Construction and Building Materials 30 (2012) 73–79

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Dependence of mechanical properties of high strength steel S690

on elevated temperatures
Xuhong Qiang ⇑, Frans Bijlaard, Henk Kolstein
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Delft University of Technology, 2600GA Delft, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The deterioration of mechanical properties is predominant in the design of steel structures under fire
Received 13 September 2011 condition, as it leads to associated reduction of load bearing capacity. To understand elevated tempera-
Received in revised form 23 November 2011 ture dependence of mechanical properties of high strength steel S690, an experimental investigation has
Accepted 4 December 2011
been carried out, using both steady state and transient state methods at temperatures ranged from 20 °C
Available online 29 December 2011
to 700 °C. Comparison of results with European, American, Australian and British design standards shows
no current standard can safely guide fire-resistance design of steel structures with S690. Therefore the
Keywords:
mechanical properties of S690 at elevated temperatures obtained herein are of value.
High strength steel
S690
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Mechanical properties
Elevated temperatures
Reduction factor
Fire resistance design

1. Introduction 10]. As a result, the fire-resistance design of steel structures with

In Europe, the steels with a nominal yield stress equal to or
above 460 MPa are called high strength steel (HSS), based on the
implication of the current European Standard Eurocode 3 (EC3)
[1]. High strength steel offers higher performance in tensile stress,
yield stress, bending, weld ability and corrosion resistance com-
pared to mild steel. The use of HSS has received some attention
and is being accelerated due to its economical and environmen-
tal-friendly benefits. A wide range of applications have been devel-
oped in the fields of mechanical engineering, ship engineering,
offshore structures and civil engineering.
Since the 911 World Trade Center Tragedy, it has become appar-
ent that research is urgently needed into the structural behavior of
structures under fire conditions when the combined effects of
weakening of materials, thermal restraint and accidental removal
of some structural elements. Hence, as a basis of evaluating the per-
formance of steel structures in fire and even after fire, mechanical
properties of some constructional steels at elevated temperatures
have been reported by now. However, the previous researches
mainly focus on mild steels, which are hot-rolled carbon steels with
normal strengths. For high strength steels under fire condition and
after fire, only very limited information has been reported so far [2–
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: P.O. BOX 5048, 2600GA Delft, The Netherlands.
Tel.: +31 15 2784752; fax: +31 15 2783173.
E-mail addresses: x.qiang@tudelft.nl (X. Qiang), F.S.K.Bijlaard@tudelft.nl
(F. Bijlaard), M.H.Kolstein@tudelft.nl (H. Kolstein).
HSS is far from mature in practice. Schneider and Lange [7] com-
pared the yield strength reductions of HSS S460 at elevated temper-
atures obtained by some researchers and that from EC3 part 1–2 [1].
They pointed out that nearly all of the tested materials did not reach
the specifications of EC3 part 1–2, because the specifications of EC3
part 1–2 are uniform for various steel grades and are based on test
results mainly obtained from mild steels. This will result in a safety
risk if fire-resistance design of structural members made of HSS is
conducted according to EC3 part 1–2. Therefore, it is important to
add accurate material properties of HSS at elevated temperatures
to some corresponding design standards, such as EC3 part 1–2.
Mechanical properties of steel are significant, not only for eval-
uating the behavior of individual steel members but also for pre-
dicting the performance of a whole structure. Under fire condition
the mechanical properties of steel deteriorate as temperature in-
creases. The deterioration of mechanical properties is dependent
on the temperatures of steel material. In practice, the deterioration
is represented by reduction factor of mechanical properties as rec-
ommended by some current design standards. For high strength
steels, the deterioration of mechanical properties at elevated tem-
peratures has been reported for S460 [3–9] and BISPLATE 80, whose
yield strength is similar to HSS S690 [2]. For HSS S690 under fire
condition no quantitative research result has been available by
now. Therefore, the low research level of S690 under fire condition
and the rising popularity of HSS have necessitated this experimen-
tal investigation described in this paper. The aims of this experi-
mental investigation are to reveal more information of HSS S690

0950-0618/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.12.018
74 X. Qiang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 30 (2012) 73–79
at elevated temperatures, to validate the accuracy of existing data
for the mechanical properties of HSS and to support related re-
search projects aimed at studying the behavior of HSS structures
or composite structures under fire condition. In this experimental
investigation, both steady and transient state tensile tests were
conducted on HSS S690 at various temperatures ranged from
20 °C to 700 °C. The elastic modulus, yield strength and ultimate
strength of S690 at various temperatures were obtained and com-
pared with that of high strength steel BISPLATE 80 and that from
some current design standards (i.e. EC3 [1], AISC [11], AS 4100
[12], ASCE [13] and BS5950 [14]).
2. Experimental investigation
2.1. Test device
The tensile tests were conducted using Gleeble 3800 System,
which is a fully integrated digital closed loop control thermal and
mechanical testing system, as shown in Fig. 1. The direct resistance
heating system of the Gleeble 3800 can heat specimens at rates of
up to 10,000 °C/s, or can hold steady-state equilibrium tempera-
Fig. 1. Test device – Gleeble 3800 System.
Fig. 2. Tensile test rig inside the furnace.
Table 1
Chemical composition of HSS S690QL material (%).
C Si Mn
0.160 0.210 0.850
N Nb Ni
0.0026 0.025 0.050
tures. Gleeble 3800 has a digital control system, which provides
all the signals necessary to control thermal and mechanical test
variables simultaneously through the digital closed-loop thermal
and mechanical servo systems. In this investigation, three pairs of
thermocouples provided signals for accurate feedback control of
specimen temperatures, see Fig. 2. The air temperature inside the
furnace was obtained by Gleeble 3800 System automatically. The
Gleeble 3800 mechanical system is an integrated hydraulic servo
system capable of exerting as much as 20 tons of static force in
compression or 10 tons in tension. A non-contact laser extensome-
ter was used to measure the strain of the specimens. The experi-
mental process was controlled by some predefined programming
options using QuikSim Software. All the data obtained from the
tests were recorded by a computer and could be monitored by a
screen during testing.
2.2. Test material and specimen
All test specimens were cut from the same S690QL steel sheet
ordered for this investigation with a nominal thickness of 5 mm.
S690QL is a high strength structural steel produced in compliance
with EN 10025-6 [15]. The material is heat-treated using the
quenched and tempered process and has good bending and weld-
ing properties. S690QL is the grade designation abbreviation of this
steel, where S means structural steel, 690 is its minimum yield
strength, Q means quenching and tempering, and L means low
notch toughness testing temperature. The chemical composition
of the tested high strength steel S690 was shown in Table 1. The
shapes and dimensions of the specimens were prepared in accor-
dance with EN 10002-5 [16] and ASTM standard E21-09 [17]. As
shown in Fig. 3, a hole was provided at each end of the specimen
in order to fix it to the grips of Gleeble 3800 by using two steel
bars.
2.3. Test method
To assess the mechanical properties of steel, the most com-
monly used method is to conduct tensile tests in steady state or
transient state conditions. Compared to the transient state test
method, the steady state test method is used more commonly as
it is easier to perform and provides the stress–strain curves di-
rectly. However, the transient state test method is considered to
be more realistic in simulating the performance of steel compo-
nents under fire conditions, since it is more appropriate to allow
for creep effects. In order to compare the difference between the
two methods on high strength steel, both steady state test method
and transient state test method were conducted in this experimen-
tal study.
2.4. Test procedure
Tensile tests at elevated temperatures were carried out in the
furnace of Gleeble 3800 System. Three pairs of thermocouples
were welded on the central surface of the specimen to measure
its temperature along the specimen, and the distance between
every two pairs of thermocouples is 10 mm, as shown in Fig. 3a.
P S Cr Cu Mo
0.012 0.001 0.350 0.030 0.200
Ti V Al-g B-g Zr
0.006 0 0.093 0.0024 0
 X. Qiang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 30 (2012) 73–79 75

Thermocouples

(a) dimensions (b) test coupons

Fig. 3. Tensile test specimen and dimensions.

2.4.1. Steady state test
In steady state test, the specimen was heated up to a specified
temperature then loaded until it failed while maintaining the same
temperature. In this investigation, the heating rate was 50 °C/min,
and the preselected temperatures were 100 °C, 200 °C, 300 °C,
400 °C, 500 °C, 550 °C, 600 °C and 700 °C respectively. At least
two tests were carried out for each temperature. After reaching
the preselected temperature, approximately 10 min was required
for the temperature to stabilize, to ensure a uniform temperature
within the central part of the specimen. And then tensile load
was applied to the specimen until failure. Strain-control was used
in this investigation and the strain rate used herein was 0.005/min,
which satisfied the requirement of ASTM Standard E21-09 [17]. In
order to compare the elevated temperature effect on mechanical
properties of S690, tensile tests were also conducted at ambient
temperature.
2.4.2. Transient state test
In transient state tests, the specimen was under some constant
tensile load while the temperature in the furnace rose until failure
occurred. The stress levels used herein were preselected; they were
100, 200, 250, 300, 400, 500, 600, 650, 700, 800, 850 and 900 MPa.
The heating rate in all transient state tests was 10 °C/min. The total
strain and temperature of the specimen during the whole test pro-
cedure were recorded. And the thermal elongation of specimen
should be subtracted from the total strain, and then the strains
of specimen at various temperatures could be obtained. Under
some constant stress level the strain–temperature curves obtained
from transient-state tests can be transferred into stress–strain
curves at various elevated temperatures, as shown in Fig. 4, which
Maljaars et al. [18] and Outinen [3–5] used in their previous
researches.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Elastic modulus
The elastic modulus is an important factor influencing the load-
bearing capacity of steel structures. At some elevated temperature
the elastic modulus of steel is determined from the stress–strain
curve at the corresponding temperature, based on the tangent
modulus in the origin of the measured stress–strain relationship,
see Fig. 5.
The deterioration of elastic modulus at elevated temperatures is
represented by reduction factor at corresponding temperature.
Reduction factor of elastic modulus is determined from the ratio
of elastic modulus at some elevated temperature to that at ambient
temperature. In European, American and Australian standards,
reduction factors are recommended for fire-resistance designing
and evaluating steel structures and composite structures because
of their simplicity. Therefore the reduction factors of elastic mod-
ulus for S690 at various elevated temperatures were obtained, in

1000

800
E
stress (MPa)

600

400

200

0
0.2
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
strain (%)

Fig. 4. Transient state stress–strain derivation [18]. Fig. 5. Mechanical properties determination.
76 X. Qiang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 30 (2012) 73–79

order to exactly know how serious its dependence on elevated Table 3

temperatures is. Reduction factors of E-modulus from transient state test.

Temperature (°C) Elastic modulus (MPa) Reduction factor

3.1.1. Results from steady state test 20 205,890 1.000

100 202,267 0.982
The elastic modulus and its reduction factor at elevated temper-
200 178,874 0.869
atures of S690 were calculated based on the results from steady 250 176,515 0.857
state test, and presented in Table 2. 300 173,242 0.841
350 160,829 0.781
400 151,457 0.736
3.1.2. Results from transient state test 450 142,459 0.692
The elastic modulus and its reduction factor at elevated temper- 500 133,146 0.647
atures of S690 were also obtained based on the results from tran- 550 110,642 0.537
600 76,238 0.370
sient state test, and shown in Table 3. 650 42,027 0.204
700 20,480 0.099

3.1.3. Comparison and analysis

The results from this experimental investigation were com-
pared with some current standards (i.e. EC3, AISC and AS 4100)
transient state S690
and the available research result of HSS BISPLATE 80, as shown 1.0
steady state S690
in Fig. 6. It appears that the reduction factors of elastic modulus gi- transient state
ven in EC3 and AISC are generally conservative when using to pre- BISPLATE 80

elastic modulus reduction factor

0.8
dict the elastic modulus of HSS S690; and the prediction of AS 4100 steady state
is non-conservative for HSS S690, i.e. not safe to be used. BISPLATE 80
EC3
Chen and Young conducted material tests at elevated tempera- 0.6
AISC
tures on high strength steel BISPLATE 80, which was approximately AS 4100
similar to S690Q [2]. Their proposed reduction factors from tran-
sient state tests are conservative when the temperature is below 0.4

500 °C in comparison to the results of this study for HSS S690,

and their predictions overestimate the elastic modulus of HSS 0.2
S690 when the temperature is above 500 °C. However their steady
state test results are very non-conservative if used for S690, also
for their own transient state test results. Therefore, it is apparent 0.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
that the reduction factors of elastic modulus obtained from HSS
BISPLATE 80 is not applicable for HSS S690. temperature (°C)

Fig. 6. Comparison of E-modulus at elevated temperatures.

3.2. Yield strength

In current design standards, the reduction factors of yield 3.2.1. Reduction factors
strength recommended by EC3 are based on the strain level of The reduction factors of yield strength at elevated temperatures
2.0%, and in BS5950 different reduction factors are given based were calculated as the ratio of yield strength at elevated tempera-
on three strain levels 0.5%, 1.5% and 2.0%. In AISC, ASCE and AS tures to that at ambient temperature. The results at various strain
4100, no specification on strain level accompanies the given reduc- levels from steady state test were presented in Table 4, while that
tion factors for yield strength. Due to the absence of a well defined from transient state test were shown in Table 5.
yield point, the elevated-temperature yield strengths at strain lev-
els of 0.2%, 0.5%, 1.5% and 2.0% were used by researchers. Hence the 3.2.2. Comparison and analysis
yield strengths at above four strain levels were obtained from this The reduction factors of yield strengths at different strain values
experimental investigation for comparison. The definitions of yield obtained from the above two methods were compared with Euro-
strengths at corresponding strain levels are described in Fig. 5. The pean, American, Australian and British design standards, as de-
0.2% yield strength (f0.2) is the intersection point of the stress– scribed in Figs. 7–10.
strain curve and the proportional line offset by 0.2% strain. In addi- In Fig. 7 it can be seen that the prediction of AISC is always non-
tion, the stresses at 0.5%, 1.5% and 2.0% strain levels are determined conservative for yield strength of S690 at strain level of 0.2%, while
from the intersection of stress–strain curve and a vertical line at the prediction of AS 4100 is conservative from 400 °C to 550 °C but
the specified strain levels.
Table 4
Reduction factors of yield strengths at various strain levels from steady state test.
Table 2
Reduction factors of E-modulus from steady state test. Temperature (°C) Reduction factors
Temperature (°C) Elastic modulus (MPa) Reduction factor 0.2% 0.5% 1.5% 2.0%
20 204,690 1.000 20 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
100 204,592 1.000 100 0.947 0.874 0.958 0.968
200 179,146 0.875 200 0.884 0.854 0.956 0.982
300 171,819 0.839 300 0.879 0.751 0.952 0.975
400 158,608 0.775 400 0.794 0.794 0.864 0.850
500 140,127 0.685 500 0.628 0.605 0.655 0.624
550 111,788 0.546 550 0.554 0.438 0.557 0.533
600 76,105 0.372 600 0.380 0.345 0.382 0.371
700 28,848 0.141 700 0.100 0.114 0.133 0.133
 X. Qiang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 30 (2012) 73–79 77

Table 5
Reduction factors of yield strengths at various strain levels from transient state test. 1.0 steady state S690
Temperature (°C) Reduction factor transient state S690
BISPLATE 80
0.2% 0.5% 1.5% 2.0%

yield strength reduction factor

0.8 AISC
20 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 ASCE
100 0.985 0.989 0.910 0.923 AS4100
200 0.863 0.878 0.836 0.868 0.6 BS5950
250 0.858 0.875 0.831 0.861
300 0.837 0.872 0.826 0.855
350 0.803 0.839 0.813 0.839 0.4
400 0.797 0.812 0.786 0.798
450 0.758 0.763 0.730 0.738
500 0.627 0.631 0.716 0.716 0.2
550 0.540 0.542 0.554 0.554
600 0.396 0.397 0.445 0.445
650 0.295 0.213 0.278 0.278
0.0
700 0.163 0.228 0.203 0.203 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
temperature (°C)

Fig. 9. Yield strength reduction factors vs. temperatures at strain level 1.5%.

1.0 steady state S690

transient state S690
BISPLATE 80 1.0
0.8 AISC steady state S690
yield strength reduction factor

ASCE transient state S690

BISPLATE 80
yield strength reduction factor
AS 4100 0.8
0.6 AISC
ASCE
AS4100
0.6
BS5950
0.4
EC3
0.4
0.2

0.2

0.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
0.0
temperature (°C ) 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
temperature (°C)
Fig. 7. Yield strength reduction factors vs. temperatures at strain level 0.2%.
Fig. 10. Yield strength reduction factors vs. temperatures at strain level 2.0%.

1.0 steady state S690 to 600 °C, AS 4100 is conservative from 350 °C to 500 °C but non-
transient state S690 conservative for other temperatures. As shown in Fig. 9 at strain le-
BISPLATE 80 vel of 1.5%, the predictions of AISC and BS5950 are non-conserva-
0.8 AISC tive, AS 4100 is conservative from 400 °C to 550 °C but not the
yield strength reduction factor

ASCE
case for other temperatures, while ASCE is conservative from
AS4100
300 °C to 550 °C but not the case for other temperatures. Fig. 10
0.6 BS5950
shows at strain level of 2.0% the prediction of EC3 is non-conserva-
tive, the predictions of other standards are similar with the conclu-
sion obtained at strain level of 1.5%.
0.4
At the above four different strain levels, the yield strength
reduction factors of BISPLATE 80 obtained by Chen and Young
0.2
are generally non-conservative in comparison to that of S690 from
this experimental investigation. Hence, using the yield strength
reduction factors of BISPLATE 80 to predict that of S690 is not safe.
0.0 From the comparison of this investigation with current design
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 standards and available research on HSS BISPLATE 80, it can be
temperature (°C ) concluded that the reduction of yield strength at elevated temper-
atures depends on steel grades. Thus, it is necessary to propose
Fig. 8. Yield strength reduction factors vs. temperatures at strain level 0.5%.
separate reduction factors of yield strength for different steel
grades.
non-conservative for other temperatures, and similarly ASCE is
conservative from 300 °C to 550 °C. Fig. 8 demonstrates that at
strain level 0.5% the prediction of AISC is generally non-conserva- 3.3. Ultimate strength
tive, and the prediction of BS5950 is generally similar to the results
under transient state condition but non-conservative for that un- The ultimate strength reduction factors were calculated based
der steady state condition except for temperatures from 400 °C on the ratio of ultimate strength at a particular elevated tempera-
78 X. Qiang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 30 (2012) 73–79

Table 6
Ultimate strength and reduction factors at elevated temperatures.
800
Steady state Transient state
Temperature Ultimate Reduction Temperature Ultimate Reduction 20°C
(°C) strength factor (°C) strength factor 600 100°C
(MPa) (MPa) 200°C

stress (MPa)
20 821 1.000 20 899 1.000 300°C
100 796 0.970 100 850 0.946 400°C
200 814 0.991 200 850 0.946 400 500°C
300 789 0.961 250 850 0.946 550°C
400 680 0.828 300 850 0.946 600°C
500 548 0.668 350 850 0.946 700°C
200
550 458 0.558 400 800 0.890
600 310 0.377 450 700 0.779
700 107 0.130 500 650 0.723
550 501 0.558
0
600 399 0.444 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14
650 252 0.281
strain
700 201 0.223
Fig. 12. Stress–strain curves at various temperatures from steady state test.

ture to that at ambient temperature. The ultimate strengths and

their reduction factors at elevated temperatures obtained under
steady state and transient state were given in Table 6.
The ultimate strength reduction factors of HSS S690 obtained
from this experimental investigation were compared with that of
HSS BISPLATE 80 reported by Chen et al. [2], and also with the pre-
diction of American standard AISC [6]. The comparison was pre-
sented in Fig. 11, from which it can be found that the prediction
of AISC is not conservative for S690. Moreover, the ultimate
strength reduction factors of BISPLATE 80 are generally higher than
that of S690 for both transient state and steady state. It means nei-
ther the recommendation of AISC nor the reduction factor for BIS-
PLATE 80 is safe when using to predict the ultimate strength of
S690 at elevated temperatures.
20°C 100°C 200°C 300°C 400°C 500°C 550°C 600°C 700°C
3.4. Ductility

Ductility of steel is defined based on the deformation that steel

can undergo before fracture. The stress–strain curves at different Fig. 13. Failure modes of S690 specimens at elevated temperatures under steady
state.
temperatures obtained from this steady state test were plotted in
Fig. 12. The dependence on temperature of the ductility of high of S690 is higher than that at ambient temperature. The ductility
strength steel S690 was studied by comparing the strain values changes at temperatures in the range of 100–400 °C can be attrib-
at fracture. It is interesting to note that its ductility at 100 °C is uted to chemical transformations taking place in the steel base.
lower compared to that at ambient temperature, while at 200 °C With increasing temperature, these chemical transformations re-
and 300 °C it increases gradually, and at 400 °C it reduces again tard and ductility of steel increases as long as temperature be-
and thereafter it starts to improve again. At 700 °C the ductility comes dominant.
Typical failure modes of high strength steel S690 tensile spec-
imens at different elevated temperatures obtained from steady
state test in this investigation were shown in Fig. 13. It can be
1.0
steady state S690 seen for all specimens necking appeared before failure. No brittle
transient state S690 failure was observed for all temperatures from 20 °C up to 700 °C,
ultimate strength reduction factor

0.8 BISPLATE 80 which is promising for fire safety of steel structures with HSS
AISC S690.

0.6

4. Conclusions
0.4
This paper has presented a detailed experimental investigation
on the mechanical properties of high strength steel S690 at ele-
0.2 vated temperatures. Both steady state tests and transient state
tests were conducted on S690 tensile coupons with thickness of
5 mm at elevated temperatures ranged 20–700 °C. The elastic
0.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
modulus, yield and ultimate strengths and stress–strain curves
temperature (°C)
were obtained from these tests. The reduction factors of these
mechanical properties identify their dependence on elevated tem-
Fig. 11. Comparison of ultimate strength reduction factors. peratures for high strength steel S690.
 X. Qiang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 30 (2012) 73–79
The reduction factors of mechanical properties of HSS S690 ob-
tained from this investigation were compared with current Euro-
pean, American, Australian and British design standards. For the
prediction of elastic modulus of HSS S690, the current European
standard EC3 and American standard AISC are generally conserva-
tive, and the prediction of Australian standard AS 4100 is non-con-
servative. To predict the yield strength of HSS S690, EC3 and AISC
are generally non-conservative; while ASCE, AS 4100 and BS5950
are sometimes non-conservative for some specified elevated tem-
peratures. For the ultimate strength of HSS S690, the prediction
of AISC is not conservative. Therefore, no current design standard
can be safely used to conduct fire-resistance design of steel struc-
tures with high strength steel S690.
In addition, the experimental results were also compared with
that of HSS BISPLATE 80 available in literature. It is shown that
although the nominal yield strength of BISPLATE 80 is similar to
that of S690, the dependences of their mechanical properties on
elevated temperatures are different. It means the predictions of
mechanical properties of BISPLATE 80 are not appropriate for S690.
Moreover, no brittle failure mode was observed in tests for all
specimens of HSS S690 at various elevated temperatures up to
700 °C.
The reduction factors of mechanical properties obtained from
this experimental investigation filled in the blank of research on
elevated-temperature mechanical property of HSS S690. The use
of such accurate mechanical property will ensure safe fire-resis-
tance design of steel structures with HSS S690, which is urgently
needed in practice.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Ir. Leen Twilt, the former direc-
tor of fire research center at Institute TNO of building and con-
struction research for providing valuable discussions and
important suggestions.
79
References
[1] European committee for standardization. EN 1993-1-2, Eurocode 3 – design of
steel structures – part 1–2: general rules – structural fire design. CEN, Brussels;
2005.
[2] Chen J, Young B, Uy B. Behavior of high strength structural steel at elevated
temperatures. J. Struct Eng 2006:1948–54.
[3] Outinen J, Kaitila O, Mäkeläinen P. Research rep. no. TKK-TER-23, Helsinki
University of Technology Laboratory of Steel Structures, Helsinki, Finland;
2001.
[4] Outinen J. PhD dissertation, Helsinki Univ. of Technology, Helsinki, Finland;
2007.
[5] Outinen J, Makelainen P. Mechanical properties of structural steel at elevated
temperatures and after cooling down. Fire Mater 2004;28:237–51.
[6] Lange J, Wohlfeil N. Examination of the mechanical properties of the
microalloyed grain refined steel S460 at elevated temperatures. Bautechnik
2007;84:711–20.
[7] Schneider R, Lange J. Constitutive equations of structural steel S460 at high
temperatures. In: Nordic steel construction conference 2009, Sweden; 2009. p.
204–11.
[8] Schneider R, Lange J. Constitutive equations and empirical creep law of
structural steel S460 at high temperatures. In: Kodur V, Franssen JM, editors.
Structures in fire 2010. East Lansing: DEStech Publication Inc.; 2010. p.
703–10.
[9] Schneider R, Lange J. Material and creep behaviour of S460 in case of fire-
experimental investigation and analytical modeling. In: Wald F, Horova K, Jirku
J, editors. International conference application of structural fire
engineering. Prague: Cost; 2011. p. 55–60.
[10] Qiang X, Bijlaard FSK, Kolstein H. Post-fire mechanical properties of high
strength structural steels S460 and S690. Eng Struct; in press. doi: 10.1016/
j.engstruct.2011.11.005.
[11] American institution of steel construction (AISC). Specification for structural
steel buildings. Chicago; 2005.
[12] Australian standards (AS). Steel structures. AS 4100, Sydney, Australia; 1998.
[13] American society of civil engineering (ASCE). Structural fire protection. New
York; 1992.
[14] British standards institution (BSI). Structural use of steelwork in building –
part 8: code of practice for fire resistant design. BS 5950-8, London; 1998.
[15] European standard EN 10025-6. Hot rolled products of structural steels – part
6: technical delivery conditions for flat products of high yield strength
structural steels in the quenched and tempered condition. CEN, Brussels; 2009.
[16] European standard EN 10002-5. Metallic materials-tensile testing – part 5:
method of testing at elevated temperature. Brussels; 1992.
[17] ASTM E21-09. Standard test methods for elevated temperature tension tests of
metallic materials. West Conshohocken, United States; 2009.
[18] Maljaars J, Twilt L, Soetens F. Flexural buckling of fire exposed aluminum
columns. Fire Saf J 2009;44:711–7.