See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324922362

Influence of High Stress Triaxiality on Mechanical Strength of ASTM A36, ASTM

A572 and A992 steels

Article in Construction and Building Materials · May 2018

DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.018

CITATIONS READS
32 934

2 authors:

Hizb Ullah Sajid Ravi Kiran

FHWA Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center Arizona State University
25 PUBLICATIONS 403 CITATIONS 62 PUBLICATIONS 1,269 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ravi Kiran on 03 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1 Influence of High Stress Triaxiality on Mechanical Strength of ASTM A36, ASTM A572
2 and ASTM A992 Steels

3 Hizb Ullah Sajid1 and Ravi Kiran2

4 Abstract: This study aims at investigating the influence of high stress triaxiality on the yield
5 strength and ultimate tensile strength of commonly used structural steels (ASTM A36, ASTM
6 A572 and ASTM A992). To this end, axisymmetrically notched steel specimens are designed to
7 generate a range of stress triaxialities. Yield strength and ultimate tensile strength of notched steel
8 specimens are then determined using engineering stress-strain curves obtained from uniaxial
9 tensile testing of notched specimens. Yield strength and ultimate tensile strength of all three types
10 of structural steels are found to increase linearly with increase in stress triaxiality of test specimens.
11 Based on experimental and complimentary finite element results, predictive equations are
12 proposed to estimate increased yield strength and ultimate tensile strength as a function of stress
13 triaxiality in structural steels.

14 Keywords: ASTM A36 steel; ASTM A572 steel; ASTM A992 steel; Stress triaxiality; Yield
15 strength; Ultimate tensile strength.
16

17 1. Introduction
18 In service conditions, structural steels are routinely subjected to stress concentrations that arise
19 from geometric discontinuities like holes, sharp corners, welds, etc. that are commonly observed
20 in steel structures. Stress concentration is quantified by a dimensionless parameter referred to as
21 stress triaxiality (T). Stress triaxiality is defined as the ratio between hydrostatic stress and von-
22 Mises stress. Higher stress triaxiality aggravates the growth of microvoids in steel matrix [1],
23 which in turn accelerates ductile fracture initiation in steels [2]. High stress triaxiality thus leads
24 to reduction in ductility of steels [3]. Experimental and numerical studies on high strength low
25 alloy structural steels (ASTM A992) have confirmed the adverse effects of stress triaxiality on
26 ductility of structural steels [4, 5]. However, the quantitative relationships between stress triaxiality
27 and yield strength and ultimate tensile strength of structural steels that are important design
28 parameters in structural design [6] are not currently addressed. Past studies conducted on different
29 alloys and stainless steels have reported an increase in tensile strength with an increase in stress
30 concentration [7-9]. Un-anticipated increase in yield strength and ultimate tensile strength of
31 structural steels may lead to unintended consequences in structural systems. For instance, stronger

1
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil & Env. Engg., North Dakota State University, ND 58105, email:
hizbullah.sajid@ndsu.edu
2
Assistant Professor (Corresponding Author), Dept. of Civil & Env. Engg., North Dakota State University, ND 58105,
email: ravi.kiran@ndsu.edu

1
32 beams cause failure of columns leading to global collapse of the structure (strong beam-weak
33 column). Components like reduced beam sections, seismic fuse components should fail at pre-
34 designed loads to protect the overall integrity and to avoid progressive collapse of structure. It is
35 therefore, important to account for the increased yield strength and ultimate tensile strength due to
36 high triaxiality in the design stage of steel structures [10]. With this objective in mind, the current
37 study aims to establish a quantitative relationship between stress triaxiality, yield strength and
38 ultimate tensile strength of structural steels (at a material level) that are widely used in construction
39 industry. In this study, a mild steel (ASTM A36 [11]) along with two high strength low alloy
40 (HSLA) steels (ASTM A572 [12] and ASTM A992 [13]) are investigated. ASTM A36 and ASTM
41 A992 are predominantly used in construction of steel buildings in the United States whereas
42 ASTM A572 steels are typically used in the construction of bridges [14-16]. ASTM A992 is
43 currently the most common and preferred grade of structural steel used for wide flange shapes in
44 the United States [16, 17].

45 2. Experimental Study and Finite Element Modeling

46 Preliminary finite element analyses are conducted by choosing different geometries of notched
47 tension specimens to generate a range of stress triaxialities. Based on the results obtained from
48 preliminary study, six axisymmetrically notched tension specimens are selected. These test
49 specimens are classified as CN (circular-notched specimens), UN (U-notched specimens) and VN
50 (V-notched specimens). The reference un-notched test specimens are labelled as SPR (reference
51 un-notched test specimen). Detailed geometric illustrations of the un-notched and notched
52 specimens are provided in Figure 1. The chemical composition of all the three steels used in this
53 study as specified by the manufacturer are summarized in Table 1. In total, 42 test specimens are
54 tested as a part of this experimental study. These specimens are machined using computer
55 numerically controlled (CNC) lath machine with a tolerance of ±0.025 mm.

56 The load-displacement behavior of all the test specimens are obtained by conducting uniaxial
57 tension tests using servo-hydraulic MTS 793 system at a displacement rate of 0.02 mm/sec. An
58 Epsilon Model 3542 contact extensometer with 1-inch gage length is used to record the strains.
59 The total load and elongation in the gage length are obtained at a sampling rate of 99 Hz, for both
60 un-notched and notched test specimens. Engineering stress-strain curves of un-notched and
61 notched test specimens are provided in Figure 2. Near perfect repeatability of load-displacement
62 curves is obtained for all the un-notched and notched test specimens. For the sake of clarity, stress-
63 strain curve of only one representative specimen is provided for each un-notched and notched test
64 specimen. Mechanical properties of test specimens evaluated from experimental stress strain
65 curves are provided in Table 2. Non-linear finite element analysis is conducted to obtain stress
66 triaxiality profiles across critical cross-section at two different loading stages: a) initial stage of
67 loading (corresponding to 1.35±0.5% engineering strain), and b) ultimate load (strain
68 corresponding to maximum stress in engineering stress-strain curve), as shown in Figure 3.
𝑖
69 Maximum initial stress triaxiality (𝑇σ,max ) ranges from 0.33 to 1.15. Finite element analyses are
®
70 conducted using ABAQUS finite element modeling software. All test specimens are modeled

2
 71 using four noded bilinear axisymmetric CAX4 elements and geometric non-linearity is considered.
72 J2 plasticity model is used as the constitutive model. For all steels, the true stress strain curves
73 obtained from the corresponding SPR specimens are used as the strain hardening curves in J2
74 plasticity model and are provided in Figure 4. The applied boundary conditions and loading along
75 with some typical finite element meshes used in the vicinity of the notches are provided in Figure
76 5.

77 3. Results and Discussion

78 In this section, stress-strain curves, yield strength (y) and ultimate tensile strength (u) obtained
79 from uniaxial tensile tests are discussed. Using engineering stress-strain curves, yield strength of
80 each test specimen is determined based on 0.2% strain offset method [18]. The maximum
81 engineering stress is taken as the ultimate tensile strength of steel. As observed in Figure 2, stress-
82 strain curves of notched specimens are characterized by significant reduction in ductility and
83 increase in ultimate tensile strength as compared to un-notched specimens, for all three types of
84 steels. A well-defined yield plateau is observed in un-notched specimens which diminishes in case
85 of notched specimens with high stress triaxiality. It is observed that all notched specimens
86 exhibited substantial increase in both yield strength and ultimate tensile strength as compared to
87 un-notched steel specimens. Among notched steel specimens, highest yield strength and ultimate
88 tensile strength is exhibited by specimens with highest average initial and average ultimate
89 triaxialities (UN1 and VN1), respectively. In case of ASTM A36 steel, the yield strength of
90 notched specimens increased by as much as 70% as compared to un-notched steel specimens. Both
91 ASTM A572 and A992 steels exhibited almost similar increase (up to 57% and 60%, respectively)
92 as compared to un-notched specimens. The ultimate tensile strength of notched specimens made
93 of all three steels exhibited almost similar increase (ASTM A36-51%, ASTM A572-54%, ASTM
94 A992-53%) when compared to ultimate tensile strength of corresponding un-notched specimens.

95 Average yield strength (y) of (two) test specimens for a given geometry is plotted as a function
𝑖
96 of spatially averaged initial triaxiality (𝑇avg ), as shown in Figure 6. The spatially averaged initial
𝑖
97 triaxiality (𝑇avg ) is evaluated by averaging the triaxiality over the critical cross section of the
98 notched test specimen at a total strain of 1.35±0.5%. The average ultimate tensile strength (u) of
99 two test specimens for a given geometry is plotted against spatially averaged triaxiality evaluated
𝑢
100 at a strain corresponding to ultimate load (𝑇avg ), as shown in Figure 7. Triaxiality is dependent on
101 the shape of the notch and material properties. The notches in the test specimens may undergo
102 significant shape change before the ultimate tensile strength is achieved. This shape change in the
𝑢
103 notch is accounted by choosing 𝑇avg which is obtained by evaluating the spatial average of
104 triaxiality across the critical cross section at the strain corresponding to ultimate tensile strength.
105 From Figure 6, it is clear that the yield strength increases linearly with increase in stress triaxiality
106 for all the three steels. Similarly, the ultimate tensile strength is observed to increase linearly with
107 increase in stress triaxiality, for all three types of steels, as shown in Figure 7. Based on
108 experimental and finite element results, the following predictive equations are proposed to estimate

3
109 yield strength and ultimate tensile strength as a function of spatially averaged initial stress
110 triaxiality, and spatially averaged ultimate stress triaxiality, respectively
111 ASTM A36 Steel
𝑖
112 𝜎𝑦 = 498.59 𝑇avg + 218.28 (1)
𝑢
113 𝜎𝑢 = 482.50 𝑇avg + 351.26 (2)

114 ASTM A572 steel

𝑖
115 𝜎𝑦 = 407.33 𝑇avg + 266.41 (3)
𝑢
116 𝜎𝑢 = 489.10 𝑇avg + 334.41 (4)

117 ASTM A992 steel

𝑖
118 𝜎𝑦 = 403.75 𝑇avg + 227.78 (5)
𝑢
119 𝜎𝑢 = 473.96 𝑇avg + 323.57 (6)

120 The authors hypothesize that the strain localization in the vicinity of the notch leads to high strain
121 hardening which ultimately results in increased yield strength and ultimate tensile strength.
122 Increase in the yield strength with increase in triaxiality is also reported for AISI 1080 steel and
123 Al T6061 alloys [9, 19]. Currently, there is no clear consensus on the exact cause for the increase
124 in yield strength/ ultimate tensile strength of notched specimens and further microscale
125 experimentation is needed to investigate the root cause behind this phenomena.

126 4. Conclusions
127 Following are important conclusions drawn from this study:

128 1. Yield strength of structural steels increased linearly with increase in stress triaxiality. About
129 70% increase in yield strength is observed in ASTM A36 steel when the triaxiality is changed
𝑖 𝑖
130 from 𝑇avg = 0.32 to 𝑇avg = 0.84. For a similar change in triaxiality, ASTM A572 and ASTM
131 A992 recorded 57% and 60% increase in yield strength, respectively.
132 2. Ultimate tensile strength of structural steels also increased linearly with increase in stress
133 triaxiality. An increase up to 54% in ultimate tensile strength is observed for all the three
𝑢
134 structural steels considered in this study when the 𝑇avg is increased from 0.34 to 0.88.

135 Acknowledgement
136 The financial support from NDSU Research and Creative Activity and NDSU Department of Civil
137 and Environmental Engineering is gratefully acknowledged by the authors.

138

139

4
140 References:
141 [1] R. Kiran, K. Khandelwal, A micromechanical model for ductile fracture prediction in ASTM
142 A992 steels, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 102 (2013) 101-117.

143 [2] T.L. Anderson, Fracture Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications, Third Edition, Taylor &
144 Francis, 2005.

145 [3] A.M. Agogino, Notch effects, stress state, and ductility, Journal of Engineering Materials and
146 Technology, 100 (1978) 348-355.

147 [4] R. Kiran, K. Khandelwal, Experimental studies and models for ductile fracture in ASTM
148 A992 steels at high triaxiality, Journal of Structural Engineering, 140 (2013) 04013044.

149 [5] R. Kiran, K. Khandelwal, A triaxiality and Lode parameter dependent ductile fracture
150 criterion, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 128 (2014) 121-138.

151 [6] American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), AISC 360-05-specification for structural
152 steel buildings, ANSI/AISC, Chicago, (2005).

153 [7] W.D. Jenkins, W.A. Willard, Effect of temperature and notch geometry on the tensile
154 behavior of a titanium alloy, NBS J ENG INSTRUM, 73 (1966) 5-11.

155 [8] J. Ganesh Kumar, M. Nandagopal, P. Parameswaran, K. Laha, M. Mathew, Effect of notch
156 root radius on tensile behaviour of 316L (N) stainless steel, Materials at High Temperatures, 31
157 (2014) 239-248.

158 [9] X. Lei, C. Li, X. Shi, X. Xu, Y. Wei, Notch strengthening or weakening governed by
159 transition of shear failure to normal mode fracture, Scientific reports, 5 (2015) 10537.

160 [10] American Institute of Steel Construction, Manual of steel construction, 13th Edition, AISC,
161 Chicago, 2005.

162 [11] ASTM International, A36/A36M-14 Standard Specification for Carbon Structural Steel,
163 in, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2014.

164 [12] ASTM International, Standard Specification for High-Strength Low-Alloy Columbium-
165 Vanadium Structural Steel, in, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2015.

166 [13] ASTM International, Standard Specification for Structural Steel Shapes, in, ASTM
167 International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2015.

168 [14] R. Bjorhovde, Development and use of high performance steel, Journal of Constructional
169 Steel Research, 60 (2004) 393-400.

170 [15] E.M. Aziz, V.K. Kodur, Effect of temperature and cooling regime on mechanical properties
171 of high‐strength low‐alloy steel, Fire and Materials, 40 (2016) 926-939.

5
172 [16] K. Gustafson, P. SE, Evaluation of existing structures, Modern Steel Construction, 47
173 (2007) 41.

174 [17] G. Hu, M.A. Morovat, J. Lee, E. Schell, Elevated Temperature Properties of ASTM A992
175 Steel, in: Structures Congress 2009, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2009, pp. 1067-1076.

176 [18] ASTM International, ASTM A6/A6M-17a Standard Specification for General
177 Requirements for Rolled Structural Steel Bars, Plates, Shapes, and Sheet Piling, in, ASTM
178 International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017.

179 [19] H.J. L., V.R. P., H.R. W., Deformation and Fracture Mechanics of Engineering Materials,
180 5th Edition, John Wiley and Sons, 2012.
181

182

183

184 Tables
185 Table 1. Chemical composition of ASTM A36, ASTM A572, and ASTM A992 structural steels
Chemical ASTM A572
ASTM A36 ASTM A992
composition (%) Gr. 50
Carbon (C) 0.1500 0.0500 0.1000
Manganese (Mn) 0.6900 1.3400 0.9300
Phosphorous (P) 0.0180 0.0110 0.0160
Sulphur (S) 0.0040 0.0040 0.0440
Silicon (Si) 0.1800 0.1500 0.1900
Copper (Cu) 0.2400 0.2800 0.2500
Chromium (Cr) 0.1500 0.1900 0.1400
Nickle (Ni) 0.0880 0.1300 0.0900
Molybdenum (Mo) 0.0195 0.0400 0.0200
Vanadium (V) 0.0048 0.0830 0.0010
Titanium (Ti) 0.0012 0.0010 –
Niobium (Nb) 0.0024 0.0030 0.0210
Iron (Fe) 98.4521 97.7180 98.1980
186
187
188 Table 2. Experimental material properties of structural steels (obtained from un-notched test
189 specimens) and comparison with ASTM standards
ASTM
Steel type Material property Experimental result
specification
ASTM A36 Min. yield strength (MPa) 250 386.48
Tensile strength (MPa) 400-550 517.09
Min. elongation over 2" length (%) 23 40.65 (over 1" length)
Min. yield strength (MPa) 345 389.15

6
 ASTM A572 Min. tensile strength (MPa) 450 502.40
Gr. 50 Min. elongation over 2" length (%) 21 44.81 (over 1" length)
ASTM A992 Yield strength (MPa) 345-450 354.46
Min. tensile strength (MPa) 450 484.47
Min. elongation over 2" length (%) 21 45.07 (over 1" length)
Max. yield to tensile strength ratio 0.85 0.74
190

191

192

Notch location D19

R 4.5
D10
10 19 R1.5
R2.5
25 R3.5
16
12 25 14
50 25
Cross-section
SPR

19 19 10 R1.0 10 R2.0 10 R3.0 19 19

R2.5 R2.5
CN1
14 CN3
CN2
14 14
50 50 50 50 4 50 50 6.92 50 50 50
1 45° 60°
19 10 19 R1.0 10 10 19 19 19
2 2

UN1 VN1 VN2

50 50
SPR = Reference 50
un-notched 50 50
test specimen, CN 50 50 VN = V-notch50
50 = U-notch,
= C-notch, UN
193
194 Figure 1. Geometric details of axisymmetric test specimens (all dimensions are in mm.).

7
 VN1 (a) ASTM A36 VN1 (b) ASTM A572
VN2
UN1 UN1
VN2

CN2 CN3
SPR
CN1 SPR
CN2 CN1

CN3

VN1
VN2 (c) ASTM A992
UN1
CN1
SPR
CN2

CN3

195
196 Figure 2. Engineering stress-strain curves of un-notched and notched test specimens.
197

8
 VN1
UN1 VN1
UN1
CN3

CN2 VN2
VN2
CN2
CN1
CN3 CN1 SPR
SPR

(a) (b)
198 SPR = Reference un-notched test specimen, CN = C-notch, UN = U-notch, VN = V-notch

199 Figure 3. (a) Initial stress triaxiality profiles, (b) stress triaxiality profiles at ultimate load.

200
201 Figure 4. Strain hardening curves of un-notched test specimens used in finite element analysis.

9
 Boundary Conditions:
@ x = 0; uz = 0
@ z = 0; ux = 0

(a)
(b) (c)

x
(d)
202
203 Figure 5. (a) Applied boundary and loading conditions, (b) typical C-notch mesh, (c) typical U-
204 notch mesh, and (d) typical V-notch mesh.
205

206

207

208

209

10
210
211 Figure 6. Average initial stress triaxiality versus yield strength.
212

11
213
214 Figure 7. Average ultimate stress triaxiality versus ultimate tensile strength.
215

216

12

View publication stats