Bending resistance of austenitic stainless steel hollow sections at elevated temperatures

• Published in: Structures (Oxford) 2024-01, Vol.59, p.1-10, Article 105690
• Main Authors: Piloto, Paulo A.G., Mesquita, Luís M.R., Cruz, Áureo A.T., Lopes, Nuno, Arrais, Flávio, Real, Paulo Vila
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Bending resistance; Elevated temperatures; Experimental investigation; Fire; Numerical investigation; Stainless steel beams
• ISSN: 2352-0124; 2352-0124
• DOI: 10.1016/j.istruc.2023.105690

The present research aims to increase the knowledge of the structural behaviour of stainless steel members under fire. Eight experimental bending tests at elevated temperatures (500, 700 ºC) built with RHS 150×100×3 austenitic stainless-steel beams, using two different grades (1.4301, 1.4571) also known as 304 and 316Ti, are presented. Both grades 1.4301 (X5CrNi18–10) and 1.4571 (X6CrNiMo17–12–2) have almost the same core chemical composition but there are some differences, especially the grade 1.4571 has 2–2.5% molybdenum and a small amount of titanium (less than 0.7%). Grade 1.4301 presents good rust resistance, sufficient acid resistance and good weldability, while grade 1.4571 presents very good rust resistance, very good acid resistance and also good weldability. Both have almost the same strength, but grade 1.4571 has superior strength at elevated temperatures. Both material grades were experimentally characterised with coupon tensile tests at room temperature. The load-displacement behaviour is validated with 3D shell finite element models, assuming a true stress-strain material model, based on the two-stage Ramberg Osgood constitutive law. With the developed numerical model, a parametric analysis is presented to study the fire resistance of beams from both materials, using three different cross-sections and eleven different temperatures. The bending resistance obtained with the finite element model is in good agreement with the cross-sectional design moment resistance, when considering the effective area, confirming that the design rules from EN1993–1–2 are safe for less slender cross-sections and unsafe for the most slender cross-sections.