metals

Article
Experimental and Numerical Study of Mechanical
Behavior of Welded Steel Plate Joints
Hongwei Ma 1 , Hao Zheng 1 , Wei Zhang 1,2, * , Zhanzhan Tang 1,2 and Eric M. Lui 3
1 College of Civil Science and Engineering, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225127, China;
hwma@yzu.edu.cn (H.M.); 18362824646@163.com (H.Z.); zhan@itam.cas.cz (Z.T.)
2 Institute of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics of the Czech Academy of Sciences,
19000 Prague, Czech Republic
3 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244, USA;
emlui@syr.edu
* Correspondence: zhangwei621@gmail.com; Tel.: +86-178-5197-7726




Received: 9 September 2020; Accepted: 25 September 2020; Published: 27 September 2020


Abstract: This paper describes a study of welded steel plate joints using experimental and numerical
methods. The objectives of this study are to observe the mechanical behavior of welded plate
joints under monotonic and cyclic loads, identify their damage degradation processes, and provide
useful test data for future damage analysis of beam-column connections in steel frame structures.
Six specimens were designed, of which three were tested under monotonic loads, and the other three
were tested under cyclic loads. The test setup consisted of three plates arranged in a cruciform and
connected by two groove welds. The monotonic and cyclic loads were applied to the free end of
the two outstanding plates, inducing a pulling force on the welded joint. Because the only element
studied in the present work is the weld, the sizes of the three plates were kept constant. The responses
of these welded plate joints are discussed in terms of their experimentally and numerically obtained
mechanical parameters, hysteretic behavior, strain variations, stiffness degradation, damage process,
and failure modes. The results show that the energy damage model outperforms the displacement
damage model in terms of indicating the degree of damage. Furthermore, if designed according to
code, all these welded plate joints perform satisfactorily.

Keywords: welded; steel plate joints; damage analysis; numerical analysis

1. Introduction
Weld quality directly affects the quality of welded beam-to-column connections, which are
important elements of a steel frame structure, as evidenced by the brittle failure of a number of welded
beam-to-column connections during the 1994 Northridge and the 1995 Kobe earthquakes. Over the
years, numerous researchers have performed studies on the behavior of welded joints. For instance,
Saher et al. [1] and Ma et al. [2] performed tests on beam-column moment connections under cyclic
loads, and Bae [3] conducted fatigue strength tests of plate-welded joints. Cho et al. [4] investigated
the residual stress and post-weld heat treatment of multi-pass welds, and Radhi et al. [5] used the
finite element method to study the effect of weld toe radius and plate thickness on the fatigue life of
butt-welded joints. Chen et al. [6] studied the fatigue strength of U-rib and diaphragm welded joints,
and Wang et al. [7] conducted a fatigue damage analysis of steel truss bridge joints considering the effect
of residual stresses. Coelho et al. [8] and Konda et al. [9] tested and evaluated the behavior of welded
plates for T-stub connections and orthotropic deck plates, respectively. Takahashi et al. [10] studied the
fatigue behavior of box-welded joints under biaxial loading conditions, and Shvets et al. [11] assessed
the fatigue damage of welded joint zones made from low carbon steel. Other researchers who studied

Metals 2020, 10, 1293; doi:10.3390/met10101293 www.mdpi.com/journal/metals

Metals 2020, 10, 1293 2 of 16

the fatigue behavior of welded joints include Guo et al. [12], Kim et al. [13], and Zhang et al. [14].
Lie et al. [15] conducted a finite element analysis of welded tubular Y-joints, and Yang et al. [16] analyzed
the stress-intensity factor of three-dimensional fatigue cracks of butt-welded U-rib joints. Lan et al. [17]
conducted an experimental study and developed a ductile fracture model of a single-groove welded
joint under a monotonically applied load. Ravi and Khandelwal [18] studied the damage of steel and
weld material under ultralow cycle fatigue. Tsutsumi et al. [19] studied the effect of tangential plasticity
on structural response under non-proportional cyclic loading. Ucaket et al. [20] precisely predicted the
cyclic response of structural steel members of the yielding platform.
Much of the aforementioned research focused on the strength and fatigue behavior of a joint under
monotonic or cyclic loads without considering the influence of weld damage on the joint behavior.
Therefore, the main focus of the present study is to investigate the effect of weld damage on the
performance of welded steel plate joints by analyzing the load–displacement and stress–strain curves
of these joints tested under monotonic and cyclic loads. Using the skeleton and damage modulus
curves, the degradation process of weld damage is studied, and a damage model is validated.
Two sets of three welded plate joint specimens were designed and fabricated. Each specimen
consisted of three plates welded together in the form of a cruciform. The two outstanding plates that
formed the wings of the cruciform were groove welded at right angles to a third plate that formed
the stem of the cruciform. The welds were designed in accordance with Chinese specifications [21]
for welds, and an E5051 electrode was used for all welds. The first set of three specimens was tested
under monotonic loading to determine the mechanical properties, such as the load-displacement curve,
elastic modulus, yield strength, tensile strength, and ductility, of the welded joints. The second set of
three specimens was tested under cyclic loading to study the hysteretic characteristics, load-carrying
capacity, weld degradation process, and damage of the joints.
In the following sections, detailed descriptions of the welded steel plate joint specimens, test setup,
experimental results, finite element model, and numerical simulations will be provided.

2. Experimental Program

2.1. Specimen Design and Preparation

Using the “component method” described in Eurocode 3 [22] and employed in the research
of reinforced concrete beam-column joints [23], the present research uses the six welded plate joint
specimens shown in Figure 1 to investigate weld damage and establish an energy-based damage model
for welds. In order to ensure the weld cracking, the weld length of the flange and intermediate plate
on both sides was calculated accurately. At the same time, a precise measurement was used to reduce
the manufacturing error. In addition, due to the limited processing conditions, the plate connection
could only be made by manual welding, which may lead to uneven material properties of the weld.
As shown in Figure 1, each test specimen was fabricated by groove welding one end of two wing plates
perpendicular to the face of the center plate using an E5015 electrode in accordance with the Chinese
code [21]. The configuration and dimensions of the specimens and the groove welds are shown in
Figure 2. At the location of the weld, the thickness and width of one of the wing plates (shown on the
left in Figure 2) were 14 mm and 40 mm, respectively, while the thickness and width of another wing
plate were 8 mm and 30 mm, respectively. The widths of both wing plates taper were 50 mm at the
free end. The center plate had a constant thickness of 14 mm. In the component method, the wing
plates were used to simulate beam flanges, and the center plate was used to simulate a column flange
or column web. For all the specimens, the thicker wing plate and the center plate were cut from the
flanges of an HW 250 × 250 × 9 × 14 section, and the thinner wing plate was cut from the flanges of an
HN 248 × 124 × 5 × 8 section. The reason for using a thicker and wider plate on one side was to ensure
that weld damage would occur in the weld of the thinner and smaller plate. The steel used for all the
specimens was Q345 steel with a nominal yield strength of 345 MPa. However, based on 15 coupon
tests carried out at the Material Mechanics Laboratory of Yangzhou University, the actual average
Metals 2020, 10, 1293 3 of 16
Metals 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 16
Metals 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 16

actualstrength,
yield
actual averagetensile
average yield strength,
yield strength, tensile
strength,tensile strength,
and elastic modulus
strength, andwere
and elastic modulus
found
elastic were
to be were
modulus 359 found
MPa, to
589to
found be 359
MPa,
be 359 MPa,
andMPa, 589
203 GPa,
589
MPa,andand203
203The
respectively.
MPa, GPa,
GPa, respectively.
average Theaverage
elongation
respectively. The average
at elongation
failureelongation
was 11.6%.atfailure
at failurewas
was11.6%.
11.6%.

(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure 1.
1. Welded plate joint
Welded plate
plate joint specimens:
specimens: (a)
(a) monotonic
monotonic loading
loading test
test set;
set; (b)
(b) cyclic
cyclic loading
loading test
test set.
set.
Figure
Figure 1. Welded joint specimens: (a) monotonic loading test set; (b) cyclic loading test set.

(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure 2. Configuration and dimensions of welded plate joint (mm): (a) top view; (b) side profile.
Figure 2. Configuration and dimensions of welded plate joint (mm): (a) top view; (b) side profile.

The six specimens

specimens were weredivided
dividedinto
intotwo
twosets.
sets.TheThe first
first set
setof of three
ofthree
three specimens
specimens (labeled
(labeled S-1,
S-1,S-2,
S-2,
The six specimens were divided into two sets. The first set specimens (labeled S-1,
S-2, and
andS-3) S-3)
S-3)was was
usedused
wasused to investigate
toinvestigate
investigate the behavior
thebehavior
behavior oftheofwelded
the the weldedplateplate
jointsjoints
underunder monotonic
monotonic loads. loads.
The
and to the of welded plate joints under monotonic loads. The
The second
second set setspecimens
of of specimens (labeled
(labeled S-4,
S-4, S-5,
S-5, andand S-6)
S-6) wasused
was usedtotoinvestigate
investigatethethejoint
joint behavior
behavior under
second set of specimens (labeled S-4, S-5, and S-6) was used to investigate the joint behavior under
cyclic
cyclic loads.
loads.The
Thetest
testresults under
results these
under monotonic
these monotonic and and
cycliccyclic
loadsloads
will be discussed
will in a later
be discussed
discussed in asection.
a later
later
cyclic loads. The test results under these monotonic and cyclic loads will be in
section.
section.
2.2. Test Setup and Loading History
2.2.Test
2.2. Test Setup
TheSetup andLoading
test and
setupLoading History
for a History
typical specimen is shown in Figure 3. All the specimens were tested
usingThea 300
testkN capacity
setup WDW-300
foraatypical
typicalspecimen microcomputer-controlled
specimen Figure3.3.electronic universalweretesting machine.
The test setup for isisshown
shownin inFigure Allthe
All thespecimens
specimens tested
were tested using
using
The monotonic load testing of the first set of specimens was carried out using the displacement control
aa 300
300 kN
kN capacity
capacity WDW-300
WDW-300 microcomputer-controlled
microcomputer-controlled electronic electronic universal
universal testing
testing machine.
machine. The
The
mode.
monotonic The load
displacement
testing of rate
the was set
first set of
at specimens
3 mm/s until wasthe force–displacement
carried out using the relationship became
displacement control
monotonic load testing of the first set of specimens was carried out using the displacement control
nonlinear,
mode. The Theatdisplacement
which time the
displacement rate
rate wasset
was reduced
at 33 mm/sto 2 mm/s.
mm/s until theThisforce–displacement
the displacement rate was maintained
relationship until
became
mode. rate was set at until force–displacement relationship became
the force dropped
nonlinear, at at which below
which time 500
time the N,
the rate the
rate wasratio of
was reduced two
reduced to consecutive
to 22 mm/s. applied
mm/s. This forces
This displacement was
displacement rate less than
rate was 25%, or
was maintainedthe
maintained
nonlinear,
measured
untilthe forcedropped
theforce
force was lessbelow
than 35%500N, of the
N, its maximum
ratioof oftwo
two value. If any of
consecutive these conditions
applied forceswas werethan
wasless
less reached,
25%,
until dropped below 500 the ratio consecutive applied forces than 25%,
the test
or the would
the measured be terminated.
measured force
force was
was less
less than
than 35%35% of of its
its maximum
maximum value. value. IfIf any
any of
of these
these conditions
conditions were
were
or
reached, the test would be terminated.
reached, the test would be terminated.
Metals 2020,
Metals 10, x1293
2020, 10, FOR PEER REVIEW 4 4of
of 16
16
Metals 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 16

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 3. Test setup: (a) overview; (b) specimen on the test machine.
Figure3.3.Test
Figure Testsetup:
setup:(a)
(a)overview;
overview;(b)
(b)specimen
specimenon
onthe
thetest
testmachine.
machine.
The cyclic load testing of the second set of specimens was carried out using a two-stage process.
The
The test cyclic
cyclicload
Thestarted loadtesting
with testing
the load of the
thesecond
ofcontrol second
mode, set of
ofspecimens
setwith two loadwas
specimens was carried
of 25out
carried
cycles kNusing
out using
applied aa two-stage
two-stage process.
process.
to the specimen.
The
The test
test started
started with
with the
the load
load control
control mode,
mode, with
with two
two load
load cycles
cycles of
The magnitude of the applied load cycles was increased to 75 kN in 25-kN load increments, afterof 25
25 kN
kN applied
applied to
to the
the specimen.
specimen.
The
Themagnitude
which magnitude
the load wasofof
thetheapplied
applied
increased load cycles
in load
15-kN waswas
cycles increased
increments toyielding
increased
until 75to kN75inkN
25-kN load
in 25-kN
occurred. Atincrements,
loadtime,
this after
increments,
the which
after
applied
the load
which was
the increased
load was in 15-kN
increased increments
in 15-kN until
increments yielding
until occurred.
yielding
load was switched to displacement-control mode. In the displacement-control loading stage, the At this
occurred. time,
At the
this applied
time, theload was
applied
switched
load wastoswitched
displacement displacement-control
of the first load cyclemode.
to displacement-control
was 2Δ Inythe
, anddisplacement-control
mode.
thenInincreased loading
the displacement-control
by 2Δ stage,loading
y for each cycle,
the and
displacement
stage,
the cyclethe
of the first
displacement
with load cycle was
of the firstwas
the same amplitude 2∆
load , and then
cycle was
yrepeated increased
2Δy, In
twice. and by 2∆ for
thentoincreased
order each cycle, and the
by 2Δy instability
yprevent overall cycle
for each cycle, with
failure and the same
the cycle
caused by
amplitude
with the was
same repeated
amplitude twice.
was In
repeatedorder to
twice. prevent
In order overall
to preventinstability
excessive pressure, the maximum displacement in the pressure direction was set as 4Δy. The overall failure caused
instability by
failure excessive
caused by
pressure,
excessive the maximum
pressure, the displacement
maximum in the
displacement pressurein direction
the pressure
displacement rate used was 3 mm/s, which changed to 2 mm/s when the force–displacement was set as
direction 4∆ .
was
y The setdisplacement
as 4Δ y. The
rate used was
displacement
relationship 3rate
mm/s,
became usedwhich
nonlinear.waschanged
3 mm/s,
The to which
2 mm/schanged
tension–compressionwhen the toforce–displacement
load 2cycles
mm/sused when forthe
therelationship
cyclic load became
force–displacementtest are
nonlinear.
relationship The
shown in Figure 4. tension–compression
became nonlinear. The load cycles used
tension–compression for theloadcyclic load
cycles test
used are
for shown
the cyclicin Figure
load test4.are
shown in Figure 4.
6
200
y y

6
P (kN)

△△

200
P (kN)

150
4
150
125 4
125
100 fy 2
100 fy 2
50
50
0
2 4 6 8 10 12
0
-50 2 4 6 8 10 12
-50 2
-100
-100 2
-125
-125 4
-150
-150 Load control 4 Displacement control
-200 Load control Displacement control
-200
Figure
Figure 4.
4. Loading
Loading method.
method.
Figure 4. Loading method.
2.3. Instrumentation
2.3. Instrumentation
2.3. Instrumentation
Figure 55 shows
Figure shows thethe locations where strain
locations where strain gauges
gauges were
were placed
placed onon each
each specimen. The same
specimen. The same
Figure 5of
arrangement
arrangement ofshows
strain the locations
strain gauges
gauges was where
was used
used strain
for all
for all gauges regardless
specimens,
specimens, were placed
regardless on eachthe
of whether
of whether specimen.
the The
loadsame
applied load
applied was
was
arrangement of strain gauges was used for all specimens, regardless of whether the applied
monotonic or cyclic. The strain gauges labeled R-1, R-2, and R-3 were placed 9 mm apart on the load was
monotonic or cyclic. The strain gauges labeled R-1, R-2, and R-3 were placed 9 mm apart on the
Metals 2020, 10, 1293 5 of 16

Metals 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 16

monotonic or cyclic. The strain gauges labeled R-1, R-2, and R-3 were placed 9 mm apart on the surface
of the smaller
surface wing plate,
of the smaller wingwhile thewhile
plate, strainthe
gauges
strainlabeled
gaugesL-1, L-2, and
labeled L-1, L-3
L-2,were
and placed 10 placed
L-3 were mm apart10
on the surface of the larger wing plates. In addition to measuring the strains (from which
mm apart on the surface of the larger wing plates. In addition to measuring the strains (from which the stresses
canstresses
the be calculated)
can be at the indicated
calculated) locations,
at the indicatedthe loads applied
locations, to and
the loads the displacements
applied experienced
to and the displacements
by the test specimens were automatically recorded by the universal testing machine.
experienced by the test specimens were automatically recorded by the universal testing machine.

10 10 10 10

69 96
L-1 R-1
L-2 R-2
L-3 R-3

30 14 30

Figure
Figure 5.
5. Layout
Layoutof
ofmeasuring
measuring points
points (mm).
(mm).

3. Experimental
3. ExperimentalResults
Results

3.1. Performance of Welded Plate Joints

3.1. Performance of Welded Plate Joints
Table 1 shows the yield and tensile strengths and the axial deformation of the welds for the six
Table 1 shows the yield and tensile strengths and the axial deformation of the welds for the six
test specimens, where the cross-sectional area of the smaller wing plate is considered for evaluating
test specimens, where the cross-sectional area of the smaller wing plate is considered for evaluating
the stress. The results showed that except for the yield strength of Specimen S-6, the yield and
the stress. The results showed that except for the yield strength of Specimen S-6, the yield and tensile
tensile strengths under cyclic load conditions are lower than those under monotonic load conditions.
strengths under cyclic load conditions are lower than those under monotonic load conditions. The
The monotonic load results all exceed the minimum specified yield and tensile strengths of 330 MPa
monotonic load results all exceed the minimum specified yield and tensile strengths of 330 MPa and
and 490 MPa, respectively, for the E5015 electrode. The axial deformation of the weld is calculated
490 MPa, respectively, for the E5015 electrode. The axial deformation of the weld is calculated by
by subtracting the elongation of the wing and center plates determined using basic mechanics from
subtracting the elongation of the wing and center plates determined using basic mechanics from the
the total specimen deformation measured automatically by the WDW-300 microcomputer-controlled
total specimen deformation measured automatically by the WDW-300 microcomputer-controlled
electronic universal testing machine.
electronic universal testing machine.
Table 1. Mechanical performance of the welded plate joints.
Table 1. Mechanical performance of the welded plate joints.
Yield Tensile Axial Displacement Cross-Sectional
Loading Yield Tensile Axial Displacement of Cross-Sectional
Specimen Strength σ y Strength σ u of Welding ∆l Area
Condition
Specimen Loading Condition Strength σy Strength σu Welding Δl Area
(MPa) (MPa) (mm) (mm2 )
(MPa) (MPa) (mm) (mm2)
S-1 Monotonic tensile 383 610 0.0274 342.95
S-1 Monotonic tensile 383 610 0.0274 342.95
S-2 Monotonic tensile 375 601 0.0276 348.57
S-2
S-3 Monotonic
Monotonictensile
tensile 375
390 601
589 0.0276
0.0278 348.57
340.16
S-3 Monotonic
Tensiontensile
and 390 589 0.0278 340.16
S-4 335 438 0.0282 342.65
Tension andcycle
compression
S-4 335 438 0.0282 342.65
Tension and
compression cycle
S-5 340 445 0.0281 347.47
compression
Tension andcycle
S-5 Tension and 340 445 0.0281 347.47
S-6 compression cycle 445 454 0.0280 346.73
compression cycle
Tension and
S-6 445 454 0.0280 346.73
compression cycle
3.2. Test Results under Monotonic and Cyclic Loads
3.2. Test
TheResults
resultsunder
of theMonotonic
monotonic and tensile
Cyclic Loads
load test show that all three specimens fractured at the
weld.TheForresults
Specimen
of the monotonic tensile load testthe
S-1, cracks appeared when showdisplacement
that all threereached
specimens2.9 mm. The cracks
fractured grew
at the weld.
rapidly
For and resulted
Specimen in a joint
S-1, cracks fracture,
appeared whenas the
shown in Figure 6a,
displacement when 2.9
reached the mm.
displacement
The cracksreached 3.4 mm.
grew rapidly
For Specimen
and resulted inS-2, fracturing
a joint occurred
fracture, as shownrather suddenly
in Figure in the the
6a, when weld, as shown inreached
displacement Figure 6b,
3.4 when the
mm. For
displacement reached 1.7 mm. The fracture behavior of Specimen S-3 is similar to
Specimen S-2, fracturing occurred rather suddenly in the weld, as shown in Figure 6b, when the that of Specimen S-1.
When the displacement
displacement reached 1.7reached
mm. The3.9 fracture
mm, a weld fracture
behavior formed, asS-3
of Specimen shown in Figure
is similar 6c. of Specimen
to that
S-1. When the displacement reached 3.9 mm, a weld fracture formed, as shown in Figure 6c.
Metals 2020, 10, 1293 6 of 16
Metals 2020,
Metals 2020, 10,
10, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 66 of
of 16
16

(a)
(a) (b) (c)
(b) (c)
Figure
Figure 6.
Figure 6. Weld
6. Weld damage
Weld damage of
damage of plate
of plate joints
plate joints under monotonic
joints under monotonic loading:
loading: (a)
(a) S-1;
(a) S-1; (b)
S-1; (b) S-2;
(b) S-2; (c)
S-2; (c) S-3.
(c) S-3.
S-3.

When compared
When
When comparedwith
compared withthe
with thecracks
the cracksthat
cracks that
that developed
developed
developed under
under
under a monotonically
aa monotonically
monotonically applied
applied
applied tensile
tensile
tensile load,load,
load, the
the
the cracks
cracks that that developed
developed under
under a a cyclically
cyclically tensile
tensile and and compressive
compressive applied
applied
cracks that developed under a cyclically tensile and compressive applied load have more complex load
load have
have more
more complex
complex
failure modes,
failure modes, resulting
resulting in in aa rather
rather uneven
uneven fracture
fracture surface
surface and and aa small
small amount
amount of of residue
residue material
material
left on
left the center
on the center plate.
plate. For
For Specimen
For Specimen S-4,
Specimen S-4, when
S-4, when the
when the displacement
the displacement reached
displacement reached 2.89
reached 2.89 mm,
2.89 mm, aa small
mm, small crack
crack
appeared at
at one
one end
end ofofthe
theweld.
weld.When
When the direction
the directionof the
of applied
the load
applied
appeared at one end of the weld. When the direction of the applied load was reversed, the crack was
load reversed,
was the
reversed, crack
the closed,
crack
and when
closed,
closed, andthe
and displacement
when
when the increased
the displacement
displacement to 3.15 mm,
increased
increased the mm,
to 3.15
to 3.15 crackthe
mm, grew
the until
crack
crack the until
grew
grew weld fractured,
until the
the as shown as
weld fractured,
weld fractured, in
as
Figure
shown 7a.
in For
FigureSpecimen
7a. For S-5,
Specimenwhen the
S-5, displacement
when the reached
displacement 2.54 mm,
reached
shown in Figure 7a. For Specimen S-5, when the displacement reached 2.54 mm, a crack was initiateda crack
2.54 mm,was a initiated
crack was at one end
initiated
of one
at
at the heat-affected
one end of
end of the zone and extended
the heat-affected
heat-affected zone and
zone andto extended
the other end,
extended to the
to the asother
shown
other in Figure
end,
end, as shown
as shown7b. in
When
in Figurethe 7b.
Figure displacement
7b. When the
When the
reached 3.04 mm,
displacement
displacement weld3.04
reached
reached fracturing
3.04 mm, weld
mm, occurred
weld suddenly.
fracturing
fracturing occurred
occurredFor Specimen
suddenly.
suddenly. S-6,
For
Forfine cracks were
Specimen
Specimen S-6, observed
S-6, fine cracks
fine cracksat
the
were welded
observed end atof the
the beam.
welded These
end ofcracks
the closed,
beam. and
These the
cracksspecimen
closed, inclined
and
were observed at the welded end of the beam. These cracks closed, and the specimen inclined when the when
specimen the direction
inclined of
whenthe
applied
the
the load of
direction
direction was
of thereversed.
the applied load
applied When
load thereversed.
was
was displacement
reversed. Whenreached
When 3.34 mm, the
the displacement
the displacement original
reached
reached 3.34
3.34cracks
mm, the
mm, extended
the original at
original
one end
cracks
cracks and newat
extended
extended atcracks
one end
one formed
end and at the
and new
new otherformed
cracks
cracks end. Both
formed types
at the
at the of crack
other
other grewtypes
end. Both
end. Both until of
types thecrack
of weldgrew
crack fractured,
grew until
until
as
the shown
weld in Figure
fractured, 7c.
as shown
the weld fractured, as shown in Figure 7c.in Figure 7c.

(a)
(a) (b)
(b) (c)
(c)
Figure 7.
Figure Failure mode
7. Failure
Failure mode of
of plate
plate joints
joints under
under monotonic
monotonic loading: (a) S-4;
loading: (a)
(a) S-4; (b)
S-4; (b) S-5;
(b) S-5; (c)
(c) S-6.
S-6.

3.3. Weld Damage

3.3. Weld
3.3. Weld Damage
Damage
According to the failure modes of the abovementioned two test specimens and the seismic damage
According to
According to the failure
failure modes of of the
the abovementioned
abovementioned two two test
test specimens
specimens and and the seismic
seismic
mechanism of steelthe
structures modes
considering the cumulative effect of damage [24], the jointthe
damage is
damage mechanism
damage mechanism of of steel
steel structures
structures considering
considering thethe cumulative
cumulative effect
effect of
of damage
damage [24],
[24], the
the joint
joint
generally divided into three categories: (1) damage caused by plate buckling; (2) damage caused by
damage
damage is
is generally
generally divided
divided into
into three
three categories:
categories: (1)
(1) damage
damage caused
caused by
by plate
plate buckling;
buckling; (2)
(2) damage
damage
specimen cracking; (3) no obvious damage before failure, which can be categorized as damage caused
caused by
caused by specimen
specimen cracking;
cracking; (3) nono obvious damage
damage before failure,
failure, which
which cancan bebe categorized
categorized as as
by the cracking of welds under (3) tension.obvious
According to thebefore
experimental results, the load–displacement
damage caused
damage caused by by the
the cracking
cracking of of welds
welds under
under tension. According
According to to the
the experimental
experimental results,
results, the
the
curve, stress–strain curve, skeleton curve [25], andtension.
damage modulus curve [26] under the two loading
load–displacement
load–displacement curve, stress–strain curve, skeleton curve [25], and damage modulus curve [26]
modes are analyzed.curve, stress–strain curve, skeleton curve [25], and damage modulus curve [26]
under the
under the two
two loading
loading modes
modes are
are analyzed.
analyzed.
Metals 2020, 10, 1293 7 of 16

Metals2020,
Metals 2020,10,
10,xxFOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 77ofof16
16

3.3.1. Weld Damage under Monotonic Loading

3.3.1.Weld
3.3.1. WeldDamage
Damageunder
underMonotonic
MonotonicLoading
Loading

• Load–displacement
Load–displacement
Load–displacement curve
curve
curve
Load–displacement
Load–displacement
Load–displacement curves curvesof
curves ofthe
of thewelded
the weldedjoints
welded jointsfrom
joints fromthe
from themonotonic
the monotonictension
monotonic tensiontests
tension testsare
tests areshown
are shownin
shown in
in
Figure8.
Figure
Figure 8.8.Δ
∆ΔAAAisis
isaaamonotonic
monotonictension-induced
monotonic tension-induceddisplacement
tension-induced displacementunder
displacement underthe
under theaction
the actionof
action ofchange
of change[27].
change [27].It
[27]. ItItcan
canbe
can be
be
seen
seen from
from the
the diagram
diagram that
that the
the trend
trend of
of the
the S-1
S-1 and
and S-3
S-3 curves
curves is
is somewhat
somewhat similar.
similar.
seen from the diagram that the trend of the S-1 and S-3 curves is somewhat similar. The S-2 curves are The
The S-2
S-2 curves
curves
arequite
are
quitequite different
different
different from
fromfrom theother
the
the other other
two twotwocurves
curvescurves due
due due
to totonon-uniform
the thenon-uniform
the non-uniform weld
weldweld material
material
material since
sincesince theweld
the
the weld weld
was
was
was welded
welded manually.
manually. The
The S-2
S-2 curves
curves exhibit
exhibit early
early damage,
damage, and
and the
the
welded manually. The S-2 curves exhibit early damage, and the hardening behavior is not obvious. hardening
hardening behavior
behavior is
is nnotot
obvious.
obvious. Considering
Considering the
the non-uniform
non-uniform welding
welding materials,
materials, the
the
Considering the non-uniform welding materials, the S-1 curves are not uniform. S-1
S-1 curves
curves are
are not
not uniform.
uniform.

150
150 S-1
S-1
(kN)
P (kN)

S-2
S-2
S-3
S-3
P

100
100

50
50

-1-1 00 11 22 33 44
(mm)
DD(mm)
-50
-50
Figure Load–displacement
Figure8.8.Load–displacement curve
Load–displacementcurve of
curveof monotonic
ofmonotonic tensile
monotonictensile
tensiletest.
test.

• Stress–strain
Stress–strain
Stress–strain curve
curve
curve
Stress–strain curvesofofthe
Stress–strain curves thewelded
the weldedjoints
welded jointsfrom
joints frommonotonic
from monotonic
monotonic tension
tension
tension tests
tests
tests [28]
[28]
[28] are
are
are shown
shown
shown ininin Figure
Figure
Figure 9.
9.9.The
The The curves
curves
curves ofS-1
of of
S-1 S-1
and and
and S-3
S-3S-3 are
areare similar,
similar,
similar, while
while
while the
thethe curves
curves
curves ofS-2
of of
S-2 S-2 specimens
specimens
specimens change
change
change abruptly,
abruptly,
abruptly, reflecting
reflecting
reflecting no
nonoobvious
obvious
obvious strengthening
strengthening
strengthening stagestage
stage and
and
and early
early
early fracturing.
fracturing.
fracturing. These
These
These results
results
results maybe
may
may bebecaused
causedby
caused bythe
by thenon-uniform
non-uniform
weldmaterial.
weld material.Before
Beforethe
Before thespecimen
the specimenyielded,
specimen yielded,the
yielded, thestrain
the strainin
strain inboth
in boththe
both theupper
the upperand
upper andlower
and lowerplates
platesshowed
showedaa
showed
slowrise.
slow
slow rise.After
Afterentering
After enteringthe
entering theplastic
the plasticstage,
plastic stage,the
stage, therate
the rateof
rate ofincrease
of increasein
increase inthe
in thestrain
the strainincreased,
strain increased,but
increased, butthe
but thestrain
strain
valuedecreased
value decreasedslightly
slightlybefore
beforefracturing
fracturingoccurred.
occurred.

600
600 S-1
S-1
S-2
S-2
S-3
S-3

400
400
MPa))
s((MPa
s

200
200

00
0.5
0.5 1.0
1.0 1.5
1.5

Figure
Figure9.
Figure Stress–strain
9.9.Stress–strain curves
Stress–straincurves of
curvesof monotonic
ofmonotonic tensile
monotonictensile tests.
tensiletests.
tests.

• Ultimate bearing capacity and deformation

Ultimatebearing
 Ultimate bearingcapacity
capacityand
anddeformation
deformation
Through data extraction
Through dataextraction and
extractionand calculation,
andcalculation, the
calculation, ultimate
the
the bearing
ultimate
ultimate bearing
bearing capacity and
capacity
capacity deformation
and
and values
deformation
deformation of
values
values
the
of welded
ofthe
the joints
welded
welded in in
joints
joints the monotonic
inthe
the tension
monotonic
monotonic testtest
tension
tension areare
test shown
are in Table
shown
shown 2 below.
ininTable
Table22below.
below.
Metals 2020, 10, 1293 8 of 16

Table 2. Results of monotonic tensile specimens of welded plate joints.

Specimen S-1 S-2 S-3 Average Value

Yield displacement
0.165 0.14 0.178 0.161
∆yA /mm
Yield load
102.44 115.83 96.58 104.95
PyA /kN
Ultimate displacement
3.432 1.683 3.861 2.992
∆uA /mm
Ultimate load
131.74 130.24 125.35 129.11
PuA /kN
Yield strength
382.52 375.34 389.51 382.46
σyA /MPa
Maximum strength
609.64 601.44 588.53 599.87
σuA /MPa
Dissipative energy
0.165 0.14 0.178 0.161
EA /J

• Strain distribution
By observing the strain values of the tension plates in the monotonic tension test, it can be seen
that the changes in the strain of the three specimens are basically the same, which can be summarized
with the following three points:

1. Before yielding, the strains of the two pairs of tension plates show a steady increase, and the
strain value of the upper plate is obviously larger than that of the lower plate; when the specimen
enters the plastic stage, the strain value increases rapidly, and a slight decrease occurs in the early
stage of fracturing.
2. In the stage between yielding and destruction, the strain values of the two pairs of tension plates
increase rapidly, while the strain values at both ends increase slowly.
3. The strain changes at the drawing plate are within the allowable range of the material, and there
is no necking or fracturing.

3.3.2. Weld Damage under Cyclic Loading

• Load–displacement curve
Load–displacement curves of the welded joints of S-4, S-5, and S-6 from the cyclic
tension–compression tests are shown in Figure 10, where only the envelope of each hysteresis
curve is shown. ∆B is the displacement change under a cycle of tension and compression.

150 150 150

P/ kN
P/ kN
P/ kN

100 100 100

50 50 50

-1 0 1 2 3 4 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-1 0 1 2 3 4 DB/ mm
-50 -50 DB/ mm
DB/ mm
-50
-100 -100
-100
-150 -150
-150

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 10. Load–displacement curves: (a) S-4; (b) S-5; (c) S-6.

The three curves all stop at the first quadrant, consuming more energy in tension and less energy
in compression, and the pressure load value decreases with the increase in compression-induced
displacement at the later stage of loading. Among the specimens, S-6 can bear the largest tension-induced
Metals 2020, 10, 1293 9 of 16

displacement, and S-5 has a small number of hysteresis loop cycles and can bear the largest
pressure value.
•Metals
Skeleton
2020, 10,curve
x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 16

The skeleton curves of the six specimens are drawn from the connection of the extreme points of the
The skeleton curves of the six specimens are drawn from the connection of the extreme points
cyclic loads in each cycle of the load–displacement curve [29], which illustrate the major characteristics
of the cyclic loads in each cycle of the load–displacement curve [29], which illustrate the major
in the loading process, as shown in Figure 11. According to the graph, the peak values of the envelope
characteristics in the loading process, as shown in Figure 11. According to the graph, the peak values
indicate that the material undergoes a damaging process that deteriorates the mechanical performance
of the envelope indicate that the material undergoes a damaging process that deteriorates the
of the joints.
mechanical performance of the joints.

150
P (kN)

100

50

-1 0 1 2 3 4
S-1 D (mm)
-50 S-2
S-3
-100 S-4
S-5
S-6
-150
Figure 11. Skeleton
Figure11. Skeleton curves.
curves.

• Bearing
Bearingcapacity
capacityand
anddeformation
deformation
The ductility
The ductilitycoefficient
coefficientis is introduced
introduced to measure
to measure the the ductility
ductility performance
performance of theofspecimens
the specimens
[27]:
[27]:
∆u
µ= (1)
∆D
= y u (1)
where ∆u is the ultimate displacement of the specimenDand y ∆y is the yield displacement of the specimen.

where TheΔunumber of hysteresis

is the ultimate cycles, theof
displacement load-carrying
the specimen capacity,
and Δyand the deformation
is the values of
yield displacement of the
the
cyclic tension–compression
specimen. tests are shown in Table 3.
The number of hysteresis cycles, the load-carrying capacity, and the deformation values of the
Table 3. Testing results for the jointed plates.
cyclic tension–compression tests are shown in Table 3.
Specimen S-4 S-5 S-6 Average Value
Table 3. Testing results for the jointed plates.
Total cycle 30 26 32 /
Plastic cycle
Specimen 22 S-4 16S-5 22
S-6 / Value
Average
Yield displacement ∆
Total cycle yB /mm 0.143 30 0.141
26 0.152
32 0.145/
Yield load PyB /kN 88.6 91.98 94.63 91.74
Plastic cycle 22 16 22 /
Limit displacement ∆uB /mm 3.41 2.54 3.50 3.149
Yield displacement ΔyB/mm 0.143 0.141 0.152 0.145
Ultimate load PuB /kN 115.82 120.26 120.81 118.96
Yield load PyB/kN 88.6 91.98 94.63 91.74
Ductility coefficient u 23.85 18.00 23.03 21.63
Limit displacement Δ uB/mm
Yield strength f yB /MPa 334.783.41 2.54
340.11 3.50
444.68 3.149
373.19
Ultimate load P uB/kN
Tensile strength f uB /MPa 115.82
437.63 120.26
444.68 120.81
454.16 118.96
445.49
Ductility
Cumulative coefficient
dissipated u EB /J
energy 227823.85 18.00
1540 23.03
2302 21.63
2040.0
Yield strength fyB/MPa 334.78 340.11 444.68 373.19
Tensile strength fuB/MPa 437.63 444.68 454.16 445.49
• Strain distribution
Cumulative dissipated energy EB/J 2278 1540 2302 2040.0
The strain development of the three specimens in the cyclic tension–compression test is basically
 same
the Strain
as distribution
that in the monotonic tension test, but the peak strain in the cyclic tension–compression
The strain development of the three specimens in the cyclic tension–compression test is basically
the same as that in the monotonic tension test, but the peak strain in the cyclic tension–compression
test is smaller. When the displacement reaches 4Δy, the strain values at the left and right ends of the
specimens vary greatly and show an irregular state, indicating that the welded joint plate specimens
slightly buckle under pressure.
Metals 2020, 10, 1293 10 of 16

test is smaller. When the displacement reaches 4∆y , the strain values at the left and right ends of the
specimens
Metals vary
2020, 10, greatly
x FOR and show
PEER REVIEW an irregular state, indicating that the welded joint plate specimens 10 of 16
slightly buckle under pressure.
3.4. Degradation Process of Weld Damage
3.4. Degradation Process of Weld Damage
3.4.1. Damage Modulus Curve
3.4.1. Damage Modulus Curve
The damage modulus of the cyclic tension–compression test [30] specimens under cumulative
The
plastic damage modulus
displacement (Δcpd) of the the
after cyclic tension–compression
specimen test [30] stage,
enters the plasticity specimens is theunder cumulative
plastic damage
plastic displacement
displacement (∆cpd )during
accumulated after the
thespecimen
statistical enters
loadingtheprocess,
plasticity stage,
which is the plastic
is formed by thedamage
plastic
displacement of each enveloping ring on the hysteretic curve; this value is more advantageous plastic
displacement accumulated during the statistical loading process, which is formed by the to use
displacement
as of each
the abscissa when enveloping
drawing ring oncurve
the skeleton the hysteretic curve;modulus
and the damage this value curveis more advantageous
to more thoroughly
to use
and as the abscissa
intuitively analyze when drawing
the damage the skeleton
degradation curve
of the and
joints) is the damage
calculated modulustocurve
according to more
the following
thoroughly
formula: and intuitively analyze the damage degradation of the joints) is calculated according to the
following formula:
D==1 FFD
D 1 − D (2)
(2)
FF
uu
where FFDD is
where is the
the bearing
bearing capacity
capacity of of the
the specimen
specimen after
after damage and FFuu is
damage and is the
the bearing
bearing capacity
capacity of
of the
the
specimen without damage. F , here, corresponds to the load value of the load–displacement
specimen without damage. Fu, here, corresponds to the load value of the load–displacement curve in
u curve in
the monotonic tension test. Because of the small deviation between the maximum
the monotonic tension test. Because of the small deviation between the maximum strength and strength and material
strength strength
material of S-1, theofdata
S-1,of S-1data
the are of
taken
S-1 as
arereference
taken asdata. At thedata.
reference sameAttime,
the the
sameskeleton curve
time, the of the
skeleton
direction of tension with changing cumulative plastic displacement under cyclic tension–compression
curve of the direction of tension with changing cumulative plastic displacement under cyclic tension–
loading is drawn,
compression as shown
loading is drawn,in Figure
as shown12. in Figure 12.

150 S-1
S-4
S-5
S-6
100
P (kN)

50

0
0 10 20 30 40
Dcpd (mm)

Figure
Figure 12.
12. Skeleton
Skeletoncurve
curvewith
with cumulative
cumulative plastic
plastic displacement.
displacement.

If
If the
the cumulative
cumulative plastic
plastic displacement
displacement ofof the
the cyclic
cyclic tension–compression
tension–compression test
test specimens
specimens exceeds
exceeds
that
that of
of the
the monotonic
monotonic tension
tension test
test specimens,
specimens, the
the ultimate
ultimate load
load of
of monotonic
monotonic tension
tension test
test specimens
specimens
is
is taken
taken as as the nondestructive
nondestructive bearing
bearing capacity. The
The damage
damage modulus
modulus curves
curves for
for the
the tension
tension and
and
compression
compression cycles are obtained by substitution formulas, as shown in Figure 13.
Metals 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 16
Metals 2020, 10, 1293 11 of 16
Metals 2020, 10, x FOR PEER0.6
REVIEW 11 of 16
S-1
0.6 S-2
S-3
S-1
S-2
0.4 S-3

0.4

D
D 0.2
0.2

0.0
0 10 20 30 40
0.0 Dcpd 20(mm)
0 10 30 40
Dcpd (mm)
Figure 13. Damage modulus curve.
Figure 13. Damage
Figure Damagemodulus
moduluscurve.
curve.
3.4.2. Damage Model Validation
3.4.2. Damage
3.4.2. DamageModelModelValidation
Validation
The damage process of a joint plate is usually divided into three kinds of damage models [31]
which The damage
The
are basedprocess
damage theofdeformation
process
on a joint
of plate
a joint plateisindex,
usually
is usuallydivided
the into
divided
energy three
into
index, kinds
three aofcombination
andkinds damage
of damage modelsmodels[31][31]
index which
of the
are based on
which are and
deformation the
baseddeformation
on theAfter
energy. index,
deformation the energy
the aboveindex, index, and
the energy and
data acquisition a combination
index, index
and a combination
processing, of the deformation
Origin softwareindex was of the and
used
energy.
to fit andAfter
deformation the
analyzeandabove
energy.
the data
parametersacquisition
After the theand
above
C of data
aboveprocessing,
acquisition Origin software
and processing,
three theoretical was
models,Origin used
in which toisfitthe
software
C and
was analyze
used
weighted
toparameters
fit and C
index of the energy damage model and the weighted value of the combined damage model. energy
the analyze of the
the above
parametersthreeC theoretical
of the above models,
three in which
theoretical C is the
models, weighted
in which Cindex
is the of the
weighted
index of
damage the energythe damage model and of thethe
weighted value of the combined damage model.
The model
fitting and
value was weighted
negative value
because thecombined
maximum damage model. obtained
displacement from the tension–
The The fitting
fitting value
value was
was negative
negative becausebecausethe maximum
the maximumdisplacement obtained
displacement from the tension–
obtained from
compression cyclic loading test was close to the limit displacement of the monotonic tensile test,the
so
compression cyclic loading
tension–compression cyclic test wastest
loading close wasto close
the limit
to displacement
the limit of the monotonic
displacement of the tensile test,tensile
monotonic so
the combined damage model of deformation and energy was not suitable. The average value C of the
thesocombined
test, theindex damage
combined modelmodel
damage of deformation and energy was notwas suitable. The average value C of the C
weighted fitting result of theof deformation
deformation and energy
damage model was not suitable.
7.81, andThe thataverage
of the value
energy
weighted
of the weighted index fitting
index result
fitting of
result the deformation
of the deformation damage
damage model was
model 7.81,
was for and
7.81, that
and of the
that ofoftheenergy
energy
damage model was 3.57. Thus, the energy damage model is more suitable the analysis this type
damage
damage modelwas
model was3.57.
3.57.Thus,
Thus,the the energy
energy damagedamage model
model isismore
more suitable
suitable for the
for analysis
the analysis of of
thisthis
typetype
of of
weld than the displacement damage
weld than the displacement damage model. model.
of weld than the displacement
Substituting damage model.
Substitutingthe thevalue
valueofofparameter
parameter C C into the formula,
into the formula,
Substituting the value of parameter C into the formula,C
nn
n  E Eii CC
D   i 
D   (3)(3)
D= 
X E
EEE mon 
(3)
ii 11  mon
mon
i=1
Then,
Then,the thedamage
damage process
process of of the
the three specimens
specimens was was simulated.
simulated.Figure
Figure1414shows shows thethe
Then, the damage process of the three specimens was simulated. Figure 14 shows the comparison
comparison
comparison between
betweenthe theenergy
energydamage
damage model
model and and the
the test
testdata,
data,and
andTable
Table4 4compares
compares thethe damage
damage
between the energy damage model and the test data, and Table 4 compares the damage model D and the
model
model DD and
and thetheslope
slopeKKininFigure
Figure14 14 with
with the test data.
data. According
Accordingtotothethecurve
curveandand the
therelated
relateddata,
data,
slope K in Figure 14 with the test data. According to the curve and the related data, the energy damage
the energy damage model of the damage modulus slowly increases
the energy damage model of the damage modulus slowly increases with increasing cumulative with increasing cumulative
model of displacement,
plastic the damage modulus theoverallslowly
overall trendincreases
thewith
with the test increasing cumulative plastic displacement, the
plastic displacement, the trend with test curve
curve isisconsistent,
consistent,the
theearly-stage
early-stage values
valuesareare
overall
lower trend
than with
the the
test test curve
results, andtheis consistent,
the fluctuationthe early-stageslope
is larger. values are loweristhan the test results, and
lower than the test results, and fluctuation is larger.TheThe slopecomparison
comparison is meaningless,
meaningless, as as
three
three
thepoints
fluctuation is larger. The slope comparison is meaningless, as three points of the test results present
points ofofthe thetest
testresults
resultspresent
present aa stable
stable growth
growth rule,rule, and
and the
thedifferences
differencesbetween
between thetheS-4S-4
andandS-6S-6
a stable
curve growthand
slopes rule,
theand
testthe differences
curves are between
small, the S-4 and
approximately S-6showing
±0.005, curve slopes
a goodand the test curves
simulation effect. are
curve slopes and the test curves are small, approximately ±0.005, showing a good simulation effect.
small, approximately ±0.005, showing a good simulation effect.
0.6 0.6 0.6
0.6
Test value 0.6
Test value 0.6 Test value
Test value
Energy model Test
Energyvalue
model Test model
Energy value
0.4 Energy model 0.4 Energy model 0.4 Energy model
D

0.4 0.4 0.4

D

DD

D
D

D
D

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.2 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0.0 0 10 20
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
0.0
D/mm
0.0
0 D/ mm
10 20 0.0
0 D/mm 20
10 30 40
0 10 20 30 40
D/mm D/ mm D/mm
(a) (b) (c)
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 14. Damage model and test curve comparisons: (a) S-4; (b) S-5; (c) S-6.
Damage model
Figure 14. Damage model and test
test curve
curve comparisons: (a)
(a) S-4;
S-4; (b)
(b) S-5;
S-5; (c)
(c) S-6.
S-6.
Metals 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 16
Metals 2020, 10, 1293 12 of 16
Table 4. Comparison of damage models and experimental results.

Specimen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
TableD4. Comparison of damage models and experimental results.
0.044 0.046 0.058 0.075 0.125 0.160 0.226 0.259 0.333 0.400 0.502
Test value
Specimen K1 0.152 0.00 3 0.01 4 0.01 5 0.02 60.01 0.02
7 0.01
8 0.029 0.0110 0.0211
D1 0.000 0.004 0.008 0.024 0.056 0.094 0.142 0.212 0.286 0.360 0.500
S−4 Test D 0.044 0.046 0.058 0.075 0.125 0.160 0.226 0.259 0.333 0.400 0.502
Energy
value damage
K error
0.15 −0.044
0.00 −0.042
0.01−0.050 0.01−0.0510.02−0.069 0.01
−0.066 −0.084
0.02 −0.047
0.01 −0.046
0.02 −0.040
0.01 −0.002
0.02
model K2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02
D1 0.000 0.004 0.008 0.024 0.056 0.094 0.142 0.212 0.286 0.360 0.500
S−4 Energy error −0.150
error −0.044 −0.042 0.000
−0.050−0.010
−0.0510.000−0.069
−0.010−0.066
0.000 −0.084
−0.010 0.010
−0.047 0.000
−0.046 0.000
−0.040 0.000
−0.002
damage
K2 D
0.00 0.016
0.00 0.003 0.00 0.0840.010.138 0.01 0.178 0.01
0.245 0.01
0.297 0.428
0.02 /
0.02 /0.01 / 0.02
model
Test value
error −0.150
K 0.000 −0.02
0.06 −0.0100.060.0000.03−0.010 0.02 −0.010
0.02 0.000 0.01 0.010
0.03 0.000
/ 0.000
/ / 0.000
Test D 0.016
D1 0.003 0.011
0.000 0.084 0.0350.1380.0730.178 0.136 0.245
0.231 0.297
0.323 0.428
0.430 // / / / /
S−5 value damage
Energy
K 0.06
error −0.02
−0.016 0.06
0.008 −0.0490.03−0.0650.02−0.042 0.02
−0.014 0.01
0.028 0.03
0.002 // / / / /
S−5 model D1
Energy
0.000
K2 0.011
0.00 0.035
0.01 0.020.073 0.02 0.136
0.02 0.231
0.03 0.323
0.02 0.430
0.02 // / / / /
error −0.016 0.008 −0.049 −0.065 −0.042 −0.014 0.028 0.002 / / /
damage error −0.060 0.030 −0.040 −0.010 0.000 0.010 0.010 −0.010 / / /
K2 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 / / /
model D 0.000
error −0.060 0.030 0.024−0.0400.027−0.0100.0840.0000.138 0.010
0.211 0.010
0.277 0.346
−0.010 0.394/ 0.441/ 0.514/
Test value
D K
0.000 0.00
0.024 0.030.027 0.000.0840.03 0.138 0.02 0.211
0.02 0.277
0.02 0.02
0.346 0.01
0.394 0.01
0.441 0.01 0.514
Test
value K D
0.00
1 0.000
0.03 0.003
0.00 0.0110.03 0.033 0.070
0.02 0.131
0.02 0.210
0.02 0.274
0.02 0.345
0.01 0.421
0.01 0.5140.01
S−6
Energy damage
D1 error
0.000 0.000
0.003 −0.021
0.011−0.0160.033−0.0510.070
−0.068 0.131
−0.080 0.210
−0.067 −0.072
0.274 −0.049
0.345 −0.020
0.421 0.0000.514
S−6 Energy
modelerror K2
0.000 0.00
−0.021 0.00−0.0160.01 −0.0510.01−0.0680.01 −0.080
0.02 −0.067
0.02 0.01
−0.072 0.02
−0.049 0.01
−0.020 0.01 0.000
damage
K2 0.00
error 0.00 −0.030
0.000 0.01 0.0100.01−0.0200.01 −0.010 0.02
−0.000 0.02
0.000 0.01
−0.010 0.02
0.010 0.01 0.000
0.000 0.01
model
error 0.000 −0.030 0.010 −0.020 −0.010 −0.000 0.000 −0.010 0.010 0.000 0.000

4. Finite Element Analysis

4. Finite Element Analysis
To strengthen further research on weld seam damage, a plate joint analysis model of E5015
To strengthen further research on weld seam damage, a plate joint analysis model of E5015
electrode welding was established in ABAQUS. The load conditions of this finite element model were
electrode welding was established in ABAQUS. The load conditions of this finite element model were
the same as those applied to the test specimens. Finally, the simulated value obtained by the finite
the same as those applied to the test specimens. Finally, the simulated value obtained by the finite
element model was compared with the experimental value.
element model was compared with the experimental value.
4.1. Finite Element Model
4.1. Finite Element Model
First, the performance parameters of the E5015 electrode determined with E5015 is 204, 720 2
First, the performance parameters of the E5015 electrode determined with E5015 is 204, 720 N/mm ,
N/mm2, and Poisson’s ratio is 0.3. A high-precision assembly of the welding seam and steel parts and
and Poisson’s ratio is 0.3. A high-precision assembly of the welding seam and steel parts and the
the assembly model are shown in Figure 15. After the model was built, the interaction between
assembly model are shown in Figure 15. After the model was built, the interaction between components
components was defined.
was defined.

(c)
(a) (b)

Figure 15.15.
Figure Finite element
Finite analysis
element model:
analysis (a) (a)
model: welded plate
welded joint
plate model;
joint (b) (b)
model; loading andand
loading boundary
boundary
conditions; (c) (c)
conditions; grid diagram.
grid diagram.

In In
thethe load
load interfacemodule,
interface module,first
firstthe
thedisplacements
displacements and
and angles
angles of thex,x,y,y,and
ofthe andz axes at at
z axes both ends
both
of the board were constrained and the displacement at the coupling point was controlled.
ends of the board were constrained and the displacement at the coupling point was controlled. The The loading
and boundary
loading conditions
and boundary are shown
conditions in Figure
are shown 15b. The
in Figure 15b.loading system
The loading is consistent
system with the
is consistent with test
theand
 Metals
Metals 10,10,
2020,
2020, 1293 PEER REVIEW
x FOR 13 13
of of
1616

test and adopts the cyclic tension and compression loading method. Because the continuous finite
adopts the cyclic tension and compression loading method. Because the continuous finite element
element method is used in this analysis, the model will only buckle, without forming cracks.
method is used in this analysis, the model will only buckle, without forming cracks.
In the finite element analysis, the solid eight-node hexahedron linear reduction integral element
In the finite element analysis, the solid eight-node hexahedron linear reduction integral element
(C3D8R) was selected to conduct mesh division of the model. This element has the advantages of a
(C3D8R) was selected to conduct mesh division of the model. This element has the advantages of a
high division accuracy, lower computing time, and better resistance to buckling deformation. After
high division accuracy, lower computing time, and better resistance to buckling deformation. After the
the overall layout, the grid of the key research areas should be divided. The element size was set as
overall layout, the grid of the key research areas should be divided. The element size was set as 30 mm,
30 mm, and the mesh of the key area was subdivided. The density at the beam end was 180 mm, the
and the mesh of the key area was subdivided. The density at the beam end was 180 mm, the floor plate
floor plate was set as 10 mm, and the weld was set as 2 mm. The number of elements and nodes was
was set as 10 mm, and the weld was set as 2 mm. The number of elements and nodes was 15,034 and
15,034 and 18,678, respectively. Geometric nonlinearity can be considered in the elastic and elastic-
18,678, respectively. Geometric nonlinearity can be considered in the elastic and elastic-plastic stages
plastic stages of initial loading. The specific division is shown in Figure 15c.
of initial loading. The specific division is shown in Figure 15c.
4.2.
4.2.Verification
Verificationofofthe
theNumerical
NumericalModel
Model
ByBycomparing
comparingthe thestress
stress distributions from the
distributions from theexperimental
experimentaland
andfinite
finite element
element simulations,
simulations, it
it was
was found that the final fracture of the plate joint does not occur in the center of the plate but in
found that the final fracture of the plate joint does not occur in the center of the plate but in the welding the
welding
seam, asseam,
shownas shown
in Figure in 16.
Figure 16.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure16.
16.Results
Resultsofoffinite
finite element analysis
analysisand
andexperimental
experimental testing:
testing: (a)(a) experimental
experimental results;
results; (b)
(b) finite
finite element
element analysis.
analysis.

Figure1717shows
Figure showsthethecomparison
comparisonbetweenbetweenthe thecalculated
calculatedhysteretic
hystereticcurve
curveand andthe
themeasured
measured
hysteretic curve. The calculated results are in basic agreement with the test results, but thebut
hysteretic curve. The calculated results are in basic agreement with the test results, the
non-
non-proportional
proportional damagedamage evolution
evolution should should be taken
be taken into account
into account in future
in future studies.
studies. The The skeleton
skeleton curve curve
is
is shown in Figure 18. By comparing these two curves, it can be seen that the theoretical
shown in Figure 18. By comparing these two curves, it can be seen that the theoretical results are results are
basically consistent with the experimental failure pattern. The maximum error of the
basically consistent with the experimental failure pattern. The maximum error of the hysteresis curve hysteresis curve
isis5%,
5%,while
whilethe
themaximum
maximumerror errorofofthe
theskeleton
skeletoncurve
curveisis8%,
8%,which
whichproves
provesthe
thereliability
reliabilityofofthe
thefinite
finite
element model analysis.
element model analysis.
S-4 S-5
P (kN)

P (kN )

S-6
P (kN)

150 Calculated value Calculated value

150 150 Calculated value
100 100 100
50
50 50
0
-1 0 1 2 3 4 0 0
A DB (mm) -1 0 1 2 3 4 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-50
A DB (mm) -50 A DB (mm)
-50
-100
-100 -100
-150
(a) -150 -150
(a) (b) (c)
(b) (c)
Figure 17. Hysteresis curve comparison: (a) S-4; (b) S-5; (c) S-6.
Figure 17. Hysteresis curve comparison: (a) S-4; (b) S-5; (c) S-6.
Metals 2020, 10, 1293 14 of 16
Metals 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 16

150

P (kN)
100

50

-1 0 1 2 3 4
S-1 D (mm)
-50 S-2
S-3
S-4
-100 S-5
S-6
Calculated value
-150
Figure 18. Skeleton curves.

5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
In this
In this paper,
paper, an experimental study
an experimental study ofof three
three full-scale
full-scale monotonic
monotonic tensile-resisting
tensile-resisting plate-welded
plate-welded
joints [32]
joints [32]and
andthree full-scale
three cyclic
full-scale tensile-
cyclic and compression-resisting
tensile- plate-welded
and compression-resisting joints is presented.
plate-welded joints is
In each of the two groups of test specimens, three specimens were
presented. In each of the two groups of test specimens, three specimens were used used with the same
withshape and
the same
dimensions
shape [33]. The material
and dimensions [33]. Theperformances of the weld toofbethe
material performances investigated
weld to beininvestigated
the first groupin were the
the first
yield strength, tensile strength, axial displacement, load–displacement relation,
group were the yield strength, tensile strength, axial displacement, load–displacement relation,stress–strain relation,
ultimate bearing
stress–strain capacity,
relation, deformation,
ultimate bearing and straindeformation,
capacity, distribution. For
andthe second
strain group andFor
distribution. finite
theelement
second
analysis, the hysteretic behavior, the damage degradation process, and the damage
group and finite element analysis, the hysteretic behavior, the damage degradation process, and model of the weld
the
were discussed. From the experimental results and numerical analysis, the following
damage model of the weld were discussed. From the experimental results and numerical analysis, observations can
be drawn:
the following observations can be drawn:
1.
1. The welds
The welds of of the
the plate-welded
plate-welded jointsjoints are
are damaged,
damaged, and and the
the average
average values
values ofof the
the yield
yield strength,
strength,
maximum strength,
maximum strength, andand modulus
modulus of of elasticity
elasticity of of electrode
electrode E5015
E5015 areare close
close to to the
the theoretical
theoretical
values of the materials, which indicate that the test error is small and thatare
values of the materials, which indicate that the test error is small and that the data theconvincing.
data are
The fracture The
convincing. created undercreated
fracture monotonic under drawing is smooth.
monotonic Furthermore,
drawing is smooth. a large amount of residue
Furthermore, a large
appears in the fractured section during the tension and compression
amount of residue appears in the fractured section during the tension and compression cycles, cycles, and the overall limit
displacement is high. The reason for these results is that the stress
and the overall limit displacement is high. The reason for these results is that the stress redistribution reduces the
damage rate ofreduces
redistribution the weld theduring
damage the cycles
rate of theofweld
tension and the
during compression.
cycles of tension and compression.
2.
2. Compared with the test and numerical results
Compared with the test and numerical results of the second group of the second group of of specimens,
specimens, the the maximum
maximum
error of
error of the
the hysteresis
hysteresiscurvecurveisis5%,5%,and andthethemaximum
maximum error of the
error of skeleton curvecurve
the skeleton is 8%,iswhich could
8%, which
prove the reliability of the finite element model analysis. These results
could prove the reliability of the finite element model analysis. These results show that the show that the mechanical
parameters parameters
mechanical of the weldsoffrom the monotonic
the welds from the test could betest
monotonic used
couldin the finite in
be used element model.
the finite element
3. According to the verification of the three damage models for the specimens under the action of
model.
3. tension andtocompression
According the verification cycles, it can
of the threebe damage
concluded that the
models forchanging trend under
the specimens and corresponding
the action of
value ofand
tension thecompression
damage modulus cycles,ofit the
can energy damage
be concluded model
that are closertrend
the changing to theandtest value, so the
corresponding
energyofdamage
value the damage modelmodulus
obtainedoffrom the these
energy tests fits themodel
damage damage arecurves
closer better
to thethantest that obtained
value, so the
from the
energy cyclic tension
damage and compression
model obtained from these tests.
tests fits the damage curves better than that obtained
4. The E5015
from weldtension
the cyclic materialand performance
compression parameters
tests. obtained in this paper and the weld damage law
4. under
The the action
E5015 of tension
weld material and compression
performance cyclesobtained
parameters can providein thisa reference
paper and forthefurther
weld research
damage
on the
law mechanical
under the action properties
of tensionof the
and welded part of steel
compression cyclesframe
can joints.
provide a reference for further
research on the mechanical properties of the welded part of steel frame joints.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.M. and H.Z.; methodology, H.M and E.M.L.; software, H.Z.;
validation, W.Z. and Z.T.; formal analysis, H.M.; investigation, W.Z. and E.M.L.; resources, H.M.; data curation,
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.M. and H.Z.; methodology, H.M and EM.L..; software, H.Z.;
Z.T.; writing—original draft preparation, H.Z. and E.M.L.; writing—review and editing, W.Z. and E.M.L.;
validation, W.Z.
visualization, and
Z.T.; Z.T.; formal
supervision, analysis,
W.Z.; projectH.M.; investigation,
administration, W.Z.
W.Z.; and EM.L.;
funding resources,
acquisition, H.M.H.M.; data
and Z.T. Allcuration,
authors
Z.T.; writing—original
have read and agreed todraft preparation,
the published H.Z.
version of and EM.L.; writing—review and editing, W.Z. and EM. L.;
the manuscript.
visualization, Z.T.; supervision, W.Z.; project administration, W.Z.; funding acquisition, H.M. and Z.T. All
Funding: This research was funded by the National Science Foundation of China (No. 51708485, 51878590),
authors have
the Natural read and
Science agreed to
Foundation of the published
Jiangsu version
Province of the manuscript.
(No. BK20191441), the Jiangsu Planned Projects for Postdoctoral
Research Funds (No. 1701191B), the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (No. 2017M611925), the Science and
Funding: This research was funded by the National Science Foundation of China (No. 51708485, 51878590), the
Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (No. BK20191441), the Jiangsu Planned Projects for Postdoctoral
Research Funds (No. 1701191B), the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (No. 2017M611925), the Science and
Metals 2020, 10, 1293 15 of 16

Technology projects of the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development (2014-K2-045 and 2014-K2-022),
the Talent Plan of Innovate and Entrepreneurship in Jiangsu Province, and the Talent Plan of Yangzhou City.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Saher, E.K.; Sakr, M.A.; Khalifa, T.M.; Eladly, M.M. Modelling and behavior of beam-to-column connections
under axial force and cyclic bending. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2017, 129, 171–184.
2. Ma, H.W.; Wang, J.W.; Eric, M.L.; Wan, Z.Q.; Wang, K. Experimental study of the behavior of beam-column
connections with expanded beam flanges. Steel Compos. Struct. 2019, 31, 319–327.
3. Bae, D. Experimental study on fatigue strength of in-plane welded gusset joints. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2004, 8,
89–93. [CrossRef]
4. Cho, J.R.; Lee, B.Y.; Moon, Y.H.; Van Tyne, C.J. Investigation of residual stress and post weld heat treatment of
multi-pass welds by finite element method and experiments. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2004, 155, 1690–1695.
[CrossRef]
5. Radhi, H.E.; Barrans, S. Finite Element Analysis of Effect of Weld Toe Radius and Plate Thickness on Fatigue Life of
Butt Welded Joint; University of Huddersfield: Huddersfield, UK, 2010.
6. Chen, Y.X.; Peng, M.L.; Da, T.L. Study of Fatigue strength of structural details of U-Rib and diaphragm
welding joints. Bridge Constr. 2014, 44, 63–68.
7. Wang, W.L.; He, J.; Zhang, M.M. Fatigue damage analysis of monolithic joint of steel truss bridge considering
welding residual stress. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2011, 71–78, 3123–3126. [CrossRef]
8. Coelho, A.M.G.; Bijlaard, F.S.K.; Gresnigt, N.; da Silva, L.S. Experimental assessment of the behavior of
bolted T-stub connections made up of welded plates. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2004, 60, 269–311. [CrossRef]
9. Konda, N.; Arimochi, K.; Nishio, M.; Kiyokawa, S. Development of Fatigue Test Method and improvement
of fatigue life by new functional steel plates for welding of trough rib and deck plate of orthotropic decks.
Int. J. Steel Struct. 2013, 13, 191–197. [CrossRef]
10. Takahashi, I.; Takada, A.; Ushijima, M.; Akiyama, S. Fatigue behavior of a box-welded joint under biaxial
cyclic loading: Effects of biaxial load range ratio and cyclic compressive loads in the lateral direction.
Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 2002, 22, 869–877. [CrossRef]
11. Shvets, V.P.; Degtyarev, V.A.; Muzyka, N.R.; Maslo, A.N. Assessment of the damageability of low-carbon
steel welded joint zones under cyclic loading conditions. Strength Mater. 2013, 45, 199–204. [CrossRef]
12. Guo, H.; Wan, J.; Liu, Y.; Hao, J.P. Experimental study on fatigue performance of high strength steel welded
joints. Thin-Walled Struct. 2018, 131, 45–54. [CrossRef]
13. Kim, I.T.; Kainuma, S. Fatigue life assessment of load-carrying fillet-welded cruciform joints inclined to
uniaxial cyclic loading. Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip. 2005, 82, 807–813. [CrossRef]
14. Zhang, Q.H.; Luo, P.J.; Xu, G.Y.; Bo, Y.Z. Experiment on fatigue performance of rib-to-deck welded joint with
new rolled rib. China J. Highw. Transp. 2018, 31, 42–52.
15. Lie, S.T.; Lee, C.K.; Wong, S.M. Modelling and mesh generation of weld profile in tubular Y-joint. J. Constr.
Steel Res. 2001, 57, 547–567. [CrossRef]
16. Yang, S.L.; Bu, Y.Z.; Cui, C.; Zhang, Q.H. Analysis of stress intensity factors of 3-Dimensional fatigue crack in
butt weld joint of U Rib. Bridge Constr. 2015, 45, 54–59.
17. Lan, K.; Ge, H.; Kato, T. Experimental and ductile fracture model study of single-groove welded joints under
monotonic loading. Eng. Struct. 2015, 85, 36–51.
18. Ravi, K.; Khandelwal, K.A. Micromechanical cyclic void growth model for ultra-low cycle fatigue. Int. J. Fatigue
2015, 70, 24–37.
19. Tsutsumi, S.; Fincato, R.; Momii, H. Effect of tangential plasticity on structural response under
non-proportional cyclic loading. Acta Mech. 2019, 230, 2425–2446. [CrossRef]
20. Ucak, A.; Tsopelas, P. Accurate modeling of the cyclic response of structural components constructed of steel
with yield plateau. Eng. Struct. 2012, 35, 272–280. [CrossRef]
21. GB50017. In Standard for Design of Steel Structures; China Planning Press: Beijing, China, 2017.
22. CEN. ENV1993-1-8. Part 1.8: Design of joints. In Eurocode 3. Design of Steel Structures; European Committee
for Standardizations: Oxford, UK, 2015.
Metals 2020, 10, 1293 16 of 16

23. Lowes, L.N.; Altoontash, A. Modeling reinforced-concrete beam-column joints subjected to cyclic loading.
J. Struct. Eng. 2003, 12, 1686–1697. [CrossRef]
24. Kumar, R.; Gardoni, P.; Sanchez, S.M. Effect of cumulative seismic damage and corrosion on the life-cycle
cost of reinforced concrete bridges. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2010, 38, 887–905. [CrossRef]
25. Zhao, J.; Dun, H. A restoring force model for steel fiber reinforced concrete shear walls. Eng. Struct. 2014, 75,
469–476. [CrossRef]
26. Abu Al-Rub, R.; Darabi, M.K.; Kim, S.-M.; Little, D.N.; Glover, C.J. Mechanistic-based constitutive modeling
of oxidative aging in aging-susceptible materials and its effect on the damage potential of asphalt concrete.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 41, 439–454. [CrossRef]
27. Chen, L.; Guan, P.; Wang, H. Analysis for the ductility and bearing capacity of axially loaded short steel
tubular columns filled with steel-reinforced concrete. J. Liaoning Tech. Univ. 2015, 34, 623–627.
28. Papasidero, J.; Doquet, V.; Mohr, D. Ductile fracture of aluminum 2024-T351 under proportional and
non-proportional multi-axial loading: Bao–Wierzbicki results revisited. Int. J. Solids Struct. 2015, 69–70,
459–474. [CrossRef]
29. Cortese, L.; Nalli, F.; Rossi, M. A nonlinear model for ductile damage accumulation under multiaxial
non-proportional loading conditions. Int. J. Plast. 2015, 85, 77–92. [CrossRef]
30. Isono, Y.; Kito, H.; Kikuchi, T.; Katayama, M. New fatigue damage evaluation of MEMS materials under
tension-compression cyclic loading. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Micro Electro
Mechanical Systems (MEMS), Miami Beach, FL, USA, 30 January–3 February 2005.
31. Satow, T.; Nakagawa, T. Three replacement models with two kinds of damage. Microelectron. Reliab. 1997, 37,
909–913. [CrossRef]
32. Tsutsumi, S.; Kitamura, T.R. Ductile behaviour of carbon steel for welded structures: Experiments and
numerical simulations. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2020, 172, 106185. [CrossRef]
33. Van Do, V.N.; Lee, C.H.; Chang, K.H. A nonlinear CDM model for ductile failure analysis of steel bridge
columns under cyclic loading. Comput. Mech. 2014, 53, 1209–1222.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).