Journal of Constructional Steel Research 135 (2017) 1–10

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

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

Evaluation of ductility limits for structural steel design MARK

a,⁎ a a a b
Petr Hradil , Asko Talja , Juha Kurkela , Ludovic Fülöp , Petri Ongelin
a
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd., P.O. Box 1000, FI-02044, VTT, Finland
b
Ruukki Construction Oy, Panuntie 11, 00620 Helsinki, Finland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Structural steels used in buildings and infrastructures have to meet ductility requirements of the design codes to
High-strength steel ensure the constructional steelwork ability to resist localized stress concentration in details and cyclic loads.
Ductility Such requirements are usually minimum ultimate-to-yield strength ratio, uniform elongation and elongation at
Diffuse necking failure. While not usually a problem for ordinary steel grades, fulfilling these general criteria tend to be difficult
Virtual testing
for new high-strength grades. This paper presents a refined method for evaluating the ductility requirements,
Finite element modelling
which can be applied for structural details in particular design situations. Such limits might be easier to satisfy
Stress concentration
than general criteria. The method was applied in a large parametric study of details with circular hole or notch in
tension and several selected cases of bended beams with circular holes in their lower flange. The results of the
study are formulated as alternative ductility criteria including the new concept of minimum difference between
the elongation at failure and uniform strain, the “necking capacity”, of the tension coupon.

1. Introduction
The ability to resist large plastic strains and to redistribute stresses
in structural members are important requirements of structural steel
design. The first requirement can be fulfilled if sufficient material
ductility is available, while the second depend on the strain hardening
properties of the material. Those parameters are implicitly used for
example in plastic design, earthquake situations to dissipate energy, but
also in simple structural details to alleviate stress concentrations.
Design codes such as EN 1993 (Eurocode 3) [1,2], ANSI/AISC 360–5
[3] or AISI S100 [4] prescribe material requirements in a form of
minimum ultimate-to-yield strength ratio fu/fy, uniform elongation εu
and elongation at failure of tensile coupon. The elongation at failure is
called εf in our paper (Fig. 1). This elongation is always related to a
certain gage length of tested coupon and in Eurocodes it is equal to the
A5 value from the testing standards [5,6]. When the yield strength of
the material is increased in production by alloying or heat treatment, its
ductility is generally decreasing. Therefore, more relaxed ductility
requirements had to be applied in Eurocode 3 to high strength steels
(HSS grades S500 to S700) in exchange for certain restrictions on
plastic design and use of semi-rigid connections. The reduction of
material ductility continues with development of higher grades such as
S960 in Europe. Such steels are often below the current limits for
ultimate-to-yield strength ratios (fu/fy) and minimum uniform elonga-
tions (εu). A particular disadvantage in the Eurocode is that the εu limit
is linked to the yield strain εy (Fig. 1). This makes elongation limits even
more severe as for HSS grades both fy and implicitly εy increase.
The present study faces the challenge to provide simple numerical
tools for the engineers and material producers to be able to use high-
strength steels in structural applications with large localized strains
without the need to predict ductile failure of the material. Contrary to
the traditional target of finite element simulations predicting exactly
ductile crack initiation by complex damage models, the proposed
method relies on more flexible design limit point to ensure that the
damage is not happening at the current level of load.
2. Objective
The purpose of our study is to develop a rational method for
estimation of ductility requirements for selected structural details and
in particular design situations; such requirements that are more realistic
and easier to satisfy than the general ones. The method relies on
standardized material tests and calibrated finite element models (FEM).
Numerical simulations are often able to generate acceptable solutions
for particular design cases and they are powerful instruments to cover
wide range of structural details and material parameters for the further
generalization to design recommendations. In our paper, the developed
method is utilized in a large parametric study to formulate ductility
requirements applicable for a wider range of materials and structural
details prone to ductile net-section failure due to stress concentrations
in tension.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: petr.hradil@vtt.fi (P. Hradil).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2017.03.022
Received 30 September 2016; Received in revised form 13 March 2017; Accepted 16 March 2017
Available online 14 April 2017
0143-974X/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Hradil et al.
Fig. 1. Ductility requirements of common design standards.
3. Calculation of ductility requirements
The method presented in this section predicts the minimum
required elongation at failure of the tensile coupon εf,req. for a given
combination of material parameters fu/fy and εu to fulfil the selected
design resistance of a structural detail. It relies on a standard material
coupon test and two numerical models, one of the detail and one of the
coupon's (Fig. 2). The knowledge of the entire stress-strain curve of the
material is not essential, but increases accuracy. However, ideally
elastic-plastic material model would be a conservative choice if the
test results of the real coupon were not available.
The calculation is based on the assumption that strains larger than
the uniform elongation of tensile coupon εu can be accepted in localized
areas of statically loaded structures. Consequently, diffuse necking may
develop in such areas. However, ductile failure in material should be
avoided, and therefore the plastic strains and stress state parameters
should remain within a given range [7].
The stress state is characterized by stress triaxiality T and Lode
parameter L defined in Eq. (1).
σh 2σ − σ1 − σ3
T= L= 2
σvm σ1 − σ3
where σh is the mean hydrostatic stress, σvm is the von Mises effective
stress and σ1 to σ3 are the principal stresses with σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3. The
formation of necking in tension introduces large hydrostatic stress
component, and therefore the triaxiality is the most important variable
and has to be considered in the evaluation of possible ductile failure.
The triaxiality is usually one of the output variables of finite element
software.
Unfortunately, the commonly used coupon tests do not provide
sufficient data to describe fully the relation of stress triaxiality and
plastic strain at material failure. Therefore, the present method involves
Fig. 2. Prediction of minimum required elongation at failure from the FEM model of the structural detail (left) and FEM model of coupon test (right) calibrated to the real measurements.
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 135 (2017) 1–10
certain conservativeness. The accuracy of the method can be improved
by using more sophisticated testing of the material. For instance, round-
bar coupons with different circumferential notches should be tested
monotonically to produce a more complete understanding of ductile
failure initiation with different combinations of triaxiality and plastic
strain. If the notch is shallow enough to simulate the fracture under
plastic stress and strain and specimens are produced with varying notch
radius it is possible to map the criteria for ductile crack initiation at
least for the range of triaxiality 0.4–2 [8]. For lower stress triaxiality
shear failure modes are dominating and test in tension combined with
shear may be required [9].
The proposed method is based on the knowledge of a single
parameter, the maximum equivalent plastic strain εeq in the critical
cross-section of the tensile test coupon. With a few conditions, one can
assume that a design target can be reached in the structural detail, if the
equivalent plastic strain in the detail is less than the equivalent plastic
strain at the fracture of the tensile coupon. Hence, for reaching a design
limit in a detail (Fig. 2) a required elongation at failure (εf,req) can be
associated in the coupon test. The conditions for this assumption are:
(a) Stress triaxiality at the failure of the structural detail Tdetail is
smaller than the stress triaxiality of tested coupon Tcoupon (Fig. 3). This
condition is true for structural details with notches and holes in tension
and plain rectangular coupons except for the initial part of the loading.
Examples of loading paths from hybrid numerical and experimental
analysis [10] are in Fig. 4. Similar findings were reported by Donaud
[7].
(b) The relation between failure strain and stress triaxiality (the
damage curve) of a material is monotonic decreasing function as in
Fig. 3. It has been observed that the ductile failure of plain specimens
occurs at lower strains and higher triaxialities than the notched samples
[11,12].
Fig. 3 shows that when the required minimum elongation at coupon
failure εf,req. is assumed to be at least at the level of equivalent strain
εeq,coupon at the coupon failure, the real failure strain of this detail
εeq,detail will be always higher. The equivalent plastic strains used in our
calculation are often largest in the middle of the coupon cross-section
and therefore hard to measure directly. For that reason, finite element
(1)
models (FEM) could be efficiently used. However, the numerical
approximation brings additional uncertainties in the form of mesh
and initial imperfection sensitivity. Smaller elements at the stress
concertation areas result in larger strains at the same load levels, and
therefore two more conditions have to be satisfied when FEM is
employed:
(c) The FEM mesh of the structural detail has at least the same
density as the mesh of the simulated coupon test. It is recommended
that the same software be used for both numerical models with the
identical element types and calculation settings. Fulfilling this condi-
tion will lead to conservative results according to the mesh sensitivity
2
P. Hradil et al.
Fig. 3. Ductile damage of typical steel related to stress triaxiality and equivalent plastic
Fig. 4. Example of loading paths of specimens with holes of radius R and coupons made
of steel S960 [10].
study in the report [13].
(d) The surface imperfections of the real coupon are smaller than
the imperfections implemented in the FEM model of the coupon. This
ensures higher stress concentration in the model, and therefore more
conservative results. The safe assumption for the surface roughness of
standard steel finishes can be 0.1 mm.
4. Parametrical studies
The method was demonstrated by calculating several selected
details with a wide range of hypothetical material models. The aim
was to produce recommendation for the minimum required elongation
at coupon failure εf,req. that still provides sufficient deformation
capacity to reach desired design limits. Primary recommendations are
for plates with holes or notches in tension, but additional calculations of
beams with holes in the tensile flange demonstrate the possibility to
extend the findings to more complex details and design situations [14].
4.1. Material models
The study is based on the proportional gage length corresponding to
the elongation at failure εf,req. = A5 according to EN 10002 [5]. The
goal was to use stress-strain relationship which creates the largest
possible plastic strains at the given coupon failure elongation A5. In
materials with low hardening the engineering stress decreases more
rapidly during necking, and consequently the equivalent plastic strains
at the failure elongation are larger than in the materials with higher
strain hardening. Therefore, conservatively, beyond the ultimate load
ideally plastic materials in true stress-strain terms were assumed
(Fig. 5).
This assumption excludes metal softening for instance due to micro-
voids or dynamic recrystallization [15], but is valid for the commonly
used steel grades and their structural applications. The models' para-
meters in Fig. 5 are obtained from the following equations:
3
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 135 (2017) 1–10
Fig. 5. Material models of studied materials.
⎛ fy ⎞ f
σy = fy ⎜⎜1 + ⎟⎟ , σu = fu (1 + εu ) and εt , u = ln(1 + εu ) − u ,
⎝ E⎠ E (2)
where true yield and ultimate stresses (σy and σu respectively) and true
uniform plastic strain εt,u are calculated from the proposed material
strengths fy and fu, uniform elongation εu and modulus of elasticity E. In
our study, the ultimate to yield strength ratio fu/fy was ranging from 1.0
to 1.5 and the uniform strain εu from 2% to 50%. Four series of
materials were considered with the yield strength 250, 500, 750 and
1000 MPa (S250–S1000) resulting in 196 material models used in the
simulation of the tensile tests coupon. A subset of sixteen materials,
representing the typical HSS grades, was later selected for studying
bending of beams. These had fy = 500 and 1000 MPa, fu/fy ≤ 1.2 and
εu ≤ 10% (see Fig. 6).
The validation of the FE models was done by numerical simulation
of the tensile coupon tests with material true stress-strain relations
based on the proposed parameters fu/fy and εu. It should be noted that
such models do not necessarily guarantee that the uniform elongation
in simulated coupon tests will be identical to the proposed value
because the onset of necking is a stability phenomenon affected for
example by the imperfections and discretization of numerical models.
The materials with small fu/fy ratios and high εu were excluded from the
study because for these extreme parameter combinations even small
numerical imperfections have triggered early necking of the FE model.
Therefore, the material models used in the parametrical study are those
with uniform elongation εu smaller than 2.55(fu/fy - 1) shown in Fig. 6.
For the models above this limit the εu inputted as material parameter
has been reached. One can note that the cases excluded correspond to
material models with very low strain hardening modulus (Eh). Once
reaching the yield point in a stress-concentrator caused by a numerical
or physical imperfection, such materials are unable to redistribute loads
towards other parts of the loaded cross-section. Hence, necking
concentrates at the location of initial yielding with associated decrease
of the load. Such coupons, both numerical and real ones, would be
Fig. 6. Selected material parameters.
P. Hradil et al.
highly sensitive to imperfections.
4.2. Coupons for the simulation of material tests
The specimens for standard material testing according to EN 10002
[5] can be circular, rectangular, annular or, in special cases, of some
other shape. Our study is based on the simulation of the common
rectangular coupons 8 × 20 mm (aspect ratio 2.5). The initial gage
length L0 was therefore 71.5 mm according to the Eq. (3).
L 0 = 5.65 A0 ,
where A0 is the initial cross-sectional area of the rectangular coupon.
4.3. Studied details
A. Plates in tension with central holes and side notches
The basic detail selected for our study was tensile plate with
8 × 80 mm rectangular cross-section and a central hole (CHT). For
this detail, it was possible to validate FE models against experiments
with the hole diameter d from 8 mm to 40 mm [10]. It was observed
that the most critical strains were always related to the smallest
diameter of the hole, and therefore 8 mm was selected for the entire
parametric study (see Fig. 7).
A simple modification of the FEM boundary conditions resulted in
another common detail with stress concentration: circular side notch in
tension (SNT). The results were added to the previously calculated CHT
simulations.
B. Beams with the hole in the tensile flange
The influence of holes in the flanges of beams is an important topic
in the case of HSS with low ultimate-to-yield strength ratio fu/fy and low
uniform elongation εu. The first research question is if the net-section
can reach the design resistance without of the fracture of the material.
The second question is if the necessary plastification of the cross-section
can be achieved. Plastic deformations outside the net-section are
usually necessary in the design based on plastic global analysis.
An I-beam with ratio Wpl/W = 1.09 and two holes in tension flange
was selected for the study (see Fig. 8). The holes with diameter of 8 and
16 mm were considered in the numerical models. In order to avoid the
Fig. 7. Finite element model of CHT specimen with diffuse necking (von Mises stress
distribution, grade S960 with 8 mm diameter of the hole).
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 135 (2017) 1–10
effect of local instability of the compressed flange, restrains were
applied to keep the upper flange from buckling. Because the local
net-section deformation affects the end rotation, the length of the beam
was conservatively selected as 1 m. The beam was loaded by uniform
bending moment introduced by the rotation of the beam ends. Fig. 8
(right) shows the distribution of tensile axial plastic strains (PE11) of
the tested beam.
Inhibiting the compression flange buckling in the model is an
important limitation of our study, as we only concentrate on the
rotation capacity from tensile flange failure. In fact, for beams in
(3) bending made of ordinary steels the buckling of the compressed plate
was the primary cause of limited rotation capacity [16,17]. Holes in the
tension flange of ordinary steel beams do not limit the rotation
capacity, because with the usually high fu/fy ratios strain hardening
compensates for the presence of bolt-holes in the tension flange. Hence,
when the net-section failure is not controlling the designer is permitted
to disregards the presence of holes in the tension flange (Clause
6.2.5(5), EN 1993–1-1). With high strength steel the situation is
different, and under certain conditions, tension flange holes are limiting
the development of rotation capacity. To map such limitation has been
the main focus of the study on the bending beams.
4.4. Selected design criteria
4.4.1. Plastic resistance of the net-section
The resistance of cross-section reduced by holes or notches is related
to the material strength fu and the net-section area or section modulus,
Anet or Wnet respectively. Net-section failure is guarded against in
Eurocode 3 [1], for both members in tension and bending by imposing
capacity rules between the net-section and gross-section resistances in
the form of Eq. (4).
Anet ⋅0.9⋅fu A⋅fy
≥
γM 2 γM 0 (4)
where Anet and A are the net and gross section (in bending that of the
tension flange) area respectively; fy and fu are the yield stress and
ultimate strength of the steel and γM2 and γM0 are safety factors, 1.25
and 1.00 respectively. The condition imposes a 0.72 factor of safety
between the two failure modes. Similar approach is used in AISI S100
[4] and ANSI/AISC 360–5 [3], with the effective factor of 0.75/
0.9 = 0.83. The need for such large safety margin in case of bending
is, however, disputed [18]. While Eurocode 3 is vague for the case of
Eq. (4) not being satisfied, a conservative estimate of the bending
strength in the net-section may be fy·Wnet. This provision will result in a
large discontinuity between the bending capacity when Eq. (4) is
satisfied, and when it is not. AISC specification allows for the use of
elastic section capacity, but with an effective tension flange area larger
than the net area. The allowable increase of flange area depends on the
fu/fy ratio. Finally, considering the spreading of plasticity to the web in
case of bending beams even if most plastic deformation is concentrated
in the net-section, flexural capacity could be taken as the plastic
moment capacity on the net-section (fy·Wpl.net) [18]. The ability of
HSS beams to reach this limit, in certain configurations, was shown
experimentally by Dexter and Gentilcore [19].
In some cases, the ultimate load in tension or bending, Fmax or Mmax
respectively, can be lower that the corresponding net-section plastic
capacity fu·Anet or fu·Wnet. This can be for instance caused by the non-
uniform stress distribution in the net-section, and therefore the design
resistances are further reduced in the codes.
Our goal is to propose such ductility criteria that the theoretical
ultimate load Fmax or Mmax is reached before the material failure
regardless the design code used. The ultimate loads were calculated
by FEM without the effect of local instability in the compressed parts.
Additionally, the safe reduction of the net-section plastic capacity fu·Anet
or fu·Wnet should be based on these results in Eq. (14) and Eq. (15).
4
P. Hradil et al.
Fig. 8. Finite element model used in virtual testing (tensile plastic strains at the time of maximum moment).
4.4.2. Deformation capacity
The selected range of materials in the parametric study includes
those, where the ultimate load can be reached at very low deforma-
tions. For that reason, the deformation limits such as elongation of
tensile plates and rotation of the cross-section in bending were also
studied.
The non-dimensional rotation capacity R of the cross-section in the
Eurocodes is determined by Eq. (5) from [16]
ϕav − ϕpl
R=
ϕpl
where φav is the available inelastic rotation and φpl is the reference
elastic rotation corresponding to the plastic moment resistance
Mpl = Wpl ∙fy as shown in see Fig. 9. The definition of R used here is
identical to the usage by e.g. Mazzolani and Piluso [16], where the
rotation φpl is called “the elastic limit”. However, in this study we felt it is
important to distinguish between the rotation φy, which corresponds to
completely elastic behaviour, and φpl which corresponds to very limited
plastification.
Four cross-section classes are recognized depending on the max-
imum bending resistance Mmax and the rotation capacity R.
Plastic sections (Class 1, [1]) are capable of forming a plastic hinge
with the rotation capacity required from plastic analysis without reduc-
tion of the resistance (Mmax ≥ Mpl and R ≥ 3). Compact sections (Class 2,
[1]) can reach the plastic moment resistance but have limited rotation
capacity (Mmax ≥ Mpl but R < 3). Semi-compact (Class 3) cross-sections
can reach the elastic strength (My = W∙fy), but plate buckling prevents
development of the plastic moment resistance (My ≤ Mmax < Mpl). Plate
or distortional buckling prevent slender sections (Class 4) to attainment
even elastic strength of the cross-section (Mmax < My). In our study,
material ductility limits were determined for reaching Class 1 and Class 2
requirements in beams with flange holes.
Concerning the plates in tension, the levels of elongations on
100 mm gauge were selected as 2 mm, 3 mm, 4 mm and 5 mm, since
Fig. 9. Cross section classes according to Eurocodes.
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 135 (2017) 1–10
the codes do not usually state the minimum allowable deformation in
tension.
4.5. General conditions to fulfil the design criteria
4.5.1. Conditions for achieving the plastic moment resistance (Class 2 in EN
1993)
The reduction of cross-section capacity caused by imperfect cross
section plastification has to be compensated by material strain hard-
ening in order to reach plastic moment resistance Mpl (Fig. 10). With
(5) ordinary steels, the high values of strain hardening are even sufficient
to exceed Mpl, by margins of 28–53% if no plastic buckling occurs [20].
However, even beams made of ordinary steel, are unable to reach high
enough strains in bending, necessary to exploit all the benefit of strain
hardening. Proposals were put forward to exploit 1/2 or ¾ of the
difference between fu and fy when buckling is not present, by Lay and
Galambos [21], and Gioncu and Petcu [22] respectively. The propor-
tions of material parameters are completely different in HSS requiring a
re-evaluation of the possible gains.
In double symmetric cross section, the loss and gain can be
calculated, on the quarter section, by Eq. (6) and the ultimate load
Mmax is equal to Mpl + M+ − M−.
x0 h
M− = 4 ∫0 xσ −(x )dA and M + = 4 ∫x 0
xσ +(x )dA
(6)
−
Notations and the assumed stress distributions σ (x) and σ (x) are +
presented in Fig. 10.
With the conservative assumption that the failure in tension flange
occurs when the edge strain reaches uniform elongation of the material,
Table 1 shows the formulas for loss and gain for selected cross-sections.
The effect of ratios tf/h and r/t is excluded for simplicity.
Numeric results show that the required uniform-to-yield elongation
ratio εu/εy, to reach Mpl in specific cross-sections depending on the fu/fy
ratio (Fig. 11). If fu/fy is at least 1.02, the uniform elongation εu ≥ 6εy is
adequate for common I-beams and both rectangular (RHS) and circular
(CHS) hollow sections. Moreover, for higher fu/fy ratios also lower
values of εu can be acceptable to reach the requirement for Class 2
cross-sections (e.g. εu ≥ 4εy is sufficient to reach Mpl in the common
cross-sections and steels with fu/fy ≥ 1.2).
Fig. 10. Effect of strain hardening on bending moment resistance.
5
P. Hradil et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 135 (2017) 1–10

Table 1
Plastic bending moment Mpl and the maximum gains M+ and losses M− of bending resistance due to strain
hardening and imperfect cross-section plastification.

RHS and symmetric I-beam CHS

Mpl = h(2Af + Aw)∙ fy Mpl = 4fyr2t

M − = 4fy r 2t ⎡⎣1 − cos(φ0 ) − sin(2φ0 )⎤⎦
h φ0
M − = Aw fy +
1
3n2 2 4
⎡ A ⎛ 1 1 ⎞⎤ +
M = 4mfy r 2
t
1 ⎡π −
φ0
−
1
sin(2φ0 )⎤⎦
M + = 2mfy h⎢Af + w ⎜2 − − 2 ⎟⎥ 1 − sin φ0 ⎣ 4
⎣ 6 ⎝ n n ⎠⎦
2 4

h = hw/2 is half height of the beam

Af = btf is the flange area
Aw = htw is a half of web area

Fig. 11. Relative gain in bending resistance due to material strain hardening.

Fig. 12. Strains in a partially plastified beam cross section under the uniform bending
moment because the plastic rotation in Fig. 9 is defined as in Eq. (8).
Fig. 13. Minimum elongation at failure A5req to reach the ultimate load in CHT and SNT
Mpl Wpl models and the real measured A5 in experiments with different steel grades.
ϕpl = ϕy = ϕy ,
My Wy (8)
4.5.2. Conditions for the required rotation capacity (Class 1)
The deflection of a beam loaded by end moments is a circular arc
with uniform axial strain distribution along its length. This is valid for
Table 2
uniform elongation until the ultimate strength of the material is
Required minimum uniform elongation εu for some cross sections.
reached and the diffuse necking in the tension flange starts. The load
Cross section W Wpl Wpl/W min εu typically begins rapidly decreasing shortly after reaching this point. If
that the rotation capacity is conservatively defined by the rotation φmax
I section without web btf ⋅ h btf ⋅ h 1.00 4.0 εy
at the ultimate load instead of φav (Fig. 9), then the end rotation of a
I section with htw = btf (7/6) btf ⋅ h (5/4) btf ⋅ h 1.07 4.3 εy
RHS with h = b (4/3) bt ⋅ h 1.5 bt ⋅ h 1.13 4.5 εy symmetric cross section can also be expressed by the beam curvature χ
RHS with h = 3b 2 bt ⋅ h 2.5 bt ⋅ h 1.25 5.0 εy or by the edge strain ε of the cross section (see Eq. (7) and Fig. 12).
CHS with d1/d2 ≥ 0.65 π (d24 − d14) π (d23 − d13) ≤ 1.5 ≤ 6.0 εy
32d2 6 ϕmax ϕpl = εmax εpl = χpl χmax (7)
Solid rectangle (1/6) bh2 (1/4) bh2 1.5 6.0 εy

tf and tw are flange and web thicknesses of I-section. b and h are width and height of I-
where φmax, εmax and χmax correspond to Mmax, and φpl, εpl and χpl
section, RHS and solid rectangle. t is plate thickness of RHS and CHS. r, d1 and d2 are correspond to Mpl in Fig. 9.the rotation capacity for φav = φmax can be
centreline radius, inner and outer diameter of CHS. expressed by Eq. (9).

6
P. Hradil et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 135 (2017) 1–10

Table 5
Ductility requirements of the Eurocode 3 and technical delivery conditions of EN 10025.

Material min fya fub min fu/fy min εu min A5

S275 275 MPa 410–560 MPa 1.10 2.1% 15%

S355 355 MPa 470–630 MPa 1.10 2.8% 15%
S700 700 MPa 750–950 MPa 1.05 5.0% 10%
S960 960 MPa 980–1250 MPa n/a 7.6% 10%

a
Minimum yield strength ReH for nominal thickness ≤ 16 mm.
b
Tensile strength Rm for nominal thickness 3–10 mm.

εmax Wpl
≥4 (R + 1)
εy Wy (10)

Assuming that φmax is achieved when εmax = εu, the condition for
material ductility corresponding R = 3 can be presented by Eq. (11):
Fig. 14. Minimum elongation at failure A5req to reach the 5 mm elongation load in CHT Wpl
and SNT models and the real measured A5 in experiments with different steel grades. εu ≥ 4 εy
Wy (11)

Table 3 where the uniform elongation εu corresponds to the ultimate strength fu

Required necking capacity of materials in CHT and SNT details in tension. on material stress-strain curve.
Table 2 shows this condition for the selected cross-sections,
Cross-section resistance Min. necking capacity A5 - εu required in
coupon tests
established based on the centreline dimension of the cross-section.
Because the plate thicknesses are omitted, the real values of min εu can
Fmax 6% be slightly higher than those presented in the table. The most
Max. elongation on 100 mm gage Min. necking capacity A5 - εu required in conservative value of εu = 6εy can be obtained if the cross section is
coupon tests
2 mm 6%
a solid rectangle, or in the case of CHS if d1/d2 > 0.65. Therefore, for
3 mm 7% the common I-beams and hollow sections, the minimum uniform
4 mm 8% elongation of 6εy results in an adequate ductility. For the yield strength
5 mm 8% fy = 1000 MPa, which is the limit of this study, 6εy is about 3%.

Table 4
5. Results and discussion
Required necking capacity of materials to reach the maximum load Mmax in bending.
The proposed requirement for minimum elongation at failure A5req
Material fu/fy εu Min. necking capacity A5 - εu required in coupon tests of the coupon was obtained by the method described in Fig. 2 for 196
C-02-02 1.02 2% 4.2%
materials and 2 details in tension. The results presented in this section
C-02-05 1.02 5% 3.8% are therefore the envelope of the highest of 32 values of A5req calculated
C-05-02 1.05 2% 5.6% for each combination of εu and fu/fy. They are further interpolated
C-05-05 1.05 5% 6.0% between the calculation points. The results are compared to A5 values
C-05-10 1.05 10% 3.4%
measured in four material tests of different steel grades. In most of the
C-10-05 1.10 5% 4.8%
C-10-10 1.10 10% 4.6% cases, the central hole in tension (CHT) was more critical than the side
C-20-10 1.20 10% 5.2% notch in tension (SNT). It should be noted that the results are limited by
the maximum yield strength 1000 MPa, the minimum diameter of the
hole or notch d ≥ 8 mm, and εu ≤ 2.55(fu/fy - 1) as described (see
ϕmax Wy ϕmax Wy εmax Table 1 and Fig. 6).
R= −1= −1= − 1,
ϕpl Wpl ϕy Wpl εy (9) Some of the studied materials would not fulfil the ductility require-
ments given in Eurocode 3, but all of them satisfied the limits proposed
where εy = fy/E. Then the condition for the uniform edge strain is following Eq. (10): by our parametrical study. Their ability to reach the maximum tensile

Fig. 15. Minimum necking capacity A5 - εu required to reach the maximum bending load compared to the corresponding tensile plates with holes.

7
P. Hradil et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 135 (2017) 1–10

Table 6
Measured material properties.

Material fy (ΜPa) fu (ΜPa) fu/fy εu A5 necking capacity coupons tested structural details tested

S275 300 418 1.39 18% 35% 17% 1 –

S355(1) 393 550 1.40 13% 28% 15% 1 –
S355(2) 396 473 1.19 18% 31% 13% 2 5
S700 708 785 1.12 10% 20% 10% 1 5
S960 1062 1167 1.10 3% 9% 6% 16 5

Fig. 16. Comparison of results for net-section resistance.

Table 7 failure A5 and uniform elongation εu that was observed for each of the
Test results for S700 rectangular hollow sections [13]. studied design limits in tension.
Similarly, the required elongation at failure to reach the maximum
Dimensions fy fu A5 fu/fy Mmax/Mpl R
load Mmax (Fig. 9) in bending was obtained for eight selected materials,
RHS 160x160x10 743 MPa 869 MPa 15.0% 1.17 1.19 3.6 and the minimum necking capacity is presented in Table 4. The results
RHS 150x150x8 746 MPa 841 MPa 14.7% 1.13 1.13 2.8 presented are the higher of the values obtained from the models with
fy = 500 MPa and 1000 MPa. The comparison with the corresponding
FEM simulations of plates in tension (isolated symmetrical part of the
load Fmax in the details with holes in tension was verified by physical beams' lower flanges) is in Fig. 15. It shows that the beam models were
experiments provided by Ruukki Construction and SSAB [10]. more critical, however, they still satisfied the general requirement A5 -
The A5req limits in Figs. 13 and 14 form nearly vertical lines, and εu ≤ 6% from the large parametrical study of CHT and SNT plates (see
therefore are almost independent on the fu/fy ratio. Moreover, the Fig. 13).
values of minimum elongation at failure A5req differ from the uniform It should be noted that the ability to reach the ultimate load Mmax
strain εu by 0.3 to 5.7% in Fig. 13 and do not exceed εu + 8% in Fig. 14. does not automatically allow the use of plastic design according the
This indicates that the difference between εf (in this case A5) and εu Eurocode 3, because Mmax has to be higher than the plastic moment
could be a suitable parameter to describe the new proposed ductility capacity Mpl (see Fig. 11) and the rotation capacity R of Class 1 cross
requirements. It is called it the “necking capacity” of the material in our sections has to be higher than 3 (see Table 4).
study.
Table 3 shows the maximum difference between the elongation at

Fig. 17. Comparison of results for rotation capacity.

8
P. Hradil et al.
6. Verification of the recommended ductility requirements
6.1. Necking capacity of the material
The ductility limits of the Eurocode 3 [1,2] in Table 5 show clearly
that the minimum uniform elongation required by this standard might
be difficult to achieve for high-strength steels. Controversially, the
grades S700 and S690 that would fulfil exactly the limits for minimum
εu (5% and 7.6% respectively) and minimum A5 (10%) will not reach
the ultimate resistance of the cross-section according to our study due
to the insufficient necking capacity (< 6%). On the other hand, the
material tests in Table 6 show that the 6% necking capacity can also be
achieved even if the minimum requirements of Eurocode 3 are not
satisfied (see S960 in Fig. 13 and Table 5).
It can be observed from the results in Fig. 13 that all five tested
materials have adequate elongation A5 to reach the desired ultimate
load. For instance, S275 has available A5 elongation of 35% far
exceeding the demand of ~ 25%. They also had sufficient deformation
capacity (up to 5 mm on 100 mm gage) with the only exception, the
measured coupon of S960, which failed the 5 mm criterion in Fig. 14.
6.2. General conditions to reach the net-section resistance
According to our findings, the best estimation of the maximum
resistance is achieved by using ultimate tensile strength fu and net-
section properties in the design. This finding is analogous to the
proposal for gross cross sections given in Eq. (12) [17].
fu
Mu = ⋅Mpl = fu ⋅Wpl
fy (12)
Because of the imperfect utilization of strain hardening the follow-
ing correction was proposed by Gioncu and Petcu [22]
⎛ f⎞
1 ⎜
Mu = ⋅⎜1 + 3⋅ u ⎟⎟⋅Mpl
4 ⎝ fy ⎠ (13)
Based on the results, it is suggested using net-section resistance
determined by Eq. (14) for beams and Eq. (15) for plates.
1 ⎛ fy ⎞
Mu, r = ⋅⎜⎜6 + ⎟⎟⋅Mpl . net = kr⋅Mu , where Mu = Wpl, netfu
7 ⎝ fu ⎠ (14)
1 ⎛ fy ⎞
Fu, r = ⋅⎜⎜6 + ⎟⎟⋅Fpl . net = kr⋅Fu, where Fu = Anet fu
7 ⎝ fu ⎠
(15)
The reduction coefficient kr defined in the equations is necessary
especially in the case of tension plates (Fig. 16), and implies the use of a
reduced ultimate tensile strength of fu.red = (fy + 6·fu)/7, due to partial
utilization of the strain hardening. This value is larger than the values
proposed for gross-sections behaviour and of ordinary steel beams. The
reduction is significant only with high fu/fy ratios. For fu/fy smaller than
1.3 the reduction is always < 3%. If the yield strength fy is used in
design instead of fu (e.g. for the Eurocode plastic moment resistance
Mpl), the factor kr is not needed but the results are very conservative in
the case of large fu/fy ratios. The tests of relatively compact RHS beams
[14] support our recommendation (see Table 7). The experiments were
carried out with non-holed beams from S700 steel.
6.3. General conditions to reach the deformation capacity
The results in Fig. 17 show that the rotation capacity of the cross-
section in bending R is always higher than 3 if Mmax/Mpl ≥ 1.1. If the
similar concept for the plates in tension is used, the elongation capacity
called Rt in this study would be similarly higher than 3 if Fmax/Fy ≥ 1.1.
Because Mmax ≥ Mu,r and Fmax ≥ Fu,r the conclusion is also valid when
Mmax and Fmax are replaced by values Mu,r and Fu,r from Eqs. (14) and
9
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 135 (2017) 1–10
(15) respectively.
7. Summary and conclusions
The ductility requirements prescribed in current design codes in the
form of minimum ultimate-to-yield strength ratio fu/fy, uniform elonga-
tion εu and elongation at fracture are difficult to fulfil especially for the
high-strength steels. The formulation in EN 1993 to link εu to fy but
keep elongation at fracture as fixed value is also unfortunate. As fy
increases, the difference between εu and elongation at fracture
decreases. Hence, the steel manufacturers are guided by these limits
towards steel that have very little necking capacity, and are unsafe in
exploitation due to potential premature fracture in necking areas.
Based on our study, the ductility requirement to reach specific
design load or deformation can alternatively be expressed as a “necking
capacity”, the difference between the elongation at coupon failure εf
and the uniform strain εu. The results demonstrated that the materials
with the necking capacity A5 - εu at least 6% are always able to achieve
the theoretical maximum load Fmax or Mmax in plates with holes and
notches, and selected beams with holes in the tensile flange. It also
guarantees the elongation at least 2 mm on 100 mm gage around the
hole or the notch.
The safe prediction of Fmax and Mmax is recommended in this paper.
It is based on the ultimate strength fu and net-section properties reduced
by the effect of fu/fy ratio. It is sufficient that εu ≥ 6εy for the maximum
bending load Mmax to reach the bending capacity Mpl of the calculated I-
beams to fulfil the requirements of Class 2 cross-sections in the
Eurocode.
If the maximum load Fmax or Mmax or its predicted value Fu,r or Mu,r
is at least 10% higher than the cross-section resistance fyA or fyWpl, the
deformation capacity will be higher than 3 times the elastic deforma-
tion εy or φy. This is the requirement for Class 1 cross-sections in
bending in the Eurocodes. However, we note that our study does not
address the limitations given by compression flange buckling. Hence,
the results can only be used for situations with (1) holes weakening the
tension flange of bended beams (2) strongly asymmetric beams with a
thicker compression flange or (3) composite sections where the
compressed flange is supported.
Funding
This work was supported by the Digital, Internet,
Materials & Engineering Co-Creation's (DIMECC) (TEKES Dno 2137/
31/2013) program BSA - Breakthrough steels and applications
(2014–2018) and its project Design beyond present codes – enabling
efficient utilization of new materials.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Ruukki Construction Oy and SSAB
Oy for the experimental test results of coupons and CHT specimens.
References
[1] EN 1993-1-1, Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures - Part 1–1: General Rules and
Rules for Buildings, European Committee for Standardisation, Brussels, 2005.
[2] EN 1993-1-12, Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures - Part 1–12: Supplementary
Rules for High-strength Steels, European Committee for Standardisation, Brussels,
2007.
[3] ANSI/AISC 360–05, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, An American
National Standard, American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago, Illinois,
2005.
[4] AISI S100–2007, North American Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel
Structural Members, 2007 ed., American Iron and Steel Institute, 2007.
[5] EN 10002–1, Metallic Materials - Tensile Testing - Part 1: Methods of Test at
Ambient Temperature, European Committee for Standardisation, Brussels, 2001.
[6] EN ISO 6892–1, Metallic Materials - Tensile Testing - Part 1: Method of Test at
Room Temperature, European Committee for Standardisation, Brussels, 2009.
[7] M. Dunaud, Ductile Fracture at Intermediate Stress Triaxialities: Experimental
P. Hradil et al.
Investigations and Micro-Mechanical Modelling, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, MA, 2013.
[8] Kuwamura, H., 1996. Fracture of steel welded joints under severe earthquake
motion, in: 11th world conference on earthquake engineering (11 WCEE), ISBN 0-
08-042822-3, (Paper No. 466).
[9] Y. Bao, T. Wierzbicki, On fracture locus in the equivalent strain and stress triaxiality
space, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 46 (2004) (2004) 81–98.
[10] P. Hradil, A. Talja, True Stress-Strain Relationship for Finite Element Simulations of
Structural Details, Proceedings of the 13th Nordic Steel Construction Conference
(NSCC-2015), Tampere, Finland, 229-230 (2015).
[11] J.W. Hancock, A.C. Mackenzie, On the mechanisms of ductile failure in high-
strength steels subjected to multi-axial stress states, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 31 (1)
(1976) 1–24 (ISSN: 0022-5096).
[12] D. Holland, A. Halim, W. Dahl, Influence of stress triaxiality upon ductile crack
propagation, Steel Res. 61 (10) (1990) 504–506 (ISSN 0177-4832).
[13] A. Talja, P. Hradil, Ductility Limits of High Strength Steels, Research Report VTT-R-
04741–16, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo, Finland, 2016.
[14] A. Talja, J. Kurkela, P. Hradil, FEM Based Virtual Testing of HSS Beams with Flange
Holes, Research Report VTT-R-02326-16, VTT Technical Research Centre of
10
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 135 (2017) 1–10
Finland, Espoo, Finland, 2016.
[15] Q. Guo-Zheng, Characterization for dynamic recrystallization kinetics based on
stress-strain curves, in: P. Wilson (Ed.), Recent Developments in the Study of
Recrystallization, 2013 InTech.
[16] F. Mazzolani, V. Piluso, Theory and Design of Seismic Resistant Steel Frames, CRC
Press, 978-0419187608, 1996.
[17] V. Gioncu, F. Mazzolani, Ductility of Seismic-Resistant Steel Structures, CRC Press,
978-0419225508, 2003.
[18] R.J. Dexter, A. Alttstadt, C.A. Gardner, Strength and Ductility of HPS70W Tension
Members and Tension Flanges with Holes, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
MN, 2002.
[19] R.J. Dexter, M.L. Gentilcore, Analysis of plane stress ductile fracture propagation by
simulating necking, J. Struct. Eng. 128 (2002) 1003–1011.
[20] H.A. Sawyer, Post-elastic behavior of wide-flange steel beams, J. Struct. Div. 87
(1961) 43–71.
[21] M.G. Lay, T.V. Galambos, Inelastic beams under moment gradient, J. Struct. Div. 93
(1967) 381–399.
[22] V. Gioncu, D. Petcu, Available rotation capacity of wide-flange beams and beam-
columns part 1. Theoretical approaches, J. Constr. Steel Res. 43 (1997) 161–217.