CHAPTER 12

Introduction to Stainless Steel

Design

12.1 GENERAL REMARKS Figure 12.1 Difference between stress–strain curves of carbon
Stainless steel sections are often used architecturally in and annealed stainless steels.12.1
building construction because of their superior corrosion
resistance, ease of maintenance, and pleasing appearance.
With regard to item 1, anisotropy, it should be recog-
Typical applications include column covers, curtain wall
nized that stainless steel has different mechanical properties
panels, mullions, door and window framing, roofing and
in longitudinal and transverse directions for tension and
siding, fascias, railings, stairs, elevators and escalators,
compression modes of stress. The stress–strain curves are
flagpoles, signs, and many others, such as furniture and
always of the gradually yielding type accompanied by rela-
equipment. However, their use for structural load-carrying
tively low proportional limits. For carbon and low-alloy
purposes has been limited prior to 1968 because of the lack
steels, the proportional limit is assumed to be at least
of a design specification.
70% of the yield stress, but for stainless steel the propor-
In 1968 the first edition of the “Specification for the
tional limit ranges from approximately 36 to 60% of the
Design of Light Gage Cold-Formed Stainless Steel Struc-
yield stress. Lower proportional limits affect the buckling
tural Members”12.1 was issued by the AISI on the basis
behavior and reduce the strengths of structural components
of extensive research conducted by Johnson and Winter at
and members.
Cornell University3.5,3.16 and the experience accumulated in
Since the scope of the 1968 edition of the AISI Speci-
the design of cold-formed carbon steel structural members.
fication for stainless steel design was limited to the use of
This specification formulates design rules for structural
annealed and strain-flattened stainless steels, and 14 - and
members cold-formed from annealed, austenitic stainless 1
steel types 201, 202, 301, 302, 304, and 316. The main 2 -hard temper grades of stainless steel have been used
increasingly in various applications as a result of their
reason for having a different specification for the design of
higher strengths in relation to annealed grades (Fig. 12.2),
stainless steel structural members is because the mechanical
additional design provisions for the use of hard temper
properties of stainless steel are significantly different from
grades of stainless steels are needed in the engineering
those of carbon steel. As a result, the design provisions of
profession. Consequently, additional research work has
the AISI Specification prepared for carbon steel cannot be
been conducted by Wang and Errera at Cornell Univer-
used for stainless steel without modification.
sity to investigate further the performance of structural
As shown in Fig. 12.1,12.2 even annealed stainless steel
members cold formed from cold-rolled, austenitic stainless
has the following characteristics as compared with carbon
steels.12.3,12.4 The strength of bolted and welded connec-
steel:
tions in stainless steel has also been studied by Errera,
1. Anisotropy Tang, and Popowich.12.5 Based on the research findings of
2. Nonlinear stress–strain relationship these studies, the 1974 edition of the AISI “Specification
3. Low proportional limits for the Design of Cold-Formed Stainless Steel Structural
4. Pronounced response to cold work Members”1.160 has been issued by the Institute as Part I of

Cold-Formed Steel Design, Fourth Edition Wei-Wen Yu and Roger A. LaBoube 353
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
354 12 INTRODUCTION TO STAINLESS STEEL DESIGN
Figure 12.2 Comparison of stress curves of annealed, half-hard, and full-hard stainless steels.12.2
the stainless steel design manual.3.4 In this second edition
of the Specification, the scope was extended to include
the design of structural members cold formed from hard
temper sheet, strip, plate, or flat bar stainless steels. Many
design provisions and formulas were generalized so that
they can be used for different temper grades. In some cases,
the formulas are more complicated than heretofore because
of the pronounced anisotropic material properties of the
temper grades, the difference in stress–strain relationships
for different grades of stainless steels, as shown in Fig. 12.2,
and the nonlinear stress–strain characteristics resulting from
the relatively low elastic limits for the temper grades. This
revised Specification covered six types of austenitic stain-
less steels (AISI types 201, 202, 301, 302, 304, and 316) in
four different grades (Grades A, B, C, and D). Among these
four grades, Grades A and B cover the annealed condition
of different types of austenitic stainless steels; Grades C
and D cover the 14 - and 12 -hard tempers, respectively. The
mechanical properties of the various types of stainless steels
were provided in the Specification1.160 and the commentary,
which is Part II of the Design Manual.3.4
In the 1980s, additional studies were conducted by Van
der Merwe,12.6 Van den Berg,12.7 and Lin12.8 to determine
the strength of stainless steel structural members and to
develop design recommendations for cold-formed austenitic
and ferritic stainless steel structural members. In 1990,
the ASCE “Standard Specification for the Design of Cold-
Formed Stainless Steel Structural Members”12.9 was devel-
oped at the University of Missouri-Rolla and approved by
the ASCE Stainless Steel Cold-Formed Sections Standards
Committee. This document was prepared under the finan-
cial support of the Chromium Centre in South Africa, the
Nickel Development Institute in Canada, and the Specialty
Steel Industry of the United States.
The 1990 ASCE Standard Specification was applicable
to the use of four types of austenitic stainless steels (Types
1
201, 301, 304, and 316, annealed and cold-rolled in 16 -, 14 -,
1
and 2 -hard grades) and three types of ferritic stainless steels
 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SPECIFICATIONS FOR CARBON STEELS AND STAINLESS STEELS
(annealed Types 409, 430, and 439). This specification was
based on the LRFD concept with the ASD concept as an
alternative.1.238,1.253,12.9,12.15
In the 1990s, additional studies have been made at Rand
Afrikaans University, University of Sydney, Glasgow Cale-
donian University, University of Strathclyde, and Univer-
sity of Liege. For details, see Refs. 2.63–2.65, 12.10–12.14,
and 12.16–12.36.
Subsequently, the ASCE Standard was updated in
200212.39 to supersede the 1990 Standard. The main techni-
cal revisions of design provisions are summarized by Lin,
Yu, and Galambos in Ref. 12.40. This revised document
also includes the design of structural members and connec-
tions using UNS S20400 (annealed and 1/4 hard) stainless
steels.
In the past decade, numerous studies have been
conducted by various research groups and individuals. The
research findings are reported in Ref. 1.412, 12.41–12.77,
12.79, and 12.80.
As far as the design standards are concerned, the ASCE
Standard Specification is being updated to reflect the results
of additional research. Eurocode 3: Part 1.4 was published
since 1994.12.37 In 1996, the South African Bureau of
Standards prepared the “Draf Code of Practice—Limit State
Design of Cold-Formed Stainless Steel Members.”12.38 The
Australian/New Zealand Standard: Cold-Formed Stainless
Steel Structures was published in 2001.12.78
12.2 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SPECIFICATIONS
FOR CARBON STEELS AND STAINLESS STEELS
A comparison of the North American Specification for
carbon steels1.345 and the specifications for stainless
steels1.160,12.9,12.39 indicates the differences for the follow-
ing aspects:
1. Inelastic buckling of flat elements for compression,
shear, and bending modes
2. Safety factor, load factor, and resistance factor
3. Limitations of width-to-thickness ratio
4. Deflection determination
5. Anisotropy
6. Local and distortional buckling considerations
7. Design of beams
8. Column buckling
9. Connections
12.2.1 Inelastic Buckling of Flat Elements for
Compression, Shear, and Bending Modes
In order to consider inelastic buckling (i.e., when the buck-
ling stress exceeds the proportional limit), the following
plasticity reduction factors are being used in the ASCE
355
standard for stainless steel design to modify the design
formulas derived for elastic buckling:
Type of Buckling Stress
for Flat Elements Plasticity Reduction Factor
Compression
Unstiffened
Es /E0
Stiffened Er /E0
Shear Gs /G0
Bending Es /E0
E 0 = initial modulus of elasticity, E s = secant modulus, E t = tangent
modulus, G 0 = initial shear modulus, and G s = secant shear modulus.
The initial moduli of elasticity, initial shear moduli,
secant moduli, tangent moduli, and various plasticity reduc-
tion factors are provided in the Standard for different
grades of stainless steels to be used for various design
considerations.
12.2.2 Safety Factor, Load Factor,
and Resistance Factor
In carbon steel design specification a basic safety factor of
1.67 has been used since 1960. For stainless steel design, a
relatively large safety factor of 1.85 is retained in the ASD
specification because of the lack of design experience and
due to the fact that in stainless steel design it is necessary to
consider the inelastic behavior at lower stresses than those
used for carbon steel. For column design, the allowable
stress used for stainless steel has also been derived on the
basis of a relatively larger safety factor than for carbon
steel.
Because the 1990 and 2002 ASCE Standard Specifi-
cations were based on the LRFD method with the ASD
method as an alternate, different load factors, safety factors,
resistance factors, and nominal strength equations are given
in the Standard Specification for the design of stainless steel
structural members and connections.
12.2.3 Limitations of Width-to-Thickness Ratio
Since pleasing appearance is one of the important consid-
erations in stainless steel design, the maximum permissible
width-to-thickness ratios of flat elements have been reduced
in order to minimize the possible local distortion of flat
elements.
12.2.4 Deflection Determination
Because the proportional limit of stainless steel is rela-
tively low and the stress in the extreme fiber may be
higher than the proportional limit under service load, special
356 12 INTRODUCTION TO STAINLESS STEEL DESIGN
provisions are included in the stainless steel specification
for computing deflections, in which a reduced modulus of
elasticity E r = (E ts + E cs )/2 is used. In this expression,
E r is the reduced modulus of elasticity, E ts is the secant
modulus corresponding to the stress in the tension flange,
and E cs is the secant modulus corresponding to the stress
in the compression flange.
12.2.5 Anisotropy
For austenitic stainless steel, the stress–strain curves are
different for longitudinal tension and compression and for
transverse tension and compression, as shown in Fig. 12.2.
In the ASCE stainless steel specification, the basic design
stresses are based on the values obtained from a statistical
analysis. This statistical analysis has been made to ensure
that there is a 90% probability that the mechanical proper-
ties will be equaled or exceeded in a random selection of
the material lot under consideration.
For ferritic stainless steels, a comprehensive study was
made by Van der Merwe in 1987.12.6 Figure 12.3 shows
typical stress–strain curves for Types 409 and 430 stainless
Figure 12.3 Initial portion of stress–strain curves for ferritic stainless steels.12.6
steels. It can be seen that these stress–strain relationships
are different from those of austenitic stainless steels as
shown in Fig. 12.2.
12.2.6 Local and Distortional Buckling
Considerations
Since the proportional limits for stainless steel are low
as compared with those for carbon steel and the exposed
surfaces of stainless steel are important for architectural
purposes, the design provisions for determining the permis-
sible stresses for unstiffened and stiffened compression
elements are included for two instances: (1) no local distor-
tion at design loads is permissible and (2) some slight
waving at design loads is permissible.
In the current North American Specification for carbon
steel design, distortional buckling provisions are included
for the design of open flexural and compression members
having compression flanges with edge stiffeners. These
relatively new design provisions have not been included
in the ASCE Standard.
 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SPECIFICATIONS FOR CARBON STEELS AND STAINLESS STEELS
12.2.7 Design of Beams
In the specification for stainless steel, the theoretical
equation for the critical lateral–torsional buckling moment
has been generalized by utilizing a plasticity reduction
factor E t /E 0 .
In addition, the allowable stress used in the stainless steel
ASD specification is based on a safety factor of 1.85 instead
of 1.67 used for carbon steel design. The resistance factor
used for stainless steel design is smaller than that for carbon
steel design.
For the web crippling strength of carbon steel, the current
North American Specification1.345 uses the unified web
crippling equation for different types of sections. For stain-
less steel design, the ASCE Standard adopts the same
design approach used in the 1996 edition of the AISI Spec-
ification for carbon steel design.
12.2.8 Column Buckling
Since the stress–strain relationships of stainless steels are
different from those for carbon steel, the column buckling
stress for axially loaded compression members is based on
the tangent modulus theory for flexural buckling, torsional
357
buckling, and flexural–torsional buckling. The safety factor
applied in the ASD design formulas is 2.15 instead of the
1.80 used for cold-formed carbon steel design.
12.2.9 Connections
1. Welded Connections. The design provisions for
welded connections are developed on the basis of the
available research data on stainless steel connections and
the 1996 edition of the AISI Specification for cold-formed
carbon steel design.
2. Bolted Connections. Based on a study of the strength
of bolted and welded connections in stainless steel
conducted by Errera, Tang, and Popowich,12.5 the design
provisions for bolted connections are generalized to reflect
the results of research work. The design provisions are
related to the determination of edge distance, tension
stress, and bearing stress. Additional design information is
included for the shear and tension stresses for Types 201,
304, 316, and 430 stainless steel bolts.
3. Screw Connections. The ASCE Standard does not
include design provisions for screw connections due to lack
of research data at the time of developing the document.