Journal of Constructional Steel Research 121 (2016) 65–79

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Material properties and partial factors for resistance of high-strength

steels in China
Gang Shi a,⁎, Xi Zhu b, Huiyong Ban a
a
Key Laboratory of Civil Engineering Safety and Durability of China Education Ministry, Department of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, PR China
b
East China Architectural Design & Research Institute Co., Ltd., Shanghai, PR China

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

Article history: High strength structural steels (HSS) with a nominal yield strength fy ≥ 460 MPa have begun to be applied in
Received 12 July 2015 many steel structures. This paper focuses on material properties of the HSS fabricated in China and calibration
Received in revised form 5 December 2015 of partial factors for resistance based on the theory of structural reliability. An extensive range of material prop-
Accepted 1 January 2016
erty data of 500 MPa, 550 MPa and 690 MPa steels produced by major steel manufacturers in China (over 10,000
Available online 23 January 2016
samples) was collected. Besides, independent material tests were carried out. The statistical parameters of the
Keywords:
material properties were then obtained with the influence of test machine types and strain rates being incorpo-
High strength steel rated. Uncertainties of the resistance model of HSS were subsequently investigated through finite element (FE)
Material property analyses, including members under axial compression, flexural members and members under combined axial
Resistance model compression and bending. By combining the statistical parameters of both the material properties and the resis-
Partial factor for resistance tance model uncertainties as well as that of geometric properties investigated in the previous research, the sta-
Reliability tistical parameters of resistance uncertainties of HSS were gained. It may provide a significant statistical
Constitutive model evidence for the following reliability analyses. Based on structural reliability theories, partial factors for resistance
of HSS were eventually calibrated. As an important part of the Design Specification of High Strength Steel Structures
in China, these partial factors for resistance developed herein are helpful for promoting the application of HSS in
China. In addition, based on the massive material properties data, a constitutive model of HSS under monotonic
loading was suggested.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
With the development of steel manufacture technologies like
microalloying and thermal mechanical control processing (TMCP),
high strength structural steels (HSS, with a nominal yield strength
fy ≥ 460 MPa) with good toughness and excellent weldability have
been applied in many steel structures [1]. The advantages of applying
HSS in steel structures are significant. HSS makes member sizes smaller,
construction lighter and fabrication cost less. In the meantime, HSS has
higher safety and benefits for the environment. HSS can be found in the
Sony Centre in Berlin, Germany, where S460 and S960 steels were used,
the Star City and the Latitude in Sydney, Australia, and some other
bridge structures. In China, the National Stadium, the new CCTV Head-
quarters, the Phoenix Media Centre in Beijing and the Shenzhen Bay
Sports Centre in Shenzhen successfully applied HSS with a nominal
yield strength of 460 MPa [2].
Eurocode 3 [3,4] and the American National Standard (ANSI/AISC
360-10) [5] have adjusted the upper limit of the steel grade in the
⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University,
Beijing 100084, PR China.
E-mail address: shigang@tsinghua.edu.cn (G. Shi).
application to 700 MPa (S700) and 690 MPa (A514), respectively. The
up-to-date Chinese Code for design of steel structures [6] (GB50017-
201X bdraft for approval N) has complemented the design value of
Q460 steel whose nominal yield strength is 460 MPa. However, these
codes just simply extend the upper limit of steel grades and do not pro-
vide evidence to confirm whether the former design methods are still
applicable to HSS. Research on HSS is still in progress, which mainly fo-
cuses on their mechanical properties [7,8], residual stresses [9], overall
and local buckling behaviour [10–18], flexural behaviour and mechani-
cal responses under cyclic loading. Previous experiment results and nu-
merical analyses have demonstrated that HSS exhibits better structural
performance compared with the conventional mild steels. Now in
China, the Design Specification of High Strength Steel Structures is being
codified, in which some new design methods for HSS structures have
been introduced. This specification is applicable to steel grades from
460 MPa to 690 MPa. It aims to further promote the application of HSS
and to provide design guidance.
When undertaking structure design work, it is of importance to
make use of appropriate partial factors for resistance, γM [19]. As we
all know, material and geometric properties vary from their nominal
values. In addition, resistance models used in design are incomplete
and inexact in most cases resulting from lack of knowledge or a

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2016.01.012
0143-974X/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
66 G. Shi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 121 (2016) 65–79
deliberate simplification for convenience [20]. These uncertainties make
the predicted member resistance different from the actual one, which
may be considered as random variables and described by probability
distributions characterized by means, standard deviations and other pa-
rameters. Once characteristic parameters are obtained by mathematical
statistical method, the following limit state equation should be taken
into consideration [20]:
g ðX 1 ; X 2 ; ……; X n Þ ¼ 0
where g() is the limit state function and Xi (i = 1, 2, ……, n) is the basic
variable including the three mentioned above and the action effects
part. Sometimes, Eq. (1) can be simplified as:
R−S ¼ 0
where R is the structure resistance and S is the action effect. Fig. 1 illus-
trates the meaning of the limit state equation. It describes the limit state
whether the structure satisfies the design requirements. In the view of
probability-based limit state method, no structures are absolutely safe
and engineers can only keep the failure probability of one structure
under an acceptable limit. The use of partial factors for resistance, γM,
is an approach to use the probability-based limit state method, which
is called partial factors format [20]. The design resistance Rd can be writ-
ten as [21]:
Rd ¼ Rð f k =γM ; ad Þ
where fk is characteristic value of material properties and ad is the de-
sign value of geometrical quantities.
In Eurocode 3, γM is defined case by case. For example, the resistance
of cross-section whatever class it belongs to uses γM0 equal to 1.0, the
buckling resistance of members uses γM1 equal to 1.0 and the resistance
of cross-sections in tension to fracture uses γM2 equal to 1.25. These
values are recommended and each nation can give their own definitions
in the National Annex. In ANSI/AISC 360-10, the resistance factor ϕ is
defined, which can be regarded as the inverse of γM in values but
has the same meaning in essence. The factor is classified by the member
types, for example, members under compression (ϕc = 0.9) and
members under flexure (ϕb = 0.9). In Chinese code GB50017, γM
changes with the steel grades and plate thicknesses. For example,
the γM of Q235 steel (fy = 235 MPa) is 1.090 and that of Q345 steel
(fy = 345 MPa) is 1.125.
This paper collected an extensive range of test data of the material
properties of 500 MPa, 550 MPa and 690 MPa HSS produced by major
steel manufacturers in China (over 10,000 samples). Besides, indepen-
dent material tests were carried out, which may be viewed as the veri-
fication and supplement of the collected data. The data were analysed
statistically and statistical parameters of the material properties were
subsequently obtained, with the influence of test machine types and
Fig. 1. Illustration of the limit state equation [20].
strain rates in the tension coupon tests being taken into consideration.
Given new design methods for HSS structures that were different from
the conventional ones, the resistance model uncertainties of HSS were
separately investigated through finite element (FE) analyses, including
members under axial compression, flexural members and members
under combined axial compression and bending, and the statistical pa-
rameters of uncertainties of these three kinds of resistance models of
HSS were obtained. On this basis, along with the statistical parameters
ð1Þ of geometric properties investigated in the previous research, reliability
analyses of HSS were undertaken and the partial factors for the resis-
tance of HSS were calibrated. In addition, based on the massive material
properties data, a constitutive model of HSS under monotonic loading
was suggested.
ð2Þ 2. Grades HSS in China
The Chinese national standard GB/T 1591-2008 [22] specifies several
high strength low alloy structural steel grades, Q460, Q500, Q550, Q620
and Q690 where the character Q stands for yielding in Chinese. The
nominal yield strength, ultimate strength and elongation are shown in
Table 1 and in Fig. 2. In this standard, the ratio of yield strength to ulti-
mate strength of each grade is not directly specified, which means addi-
tional requirements will be made to satisfy requirements of seismic
design.
3. Uncertainty of material properties
ð3Þ
3.1. Mill test data
An extensive range of data of material properties of Q500, Q550 and
Q690 HSS produced by five major steel manufacturers in China was col-
lected, including yield strength, ultimate strength, elongation, impact
energy, cold-bending behaviour and their chemical components such
as carbon, silicon, manganese, phosphorus and sulphur. Given that
plates are more commonly used in China compared with profile steels,
most of the test coupons were cut from plates. By comparison, it could
be found that most results (a total of 11,638 effective results) satisfied
the requirements in accordance with GB/T 1591-2008 and only few
failed to meet the requirements. In engineering design, the most impor-
tant material property is the yield strength. Thus, this research mainly
focused on the yield strength.
The nominal yield strength is a characteristic value with 95% confi-
dence [21]. Fig. 3 plots the 95% confidence limit along with all the
data. It can be seen that all steels satisfied the lower bound of the stan-
dard and some even exceeded the higher grade, such as the data of
Q550 (N16–40 mm) and Q550 (N 63–80 mm) steels. Besides, effects of
plate thickness were insignificant for the data, while the nominal yield
strength decreases with the increase of the thickness in accordance
with the standard. The coefficient of variation of each manufacturer
was very stable. Most were below 0.066 which is recommended in
GB50017-2003 [23] while that used for calibrating Eurocode 3 was
0.07 [19]. It implied that the quality of Chinese HSS was controlled well.
3.2. Independent test
To verify and supplement the collected data above, independent ma-
terial tests were carried out in Tsinghua University. 46 tension coupons
as shown in Fig. 4(a) were cut from plates. The dimension of the tension
couples as shown in Fig. 4(b) and (c) was based on GB/T 2975-1998
which was equal to ISO 377:1997. Two kinds of servo universal testing
machines, WEW1000 and WEW300 as shown in Fig. 5, with maximum
forces being 1000 kN and 300 kN, respectively, were utilised. Testing
rate as specified in ISO 6892-1:2009 [24] was determined based either
on the stress rate or on the strain rate. The stress rate was kept at
16 MPa/s within the elastic range, while the crosshead separation rate
was kept as 0.0025 s−1 within the plastic range. The elastic modulus
 G. Shi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 121 (2016) 65–79 67

Table 1
Material properties of Chinese HSS.

Grade Yield strength fy (MPa) Ultimate strength fu (MPa) Elongation A (%)

≤16 mm N16–40 mm N40–63 mm N63–80 mm N80–100 mm ≤40 mm N40–63 mm N63–80 mm N80–100 mm

Q460 ≥460 ≥440 ≥420 ≥400 ≥400 550–720 550–720 550–720 530–700 ≥17(16)*
Q500 ≥500 ≥480 ≥470 ≥450 ≥440 610–700 600–760 590–750 540–730 ≥17
Q550 ≥550 ≥530 ≥520 ≥500 ≥490 670–830 620–810 600–790 590–780 ≥16
Q620 ≥620 ≥600 ≥590 ≥570 – 710–880 690–880 670–860 – ≥15
Q690 ≥690 ≥670 ≥660 ≥640 – 770–940 750–920 730–900 – ≥14
*
≤40 mm, A = 17%. N40 mm, A = 16%.

E, yield strength fy (or proof strength σ0.2 for HSS without a yielding pla-
teau), ultimate strength fu, elongation A and the whole stress–strain
curve were recorded. The independent test results demonstrated that
the mill test data were credible as their characteristic strength values
and coefficient of variation were close. The data of the stress–strain
curve would also be applied to calibrate the constitutive models for
HSS under monotonic loading in Section 6.
3.3. Statistical analyses
Probability distribution of material properties is recommended as a
Gaussian distribution or lognormal distribution [21]. As the volume of
the mill test data and independent test data were quite different, a sim-
ple random sampling was carried out to make a combination data con-
sidering these data equally important. Hypothesis testing was
undertaken based on these combination data. Under the significant
level 0.05, most subsets of the data passed the hypothesis testing of
Gaussian distribution, which indicated that the Gaussian distribution
was more favourable for simulating the distribution of the data. Some
examples are shown in Fig. 6.
Table 2 shows statistical parameters of the measured material prop-
erty uncertainties, Kf, for HSS. From Table 2, it can be found that [25]:
(1) ratios of the mean yield strength to the nominal one mostly ranged
from 1.1 to 1.2 with a maximum value of 1.312; (2) coefficients of var-
iation basically changed from 0.04 to 0.06 and the maximum value is
0.064, which exhibited very stable quality; (3) the statistical parameters
were quite different for HSS with various steel grades and thickness
values, which was one of possible reasons why the classification princi-
ples of γM were different from Eurocode 3 and ANSI/AISC 360-10.
3.4. Conversion factor affected by testing method
The testing rate influences the measured strength. The higher the
rate is, the higher the measured strength is [26]. In the actual working
condition, the loading of members or structures could be viewed as
quasi-static process except the impact load or earthquake action. How-
ever, the mill test is always carried out at a relatively high rate, which
means a higher yield strength is obtained. Thus, a conversion factor K1
that takes the testing rate into consideration is defined as follows:
yield strength under quasi‐static loading
K1 ¼ ð4Þ
yield strength under actual mill loading
Another influence factor is the compliance of the testing machine.
For HSS without yielding plateau, if the force increases, the estimated
strain rate may be below the target strain due to the compliance of
the testing machine. It may cause the measured strength lower than
the actual one. ISO 6892-1:2009 has recommended testing rates based
on the strain rate control, in which the strain rate based on the feedback
obtained from an extensometer is treated as the actual strain rate. It is
assumed that the influence of the compliance of the testing machine
may be eliminated. However, most mill tests in China are lacking in test-
ing conditions to execute this method. Thus, the influence the compli-
ance should be considered when determining the yield strength and
the conversion factor K2 is approximately defined as follows:
yield strength under lower compliance
K2 ¼ ð5Þ
yield strength under higher compliance
Tests were carried out for both of the conversion factors. To quantify
K1, 31 tension coupons were tested under different loading rates. The di-
mension of the tension coupons was the same as that in independent
tests. Based on the test data analysis, the mean value of K1, μK1 was
equal to 0.9745 and the coefficient of variation δK1 was 0.0078 when as-
suming the probability distribution of K1 as symmetrical triangular prior
distribution. To quantify K2, two methods were applied: (1) 7 tension
coupons were tested by using two testing machines, respectively, of
which the compliance was different; (2) 4 tension coupons were tested
under different strain rates. One was based on the feedback from an ex-
tensometer, of which the compliance may be viewed as zero, and the
other was based on the conventional crossheads separation rate. The
mean value of K2, was equal to 1.0226 and the coefficient of variation
δK2 was 0.0136 by assuming the probability distribution as symmetrical
triangular prior distribution.

Fig. 2. Yield strength vs. thickness. Fig. 3. Characteristic values vs. steel grade & thickness.
68 G. Shi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 121 (2016) 65–79

3.5. Statistical parameters of uncertainty of material properties

Uncertainty of the material properties is defined as follows:

KM ¼ K0  K f ð8Þ

Obviously, by assuming that K0 and Kf were independent of each

other, the expressions of the mean and coefficient of variation of KM
are as follows:

μ KM ¼ μ K0  μ K f ð9Þ

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
δK M ¼ δ2K 0 þ δ2K f ð10Þ

μKf and δKf have been investigated in subsection 3.3 while μK0 and δK0
have been obtained in subsection 3.4. Therefore, the statistical parame-
ters of the uncertainty of the material properties for HSS are
summarised in Table 3.

4. Uncertainty of resistance model

The assumptions and inaccuracy of calculation formulae may cause

uncertainties of the resistance model, KP. It can be expressed as:

R0
KP ¼ ð11Þ
Rc

where R0 is the actual resistance which can be obtained by experiments

or exact formulae and Rc is the resistance calculated by the formulae in
Fig. 4. Tension coupons. codes. Furthermore, Eq. (11) can be expressed as:
   
Thus, the statistical parameters of the conversion factor affected by experiment values theoretical values
KP ¼  ¼ K P1  K P2 ð12Þ
testing method K0 were finally obtained by assuming that K1 and K2 theoretical values code values
were independent of each other. The mean value and coefficient of var-
iation of K0 may be calculated as: where KP1 is the uncertainty of the difference between experiment
values and theoretical values; KP2 is the uncertainty of the difference be-
μ K0 ¼ μ K1  μ K2 ð6Þ tween theoretical values and code values.
As this paper mainly focused on the ultimate limit states of HSS,
three kinds of resistance model uncertainty were investigated below.
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
δK 0 ¼ δ2K 1 þ δ2K 2 ð7Þ
4.1. Members under axial compression

The mean value μK0 was equals to 0.9965 and the coefficient of vari- The design formula of members under axial compression suggested
ation δK0 was 0.0157. in the Design Specification of High Strength Steel Structures (preliminary
version) [27] (hereinafter referred to as HSS Specification) is expressed
as:

N
≤1:0 ð13Þ
φAf

Fig. 5. Testing machine: (a) WEW1000; (b) WEW300.
where N is the design axial force, A is the gross cross-section area, f is the
design strength and φ is the overall buckling factor which is determined
by the slenderness ratio, steel grade and curve types. Based on the study
of Ban et al. [12,13], for all the Q500–Q690 HSS welded box sections,
curve b in GB50017-2003 [23] should be considered in design, while
for welded I-section columns buckled around the major axis, the col-
umn curve b is suggested to design those with Q500–Q550 HSS, and
curve a for Q620–Q690 HSS; for those buckled around their minor
axis, curve b is suggested to design Q500–Q690 HSS columns, which
has significant changes compared with that of conventional mild steels.
Ban et al. [12,13] summarised experimental data of HSS axial com-
pression members including 26 welded box section data and 35 welded
I-section data. The overall buckling factors obtained from these experi-
ments were noted as φEXP. Ban et al. verified the FE models by the exper-
imental data. The FE model results were noted as φFEM. Then KP1 can be
 G. Shi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 121 (2016) 65–79 69

Fig. 6. Histogram of fy: (a) Q500 (≤16 mm); (b) Q550 (≤16 mm); (c) Q550 (N16–40 mm); (d) Q550 (N63–80 mm); (e) Q690 (≤16 mm); (f) Q690 (N16–40 mm).

expressed as: By analysis, the mean value of KP1 was equal to 1.011 and the coeffi-
cient of variation was 0.089.
φEXP For Q500–Q690 HSS welded box section, Ban et al. [12] calculated
K P1 ¼ ð14Þ
φFEM the overall buckling factors with 6 geometric dimensions and different

Table 2
Statistical parameters of material properties for HSS.

Grade Thickness (mm) Mean (MPa) Standard deviation (MPa) Coefficient of variation δKf Characteristic value (MPa) Ratio of mean to nominal μKf

Q500 ≤16 554 25 0.044 513 1.107

N16–40 553 34 0.062 496 1.152
Q550 ≤16 637 36 0.056 578 1.159
N16–40 647 40 0.059 585 1.221
N63–80 656 42 0.064 584 1.312
Q690 ≤16 764 31 0.041 712 1.107
N16–40 754 31 0.041 703 1.125
70 G. Shi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 121 (2016) 65–79

Table 3
Statistical parameters of material properties uncertainty for HSS.

Grade Thickness (mm) μ K0 δK0 μKf δKf μKM δKM

Q500 ≤16 0.9965 0.0157 1.107 0.044 1.103 0.047

N16–40 1.152 0.062 1.148 0.064
≤16 1.159 0.056 1.155 0.059
Q550 N16–40 1.221 0.056 1.216 0.061
N63–80 1.312 0.059 1.308 0.066
≤16 1.107 0.041 1.103 0.044
Q690
N16–40 1.125 0.041 1.121 0.044

slenderness ratios being incorporated and obtained 240 groups of data

by the FE model. For Q500–Q690 HSS welded I-section, Ban et al. [13]
calculated the overall buckling factors with 8 geometric dimensions, 2
buckling modes and different slenderness ratios being incorporated
and obtained 640 groups of data. These FE model results were noted
as φEXP. By applying the formula introduced in the HSS Specification,
the overall buckling factors of the corresponding members can be calcu- Fig. 7. FE result vs. experiment result.
lated, which were noted as φ. Then KP2 can be expressed as:

φFEM
K P2 ¼ ð15Þ existing research [29]. The element type was S4R. The element dimen-
φ sion of the cross section was taken as 1/20 of the width of flange or
the height of web to satisfy the residual stress mode suggested for HSS
By analysis, the mean value of KP2 was equal to 1.056 and the coeffi- [30]. The element dimension along the member axis was taken as no
cient of variation was 0.054. more than 3 times of the dimension of the cross section to ensure the
Similar to Eqs. (9) and (10), the statistical parameters of KP may be calculation accuracy. The measured dimensions of members and sec-
computed [28]. The mean value of KP was equal to 1.068 and the coeffi- tions, initial geometric imperfections, residual stresses and material
cient of variation was 0.104. strengths were applied in the FE model [31]. The geometric nonlinearity
was considered and the Riks method was applied to calculate the ulti-
4.2. Members under bending mate moment. The ratio of the ultimate moment calculated by the FE
model to the experiment value is illustrated in Fig. 7 and one typical
The design formula of the overall stability of flexural members rec- comparison between the FE model results and the experimental ones
ommended in HSS Specification is as follows: for the displacement-force response is shown in Fig. 8. It indicates that
Mx the FE model may produce satisfactory predictions for the behaviour
≤1 ð16Þ of overall stability of flexural members.
φb γ x W x f
By using the verified FE model, the ultimate capacity of 460 HSS
welded-section flexural members was calculated, considering four
where Mx is the design moment around the major axis; Wx is the
steel grades (Q500, Q550, Q620 and Q690), six section dimensions as
elastic gross section modulus; φb is the overall stability factor for
shown in Table 5, three kinds of loading patterns including pure bend-
beams, which can be calculated as follows:
ing, concentrated force loading on the upper flange at the mid-span
1
φb ¼ h  re 2n  re 2n i1=n ≤1:0 ð17Þ
1− λb0 þ λb

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
γx W x f y
λre
b ¼ ð18Þ
M cr

where Mcr is the elastic critical moment for lateral torsional buckling;
λre
b0 is the plateau length of the non-dimensional slenderness as shown
in Table 4; n is an exponent as shown in Table 4; b1 is the width of the
compression flange for I section; hm is the distance between the middle
plane of the upper and lower flanges; M1 and M2 are the end moments,
which takes an identical sign when making the member synclastic cur-
vature, and takes opposite signs when making the member reverse cur-
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
vature; εk′ is steel grade correction factor, which equals to 460=f y .
FE model analyses were carried out to obtain the uncertainty by
ABAQUS. The FE model was verified by the test data reported in the Fig. 8. Comparison of displacement-force curve.

Table 4
The exponent n and plateau length of the non-dimensional slenderness λre
b0.

Category n λre
b0

Simply supported beam Cantilever and continuous beams subjected to linear variation moment
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Welded section 2 3 ð6−5ε 0k Þ hbm1 þ 1:5ð1−ε0k Þ 0.3 0:55−0:25 M
M1
2
 G. Shi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 121 (2016) 65–79 71

Table 5
Section dimensions.

Section H (mm) B (mm) tf (mm) tw (mm)

Sec-I1 200 200 14 6

Sec-I2 300 150 10 10
Sec-I3 350 200 16 12
Sec-I4 500 200 14 14
Sec-I5 500 250 20 12
Sec-I6 600 300 28 20

and uniformly distributed loading on the upper flange and several dif-
ferent non-dimensional slenderness ratios for each section. The non-
dimensional slenderness ratio λre b ranged from 0.55 to 1.94. The range
of these parameters covered the engineering application. As the materi-
al property, geometrical quantity and resistance model uncertainties
were considered separately, the geometrical and mechanical data for
the numerical analysis were the nominal or characteristic values.
As there are only a few experiment results available in the literature,
the mean value of KP1 herein was taken as 1.0 under the assumption
that the numerical analysis or the theory could estimate the experiment
results precisely. The coefficient of variation was taken as 0.089 referred
to the result of members under axial compression. Based on the FE
model analysis results, KP2 may be calculated and the statistical param-
eters were then obtained. The mean value of KP2 was equal to 1.028 and
the coefficient of variation was 0.052. Finally, the mean value of KP was
equal to 1.028 while the coefficient of variation was equal to 0.103.
4.3. Members under combined axial compression and bending
Based on the experiment results and referred to ANSI/AISC 360-10,
HSS Specification provides design formulae of the in-plane stability of
members under combined axial compression and bending as follows:
N ψβmx M x
þ   ≤1:0
φx Af N axial compression and bending well.
γ x W 1x f 1−0:8 0
NEx
 
N0Ex ¼ π2 EA= 1:1λ2x
where NEx′ is a parameter calculated by Eq. (19); φx is the in-plane over-
all buckling factor; Mx is the design moment; ψ is a correction factor,
Fig. 10. Comparison for displacement-force curve.
section modulus; βmx is the equivalent moment coefficient, which is
taken from GB 50017. It can be seen that the overall buckling factor
has been changed as discussed above and a correction coefficient ψ is in-
troduced in the formula compared with the conventional design
method.
Also FE model analyses were carried out to obtain the uncertainty
parameters by ABAQUS as the same as described in Section 4.2. The FE
model was validated against the test data in previous research [11,32,
33]. The measured dimensions of members and sections, initial geomet-
ric imperfections, residual stresses and material strengths were applied
in the FE model. If the initial geometric imperfections or residual stress-
es were not reported in the literature, 1‰ of the member length and the
residual stress model for HSS [30] were utilised. The ratio of the ultimate
axial force calculated by the FE model to the experiment value is illus-
trated in Fig. 9 and one typical comparison for the displacement-force
response is shown in Fig. 10. It indicates that the FE model may simulate
the behaviour of in-plane stability of the members under combined
ð19Þ
By using the verified FE model, the ultimate axial loading capacities
of 880 HSS welded-section members under combined axial compres-
ð20Þ sion and bending were calculated, considering four steel grades
(Q500, Q550, Q620 and Q690), two section dimensions (B-100 × 10
and I-400 × 260 × 14 × 14), ten non-dimensional slenderness ratios
qffiffiffiffi
λn which is defined as πλ fE and eleven relative eccentricity ratios
y

which equals to 0.9 and 1− φ0:5NAf

when φ NAf is no less than 0.2 and less en which is defined as e  W A
where e is the eccentricity for each
x x

than 0.2, respectively; γx is the inelastic developing factor, which is
taken as 1.0 for Q500–Q690 HSS; W1x is the in-plane elastic gross
section. λn ranged from 0.4 to 2.1 while en varied from 0.2 to 18.3. For
the I-section, the moment was applied around the major axis. As the
same in Section 4.2, the range of these parameters covered the engi-
neering application.
For the same reason mentioned in subsection 4.2, the mean value of
KP1 herein for members under combined axial compression and bend-
ing was taken as 1.0 and the coefficient of variation was taken as
0.089 referred to the result of members under axial compression. Ac-
cording to the FE model analysis result, KP2 may be calculated and the
statistical parameters were then obtained. The mean value of KP2 was

Table 6
Statistical parameters of model uncertainties of HSS.

Category Mean Coefficient of

μKP variation δKP

Axial tension 1.050 0.070

Axial compression 1.068 0.104
Combined axial compression In-plane 1.085 0.104
and bending Out-plane 1.110 0.117
Bending Overall stability 1.028 0.103
Flexure failure 1.060 0.080
Shearing failure 1.030 0.110
Local stability of webs 1.030 0.110
Fig. 9. FEM result vs. experiment result.
72 G. Shi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 121 (2016) 65–79

Table 7 Table 9
Statistical parameters of geometrical quantities uncertainties for HSS. Statistical parameters of resistance uncertainties for Q550 HSS.

Thickness/mm Mean μKA Coefficient of variation δKA Category ≤16 mm N16–40 mm N63–80 mm

≤16 0.980 0.050 μKP δKP μKP δKP μ KP δKP

N16–40 0.983 0.048
Axial tension 1.188 0.104 1.255 0.104 1.360 0.105
N40–63 0.986 0.045
Axial compression 1.209 0.129 1.277 0.130 1.383 0.130
N63–80 0.990 0.042
Combined axial In-plane 1.228 0.129 1.297 0.130 1.405 0.130
Compression Out-plane 1.256 0.140 1.327 0.140 1.437 0.141
and bending
equal to 1.085 and the coefficient of variation was 0.054. Finally, the Bending Overall stability 1.163 0.129 1.229 0.129 1.331 0.129
Flexure failure 1.200 0.111 1.267 0.111 1.373 0.112
mean value of KP was equal to 1.085 while the coefficient of variation
was equal to 0.104.
The statistical parameters of resistance uncertainties for HSS are
4.4. Summary listed in Tables 8–10.

The resistance model uncertainties of HSS members under axial
compression, bending, and combined axial compression and bending
have been investigated. Since there has not been further research yet,
for other kinds of members like axial tension, out-plane stability of
members under combined axial compression and bending and so on,
their statistical parameters were taken from the existing research [34],
which was originally for members made of conventional mild steels.
The statistical parameters of the resistance model uncertainties of HSS
are summarised in Table 6. In practical design, stiffeners are normally
set up to prevent the shearing failure and local stability of webs, and
therefore these two kinds of model uncertainties were not be consid-
ered in the following analyses.
5. Reliability analysis for HSS structures
5.2. Load uncertainty
The load uncertainty describes the difference between the mean
value and the characteristic value of loads. The statistical parameters
of action uncertainty were taken from the existing research [35], as
shown in Table 11.
5.3. Load combination
It is impractical to analyse all the load combinations in design. Some
fundamental combinations were selected from Chinese Load code for the
design of building structures (GB 50009-2012) [36], concerning the dead
load and live loads. The load combinations are listed in Table 12. In
Table 12, the ratio of variable load to the dead load, ρ, is defined as:

5.1. Resistance uncertainty characteristic value of maximum live load

ρ¼ ð24Þ
characteristic value of dead load
The resistance uncertainty for HSS structures consists of material
properties uncertainty, which has been discussed in Section 3, geomet- The ratio of variable loads, ρV, is defined as:
rical quantities uncertainty and resistance model uncertainty discussed
in Section 4 [20]. The geometrical quantities uncertainty KA is defined as characteristic value of wind load
ρV ¼ ð25Þ
the ratio of measured geometrical dimensions to nominal ones. For the characteristic value of floor load
geometrical quantities uncertainty, a wide survey was carried out when
the up-to-date Chinese Code for design of steel structures [6] (GB50017- For each load combination, four different values of ρ were consid-
201X bdraft for approvalN) was revised. The results reflected the condi- ered, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0. For the load combination with two live
tions of manufacture of steel structure works in China, as shown in loads, five different values of were ρV considered, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0
Table 7. and 4.0.
The resistance uncertainty for HSS, KR, can be represented as:
5.4. Partial factors for resistance of HSS
KR ¼ KM  KA  KP ð21Þ
As specified in the Chinese Unified standard for reliability design of en-
gineering structures (GB 50153-2008) [21], the target reliability index β
The corresponding statistical parameters may be calculated as:
should be taken as 3.2 when the safety level is II and the failure mode is
ductile with the corresponding reference period for the structure life
μ KR ¼ μ KM  μ KA  μ KP ð22Þ 50 years. The following limit state equation was taken into consider-
ation:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
δK R ¼ δ2K M þ δ2K A þ δ2K P ð23Þ
R−SG −SQ ¼ 0 ð26Þ

Table 8 Table 10
Statistical parameters of resistance uncertainties for Q500 HSS. Statistical parameters of resistance uncertainties for Q690 HSS.

Category ≤16 mm N16–40 mm Category ≤16 mm N16–40 mm

μ KP δKP μ KP δKP μKP δKP μ KP δKP

Axial tension 1.135 0.098 1.185 0.106 Axial tension 1.135 0.097 1.157 0.096
Axial compression 1.155 0.125 1.205 0.131 Axial compression 1.154 0.124 1.177 0.123
Combined axial compression In-plane 1.173 0.125 1.224 0.131 Combined axial compression In-plane 1.173 0.124 1.195 0.123
and bending Out-plane 1.200 0.136 1.253 0.142 and bending Out-plane 1.200 0.135 1.223 0.134
Bending Overall stability 1.111 0.124 1.160 0.130 Bending Overall stability 1.111 0.123 1.133 0.122
Flexure failure 1.146 0.105 1.196 0.113 Flexure failure 1.146 0.104 1.168 0.103
 G. Shi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 121 (2016) 65–79
Table 11
Statistical parameters of load uncertainties [35].
Category Mean
Permanent load G 1.06
Office floor live load Qoff 0.524
Residential building floor live load Qres 0.644
Wind load W 0.908
where SG and SQ are the dead and live load effects, respectively. The re-
sistance R was assumed to follow a logarithm normal distribution while
SG and SQ were assumed to follow the extreme value type I distribution
as shown in Table 11. The reflection transformation [37] method was
applied to transform the random variables from the actual distribution
to the standard Gaussian distribution. The theoretical basis was the
equivalence of the cumulative probabilities as shown in Eq. (27).
8 means the more wind load is included in the load combination, the
< F R ðRÞ ¼ ΦðrÞ 
F S ðSG Þ ¼ Φ sg
: F G S  ¼ Φs 
SQ Q q
where F is the actual cumulative probability distribution function for
each random variable; Φ is the standard Gaussian distribution function;
r, sg and sq are the corresponding standard Gaussian random variables
for R, SG and SQ, respectively. Based on Eqs. (27), (28) may be obtained.
8
< f R ðRÞdR ¼ ϕðr Þdr
 
f SG ðSG ÞdSG ¼ ϕ sg dsg
:    
f SQ SQ dSQ ¼ ϕ sq dsq
where f is the actual probability density function for each random vari-
able; ϕ is the standard Gaussian density function. It can be found from
Eq. (28) that, the reflection transformation method is a more accurate
non-linear transformation than JC method which is recommended by
JCSS. After the transformation of the random variables, the design
point method [38] was carried out to calculate the partial factors for re-
sistance. The calculation flow diagram is shown in Fig. 11. It was pro-
grammed by the mathematic software Matlab. Finally, the partial
factors for resistance of HSS under different load combinations, steel
grades and thicknesses were obtained.
The axial tension member made of Q690 HSS with thickness no
more than 16 mm is taken as an example to analyse the variation
rules of partial factors for resistance γR. Fig. 12 illustrates the variation
of partial factors for resistance γR under different load combinations
and ratios ρ of live load to dead load. For load combination 4, the partial
factor value is the average value of all the ratios of live loads under one
certain ratio of live load to dead load. It can be found that under load
combinations 1 and 2, γR reaches the maximum when ρ equals to 0.25
and deceases with an increase of ρ. In practical design, the condition
in which is more than 2.0 is very rare. Under load combinations 3 and
4, γR decreases firstly and then increase with an increase of ρ. In the
case with a constant ratio ρ, the value of γR under load combination 3
is the maximum and that under the load combination 2 is the lowest.
Table 12
Load combinations.
No. Load combination Remark
1 max{1.35SG + 1.4 × 0.7SQres, 1.2SG + 1.4SQres} –
2 max{1.35SG + 1.4 × 0.7SQoff, 1.2SG + 1.4SQoff} –
3 max{1.35SG + 1.4 × 0.6SW, 1.2SG + 1.4SW} – sidered for the sake of small sample quantity. Q550 HSS with thickness
4 max{1.35SG + 1.4 × (0.7SQres + 0.6SW), ρV =0.25, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0
1.2SG + 1.4 × (SQres + 0.6SW)}
or max{1.35SG + 1.4 × (0.7SQres + 0.6SW),
1.2SG + 1.4 × (0.7SQres + SW)}
73
Coefficient of variation Probability distribution
0.070 Gaussian
0.288 Extreme value type I
0.230 Extreme value type I
0.193 Extreme value type I
It indicates that the residential floor live load is more critical than the of-
fice floor live load, so the load combination with residential floor live
load (load combination 1) should be paid more attention to. What's
more, γR under the load combinations with wind load is generally
high, which should also be paid more attention to. Fig. 13 illustrates
the variation of partial factors for resistance γR under different ratios
of live loads, ρV. It can be seen that, the higher the ratio ρV is, which
higher the partial factor for resistance γR is. γR with quite low ρV is
ð27Þ close to that under load combination 1 while γR with quite high ρV is
close to that under load combination 3. Similar conclusions may be
made for other members with other steel grades.
It can be concluded from the analysis above that, load combination 1
was focused on, which means the load combination 2 would not be
taken into consideration furthermore when determining the partial fac-
tors for resistance of HSS. On this basis, for each steel strength grade and
plate thickness, the maximum γR is selected as shown in Table 13. For
the load combination with wind load, the average γR was calculated
ð28Þ under all the ρ and ρV, also as shown in Table 13.
It can be found that the partial factors for resistance under load com-
bination 1 and 4 (average) are quite close. Thus, preliminary values of γR
for HSS were proposed, as listed in Table 14. The values with brackets
were not directly obtained from this study, and they were estimated
conservatively from other steel grades or thickness.
For convenience in practical design, the values corresponding to the
same steel grade or the same thickness should be consistent. By trial and
calculation, the suggested values of partial factors for resistance and de-
sign strength for HSS were obtained [31], as shown in Tables 15 and 16.
The design strength of Q460 in Table 16 is taken from the Code for design
of steel structures [6] (GB50017-201X bdraft for approvalN) to make the
table complete.
In some circumstance that the wind load dominates, it may be un-
safe to use the partial factors for resistance and design strengths
above. The design indexes, which referred to the partial factors for resis-
tance and the related design value of the yield strength, suitable for the
wind loads needed proposing. On the basis of γR under load combina-
tion 3 which has been analysed above, the suggested values of partial
factors for resistance and design strength for HSS when the wind load
dominates were obtained, as shown in Tables 17 and 18. By comparing
with Table 16, the design strengths decrease by 40 MPa to 50 MPa gen-
erally. To decrease the design strengths is one of the ways to increase
the reliability of constructions subjected to the wind load. Another ef-
fective way is to increase the partial factors for wind load. It would
lead to the unified design indexes, which may be more convenient for
design.
It was mentioned in the Section 1 that, in Eurocode 3 and ANSI/AISC
360-10, the partial factors for resistance were determined by particular
resistances or member types. For Chinese HSS, it was expected to deter-
mine γR with the same principle on the basis of load combinations 1 and
4. For load combinations 1 and 4, the average γR with ρ equal to 0.25 is
taken into consideration, as shown in Table 19. It should be noted that,
Q550 HSS with thickness ranging from 16 mm to 40 mm was not con-
ranging from 63 mm to 80 mm was not included either for safety be-
cause γR is on the low side. Finally the partial factors for resistance
were determined as shown in Table 19. It is worth noting that, the qual-
ity of steels produced in Europe and USA is quite stable, which becomes
74 G. Shi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 121 (2016) 65–79

Fig. 12. Partial factors under different load combinations and ratios of live load to dead
load.

5.5. Reliability calibration for HSS

The reliability of the proposed design indexes for HSS (mainly in

Tables 15 and 16) was calibrated herein. The reliability indexes were
calculated under different load combinations. The actual partial factors
for resistance were firstly calculated according to the design strengths
in Table 16. Then the calibration of the reliability indexes was pro-
grammed by using Matlab.
The reliability indexes under load combinations 1, 2 and 4 (average)
are mostly higher than 3.2 which is specified in Unified standard for reli-
ability design of engineering structures (GB 50153-2008) [21] and the
suggested design indexes in Tables 15 and 16 are safe and reliable.
The reliability indexes under load combination 3 are lower than 3.2.
Previous research indicated that, load combination 3 generally did not
dominate the design solution in practise. Thus it was acceptable that
the reliability indexes were on the lower side. If the wind load domi-
nates the design solution, the design indexes in Table 17 and Table 18
should be used.
Again, the axial tension member made of Q690 HSS with thickness
no more than 16 mm was taken as an example to analyse the variation
rules of reliability indexes β. From Fig. 14, with an increase of ρ, the re-
liability index β increases firstly and then decreases. For an identical ρ,
the value of β under load combination 2 is the maximum and that
under load combination 3 is the minimum. From Fig. 15 it can be seen
that, with an increase of ρV, the reliability index β decreases. Same con-
clusions can be made for other members with different steel grades. The
research outcomes obtained herein were the same as those in subsec-
tion 5.4 in essence.

Fig. 11. Flow diagram of calculating partial factors for resistance.

the basis of applying γR classified by different member types. However,

the quality of steels produced in China is different from different steel
grades and plate thicknesses. Fig. 13. Partial factors variations with different ratios of live loads.
 G. Shi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 121 (2016) 65–79 75

Table 13 Table 16
Partial factors for resistance under load combination 1 and 4. Suggested design strengths for HSS.

Load combination ≤16 mm N16–40 mm N63–80 mm Grade Thickness (mm)

Q500 Q550 Q690 Q500 Q550 Q690 Q550 ≤16 N16–40 N40–63 N63–80 N80–100

Load combination 1 1.079 1.046 1.076 1.054 0.991 1.053 0.916 Q460 410 390 355 340 340
Load combination 4 1.094 1.058 1.091 1.066 1.002 1.068 0.927 Q500 455 440 430 410 400
(Average) Q550 520 500 475 455 445
Q620 565 550 540 520 –
Q690 630 615 605 585 –

Table 14
Preliminary partial factors for resistance for HSS. Table 17
Suggested partial factors for resistance for HSS (wind load dominating).
Grade Thickness (mm)

≤16 N16–40 N40–63 N63–80 N80–100 Grade Thickness (mm)

Q500 1.094 1.066 (1.094) (1.094) (1.094) ≤16 N16–40 N40–63 N63–80 N80–100
Q550 1.058 1.002 (1.094) 0.927 (1.094) Q500 1.197
Q620 (1.091) (1.068) (1.091) (1.091) – Q550 1.154 1.197
Q690 1.091 1.068 (1.091) (1.091) – Q620 1.197
Q690

6. Constitutive model of HSS under monotonic loading 6.3. Non-linear constitutive model of HSS

6.1. Experimental study For the metallic material without a yield plateau, the Ramberg–
Osgood model may simulate the non-linear material property well
Since the 1960s, experimental studies on material properties of [48]. The Ramberg–Osgood model can estimate the stress–strain rela-
HSS have been carried out. McDermott [39], Rasmussen and Hancock tionship accurately when the plastic strain is lower than 0.2%. However,
[11,40], Green et al. [41] did some material tests mainly on HSS with the estimated stress is always on the high side when the plastic strain is
yield strengths of 550 MPa and 690 MPa. Recently, some experiments higher than 0.2%. Several corrections [49–51] have been made to esti-
on HSS material properties were conducted in China [30,42–47], mate the stress–strain relationship more accurately when the strain is
which provided key parameters of HSS material properties. This re- large. The Ramberg–Osgood model is widely applied in the stainless
search also undertook a large number of material tests on HSS, including steels and aluminium alloys.
Q460, Q500, Q550 and Q690 [31]. Their elastic modulus E, yield strength By comparison of the experiment data with the stress–strain curves,
fy, ultimate strength fu, ultimate strain εu, elongation A and the full it is suitable to apply the Ramberg–Osgood model in HSS without a yield
stress–strain curve of each test coupon were recorded. All the experi- plateau. As the steel material properties in tension and compression are
ment results were used for proposing a constitutive model of HSS quite close to each other and the ultimate strain of HSS is not so large,
under monotonic loading. the constitutive model that Rasmussen [49] proposed was applied to
HSS:
When σ ≤ σ0.2,
6.2. Multi-linear constitutive model of HSS
 
σ σ n
Ban et al. [12,13] has proposed a multi-linear constitutive model of ε¼ þ 0:002 ð29Þ
E σ 0:2
HSS. It was used in the analysis of overall buckling behaviour of HSS,
with excellent accuracy being demonstrated. The model had two sce-
narios as illustrated in Fig. 16. One possessed a yield plateau and the When σ N σ0.2,
other did not. Ban et al. gave the parameters to determine the model
as shown in Table 20. This research summarised an extensive range of   
σ −σ 0:2 σ u −σ 0:2 σ −σ 0:2 m
existing experiment data and suggested that the parameters might ε¼ þ εu − −ε0:2 þ ε0:2 ð30Þ
E0:2 E0:2 σ u −σ 0:2
need to be updated, as shown in Table 20. In Table 20, the elastic mod-
ulus E is taken as 2.06 × 105 MPa as specified in Chinese Code for design
of steel structures [23] (GB50017-2003). It can be found that the differ- The elastic modulus E, nominal yield strength σ0.2, ultimate strength
ence is the value of ultimate strain. The suggested value in this research σu and ultimate strain εu may be obtained from the material tests. If the
is generally lower than Ban's. The adjustment was based on the experi- test data were absent, the suggested value in Table 20 may be used. The
ment results. exponent n was determined by Eq. (31), with a value of 16 being recom-
mended in case of lack of test data. The plastic strain ε0.2 may be

Table 15 Table 18
Suggested partial factors for resistance for HSS. Suggested design strengths for HSS (wind load dominating).

Grade Thickness (mm) Grade Thickness (mm)

≤16 N16–40 N40–63 N63–80 N80–100 ≤16 N16–40 N40–63 N63–80 N80–100

Q500 1.094 Q500 415 400 390 375 365

Q550 1.058 1.094 Q550 475 460 435 415 410
Q620 1.094 Q620 520 500 495 475 –
Q690 Q690 575 560 550 535 –
76 G. Shi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 121 (2016) 65–79

Table 19
Suggested partial factors for resistance of HSS for different member types.

Load combination Axial tension Axial compression Combined compression and Bending
bending

In-plane Out-plane Overall stability Strength failure

Load combination 1 0.967 1.024 1.008 1.018 1.062 0.977

Load combination 4 (Average) 0.991 1.037 1.021 1.026 1.075 0.998
Suggested value 1.0 1.037 1.021 1.026 1.075 1.0

Fig. 16. Multi-linear constitutive model of HSS [12,13]: (a) with yield plateau; (b) without
yield plateau.

Fig. 14. Reliability indexes under different load combinations and ratios of variable load to shown in Eq. (35).
permanent load.
 
calculated by Eq. (32) and E0.2 could be determined by Eqs. (33) and σ 0:2
m ¼ −24:647 þ 25:202 ð35Þ
(34). σu

n ¼ ln ð20Þ= ln ðσ 0:2 =σ 0:01 Þ ð31Þ Fig. 18 shows comparisons of three curves: (1) measured stress–
strain curves obtained in the material tests; (2) fitting stress–strain
curves based on the material tests; (3) general stress–strain curves
σ 0:2
ε 0:2 ¼ þ 0:002 ð32Þ with the exponent n equalled to 16 and m being determined by
E
Eq. (35). It can be concluded that the proposed non-linear constitutive
model fitted the measured curves obtained in the material tests well.
E
E0:2 ¼ ð33Þ
1 þ 0:002n=e 6.4. Revised multi-linear constitutive model of HSS

The multi-linear constitutive model of HSS is simple but cannot de-

σ 0:2
e¼
E
The exponent m may be calibrated by nonlinear fitting against the
experiment curves. It is indicated that the exponent m is related with
the ratio of yield strength to ultimate strength, σ0.2/σu, as illustrated in
Fig. 17. Thus, the exponent m could be determined by σ0.2/σu, as
ð34Þ scribe the non-linear properties well. The non-linear constitutive
model fits the experiment curves of HSS well but the expressions are
quite complex and might be inconvenient for practical design. A revised
multi-linear constitutive model of HSS has both the advantages of the
two models above. The suggested revised multi-linear constitutive
model of HSS is illustrated in Fig. 19, in which ε0, ε0.2 and εh may be cal-
culated by Eqs. (36), (32) and (37), respectively.

0:85σ 0:2
ε0 ¼ ð36Þ
E

Table 20
Parameters for multi-linear constitutive model of HSS.

Grade fy (MPa) fu (MPa) εy εst (%) εu (%)

Suggested value Ban [12,13]

Q460 460 550 fy/E 2.0 12 14

Q500 500 610 fy/E – 10 10
Q550 550 670 fy/E – 8.5 9
Q620 620 710 fy/E – 7.5 9
Q690 690 770 fy/E – 6.5 8
Q800 800 840 fy/E – 6.0 7
Q890 890 940 fy/E – 5.5 6
Q960 960 980 fy/E – 4.0 5.5
Fig. 15. Reliability indexes variations with different ratios of variable loads.
 G. Shi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 121 (2016) 65–79 77

Fig. 17. The exponent m vs. the ratio of yield strength to ultimate strength, σ0.2/σu. Fig. 19. Revised multi-linear constitutive model of HSS.

monotonic loading have also been developed. The conclusions in this

 
σ −σ 0:2 σ u −σ 0:2 paper are as follows:
εh ¼ þ 0:5m εu − −ε0:2 þ ε0:2 ð37Þ
E0:2 E0:2
(1) Test data of mechanical properties were collected, including
11,638 groups of HSS (Q500, Q550 and Q690). 46 HSS tension
Comparisons of the multi-linear, non-linear and revised multi-linear coupons were tested. The influence of the loading rate and com-
constitutive models are illustrated in Fig. 20. One can choose the proper pliance of the testing machine on the measured yield strength of
model according to practical requirements. HSS were also investigated. Utilising the mathematical statistical
method and taking the collected and present test data above into
7. Conclusions consideration, statistical parameters of the material property un-
certainties of HSS were obtained.
This paper analysed the reliability and calculated the design indexes (2) A FE model was established by ABAQUS. After being verified by
of HSS with different strength grades through experiments, numerical the test data, this model was used to calculate the ultimate load-
simulation and theoretical analyses. Constitutive models of HSS under ing capacity of 880 members under combined axial compression

Fig. 18. Comparison of different stress–strain curves: (a) Sample 1; (b) Sample 31; (c) Sample 46.
78 G. Shi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 121 (2016) 65–79

Fig. 20. Model comparison: (a) Q460; (b) Q500; (c) Q550; (d) Q620; (e) Q690; (f) Q800; (g) Q890; (h) Q960.
 G. Shi et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 121 (2016) 65–79
and 460 flexural members of HSS (Q500, Q550, Q620 and Q690).
Differences between the existing data, FE analysis results and
code values were compared and then statistical parameters of
the model uncertainties of HSS members under axial compres-
sion, bending, and combined axial compression and bending
were calculated.
(3) On the basis of the results above and the existing research data,
the suggested partial factors for resistance of HSS were proposed
by applying the first-order second-moment reliability method
which was programmed by Matlab. Furthermore, these factors
were verified by the reliability analysis.
(4) By means of summarising the HSS experimental results and
utilising the tensile test data above, parameters of the multi-
linear constitutive model of HSS were updated. In addition, a
nonlinear constitutive model based on the Ramberg–Osgood
model and a revised multi-linear constitutive model were
developed.
Acknowledgement
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided
by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (no. 51478244),
and the Excellent Young Scientist Programme of the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (no. 51522806).
References
[1] H.Y. Ban, G. Shi, Y.J. Shi, et al., Research progress on the mechanical property of high
strength structural steels, Adv. Build. Mater. 640-648 (2011).
[2] G. Shi, F.X. Hu, Y.J. Shi, Recent research advances of high strength steel structures
and codification of design specification in China, Int. J. Steel Struct. 14 (4) (2014)
873–887.
[3] EN 1993-1-1, Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures - Part 1-1: General Rules and
Rules for Buildings, BSI, London, 2005 2005.
[4] EN 1993-1-12, Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures - Part 1-12: Additional Rules
for the Extension of EN 1993 up to Steel Grades S700, BSI, London, 2007 2007.
[5] ANSI/AISC 360-10, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute of
Steel Construction, Chicago, 2010.
[6] Central Research Institute of Building and Construction, MCC Group, Co., Ltd., Code
for Design of Steel Structures GB 50017-2003 Steel Committee. Experiments, Statis-
tical Analysis of Domestic Construction Steels Properties and Research on the Design
Indexes [R], 2012 (in Chinese).
[7] S.K. Sivakumaran, Relevance of Y/T Ratio in the Design of Steel Structures, Proceed-
ings of International Symposium on Applications of High Strength Steels in Modern
Constructions and Bridges—Relationship of Design Specifications, Safety and Y/T
Ratio, China Steel Construction Society, Beijing 2008, pp. 54–63.
[8] P. Langenberg, Relation between Design Safety and Y/T Ratio in Application of
Welded high Strength Structural Steels, Proceedings of International Symposium
on Applications of High Strength Steels in Modern Constructions and
Bridges—Relationship of Design Specifications, Safety and Y/T Ratio, China Steel
Construction Society, Beijing 2008, pp. 28–46.
[9] H.Y. Ban, G. Shi, Y. Bai, et al., Residual stress of 460 MPa high strength steel welded I
section: experimental investigation and modeling, Int. J. Steel Struct. 13 (4) (2013)
691–705.
[10] T. Usami, Y. Fukumoto, Local and overall buckling of welded box columns, Am. Soc.
Civ. Eng. 108 (3) (1982) 525–542.
[11] K.J.R. Rasmussen, G.J. Hancock, Tests of high strength steel columns, J. Constr. Steel
Res. 34 (95) (1995) 27–52.
[12] H.Y. Ban, G. Shi, Y.J. Shi, Research on design method for overall buckling behavior of
welded box columns fabricated from high-strength steels, J. Build. Struct. 35 (5)
(2014) 57–64 (in Chinese).
[13] H.Y. Ban, G. Shi, Y.J. Shi, Overall buckling behavior and design method for axially
compressed welded I-sectional columns constructed with different grades of high-
strength steels, China Civ. Eng. J. 47 (11) (2014) 19–28 (in Chinese).
[14] H.Y. Ban, G. Shi, Y.J. Shi, M.A. Bradford, Experimental investigation of the overall
buckling behaviour of 960 MPa high strength steel columns, J. Constr. Steel Res.
88 (2013) 256–266.
[15] H.Y. Ban, G. Shi, Y.J. Shi, Y.Q. Wang, Overall buckling behavior of 460 MPa high
strength steel columns: experimental investigation and design method, J. Constr.
Steel Res. 74 (4) (2012) 140–150.
[16] G. Shi, W.J. Zhou, C.C. Lin, Experimental investigation on the local buckling behavior
of 960 MPa high strength steel welded section stub columns, Adv. Struct. Eng. 18 (3)
(2015) 423–437.
79
[17] G. Shi, W.J. Zhou, Y. Bai, Z. Liu, Local buckling of steel equal angle members with nor-
mal and high strengths, Int. J.Steel Struct. 14 (3) (2014) 447–455.
[18] G. Shi, W.J. Zhou, Y. Bai, C.C. Lin, Local buckling of 460 MPa high strength steel
welded section stub columns under axial compression, J. Constr. Steel Res. 100
(2014) 60–70.
[19] M.P. Byfield, D.A. Nethercot, Material and geometric properties of structural steel for
use in design, Struct. Eng. 75 (1997).
[20] ISO 2394, General Principles on Reliability for Structures, ISO, Switzerland, 1998.
[21] GB50153-2008, Unified Standard for Reliability Design of Engineering Structures,
China Architecture & Building Press, 2008 (in Chinese).
[22] GB/T 1591-2008, High Strength low Alloy Structural Steels, Standards Press of China,
2009 (in Chinese).
[23] GB 50017-2003, Code for Design of Steel Structures, China Planning Press, 2003
(in Chinese).
[24] ISO 6892-1, Metallic Materials – Tensile Testing – Part 1: Method of Test at Room
Temperature, ISO, Switzerland, 2009 2009.
[25] X. Zhu, G. Shi, Statistics and analysis of material properties of domestic high-
strength structural steels, Build. Struct. 45 (21) (2015) 9–16 (in Chinese).
[26] T.G.F. Gray, J. Sharp, H.C. Weiss, Influence of Machine Type and Strain Rate Interac-
tion in Tension Testing, in: R. Papirno (Ed.), Factors that Affect the Precision of Me-
chanical Tests, ASTM STP 1025, American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia 1989, pp. 187–205.
[27] Design Specification of High Strength Steel Structures (preliminary version). Beijing,
2015.
[28] G. Shi, X. Zhu, Research on resistance model uncertainty of high-strength steel axial
compression members, Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Symposium on
Structural Engineering. Hefei 2014, pp. 1072–1080.
[29] X.L. Yan, Experiment and Theoretical Study on the Ultimate Strength of Q460 high
Strength Steel Column Beams, Tongji University, Shanghai, 2013 (in Chinese).
[30] H.Y. Ban, Research on the Overall Buckling Behavior and Design Method of High
Strength Steel Columns under Axial Compression, Tsinghua University, Beijing,
2012 (in Chinese).
[31] X. Zhu, Research on Design Indexes of High-Strength Structural Steels, Tsinghua
University, Beijing, 2015 (in Chinese).
[32] G.Q. Li, X.L. Yan, S.W. Chen, Experimental study on the ultimate bearing capacity of
welded box-section columns using Q460 high strength steel in bending and axial
compression, China Civ. Eng. J. 45 (8) (2012) 67–73 (in Chinese).
[33] G.Q. Li, X.L. Yan, S.W. Chen, Experimental study on bearing capacity of welded H-
section columns using Q460 high strength steel under bending and axial compres-
sion, J. Build. Struct. 33 (12) (2012) 31–37 (in Chinese).
[34] J.H. Li, Z.Z. Xia, Probability Analysis of Safety for Steel Structures, Selections from Re-
search Papers and Reports on Steel Structures Volume 2, Beijing 1983, pp. 1–24 (in
Chinese).
[35] G.X. Dai, Z.Z. Xia, Serviceability analysis of steel structural elements of buildings, J.
Build. Struct. 21 (3) (2000) 36–40.
[36] GB 50009-2012, Load Code for the Design of Building Structures [S], China Architec-
ture & Building Press, 2012 (in Chinese).
[37] M. Hohenbichler, R. Rackwitz, Non-normal dependent vectors in structural safety,
Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. 107 (6) (1981) 1227–1238.
[38] A.M. Hasofer, N.C. Lind, Exact and invariant second-moment code format, J .Eng.
Mech. Div. 100 (1) (1974) 111–121.
[39] J.F. McDermott, Local plastic buckling of A514 steel members [J], J. Struct. Div. 95 (9)
(1969) 1837–1850.
[40] K.J.R. Rasmussen, G.J. Hancock, Plate slenderness limits for high strength steel sec-
tions [J], J. Constr. Steel Res. 23 (92) (1992) 73–96.
[41] P.S. Green, R. Sause, J.M. Ricles, Strength and ductility of HPS flexural members [J], J.
Constr. Steel Res. 58 (1) (2002) 907–941.
[42] G. Shi, H.Y. Ban, F.S.K. Bijlaard, Tests and numerical study of ultra-high strength steel
columns with end restraints, J. Constr. Steel Res. 70 (3) (2012) 236–247.
[43] Y. Tian, Research on 500 MPa Class High Performance Steel (Q500qE) Using in Rail-
way Bridges [D], Beijing, China Academy of Railway Sciences, 2010 (in Chinese).
[44] G. Shi, M. Wang, Y. Bai, F. Wang, Y.J. Shi, Y.Q. Wang, Experimental and modeling
study of high-strength structural steel under cyclic loading, Eng. Struct. 37 (4)
(2012) 1–13.
[45] G. Shi, M. Wang, Y.Q. Wang, F. Wang, Cyclic behavior of 460 MPa high strength
structural steel and welded connection under earthquake loading, Adv. Struct.
Eng. 16 (3) (2013) 451–466.
[46] F.F. Sun, L.M. Xie, W. Cui, et al., Experimental study on material properties of Q460
high strength steel under monotonic and cyclic loading, Journal of Building Struc-
tures 34 (1) (2013) 30–35 (in Chinese).
[47] X. Sun, Research on Mechanical Properties of Q690, Tongji University, Shanghai,
2013 (in Chinese).
[48] W. Ramberg, W.R. Osgood, Description of Stress–Strain Curves by Three Parameters,
902National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, TN, Washington, 1943.
[49] K.J.R. Rasmussen, Full-range stress–strain curves for stainless steel alloys, J. Constr.
Steel Res. 59 (1) (2003) 47–61.
[50] L. Gardner, D.A. Nethercot, Experiments on stainless steel hollow sections—part 1:
material and cross-sectional behaviour, J. Constr. Steel Res. 60 (9) (2004)
1291–1318.
[51] W.M. Quach, J.G. Teng, K.F. Chung, Three-stage full-range stress–strain model for
stainless steels, Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. 134 (9) (2014) 1518–1527.