Journal of Constructional Steel Research 73 (2012) 1–11

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Mechanical properties of G550 cold-formed steel under transient and steady

state conditions
Chen Wei, Ye Jihong ⁎
Key Laboratory of Concrete and Prestressed Concrete Structures of the Ministry of Education, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China

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

Article history: Material properties at elevated temperatures are the important factors in the fire safety design and numerical
Received 25 April 2011 analysis of cold-formed steel structures. Most of the previous research on material properties at high temper-
Accepted 28 December 2011 atures has adopted the steady state test method. However, the transient state test method is more realistic for
Available online 15 February 2012
actual fire conditions. This paper presents a detailed experimental investigation of G550 steel with a thick-
ness of 1 mm under both transient and steady state test methods. The test results obtained from transient
Keywords:
Cold-formed steel
and steady state methods are discussed, and the results show that the steady state method is not equivalent
Transient state test to the transient state method for G550 steel. The steady state test results of G550 may result in an overesti-
Elevated temperature mate of the fire resistance of cold-formed steel structures. In addition, the test results were also compared
Mechanical properties with those obtained from other researchers and the current design rules. The comparison shows that the
Fire safety design yield strength predicted by BS5950 agrees well the transient state test results of G550 and is conservative
for the steady state test results. However, BS5950, AS4100, and Eurocode 3 provide nonconservative predic-
tions in other cases. Finally, a unified equation for the reduction factors, including the yield strength, elastic
modulus, and ultimate strength of G550 at elevated temperatures, is proposed by the numerical fitting tech-
nique. A stress–strain expression of G550 at elevated temperatures is also given based on the Ramberg–
Osgood model. The proposed equations are in good agreement with test results and meet the requirements
for engineering.
© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Cold-formed steel structures originate from traditional timber
structures and have been used extensively in low-rise residential, in-
dustrial, and commercial buildings. In recent years, a growing number
of mid-rise buildings have been framed with cold-formed steel as the
primary load bearing structural components. The corresponding fire
safety problems concerning cold-formed steel mid-rise buildings are
becoming increasingly conspicuous. This paper focuses mainly on
the mechanical properties of cold-formed steel at elevated tempera-
tures because mechanical properties are considered the primary
factor that affects the performance of steel structures during fires.
The mechanical properties at elevated temperatures recom-
mended by Eurocode 3 [1], AS4100 [2], and BS5950 [3] are based on
investigations of hot-rolled steel. Compared with hot rolled steel,
cold-formed steel has a higher section factor and thermal conductiv-
ity. At the same time, the strengthening effect of the cold-forming [1]
process of cold-formed steel is progressively reduced at high temper-
atures. Hence, the loss of mechanical properties in cold-formed steel
⁎ Corresponding author at: School of Civil Engineering, Southeast University,
Nanjing, 210096, China. Tel.: + 86 02583795023.
E-mail address: yejihong@seu.edu.cn (Y. Jihong).
is greater than in hot rolled steel at elevated temperatures [4], and
the current design rules are unreasonable.
Both steady and transient state test methods are currently used to
investigate the mechanical behavior of steel at elevated temperatures.
The steady state test method is based on a constant temperature
under increasing static loading, and the transient state test method
is based on temperature variations under a constant load. The steady
state tests are easier to perform than the transient state tests because
of the lower requirements of experimental conditions. In addition,
the steady state tests give the stress–strain curve directly whereas
the transient state tests give the temperature–strain curve, which
must be converted to a stress–strain curve. Approximate values of
the mechanical properties cannot be avoided in the process of con-
version. However, the transient state test method is more realistic
because it simulates real fire conditions.
Most of the previous research on mechanical properties at elevat-
ed temperatures adopted the steady state test method [5–11]. How-
ever, the steady state test results are not very satisfying and differ
among each other, probably because of the inadequacy of test facili-
ties and differences in the chemical composition of cold formed steels.
The test results obtained by Lee [5], Ranawaka [6,7], and Heva [8]
show a clear oscillation in the elastic phrase of stress–strain curves.
The oscillation could easily lead to errors in the determination of
the elastic modulus. Chen and Young [9,10] conducted steady state

0143-974X/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2011.12.010
2 C. Wei, Y. Jihong / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 73 (2012) 1–11
tests of cold-formed steel grades G450 and G550 by using the MTS810
material test system. Because of the advanced test device, the stress–
strain curves obtained by Chen and Young [9,10] are sufficiently
smooth without oscillations, but the heating rate was set to 100 °C/
min, which was much faster than the heating rates adopted by
other researchers (10–25 °C/min) [5–8,11–14]. The fast heating rate
may have resulted in a significant difference between the tempera-
ture of the specimen and the inside of the furnace and led to unstable
test results.
Limited research has considered the mechanical properties with
the transient state test method [9,12–14]. Outinen [13,14] conducted
both steady and transient state tests using S355 steel. His results
showed that the difference in the yield strength was small. However,
the elastic modulus determined by transient state tests seems much
lower than that determined by steady state tests at high tempera-
tures. Chen and Young [8,9] conducted experiments using both tran-
sient and steady state methods for G450 cold-formed steel and EN
1.4462 stainless steel. They did not compare the transient and steady
state test results in terms of the yield strength. Their results showed
that the elastic modulus of G450 according to transient state tests
was much lower than that determined by steady state tests, while
the values of the elastic modulus of EN 1.4462 obtained from the tran-
sient and steady state tests were similar. These test results do not
agree, and the corresponding conclusions are not sufficient. First,
the number of transient state tests conducted by Outinen [13,14]
and Chen [8,9] is not adequate, and the errors in the elastic modulus
cannot be neglected. Second, they did not discuss the differences in
the direct test results between the transient and steady state
methods, such as the reduction factor of the ultimate strength or
stress–strain curves.
This paper presents a detailed experimental investigation of the
material properties of G550 steel with a thickness of 1 mm. Both the
transient and steady state methods are considered and a careful dis-
cussion of the test results is presented. Finally, the reduction factors
of the mechanical properties and the stress–strain curves of G550
steel are fitted based on numerical fitting techniques.
2. Test procedure
2.1. Test device
The tests were performed in the Rheological Mechanics and Mate-
rial Engineering Experiment Center of Central South University of
Forestry and Technology in China. An MTS810 Material Test System
Fig. 1. MTS810 material testing system.
was used in this study, as shown in Fig. 1. The loading device was
an MTS 810 Universal testing machine with an integral actuator up
to a capacity of 100 kN, which was calibrated before testing. The heat-
ing device was an MTS 653.02 high temperature furnace with a max-
imum temperature of 1400 °C. The furnace had two heating elements
and two thermal couples, as shown in Fig. 2. The furnace temperature
was controlled by an MTS model 409.83 temperature controller. The
measuring equipment included LVDT and force transducers mounted
with a loading machine, an MTS model 634.25F-24 axial extensome-
ter with a gauge length of 50 mm and an MTS model 632.53F-11
high temperature axial extensometer with a maximum working tem-
perature of 1200 °C and a gauge length of 25 mm. In addition, Fig. 2
shows that there is a distance from the specimens to the two internal
thermal couples of the furnace. Thus, the temperature detected by the
internal thermal couple was not the real temperature of specimen but
the air temperature of the furnace. The difference between the tem-
peratures of the specimen and furnace may not be neglected. Thus,
an external type-K thermal couple connected to an AZ88378 temper-
ature meter made in Taiwan was used to measure and record the
temperature of the specimen. The difference between the tempera-
ture detected by the internal and the external thermal couples will
be given in the next section.
2.2. Test specimens
The test material was taken from the same batch of G550 cold-
formed columns with a nominal thickness of 1 mm, which was sup-
plied by BlueScope Lysaght Shanghai. All of the test specimens were
cut in the longitudinal direction of the cold-formed steel columns
by a wire-cut EDM machine. The dimension of the test specimens
was determined by AS2291 [15], as shown in Fig. 3. All of the required
dimensions of specimens were measured by a micrometer before
testing. The zinc coating of the specimens was removed by hydro-
chloric acid (acid to water = 1:3), and the base metal thickness was
used in the calculations of cross sectional area.
2.3. Test procedure
(1) Tension test at ambient temperature
In the normal tension test, strains were measured by using an MTS
model 634.25 F-24 axial extensometer, and the sampling frequency
was 10 Hz. The loading process was divided into two stages and
met the requirement of AS 1391 [16]. First, the elastic modulus and
 C. Wei, Y. Jihong / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 73 (2012) 1–11 3

Internal
thermal
Specimen couples
Upper
heating
elements

Lower
heating
elements
Furnace
Grip Insulation

Fig. 2. MTS653.02 high temperature furnace.

yield strength were determined, and the strain rate was controlled
below 0.001 s − 1. Then, the strain rate was increased to 0.0025 s − 1
until failure, and the tensile strength was determined.
(2) Steady state tests
In the steady state test, the heating rate was 20 °C/min. The tem-
perature detected by the internal and the external thermal couples
is presented in Fig. 4. Fig. 4 shows that the temperatures of the spec-
imen are similar to those detected by the internal thermal couples,
and the temperatures inside the furnace were uniformly distributed.
However, a sensible difference between the temperatures of the
specimen and the inside of the furnace would have been found if a
much faster heating rate was used. Thus, it is recommended that
the heating rate of the MTS 653.02 furnace may not exceed 30 °C/min.
At the beginning of the steady state test, the specimen was first
heated up to a pre-selected temperature and was held for 15 min at
this constant temperature. During the temperature heating and
holding process, the thermal expansion of specimen was allowed by
setting zero tensile load. Then, a tension load was applied at a con-
stant rate until failure while maintaining the pre-set temperature.
Displacement control was used with a displacement rate of
0.15 mm/min, and the strain rate obtained from the extensometer
was approximately 0.0025/min, which is within the range of
0.0012/min to 0.003/min as specified by AS 2291 [15]. An MTS
model 632.53F-11 high temperature axial extensometer was used,
and the sampling frequency was 10 Hz.
(3) Thermal expansion test
In the thermal expansion test, one end of the specimen was
gripped, and the other end was relaxed. The temperature was in-
creased at a heating rate of 5 °C/min [17]. The strains of thermal ex-
pansion were measured by the MTS model 632.53F-11 axial
extensometer, and the sampling frequency was 0.5 Hz.
(4) Transient state test
In the transient state test, the specimen was first stressed in ten-
sion to a pre-selected load at a loading rate of 3.0 kN/min. Then, the
temperature was raised at a heating rate of 20 °C/min while main-
taining the pre-set load until failure. The strains were measured by
the MTS model 632.53F-11 axial extensometer, and the sampling
frequency was 2 Hz.
The steady state tests had 11 temperature levels: 100 °C, 200 °C,
300 °C, 400 °C, 430 °C, 450 °C, 483 °C, 500 °C, 527 °C, 550 °C and
7.5
Fig. 4. Time–temperature curves for steady state tests of G550 steel.
600 °C. The transient state tests had 20 stress levels, including
0.075fy,30, 0.1fy,30····(an interval of 0.05fy,30)····1.0fy,30, in which
fy,30 represents the average yield strength of G550 steel at ambient
temperature. All of the experiments were repeated two or three
times except for the thermal expansion test and the transient state
test at the 0.1fy,30 stress level, which were repeated 7 times. A total
of 80 tests were performed in this study, as shown in Table 1.
3. Discussion of the test results
3.1. Steady state tests
3.1.1. Load–displacement curves
Because of the limited measurement range of the high tempera-
ture extensometer, the complete load–displacement curves are
given instead of the stress–strain curves, as shown in Fig. 5. Fig. 6 pre-
sents the typical failure modes during the steady state tests for G550.
Figs. 5 and 6 indicate the following.
(1) For temperatures below 200 °C, a relative long process of plas-
tic flow occurs when the load reaches the ultimate strength.
Then, the load decreases rapidly. For temperatures beyond
300 °C, the plastic flow of the load–displacement curves almost
disappears, and the load decreases slowly after the ultimate
strength is reached.
(2) The ductility of the specimens decreases with increasing tem-
perature below 200 °C, but the ultimate strength at 200 °C is
higher than that at 100 °C and approaches the ultimate
strength at 30 °C. It is most likely that a chemical reaction,
blue brittleness, occurs at approximately 200 °C. Referring to
Fig. 6, the fracture position at 200 °C is the closer to the end
of specimens than at other temperatures. The failure mode is
a brittle fracture with no necking at this temperature.
(3) The load–displacement curves have a similar shape and ulti-
mate deformation at temperatures from 300 °C to 527 °C. Re-
ferring to Fig. 6, the fracture position and fracture shape of

Table 1
R2
0

Number of tests performed in this study.

30
15

Type of tests Number of tests

94.4 15.6 60 15.6 94.4 Normal tensile test 3

280 Thermal expansion 7
Steady state test 25
Transient state test 45
Fig. 3. Coupon specimen dimensions unit: mm.
4 C. Wei, Y. Jihong / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 73 (2012) 1–11
Fig. 5. Typical force–displacement curves according to steady state tests for G550 steel.
the specimens are similar in this range. Some necking in the
direction of the thickness and transverse cracks appear and
increase with increasing temperatures.
(4) Compared with that below 527 °C, the ultimate strength of
load–displacement curves for temperatures beyond 550 °C
deteriorates greatly, and the ultimate displacement increases
significantly. At the same time, the load decreases very slowly
after the ultimate strength, and the failure mode changes to
ductile transverse fracture with clear necking.
3.1.2. Determination of the yield strength and elastic modulus
In general, the elastic modulus was determined from the stress–
strain curve on the basis of the tangent modulus of the initial elastic
linear curve. The yield strength of cold-form steel at ambient temper-
ature was determined by the 0.2% proof stress method, which uses
the intersection point of the stress–strain curve and the proportional
line offset by 0.2% strain. However, no method has been universally
accepted for determining the yield strength at elevated temperatures.
Most researchers adopt the 0.2% proof stress method, but some
Fig. 6. Typical failure modes during steady state tests for G550 steel.
Fig. 7. Ratios of the yield strength based on different strain levels to the ultimate
strength at elevated temperatures.
researchers use 0.5%, 1.5%, or 2.0% of total strain, where the yield
strength is the intersection point of the stress–strain curve and the
vertical line specified at a strain level of 0.5%, 1.5%, or 2.0%. The cur-
rent AS4100 [2] rule determines the yield strength by the 0.2% proof
strength. Eurocode 3 [1] gives the yield strength at 2.0% total strain.
BS5950 [3] provides the yield strength at three strain levels of 0.5%,
1.5%, and 2.0%.
Fig. 7 shows the ratios of the yield strength at different strain
levels to the tensile strength at high temperatures. The yield strength
for 0.5% total strain is close to that for 0.2% proof stress, while the
yield strengths corresponding to 1.5% and 2.0% strain levels are higher
than that for 0.2% proof stress and approach the ultimate strength of
G550 steel. Therefore, the 0.2% proof stress was used in this study at
ambient and elevated temperatures. However, the yield strengths at
the other three strain levels are also given in the following table for
the purpose of completion.
Table 2 shows the tensile test results of 1.0 mm G550 at ambient
temperature. E30 and fu,30 represent the elastic modulus and ultimate
strength at ambient temperature. fy0.2,30, fy0.5,30, fy1.5,30, and fy2.0,30
represent the yield strength at four stress levels at ambient tempera-
ture. Table 3 presents the average results of the reduction factors
according to steady state tests for 1.0 mm G550 at elevated tempera-
tures. The reduction factors were defined as the ratio of the material
properties at elevated temperatures, including the yield strength,
elastic modulus and ultimate strength, to those at ambient tempera-
tures. ET and fu,T represent the elastic modulus and ultimate strength
at elevated temperatures. fy0.2,T, fy0.5,T, fy1.5,T, and fy2.0,T represent four
kinds of yield strength at elevated temperatures. Table 3 shows that
the reduction factors of yield strength and ultimate strength of
G550 steel at 600 °C are less than 0.1. Thus, there is no engineering
significance for steady state tests of G550 steel above 600 °C.
3.1.3. Comparison of reduction factors with the results of
other researchers
The reduction factors for the 0.2% yield strength of 1.0-mm-thick
G550 according to steady state tests are compared with those found
by Lee [5], Ranawaka [6,7], and Chen et al. [9,10] and are also com-
pared with the current AS4100 [2] and BS5950 [3] rules, as shown
in Fig. 8. The curve for the reduction factors of yield strength provided
Table 2
Test results for G550 steel at ambient temperature.
E30(Gpa) fy0.2,30(Mpa) fy0.5,30(Mpa) fy1.5,30(Mpa) fy2.0,30(Mpa) fu,30(Mpa)
218.8 669 670.8 680 682 685
 C. Wei, Y. Jihong / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 73 (2012) 1–11 5

Table 3
Material properties of G550 steel based on steady state tests.

Tem ET/E30 fy0.2,T/fy0.2,30 fy0.5,T/fy0.5,30 fy1.5,T/fy1.5,30 fy2.0,T/fy2.0,30 fu,T/fu,30

(°C)

30 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

100 0.975 0.986 0.988 0.987 0.986 0.994
200 0.992 0.961 0.963 0.994 0.995 1.022
300 0.909 0.925 0.922 0.994 1.003 1.015
400 0.826 0.710 0.720 0.783 0.779 0.779
450 0.738 0.580 0.599 0.653 0.646 0.650
500 0.632 0.531 0.532 0.582 0.577 0.580
527 0.516 0.354 0.367 0.397 0.390 0.396
550 0.435 0.108 0.114 0.121 0.120 0.121
600 0.281 0.057 0.058 0.060 0.060 0.061

by BS5950 corresponds to the 0.5% total strain level because the yield
strengths of the 0.2% and 0.5% strain levels of G550 steel were close to
each other (Fig. 7). Fig. 8 shows that:
(1) All of the test results are similar below 300 °C. The test results
of the present study agree well with those from Ranawaka for
temperatures between 350 °C and 527 °C and agree well with
those from Chen for temperatures between 500 °C and
600 °C. However, the number of temperature levels given by
Ranawaka is not adequate. The test results obtained from
Lee are too high beyond 500 °C, and the maximum difference
between the results of Lee and the present research is up to
650%. In addition, the results of Chen are far lower than the
other results for temperatures between 450 °C and 500 °C,
and the maximum difference between the results from Chen
and the present research is about 65%.
(2) The reduction factors predicted by A4100 agree well with the
present research up to 430 °C but are nonconservative beyond
450 °C; the reduction factors predicted by BS5950 are also
overestimated beyond 500 °C.
Fig. 9 shows the reduction factors of elastic modulus for G550
according to the steady state tests proposed by the present study,
Lee [5], Ranawaka [6,7], and Chen [9,10]. The elastic modulus from
the present research is pretty close to that according to Chen below
400 °C and is much higher than those from the results of Lee and
Ranawaka. The maximum difference between Ranawaka's results
and those in the present research is about 50%. For temperatures
above 400 °C, the reduction factors of elastic modulus according to
Fig. 9. Comparison of reduction factors of elastic modulus for G550 steel according to
steady state tests with the current design rules.
the present research are between those of Chen and Lee and
Ranwaka. The recommended curves of the reduction factors of elastic
modulus provided by Eurocode 3 [1] and AS4100 [2] are also given in
Fig. 9. The curve of AS4100 agrees well with the present research
below 450 °C but is overestimated beyond 450 °C. On the contrary,
the curve from Eurocode3 agrees well with the present research
beyond 480 °C but is somewhat conservative below 450 °C.
3.2. Transient state tests
3.2.1. Coefficient of linear thermal expansion
Fig. 10 shows the temperature–strain curves of G550 steel. The
strains increase linearly at the initial stage of the curves and become
nonlinear beyond 500 °C. For temperatures from 650 °C to 750 °C,
the strains change slightly, and a chemical reaction involving G550
steel occurs. Some white crystalline powders are precipitated and
burn violently in air. Then, the strains continue to increase beyond
750 °C. The coefficient of linear thermal expansion describes the de-
gree to which the material will expand for each degree of tempera-
ture increase and can be obtained from the strain–temperature
curves. Fig. 11 compares the coefficient of linear thermal expansion
of G550 steel with Eurocode 3 [1] and AS4100 [2] design rules. The
reference temperature is 30 °C. Although the coefficient of linear

Fig. 8. Comparison of the reduction factors of yield strength for G550 steel according to
steady state tests with the current design rules. Fig. 10. Temperature–strain curves for thermal expansion tests of G550 steel.
6 C. Wei, Y. Jihong / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 73 (2012) 1–11
Fig. 11. Comparison of the linear thermal expansion coefficients obtained from the test
results and current design rules.
Fig. 12. Typical failure modes during transient state tests for G550 steel.
thermal expansion varies with temperature, AS4100 [2] adopts a con-
stant value of 11.7 × 10 − 6 °C − 1, which is underestimated for G550
steel. The coefficient of linear thermal expansion from Eurocode 3 in-
creases linearly with the temperature and is also underestimated for
temperatures beyond 550 °C. Eq. (1) is the fitting equation of the co-
efficient of linear thermal expansion of G550 from 30 °C to 650 °C. As
shown in Fig. 11, the results from Eq. (1) are in good agreement with
Fig. 13. Temperature–strain curves according to transient state tests for G550 steel.
Fig. 14. Comparison of the reduction factors for the ultimate strength for G550 steel
between the transient and steady state tests.
the present test results and meet the requirements of engineering
practice.


−1:799  10−7 T3 þ 1:673  10−4 T2 −4:174  10−2 T þ 14:59; 100C≤T≤350C
αT ¼ −8 3 −6 2 −2
4:14  10 T þ 4:196  10 T −2:174  10 T þ 18:08; 350CbT≤650C
ð1Þ
where αT is the coefficient of linear thermal expansion at a given
temperature with units of 10 − 6 °C − 1.
3.2.2. Discussion of the reduction factors of ultimate strength according
to the transient and steady tests
In the transient state tests, the failure modes of tensile specimens
change from ductile to brittle fracture with increasing stress levels, as
shown in Fig. 12. A ductile transverse fracture with some necking oc-
curs in the transient state tests with a constant stress below 0.2fy,30.
Then, the necking in the transverse and thickness directions disap-
pears with increasing stress levels, and the failure mode changes to
brittle transverse fracture at a stress level of 0.8fy,30. Continuing to im-
prove the stress levels, some inclined cracks appear in the fracture
surface of specimens, and brittle fracture occurs along the direction
inclined at 45° to the tensile stress axis for a stress level of 1.0fy,30.
 C. Wei, Y. Jihong / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 73 (2012) 1–11 7

between the ultimate strength reduction factors according to the

transient and steady state tests for G550 steel below 525 °C. However,
the results of the transient state tests become much greater than
those of the steady state tests beyond 550 °C, and the maximum
difference between the results of the transient and steady state tests
is about 66%.

3.2.3. Discussion of stress–strain curves according to transient and

Fig. 15. Stress–strain curves of transient state tests for G550 steel.
Fig. 13 shows the typical temperature–strain curves of transient
state tests for G550 steel. The ultimate temperature–load curves can
be obtained from the temperature–strain curves by defining the ulti-
mate temperature as the temperature at which the constant load can-
not be maintained in the transient state tests. Essentially, the ultimate
temperature–load curves of the transient state tests are the same as
the ultimate load–temperature curves of the steady state tests. Both
can be expressed as the variation of the reduction factors of the ulti-
mate strength with temperature, as shown in Fig. 14. For tempera-
tures from 200 °C to 300 °C, blue brittleness of G550 occurs,
resulting in an increase of the ultimate strength and a decrease of
the ductility with increasing temperature. At other temperatures,
the ultimate strength of G550 decreases with temperature. Thus,
there are no results from the transient state tests from 200 °C to
300 °C in Fig. 14 because of the process of increasing the temperature
with a constant load. As shown in Fig. 14, there is no difference
steady tests
In transient state tests, the temperature–strain curves are con-
verted into stress–strain curves as shown in Fig. 15. The initial points
of the stress–strain curves represent the average results of thermal
expansion strains, and the other points of the stress–strain curves
correspond to the average results of the repeated transient state
tests. As shown in Fig. 15, the stress–strain curves of the transient
state tests are not sufficiently smooth because every datum of the
stress–strain curves is obtained from the average values of different
specimens. Fig. 16 gives the stress–strain curves under both steady
and transient state tests for G550 steel, and the thermal expansion
strains have been subtracted from the total strains. The results show
the following: (1) The strains during transient state tests for G550
steel are higher than those during steady state tests under the same
conditions of temperature and stress, especially for the inelastic peri-
od of stress–strain curves. (2) After 0.25% of strain, the stresses of the
transient state tests become much greater than those of the steady
state tests at 550 °C under the same conditions of temperature and
stress.
3.2.4. Comparison of the other results between the transient and steady
tests
The stress–strain curves obtained from transient state tests are
discrete and not sufficiently smooth, which has little influence on
the yield strength and ultimate strength because the present tran-
sient state tests have 20 stress levels. However, the errors in the elas-
tic modulus cannot be neglected. If the elastic modulus is still
determined by the initial slope of stress–strain curves, more transient
state tests with low stress levels should be taken, and the number of

a) 100 oC b) 200 oC c) 300 oC

700 700 700
600 600 600
Stress (Mpa)

Stress (Mpa)

Stress (Mpa)

500 500 500

400 400 400
300 300 300
G550 steady state test 200 C o G550 steady state test 300oC
200 o 200 G550 transient state test 200oC 200 G550 transient state test 300oC
G550 steady state test 100 C
100 G550 transient state test 100 C o
100 100
0 0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.25 0.50 0.75 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Strain (%) Strain (%) Strain (%)

d) 400 oC e) 500 oC f) 550 oC

250
600 400
500 200
Stress (Mpa)

Stress (Mpa)

Stress (Mpa)

300
400 150 G550 steady state test 550oC
G550 transient state test 550oC
300 200
G550 steady state test 500oC 100
G550 steady state test 400oC
200 o
G550 transient state test 500oC
G550 transient state test 400 C
100 50
100

0 0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Strain (%) Strain (%) Strain (%)

Fig. 16. Comparison of stress–strain curves for G550 steel between the transient and steady state tests.
8 C. Wei, Y. Jihong / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 73 (2012) 1–11

Fig. 18. Comparison of the reduction factors of elastic modulus for G550 steel from
Fig. 17. Temperature–strain curves of transient state tests with a stress level of 0.1fy,30.
transient and steady state tests and current design rules.

repeat tests should increase as well. However, the total cost of exper-
iments would also increase.
Thus, this paper gives the elastic modulus of G550 steel according
to transient state tests at the stress level of 0.1fy,30 and the thermal
expansion tests. A detailed description is as follows: the average
values of the stresses and strains during transient state tests with
the 0.1fy,30 stress level are σ1,T and ε1,T, respectively. The average
value of strains of thermal expansion tests is ε0,T, and the elastic mod-
ulus according to the transient state tests at a given temperature can
be represented as ET = σ1,T / (ε1,T − ε0,T). Fig. 17 shows seven temper-
ature–strain curves resulting from transient state tests with a stress
level of 0.1 fy,30. The test curves are almost coincident, and the dis-
crepancy is very small below 550 °C. The elastic modulus of transient
state tests for G550 is presented in Table 4.
Fig. 18 compares the reduction factors of elastic modulus obtained
from the steady and transient state tests and the current design rules.
The results show that the elastic modulus reduction factors of tran-
sient state tests for G550 are clearly lower than those of steady
state tests, and the maximum difference between transient and
steady state test results is 225%. In addition, Eurocode 3 [1] and
AS4100 [2] provide nonconservative predictions for the elastic modu-
lus of G550 steel beyond 300 °C.
The yield strength of transient state tests for G550 steel was also
determined by the 0.2% proof stress method, as shown in Table 5.
Fig. 19 compares the yield strength reduction factors obtained from
the steady and transient state tests and the current design rules.
The results show that the yield strength reduction factors according
to the transient state tests for G550 are a little lower than those
according to the steady state tests from 300 °C to 500 °C but become
much higher than those according to the steady state tests beyond
550 °C. The maximum difference between the results of the transient
and steady state tests is about 64%. In addition, the reduction factors
of yield strength in BS5950 [3] are in good agreement with the tran-
sient test results, but AS4100 [2] provides nonconservative values
beyond 350 °C.
Thus, it can be concluded that the steady state test method is not
equivalent to the transient state test method for G550 steel. Most of
the material properties for G550 by steady state tests are higher
than those by transient state tests. Given that the transient state
tests better approach actual fire conditions than the steady state
tests, the steady state test results of G550 may lead to a nonconserva-
tive fire resistance for cold-formed steel structures. In addition, the
yield strength reduction factors in BS5950 [3] agree well the transient
state test results of G550. However, in other cases, the reduction fac-
tors for the mechanical properties in BS5950 [3], Eurocode3 [1] and
AS4100 [2] are unsuitable for G550 steel. To be easily used in engi-
neering practice, both the steady and transient state tests results of
G550 are fitted in the next section.
4. Fitting of the test results
4.1. Fitting of reduction factors of material properties

A unified equation to predict the material properties of G550 is pro-

Table 4 posed, as shown in Eq. (2). The coefficients a, b, c, and d were calibrated
Elastic modulus of transient state tests for G550 steel. with the test results and are presented in Table 6. The comparison of the
Tem./°C Transient state test Thermal ET/Gpa fitting results with the test results is shown in Figs. 20 and 21. The
(0.1fy,T) expansion results of this equation are in good agreement with the test results
σ1,T/Mpa ε1,T/% ε0,T/% and meet the requirements of engineering practice.

50 66.93 0.05832 0.02656 210.7

c
100 66.79 0.1185 0.08428 195.2 y ¼ aðT−bÞ þ d ð2Þ
150 66.94 0.1735 0.1394 196.3
200 66.72 0.2287 0.1935 189.5
250 66.90 0.2946 0.2602 194.5
300 66.77 0.3758 0.3371 172.5
350 66.89 0.4550 0.4076 141.1 Table 5
400 66.86 0.5268 0.4718 121.6 Yield strength of transient state tests for G550 steel.
450 66.85 0.6140 0.5441 95.6
Tem./°C 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
500 66.82 0.7372 0.6327 63.9
550 66.94 0.9678 0.7389 29.2 fy,T/Mpa 635.5 634.2 622.8 611.5 570.0 512.5 448.9 370.0 278.3 202.0
 C. Wei, Y. Jihong / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 73 (2012) 1–11 9

Fig. 19. Comparison of reduction factors of yield strength of G550 steel from transient Fig. 20. Comparison of reduction factors for G550 steel predicted using the proposed
and steady state tests and current design rules. equation with the steady state test results.

8
in which T is the temperature in degrees Celsius and y represents the >
> ET ε; ε≤εp;T
>
> h  i0:5
reduction factors of elastic modulus, yield strength and ultimate >
> −c þ ð Þ a2 − εy;T −ε ;εp;T bεbεy;T
> f
> p;T b=a
strength (ET/E30,fy,T/fy,30,fu,T/fu,30). >
<
f y;T ; εy;T ≤ε≤εt
σT ¼ ! ð4Þ
>
> ε−εt;T
4.2. Stress–strain model >f
> ; εt bε bεu;T
>
> y;T 1−
>
> εu;T −εt;T
>
: 0;
An accurate stress–strain model is necessary for the simulation of ε ¼ εu;T
cold-formed steel structures. Ramberg and Osgood [18] first devel-
oped a stress–strain model at elevated temperatures, which included and εp, T =fp, T/ET;εy, T =0.02,εt =0.15,εu, T =0.20;a2=(εy, T −εp, T)(εy, T −
three parameters, the yield strength, elasticity modulus, and temper- 2
f y;T −f p;T
ature, as shown in Eq. (3). Various researchers have modified the εp, T +c/ET);b2 =c(εy, T −εp, T)ET +c2; c¼   
value of the coefficients β and ηT in Eq. (3) with their test results. εy;T −εp;T ET −2 f y;T −f p;T
For example, Ranawaka [6] considered the coefficient β as a constant where σT is the stress at a given temperature, fy, T is the yield strength
value of 0.86, and ηT was determined as a function of temperature. corresponding to 2% of the total strain at elevated temperatures, fp, T is
Lee [5] took ηT = 15 and β varying with temperature. In addition, the proportional limit at elevated temperatures, εp, T is the strain at the
the current Eurocode 3 [1] design rule also gives a stress–strain proportional limit at a given temperature, εy, T is the yield strain at a
model of cold-formed steel at elevated temperatures, as shown in given temperature, εt, T is the ultimate strain for the yield strength at a
Eq. (4). Eq. (4) is somewhat complicated, but it includes the complete given temperature and εu, T is the ultimate strain at a given temperature.
stress–strain curve. Fig. 22 compares the predicted stress–strain curves at different
temperatures according to Lee [5], Ranawaka [6], and Eurocode 3
  !η [1] with the results of the present steady state tests of G550. The com-
fT f y;T fT T

εT ¼ þβ ð3Þ parison indicates that stress–strain curves from Eurocode 3 are quite
ET ET f y;T different than the tests results because of the fast deterioration of the

Table 6
Coefficient values of Eq. (2).

Type of Reduction Tem. (°C) a b c d

tests factors

Steady fy,T/fy,30 [0, 300] − 4.511 × 10− 7 − 140 2 1.013

state test [300, 525] − 2.297 × 10− 9 − 164.5 3 1.156
[525, 600] 1.404 × 104 491 − 3 4.58 × 10− 2
ET/E30 [30, 450] − 3.298 × 10− 9 21 3 1
[450, 600] − 3.057 × 10− 3 0 1 2.115
fuT/fu30 [30, 300] 7.000 × 10− 5 0 1 0.9979
[300, 525] − 4.577 × 10− 9 − 25 3 1.176
[525, 600] 4.004 515 − 1 1.41 × 10− 2
−4
Transient fy,T/fy,30 [30, 100] − 6.843 × 10 30 1 1
state test [100, 400] − 7.518 × 10− 9 64 3 0.953
[400, 550] − 2.465 × 10− 3 265 1 1
ET/E30 [30, 100] − 1.557 × 10− 3 30 1 1
[100, 250] 0 0 0 0.891
[250, 550] − 1.488 × 10− 6 − 450 2 1.621
−4
fu,T/fu,30 [30, 350] − 2.138 × 10 30 1 1
−6
[350, 600] − 5.374 × 10 185 2 1.078
Fig. 21. Comparison of reduction factors for G550 steel predicted using the proposed
[600, 650] − 1.555 × 10− 3 54.8 1 1
equation with the transient state test results.
10 C. Wei, Y. Jihong / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 73 (2012) 1–11

a) Eurocode 3 Table 7
800 Coefficients values of ηT.
Test results
Type of tests Temperature (°C) a b c
700 Eurocode 3
Steady state test [30, 300] 2.823 × 10− 4 − 1.071 × 10− 1 26.02
[300, 527] 3.466 × 10− 4 − 3.195 × 10− 1 83.97
600
[527, 600] 1.485 × 10− 3 − 1.497 388.4
Transient state test [30, 450] 5.929 × 10− 5 − 8.998 × 10− 2 34.97
Stress (Mpa)

500 [450, 550] 6.212 × 10− 4 − 5.484 × 10− 1 127.47

400

300 Eurocode 3 and Lee, but the difference at the inelastic parts of
stress–strain curves cannot be neglected.
200 On the basis of the Ramberg–Osgood model [18], this paper gives
the simulation of the stress–strain curves of G550 during both steady
100 and transient state tests. Eq. (5) is the corresponding fitting equation.
In Eq. (5), the elastic modulus is zero when the stress reaches the ul-
0 timate strength, corresponding to the plastic flow of the stress–strain
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 curves. The values of ηT in Eq. (5) are shown in Table 7. Figs. 23 and 24
Strain (%) compare the stress–strain curves obtained from these tests with the
predicted equation. In Fig. 24, the continuous curves represent the
b) Lee model predicted stress–strain curves, and the discrete data are the transient
800
Test results
700 Lee model

600
Stress (Mpa)

500

400

300

200

100

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Strain (%)
c) Ranawaka model
800
Test results
700
Ranawaka model
Fig. 23. Comparison of stress–strain curves for G550 steel predicted using the proposed
equation with steady state test results.
600
Stress (Mpa)

500

400

300

200

100

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Strain (%)

Fig. 22. Comparison of stress–strain curves obtained from the present steady state tests
of G550 with the results of other researchers and Eurocode 3.

elastic modulus at the inelastic parts of the stress–strain curves. There

is also a significant difference between the stress–strain curves
according to Lee and the tests results. In addition, the accuracy of Fig. 24. Comparison of stress–strain curves for G550 steel predicted using the proposed
the stress–strain curves from Ranawaka is better than those from equations with transient state test results.
 C. Wei, Y. Jihong / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 73 (2012) 1–11
state test results. The stress–strain curves from Eq. (5) are in good
agreement with the tests results and meet the requirement of the
numerical simulation of cold-formed steel structures.
!η
fT T
fT
εT ¼ 0:002 þ ; f T ≤f u;T
f y;T ET
where ηT = aT 2 + bT + c.
5. Conclusions
This paper reports a detailed experimental investigation of the
material properties of 1-mm-thick G550 at elevated temperatures.
Both steady and transient state test methods were considered, and a
careful discussion of the test results was included. The conclusions
are as follows.
(1) The steady state method is not equivalent to the transient state
method for G550 steel, and the steady state test results for
G550 may lead to an overestimate of the fire resistance of
cold-formed steel structures. The main distinctions between
the transient and steady state test results are that 1) the reduc-
tion factors of the ultimate strength for G550 according to tran-
sient state tests were much higher than those found with
steady state tests above 550 °C, and the maximum difference
was close to 66%; 2) the strains according to the transient
state tests for G550 are higher than those according to the
steady state tests under the same conditions of temperature
and stress, especially for the inelastic period of the stress–
strain curves. These differences eventually led to clearly
lower reduction factors of elastic modulus according to the
transient state tests, and the maximum difference was 225%.
At the same time, the maximum difference in the reduction
factors of yield strength between the steady and transient
state tests of G550 was 64% beyond 550 °C.
(2) The yield strength predicted by BS5950 agrees well the tran-
sient state test results of G550 and is conservative for the
steady state tests. However, in other cases, BS5950, AS4100,
and Eurocode 3 provide nonconservative predictions for the
material properties of G550 at elevated temperatures. A unified
equation for the reduction factors of yield strength, elastic
modulus, and ultimate strength of G550 at elevated tempera-
tures is proposed in this paper. A stress–strain equation of
G550 at elevated temperatures is also given. It is shown that
the proposed equations accurately predict the test results and
provide a reasonable basis for the theoretical and numerical
analysis of cold-formed steel structures under fire conditions.
11
Acknowledgments
This research is sponsored by the Priority Academic Program De-
velopment of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions, and the Scholar-
ship Award for Excellent Doctoral Student granted by the Ministry
ð5Þ of Education, China. The authors are grateful to BlueScope Lysaght
Shanghai for supplying the test material. They also would like to
thank Teacher Chen Shengming and Teacher Ying Shuiping for pro-
viding the experimental devices.
References
[1] European Committee for Standardization Eurocode 3 Part 1-2 structural fire
design. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization; 2001.
[2] Standards Australia. AS4100-1998 Steel structures. Sydney; 1998.
[3] British Standards Institution. BS 5950 Structural use of steelwork in building —
part 8: code of practice for fire resistance design. British Standard BS; 2003.
[4] Feng W, Wang Y C, Davies J M. Structural behavior of cold-formed thin-walled
short steel channel columns at elevated temperatures. Part 1: experiments. Thin
Walled Struct 2003;41(6):543–570.
[5] Lee JH. Prediction of mechanical properties of light gauge steels at elevated tem-
peratures. J Constr Steel Res 2003;59(12):1517–32.
[6] Ranawaka T. Experimental study of the mechanical properties of light gauge cold-
formed steels at elevated temperatures. Fire Saf J 2009;44(2):219–29.
[7] Ranawaka T. Distortional buckling behaviour of cold-formed steel compression
members at elevated temperatures. Doctoral Thesis, Queensland University of
Technology, Australia, 2006.
[8] Heva Y B. Behaviour and design of cold-formed steel compression members at
elevated temperatures. Doctoral Thesis, Queensland University of Technology,
Australia 2009.
[9] Chen J, Young B. Experimental investigation of cold-formed steel material at
elevated temperatures. Thin Walled Struct 2007;45(1):96–110.
[10] Chen J. Behaviour of high strength steel columns at elevated temperatures.
Doctoral Thesis, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 2007.
[11] Qu LJ, Li HQ, Wang YQ, Zhang H, Bao YQ. Material properties of Q345 (16 Mn)
steel under loading and constant temperature. China Civ Eng J 2008;41(7):
33–40 (in Chinese).
[12] Qu LJ, Li HQ, Wang YQ, Zhang H, Bao YQ. Strain–temperature–stress material
model of Q345 (16 Mn) steel under elevated temperature and constant loading.
China Civil Engineering Journal 2008;41(7):41–7 (in Chinese).
[13] Outinen J. Mechanical properties of structural steels at elevated temperatures.
Licentiate Thesis, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland, 1999.
[14] Outinen J, Kesti J, Makelainen P. Fire design model for structural steel S355 based
upon transient state tensile test results. J Constr Steel Res 1997;42(3):161–9.
[15] Standards Australia. AS 2291 Methods for the tensile testing of metals at elevated
temperatures. Sydney; 1979.
[16] Standards Australia. AS 1391 metallic materials — tensile testing at ambient tem-
perature. Sydney; 2005.
[17] ASTM. ASTM E228-06 standard test method for linear thermal expansion of solid
materials with a push-rod dilatometer. West Conshohochken; 2006.
[18] Ramberg W, Osgood WR. Description of stress–strain curves by three parameters.
NACA technical note, 902; 1943.