Construction and Building Materials 176 (2018) 129–134

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Technical note

Influence of high stress triaxiality on mechanical strength of ASTM A36,

ASTM A572 and ASTM A992 steels
Hizb Ullah Sajid, Ravi Kiran ⇑
Dept. of Civil & Env. Engg., North Dakota State University, ND 58105, United States

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

Article history: This study aims at investigating the influence of high stress triaxiality on the yield strength and ultimate
Received 17 January 2018 tensile strength of commonly used structural steels (ASTM A36, ASTM A572 and ASTM A992). To this end,
Received in revised form 23 April 2018 axisymmetrically notched steel specimens are designed to generate a range of stress triaxialities. Yield
Accepted 3 May 2018
strength and ultimate tensile strength of notched steel specimens are then determined using engineering
Available online 8 May 2018
stress-strain curves obtained from uniaxial tensile testing of notched specimens. Yield strength and ulti-
mate tensile strength of all three types of structural steels are found to increase linearly with increase in
Keywords:
stress triaxiality of test specimens. Based on experimental and complimentary finite element results, pre-
ASTM A36 steel
ASTM A572 steel
dictive equations are proposed to estimate increased yield strength and ultimate tensile strength as a
ASTM A992 steel function of stress triaxiality in structural steels.
Stress triaxiality Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Yield strength
Ultimate tensile strength

1. Introduction in structural systems. For instance, stronger beams cause failure of

In service conditions, structural steels are routinely subjected to
stress concentrations that arise from geometric discontinuities like
holes, sharp corners, welds, etc. that are commonly observed in
steel structures. Stress concentration is quantified by a dimension-
less parameter referred to as stress triaxiality (Tr). Stress triaxiality
is defined as the ratio between hydrostatic stress and von-Mises
stress. Higher stress triaxiality aggravates the growth of micro-
voids in steel matrix [1], which in turn accelerates ductile fracture
initiation in steels [2]. High stress triaxiality thus leads to reduc-
tion in ductility of steels [3]. Experimental and numerical studies
on high strength low alloy structural steels (ASTM A992) have con-
firmed the adverse effects of stress triaxiality on ductility of struc-
tural steels [4,5]. However, the quantitative relationships between
stress triaxiality and yield strength and ultimate tensile strength of
structural steels that are important design parameters in structural
design [6] are not currently addressed. Past studies conducted on
different alloys and stainless steels have reported an increase in
tensile strength with an increase in stress concentration [7–9].
Un-anticipated increase in yield strength and ultimate tensile
strength of structural steels may lead to unintended consequences
columns leading to global collapse of the structure (strong beam-
weak column). Components like reduced beam sections, seismic
fuse components should fail at pre-designed loads to protect the
overall integrity and to avoid progressive collapse of structure. It
is therefore, important to account for the increased yield strength
and ultimate tensile strength due to high triaxiality in the design
stage of steel structures [10]. With this objective in mind, the cur-
rent study aims to establish a quantitative relationship between
stress triaxiality, yield strength and ultimate tensile strength of
structural steels (at a material level) that are widely used in con-
struction industry. In this study, a mild steel (ASTM A36 [11]) along
with two high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels (ASTM A572 [12]
and ASTM A992 [13]) are investigated. ASTM A36 and ASTM
A992 are predominantly used in construction of steel buildings
in the United States whereas ASTM A572 steels are typically used
in the construction of bridges [14–16]. ASTM A992 is currently
the most common and preferred grade of structural steel used
for wide flange shapes in the United States [16,17].
2. Experimental study and finite element modeling

Preliminary finite element analyses are conducted by choosing

⇑ Corresponding author. different geometries of notched tension specimens to generate a
E-mail addresses: hizbullah.sajid@ndsu.edu (H.U. Sajid), ravi.kiran@ndsu.edu range of stress triaxialities. Based on the results obtained from pre-
(R. Kiran). liminary study, six axisymmetrically notched tension specimens

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.018
0950-0618/Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
130 H.U. Sajid, R. Kiran / Construction and Building Materials 176 (2018) 129–134

are selected. These test specimens are classified as CN (circular- Table 1

notched specimens), UN (U-notched specimens) and VN Chemical composition of ASTM A36, ASTM A572, and ASTM A992 structural steels.

(V-notched specimens). The reference un-notched test specimens Chemical composition (%) ASTM A36 ASTM A572 Gr. 50 ASTM A992
are labelled as SPR (reference un-notched test specimen). Detailed Carbon (C) 0.1500 0.0500 0.1000
geometric illustrations of the un-notched and notched specimens Manganese (Mn) 0.6900 1.3400 0.9300
are provided in Fig. 1. The chemical composition of all the three Phosphorous (P) 0.0180 0.0110 0.0160
steels used in this study as specified by the manufacturer are sum- Sulphur (S) 0.0040 0.0040 0.0440
Silicon (Si) 0.1800 0.1500 0.1900
marized in Table 1. In total, 42 test specimens are tested as a part Copper (Cu) 0.2400 0.2800 0.2500
of this experimental study. These specimens are machined using Chromium (Cr) 0.1500 0.1900 0.1400
computer numerically controlled (CNC) lath machine with a toler- Nickle (Ni) 0.0880 0.1300 0.0900
ance of ± 0.025 mm. Molybdenum (Mo) 0.0195 0.0400 0.0200
Vanadium (V) 0.0048 0.0830 0.0010
The load-displacement behavior of all the test specimens are
Titanium (Ti) 0.0012 0.0010 –
obtained by conducting uniaxial tension tests using servo- Niobium (Nb) 0.0024 0.0030 0.0210
hydraulic MTS 809 system at a displacement rate of 0.02 mm/s. Iron (Fe) 98.4521 97.7180 98.1980
An Epsilon Model 3542 contact extensometer with 1-inch gage
length is used to record the strains. The total load and elongation
in the gage length are obtained at a sampling rate of 99 Hz, for both
un-notched and notched test specimens. Engineering stress-strain some typical finite element meshes used in the vicinity of the
curves of un-notched and notched test specimens are provided in notches are provided in Fig. 5.
Fig. 2. Near perfect repeatability of load-displacement curves is
obtained for all the un-notched and notched test specimens. For 3. Results and discussion
the sake of clarity, stress-strain curve of only one representative
specimen is provided for each un-notched and notched test speci- In this section, stress-strain curves, yield strength (ry) and ulti-
men. Mechanical properties of test specimens evaluated from mate tensile strength (ru) obtained from uniaxial tensile tests are
experimental stress strain curves are provided in Table 2. Non- discussed. Using engineering stress-strain curves, yield strength
linear finite element analysis is conducted to obtain stress triaxial- of each test specimen is determined based on 0.2% strain offset
ity profiles across critical cross-section at two different loading method [18]. The maximum engineering stress is taken as the ulti-
stages: a) initial stage of loading (corresponding to 1.35 ± 0.5% mate tensile strength of steel. As observed in Fig. 2, stress-strain
engineering strain), and b) ultimate load (strain corresponding to curves of notched specimens are characterized by significant
maximum stress in engineering stress-strain curve), as shown in reduction in ductility and increase in ultimate tensile strength as
Fig. 3. Maximum initial stress triaxiality (T ir;max ) ranges from 0.33 compared to un-notched specimens, for all three types of steels.
to 1.15. Finite element analyses are conducted using ABAQUSÒ A well-defined yield plateau is observed in un-notched specimens
finite element modeling software. All test specimens are modeled which diminishes in case of notched specimens with high stress
using four noded bilinear axisymmetric CAX4 elements and geo- triaxiality. It is observed that all notched specimens exhibited sub-
metric non-linearity is considered. J2 plasticity model is used as stantial increase in both yield strength and ultimate tensile
the constitutive model. For all steels, the true stress strain curves strength as compared to un-notched steel specimens. Among
obtained from the corresponding SPR specimens are used as the notched steel specimens, highest yield strength and ultimate ten-
strain hardening curves in J2 plasticity model and are provided in sile strength is exhibited by specimens with highest average initial
Fig. 4. The applied boundary conditions and loading along with and average ultimate triaxialities (UN1 and VN1), respectively. In

Notch location D19

R 4.5
D10
10 19

25
25 50 25
Cross-section
SPR

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

CN1 CN2 CN3

4 6.92
1 45° 60°
10 R1.0 10 10
2 2

UN1 VN1 VN2

SPR = Reference un-notched test specimen, CN = C-notch, UN = U-notch, VN = V-notch

Fig. 1. Geometric details of axisymmetric test specimens (all dimensions are in mm.).
 H.U. Sajid, R. Kiran / Construction and Building Materials 176 (2018) 129–134 131

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

Fig. 2. Engineering stress-strain curves of un-notched and notched test specimens.

Table 2
Experimental material properties of structural steels (obtained from un-notched test specimens) and comparison with ASTM standards.

Steel type Material property ASTM specification Experimental result

ASTM A36 Min. yield strength (MPa) 250 386.48
Tensile strength (MPa) 400–550 517.09
Min. elongation over 200 length (%) 23 40.65 (over 100 length)
ASTM A572 Gr. 50 Min. yield strength (MPa) 345 389.15
Min. tensile strength (MPa) 450 502.40
Min. elongation over 200 length (%) 21 44.81 (over 100 length)
ASTM A992 Yield strength (MPa) 345–450 354.46
Min. tensile strength (MPa) 450 484.47
Min. elongation over 200 length (%) 21 45.07 (over 100 length)
Max. yield to tensile strength ratio 0.85 0.74

case of ASTM A36 steel, the yield strength of notched specimens
increased by as much as 70% as compared to un-notched steel
specimens. Both ASTM A572 and A992 steels exhibited almost
similar increase (up to 57% and 60%, respectively) as compared to
un-notched specimens. The ultimate tensile strength of notched
specimens made of all three steels exhibited almost similar
increase (ASTM A36-51%, ASTM A572-54%, ASTM A992-53%) when
compared to ultimate tensile strength of corresponding un-
notched specimens.
Average yield strength (ry) of (two) test specimens for a
given geometry is plotted as a function of spatially averaged
initial triaxiality (T iavg ), as shown in Fig. 6. The spatially aver-
aged initial triaxiality (T iavg ) is evaluated by averaging the triax-
iality over the critical cross section of the notched test
specimen at a total strain of 1.35 ± 0.5%. The average ultimate
tensile strength (ru) of two test specimens for a given geometry
is plotted against spatially averaged triaxiality evaluated at a
strain corresponding to ultimate load (T uavg ), as shown in
Fig. 7. Triaxiality is dependent on the shape of the notch and
material properties. The notches in the test specimens may
undergo significant shape change before the ultimate tensile
strength is achieved. This shape change in the notch is
accounted by choosing T uavg which is obtained by evaluating
the spatial average of triaxiality across the critical cross section
at the strain corresponding to ultimate tensile strength. From
Fig. 6, it is clear that the yield strength increases linearly with
increase in stress triaxiality for all the three steels. Similarly,
the ultimate tensile strength is observed to increase linearly
with increase in stress triaxiality, for all three types of steels,
as shown in Fig. 7. Based on experimental and finite element
results, the following predictive equations are proposed to esti-
mate yield strength and ultimate tensile strength as a function
of spatially averaged initial stress triaxiality, and spatially aver-
aged ultimate stress triaxiality, respectively.
132 H.U. Sajid, R. Kiran / Construction and Building Materials 176 (2018) 129–134

VN1
UN1 VN1
UN1
CN3

CN2 VN2
VN2
CN2
CN1
CN3 CN1 SPR
SPR

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

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

ASTM A572 steel

ry ¼ 407:33T iavg þ 266:41 ð3Þ

ru ¼ 489:10T uavg þ 334:41 ð4Þ

ASTM A992 steel

ry ¼ 403:75T iavg þ 227:78 ð5Þ

ru ¼ 473:96T uavg þ 323:57 ð6Þ

The authors hypothesize that the strain localization in the vicin-

Fig. 4. Strain hardening curves of un-notched test specimens used in finite element ity of the notch leads to high strain hardening which ultimately
analysis. results in increased yield strength and ultimate tensile strength.
Increase in the yield strength with increase in triaxiality is also
ASTM A36 Steel reported for AISI 1080 steel and Al T6061 alloys [9,19]. Currently,
there is no clear consensus on the exact cause for the increase in
ry ¼ 498:59T iavg þ 218:28 ð1Þ
yield strength/ultimate tensile strength of notched specimens
and further microscale experimentation is needed to investigate
ru ¼ 482:50T uavg þ 351:26 ð2Þ
the root cause behind this phenomena.

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

(a)
(b) (c)

x
(d)

Fig. 5. (a) Applied boundary and loading conditions, (b) typical C-notch mesh, (c) typical U-notch mesh, and (d) typical V-notch mesh.
H.U. Sajid, R. Kiran / Construction and Building Materials 176 (2018) 129–134 133

Fig. 6. Average initial stress triaxiality versus yield strength.

Fig. 7. Average ultimate stress triaxiality versus ultimate tensile strength.

134 H.U. Sajid, R. Kiran / Construction and Building Materials 176 (2018) 129–134
4. Conclusions
Following are important conclusions drawn from this study:
1. Yield strength of structural steels increased linearly with
increase in stress triaxiality. About 70% increase in yield
strength is observed in ASTM A36 steel when the triaxiality is
changed from T iavg ¼ 0:32 to T iavg ¼ 0:84. For a similar change
in triaxiality, ASTM A572 and ASTM A992 recorded 57% and
60% increase in yield strength, respectively.
2. Ultimate tensile strength of structural steels also increased lin-
early with increase in stress triaxiality. An increase up to 54% in
ultimate tensile strength is observed for all the three structural
steels considered in this study when the T uavg is increased from
0.34 to 0.88.
Conflict of interest
No conflict of interest.
Acknowledgements
The financial support from NDSU Research and Creative Activity
and NDSU Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering is
gratefully acknowledged by the authors.
References
[1] R. Kiran, K. Khandelwal, A micromechanical model for ductile fracture
prediction in ASTM A992 steels, Eng. Fract. Mech. 102 (2013) 101–117.
[2] T.L. Anderson, Fracture Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications, third ed.,
Taylor & Francis, 2005.
[3] A.M. Agogino, Notch effects, stress state, and ductility, J. Eng. Mater. Technol.
100 (1978) 348–355.
[4] R. Kiran, K. Khandelwal, Experimental studies and models for ductile fracture
in ASTM A992 steels at high triaxiality, J. Struct. Eng. 140 (2013) 04013044.
[5] R. Kiran, K. Khandelwal, A triaxiality and Lode parameter dependent ductile
fracture criterion, Eng. Fract. Mech. 128 (2014) 121–138.
[6] American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), AISC 360-05-Specification for
Structural Steel Buildings, ANSI/AISC, Chicago, 2005.
[7] W.D. Jenkins, W.A. Willard, Effect of temperature and notch geometry on the
tensile behavior of a titanium alloy, NBS J. Eng. Instrum. 73 (1966) 5–11.
[8] J. Ganesh Kumar, M. Nandagopal, P. Parameswaran, K. Laha, M. Mathew, Effect
of notch root radius on tensile behaviour of 316L (N) stainless steel, Mater.
High Temp. 31 (2014) 239–248.
[9] X. Lei, C. Li, X. Shi, X. Xu, Y. Wei, Notch strengthening or weakening governed
by transition of shear failure to normal mode fracture, Sci. Rep. 5 (2015) 10537.
[10] American Institute of Steel Construction, Manual of Steel Construction,
thirteenth ed., AISC, Chicago, 2005.
[11] ASTM International, A36/A36M-14 Standard Specification for Carbon
Structural Steel, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2014.
[12] ASTM International, Standard Specification for High-Strength Low-Alloy
Columbium-Vanadium Structural Steel, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2015.
[13] ASTM International, Standard Specification for Structural Steel Shapes, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2015.
[14] R. Bjorhovde, Development and use of high performance steel, J. Constr. Steel
Res. 60 (2004) 393–400.
[15] E.M. Aziz, V.K. Kodur, Effect of temperature and cooling regime on mechanical
properties of high-strength low-alloy steel, Fire Mater. 40 (2016) 926–939.
[16] K. Gustafson, P. SE, Evaluation of existing structures, Mod. Steel Constr. 47
(2007) 41.
[17] G. Hu, M.A. Morovat, J. Lee, E. Schell, Elevated Temperature Properties of ASTM
A992 Steel, in: Structures Congress 2009, American Society of Civil Engineers,
2009, pp. 1067–1076.
[18] ASTM International, ASTM A6/A6M-17a Standard Specification for General
Requirements for Rolled Structural Steel Bars, Plates, Shapes, and Sheet Piling,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017.
[19] R.W. Hertzberg, R.P. Vinci, J.L. Hertzberg, Deformation and Fracture Mechanics
of Engineering Materials, fifth ed., John Wiley and Sons, 2012.