Thin-Walled Structures 165 (2021) 107956

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thin-Walled Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

Full length article

Experimental investigation on fatigue behavior of butt-welded high-strength

steel plates
Lewei Tong a,b , Lichao Niu a , Zhenzhen Ren a , Xiao-Ling Zhao c ,∗
a
State Key Laboratory for Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200092, China
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Tongji University Zhejiang College, 314051, China
c Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, UNSW Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This paper presents an experimental investigation into mechanical properties and fatigue performance of butt-
High strength steel welded high strength steel plates. Four typical high-strength steels (HSSs) were selected, with steel grades
Butt-welded connections of 460, 550, 690, and 960 MPa. Mechanical properties were measured through monotonic tensile tests, cold
Mechanical properties
bending tests, Charpy V-notch impact tests and hardness tests. A total of 114 fatigue tests were conducted
S–N curves
on butt-welded high-strength steel plates. Comparisons of mechanical properties and fatigue performance are
Fatigue
made among HSSs tested and conventional strength steels (CSSs) with a yield strength around 235 to 355
MPa. The natural slope of S–N curves for HSS butt-welded connections varied from 3 to 5. Two fatigue design
approaches are recommended with one based on natural slope and one based on a fixed slope of 3 as for CSSs.

1. Introduction
Modern complex steel structures, the components of which are
mainly connected by welding, are widely used in civil engineering,
and the maritime, aerospace, and automotive industries, among others.
During welding, the connections are prone to defects such as porosity,
oxide slag, and cracks, and are subject to inherent residual stresses
in the weld metal and heat-affected zone (HAZ). The change in the
weld toe’s geometric profile can also increase the stress concentration
effect (SCF). Consequently, welded connections in steel structures un-
der fluctuating loads are vulnerable to fatigue fractures (Hobbacher
2008 [1]).
In the 1970s, extensive research (Fisher 1977 [2]) had been con-
ducted on the fatigue performance of welded steel structures fabricated
using conventional strength steels (CSSs, with yield strength f y of
approximately 235 to 355 MPa). The results show that owing to the
influence of the welding residual stress, the fatigue strength of CSS
welded connections is more closely related to the stress range in fatigue
loadings rather than other factors, and the static strengths of CSSs have
little influence on their fatigue strengths. The studies on the fatigue
properties of CSS connections also reveal that the slope m of the S–
N regression curves is nearly 3.0. Therefore, all current fatigue codes,
such as in Eurocode 3 [3], AASHTO’s (American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials) Bridge Design Specifications [4],
and the Chinese Code for welded steel structures [5], select 𝑚 = 3.0
as the standard slope to derive separate S–N curves for each welding
detail. Various details reflect the different residual stress conditions
based on the stress range 𝛥𝜎 and fatigue life N assessment regardless
of the effect of static strength of CSS. It should be mentioned that the
above conclusions were based on research on CSSs.
Recently, high-strength steels (HSSs) have been increasingly used in
engineering construction to reduce structural weight and are expected
to exhibit better mechanical performance in terms of strength, ductility,
toughness, and fatigue (e.g. Miki 2002 [6], Bjorhovde 2004 [7], Zhao
et al. 2014 [8], Lillemae and Remes 2016 [9], Ban and Shi 2018 [10],
Li et al. 2018 [11], Hai et al. 2018 [12]). This promotes the use of
thin-walled structures. Although there is no uniform international def-
inition for HSSs, steels with yield strength 𝑓y ≥ 460 MPa are generally
regarded as HSSs. Steels with 𝑓y ≥ 690 MPa are regarded as ultra or
advanced HSSs. For conciseness, they are collectively referred to as
HSS herein. The chemical compositions and smelting processes of HSSs
are quite different from those of conventional strength steels (CSSs).
This produces differences in mechanical properties, including fatigue
performance that deserves further investigation for future engineering
applications. Presently, the research on welded HSSs mostly focuses on
their static strength (e.g. Liu et al. 2018 [13], Chiew et al. 2019 [14])
with relatively limited research on fatigue strength (Amraei et al.
2017 [15], Harati et al. 2017 [16], Heroin et al. 2019 [17], Sebestova
et al. 2020 [18]). The continued capability of current design codes for
predicting the fatigue resistance of HSS connections requires further
investigation. It is necessary to study further on the comparison of
fatigue performance for welded HSS connections with various yield
strength (e.g. f y ranging from 460 MPa to 960 MPa).

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: xiaolin.zhao@unsw.edu.au (X.-L. Zhao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2021.107956
Received 7 November 2020; Received in revised form 21 March 2021; Accepted 17 May 2021
Available online 26 May 2021
0263-8231/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Tong, L. Niu, Z. Ren et al.
It is found that the welding quality and surface condition (e.g. ge-
ometrical imperfections, roughness, cut method) has a significant in-
fluence on the improvement of HSS fatigue performance (Remes et al.
2013 [19], Ahiale 2014 [20], Lillemae-Avi et al. 2018 [21]). It is
reported that considerable yield-limit-dependent increase in the fatigue
strength was observed for high quality welds, while no benefit from
higher base metal strength for low quality HSS butt joints (Lillemae
and Remes 2016 [9]). Also the surface condition (such as edges from
machined, laser cut, plasma cut or oxygen cut) when fabricate the
connection may have a great influence on the fatigue resistance (Sperle
2008 [22], Stenberg 2016 [23]).
Based on a reasonable weld quality, it is well known that the fatigue
strength of welded connections is affected by the stress concentration
due to change in geometry and residual stress after welding (Hobbacher
2008 [1]). methods to improve fatigue life of welded connections
include: (i) Grinding of butt weld cap flush to the surface to improve
the weld profile (e.g. fatigue strength (FAT) increases from 90 to 112
in Eurocode 3 for butt welded plates); (ii) Remelting of the weld toe by
TIG, plasma or laser dressing to improve the weld profile; (iii) Peening
(hammer-, needle-, shot-, brush-peening or ultrasonic treatment) to re-
duces the residual stress (Haagensen and Maddox 2006 [24]); (iv) FRP
strengthening to reduce stress ranges (e.g. Nakamura et al. 2009 [25],
Tong et al. 2020 [26]). This paper presents a direct comparison of
fatigue strength of four types of steel grades ranging from 460 MPa to
960 MPa based on 114 fatigue tests. It adopts the method of grinding
butt weld cap flush to the surface to eliminate the influence of weld
profile to focus on the influence of yield strength.
Four typical HSSs, with grades of 460, 550, 690, and 960 MPa, were
selected to investigate their fatigue performance through high-cycle fa-
tigue tests in this study. Basic mechanical experiments including static
tensile tests, bend tests, hardness distribution tests, and Charpy impact
tests, were also conducted ahead of the fatigue test to compare their
respective properties. Key factors affecting the fatigue performance of
HSS butt-welded connections have been discussed, and corresponding
S–N curves are proposed for future HSS fatigue design.
2. Experimental setup of High-Strength Structural Steel (HSS) tests
2.1. HSS materials
The HSS materials used in this study were Q460C, Q550D, Q690D,
and Q960D, which have broad application prospects in engineering
construction. The influence of the steel thickness t (10 mm and 20 mm)
is also taken into consideration. Table 1 presents the chemical compo-
sitions of the materials studied.
The ‘‘Q’’ in the HSS steel grade name, e.g., ‘‘Q960D’’, signifies that
the nominal yield strength 𝑓𝑦,𝑛 of the HSS is 960 MPa according to
Chinese steel-manufacturing naming rules. ‘‘D’’ in the steel grade name
indicates that the minimum requirements of Charpy impact energy is
34 J at the testing temperature of −20 ◦ C, and similarly, ‘‘C’’ indicates
a Charpy impact energy of 47 J at 0 ◦ C. For simplicity, the steel grade
names in the following text are abbreviated as, for example, ‘‘Q960-10’’,
which represents the Q960D HSS with a thickness of 10 mm and its test
specimens. The other HSSs are similarly abbreviated.
2.2. HSS welding procedure qualification
The mechanical performance of HSS welded connections is closely
related to the weld’s quality. Therefore, reasonable welding parameters
are first determined by a welding procedure qualification (WPQ) to
ensure a stable welding quality ahead of fabrication of HSS butt-welded
specimens for later tests in accordance with the guidelines given in the
AWS D1.1 Structural Welding Code — Steel [27].
The HSS butt-welded connections were fabricated using two pieces
of steel plate with a double V-groove weld, as presented in Fig. 1. The
multi-pass manual gas metal arc welding (GMAW) method was adopted
2
Thin-Walled Structures 165 (2021) 107956
in the welding process with qualified strength-matching welding con-
sumables (wire and flux) and a proprietary gas mix of 80% CO2 and
20% Ar as the gas shield by a qualified professional steel structure man-
ufacturer. Q550 adopted the FCAW welding for the similar mechanical
performance of the grinding weld between FCAW and GMAW [28]. The
preheating temperature before welding was maintained near 100 ◦ C
and the welding current and voltage were varied from 215 to 320 A
and 26 to 31 V, respectively. Anti-deformation treatment was adopted
before welding process to reduce possible geometrical imperfections,
such as angular misalignment. Fig. 1 and Table 2 present the welding
parameters used in the process.
2.3. Mechanical property tests procedures of HSS butt-welded connections
The assessment of the mechanical properties of HSS butt connec-
tions includes (1) monotonic tensile tests, (2) cold bending tests, (3)
Charpy V-notch (CVN) impact tests, and (4) hardness tests. Visual
inspection and ultrasonic nondestructive testing (NDT) of butt connec-
tions were conducted ahead of the mechanical tests to guarantee the
weld quality. All the test specimens were subsequently machined from
the butt-welded plate using the wire cut technique to avoid additional
heat input, as shown in Fig. 1.
(1) Monotonic tensile tests
As prescribed by the requirements specified in ASTM E8 [29],
the tensile tests were conducted on an INSTRON universal testing
machine to evaluate the tensile properties of the weld connections.
Three identical specimens were prepared for each HSS in the tensile
tests. The corresponding test for HSS base metal was also performed
for comparison.
(2) Cold bending tests
During one continuous bend, cold bending tests for the ductility
of welded connections provide an effective means of evaluating the
quality of HSS weld metals by their ability to resist cracking or the
emergence of other surface irregularities, thereby further reflecting
their plastic deformation capacity and possible internal defects. For a
thinner 10 mm HSS plate, a side-bend test is substituted for the required
face- and root-bend tests that are more suitable for a thicker 20 mm HSS
plate, as prescribed in ASTM E8 and shown in Fig. 1.
(3) Charpy V-notch (CVN) impact tests
CVN test specimens were extracted from HSS butt connections with
the V-notch located in the weld metal as shown in Fig. 1. The impact
specimens for the HSS base metal were also fabricated for comparison
with the corresponding weld metal ones. These impact tests were con-
ducted in the following temperature sequence: −40, −20, 0 and 20 ◦ C.
Each impact test was repeated with 3 identical specimens that were
cooled in a temperature conditioning chamber using liquid nitrogen
and ethanol.
(4) Vickers hardness distribution tests
The hardness test using a pyramidal indenter determines the resis-
tance to penetration of HSS butt connections. This measures the plastic
deformation surrounding the indention region and presents the change
in hardness distribution, which reflects the effect of heat input during
the welding process and the evolution of the grain size and phase
constitution at the microstructural level. The Vickers hardness test was
performed on the weld metal (WM)-HAZ-base metal (BM) regions at
a certain distance from the surface of the HSS butt connections. The
specimens for the hardness test were prepared using a metallographic
polishing procedure before testing.
2.4. High-cycle fatigue test procedures
Based on the qualified WPQ welding parameters, HSS fatigue spec-
imens were sampled from butt-welded HSS plates by mechanical cut
processing as shown in Fig. 2. The weld bead height that extends
above the base metal surface is ground off to a smooth surface to
L. Tong, L. Niu, Z. Ren et al. Thin-Walled Structures 165 (2021) 107956

Table 1
Chemical composition of high strength structural steel (HSS) (wt%).
No. Categories C Cr Al Si Mn P S Ni Cu Nb V B
1 Q460-10 0.17 0.020 0.034 0.35 1.51 0.021 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.036 0.028 0.0016
2 Q460-20 0.14 0.06 0.033 0.28 1.53 0.011 0.0014 0.01 0.01 0.032 0.040 0.0004
3 Q550-20 0.08 0.038 0.036 0.23 1.85 0.010 0.002 0.01 0.01 0.053 0.003 0.0014
4 Q690-10 0.14 0.21 0.032 0.30 1.23 0.014 0.0006 0.01 0.02 0.013 0.004 0.0019
5 Q690-20 0.14 0.50 0.034 0.29 1.24 0.014 0.0022 0.02 0.01 0.013 0.005 0.0017
6 Q960-10 0.15 0.20 0.056 0.22 1.2 0.004 0.003 0.02 0.03 0.018 0.04 0.002

Table 2
Welding parameters employed in the manufacture of the HSS butt-welded connections.
No. HSS Welding methods Welding wire Current (A) Voltage (V) Weld speed (mm/min)
1 Q460 GMAW THQ-60D 𝛷1.2 240–280 28.5–30.6 241
2 Q550 FCAW CHT91K2 𝛷1.2 215–230 28.0–29.0 290
3 Q690 GMAW THQ-70-1 𝛷1.2 230–257 28.1–28.8 263
4 Q960 GMAW ER120S 𝛷1.0 270–320 26.5–30.0 203

Fig. 1. HSS butt-welded connections and specimens for mechanical tests.

eliminate the stress concentration effect in the weld toe. The geomet-
rical imperfections (such as misalignment and angular misalignment)
of the welds have been measured and satisfied the B90 quality level
which is suitable for bearing fatigue loadings as prescribed in the ISO
5817 [30], with relatively limited imperfections. The surface condi-
tion of specimens are evaluated N6 level (roughness Ra 0.8) by the
definition in the ISO 1302 [31], while through the grinding by the
weld bead remover and the cut by wire electrical discharge machining
(WEDM) from the butt plates. Boundary marks were also made before
the fatigue test to distinguish the fracture locations in the WM, HAZ
and BM. The width of WM is measured before grinding, and the range
of HAZ can be roughly confirmed by combination of the distribution
of hardness (shown in Section 3.4) and the calculation of distance
from the weld fusion boundary using Equation (3.15) in AWS Welding
Handbook [32].
The fatigue specimens of HSS butt-welded connections were loaded
with an MTS Landmark 809 hydraulic servo fatigue testing machine
that has a dynamic capacity of maximum axial load of 200 kN and
an actuator displacement limit within ±80 mm. The stress ratio R
between the minimum and maximum tensile stress 𝜎min /𝜎max in the
cyclic sinusoidal fatigue loading was 0.1, and the loading frequency was
set to 15 Hz with 2 million preset maximum load cycles. The maximum
nominal stress 𝜎max in the fatigue test is approximately 0.6 𝑓y to 0.7 𝑓y ,
which is within the elastic range of all HSS materials. All experiments
were conducted at room temperature.
3. Results and discussion of mechanical properties of HSS butt-
welded connections
3.1. Tensile tests
In the monotonic tensile test of HSS butt connections, the final
fracture positions of the Q460 specimens were closer to the BM region,
while Q550, Q690 and Q960D were broken in the WM region or HAZ.
The recorded tensile stress–strain curves of the HSS connections are
presented in Fig. 3. The tensile properties of HSS base materials (BM)
and WM are listed for comparison in Table 3.
As presented in Fig. 3 and Table 3, all the tensile strengths of the
butt connections exceeded the specified minimum of the corresponding
HSS base metal, which satisfies the requirements for tension testing
according to the specified code [33].
Each stage of the tensile process was analyzed as follows:
(1) Linear elastic stage and yield stage
As shown in Fig. 3, the curves of different HSSs coincide in the
elastic stage, which indicates that the elastic modulus E of HSS, gov-
erned by Hooke’s law, is similar to that of CSS, which is around
200,000 MPa. Most HSS base metals have a relatively obvious yield
plateau before hardening, while the yield plateau become gradually
insignificant in butt-welded connections with an increase in steel grade
(i.e. the nominal yield strength 𝑓𝑦 ).

3
L. Tong, L. Niu, Z. Ren et al. Thin-Walled Structures 165 (2021) 107956

Table 3
Mechanical properties of HSS base metal.
No. Categories Measured yield strength Measured tensile strength Yield ratio (BM) Elongation (BM) Measured tensile Minimum requirements of
(BM) 𝑓𝑦,𝑚 /MPa (BM) 𝑓𝑢 /MPa 𝑓𝑦,𝑚 ∕𝑓𝑢 𝛿/% strength 𝑓𝑢 (WM)/MPa tensile strength 𝑓𝑢 (for
BM&WM)/MPa [33]
1 Q460-10 481 710 0.68 22.2 751 550
2 Q460-20 495 623 0.79 35.6 626 550
3 Q550-20 704 762 0.92 28.2 733 640
4 Q690-10 801 842 0.95 18.8 817 770
5 Q690-20 771 822 0.94 25.2 811 770
6 Q960-10 1033 1071 0.96 14.5 1019 980

Fig. 2. Fatigue specimens of HSS butt-welded connections.

Tensile strength f 𝒖 . As shown in Fig. 3, all the tensile strength val-

ues of HSS butt-welded connections exceeded the specified minimum
requirements of the HSS base metal according to the code [33], this
ensures a satisfactory weld quality.
However, the development of plastic deformation during the hard-
ening stage of HSS butt-welded connections decreases as the steel grade
increases, and the plastic deformation is 11∼63% lower (11% for Q500-
20, 63% for Q690-20, others in the middle range) than the measured
value of the corresponding HSS base metal.
(3) Necking stage and fracture:
The necking stage of HSS butt connections is characterized by a
reduction in the rectangular cross section due to plastic flow after the
𝑓𝑢 is reached, and the strain increases with plastic deformation ending
with the final fracture. The fracture strain 𝜀𝑡 of 0.05 of the Q960-10
butt connection is 58% lower than that of Q460-20, with 𝜀𝑡 of 0.12.
In summary, the parameters 𝑓𝑦,𝑚 and 𝑓𝑢 , characterized the strength
performance of HSS as the steel grade (i.e., the yield strength 𝑓𝑦 )
increased, while the parameters 𝜀u , 𝜀𝑓 , elongation El, and yield ratio
that featured plastic properties decreased reversely.

Fig. 3. Measured stress–strain curves of HSS base metals and butt-welded connections.
3.2. Cold bending tests

(2) Strain-hardening stage
The strain-hardening stage of HSS butt connections starts in the
yield stage and ends at the ultimate tensile strength (UTS) point. In
this stage, the stress on HSS butt connections increases owing to the
material elongating through plastic deformation.
Yield ratio. With the increase in steel grades, the yield ratio (the
ratio of yield strength to tensile strength) of HSS base metal increased
significantly from 0.68 to 0.95, which indicates a decrease in the plastic
deformation.
Cold bending tests can evaluate the quality of HSS butt-weld con-
nections by their ductility to resist cracking and the emergence of other
surface irregularities, which reflect their plastic deformation ability
and verify the welding surface quality. The bending results show that
the welded connections of Q460, Q550 and Q690 steels exhibit good
bending performance without cracks or surface irregularities being
visible on the convex bend surface under optical observation. There
are no specifications of bending requirements in the certification sheet
for Q960 base material, this is, a bending test is unnecessary for both
the base and weld metals. However, the bending test for the Q960 butt-
weld still was conducted. It was found that the face bend of the Q960

4
L. Tong, L. Niu, Z. Ren et al.
Fig. 4. Charpy impact toughness of HSSs.
welded connection could pass the test, while the root bend of Q960 had
difficulty passing, although many tests were attempted. The bending
performance was consistent with the tensile properties owing to the
much higher strength and yield ratio.
3.3. Impact toughness tests
Impact toughness reflects the ability of HSS butt connections to
absorb impact energy in a rapid brittle fracture at a certain design tem-
perature. Impact toughness also has a certain quantitative relationship
with fracture toughness, which is widely used as an important indicator
in fracture mechanics. The details of the impact performance of HSS
can be found in previous research [34], the main results of which are
briefly summarized below.
(1) In Fig. 4, for the HSS base metal, there is a significant degra-
dation in the impact toughness with an increase in HSS nominal yield
strength. For all the HSSs studied, the impact toughness of the weld
metal was always less than that of the corresponding base metal
(e.g. 42∼65% decrease in −40 ◦ C, 14∼46% decrease in 20 ◦ C). The CVN
test energies of the HSS base metal and weld metal at all temperatures
were higher than the values required by the specified code [33],
exhibiting a comparatively high degree of impact toughness (e.g. about
35∼208% higher in −40 ◦ C). It was found that the CVN test energy of
the Q550 base metal exceeded the maximum range of the test machine
(300 J) with no specific value obtained. And the CVN test energy of
Q460C satisfies the requirements of grade D (greater than 34 J in −20◦ ),
namely, the Q460C can be regarded as Q460D to some degree.
(2) According to the scanning electron microscope (SEM) images,
as shown in Fig. 5, the microscopic fracture surface of HSS at ambient
temperature consists of many dimple structures, which are character-
istic to ductile fracturing. At low temperatures (e.g., −40 ◦ C), instead
of the dimple feature, much more significant river patterns and dis-
tinct cleavage steps in the microcosmic surface were observed, this is
consistent with the decline in impact performance.
5
Thin-Walled Structures 165 (2021) 107956
3.4. Hardness tests
The micro hardness distribution in HSS weld connections can
present the change in strength, elasticity, and plasticity, indicating
where a softening microstructure is found after melting and solidifi-
cation in a weld process. Fig. 6 presents the changes in micro hardness
in the WM–HAZ–BM regions in HSS butt connections.
In Fig. 6, it can be seen that, with respect to the base metal (BM),
the hardness values of Q460, Q550, Q690, and Q960 are approximately
213, 230, 261, and 320 HV, respectively, i.e., the hardness of the
HSS base metal increases about 51% as the steel grade increases from
460 MPa to 960 MPa. The HSS WM exhibited greater hardness (about
21∼34% higher) when compared to its BM, while the HAZ exhibited a
lower hardness owing to the softening effect in the welding thermal
cycle. The reason is that the HSS are usually QT steel (quenched
and tempered). The granular bainite (coarse particles) will appear
microstructurally at HAZ region after welding thermal cycle, which is a
softer area compared with the normal bainite and martensite, and then
leads to the decrease of hardness softening of HAZ. So even if matching
consumables is adopted in the welding, this kind of softening HAZ can
also be commonly found [35].
4. Results and discussion of fatigue tests of HSS butt-welded con-
nections
In the fatigue test of HSS butt-welded connections, 85 of the 114
specimens fractured under cycled loading, as listed in Table 4, while the
other 29 specimens ran out the preset up to 2×106 maximum fatigue
cycles. In addition, the fatigue cracks mostly originated in the weld
metal or HAZ of the specimens, thus constituting valid fatigue data for
the subsequent S–N curves fitting.
4.1. Fracture surface features and failure modes
The morphological details of the fracture surfaces of the HSS fatigue
specimens reveal the fracture behaviors of the fatigue process. There
are always inherent flaws or defects that stem from the welding process
such as porosity, spatter, lack of fusion and burn through on the surface
or interior of common weld structures that always form initial micro
cracks. Owing to the effect of stress concentration (for the as-welded
condition only) and the influence of welding residual stress, fatigue
cracks either already exist in or easily initiate from the most vulnerable
sites in the HSS butt-weld connections during cyclic loadings [36–40].
The initial crack eventually propagates parallel to the sectional area
in an approximately elliptical or semi-elliptical shape, continuously
eroding the effective load-bearing area and ultimately leading to an
abrupt fracture.
Fig. 7 presents the typical fatigue fracture surfaces and distribution
of crack location observed in HSS butt-weld connections. The possible
welding defects in WM or HAZ which have a soften hardness, served
as the crack initiation. These surfaces are marked by the differences in
the locations and numbers of initial cracks. The fracture surface can be
divided into four regions reflecting the varied fatigue behaviors: crack
initiation region 1, stable crack propagation region 2, rapid propagation
region 3, and final fracture region 4. The fracture surfaces of HSS
connections are classified as follows:
(1) Type I. The main fatigue crack originates from the rectangu-
lar corner point and propagates parallel to the sectional area in an
approximately semi-elliptical shape. Type I is more common in HSS
butt-weld connections when there are no significant welding defects
inside or on the edges. The geometric changes in the rectangular
corner point, which is prone to crack formation and propagation under
dynamic loading, make it the most unfavorable stress position of the
connections.
(2) Type II. The main fatigue cracks mostly originate from middle
of the edge rather than the corners. This type is the most common
L. Tong, L. Niu, Z. Ren et al. Thin-Walled Structures 165 (2021) 107956

Table 4
HSS fatigue specimens for high-cycle fatigue tests.
Categories Number of total Number of fractured Number of run-out
specimens specimens specimens
Q460-10 18 11 7
Q460-20 18 14 4
Q550-20 18 12 6
Q690-10 20 16 4
Q690-20 20 14 6
Q960-10 20 17 3
Sum 114 84 30

Fig. 5. Microstructures of HSS observed using scanning electron microscope (SEM, 1000x) [34].

initiate from multiple origins at different planes in the HSS connections.

The cracks never progressed far enough eventually to coalesce into a
single fracture plane by shear tearing to form fatigue steps or ratchet
marks, and sometimes river marks, which indicate the intersection and
connection of fatigue cracks.
(4) Type IV. The fatigue crack originated internally inside the
specimens, which is very rarely seen in a reasonable welding task.

4.2. Fatigue S–N curves of HSS butt-welded connections

4.2.1. Fatigue S–N curves

Fig. 8 shows the stress range versus the number of cycles to failure
(𝛥𝜎, N ) for the HSS butt-welded connections in the high-cycle fatigue
tests. Current structural steel design codes, for example, Eurocode 3
Part 1–9: Fatigue [3], have proposed corresponding S–N curves for the
fatigue design of structural details in steel constructions. The Wöhler
formula has been widely adopted in the regression of S–N curves to
express the power-law relationship between the fatigue life cycle N and
the stress range 𝛥𝜎, as shown in Eq. (1).

Fig. 6. Hardness distribution of HSS butt-welded connections. 𝑁[𝛥𝜎]𝑚 = 𝐶0 (1)

lg 𝑁 = −𝑚 lg 𝛥𝜎 + 𝐶 (2)

in the fatigue fracture surface of HSS butt-welded connections owing
to the initial defect easily appearing on the edge during the welding
process and the residual stress at the end edge of the component being
relatively relieved compared to that in the middle region. This renders
the middle region the most vulnerable region in the HSS butt-welded
connections. The main micro crack propagated semi-elliptically to form
the final fracture.
(3) Type III. Owing to the distribution pattern of initial possible
defects resulting from the welding process, the fatigue fracture may
lg 𝑁 = −𝑚 lg 𝛥𝜎 + 𝐶 − 2𝑠𝑑 (3)
where C = lg 𝐶0 , m and 𝐶0 are the material fatigue parameters to be
determined, and N is the number of cycles to failure (i.e., the fatigue
life) for the HSS specimen; N is always plotted along the abscissa. 𝛥𝜎
is the nominal stress range applied in fatigue loading, and is acquired
by dividing the force range 𝛥F by the original cross-sectional area S of
the specimens. 𝛥𝜎 is usually plotted along the ordinate.
The linear form can be derived from the logarithm of both sides
of Eq. (1), as shown in Eq. (2). C = lg𝐶0 ; m and C are the inverse of the

6
L. Tong, L. Niu, Z. Ren et al.
Fig. 7. Typical fracture surface and distribution of crack location for HSS butt-welded connections.
slope and intercept of the S–N line, respectively. In most current codes,
a fixed slope 𝑚 = 3.0 is always recommended because the natural slop
of the fatigue S–N curves of CSSs is indeed closer to 3.0. However,
whether 𝑚 = 3.0 is still reasonable for HSS should be discussed further.
A linear regression analysis based on the least square regression
method (LSRM) was adopted to derive the S–N mean curve using
lgN as the dependent variable and lg 𝛥𝜎 as the independent variable,
with a survival probability of 𝑃s = 50%. In current fatigue codes for
engineering designs, however, the S–N curves are recommended with
a survival probability of 𝑃s = 97.7% that can be obtained by subtracting
the standard deviation (sd) from the mean of S–N curve twice by
considering the dispersion of the fatigue life N, as shown in Eq. (3).
4.2.2. Related definitions
Before discussing the S–N features of HSS, some definitions are
explained in advance, for clarity and convenience.
(1) Slope m-natural and slope m-fixed fitting approaches
In a slope m-natural fitting approach (SMNA), both C and m are
determined using the least square regression method. The results of the
SMNA reflect the natural features of the S–N curves.
In a slope m-fixed fitting approach (SMFA), the slope m is preset
to be a fixed number (always an integer, such as 3.0), and only
the intercept C is determined in the regression. The results of the
SMFA can be used for easy comparison among different HSSs and can
conveniently be used for design applications.
(2) Fitting approach based on single data and group data
In a fitting approach based on single data (SDFA), HSSs with the
same nominal yield strength 𝑓𝑦,𝑚 but different thickness values (t ) are
fitted separately.
In a fitting approach based on group data (GDFA), HSSs with the
same 𝑓𝑦,𝑚 but different thickness values (t ) are grouped to create a
fitting. The group data for Q460-10 and Q460-20 are expressed as
Q460-All for brevity; similar codes are used for other Q690 groups.
(3) S–N mean curve and mean-2sd curve
7
Thin-Walled Structures 165 (2021) 107956
The S–N mean curves, abbreviated as ‘‘Mean’’ or ‘‘𝑃𝑠 = 50%’’ as
mentioned above, are derived from Eq. (2) with a survival probability
of 50%, reflecting the average fatigue performance.
The S–N design curves, abbreviated as ‘‘Mean-2sd’’ or ‘‘𝑃𝑠 = 97.7%’’,
are derived from Eq. (3) with a survival probability of 97.7% and can
be used for engineering design.
(4) Fatigue strength (FAT or 𝛥𝜎E )
The fatigue strength (abbreviated as FAT) is the corresponding
nominal stress range 𝛥𝜎 at a specified fatigue life (2 million cycles
commonly adopted), according to the S–N curves.
Based on the above, the S–N (𝑃𝑠 = 50%) curves and S-N (𝑃𝑠 = 97.7%)
curves were obtained based on both the SMNA and SMFA (𝑚 = 3.0), as
shown in Fig. 8. The SDFA and GDFA are also used to compare the
fatigue strengths among HSSs with the same yield strength 𝑓𝑦,𝑚 (such
as Q460-10, Q460-20 and Q460-All). The fatigue strengths 𝛥𝜎E of each
S–N curve for HSS butt-welded connections are listed in Table 5.
4.2.3. Effect of the steel grades (yield strength 𝑓𝑦 ) on fatigue strength 𝛥𝜎𝐸
of HSS butt-welded connections
Table 5 and Fig. 9 present the comparison of FAT of HSS butt
connections under the slope m-natural fitting approach (SMNA) and the
slope m-fixed fitting approach (SMFA).
(1) Slope m-natural fitting approach (SMNA)
Fig. 9 shows that the slope m of the S–N curves varies greatly
among different HSSs, with the slope m close to 5.0 for Q460 and
Q550 and close to 3.0 for Q690 and Q960. Fatigue strength (FAT)
of HSS butt-welded connections is 165 MPa for Q460-10, 212 MPa
for Q460-20, 247 MPa for Q550-20, 130 MPa for Q690-10, 169 MPa
for Q690-20, and 125 MPa for Q960-10, respectively. The FAT values
are significantly (11.6% to 120.5%) higher than the 112 MPa value
in Eurocode 3. It also shows that the fatigue strength of HSS butt-
welded connections first increases and then decreases, along with the
increase in HSS steel grade. The much higher FAT of Q550-20 than
other HSSs may benefit from its significantly higher impact toughness
L. Tong, L. Niu, Z. Ren et al. Thin-Walled Structures 165 (2021) 107956

Fig. 8. S–N curves of HSS butt-welded connections.

(as mentioned in Section 3.3) which is closely linked to the fracture
toughness in fatigue performance.
For HSS pairs of the same grade but different plate thicknesses, such
as Q460-10 and Q460-20 as well as Q690-10 and Q690-20, the FAT of
thick plate (e.g., 212 MPa for Q460-20) is larger than the FAT of thin
plate (e.g., 165 MPa for Q460-10). This is different from the widely
acknowledged conclusion that for CSSs the fatigue strength of a thick
plate is lower than that of a thinner plate, which may result from the
higher sensitivity of the thin HSS plate to welding heat input.
Previous studies reported that the static strength of CSSs has little
influence on their fatigue performance but these studies do not reveal

8
L. Tong, L. Niu, Z. Ren et al. Thin-Walled Structures 165 (2021) 107956

Table 5
Fatigue strength (FAT) obtained via different fitting methods (Unit: MPa).
Categories Natural fitting SMNA Fixed slope fitting SMFA Eurocode 3
m mean mean-2sd m mean mean-2sd m mean-2sd
Q460-10 4.7 224 165 3.0 182 114 3.0 112
Q460-20 6.3 250 212 3.0 189 133 3.0 112
Q460-All 5.4 237 190 3.0 186 125 3.0 112
Q550-20 5.0 284 247 3.0 252 200 3.0 112
Q690-10 2.6 172 130 3.0 185 146 3.0 112
Q690-20 4.3 202 169 3.0 166 126 3.0 112
Q690-All 3.3 185 143 3.0 176 133 3.0 112
Q960-10 2.99 154 125 3.0 154 126 3.0 112

Fig. 10. HSS fatigue data in this study and those from previous researches for HSS
Fig. 9. Comparison of fatigue strength of HSS butt-welded connections. butt-welded connections.

that the static strength (yield strength) of CSSs is generally concen-
trated between 235–355 MPa with a small spectrum near 100 MPa,
which confirms the limited influence of the grades of the steel on its
fatigue properties. However, with the increase in steel grade from 235
MPa to 960 MPa, the static strength range of HSSs can reach 700 MPa,
which certainly produces a difference that cannot be ignored in the
fatigue assessment.
(2) Slope m-fixed approach (SMFA)
In Fig. 9, it can be seen that under the regression with a fixed slope
of 𝑚 = 3.0, the FAT values of different HSS butt-weld connections are
much closer to each other with a relatively small difference (e.g., 125,
133, 126 MPa for Q460, Q690, and Q960, respectively), and all FATs
are larger than the FAT value in Eurocode 3 for CSSs (112 MPa).
The FAT results of SMFA are quite different from results of slope m-
natural fitting approach (SMNA). However, it is consistent with the
existing fatigue design for welded CSSs, and is simple but conservative
to reflect the enhancement effect in fatigue strength for HSS butt-weld
connections.
(3) Recommended S–N curves for the fatigue design of HSS butt-
weld connections in this test
In the previous fatigue design code, the slope m is always an integer
(e.g. 3), which is convenient for application in the design process. As
for HSS, a number that is a multiple of 0.5 seems to be more reasonable
for slope m, rather than a number that is a multiple of 1.0, to reflect the
fatigue characteristics due to a relatively wider strength spectrum. The
S–N design curves and corresponding fatigue strength (FAT at 2 million
cycles) for HSS studied are recommended below using two approaches.
(1) SMNA approach
Q460:lgN = –5.5 lg 𝛥𝜎 + 18.876 (mean-2sd); FAT = 193 MPa;
Q550:lgN = –5.0 lg 𝛥𝜎 + 18.276 (mean-2sd); FAT = 247 MPa;
Q690:lgN = –3.5 lg 𝛥𝜎 + 13.926 (mean-2sd); FAT = 151 MPa;
Q960:lgN = –3.0 lg 𝛥𝜎 + 12.599 (mean-2sd); FAT = 126 MPa.
(2) SMFA approach (𝑚 = 3.0)
All HSS: lgN = –3.0 lg 𝛥𝜎 + 12.592 (mean-2sd); FAT = 125 MPa.
However, it must be pointed out that this approach is conservative, but
simple and consistent with the current design for CSSs.
Fig. 10 presents the FAT 125 with HSS fatigue data in this study
and those from previous researches [18,20], it is confirmed that FAT
125 are suitable to evaluate the HSS smooth butt connections.
4.3. Factors affecting the fatigue strength of HSS butt-welded connections
(1) The influence of steel grade on HSS fatigue strength
The fatigue performance of HSS butt connections is better than
that of the CSS butt connections. The fatigue enhancement effect due
to the increased strength (e.g., the steel grade) can be attributed to
two reasons. The first is the addition of more alloying elements to
the HSS that are expected to provide desirable mechanical properties
with regard to strength, hardness, toughness, and weldability, as well
as better fatigue performance. The change in chemical composition
also includes a reduction in the content of detrimental elements (such
as carbon and sulfur). The second reason is the improvement in the
thermal process technologies used in steel manufacturing. Heat treat-
ment and cold working refine the grain size and phase constitution
of HSSs microstructurally, thereby leading to significant differences in
mechanical behaviors compared to CSSs.
It should be noted that the most essential factors that directly
contribute to the fatigue performance according to the fracture me-
chanics theory, are the fracture mechanical parameters (such as c and
m governed by the Paris law for crack growth), which lead to a lower
fatigue-crack growth rate (e.g., a higher crack-resistance capacity) for
HSS butt connections and relatively longer fatigue life. In particular,

9
L. Tong, L. Niu, Z. Ren et al.
Fig. 11. Relationship between the fatigue strength and yield ratio for HSS butt-welded
connections.
the changes in chemical composition and the microstructural refine-
ment of HSSs lead to an increase in static strength performance and
fatigue performance, and the two performance indicators are indirectly
correlated.
(2) The influence of stress concentration effects due to geometric
discontinuities on HSS fatigue strength
For the butt connections with the same geometric dimensions, the
local stress concentration factors (SCFs) due to geometrical discontinu-
ities at the weld toe are the same regardless of the materials (HSS or
CSS).
(3) The influence of welding residual stress, to which HSS butt-
welded connections may be more sensitive
By comparing the fracture locations of HSS specimens, it was found
that the fatigue fractures are all located at the weld or HAZ region.
From previous study [41] on residual stress distribution in H-section
members using HSSs, the welding residual stress increases with the HSS
steel grade up to 600 MPa.
For CSS weld connections, the yield ratio (the ratio of yield strength
to tensile strength) of the base metal is relatively low (below 0.85,
e.g. 0.6 for Q235). After the local residual stress exceeds the yield
strength of the CSS base metal, the weld connections continue to retain
a good plastic deformation capacity and strength-bearing ability. For
HSS welded connections, the yield ratio of the base metal is much
higher, up to 0.85–0.95. As noted, the ratio increases with the steel
grades, up to 0.95, for Q960-10. The yield strength 𝑓y is much closer
to the tensile strength 𝑓u with highly limited strain development 𝜀u ,
which means that the margin between a yield state and a final fracture
is much smaller. Micro cracks may initiate in some HSS weld regions
where the residual stress is close to its yield strength when subject to
fatigue loading. Consequently, the improvement in fatigue strength for
HSS connections will be restricted to some extent (see Fig. 11).
From the analysis above, it can be extrapolated that the fatigue
strength of HSS butt-welded connections can be significantly increased
by post-weld heat treatment [42,43] because the effect resulting from
the reduction in residual stress is more beneficial in HSS than in CSS.
More research is needed to verify this aspect.
5. Conclusions
This study experimentally researched the mechanical properties and
fatigue performance of butt-welded connections made of four kinds of
HSSs with nominal yield strengths of 460, 550, 690, and 960 MPa. The
plate thickness (10 and 20 mm) was also taken into consideration. The
main conclusions can be summarized as follows:
10
Thin-Walled Structures 165 (2021) 107956
(1) In the mechanical test, the yield ratio of HSS increased sig-
nificantly from 0.68 to 0.95, and the plasticity of butt-welded HSS
connections also decreased by 11∼63% (11% for Q500-20, 63% for
Q690-20, others in the middle range) when compared to that of its
corresponding base metal. For the weld metal of all HSSs studied, the
impact toughness is always less than (e.g. 42∼65% in −40 ◦ C, 14∼46%
in 20 ◦ C) that of the corresponding base metal. The CVN impact
energy of both HSS base and weld metals is much higher (e.g. about
35∼208% higher in −40 ◦ C) than the values specified in the code at
all testing temperatures; thus, the HSSs studied exhibit good impact
toughness. The hardness of the HSS base metal increases about 51% as
the steel grade increases from 460 MPa to 960 MPa. The HSS weld
metal demonstrated greater hardness (about 21∼34% higher) when
compared to its base metal, while the softening HAZ was found due to
the formation of granular bainite (coarse grain) rather than the normal
bainite and martensite.
(2) The fracture surface can be divided into four regions that exhibit
varied fatigue behaviors during the fatigue process: crack initiation
region I, stable crack propagation region II, rapid propagation region
III, and final fracture region IV. The cracks in butt-welded HSS connec-
tions were mostly initiated at the edge near the weld metal or HAZ.
Ratchet marks (or fatigue steps) can be observed in some rare cases
when multiple fatigue cracks initiate at different planes.
(3) Under SMNA natural fitting, the natural slope m of the S–N
curve of HSS butt-welded connections varied from 3 to 5. The FATs of
HSS butt-welded connections are considerably higher (about 12∼121%)
than those of butt-welded CSS connections. While in slope m-fixed
fitting approach (SMFA) with m of 3.0, FAT for HSS butt-welded
connections was also higher (about 12%∼79%) than the FAT of 112
given in the Eurocode 3 for butt-welded connections.
(4) Two approaches were recommended for fatigue design of butt-
welded HSS connections. One was based on different slope (m) for
different steel grades, which produces a FAT of 193, 247, 151 and
126 MPa for Q460, Q550, Q690 and Q960, respectively. The other was
based on a fixed slope (m) of 3 with a FAT of 125, which is simple but
more conservative.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Lewei Tong: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation,
Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Valida-
tion, Writing - review & editing. Lichao Niu: Conceptualization, Data
curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Vali-
dation, Visualization, Roles/Writing - original draft, Writing - review
& editing. Zhenzhen Ren: Data curation, Investigation, Methodology,
Software, Writing - review & editing. Xiao-Ling Zhao: Conceptual-
ization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision,
Validation, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful for the support from the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (No. 51778457) and from the Shang-
hai Civil Engineering Peak Discipline Program of Shanghai Municipal
Education Commission, China (No. TMGFXK-2015).
L. Tong, L. Niu, Z. Ren et al.
References
[1] A.F. Hobbacher, Recommendations for fatigue design of welded joints and
components, doc. XIII-2151r4-07/XV-1254r4-07, IIW Annual Assembly, Paris,
France, October, International Institute of Welding, 2008.
[2] J.W. Fisher, Bridge fatigue guide: Design and details, Am. Inst. Steel Constr.
(1977).
[3] Standard EN 1993-1-9, Eurocode 3–Design of Steel Structures–Part 1–9: Fatigue,
European committee for standardization (CEN, Brussels, 2006.
[4] Standard AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, fifth ed., American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2010.
[5] Standard GB 50017, Standard for Design of Steel Structures, Standardization
Administration of the People’s Republic of China, Beijing, 2017.
[6] C. Miki, K. Homma, T. Tominaga, High strength and high performance steels
and their use in bridge structures, J. Constr. Steel Res. 58 (2002) 3–20, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0143-974X(01)00028-1.
[7] R. Bjorhovde, Development and use of high performance steel, J. Constr. Steel
Res. 60 (3) (2004) 393–400, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0143-974X(03)00118-
4.
[8] X.-L. Zhao, A. Heidarpour, L. Gardner, Recent developments in high-strength
and stainless steel tubular members and connections, Steel Constr. 7 (2) (2014)
65–72, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/stco.201410019.
[9] I. Lillemae, H. Remes, S. Liinalampi, A. Itavuo, Influence of weld quality on the
fatigue strength of thin normal and high strength steel butt joints, Weld. World
60 (2016) 731–740, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40194-016-0326-8.
[10] H. Ban, G. Shi, A review of research on high-strength steel structures, Struct.
Build. 171 (8) (2018) 625–641, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jstbu.16.00197.
[11] H.-T. Li, B. Young, Design of cold-formed high strength steel tubular sections
undergoing web crippling, Thin-Walled Struct. 133 (2018) 192–205, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2018.09.005.
[12] L.-T. Hai, F.-F. Sun, C. Zhao, G.-Q. Li, Y.-B. Wang, Experimental cyclic behaviour
and constitutive modelling of high strength structural steels, Constr. Build. Mater.
189 (2018) 1264–1285, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.09.028.
[13] X. Liu, K.-F. Chung, C.-H. Ho, M. Xiao, Z.-X. Huo, D.A. Nethercot, Mechanical
behavior of high strength S690-QT steel welded sections with various heat input
energy, Eng. Struct. 175 (2018) 245–256, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.
2018.08.026.
[14] S.P. Chiew, C. Cheng, M.S. Zhao, C.K. Lee, T.C. Fung, Experimental study of
welding effect on S690Q high strength steel butt joints, Proc. Nord. Steel 3
(3-4) (2019) 701–706, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cepa.1124, Special Issue.
[15] M. Amraei, H. Jiao, X.-L. Zhao, L.W. Tong, Fatigue testing of butt-welded high
strength square hollow sections strengthened with CFRP, Thin-Walled Struct. 120
(2017) 260–268, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2017.09.004.
[16] E. Harati, L. Karlsson, L.E. Svensson, K. Dalaei, Applicability of low transfor-
mation temperature welding consumables to increase fatigue strength of welded
high strength steels, Int. J. Fatigue 97 (2017) 39–47, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijfatigue.2016.12.007.
[17] S. Herion, O. Fleischer, R.J.M. Pijpers, C. Remde, B. Straetmans, Fatigue
behaviour of hollow sections joints and high strength steel, CIDECT Report
7AB-3/19, CIDECT Annual Assembly, Barcelona, Spain, 2019, August.
[18] H. Sebestova, P. Hornik, L. Mrna, et al., Fatigue properties of laser and hybrid
laser-TIG welds of thermo-mechanically rolled steels, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 772
(2020) 138780, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2019.138780.
[19] H. Remes, E. Korhonen, P. Lehto, J. Romanoff, Ari Niemelae, P. Hiltunen, T.
Kontkanen, Influence of surface integrity on the fatigue strength of high strength
steels, J. Construct. Steel Res. 89 (2013) 21–29, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.
2013.06.003.
[20] G.K. Ahiale, Y.-J. Oh, Microstructure and fatigue performance of butt-welded
joints in advanced high-strength steels, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 597 (2014) 342–348,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2014.01.007.
[21] I. Lillemae-Avi, S. Liinalampi, E. Lehtimaki, H. Remes, P. Lehto, J. Romanoff,
S. Ehlers, A. Niemela, Fatigue strength of high-strength steel after shipyard
production process of plasma cutting, grinding and sandblasting, Weld. World
62 (2018) 1273–1284, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40194-018-0638-y.
11
Thin-Walled Structures 165 (2021) 107956
[22] J.O. Sperle, Influence of parent metal strength on the fatigue strength of parent
material with machined and thermally cut edges, Weld. World 52 (2008) 79–92,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03266656.
[23] T. Stenberg, E. Lindgren, Z. Barsoum, I. Barmicho, Fatigue assessment of cut
edges in high strength steel-influence of surface quality, Eng. Fail. Anal. (2016)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mawe.201600707.
[24] P.J. Haagensen, S.J. Maddox, IIW Recommendations for weld toe improve-
ment by grinding, TIG dressing and hammer peening for steel and aluminum
structures. IIW doc. XIII-1815-00 (rev. 24 Feb. 2006).
[25] H. Nakamura, W. Jiang, H. Suzuki, K.-I. Maeda, T. Irube, Experimental study on
repair of fatigue cracks at welded web gusset joint using CFRP strips, Thin-Walled
Struct. 47 (10) (2009) 1059–1068, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2008.10.016.
[26] L. Tong, Q. Yu, X.-L. Zhao, Experimental study on fatigue behavior of butt-welded
thin-walled steel plates strengthened using CFRP sheets, Thin-Walled Struct. 147
(2020) 106471, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2019.106471.
[27] Standard AWS D1.1/D1.1M: 2015R, Structural Welding Code – Steel, twenty
third ed., American Welding Society (AWS), 2015.
[28] M.S. Silva, D. Souza, E.H. Lima, K. Eduardo, Analysis of fatigue-related aspects
of FCAW and GMAW butt-welded, J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 42 (1) (2020)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40430-019-2142-8.
[29] Standard ASTM E8, Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic
Materials, American Society of Testing Materials, 2016.
[30] Standard ISO 5817, Welding Fusion Welded Joints in Steel, Nickel, Titanium
and their Alloys (Beam Welding Excluded) - Quality Levels for Imperfections,
International Organization for Standardization, 2014.
[31] Standard ISO 1302, Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS)-Indication of
Surface Texture in Technical Product Documentation, International Organization
for Standardization, 2002.
[32] Welding Handbook Committee of American Welding Society, AWS Welding
Handbook, nineth ed., 2001.
[33] G.B. Standard, Standard GB 50661. Code for Welding of Steel Structures,
Standardization Administration of the People’s Republic of China, 2011.
[34] L. Tong, L. Niu, S. Jing, L. Ai, X.-L. Zhao, Low temperature impact toughness
of high strength structural steel, Thin-Walled Struct. 132 (2018) 410–420, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2018.09.009.
[35] C. Chen, S.P. Chiew, M.S. Zhao, C.K. Lee, T.C. Fung, Welding effect on tensile
strength of grade S690Q steel butt joint, J. Construct. Steel Res. 153 (FEB) (2019)
153–168, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.10.009.
[36] J. Siltanen, T. Skriko, T. BjRk, Effect of the welding process and filler material
on the fatigue behavior of 960MPa structural steel at a butt joint configuration,
J. Laser Appl. 28 (2) (2016) 022413, http://dx.doi.org/10.2351/1.4943993.
[37] R.J.M. Pijpers, M.H. Kolstein, A. Romeijn, F.S.K. Bijlaard, Fatigue experiments
on very high strength steel base material and transverse butt welds, Adv. Steel
Constr.: An Int. J. 5 (1) (2009) 14–32, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.
2007.11.008.
[38] A.C. Hesse, J. Hensel, T. Nitschke, K. Dilger, Investigations on the fatigue
strength of beam-welded butt joints taking the weld quality into account, Weld.
World 63 (2019) 1303–1313, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40194-019-00774-5.
[39] M.J. Ottersböck, M. Leitner, M. Stoschka, W. Maurer, Crack initiation and
propagation fatigue life of ultra high-strength steel butt joints, Appl. Sci. 9 (2019)
4590, http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app9214590.
[40] K. Okuda, K. Ogawa, Y. Ichikawa, T. Shiozaki, N. Yamaguchi, Influence of
microstructure on fatigue property of ultra high-strength steels, Fract. Struct.
Integr. 13 (48) (2019) 125–134, http://dx.doi.org/10.3221/IGF-ESIS.48.15.
[41] L. Tong, J. Wang, L. Niu, L. Ai, X.-L. Zhao, Experimental investigation on residual
stress distribution of high-strength steel welded H-section members, Steel Constr.
132 (2018) 410–420, http://dx.doi.org/10.13206/j.gjg201812012, (in Chinese).
[42] M. Leitner, M. Stoschka, W. Eichlseder, Fatigue enhancement of thin-walled,
high-strength steel joints by high-frequency mechanical impact treatment, Weld.
World 58 (1) (2014) http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40194-013-0097-4.
[43] D. Weiche, T. Ummenhofer, Fatigue behaviour of welded high-strength steels
after high frequency mechanical post-weld treatments, Weld. World 53 (11–12)
(2009) R322–R332, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03263475.