the limiting slenderness (Table 6)

 = /1

 = LE /i and is the slenderness for the relevant buckling mode

1 =  [E0/0.2]0.5

LE is the effective column length

i is the radius of gyration about the relevant axis, determined using the

properties of the gross cross-section

Bending (lateral torsional buckling)

SHS, CHS and RHS (bending about the minor axis) are not affected by lateral torsional

buckling, in which case member resistance may be taken as the cross-section in-plane

bending resistance. No design guidance is given herein for lateral torsional buckling

resistance of RHS beams (bending about the major axis) due to an absence of supporting

test data.

Combined axial load plus bending

The buckling resistance of members subjected to combined axial load plus bending may

be evaluated through Equation 12 (for SHS and RHS) and Equation 13 (for CHS). Since

no design guidance is given for lateral torsional buckling, therefore the major axis bending

component given in Equations 12 and 13 should be restricted to members not affected by

lateral torsional buckling.

 15

N Sd  y M y ,Sd  z M z ,Sd
   1
( min  0.2 A ( LB /  0.2 ) 0.32 ) /  M1 ( Wel, y  0.2 a gy ) /  M 0 ( Wel,z  0.2 a gz ) /  M 0
(12)

N Sd  y M y ,Sd  z M z ,Sd
   1
( min  0.2 A ( LB /  0.2 ) 0.80 ) /  M1 ( Wel, y  0.2 a gy ) /  M 0 ( Wel,z  0.2 a gz ) /  M 0
(13)

where min is the lesser of the buckling reduction factors y and z

y is defined by Equation 14

z is defined by Equation 16

 y N Sd
y  1 but y  1.5 (14)
N b , Rd , y

y   y (2 My  4) + (agy – 1) but y  0.90 (15)

 z N Sd
z  1 but z  1.5 (16)
N b ,Rd ,z

z   z (2 Mz  4) + (agz – 1) but z  0.90 (17)

where My is the equivalent uniform moment factor from Table 7.

 16

Table 7 is a reproduction of part of Figure 5.5.3 from ENV 1993-1-1 (1992)9, providing

equivalent uniform moment factors for the most common load cases.

Partial safety factors

The partial safety (M) factors that appear in each of the resistance expressions have been

derived following a statistical analysis of all available stainless steel test data. The

analyses were conducted in line with the requirements of Annex D of BS EN 1990

(2002)11. Industrial data on the variation of material properties, obtained from Groth and

Johansson12, and measured data on the variation of geometrical properties7 were included

in the analyses. Minimum specified material properties were taken from BS EN 10088-2

(1995)13.

The following values for the partial factors, M0 and M1 should be adopted:

M0 = 1.0 (18)

M1 = 1.1 (19)

 17

Verification of proposed design method and comparison with

codified methods

Introduction

The purpose of this section is to analyse all available test data and to compare test failure

loads and moments with those predicted by the current European1, Australia/New

Zealand2 and North American3 design codes and by the proposed design method. For

comparison purposes, measured geometric and material properties have been adopted, and

all partial safety factors and load factors have been set to unity.

Cross-section resistance

Compression

Table 8 summarises a comparison between the 3 current design procedures and the

proposed design method for all (46) tests conducted on SHS, RHS and CHS stub columns

under pure compression. The comparisons show that the 3 current design codes yield very

similar results, with a mean value of Fu,Pred/Fu,Test of 0.78 and a coefficient of variation of

0.16, where Fu,Pred is the ultimate load predicted by the design codes and Fu,Test is the

ultimate load recorded in tests. The proposed method provides a mean value of

Fu,Pred/Fu,Test of 0.95 with a coefficient of variation of 0.06, which equates to an average

increase in resistance of 23%. A graphical comparison of the Eurocode and proposed

predictions of test data is given in Figure 12.

 18

Bending

Table 9 summarises a comparison between the 3 current design procedures and the

proposed design method for all (29) tests conducted on SHS, RHS and CHS beams. The

comparisons again show that the 3 current design codes yield very similar results, with a

mean value of Mu,Pred/Mu,Test of 0.71 and a coefficient of variation of 0.12, where Mu,Pred is

the ultimate bending moment predicted by the design codes and Mu,Test is the ultimate

bending moment recorded in tests. The proposed method provides a mean value of

Mu,Pred/Mu,Test of 0.94 with a coefficient of variation of 0.09, which equates to an average

increase in resistance of 32%. A graphical comparison of the Eurocode and proposed

predictions of test data is given in Figure 13.

Combined compression plus bending

Tests on eccentrically loaded stainless steel SHS and RHS pin-ended columns were

conducted by Talja & Salmi14. The members were proportioned such that overall flexural

buckling was the primary failure mode. These test results will therefore be compared to

the buckling resistances predicted by the 3 current design procedures and the proposed

design method, in the following section.

Buckling resistance

Compression (flexural buckling)

Table 10 summarises a comparison between buckling resistances predicted by the 3

current design methods and by the proposed design method. Predictions have been

compared with a total of 82 column tests, including tests about the major and minor axis

and with pinned and fixed end conditions. For pin-ended columns, effective lengths have
 19

been taken as 1.0 times the actual length, and for fixed-ended columns, effective lengths

have been taken as 0.5 times the actual length.

The comparisons reveal that buckling resistance is already well predicted by current

design methods, because flexural buckling is largely in the elastic range (or at least below

the 0.2% proof stress). The proposed design method offers an average increase in

buckling strength of approximately 5% over current methods.

Bending (lateral torsional buckling)

There are no available test results for RHS beams subjected to lateral torsional buckling.

All tested beams have failed by in-plane bending, and the resistance is therefore

determined on a cross-section level. Comparison between the Eurocode design method

and the proposed design method for in-plane bending has been given in the previous

section.

Combined axial load plus bending

SHS and RHS members subjected to axial load plus major axis bending moments were

tested by Salmi and Talja14. CHS members subjected to axial load plus bending moments

were tested by Talja15. A total of 20 test results were available, of which 12 were

conducted on SHS and RHS members and 8 on CHS members. A comparison between

the test failure loads and those predicted by the 3 current design methods and the proposed

design method is presented in Table 11. The proposed design method offers an average

increase in member resistance to combined axial load plus bending of approximately 20%

over current methods.

 20

Worked examples

The purpose of this section is to illustrate the workings of the proposed design method.

Two worked examples have been prepared; one to demonstrate the calculation of cross-

section compression resistance and one to demonstrate the calculation of in-plane bending

resistance. The measured geometric and material properties of the tested specimens have

been used to allow direct comparison with the test results.

Compression resistance

The compression resistance of the RHS 60404- SC1 stub column, tested as part of the

current study5, may be determined using the proposed design methods, as follows:

Item Calculation Result

Cross-section D = 60.0 mm B = 40.0 mm t = 3.83 mm

properties
ri = 2.9 mm A = 675.0 mm2

Material 0.2 = 469 N/mm2 E0 = 193100 N/mm2

properties
0 = 0.2/ E0 =  469/193100 = 0.0024 0 = 0.0024
Cross-section  b  σ 0.2 4.0 =  60.0  3.83  469 4 .0
slenderness  β   
 t  E0 k  3.83  193100 4 .0

Equation 1
= 0.72  = 0.72
and Table 1
Deformation  LB 7.07 7.07 0 .5
0.67 0.3( 0.72 )
0.5

capacity LB/0  2.13  0.21   0.30 = 2.13  0.21( 0.72 )

0  0.72
Equation 3
= 16.4 LB = 16.4  0.0024 = 0.040 LB = 0.040
 21

Local buckling
stress LB
By linear interpolation, LB = 693.4 N/mm2
Table 2 LB = 693 N/mm2
Compression Nc, Rd = A LB / M0 = 675.0  693.4  10-3 / 1.0
resistance
= 468 kN
Equation 5 Nc, Rd = 468 kN
[Eurocode compression resistance = 317 kN; Test ultimate load = 492 kN]

Bending resistance

The predicted in-plane bending resistance of the CHS 140  3 simply-supported beam,

tested by Talja15, may be determined using the proposed design method, as given right:

Item Calculation Result

Cross-section D0 = 139.0 mm t = 2.87 mm A = 1227.4 mm2

properties
Wel = 40927 mm3 Wpl = 53193 mm3 ap = 1.30

Material 0.2 = 317 N/mm2 E0 = 192000 N/mm2

properties
0 = 0.2/ E0 =  317/192000 = 0.0017 0 = 0.0017
Cross-section  = (R/t)(0.2 /E0) =  139.0  2.87   317 
slenderness   2  2.87   192000 

Equation 2 = 0.0392  = 0.0392

Deformation  LB 0.116 0.116
capacity LB/0  1.21 1.69 
= = 7.21
0  0.0392 1.21 (1.690.0392 )

Equation 4  LB = 7.21  0.0017 = 0.0119 LB = 0.0119

 22

Generalised For LB = 0.0119, by interpolation

shape factor ag
A1 = 0.135, A2 =38.98, A3 = 1.08, A4 = -53.68
Equation 7 and
Table 5 ag = A1 + A20 + A3ap + A40ap = 1.48
ag = 1.48
Bending Mc, Rd = Wel 0.2 ag / M0
resistance
= 40927  317  1.48  10-6 / 1.0 = 19.3 kNm
Equation 6 Mc, Rd = 19.3 kNm
[Eurocode bending resistance = 16.9 kNm; Test ultimate bending moment = 19.7 kNm]

Conclusions

A new design method for stainless steel hollow section structural components loaded in

compression, bending and combined compression plus bending, that requires no iteration

and involves a similar volume of calculations to current methods, has been presented. The

method adopts a more accurate material model and a continuous system of section

classification and member design.

The new approach has been validated against all available test results and compared with

the current European, Australia/ New Zealand and North American design codes. The

method has also been subjected to a statistical analysis in line with the provisions of

Annex D of BS EN 1990 (2002), to establish suitable M factors for safe design.

Overall, improvements in design efficiency of over 20% have been achieved, which

represents a considerable material and thus cost saving. It is envisaged that the proposed

design method will be considered for incorporation into future revisions of Eurocode 3,
 23

bringing greater economy to structural stainless steel design and promoting more

widespread use of the material.

Acknowledgements

The authors are extremely grateful to EPSRC and the AvestaPolarit UK Research

Foundation for the project funding, and would like to thank Nancy Baddoo and Bassam

Burgan (The Steel Construction Institute) and David Dulieu (AvestaPolarit UK Research

Foundation) for their technical support.

References

1 ENV 1993-1-4, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1.4: General rules -

Supplementary rules for stainless steel, CEN, 1996.

2 Aust/NZS, Cold-formed stainless steel structures, Australian/ New Zealand Standard

AS/NZS 4673:2001, Sydney, Australia: Standards Australia, 2001.

3 ASCE, Specification of the Design of Cold-Formed Stainless Steel Structural

Members, ANSI/ASCE 8-02, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, 2002.
 24

4 Baddoo, N. R. and Burgan, B. A, Structural Design of Stainless Steel (P291), The

Steel Construction Institute, UK, 2001.

5 Gardner, L. and Nethercot, D. A, Experiments on stainless steel hollow sections - Part

1: Material and Cross Sectional Behaviour, Journal of Constructional Steel Research,

60:9, pp 1291-1318. 2004.

6 Mazzolani, F. M, Aluminium Alloy Structures, 2nd Edition, E & FN Spon, An imprint

of Chapman and Hall, 1995.

7 Gardner, L, A new approach to stainless steel structural design, PhD Thesis,

Structures Section, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial

College London, 2002.

8 Gardner, L., Ashraf, M. and Nethercot, D.A, Cross-section strength of stainless steel

members, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Structural

Engineering, Mechanics and Computation, South Africa, 2004.

9 ENV 1993-1-1, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 1.1: General rules and

rules for buildings, CEN, 1992.

10 Gardner, L., and Nethercot, D. A, Numerical modelling of stainless steel structural

components – a consistent approach, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, In

press.
 25

11 BS EN 1990, Eurocode – Basis of structural design, British Standards Institution,

2002.

12 Groth, H. L. and Johansson, R. E, Statistics of the mechanical strength of stainless

steels – sheet, Proceedings of the Nordic Symposium: Mechanical Properties of

Stainless Steel. Sweden, 1990.

13 BS EN 10088-2, Stainless steels – Part 2: Technical delivery conditions for sheet/plate

and strip for general purposes, British Standards Institution, 1995.

14 Talja, A. & Salmi, P, Design of stainless steel RHS beams, columns and beam-

columns, Research Note 1619, VTT Building Technology, Finland, 1995.

15 Talja, A, Test report on welded I and CHS beams, columns and beam-columns, Report

to ECSC, VTT Building Technology, Finland, 1997.

16 Rasmussen, K. J. R. and Hancock, G. J, ‘Design of cold-formed stainless steel tubular

members. II: Beams’, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 119: 8, pp 2368-2386.

1993.
 1

700

600 Stainless steel

500
Stress (N/mm2)

400
Carbon steel
300

200

100

0
0.000 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016 0.020

Strain

Figure 1: Indicative carbon steel and stainless steel material  behaviour
 2

Applied
moment, M Class 1 – high
rotation capacity
Mp

My Class 2 – limited
rotation capacity

Class 3 – local buckling prevents

attainment of full plastic moment

Class 4 – local buckling prevents

attainment of yield moment

Rotation, 

Figure 2: Four behavioural classes of cross-section defined by Eurocode 3

 3

ELEMENT

Determine relative
Calculate slenderness  of
stiffness of surrounding
most slender element in
elements to account for
cross-section
element interaction

CROSS-SECTION

Use LB to determine local Use and element interaction Use LB and material 
buckling strength LB to determine deformation model to determine
from material - model capacity LB from formula Generalised Shape Factor
(based on tests) (GSF)

MEMBER

Calculate overall column beam Calculate overall

compression member bending member
slenderness slenderness

For low Flexural buckling LTB strength

slenderness, strength determined In-plane bending determined from
compression from design curves, strength = design curves,
strength = LB . A modified by LB Wel . 0.2 . GSF modified by GSF

beam-column

Component loads and

resistances employed in
interaction formulae

Figure 3: Schematic representation of proposed design procedure

 4

800

640
Load (kN)

480

320

160

0
0 3 6 9 12 15
u
End shortening (mm)

Figure 4: Determination of cross-section deformation capacity from stub column tests

 5

60.0

Existing SHS tests

50.0
Normalised local buckling strain, LB/0

Gardner & Nethercot SHS tests

Existing RHS (0.67) tests

40.0 Gardner & Nethercot RHS (0.67) tests

Gardner & Nethercot RHS (0.5) tests

30.0 SHS regression curve

RHS (0.67) curve

20.0 RHS (0.5) curve

10.0

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Cross-section slenderness, 

Figure 5: SHS and RHS cross-section deformation capacity versus cross-section

slenderness
 6

20.0

Tests
16.0
FE models of tests

FE parametric models

12.0 Regression curve (Tests)

LB0

Regression curve (Tests +FE)

8.0

4.0

0.0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14


Figure 6: CHS deformation capacity versus cross-section slenderness

 7

700

600

500
Stress (N/mm )
2

400

300
Test
200
Compound R-O
Model
100

0
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.016

Strain

Figure 7: Measured and compound Ramberg-Osgood stress-strain curve

 8

Applied
moment, M

Mu

M0.2

0.2 LB Outer-fibre strain

Figure 8: Typical graph of bending moment versus outer-fibre strain

 9

80

60

axis (mm)
40

(mm)
20
neutral
height
0
from

-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400

Beam

-20
Distance

-40

-60

-80
2
StressBending
due to bending (N/mm
stress (N/mm
2
) )

Figure 9: Typical non-linear bending stress distribution from compound Ramberg-

Osgood material model

 10

2.0

1.9 LB
LB==0.005
0.005
LB
LB==0.010
0.010
1.8 LB
LB==0.020
0.020
Generalised Shape Factor, ag

 = 0.030
 = 0.030
LB
Generalised shape factor, ag

LB
1.7

1.63
1.6

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1
Plastic Elastic

1.0
1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3 1.35 1.4 1.45
1.28 a
Geometric Shape Factor,
Geometric shape factor, ap

Figure 10: Generalised shape factor versus geometric shape factor

 11

1.4
Euler
Column failure stress (normalised by material, 0.2)

1.2 Material 0.2% Proof

Tests ( b < 1.0)

1 Tests (1.0 < 

b < 1.6)

Tests ( 
b > 1.6)

0.8 Mean (Design) Curve ( 

b = 1.0)

Mean (Design) Curve ( 

b = 1.6)

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Non-dimensional slenderness, 

Figure 11: SHS and RHS flexural buckling test results and mean (design) curves for

=1.0 and =1.6

 12

0.30
Proposed - Tests

Eurocode - Tests
0.25
Proposed - Normal distribution

Eurocode - Normal distribution

Relative frequency

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
Fu,Pred / Fu,Test

Figure 12: Comparison between Eurocode and proposed design method for

compression resistance
 13

0.25
Proposed - Tests

Eurocode - Tests
0.20 Proposed - Normal distribution

Eurocode - Normal distribution

Relative frequency

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
Mu,Pred / Mu,Test

Figure 13: Comparison between Eurocode and proposed design method for in-plane

bending resistance
 14

Table 1: Buckling coefficients for compressed plate elements

 1 1 > > 0 0 0 > > -1 -1 -1 > > -2

Buckling 8. 2 7.81 – 6.29

4.0 7.81 23.9 5.98(1-)2
Coefficent, k 1.05   + 9.782

Alternatively, for 1 ≥ ≥ -1: k = 16

[(1   ) 2  0.112(1   ) 2 ]0.5  (1  )

Note: is the ratio of end stresses (compression positive) for the compression element
 15

Table 2: Local buckling stress for SHS and RHS

LB (N/mm2)
0.2
200 220 240 280 320 360 400 440 480
LB N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2
0.001 131 140 148 161 171 179 184 188 192
0.002 174 189 203 229 252 274 292 309 324
0.003 200 218 235 268 299 328 356 381 405
0.004 216 236 256 295 332 367 400 431 461
0.005 225 247 268 310 351 391 430 468 504
0.006 232 254 276 320 364 407 448 489 530
0.007 237 260 283 328 373 418 461 505 547
0.008 241 265 288 335 381 426 472 516 560
0.009 245 269 293 340 387 434 480 526 572
0.010 248 273 297 345 393 441 488 535 581
0.012 254 279 304 354 403 452 501 549 598
0.014 259 285 310 361 412 461 511 561 611
0.016 263 289 316 367 419 470 521 572 622
0.018 268 294 320 373 426 478 529 581 632
0.020 271 298 325 378 431 484 537 590 642
0.024 277 305 333 388 442 497 551 605 658
0.028 284 312 340 396 451 508 563 618 673
0.032 289 317 346 403 461 517 574 630 687
0.036 294 323 352 410 468 526 584 641 698
0.040 298 328 357 416 476 534 592 652 710
0.050 308 338 369 430 491 552 613 673 735
0.060 316 348 379 442 505 568 630 693 755
0.080 331 364 397 463 529 594 660 725 791
0.100 344 377 412 480 548 616 685 752 821
 16

Table 3: Local buckling stress for CHS

LB (N/mm2)
0.2
200 220 240 280 320 360 400 440 480
LB N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2
0.001 131 140 148 161 171 179 184 188 192
0.002 174 189 203 229 252 274 292 309 324
0.003 200 218 235 268 299 328 356 381 405
0.004 214 234 254 293 331 367 400 431 461
0.005 220 242 263 305 346 387 426 465 502
0.006 225 247 269 313 356 398 440 481 522
0.007 229 251 274 318 362 406 449 492 535
0.008 232 255 278 323 368 413 457 501 544
0.009 235 258 281 327 373 418 463 508 552
0.010 237 261 284 331 377 423 469 514 560
0.012 242 265 289 337 384 431 478 525 571
0.014 245 269 294 342 390 438 486 533 581
0.016 248 273 298 347 396 444 493 541 589
0.018 252 276 301 351 401 450 499 548 597
0.020 254 279 304 355 405 455 505 554 604
0.024 259 285 311 362 413 464 515 566 616
0.028 263 290 316 368 420 472 524 576 627
0.032 267 294 320 374 426 479 532 584 637
0.036 271 298 324 379 432 485 539 592 646
0.040 274 301 328 383 437 492 546 600 654
0.050 281 309 337 393 449 505 561 616 672
0.060 288 316 345 402 460 516 574 631 687
0.080 298 328 358 417 477 536 595 655 714
0.100 308 338 369 430 492 553 614 675 736
 17

Table 4: Generalised shape factor calculation constants for SHS and RHS

LB A1 A2 A3 A4
0.0015 0.373 35.937 0.559 -193.75
0.0020 0.360 68.187 0.644 -207.92
0.0025 0.336 83.333 0.720 -206.67
0.0030 0.343 80.833 0.761 -193.33
0.0035 0.332 86.250 0.807 -187.50
0.0040 0.307 99.667 0.858 -188.33
0.0045 0.230 125.156 0.937 -196.87
0.0050 0.181 147.634 0.993 -203.31
0.0055 0.152 148.437 1.024 -193.75
0.0060 0.140 136.062 1.046 -175.42
0.0070 0.163 104.375 1.042 -137.50
0.0080 0.164 80.667 1.059 -110.00
0.0090 0.180 63.594 1.061 -90.63
0.0100 0.178 55.771 1.077 -79.58
0.0120 0.188 42.146 1.092 -62.08
0.0140 0.196 31.917 1.107 -50.00
0.0160 0.201 27.083 1.122 -43.33
0.0180 0.207 24.229 1.135 -38.75
0.0200 0.220 18.542 1.141 -32.50
0.0240 0.224 17.854 1.168 -29.58
0.0280 0.238 12.250 1.183 -23.33
0.0320 0.247 11.187 1.199 -21.25
0.0360 0.253 10.042 1.214 -19.17
0.0400 0.261 8.625 1.229 -17.50
0.0500 0.287 4.375 1.253 -12.50
0.0600 0.297 5.625 1.282 -12.50
0.0700 0.310 6.250 1.307 -12.50
0.0800 0.327 3.281 1.324 -9.37
0.1000 0.357 0.312 1.356 -6.25

LB is the cross-section local buckling strain

A1 to A4 are constants to be used in Equation 7

 18

Table 5: Generalised shape factor calculation constants for CHS

LB A1 A2 A3 A4
0.0015 0.373 35.937 0.559 -193.75
0.0020 0.346 67.187 0.656 -206.25
0.0025 0.329 83.438 0.726 -206.25
0.0030 0.343 77.969 0.761 -190.62
0.0035 0.308 95.312 0.824 -193.75
0.0040 0.226 127.187 0.911 -206.25
0.0045 0.149 156.094 0.986 -215.62
0.0050 0.097 172.969 1.036 -215.62
0.0055 0.084 163.906 1.052 -196.87
0.0060 0.085 143.281 1.057 -171.87
0.0070 0.108 100.000 1.050 -125.00
0.0080 0.124 70.937 1.049 -93.75
0.0090 0.135 54.375 1.050 -75.00
0.0100 0.134 47.344 1.061 -65.62
0.0120 0.135 38.594 1.078 -53.12
0.0140 0.145 27.344 1.086 -40.62
0.0160 0.151 22.656 1.094 -34.37
0.0180 0.153 20.937 1.106 -31.25
0.0200 0.160 18.594 1.113 -28.12
0.0240 0.173 9.688 1.124 -18.75
0.0280 0.168 15.156 1.147 -21.87
0.0320 0.185 8.594 1.151 -15.63
0.0360 0.186 9.844 1.166 -15.62
0.0400 0.195 6.875 1.172 -12.50
0.0500 0.255 -42.188 1.154 31.25
0.0600 0.263 -37.969 1.177 28.13
0.0700 0.277 -37.969 1.192 28.12
0.0800 0.278 -33.750 1.215 25.00
0.1000 0.295 -29.531 1.243 21.88
LB is the cross-section local buckling strain

A1 to A4 are constants to be used in Equation 7

 19

Table 6: Parameters for flexural buckling curves

Cross-section type  0

Cold-formed SHS and RHS 0.70 0.44

Cold-formed CHS 0.50 -0.10

 20

Table 7: Equivalent uniform moment factors

Moment diagram Equivalent uniform moment factor, M

M, = 1.8 - 0.7

End moments

M1 M1

-1    1
M,Q = 1.3

M,Q = 1.4

M1 is the applied end bending moment

MQ is the applied mid-span bending moment

 is the ratio of the smaller end moment to the larger end moment

M, is the equivalent uniform moment factor for end moments

M,Q is the equivalent uniform moment factor for moments due to in-plane
lateral loads

Moments due to in-plane

lateral loads

MQ

MQ
 21

Table 8: Summary of comparison between 3 current design procedures and the

proposed design method for compression resistance (46 tests)

Fu,Pred / Fu,Test
Cross-section type Fu,Prop / Fu,ENV
Eurocode 3 AUS/NZ ASCE Proposed

SHS & RHS MEAN: 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.93 1.21

SHS & RHS COV: 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.05

CHS MEAN: 0.80 0.86 0.83 1.01 1.27

CHS COV: 0.09 0.07 0.04 0.05

OVERALL MEAN: 0.78 0.79 0.78 0.95 1.23

OVERALL COV: 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.06

COV is the coefficient of variation

Fu,Pred is the compression resistance predicted by the design codes

Fu,Test is the test ultimate load

Fu,Prop is the compression resistance predicted by the proposed design method

Fu,ENV is the compression resistance predicted by Eurocode 3

 22

Table 9: Summary of comparison between 3 current design procedures and the

proposed design method for in-plane bending resistance (29 tests)

Mu,Pred / Mu,Test
Cross-section type Mu,Prop / Mu,ENV
Eurocode 3 AUS/NZ ASCE Proposed

SHS & RHS MEAN: 0.68 0.73 0.71 0.93 1.31

SHS & RHS COV: 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.08

CHS MEAN: 0.79 0.78 0.62 0.98 1.35

CHS COV: 0.12 0.11 0.14 0.08

OVERALL MEAN: 0.71 0.74 0.69 0.94 1.32

OVERALL COV: 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.09

COV is the coefficient of variation

Mu,Pred is the compression resistance predicted by the design codes

Mu,Test is the test ultimate bending moment

Mu,Prop is the bending moment resistance predicted by the proposed design method

Mu,ENV is the bending moment resistance predicted by Eurocode 3

 23

Table 10: Summary of comparison between 3 current design procedures and the

proposed design method for flexural buckling resistance (82 tests)

Fu,Pred / Fu,Test
Cross-section type Fu,Prop / Fu,ENV
Eurocode 3 AUS/NZ ASCE Proposed

SHS & RHS MEAN: 0.91 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.10

SHS & RHS COV: 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.10

CHS MEAN: 1.02 1.01 1.00 1.00 0.98

CHS COV: 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.05

OVERALL MEAN: 0.94 0.97 0.97 1.00 1.07

OVERALL COV: 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.09

COV is the coefficient of variation

Fu,Pred is the flexural buckling resistance predicted by the design codes

Fu,Test is the test ultimate load

Fu,Prop is the flexural buckling resistance predicted by the proposed design method

Fu,ENV is the flexural buckling resistance predicted by Eurocode 3

 24

Table 11: Summary of comparison between 3 current design procedures and the

proposed design method for combined axial load plus bending resistance (20 tests)

Fu,Pred / Fu,Test
Cross-section type Fu,Prop / Fu,ENV
Eurocode 3 AUS/NZ ASCE Proposed

SHS & RHS MEAN: 0.77 0.82 0.81 0.98 1.28

SHS & RHS COV: 0.20 0.16 0.16 0.12

CHS MEAN: 0.79 0.83 0.78 0.94 1.19

CHS COV: 0.15 0.13 0.14 0.08

OVERALL MEAN: 0.77 0.82 0.80 0.96 1.24

OVERALL COV: 0.17 0.14 0.15 0.11

COV is the coefficient of variation

Fu,Pred is the eccentric compression resistance predicted by the design codes

Fu,Test is the test ultimate load (under eccentric compression)

Fu,Prop is the eccentric compression resistance predicted by the proposed design method

Fu,ENV is the eccentric compression resistance predicted by Eurocode 3

View publication stats