is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly plastic) stress-strain response,

stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain behaviour with no sharply defined
yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these differences so as to ensure safe,
efficient, and structurally sound design. The current European rules for global analysis and
design are examined in this paper, assessing whether the methods provided are suitable
for stainless steel. Particular attention is given to the extent to which the differences
between the behaviour of stainless steel and carbon steel frames are adequately
recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary guidance for the design of stainless steel
structures that complement the design rules given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-
1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the rules for structural analysis with detailed
subsections on structural modelling, global analysis and imperfections, as well as methods
of analysis considering material nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities
largely relates to the occurrence of traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon
steel structures. However, such hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead
zones of plasticity with gradually reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in
excess of the traditional plastic moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that
“elastic global analysis may be used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should
be based on the assumption that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear,
whatever the stress level is”. The supplementary rules for stainless steel give no
additional information for the global analysis of stainless steel structures, though an
analytical expression for the description of the rounded stress-strain response of stainless
steel based on the two stage Ramberg-Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper
assesses whether the assumption of an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due
to the significant nonlinearity of stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN
1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN
1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN
1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN
1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN
1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN
1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN
1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN
1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN
1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN
1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN

1993-1-4 does not provide global plastic design rules for indet
Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.
Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet

Abstract a , L. Gardner a a , E. Real b , I. Arrayago Imperial College London b b , D.A.

Nethercot Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya a In structural frames, second order effects
refer to the internal forces and moments that arise as a result of deformations under
load (i.e. geometrical nonlinearity). EN 1993-1-1 states that global second order effects
may be neglected if the critical load factor of the frame cr is greater than or equal to 10
for an elastic analysis, or greater than or equal to 15 when a plastic global analysis is
used. No specific guidance is provided in EN 1993-1-4 for the design of stainless steel
frames, for which the nonlinear stress-strain behaviour of the material will result in
greater deformations as the material loses its stiffness. A study of the effects of material
nonlinearity on the stability of stainless steel frames is presented herein. A series of
different frame geometries and loading conditions are considered. Based on the findings,
proposals for the treatment of the influence of material nonlinearity on the global
analysis and design of stainless steel frames are presented. Keywords Continuous Strength
Method, Frame stability, Global analysis, Numerical modelling, Second order effects,
Stainless steel 1 Introduction Stainless steel is widely used across a range of industries
with its key advantage over ordinary carbon steel being its corrosion resistance and
durability. Although a number of design standards for stainless steel currently exist, their
provisions have generally been based on a presumed equivalence with the carbon steel
design rules. However, stainless steel and carbon steel have distinctly different material
characteristics; while carbon steel is accurately characterised by a bilinear (elastic, perfectly
plastic) stress-strain response, stainless steel exhibits nonlinear rounded stress-strain
behaviour with no sharply defined yield point. It is important that the codes reflect these
differences so as to ensure safe, efficient, and structurally sound design. The current
European rules for global analysis and design are examined in this paper, assessing
whether the methods provided are suitable for stainless steel. Particular attention is
given to the extent to which the differences between the behaviour of stainless steel and
carbon steel frames are adequately recognised. EN 1993-1-4 [1] gives supplementary
guidance for the design of stainless steel structures that complement the design rules
given for structural carbon steel in EN 1993-1-1 [2]. Section 5 of EN 1993-1-1 outlines the
rules for structural analysis with detailed subsections on structural modelling, global
analysis and imperfections, as well as methods of analysis considering material
nonlinearities. The guidance on material nonlinearities largely relates to the occurrence of
traditional idealised plastic hinges, as seen in carbon steel structures. However, such
hinges do not form in stainless steel structures; instead zones of plasticity with gradually
reducing stiffness, but with peak capacities well in excess of the traditional plastic
moment are exhibited [3]. EN 1993-1-1 also states that “elastic global analysis may be
used in all cases” and that “elastic global analysis should be based on the assumption
that the stress-strain behaviour of the material is linear, whatever the stress level is”. The
supplementary rules for stainless steel give no additional information for the global
analysis of stainless steel structures, though an analytical expression for the description of
the rounded stress-strain response of stainless steel based on the two stage Ramberg-
Osgood model [4,5,6] is given in Annex C [1].This paper assesses whether the assumption of
an elastic global analysis is sufficient or whether, due to the significant nonlinearity of
stainless steel, a plastic global analysis is necessary. EN 1993-1-4 does not provide global
plastic design rules for indet