1

2 Influence of Elevated Strain Rate on the Mechanical Properties of Hollow

3 Structural Sections

4 by

5 Cameron B. Ritchiea, Matthew I. Gowb, Jeffrey A. Packera, Amin Heidarpourc

6
a
7 Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A4, Canada
b
8 COWI North America, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2C8, Canada
c
9 Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, 3800, Australia
10
*
11 Corresponding Author. E-mail: jeffrey.packer@utoronto.ca; Tel: +1-416-978-4776; Fax: +1-416-978-7046

12

13 Abstract

14 As protective design engineering becomes more prevalent, cold-formed steel hollow structural

15 sections (HSS) are often desired design components. As such, it is necessary to understand the

16 behaviour of HSS subject to air-blast loading, including the material response under elevated strain

17 rates. Dynamic tensile tests have hence been performed on sub-size tensile coupons taken from the flats

18 and corners of cold-formed rectangular hollow section (RHS) members. Dynamic yield stresses were

19 obtained at strain rates from 0.1 to 18 s-1, which encompasses and exceeds the range recorded during far-

20 field blast arena testing. The dynamic increase factor was calculated for each data point and synthesized

21 with previous cold-formed RHS tests at even higher strain rates (100-1000 s-1). The data set was used to

22 determine Cowper-Symonds and Johnson-Cook parameters. The resulting material models can now be

23 used to determine the strength increase of cold-formed RHS subject to a wide range of impulsive,

24 elevated strain-rate loads.

25

1
26 Key words

27 Hollow structural section, Rectangular hollow section, Cold-formed steel, Elevated strain rate, Blast,

28 Impact, Dynamic increase factor, Impulsive loading

2
29 1. Introduction
30 It has been established that steel is a strain-rate-sensitive material; it exhibits different

31 characteristics, namely an increased material strength with increasing strain rates. Dynamic loads, such

32 as blast or impact, can produce intermediate (0.1-100 s-1) to high (>100 s-1) strain rates that significantly

33 alter the material behaviour. Around the world, the frequency of blast loading events, both accidental

34 and malicious, is increasing. Therefore, modern designers recognize the value of incorporating

35 protective design measures into even civilian infrastructure. With greater attention given to the

36 protective design aspects of all structures, understanding the behaviour of steel under elevated strain

37 rates is becoming increasingly important.

38 Dynamic strength increases are critical for calibrating the numerical models that are often employed

39 in protective analysis/design. Whether a simplified single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) model or a

40 complex finite element (FE) model is chosen, the material behaviour at elevated strain rates is required.

41 Previous research on strain-rate behaviour of steel subject to blast loading has identified strain rates on

42 the order of 100-1000 s-1 [1]. Accordingly, the majority of the recent research into the strain-rate

43 behaviour of structural steel has been conducted in this range [2-6]. However, strain rates of that

44 magnitude are not present in all blast events. Recent air-blast tests on cold-formed rectangular hollow

45 section (RHS) specimens have resulted in intermediate strain rates on the order of 1 s-1. This agrees with

46 what others have found recently during air-blast loading of full-size steel W-sections [7]. Therefore,

47 there is a need to establish material models, for use in protective design, that cover the whole spectrum

48 of possible strain rates.

49 Hollow structural sections (HSS) are often used in commercial, institutional, and residential

50 construction, especially when architecturally exposed elements are desired. As protective design

51 becomes more mainstream, there is a desire to utilize traditional structural systems, rather than the

52 massive concrete systems often used in protective design. Therefore, there is a need for accurate

53 material models for HSS steel. This is especially true for cold-formed HSS steel, the type employed in
3
54 North America and most of the world, as it has several unique characteristics when compared to other

55 hot-rolled steel elements. These features are due to the residual stresses in cold-formed HSS that are a

56 product of the manufacturing process.

57 2. Previous Investigations
58 2.1. Elevated Strain-Rate Testing

59 One of the reasons for the lack of elevated strain-rate material testing on the order of 1 s-1 is the

60 difficulty of obtaining the desired strain rates. Previous investigations typically involve one of two test

61 apparati: a tensile universal testing machine or a Split-Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB) apparatus.

62 Universal testing machines have been used to cover the lower values of the strain rate spectrum,

63 typically from static tests (~1x10-5 s-1) through to the upper limit of earthquake strain rates (~1 s-1). As

64 advancements have been made in universal testing machines, such as faster servo-hydraulic valves, the

65 upper bound of their capabilities has increased. At the upper end of the spectrum, the lowest strain rates

66 that the SHPB apparatus is capable of achieving are approximately 100 s-1. Other impact-based test

67 setups have exhibited similar strain-rate ranges. This lower limit is a function of the impact mass used to

68 generate the test impulse, where impulse is the product of moving mass and velocity change. Generation

69 of a sufficient test impulse at low velocities requires an impractically large impact mass. Table 1 list the

70 details of previous research into the strain rate behaviour of structural steels.

71

72 Table 1
73 Strain rate test setups and ranges of previous research
Resource Year Test setup Dynamic strain Material Reported No. of
rate range (s-1) fy (MPa) specimens
Manjonie [8] 1944 screw-power-type 8.5x10-4-5.0x10-1 low-carbon steel ~200 2
testing machine
high-speed 100-1000 5
impact
Rao et al. [9] 1966 screw-power-type 1.1x10-5-1.4x10-3 Various structural 238-778 257
testing machine steels
Campbell and Cooper 1966 servo-hydraulic 1.0x10-3-106 low-carbon mild 200-300 15
[10] testing machine steel

4
 Yu and Jones [11] 1991 servo-hydraulic 1.2x10-3-140 Mild steel ~250 15
testing machine
Kassar and Yu [12] 1992 servo-hydraulic 1.0x10-4-1 Sheet steels 210-610 178
testing machine
Filiatrault and 2001 servo-hydraulic 5.0x10-3-1.0x10-1 Reinforcing bar 400 36
Holleran [13] testing machine
Marias et al. [2] 2004 SHPB 360-918 mild steel 215 5
Luecke et al. [3] 2005 servo-hydraulic 50-500 Structural steel 248-621 136
testing machine columns
SHPB 389-2899 17
Sun and Packer [4] 2014 SHPB 100-1028 HSS steel 350 166

Mirmomeni et al. 2015 servo-hydraulic 1-10 Hot rolled mild steel 350 84+
[14] testing machine structural plate steel
Cadoni and Forni [5] 2015 Hydro-pneumatic 5-25 Reinforcing steel 500 6
machine
SHPB 250-1000 9
Forni et al. [6] 2016 Hydro-pneumatic 5-25 Structural steel, 355 6
machine S355
SHPB 300-850 9
74

75 The tests listed in Table 1 cover a wide range of strain rates and structural steel types. While there

76 are a few tests that cover strain rates from 1-10 s-1, most of them, with the exception of Mirmomeni et al.

77 [14], have only a small number of specimens tested. Additionally, there is only one test program, Sun

78 and Packer [4], that uses cold-formed HSS steel. Another important factor is the yield strength of the

79 tested material. It has been shown that the relationship between dynamic increase factor (DIF) and strain

80 rate is dependent on yield strength. Generally, lower yield strength steel exhibits a higher DIF [15].

81 Many of the oldest tests were on steel manufactured to historical standards which have a much lower

82 yield strength than modern day steel, as identified in Table 1. This illustrates the need to implement a

83 test procedure that allows for a significant number of cold-formed specimens tested in the desired strain-

84 rate range. This is the only way to develop an up-to-date and comprehensive relationship between

85 material behaviour and strain rate for modern cold-formed RHS.

86 2.2. Elevated strain rate material characterization

87 Strain-rate investigations are needed to calibrate strain-rate-dependant material models, which can

88 then be used for protective design. The Department of Defense’s UFC 3-340-02 [16], the essential

5
 89 protective design guide, notes that under increased strain rate only the yield and ultimate stress change

90 significantly and that the modulus of elasticity and the rupture strain of steel are generally insensitive to

91 strain rate. Therefore, protective design typically uses a dynamic increase factor (DIF), the ratio of the

92 dynamic to static stress, to define the material behaviour under elevated rates of loading. Material

93 models used for protective design range from simple strain-rate independent DIF values to more

94 complex formulations that vary with strain rate. CSA S850-12 [17], Canada’s design standard for blast

95 loads, lists three options for determining the DIF of a material: testing or refined methods of analysis, a

96 table of constants for various materials, or simple functions of strain rate.

97 For simple analyses or SDOF modeling, constants are generally accepted. However, for more

98 complex analyses, such as FE analysis, material models that consider strain rate are desired. Over the

99 years a number of models have been proposed. An example of a strain-rate dependant model, adapted

100 from UFC 3-340-02 [16], is shown in Fig. 1.

101

1.8
Yield Dynamic Increase Factor, DIFy

ASTM A36
ASTM A514
Plate Thickness <= 2½"
1.6
Plate Thickness > 2½"

1.4

1.2

1
0.001 0.002 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.50.7 1 2 3 4 5 67 10 20 30 50 70100
Strain Rate (s -1)
Fig. 1. DIFy vs. strain rate for A36 and A514 steel (adapted from [16])
102

103 One of the difficulties with calibrating and using the more complex material models based on strain

104 rate is the differing test methodologies. As illustrated in Table 1, a variety of test setups have been used

105 for steel material testing under elevated strain rates. The majority of these setups also employ unique
6
106 instrumentation plans. Not only is the method for obtaining the data different, but the data analysis

107 methods are different as well. There is not a universally accepted method for calculating the strain rate

108 for a given test. Some of the methods used have included: a linear fit of strain rate to yield [16], a linear-

109 fit of strain rate to a stage between yield and ultimate [5-6], and the absolute maximum strain rate

110 recorded during the test [7]. Without a commonly accepted standard for strain rate determination, two

111 researchers could take the same data set and reach different conclusions.

112 Nonetheless, several complex material models have been proposed for use in protective design and

113 analyses. For example, LS-DYNA [18], a commonly used explicit finite element software, has several

114 built-in methods of incorporating strain-rate effects. These methods vary from manually inputted stress-

115 strain curves to constitutive equations. For steel, typical methods include: linear piece-wise stress-strain

116 curves, the Cowper-Symonds model [19], the Johnson-Cook model [20], or the Zerilli-Armstrong model

117 [21].

118 The piece-wise model incorporates several stress-strain curves at different strain rates. A linear

119 interpolation is used when the strain rates measure between tabulated curves. When the strain rate is

120 below the lowest curve, the lowest curve values are used. Similarly, the highest strain rate curve is used

121 if the strain rate falls at or above the highest strain rate. Using this method requires data for the given

122 material at several strain rates. While this is possible when conducting a detailed analysis, it is not

123 conducive to design.

124 In 1957, Cowper and Symonds developed a constitutive model that defines DIF as a function of

125 strain rate using a power-law relationship. It is shown in Eq. (1).

1 (1)

126 where C and q are Cowper-Symonds fit parameters.

127 In 1983, Johnson and Cook created a model which captures the strain-rate and temperature

128 dependence of a material. The Johnson-Cook model is usually referred to by its three terms: the strain-

7
129 hardening behaviour, the logarithmic strain rate sensitivity, and the temperature dependence. The model

130 is shown in Eq. (2).

∗ ∗
1 ln 1 (2)
∗ ⁄ is the dimensionless strain rate, and
131 where a, b, c, n, and m are Johnson-Cook parameters,

132 T* is defined by Eq. (3).

∗
(3)

133 where Troom is a reference temperature and Tmelt is a reference melt temperature.

134 In 1986, Zerilli and Armstrong developed a constitutive equation in an attempt to better describe

135 material behaviour. Their model is based on simplified dislocation mechanics and has face-centred cubic

136 (fcc) and body-centred cubic (bcc) forms. The bcc version of the model is shown in Eq. (4).

ln (4)
137 where c0, c1, c3, c4, c5, and n are Zerilli-Armstrong parameters.

138 The complexity of the material model chosen depends on the application. Due to its simplicity, the

139 Cowper-Symonds material model is often used in FE analyses to quantify the strain-rate dependence of

140 structural steel members subject to blast loading [e.g. 22-24]. When considering far-field air-blast

141 loading the influence of temperature is lessened. The simplicity of the Cowper-Symonds model is also

142 well suited to design, where the exact details of the material are often unknown. For these reasons, with

143 the application to the aforementioned RHS tests in mind, the Cowper-Symonds model was chosen for

144 further detailed analysis.

145 2.2.1. Cowper-Symonds Material Model

146 Since the model was originally proposed by Cowper and Symonds in 1957 for mild steel, numerous

147 researchers have proposed new Cowper-Symonds parameters for various materials. Several researchers

148 have used this material model for structural steel, including a number of those identified in Table 1.

8
149 Table 2 provides a sample of various structural steel investigations using the Cowper-Symonds model

150 and the resulting parameters.

151

152 Table 2
153 Cowper-Symonds parameters from previous investigations
Resource Strain Rate Range (s-1) Reported fy (MPa) C (s-1) q
Cowper and Symonds [19] 9.5x10-7-300 ~200 40 5.000
Abramowicz and Jones [25] 40-195 273 6844 3.910
Yu and Jones [11] 1.2x10-3-140 ~250 10500000 8.300
Marias et al. [2] 360-918 215 844 2.207
Jama et al. [26] 83-403 430 844 2.207
Sun and Packer, tensile flats [4] 191-997 350 2729 2.443
Sun and Packer, tensile corners [4] 156-1028 350 3280 1.292
Cadoni and Forni, B500A [5] 5-1000 564 141917 2.816
Cadoni and Forni, B500B [5] 5-1000 571 599 0.753
Forni et al. [6] 5-850 448 4945 2.696
154

155 The graphical representation of the Table 2 resources is shown in Fig. 2. The Cowper-Symonds

156 curves for all resources have been extrapolated across the full dynamic strain rate range, even though

157 they may not be empirically valid. This is in line with the objective of using a single set of parameters

158 for an analytical model, regardless of the actual strain rate range covered.

159

9
 Cowper and Symonds [19] Sun and Packer, corner specimens [4]
Abramowicz and Jones [25] Cadoni and Forni, B500A [5]
Yu and Jones [11] Cadoni and Forni, B500B [5]
Marias et al. [2] Forni et al. [6]
Sun and Packer, flat specimens [4]
1.6
Yield Dynamic Increase Factor, DIFy

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1
0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.50.7 1 2 3 4 5 67 10 20 30 50 70100 200300 500 1000
Strain Rate (s -1)
Fig. 2. DIFy vs. strain rate for various Cowper-Symonds model parameters
160

161 Comparison of the graphical representations leads to the conclusion that there is a large variation in

162 the formulation of DIF curves, with more contemporary research deriving much lower DIFy values than

163 those originally proposed by Cowper and Symonds [19]. This extreme variation highlights the need for

164 Cowper-Symonds parameters specific to the material under consideration. Use of inaccurate DIF

165 formulations can have a significant effect on FE results.

166 2.2.2. Johnson-Cook Material Model

167 One of the reasons the Johnson-Cook model is often used is the ease with which it can calibrated for

168 new materials. The three terms that make up the material model are easily isolated. The strain rate

169 effects can be defined as a DIF, as shown in Eq. (5).

∗
1 ln (5)
∗ ⁄ is the dimensionless strain rate.
170 where c is the Johnson-Cook strain rate parameter and

171 Since the model was developed by Johnson and Cook in 1983 several researchers have developed

172 parameters for a variety of new materials. While it has been not been cited as often as the Cowper-

10
173 Symonds model for structural steels, select Johnson-Cook investigations are detailed in Table 3. A

174 graphical representation of these investigations is shown in Fig. 3.

175

176 Table 3
177 Johnson-Cook parameters from previous investigations
Resource Strain Rate Range (s-1) Reported fy (MPa) 0 c
Johnson and Cook, 1006 steel [20] 2.0x10-3-600 350 1.0x10 -1
0.022
Borvik et al. [27] 1.0x10-4-1000 490 5.0x10-4 0.012
Seidt [28] 1.0x10-4-3000 286 1.0x10-0 0.017
Cadoni and Forni, B500A [5] 5-1000 564 not reported 0.01769
Cadoni and Forni, B500B [5] 5-1000 571 not reported 0.02139
Forni et al. [6] 5-850 448 1.0x10-1 0.0247
178

Johnson and Cook, 1006 steel [20] Seidt [28]

Borvik et al. [27] Forni et al. [6]
1.6
Yield Dynamic Increase Factor, DIFy

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1
0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.50.7 1 2 3 4 5 67 10 20 30 50 70100 200300 500 1000
Strain Rate (s -1)
Fig. 3. DIFy vs. strain rate for various Johnson-Cook model parameters
179

180 A key feature evident from Fig. 3 is that the Johnson-Cook DIF function is highly dependent on the

181 user-defined reference strain rate ( ). Not only does this value strongly influence the DIF curve but it is

182 also needed to use the model in the future. When it is not included, such as in Cadoni and Forni [5], it

183 renders the reported c value unusable for future modelling.

11
184 3. Field Blast Testing
185 In 2012, 2013, and 2015 large-scale blast arena testing was conducted by the authors on rectangular

186 hollow section (RHS) elements. A blast arena test configuration was used to test the flexural behaviour

187 of the RHS elements subject to far-field air-blast loading. The 2012 test series examined unfilled RHS of

188 two sizes (RHS150x150x10 and RHS150x150x8) and two different scaled distances. In 2013, unfilled

189 and concrete-filled RHS were tested side-by-side to facilitate a comparison of their behaviour. Again,

190 two RHS sizes were tested (RHS120x120x8 and RHS120x120x5) at two different scaled distances. In

191 2015, two concrete-filled double-skin tube (CFDST) configurations, using an inner and outer RHS

192 element with the annulus between filled with concrete, were tested at two scaled distances. The hollow

193 section elements were loaded into a concrete reaction structure and steel cladding was used to load them

194 in identical pairs. Fig. 4a illustrates the 2015 hollow section target just prior to testing. A computer

195 model depicting the hollow section reaction structure is shown in Fig. 4b, showing the elements with

196 and without cladding. For all three test series, the hollow section elements were instrumented at mid-

197 span with a horizontal displacement gauge to measure peak displacement and two strain gauges

198 measuring the longitudinal strain at mid-point. Fig. 4c shows the mid-span mounting location on the

199 hollow section elements during the 2015 test series. The RHS members in all tests failed in flexure while

200 experiencing large inelastic deformations without fracture of the steel material, which is the traditional

201 objective in blast-resistant design.

202

12
 (a)

SG-L SG-R

(b) (c)
Fig. 4. 2015 field test series: (a) hollow section target; (b) computer model of hollow section target; (c) strain
gauges and displacement gauge affixed at the mid-span of hollow section member
203

204 The strain gauges were used to get an accurate measurement of the strain rate in the RHS elements

205 during the blast loading. For steel elements, the strain rate used for design and analysis is often

206 measured as the linear strain up to the yield strain value [16]. When possible, this method was used for

207 the determination of the strain rates from the blast arena tests. Due to the extremely high forces involved

208 with the blast loading, the strain gauges often did not stay adhered for the whole duration of the RHS

209 oscillations and occasionally failed before yield. In the event that a strain gauge failed before yield

210 strain, a linear fit of the data until failure was used to determine the strain rate. Typical strain-time

211 histories for the two tests (T1 and T2) from the 2015 test series are shown in Fig. 5. The time scale of

212 both curves has been normalized to the time of arrival of the blast wave at the target.
13
213

0.01
2015 Test 1 Strain
0.008 2015 Test 2 Strain

0.006
Strain (mm/mm)

0.004

0.002

-0.002

-0.004
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Time (ms)
Fig. 5. Typical measured strain-time with linear strain-rate fit
214

215 Strain rates to yield from the 2015 tests and 2013 tests on unfilled and concrete-filled RHS are

216 shown in Table 4.

217

218 Table 4
219 Strain rates measured during the 2015 and 2013 test series
Year Specimen Strain rate (s-1)
*
2015 15-T1-6DS60-1-R 1.05
15-T1-6DS60-2-R 1.32
15-T1-6DS80-1-R 0.98
15-T1-6DS80-2-L 1.28
15-T2-6DS60-2-L 2.23
15-T2-6DS60-2-R 2.42
2013 13-T1-5H-1-R 0.50
13-T1-8H-1-R 1.41
13-T1-5CF-1-R 1.13
13-T1-8CF-1-R 0.59
13-T2-5H-1-R 3.33
13-T2-8H-1-R 0.97
13-T2-5CF-2-R 1.60
13-T2-8CF-1-R 1.19
*
220 Legend: Year-Test Number-Specimen Type-Specimen Number-Strain Gauge Location
221

222 The values measured in 2015 are very similar to those recorded in 2013 which used a comparable

223 loading. These values illustrate the need for material models that incorporate intermediate-strain-rate

14
224 values on the order of 1 s-1. These recorded strain rates are also very similar to those recorded by Nassr

225 et al. [7] whose air-blast loading of steel W-sections resulted in strain rates from 0.2 to 5.0 s-1.

226 4. Laboratory Testing

227 During the manufacturing of the 2015 field blast test specimens, extra RHS lengths of the identical

228 (untested) material were retained and shipped to the laboratory for further material testing.

229 4.1. HSS specimens

230 The cold-formed RHS elements used for the 2015 test series were manufactured to EN10219 Grade

231 S420MH and S355J2H (dual-graded) [29]. Three hollow section sizes were used: RHS 120x120x6, RHS

232 80x80x3 and RHS 60x60x3. First, full-size standard sheet coupons [30] were cut out of one end of each

233 RHS length for static tests. The remainder of the members were divided into eighteen segments

234 (“bands”) of 111 mm length to manufacture sub-size sheet coupons [30] for use in the high-speed

235 actuator tests.

236 The sub-size coupon geometry was selected for the intermediate strain-rate coupons because it has a

237 shorter gauge length, allowing for theoretically higher strain rates to be reached, for a given

238 displacement rate during testing. Displacement rate is a crucial parameter because the maximum strain-

239 rate achieved using a high-speed actuator is governed by the maximum displacement rate that the

240 actuator can reach.

241 Six full-size static coupons were cut out of each RHS size, three from the flat faces (excluding the

242 weld seam face) and three from the corners. For the intermediate strain-rate coupons, each band was

243 labelled with seven possible coupon locations (A-G): three flat faces (excluding the weld seam face) and

244 four corner locations (Fig. 6a). Four sub-size coupons (Fig. 6b) were then machined from each band,

245 two from the flat regions perpendicular to the weld seam (B & F), one from the corner with the largest

246 measured radius (varies) and one from the corner with the smallest radius (varies). The intermediate

247 strain-rate coupons were appropriately labelled (see Fig. 6c) for record-keeping purposes.
15
248

G A R6.4 all dimensions in mm

(TYP.) 25.4
Weld Seam
6.35 9.5

F B 31.2 31.2 31.2

(b)

Tube Width-Band Number Coupon Location

E D C Example: 120-04C
(a) (c)
Fig 6. Intermediate-strain-rate test coupons: (a) location around the RHS; (b) machined shape; (c) naming
convention
249

250 4.2. Static tensile coupon tests

251 The standard full-size tensile coupons were tested in accordance with ASTM A370-15 using a 1000

252 kN-capacity MTS universal testing machine (MTS245) (Fig. 7a). Load was measured using the built-in

253 load cell and strain was measured using a 50 mm extensometer (Fig 7b).

254

(a) (b)
Fig. 7. Full-size tensile testing: (a) test setup; (b) full-size coupon with extensometer attached
255

16
256 4.3. High-speed actuator tensile coupon tests

257 The displacement rates required for this analysis far exceeded the capabilities of the MTS universal

258 testing machine used for the static tests. Therefore, a new test setup was devised using a recently

259 acquired high-speed servo-hydraulic actuator (MTS244.21). This actuator, with a piston area of 25.2

260 cm2 and a specified peak valve flowrate of 5.67 L/s, was theoretically capable of reaching speeds of 2.25

261 m/s. Combined with the sub-size coupon geometry described previously, a theoretical strain-rate of 90 s-
1
262 could be reached with this actuator.

263 4.3.1. Test setup

264 Unlike the MTS245, the high-speed actuator was not part of a built-in test frame. The actuator first

265 had to be attached to a special test frame purpose-built for the actuator and connected to the laboratory

266 strong floor (Fig. 8a). A challenge with this installation was the large space required for a slack adaptor

267 (Fig. 8b). The slack adaptor test setup was similar to that used by Yu and Jones [11] and Leucke et al.

268 [3]. A slack adaptor was required for the high-speed tests to allow the actuator to reach a specified speed

269 prior to loading the tensile coupon. Doing so achieves an almost-uniform strain rate for the duration of

270 the loading during the test, under ideal conditions. Without a slack adaptor, due to the sub-size coupon

271 gauge length, the coupon would deform significantly and possibly fracture before the desired strain rate

272 was achieved.

273 The test setup devised did not feature hydraulic clamps like the MTS245 universal testing machine

274 used to conduct the static tests. Therefore, in order to generate the necessary grip force, small 50 x 50

275 mm plates were welded to the ends of the sub-size coupons (Fig. 8c). These blocks allowed the

276 necessary force transfer from the actuator to the coupon through bearing. For corner coupons the curved

277 corner shape was maintained and the centroid of the coupons was aligned with the centroid of the blocks

278 during welding.

279

17
 Actuator
Piston
Top Plate

Slack
Slack
Adaptor
Catch
Ring

Top Welded Joint

Block

Coupon

Base
Block Base Plate
Load
Cell
(a) (b) (c)
Fig 8. High-speed tensile testing: (a) test setup; (b) slack adaptor schematic; (c) coupon schematic
280

281 4.3.2. Instrumentation

282 As the speed of loading increases it becomes more difficult to reliably record accurate data.

283 Therefore, when devising the instrumentation plan, care was taken to ensure that instrumentation would

284 work for all displacement rates, from the “static” tests to the highest speed. The final instrumentation

285 setup included load, displacement, and up to four channels of strain. Data was recorded using two

286 modules (4 channels each) of a QuantumX MX410 data acquisition system. This setup is capable of

287 recording data at rates up to 96000 Hz. In order to capture the high-speed load-displacement data, all

288 tests were recorded at this maximum rate with the exception of the “static” tests. The static reference

289 tests were recorded at 5 Hz.

290 All coupons had at least two strain gauges, one on each face, installed on the gauge length of the

291 coupon. These strain gauges were necessary to record an accurate strain-time history since the

292 extensometer used for the full-size static tests was not practical for the intermediate strain-rate tests.

293 Post-yield strain gauges manufactured by Tokyo Sokki Kenkyujo (TML), the YFLA series, were used

294 for measuring strain in the gauge length of the coupons. The gauges (model YFLA-5-3LT) have a length

295 and width of 5 and 1.9 mm respectively. Two strain gauges on opposite faces were necessary for
18
296 calculation of an average axial strain, thus enabling the removal of any bending strain from the strain

297 results. Eccentricities in the load path, caused by curvature in the RHS and minor test setup

298 imperfections, are the common cause of bending.

299 Due to the need to record the very short duration loading, the built in MTS load cell was replaced by

300 an Interface miniature 45 kN load cell. This load cell was chosen because of its high natural frequency

301 (22 kHz) which aids in the capture of the short-duration loading. However, despite the selection of this

302 load cell, some of the rapid displacement rates used for this test program caused the load cell to exhibit

303 excitation of its natural frequency, confounding the recorded load-time history. Therefore, at the higher

304 displacement rates, two strain gauges, one on each face, were added to the bottom grip of the coupon to

305 accurately measure the load-time history. These grips tended to remain elastic during a tensile coupon

306 test due to their larger cross-sectional area, therefore allowing grip strain to be linearly related to grip

307 stress. A similar procedure was used by Leucke et al. [3] and Yu and Jones [11] to determine load at

308 high displacement rates. Standard TML FLA series strain gauges were used for the grip locations. Fig. 9

309 illustrates the strain gauge locations on the tensile coupon.

310

SG-2 (YFLA) SG-4 (FLA)

A A

SG-1 (YFLA) SG-3 (FLA)

COUPON ELEVATION
Top Bottom
Grip Grip
VIEW A-A
Fig 9. Strain gauge location and nomenclature
311

312 4.3.3. Data Processing

313 All data analyses used the standard 0.2% offset method to determine yield stress and yield strain.

314 Measured strain rates over the strain range from zero to yield were consistently non-linear and required a

315 linear curve fit to determine the average strain rate over this range. For each average YFLA strain-time
19
316 history, a linear curve fit was conducted from zero to the yield strain and the slope of this line was

317 reported as the strain rate, as is indicated in UFC 3-340-02 [16]. This method was chosen to align the

318 results with the current practice in protective design.

319 As the rate of testing increased, the quality of the load cell data decreased. At displacement rates of

320 approximately 1 m/s the error in the load cell signal began to significantly obscure the true load-time

321 history. Thus, beyond 1 m/s the FLA strain gauges installed on the grips were used to obtain force data.

322 To calculate load from the grip strain data, the elastic modulus and grip area are needed. The cross-

323 sectional grip area was easily measured using calipers for the flat coupons, and was determined by

324 weighing a fixed length of coupon grip and assuming a density of steel of 7850 kg/m3 for the corners.

325 The elastic modulus was calculated using the load cell data when possible. For the lower

326 displacement-rates, the elastic modulus was determined by fitting a linear curve to the stress-strain data

327 over the linear elastic range (typically 0 to 0.001 strain). When the load cell data lost its accuracy an

328 alternative method was used which involved the load cell data and the grip strain data. The load cell

329 force was divided by the constant cross-sectional grip area to convert it to grip stress data. This stress

330 data was then divided by the accompanying strain value at each time step. For the majority of the

331 coupons, it was possible to fit a constant line through the data to determine the elastic modulus (see Fig.

332 10). However, the elastic modulus does not change with strain rate [16], so it was also acceptable to use

333 the average value over different strain rates. The grip strain, calculated grip area, and the elastic modulus

334 were then used to determine the force.

335

20
 800 800000

Grip Stress
600 (Grip Stress)/(Grip Strain) 600000

Elastic Modulus (MPa)

E = 209382 MPa
Grip Stress (MPa)

400 400000

200 200000

0 0

-200 -200000
7.575 7.576 7.577 7.578 7.579 7.58 7.581 7.582 7.583 7.584 7.585
Time (s)
Fig. 10. Calculation of the elastic modulus for a typical intermediate-strain-rate test (120-06F shown)
336

337 5. Results and Discussion

338 5.1. Static tensile coupon comparison

339 The accuracy of the high-speed actuator test setup was verified by comparing the static sub-size

340 coupon test results to those gathered from the full-size coupon tests completed on the MTS245 universal

341 testing machine. The slack adaptor was not needed for the sub-size static tests, so the actuator was

342 positioned such that the adaptor provided no slack. Static tests were run at a displacement rate of 0.003

343 mm/s, which corresponds to the 0.006 mm/s used for the full-size coupons with double the gauge length

344 to achieve a consistent strain rate. Figs. 11 and 12 illustrate a comparison of the results for the full-size

345 and sub-size coupons for the flats and corners respectively.

346

21
 600
540
480
420
Stress (MPa)

360
300
240 Full-size coupon 15-120F1
Full-size coupon 15-120F2
180
Full-size coupon 15-120F3
120 Sub-size coupon 120-01B
60 Sub-size coupon 120-01F
0
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0.125 0.15 0.175 0.2 0.225 0.25
Strain (mm/mm)
Fig. 11. Typical static stress-strain curves for flat coupons (RHS120x120 shown)
347

600
540
480
420
Stress (MPa)

360
300
240 Full-size coupon 15-120C1
Full-size coupon 15-120C2
180
Full-size coupon 15-120C4
120 Sub-size coupon 120-01C
60 Sub-size coupon 120-01G
0
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0.125 0.15 0.175 0.2 0.225 0.25
Strain (mm/mm)
Fig. 12. Typical static stress-strain curves for corner coupons (RHS120x120 shown)
348

349 Table 5 summarizes and compares the average yield stress values, obtained using the 0.2% offset

350 method, and average ultimate stress values, for each coupon type.

351

352 Table 5
353 Measured static full-size and sub-size coupon material properties
Specimen Location Yield Stress (MPa) Ultimate Stress (MPa)
Full-size Sub-size % diff. Full-size Sub-size % diff.
RHS120x120x6 Flat 423 425 +0.5 510 510 0.0
Corner 530 533 +0.6 568 586 +3.2
RHS80x80x3 Flat 435 435 0.0 527 536 +1.7
Corner 528 549 +4.0 575 605 +5.2
22
 RHS60x60x3 Flat 446 452 +1.3 534 557 +2.0
Corner 507 547 +7.9 553 613 +10.8
354

355 As evidenced by Fig. 11, Fig. 12, and Table 5, the full-size and sub-size setups show good

356 agreement when comparing the yield and ultimate stresses. Based on these findings, the validity of the

357 sub-size test setup for the high-speed tensile tests was confirmed.

358 5.2. Dynamic tensile coupon results

359 Once the test setup was established for the dynamic testing, 65 sub-size coupons were prepared for

360 high-speed testing. These coupons were divided into six “bands”, with each band aiming for a particular

361 strain rate. As stated previously, each band contained four coupons (two from flats, two from corners)

362 from each of the three RHS sizes. The bands were tested at escalating displacement rates, achieving

363 strain rates from 0.1 to 17.9 s-1. Fig. 13 illustrates a typical set of stress-strain curves from the six

364 dynamic bands as well as the static curve for flat coupons, from the RHS120x120x6 specimen. The

365 stress-strain curves are truncated at the “failure” of the YFLA strain gauge data. This failure was

366 typically due to delamination of one or both strain gauges from the coupon face. However, failure

367 typically occurred at a strain much higher than the yield strain and hence did not affect the results.

368

Fig. 13. Stress-strain results at various strain rates for select RHS120x120 flat coupons
23
369

370 Although there is scatter in the results, Fig. 13 illustrates an increase in both yield stress and ultimate

371 stress due to elevated strain rate. The dynamic yield and ultimate stresses were compared against the

372 sub-size static values to determine the dynamic increase factors for yield stress (DIFy) and ultimate

373 stress (DIFu). Comparisons were conducted based on the location of the coupon within the RHS

374 specimen. For example, static values from coupon 120-01B were used to calculate the DIFs for

375 dynamically tested coupons from location 120-B (e.g. 120-06B). Tables 6 and 7 detail the stresses and

376 DIFs for the tested coupons.

377

378 Table 6
379 Key flat coupon test results
Specimen Strain rate (s-1) fy (MPa) fdy (MPa) DIFy fu (MPa) fdu (MPa) DIFu
120-01B 1.135E-05 433 N/A 1.00 515 N/A 1.00
120-01F 6.446E-06 418 N/A 1.00 504 N/A 1.00
120-02B 0.1144 433 506 1.17 515 580 1.13
120-02F 0.1024 418 458 1.10 504 567 1.12
120-03B 1.042 433 534 1.24 515 611 1.19
120-03F 1.588 418 475 1.14 504 602 1.19
120-04B 3.75 433 592 1.37 515 622 1.21
120-04F 4.26 418 496 1.19 504 604 1.20
120-05B 9.27 433 568 1.31 515 645 1.25
120-05F 11.12 418 491 1.17 504 630 1.25
120-06B 10.68 433 573 1.33 515 667 1.29
120-06F 10.77 418 524 1.25 504 658 1.30
120-07B 14.55 433 522 1.21 515 651 1.26
120-07F 13.46 418 500 1.19 504 641 1.27
80-01B 1.345E-05 416 N/A 1.00 522 N/A 1.00
80-01F 9.526E-06 453 N/A 1.00 549 N/A 1.00
80-02B 0.0784 416 476 1.14 522 594 1.14
80-02F 0.0874 453 517 1.14 549 637 1.16
80-03B 1.268 416 505 1.21 522 628 1.20
80-03F 1.182 453 512 1.13 549 653 1.19
80-04B 3.12 416 566 1.36 522 615 1.18
80-04F 3.93 453 581 1.28 549 635 1.16
80-06B 7.32 540 502 1.21 594 653 1.25
80-06F 15.18 558 519 1.14 616 705 1.28
80-07B 15.62 540 471 1.13 594 688 1.32
80-07F 13.51 558 483 1.07 616 728 1.32
60-01B 1.198E-05 436 N/A 1.00 551 N/A 1.00
60-01F 1.312E-05 467 N/A 1.00 563 N/A 1.00
60-02B 0.1048 436 482 1.11 551 597 1.08
60-02F 0.0859 467 504 1.08 563 606 1.08
60-03B 1.321 436 507 1.16 551 626 1.14
24
 60-03F 0.961 467 537 1.15 563 637 1.13
60-04B 4.78 436 507 1.16 551 622 1.13
60-04F 3.40 467 602 1.29 563 635 1.13
60-05B 8.67 436 574 1.32 551 670 1.22
60-06B 17.41 436 580 1.33 551 686 1.25
60-06F 11.44 467 547 1.17 563 702 1.25
60-07B 7.23 436 771 1.77 551 701 1.27
60-07F 16.50 467 527 1.13 563 734 1.30
380

381 Table 7
382 Key corner coupon test results
Specimen Strain rate (s-1) fy (MPa) fdy (MPa) DIFy fu (MPa) fdu (MPa) DIFu
120-01C 9.415E-06 537 N/A 1.00 592 N/A 1.00
120-01G 1.226E-05 528 N/A 1.00 579 N/A 1.00
120-02C 0.1267 537 577 1.07 592 647 1.09
120-02G 0.1141 528 578 1.09 579 644 1.11
120-03C 1.015 537 606 1.13 592 684 1.15
120-03G 1.185 528 591 1.12 579 675 1.16
120-04C 3.22 537 658 1.23 592 692 1.17
120-04G 4.16 528 596 1.13 579 682 1.18
120-05C 8.38 537 628 1.17 592 738 1.25
120-05G 9.37 528 657 1.24 579 736 1.27
120-06C 12.58 537 614 1.14 592 746 1.26
120-06G 16.35 528 623 1.18 579 720 1.24
120-07C 13.52 537 645 1.20 592 732 1.24
120-07G 17.89 528 598 1.13 579 719 1.24
80-01A 1.280E-05 540 N/A 1.00 594 N/A 1.00
80-01E 1.074E-05 558 N/A 1.00 616 N/A 1.00
80-02A 0.1093 540 588 1.09 594 657 1.10
80-02E 0.0706 558 600 1.08 616 678 1.10
80-03A 0.806 540 631 1.17 594 681 1.15
80-03E 1.029 558 585 1.05 616 695 1.13
80-04A 3.28 416 669 1.24 522 716 1.21
80-04E 3.16 453 604 1.08 549 703 1.14
80-06A 10.50 416 666 1.23 522 750 1.26
80-06E 14.35 453 773 1.39 549 781 1.27
80-07A 15.06 416 570 1.06 522 782 1.32
80-07E 10.44 453 726 1.30 549 795 1.29
60-01A 1.096E-05 555 N/A 1.00 623 N/A 1.00
60-01C 1.349E-05 539 N/A 1.00 603 N/A 1.00
60-02A 0.1054 555 617 1.11 623 693 1.11
60-02C 0.0919 539 583 1.08 603 657 1.09
60-03A 1.096 555 598 1.08 623 696 1.12
60-03C 1.042 539 586 1.09 603 684 1.13
60-04A 3.36 555 634 1.14 623 711 1.14
60-04C 3.91 539 601 1.11 603 682 1.13
60-06A 11.81 555 762 1.37 623 753 1.21
60-06C 10.39 436 696 1.29 551 756 1.25
60-07A 12.12 555 798 1.44 623 797 1.28
60-07C 15.55 436 706 1.31 551 763 1.26
383

25
384 5.2.1. Yield Dynamic Increase Factor

385 The majority of existing material research for blast focuses on the yield dynamic increase factor

386 (DIFy) as the dynamic yield stress is the primary material property which has the prime influence over

387 the displacement response of an element.

388 Figs. 14 to 16 illustrate the DIFy relationship with strain rate for the three different RHS sizes. Each

389 figure includes a Cowper-Symonds curve fit for the flat and corner coupons separately. The flats and

390 corners are treated differently due to their residual stress profiles, as indicated in Sun and Packer [4].

391 Flats exhibit stronger dynamic increases than corners due to a reduced residual stress profile compared

392 to the corners. All curve fits were completed using the Matlab Curve Fitting Tool [31] and a second

393 order power function. The Trust-Region algorithm was used to fit the Cowper-Symonds curves and the

394 R2 values recorded.

395

1.6
Yield Dynamic Increase Factor, DIFy

RHS120x120 flat coupons

1.5 RHS120x120 corner coupons

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1
0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.50.7 1 2 3 4 5 67 10 20 30 50 70100 200300 500 1000
Strain Rate (s -1)
Fig. 14. DIFy vs. strain rate with Cowper-Symonds curve fit for RHS120x120 coupons
396

26
 1.6
Yield Dynamic Increase Factor, DIFy RHS80x80 flat coupons
1.5 RHS80x80 corner coupons

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1
0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.50.7 1 2 3 4 5 67 10 20 30 50 70100 200300 500 1000
Strain Rate (s -1)
Fig. 15. DIFy vs. strain rate with Cowper-Symonds curve fit for RHS80x80 coupons
397

1.6
Yield Dynamic Increase Factor, DIFy

RHS60x60 flat coupons

1.5 RHS60x60 corner coupons

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1
0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.50.7 1 2 3 4 5 67 10 20 30 50 70100 200300 500 1000
Strain Rate (s -1)
Fig. 16. DIFy vs. strain rate with Cowper-Symonds curve fit for RHS60x60 coupons
398

399 Due to the higher residual stresses, and a higher initial yield stress, a lower DIFy is expected in the

400 corners, which was the general trend observed. Since the goal of the research is a generalized set of

401 parameters for RHS, all of the coupon results were then combined and plotted together to determine a

402 combined set of Cowper-Symonds parameters (Fig. 17).

403

27
 1.6
Yield Dynamic Increase Factor, DIFy Flat coupons
1.5 Corner coupons

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1
0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.50.7 1 2 3 4 5 67 10 20 30 50 70100 200300 500 1000
Strain Rate (s -1)
Fig. 17. DIFy vs. strain rate with Cowper-Symonds curve fit for all tensile coupons
404

405 The Cowper-Symonds parameters for the eight curves are summarized in Table 8 along with their R2

406 fit values. The results indicate the variability that can be seen when determining these parameters. Not

407 only is the difference pronounced between the flat and corner coupons, but also between the various

408 RHS sizes. The large scatter can be attributed to material variability and also to the difficulty with

409 conducting and analysing high speed tests. “Noise” in the recorded data can have a large influence at the

410 higher strain rates.

411 The Johnson-Cook strain rate function was also fitted to the data and the strain rate parameter, c is

412 listed in Table 8. A user-defined reference strain rate ( ) of 1.0x10-5 s-1, the strain rate of the static tests,

413 was used for the Johnson-Cook fits. Like the Cowper-Symonds fits, the Trust-Region algorithm was

414 used in the Matlab Curve Fitting Tool and the R2 values were recorded. With the exception of the

415 RHS120x120 coupons, the Johnson-Cook model is a worse fit than the Cowper-Symonds model to the

416 recorded data. A typical example of the Johnson-Cook curve fit is shown in Fig. 18.

28
 1.6
Yield Dynamic Increase Factor, DIFy Flat coupons
1.5 Corner coupons

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1
0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.50.7 1 2 3 4 5 67 10 20 30 50 70 100 200300 500 1000
Strain Rate (s -1)
Fig. 18. DIFy vs. strain rate with Johnson-Cook curve fit for all tensile coupons
417

418 5.2.2. Comparison with other RHS data

419 In order to better cover the blast strain rate spectrum and to further generalize the material model

420 for RHS, the results of the tensile coupon tests described herein are compared to the results of Sun and

421 Packer’s [4] tensile SHPB tests. This then creates a dynamic cold-formed RHS data set that spans

422 intermediate and high strain rates from 0.1 to 1000 s-1. Fig. 19 incorporates the work of Sun and Packer,

423 along with a set of Cowper-Symonds curves for the combined data set. Fig. 20 illustrates the same data

424 with a set of Johnson-Cook curves for the combined data.

425

426

29
 1.6
Yield Dynamic Increase Factor, DIFy Flat coupons
1.5 Corner coupons
Flat SHPB specimens, Sun and Packer [4]
Corner SHPB specimens, Sun and Packer [4]
1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1
0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.50.7 1 2 3 4 5 67 10 20 30 50 70100 200300 500 1000
Strain Rate (s -1)
Fig. 19. DIFy vs. strain rate with Cowper-Symonds curve fit for all cold-formed RHS specimens, including Sun
and Packer [4] data
427

1.6
Yield Dynamic Increase Factor, DIFy

Flat coupons
1.5 Corner coupons
Flat SHPB specimens, Sun and Packer [4]
Corner SHPB specimens, Sun and Packer [4]
1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1
0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.50.7 1 2 3 4 5 67 10 20 30 50 70 100 200300 500 1000
Strain Rate (s -1)
Fig. 20. DIFy vs. strain rate with Johnson-Cook curve fit for all cold-formed RHS specimens, including Sun and
Packer [4] data
428

429 Table 8 also includes the Cowper-Symonds and Johnson-Cook parameters for the combined data set.

430 For almost all the tensile Cowper-Symonds curve fits there is an increase in both C and q from the

431 corners to the flats (the exception being C for RHS120x120). The addition of the Sun and Packer [4]

432 data flattened out the Cowper-Symonds curve fit for the corner coupons significantly. This causes both

433 C and q to increase from the flats to the corners for the combined data set. The combined flat specimen

434 curve fit (“all flat specimens, including Sun and Packer”) is very similar to the curve fit for the “all flat

30
435 coupons” alone which indicates a reasonable agreement between the two datasets. For the Johnson-Cook

436 curve fits there is only a very small change in the slope for the corners, whereas there is a noticeable

437 increase in the slope for the flats. As evidenced by the R2 values, the Johnson-Cook material model is a

438 worse fit for the combined data set.

439

440 Table 8
441 Material model parameters
Cowper-Symonds Johnson-Cook
Specimens C (s-1) q R2
c R2
RHS120x120 flat coupons 208201 7.199 0.625 0.01763 0.651
RHS80x80 flat coupons 11046 5.711 0.594 0.01977 0.568
RHS60x60 flat coupons 5113 5.160 0.339 0.01994 0.311
RHS120x120 corner coupons 1006574 6.614 0.730 0.01222 0.742
RHS80x80 corner coupons 6614 4.296 0.501 0.01414 0.423
RHS60x60 corner coupons 94 1.877 0.852 0.01726 0.507
All flat coupons 19609 5.938 0.447 0.01904 0.434
All corner coupons 4168 4.018 0.575 0.01435 0.476
All flat specimens, including Sun and Packer [4] 26583 5.995 0.724 0.02405 0.579
All corner specimens, including Sun and Packer [4] 24405134 8.554 0.364 0.01457 0.354
442

443 The high level of variance in the material model parameters determined for cold-formed RHS tests

444 underscores the need for this test program. The parameters in Table 8 differ significantly from those

445 previously determined for other steels in Tables 2 and 3. This difference confirms the importance of

446 testing across the whole spectrum of strain rates and not relying on only the extreme 100-1000 s-1 range

447 to calibrate models. The material model parameters from the combined data set, covering a strain rate

448 range of 0.1-1000 s-1, are best suited for future use in numerical modelling of RHS subject to elevated

449 strain rate loading.

450 5.2.3. Comparison to previous investigations

451 Fig. 21 plots the combined RHS Cowper-Symonds curves against previously plotted curves from

452 Fig. 2.

453

31
 All RHS, flat specimens Yu and Jones [11]
All RHS, corner specimens Marias et al. [2]
Cowper and Symonds [19] Cadoni and Forni, B500B [5]
Abramowicz and Jones [25] Forni et al. [6]
1.6
Yield Dynamic Increase Factor, DIFy

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1
0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.50.7 1 2 3 4 5 67 10 20 30 50 70100 200300 500 1000
Strain Rate (s -1)
Fig. 21. DIFy vs. strain rate for various Cowper-Symonds model parameters, with combined RHS results
454

455 The RHS curves are quite different to the majority of the curves, with the exception of those

456 determined by Yu and Jones [11], who tested mild steel with a yield stress of approximately 250 MPa.

457 Previous investigations [32] have identified the influence that these parameters can have on FE

458 modelling results for RHS specimens subject to blast loading using LS-DYNA [18]. The Cowper-

459 Symonds parameters determined herein are best suited for use in implicit FE modelling of RHS under

460 blast loading in the future. The same can be said for the Johnson-Cook parameters, as illustrated in Fig.

461 22.

32
 All RHS, flat specimens Borvik et al. [27]
All RHS, corner specimens Seidt [28]
Johnson and Cook, 1006 steel [20] Forni et al. [6]
1.6
Yield Dynamic Increase Factor, DIFy

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1
0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.50.7 1 2 3 4 5 67 10 20 30 50 70100 200300 500 1000
Strain Rate (s -1)
Fig. 22. DIFy vs. strain rate for various Johnson-Cook model parameters, with combined RHS results
462

463 5.2.4. Ultimate Dynamic Increase Factor

464 Generally, the use of the Cowper-Symonds curve has been limited to DIFy. However, for

465 comparative purposes, Fig. 23 illustrates the DIFu dependence on strain rate as well as the Cowper-

466 Symonds curves for the flat and corner tensile coupons.

467

1.6
Ultimate Dynamic Increase Factor, DIFu

Flat Coupons
1.5 Corner Coupons

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1
0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.50.7 1 2 3 4 5 67 10 20 30 50 70100 200300 500 1000
Strain Rate (s -1)
Fig. 23. DIFu vs. strain-rate with Cowper-Symonds curve fit for all tensile coupons
468
33
469 There is noticeably less scatter in the DIFu data when compared to the DIFy data (Fig. 17). This can

470 likely be attributed to the differing methodologies used for determining the dynamic yield and ultimate

471 stresses. Yield stresses often relied on assumptions for the elastic modulus and the dynamic yield stress

472 calculated using the 0.2% offset method, which is more susceptible to data “noise”. The dynamic

473 ultimate stress calculation is more straightforward and only relied on filtering of the load cell data at

474 higher strain rates. This leads to the improved accuracy. Table 9 lists the Cowper-Symonds parameters

475 for the ultimate stress curve fits, along with the R2 values. The latter are high, confirming the low scatter

476 in the DIFu results. Table 9 also includes the Johnson-Cook strain rate parameter and R2 values.

477

478 Table 9
479 Material model parameters for DIFu
Cowper-Symonds Johnson-Cook
Specimens C (s-1) q R2 c R2
All flat coupons 7793 4.861 0.889 0.01701 0.805
All corner coupons 4593 4.331 0.926 0.01599 0.798
480

481 The other noticeable difference is that the flat and corner curves are much closer together than for

482 the yield stress, as illustrated in Fig. 24. This is expected, because the residual stresses caused by cold-

483 forming do not significantly alter the ultimate stress values. Since the static reference point for the flat

484 and corner dynamic ultimate stress is similar, the DIFu results are much closer.

485

34
 1.6
DIFy, flat coupons
DIFy, corner coupons
Dynamic Increase Factor, DIF
1.5
DIFu, flat coupons
DIFu, corner coupons
1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1
0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.50.7 1 2 3 4 5 67 10 20 30 50 70100 200300 500 1000
Strain Rate (s -1)
Fig. 24. Comparison of DIFy and DIFu Cowper-Symonds curve fits for all tensile coupons
486

487 6. Conclusions
488 The elevated strain rate behaviour of cold-formed steel rectangular hollow sections (RHS) was

489 investigated by initially performing large-scale field air-blast experiments on RHS members.

490 Intermediate-strain-rate properties of the RHS material were then determined in the laboratory by using

491 a high-speed actuator to test tensile coupons taken from the flat and corner regions of different-size

492 members. The dynamic material properties were investigated to better calibrate elevated strain-rate steel

493 material models for use in protective design and analysis. The intermediate strain rate results were

494 combined with previous RHS tests at high strain rates to produce a unified model for dynamic increase

495 factors (DIFy and DIFu) applicable to RHS steel, subject to a wide range of impulsive strain rates. The

496 behavioural model differs from others previously produced for general structural steel and is best suited

497 for use with cold-formed RHS specimens in the future.

498

499 Acknowledgements

500 The authors are appreciative of the financial aid and in-kind support of the Explora Foundation to the

501 University of Toronto “Centre for Resilience of Critical Infrastructure”. Financial support has also been

35
502 received from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), the Steel

503 Structures Education Foundation (SSEF), the Thornton Tomasetti Foundation, the Lyon Sachs Graduate

504 Research Fund, the Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Grant (Project ID: DP130100181),

505 and the Tsinghua Initiative Scientific Research Program (No.20131089347). Technical advice and

506 assistance from Prof. M.V. Seica, Prof. D.Z. Yankelevsky, and Mr. F. Wei are also highly appreciated.

507

508 References

509 [1] Ngo T, Mendis P, Gupta A, Ramsay J. Blast loading and blast effects on structures – an

510 overview. Electronic Journal of Structural Engineering, International Special Issue: Loading on

511 Structures. 2007;76-91.

512 [2] Marais, ST, Tait, RB, Cloete, TJ, Nurick, GN. Material testing at high strain rate using the split-

513 Hopkinson pressure bar. Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures. 2004;1(1):319–39.

514 [3] Luecke WE, McColskey JD, McCowan CN, Banovic SW, Fields RJ, Foecke TJ, Stewart TA,

515 Gayle FW. Mechanical properties of structural steels – federal building and fire safety

516 investigation of the world trade center disaster. Gaithersburg(MD): National Institute of Standard

517 and Technology, 2005. Report No: NIST NCSTAR 1-3D.

518 [4] Sun M, Packer JA. High strain rate behaviour of cold-formed rectangular hollow sections.

519 Engineering Structures. 2014;62–63:181-92.

520 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.01.023

521 [5] Cadoni E, Forni D. Strain rate effects on reinforcing steels in tension. EPJ Web of Conferences.

522 2015;94.

523 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/20159401004

524 [6] Forni D, Chiaia B, Cadoni E. Strain rate behaviour in tension of S355 steel: Base for progressive

525 collapse analysis. Engineering Structures. 2016;119:164-73.

36
526 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.04.013.

527 [7] Nassr A, Razaqpur A, Tait M, Campidelli M, Foo S. Dynamic response of steel columns

528 subjected to blast loading. Journal of Structural Engineering. 2014;140(7).

529 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000920

530 [8] Manjonie MJ. Influence of rate of strain and temperature on yield stresses of mild steel. Journal

531 of Applied Mechanics. 1944;11:211-8.

532 [9] Rao NRN, Lohrmann M, Tall L. Effect of strain rate on the yield stress of structural steel. ASTM

533 Journal of Materials. 1966;1(1).

534 [10] Campbell JD, Cooper, RH. Yield and flow of low-carbon steel at medium strain rates. Physical

535 Basis of Yield and Fracture Conference Proceedings. 1966 Sep. Oxford, United Kingdom.

536 [11] Yu J, Jones N. Further experimental investigations on the failure of clamped beams under impact

537 loads. International Journal of Solids and Structures. 1991;27(9):1113–37.

538 [12] Kassar M, Yu W. Effect of strain rate on material properties of sheet steels. Journal of Structural

539 Engineering. 1992;118(11):3136–50.

540 [13] Filiatrault A, Holleran M. Stress–strain behaviour of reinforcing steel and concrete under seismic

541 strain rates and low temperatures. Materials and Structures. 2001;34(4):235–9.

542 [14] Mirmomeni M, Heidarpour A, Zhao X-L, Hutchinson CR, Packer JA, Wu C. Mechanical

543 properties of partially damaged structural steel induced by high strain rate loading at elevated

544 temperatures – An experimental investigation. International Journal of Impact Engineering.

545 2015;76:178-88.

546 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2014.10.001

547 [15] Mainstone RJ. Properties of materials at high rates of straining or loading. Materials and

548 Structures. 1975;8(2):102-16.

549 DOI:10.1007/BF02476328

37
550 [16] DOD. Structures to resist the effects of accidental explosions, UFC 3-340-02. Washington, USA:

551 Department of Defense; 2008.

552 [17] Canadian Standards Association. Design and assessment of buildings subjected to blast loads,

553 S850-12. Mississauga, Canada: CSA Group; 2012.

554 [18] Livermore Software Technology Corporation (LSTC). LS-DYNA theory manual. Livermore,

555 USA: LSTC; 2014.

556 [19] Cowper GR, Symonds PS. Strain-hardening and strain-rate effects in the impact loading of

557 cantilever beams. Report to Brown University, Providence, USA, 1957.

558 [20] Johnson GR, Cook WH. A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to large strains, high

559 strain rates and high temperatures. Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Ballistics.

560 1983 Apr; Hague, Netherlands. p. 541-7.

561 [21] Zerilli FJ, Armstrong RW. Dislocation‐mechanics‐based constitutive relations for material

562 dynamics calculations. Journal of Applied Physics. 1987;61(5):1816-25.

563 [22] Ngo T Mohotti D, Remennikov A, Uy B. Numerical simulations of response of tubular steel

564 beams to close-range explosions. Journal of Constructional Steel Research. 2015;105:151-63.

565 [23] Zhang F, Wu C, Zhao X, Li Z, Heidarpour A, Wang H. Numerical modeling of concrete-filled

566 double-skin steel square tubular columns under blast loading. Journal of Performance of

567 Constructed Facilities. 2015;29(5).

568 [24] Krishnappa N, Bruneau M, Warn G. Weak-axis behavior of wide flange columns subjected to

569 blast. Journal of Structural Engineering. 2013;140(5).

570 [25] Abramowicz W, Jones N. Dynamic progressive buckling of circular and square tubes.

571 International Journal of Impact Engineering. 1986;4(4):243–70.

572 [26] Jama HH, Bambach MR, Nurick GN, Grzebieta RH, Zhao X-L. Numerical modelling of square

573 tubular steel beams subjected to transverse blast loads. Thin-Walled Structures.

574 2009;47(12):1523-34.
38
575 [27] Børvik T, Langseth M, Hopperstad OS, Malo KA. Ballistic penetration of steel plates.

576 International Journal of Impact Engineering. 1999;22(9-10):855-886.

577 [28] Seidt JD. EOD material characterization, supplemental reports: constitutive and fracture models

578 for ASTM A36 hot rolled steel. Battelle Technical report prepared for the Naval Explosive

579 Ordnance Disposal Technology Division, Columbus, Ohio; November 2005.

580 [29] European Committee for Standardization (CEN), EN 10219-1: Cold formed welded structural

581 hollow sections of non-alloy and fine grain steels - Part 1: Technical delivery conditions,

582 Brussels, Belgium: CEN; 2006.

583 [30] ASTM International. ASTM A370-15: Standard test methods and definitions for mechanical

584 testing of steel products. West Conshohocken, USA: ASTM International; 2015.

585 [31] Mathworks. Curve Fitting Toolbox User’s Guide. Natick, USA: Mathworks; 2016.

586 [32] Ritchie C, Packer JA, Seica M, Zhao X-L. Field blast testing and FE modelling of RHS

587 members”, Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium on Tubular Structures. 2015 May;

588 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. p. 211-8.

589

590 Nomenclature

a Johnson-Cook parameter (MPa)

b Johnson-Cook parameter (MPa)
C Cowper-Symonds parameter (s-1)
c Johnson-Cook parameter
c0 Zerilli-Armstrong parameter
c1 Zerilli-Armstrong parameter
c3 Zerilli-Armstrong parameter
c4 Zerilli-Armstrong parameter
c5 Zerilli-Armstrong parameter
E Young’s Modulus of Elasticity (MPa)
fy Yield stress (MPa)
fdy Dynamic yield stress (MPa)
fu Ultimate stress (MPa)
fdu Dynamic ultimate stress (MPa)
m Johnson-Cook parameter
n Johnson-Cook parameter

39
 n Zerilli-Armstrong parameter
q Cowper-Symonds parameter
Strain rate (s-1)
0 User-defined reference strain rate (s-1)

C-S Cowper-Symonds
DIF Dynamic increase factor
DIFy Dynamic increase factor for yield stress
DIFu Dynamic increase factor for ultimate stress
FE Finite element
HSS Hollow structural section
RHS Rectangular hollow section
SDOF Single-degree-of-freedom
SHPB Split-Hopkinson pressure bar
591

40