Journal of Constructional Steel Research 208 (2023) 107986

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr

Revision of ASCE 8 - Design of cold-formed stainless steel

structural members
B.W. Schafer *, R.S. Glauz, H. Chen
Johns Hopkins University, RSG Software, American Iron and Steel Institute, United States of America

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Stainless Steel
Cold-formed stainless steel Structural Members was last updated in 2002 and significant advancements in research knowledge and com­
Austenitic panion design standards have occurred in the intervening 20 years. A dedicated group of volunteers re-formed
Ferritic
the ASCE 8 specification committee and over the course of four years completely revamped the standard. The
Duplex
Structural design
new version, ASCE 8–22, still parallels the cold-formed carbon steel standard AISI S100, and has improved and
Continuous strength simplified design expressions for members and connections. Both the Continuous Strength Method and the Direct
Direct strength Strength Method are provided in ASCE 8–22, along with traditional effective width design approaches. The
standard provides a robust set of provisions for slender austenitic, ferritic, and duplex cold-formed stainless steel
structural members and their connections. This paper overviews major changes in the ASCE 8–22 standard
highlighting areas of divergence from carbon cold-formed steel (AISI S100) and from stainless structural steel
(AISC 370–21).

1. Introduction extent possible this standard has been coordinated with AISC 370;
however … the scope of stainless steel alloys is broader in this standard
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Specification for the than … AISC 370 and the attention given to cross-section buckling and
Design of Cold-Formed Stainless Steel Structural Members (ASCE 8) was other issues related to the use of thin coil and sheet steel are also given
last updated in 2002. In the intervening 20 years a significant number of greater attention.” Given that AISC 370 was under development and
advancements and changes have occurred in stainless steel design and AISI S100–16 was also being revised (to AISI S100–20) during the
research. Notably, other international stainless steel standards now exist development of ASCE 8–22, it was at times challenging to coordinate
(e.g., Eurocode [16]), the inspiration or base document [7],[5] (the and achieve all of these objectives.
cold-formed carbon steel standard AISI S100) has undergone significant
changes and improvements, and a new standard for stainless steel has 2. Revising ASCE 8–02
evolved from a pre-standard (AISC DG 27–13, [1]) to a complete solu­
tion for heavier stainless steel shapes and structures: AISC 370–21 [3]. In An international committee of twenty-one experts was assembled to
research, new design methods have evolved to achieve maximum effi­ update ASCE 8–02. The standards process followed the procedures
ciency in stainless steel members without undue complication in design established by the American Society of Civil Engineers and accredited by
such as the continuous strength and direct strength methods. the American National Standards Institute. The process consisted of
As detailed in the preface of ASCE 8–22 “Major changes from ASCE 8- merging ASCE 8–02 with AISI S100–16, flagging all items needing
02 include adoption of format and provisions aligned with American improvement, breaking into task groups for each chapter, developing
Iron and Steel Institute standard AISI S100-16 wherever possible; working draft chapters, integrating in the latest research findings from
adoption of reliability indices aligned with AISI S100-16; adoption of the the global research community as well as other stainless steel standards,
use of initial modulus of elasticity, E, and transverse 0.2% offset stress, and formally voting and resolving specification language for each
Fy, wherever possible; and integration of new design methods such as the chapter, and subsequently the entire Specification. This four year pro­
direct strength method and the continuous strength method. …To the cess took four internal committee ballots once formal voting initiated

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B.W. Schafer), [email protected] (R.S. Glauz), [email protected] (H. Chen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2023.107986
Received 22 November 2022; Received in revised form 19 April 2023; Accepted 2 May 2023
Available online 25 May 2023
0143-974X/© 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
B.W. Schafer et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 208 (2023) 107986

and two public review periods and reached its conclusion with formal 3. ASCE8–22 chapter highlights
ratification by the ASCE Board in 2022.
A key update for ASCE 8–22 was aligning the expected reliability of In this section we provide key highlights of the ASCE 8–22 standard,
the updated standard with that of AISI S100–16: β = 2.5 for members, β pointing out major changes from ASCE 8–02, as well as departures from
= 3.5 for connections. For some limit states sufficient data existed for AISC 370–21 and/or AISI S100–16. The organization of ASCE 8–22
new reliability assessments to be performed, in other cases extrapolation changed significantly from ASCE 8–02 to align the chapters with AISI
from either ASCE 8–02 or AISI S100–16 was desired. Table 1, which is S100–16, AISC 360, and AISC 370–21. It is worth noting that the com­
reproduced from the ASCE 8–22 commentary, provides an accounting of mentary to ASCE 8–22 is relatively compact, essentially a summary of
the resulting resistance factors (ϕ’s) for all the member limit states that changes from the AISI S100–16 commentary. In that sense the interested
were established to meet the new target reliabilities. See the ASCE 8–22 reader is also pointed to the new standard to get additional insight on
commentary for the complete table including connection limit states. changes enacted.
When extrapolation from ASCE 8–02 was performed the committee
utilized the fact that the target β for both members and connections 3.1. Ch. 1 General provisions
decreased by 0.5 from ASCE 8–02 to ASCE 8–22. Assuming a live-to-
dead ratio of 5, a material factor of 1.1, fabrication factor of 1.0, and Based on similar provisions from AISI S100–16, ASCE 8–22 provides
professional factor in a range between 1.0 and 1.15 one may determine alternative paths to developing the capacity prediction for stainless steel
that the resistance factor, ϕ, should increase by 0.1–012 for members structural members that cannot be readily calculated using the standard.
and 0.08–0.09 for connections, as a result of the relaxed target re­ As defined in Section 1.1.2 the engineer may (1) test, (2) use rational
liabilities. The committee allowed a ϕ increase of 0.05 in this case, as engineering analysis, (3) use a combination of (1) and (2). Notably the
noted with superscript a in Table 1. standard provides specific guidance on how to determine the reliability
It is worth noting that significant efforts were made to coordinate in that situation.
ASCE 8–22 with the new AISC 370–21 stainless steel standard. Several Materials selection is a much more involved process in stainless steel.
members of the committee served on both efforts and the Chair of ASCE As a result, Chapter 1 provides specific guidance on the alloy families
8–22 was the Vice Chair of AISC 370–21. Discussion of merging the that are covered. In addition, stainless steel is often selected for its su­
standards did occur, but similar to AISC 360–16 and AISI S100–16 for perior corrosion resistance – as a result the standard provides specific
carbon steel, there was a desire to have a more narrowly scoped standard language around corrosion performance, in some cases providing pre­
for structural stainless steel shapes [3] and a broader standard covering scriptive alloys that are appropriate and in other cases providing per­
additional alloys and thickness regimes and open member cross-sections formance standards that may be utilized by the engineer in materials
[8]. The final formal scope for ASCE 8–22 “applies to the design of selection. Provisions are included to address galvanic corrosion, chlo­
structural members cold-formed to shape from annealed and cold-rolled ride stress corrosion cracking, crevice corrosion, salt or brackish water
austenitic, ferritic, and duplex stainless steel alloys… in the form of immersion, and other bacterial or chemical exposure.
sheet, strip, plate, or flat bar used for load-carrying purposes in (1)
buildings and (2) structures other than buildings provided allowances 3.2. Ch.2 Design requirements
are made for dynamic effects.”
The requirements for Load and Resistance Factor Design and

Table 1
Resistance and safety factors.
ASCE 8–22 Section Resistance factor ϕ Safety factor Ω

Limit State AISI S100–16 ASCE 8–02 ASCE 8–22 AISI S100–16 ASCE 8–02 ASCE 8–22e

Rational Analysis—Members 1.1.2 0.80 – 0.80c 2.00 – 2.00

Rational Analysis—Connections 1.1.2 0.55 – 0.55c 3.00 – 3.00
Tension Yield 4.2 0.90 0.85 0.90a 1.67 1.85 1.80
Tension Rupture 4.3 0.75 0.70 0.75a 2.00 2.40 2.15
Compression—Yielding 5.2 0.85 0.85 0.90d 1.80 2.15 1.80
Compression—Global Buckling 5.2 0.85 0.85 0.90d 1.80 2.15 1.80
Compression—Local Buckling 5.3 0.85 0.85 0.90d 1.80 2.15 1.80
Compression—Cylindrical Tubes 5.3.3 0.85 0.80 0.85a 1.80 2.15 1.90
Compression—Distortional Buckling 5.4 0.85 – 0.90d 1.80 – 1.80
Flexure—Yielding 6.2 0.90 0.85/0.90 0.90d 1.67 1.85 1.80
Flexure—Global Buckling 6.2 0.90 0.85 0.90d 1.67 1.85 1.80
Flexure—Cylindrical Tubes 6.2.1.5 0.95 0.90 0.90d 1.67 1.85 1.80
Flexure—Local Buckling 6.3 0.90 0.85/0.90 0.90d 1.67 1.85 1.80
Flexure—Local Buckling, Cyl. Tubes 6.3.3 0.95 0.90 0.95a 1.67 – 1.70
Flexure—Distortional Buckling 6.4 0.90 – 0.90d 1.67 – 1.80
Flexure—Shear 7.2 0.95 0.85/0.95 0.90ab 1.60 1.64/1.85 1.80
Web-Crippling 7.5 Varies 0.70 Variesb Varies 2.00/2.20 Variesf
Compact Bearing Stiffeners 7.7.1 0.85 0.85 0.85c 2.00 – 1.90
Bearing Stiffeners in C-Section 7.7.2 0.90 – 0.90c 1.70 – 1.80
Flexure—Tension Yield 8.1.1 0.90 0.85/0.90 0.90d 1.67 1.85 1.80
Bending/Web-Crippling—Single 8.3, Item 1 0.90 ϕw, ϕb 0.85b 1.70 Ωw, Ωb 1.90
Bending/Web-Crippling— I-Section 8.3, Item 2 0.90 ϕw, ϕb 0.85b 1.70 Ωw, Ωb 1.90
Bending/Web-Crippling—Nested 8.3, Item 3 0.90 ϕw, ϕb 0.85b 1.70 Ωw, Ωb 1.90
a
ASCE 8–02 + 0.05.
b
S100–16− 0.05.
c
S100–16.
d
Recalibrated.
e
Ω = 1.6/ϕ (rounded appropriately).
f
Ω = 1.5/ϕ (rounded appropriately), for web-crippling.

2
B.W. Schafer et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 208 (2023) 107986

Allowable Strength Design are laid out in Ch. 2. Reliability calculations local, and distortional limit states as AISI S100–16 (distortional buckling
are based on updated material statistics [20], as provided in the ASCE 8 was not even separately identified in ASCE 8–02), but the global, local,
commentary. Limitations on the use of the Effective Width Method and and distortional strengths have all been updated to reflect simulation
Direct Strength Method are also provided in Chapter 2 – based on the and testing on cold-formed stainless steel shapes. For example, the
committee’s judgment the applicability limits from carbon steel have global strength expression from Arrayago and Rasmussen [6] was
been extended at this time. Also similar to cold-formed carbon steel, the adopted and the typical performance is as provided in Fig. 2. For local
0.95 t delivered minimum thickness criteria has been employed for buckling, interacting with global buckling of yielding, two methods are
quality control. AISC 370, which generally covers thicker shapes and provided for the engineer: the Effective Width Method or the Direct
HSS shapes has taken a different approach to delivered thickness, Strength Method. The Effective Width Method is unchanged from car­
aligning a design thickness with specific product standards. bon steel (so long as the yield stress does not include cold work of
forming effects) and this was shown to be adequate in Becque and
3.3. Ch.3 Design for stability Rasmussen [9]. The Direct Strength Method is based on the strength
curve recommended in Becque et al. [10]. Provisions for distortional
A major upgrade from ASCE 8–02 is the explicit consideration of buckling are also based on Becque et al. [10]. A unique aspect of the
second-order (geometric nonlinear) effects for the cross-section de­ stainless steel provisions (e.g., compared with carbon steel in AISI
mands on members. In format the provisions follow AISI S100–16’s S100–16) is that multiple (global) column strength curves and distor­
presentation which is a generalization of AISC 360–16’s Chapter C tional buckling strength curves are utilized to account for differences
Design for Stability. Imperfections or notional loads may be utilized in between ferritic and austenitic or duplex stainless steels. The provisions
an analysis to generate the second-order effects – but to account for loss for members with holes from carbon steel [4] are utilized in ASCE 8–22
of stiffness prior to reaching full strength a reduced flexural stiffness with adjustment to the specific gross section strengths of the stainless
using τb is required. Fig. 1, based on the work of Gardner and Walport steel member.
[17], provides the stiffness reduction factor as a function of stainless
steel alloy family. Reductions occur earlier and are more severe in 3.6. Ch. 6 Members in flexure
stainless steel compared to carbon steel. This has more to do with the
nature of the rounded stress-strain response in stainless steel rather than ASCE 8–22 follows the basic format of AISI S100–16 for its flexural
the magnitude of residual stresses. Walport et al. [21] provides a com­ provisions. It is worth noting that AISC 370–21 follows AISC 360 for its
plete summary of the background for the interested reader. format, which is quite different from AISI S100–16. As a result, the
The requirements for bracing of compression members and flexural format for flexural design of stainless steel members is one of the biggest
members are also given in Chapter 3. The adequacy of bracing may be differences between ASCE 8–22 and AISC 370–21. The adopted global
determined as part of a second-order analysis or by the prescriptive (lateral-torsional buckling) strength curve is based on the work of
equations provided, consistent with the AISI S100–16 provisions. Arrayago and Rasmussen [6] and is compared with the cold-formed
carbon steel AISI S100–16 and stainless steel EN 1993-1-4 strength
3.4. Ch. 4 Members in tension curves in Fig. 3. The new provisions allow for inelastic reserve, but are
generally below other global (lateral-torsional buckling) strength
In tension, yielding is conceptualized to achieve AgFy, where Ag is the curves. Similar to compression members, both the Effective Width
gross cross-section area and Fy is the 0.2% offset stress in tension. Due to Method and the Direct Strength Method are utilized to account for local
the fact that many stainless steel alloys have quite high Fu/Fy ratios, buckling. For distortional buckling, in the absence of a specific study, it
tension yielding may be an overly conservative estimate of the strength was decided to conservatively use the compression distortional buckling
of a typical stainless steel member. If greater elongation can be allowed strength curve for flexure. A unique feature of flexural members is the
for the structural application, greater tensile capacity is likely. ASCE ability to account for inelastic reserve – both in terms of cross-section
8–22 allows engineers to select an allowable deformation and determine slenderness in the manner consistent with the Direct Strength Method
the tension capacity based on that deformation (while still checking for and in terms of strain capacity in a manner consistent with the Contin­
fracture in the net section limit states). uous Strength Method. Different local inelastic reserve provisions are
provided depending on the section type and aspect ratio. Similar to
3.5. Ch. 5 Members in compression tension members, some stainless steel flexural members may benefit
substantially from being able to take advantage of this inelastic reserve.
The design of members in compression includes the same global,

Fig. 2. Performance of global compression strength curve for lipped channels,

based on Arrayago and Rasmussen [6], Curve 2 and Curve 3 adopted in
Fig. 1. Example stiffness reduction factor in ASCE 8–22 [17]. ASCE 8–22.

3
B.W. Schafer et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 208 (2023) 107986

Fig. 5. Performance of shear strength as a function of slenderness (with

transverse stiffeners).

Fig. 3. Performance of global flexural strength, based on Arrayago and Ras­

mussen [6], New curve – AUS adopted for austenitics in ASCE 8–22, and New 3.8. Ch. 8 Members under combined forces
curve – FER + DUP adopted for ferritics and duplex stainless steel beams in
ASCE 8–22. ASCE 8–22 considers (1) combined axial load and bending, (2)
combined bending and shear, (3) combined bending and web crippling,
3.7. Ch.7 Members in shear and web crippling and (4) combined bending and torsion. Case (4) was not considered in
ASCE 8–02. For combined axial load and bending the conservative linear
For members in shear Meza [19], based in part on Chen et al. [15], interaction expression is employed as utilized in ASCE 8–02 and AISI
proposed and the committee adopted a simplified version of the shear S100–16 for carbon steel. For combined bending and shear the circular
strength as provided in Fig. 4. The basic strength in shear is assumed interaction expression of ASCE 8–02 has been modified to the square
lower than the carbon steel equivalent in shear and inelastic reserve is root expression of AISI S100–16. For combined bending and web crip­
ignored. For sections with transverse stiffeners, and thus the clear ability pling the piecewise linear interaction expressions of AISI S100–16 have
to develop post-buckling and tension-field action, Meza [19] proposed a been employed with resistance factors reduced by 0.05 for ASCE 8–22.
modest reduction of the AISI S100 (carbon) steel curve that was adop­ Finally for combined bending and torsion, linear reductions in the
ted, and is shown in Fig. 5. bending strength based on the magnitude of the torsion warping stresses
Chapter 7 also includes web crippling provisions. The carbon steel are utilized similar to provisions in AISI S100 created during the
AISI S100–16 web crippling provisions were utilized, though the resis­ development of ASCE 8–22. As noted in the ASCE 8–22 commentary the
tance factor was reduced by 0.05 to account for the additional uncer­ focus of the interaction considerations herein with respect to torsion is
tainly in extending these provisions to stainless steel (see table note b in for open sections – closed sections that develop substantial shear stress
Table 1). Substantive new work on web crippling of stainless steel square demands due to torsion require revised treatment.
and rectangular HSS sections was completed by Ben Young and col­
leagues (e.g., [13,14]) and incorporated into ASCE 8–22. Complete 3.9. Ch. 9 Assemblies and systems
references and a summary of the reliability basis for these tests are
provided in the ASCE8–22 commentary. Despite the title, this chapter largely covers built-up members. The
Requirements for shear stiffeners and bearing stiffeners are also provided provisions are essentially the same as those of AISI S100–16. It
given in Chapter 7, both adapted from AISI S100–16 provisions. is worth noting that the design of built-up carbon steel members is an
area of active research and more robust methods have been adopted for
the next edition of AISI S100 and additional extensions are underway.
The provisions of AISI S100–16 largely only address global flexural
buckling in partially composite built-up members. The provisions will
expand to address global (flexural and torsional), distortional, and local
buckling in built-up members. These new improvements are expected to
be adopted by the future edition of ASCE 8.

3.10. Ch 10 Connections and joints

ASCE 8–22 considers welded connections, bolted connections, and

screw connections. Significant additional guidance is provided for wel­
ded connections since considerations for welding are more extensive for
stainless steel than for carbon steel. A clear distinction between ASCE
8–22 and AISC 370–21 is the applicable range of steel thickness, where
ASCE 8–22 designates weld applicability for thickness of the thinnest
connected part as 4.76 mm or less. The U.S. has extensive welding
standards established by the American Welding Society (AWS) and the
AWS standards are explicitly referenced for use. Additional welding
Fig. 4. Performance of shear strength as a function of slenderness, no trans­ limitations on alloy family, use of dissimilar metals, type of weld, etc.
verse stiffeners (AISI S100 refers to AISI S100–16 and ASCE 8 (proposed) the as are all provided. ASCE 8–02’s welding provisions were comprehensively
adopted ASCE 8–22 expression). developed and where appropriate utilized by ASCE 8–22 with only

4
B.W. Schafer et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 208 (2023) 107986

formatting and reliability updates; including for groove welds in butt handling this using the Effective Width Method or the Direct Strength
joints, fillet welds, and resistance welds. In other cases, AISI S100–16 Method. ASCE 8–22 provided a unique set of criteria to limit section
provisions for welding are employed. The resistance weld provisions are distortion through limiting the slenderness of the cross-section. These
unique to ASCE 8–22 – complete details are provided in the ASCE 8–22 provisions were re-formatted, expanded to include distortional buck­
commentary. ling, and provided in Section 12.4 of ASCE 8–22 – effectively these
The ASCE 8–22 provisions for cold-formed stainless steel bolted provisions limit the amount of post-buckling that is allowed in the sec­
connections also use the 4.76 mm upper limit for the thickness of the tions – the provisions are optional and may have their greatest use in
thinnest connected part. Special considerations for stainless steel bolted architectural configurations where waviness in the cross-section is
connection performance including galling are addressed in the com­ avoided for aesthetic, not structural, reasons.
mentary while the strength provisions cover bearing, shear, and tension.
Stainless steel research by Cai and Young [11,12] indicates that the 3.13. Ch. 13 Design for fatigue
bearing provisions in ASCE 8–02 are overly conservative while those for
carbon steel in AISI S100–16 are unconservative. Therefore, new Research on fatigue in stainless steel is limited. As explained in the
bearing factors were developed and adopted in ASCE 8–22 with commentary available fatigue tests on austenitic and duplex stainless
appropriate reliability calculations completed. For shear and tension in steel show similar crack growth patterns to carbon steels. As a result, the
stainless steel bolts the ASCE 8–02 strength provisions were updated in design rules in ASCE 8–22 are based on the carbon steel provisions of
format, but remain essentially unchanged. The resistance factor was AISI S100–16.
based on the value in ASCE 8–02. The value is not increased by 0.05 to
account for the change in target reliability between ASCE 8–02 and 3.14. Appendix A Effective width of elements
ASCE 8–22 because this would have caused the resistance factor to
exceed that in similar AISI S100 carbon steel provisions. No justification The effective width provisions of ASCE 8–02 were based on earlier
for an enhanced reliability could be established, so the existing resis­ editions of the AISI standard and were updated to align with AISI
tance factor was maintained. S100–16 in ASCE 8–22. Additional effective width expressions have
ASCE 8–22 utilizes the provisions of AISI S100–16 to provide guid­ been provided for the case where the engineer is utilizing cold work of
ance for screw connection. Tests on ferritic stainless steel self-tapping forming, based on the work of Gardner and Theofanous [18]. These
screws in steel-to-steel lap shear connections [22] exhibit the same provisions are limited to elements of plain sections (no intermediate or
limit states as carbon steel connections. ASCE 8–22 provides specific edge stiffeners) under uniform compression.
requirements to ensure screws are not the weak link in a corrosive
environment. The commentary is more specific stating: “material 3.15. Appendix B Elastic buckling analysis of members
properties of a stainless steel screw must match the stainless steels to be
connected and avoid galvanic corrosion.” The commentary also warns of Since ASCE 8–22 utilizes the initial elastic modulus rather than the
the potential for galling of stainless steel self-tapping screws and pro­ tangent modulus in all stability calculations the elastic buckling pro­
vides guidance to avoid this. visions are identical for carbon and stainless steel. The provisions of AISI
New provisions are given for rupture of the net section in bolted and S100–16 have been utilized in ASCE 8–22 and cover analytical and
welded connections which did not exist in ASCE 8–02. Strength equa­ numerical methods for global, local, and distortional elastic buckling.
tions are provided for shear rupture, tension rupture, and block shear The option to use numerical methods was not available in ASCE 8–02.
rupture.
3.16. Appendix C Material properties
3.11. Ch. 11 Strength for special cases
Fundamental material properties for stainless steels expected to be
A unique feature of ASCE 8–22, based on similar provisions in AISI utilized with ASCE 8–22 are provided in this Appendix. Expressions
S100–16, is the ability to use testing to determine the nominal strength describing the stress-strain behavior of the alloy families are also given.
and the resistance factor on the reliability basis. ASCE 8–22 established
the mean and coefficient of variation for the material and fabrication 4. Discussion
factors that are utilized in the reliability analysis. The statistics for
developing the material factors for austenitic, duplex, and ferritic steels Three major decisions led to substantive changes in ASCE 8–22: (1)
were developed by Meza [19] and utilized in the standard. The values in the adoption of target reliabilities consistent with AISI S100–16, (2) the
Table 2 have been rounded for use in the standard. adoption of the use of the initial modulus, Eo, as opposed to tangent or
secant approaches, and (3) the desire to adopt all available research in
3.12. Ch. 12 Design for serviceability stainless steel structural members. The first decision required revisiting
every limit state in the specification. The second decision required that
Serviceability in ASCE 8–22 primarily addresses flexural stiffness most member design formulas be updated and re-calibrated, and resul­
and section distortion. For stainless steel sections the flexural rigidity, ted in strength formulas often being dependent on the selected stainless
EI, must reflect reductions in both E and I at service loads. Reductions in steel alloy family. The third decision led to entirely new provisions
E are conservatively considered at the extreme fiber and account for the allowing for both the Direct Strength Method and the Continuous
gradual yielding nature of stainless steel. Reductions in I account for loss Strength Method.
in stiffness due to cross-section buckling and provisions are provided for Developments from a number of recent research topics are expected
to be incorporated into carbon steel specifications and will likely have
Table 2 similar applicability to stainless steel. Research on the structural
Material statistics (mean bias Mm and CoV VM) from Meza et al. [20]. behavior of advanced high strength steels, which exhibit gradual
yielding similar to stainless steel, reveal possible refinements to local
Alloy family Yielding limit states (Fy) Tensile limit states (Fu)
and distortional buckling where interaction is possible. Studies on local
Mm VM Mm VM
and distortional buckling caused by warping torsion may provide better
Austenitic 1.25 0.08 1.10 0.04 strength predictions for torsion and combined bending and torsion.
Duplex 1.10 0.04 1.10 0.04 Improvements to flexural strength predictions using the Direct Strength
Ferritic 1.25 0.05 1.10 0.04
Method remedy a known area of deficiency. Research on beam-columns

5
B.W. Schafer et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 208 (2023) 107986

have led to a Direct Strength Method solution for a member strength entire Specification during the development process, an assistance that
envelope considering any proportions of compression and flexure. AISI made the entire process possible.
recently approved the addition of a fire design appendix based on
several recent studies and developments. These topics are potential References
considerations for future ASCE 8 editions.
[1] AISC, Design Guide 27, Structural Stainless Steel, AISC, Chicago, 2013.
[3] AISC 370–-21, Specification for Structural Stainless Steel Buildings, AISC, Chicago,
5. Conclusions 2021.
[4] AISI S100–-16, North American Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel
A new standard edition, ASCE 8–22, for cold-formed stainless steel Structural Members, AISI S100-16., AISI, Washington, DC, 2016.
[5] AISI S100–-20, North American Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel
structural members has been developed, which covers stainless steel Structural Members, AISI S100-20., AISI, Washington, DC, 2020.
members cold-formed from austenitic, duplex, and ferritic alloy fam­ [6] I. Arrayago, K.J.R. Rasmussen, Buckling curves for cold-formed stainless steel
ilies. By adopting AISI S100–16 and the newest stainless steel research columns and beams, J. Struct. Eng. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. 2021 (2021), https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0003084.
outcomes, the design provisions of ASCE 8–22 reflect the state of the art [7] ASCE 8–-02, Specification for Design of Cold-Formed Stainless Steel Structural
in both cold-formed carbon and stainless steel worlds. Members, ASCE 8-02., ASCE, Reston, VA, 2002.
The engineer designing both carbon and stainless steel cold-formed [8] ASCE 8–-22, Specification for Design of Cold-Formed Stainless Steel Structural
Members, ASCE 8-22., ASCE, Reston, VA, 2022.
members will find the new ASCE 8 edition conveniently similar to the
[9] J. Becque, K.J.R. Rasmussen, Numerical Investigation and Design Methods for
latest AISI provisions. The unique characteristics and behavior of Stainless Steel Columns Failing by the Interaction of Local and Overall Buckling
stainless steel continue to require attention, but the organization of the 2008, Sydney: Research Report R888, School of Civil Engineering, University of
chapters and commonality of many of the design provisions provide Sydney, 2008.
[10] J. Becque, M. Lecce, K.J.R. Rasmussen, The direct strength method for stainless
familiarity and consistency to the engineer. Codification of alternate steel compression members, J. Constr. Steel Res. 64 (2008) (2008) 1231–1238.
design approaches using physical tests or numerical simulations [11] Y. Cai, B. Young, Bearing factors of cold-formed stainless steel double shear bolted
formally enables options which are available to and increasingly utilized connections at elevated temperatures, Thin-Walled Struct. 98 (2016) 212–229.
[12] Y. Cai, B. Young, Fire resistance of stainless steel single shear bolted connections,
in the industry. Thin-Walled Struct. 130 (2018) 332–346.
[13] Y. Cai, B. Young, Web crippling of lean duplex stainless steel tubular sections under
Declaration of Competing Interest concentrated end bearing loads, Thin-Walled Struct. 134 (2019) 29–39.
[14] Y. Cai, B. Young, Cold-formed lean duplex stainless steel tubular members under
concentrated interior bearing loads, J. Struct. Eng. 145 (7) (2019) 04019056.
None. [15] X.W. Chen, E. Real, H.X. Yuan, X.X. Du, Design of welded stainless steel I-shaped
members subjected to shear, Thin-Walled Struct. 146 (2020), 106465.
[16] EN 1993-1-4:2006+A2:2020, Eurocode 3 – Design of Steel Structures – Part 1–4:
Data availability General Rules – Supplementary Rules for Stainless Steels, 2020.
[17] L. Gardner, F. Walport, Direct Analysis Method for ASCE 8—2020—Background to
No data was used for the research described in the article. Design Recommendations, Private Communication, 2020. November 3, 2020, to
ASCE 8 Committee.
[18] L. Gardner, M. Theofanous, Discrete and continuous treatment of local buckling in
Acknowledgments stainless steel elements, J. Constr. Steel Res. 64 (2008) (2008) 1207–1216.
[19] F. Meza, Background for proposed modifications to Section 7.2.1 and 7.4.1 of ASCE
The authors would like to thank the other members of the ASCE 8 8, in: Committee Documentation ASCE 8, Reston, VA, 2020.
[20] F. Meza, N. Baddoo, L. Gardner, Proposed material factors for ASCE 8 and AISC
committee for their contributions: Nancy Baddoo, Hannah Blum, Meihe 370, SCI Memo, 2020. November 23, 2020.
Chen, Linfeng Chen, Shenggang Fan, Leroy Gardner, John Grubb, Alfred [21] F. Walport, M. Kuckler, L. Garnder, Stability design of stainless steel structures,
A. Herget, Catherine Houska, Kara Peterman, Kim Rasmussen, Andrew J. Struct. Eng. ASCE 148 (10) (2022) 04021225.
[22] A. Talja, Structural applications of Ferritic stainless steels (SAFFS) WP 6 bolted and
Sarawit, Ganping Shu, Thomas Sputo, Kurt Voigt, Ben Young, Huanxin screwed connections: Design recommendations, in: Research Rep. No. VTT-R-
Yuan, and Baofeng Zheng. In addition, the lead two authors would like 07757-12., Commission of the European Communities, Brus-sels, Belgium, 2014.
thank volunteer Hong (Helen) Chen who served as committee secretary
and managed formal typesetting and copy editing of every ballot and the