Front. Struc. Civ. Eng.

2012, 6(3): 210–216

DOI 10.1007/s11709-012-0165-7

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Concepts and implementation of strain-based criteria in

design codes for steel structures

Reidar BJORHOVDE*
The Bjorhovde Group, Tucson, Arizona 85750 USA
*
Corresponding author. E-mail: rbj@bjorhovde.com

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

ABSTRACT A uniaxial tension test is commonly used to determine the mechanical properties of steel, but it has no
meaning for the response of the material in a structure. The test was developed as a consensus solution by producers,
fabricators, designers and code writers, to have a standard by which similar materials could be compared to a common
base. It does not represent the actual behavior of the steel in a structure, and was never intended to do so. To study the true
behavior of the structure and how the material responds it would be better to determine the strains and deformations that
will take place during actual service condition. Such characteristics reflect the real behavior, whether in the elastic or
inelastic range. If stresses or forces are needed, these are easily determined by the value of the strain and the relevant
material modulus, along with the type of cross section, whether elastic or inelastic. The paper addresses the properties of a
range of structural steels, how these are incorporated into design standards and how the standards define deformation
characteristics and demands for bolted and welded connections.

KEYWORDS steel, stress-strain characteristics, tension test, strain design, actual behavior, improved design codes

1 Introduction phase, and the quality of fabrication and construction

As a construction material, steel has significant advantages
over many others: it offers high strength and stiffness, has
adequate deformation capacity and stress redistribution
ability for many applications; it does not crack or otherwise
fracture under normal service conditions, and is available
in several strengths and geometric forms. Finally, for most
practical purposes it may also be regarded as isotropic,
with resulting benefits.
On the other hand, many structures will experience
“non-normal” conditions many times during fabrication,
construction or service. A dynamically loaded structure
such as a bridge will experience fatigue; seismic events
impose major deformation demands on structural compo-
nents and details; and fabrication methods such as
punching of holes and all forms of welding place very
high demands for local deformation ability of the steel in
certain regions of the structure. The state of the art of
computation technology is such that it is possible to
incorporate many of these effects explicitly in the analysis
Article history: Received March 12, 2012; Accepted May 25, 2012
continues to improve as staff training and equipment are
enhanced. However, much of the advanced software is not
suitable for design purposes, and most of this work
therefore continues to be strictly research-oriented.
It is a major problem that the material itself is not
adequately understood by the professionals who specify its
use for structural purposes. This includes the complexity of
its chemical and metallurgical makeup, as well as the fact
that the models that are used by codes to represent its
mechanical response bear little resemblance to what the
steel will experience under actual fabrication and service
conditions. For one, it is known that steel is anisotropic, as
a result of production operations as well as other plastic
deformation effects. Although the anisotropy normally is
of no particular consequence, it will affect the response of
the steel in extreme loading and deformation demand
situations. For another, the behavior of steel is a function of
deformation history, to the effect that otherwise ductile
steel may respond as a high strength, low ductility material,
given the prior occurrence of large displacements.
In brief, the complex nature of the response is not
generally appreciated. The common measures, namely, the
 Reidar BJORHOVDE. Concepts and implementation of strain-based criteria in design codes for steel structures
data obtained from simple uniaxial tension tests, have no
bearing on the in-structure performance. The tension test
was developed as a consensus solution to have the
convenience of a performance standard by which similar
materials could be compared to a common base. This test
does not represent the actual behavior of steel in a
structure, and was never intended to.
Many designers tend to consider the requirements of the
materials standards as reflecting actual performance ability.
Two- and three-dimensional effects are not recognized, at
least in part due to the inability of design standards to
correlate such effects with the elementary material
behavior models that are used. This is done in spite of
the fact that multidimensional response is the key to the
behavior of some of the most important regions of the
structure. In particular, experience has shown that this is
where problems tend to develop, much more than in any
other areas of the structure [1–4].
Nevertheless, the focal point for designers continues to
be the design codes. For rational decisions and proper
recognition of material abilities, it is essential to appreciate
the relationships between strength and deformation
demands, and to assess which one governs the end result.
2 Basic material behavior representation
The uniaxial test uses engineering stress (current load
divided by the original cross sectional area of the
specimen) and strain (current deformation divided by the
original gage length) to define the response of the steel, for
convenience in measurement and because the test results
are ultimately intended only for use in comparison with
other steels and what the standard requires for the
particular grade. Although convenient and suitable as
representations of the steel behavior up to and slightly
beyond yielding, these definitions do not recognize that the
area changes as the load increases. This part of the
response is recognized by the true stress and strain, which
is not practical for use with practical applications. For most
purposes, however, the engineering and the true strains are
equal for small strains, and the stress-strain curves coincide
up to and slightly beyond the yield stress. After this point
the two curves will diverge, to the effect that the true stress
will continue to increase until material rupture. Figure 1
illustrates the two forms of stress-strain representation.
The most common ductility measure for steel is the
elongation at fracture, which is defined in terms of
engineering strain. Somewhat inconveniently, this is a
function of the gage length, and steel mill test reports must
therefore report its magnitude as either of the commonly
used 50 mm or 200 mm lengths. True strain is clearly a
better ductility measure, since it reflects the total
accumulated strain at the point of failure. For equal levels
of engineering and true stress, the true strain is significantly
smaller than the engineering strain. Conversely, for equal
211
Fig. 1 Engineering vs. true stress-strain curves
levels of engineering and true strain, the true stress is
significantly higher than the engineering stress.
3 Uni- and multi-dimensional response
characteristics
The preceding developments are always based on one-
dimensional material behavior, with no restraint offered
against deformations in the other orthogonal directions of
the steel specimen. Once the yield stress is reached, plastic
deformation takes place, and necking (transverse contrac-
tion) occurs in the area of the specimen where the failure
ultimately will occur. For a more realistic assessment of the
response of the steel under multi-dimensional restraint
conditions, it has been shown that the true stress-true strain
relationship is the appropriate representation, unless the
yield criteria for multi-dimensional states of strain are
utilized. However, this is not practical, especially in view
of the need for fairly simple material definitions.
At the same time, the true stress and strain reflect the fact
that the steel cannot supply the amount of deformation
indicated by the results of the simple tension test. Even
under minor restraint conditions, fracture takes place at
strains that are significantly lower than those specified by
the materials standards.
Complicating the issues further is the fact that the yield
ratio has been shown to play a major role for the
deformability of steel. Designating the yield ratio by Y, it
is defined as
yield  stress
Y ¼ ¼ Fy =Fu (1)
tensile  strength
where Fy and Fu are the mechanical properties utilized by
all common materials standards. Examining a wide
range of structural steels, Kato [5] showed that the
deformability decreases with an increasing value of Y,
and the decrease is especially pronounced for Y-values in
212 Front. Struc. Civ. Eng. 2012, 6(3): 210–216
excess of approximately 0.6. As an illustration, Table 1
gives the yield ratios and relevant mechanical properties
for a number of the current American structural steels. The
standard numbers are those of the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM); the relevant stress levels
are given in units of MPa (N/mm2). These steels have very
similar counterparts within European, Chinese, Japanese
and Korean steelmaking practices, to mention some of the
major steel production countries. Similarly, the standards
published by the International Standards Organization
(ISO) also reflect these types of materials.
It is clear that adequate structural performance cannot be
guaranteed by basing the material choice only on the
standards’ basic properties. In fact, Kato [5] recommended
that in order to assure reasonable and reliable deformation
capacity of steel members and connections, as a minimum,
an upper limit of the yield stress and/or the yield ratio
should be specified for each steel grade.
Based on the above recommendation as well as
substantial research work performed in the aftermath of
the 1994 Northridge earthquake, an enhanced 350 MPa
steel grade was developed and marketed by steel mills in
the United States, starting in 1997, using a maximum Y-
value of 0.85 [6]. The specified minimum yield stress is
350 MPa; the standard also requires a maximum value of
Fy of 450 MPa, and the minimum tensile strength is Fu =
450 MPa. Detailed chemistry requirements are provided,
as is an upper limit on the carbon equivalent, to ensure a
satisfactory weldability.
4 Additional response considerations
The preceding issues are further complicated by the way
tension tests are performed and reported by steel
producers. Specifically, the upper yield point is commonly
given as the value of the representative Fy. Although the
use of this property is understandable, from a production
viewpoint, it is not a dependable, realistic value, since it
relies heavily on the specifics of the method of testing. As
noted by Lay Ref. [7], “the upper yield stress is not of
Table 1 Yield ratios for common American structural steels
ASTM steel grade yield stress Fy
A36 250
A572 (50) 350
A588 (50) 350
A852 480
A913 (50) 350
A913 (65) 450
a)
A992 350
A514 (t£63 mm) 700
a) A992 has a specified minimum (350 MPa) as well as a specified maximum (450 MPa) yield stress. It is believed that this constitutes the first time, as a steel grade has
had required, the lower and upper limits for its yield stress.
relevance in design, as it is lost if small overloads or
misalignments occur”. Specifically, utilizing dislocation
theory as the basis for yielding or plastic deformation in
steel, the upper yield point mobilizes dislocations, and the
lower yield point maintains the “movement” of the
dislocations. In essence, yielding is caused by crystal
structure (lattice) defects, in the form of dislocations.
These issues have not been addressed by a number of
studies, among them many seismic projects, their reports
noting that “...50% of the material actually incorporated in
a project will have yield strengths that exceed these mean
values. For the design of facilities with stringent require-
ments for limiting post-earthquake damage, consideration
of more conservative estimates of the actual yield strength
may be warranted.” [4]. The same reference notes that
“Design professionals should be aware of the variation in
actual properties permitted by the ASTM specifications.
This is especially important for yield strength. Yield
strengths for ASTM A36 material have consistently
increased over the last 15 years....” [4].
As a result of these developments, the American seismic
design code has specifically recognized the variability of
the material properties beyond the use of a resistance factor
[8]. The code has introduced the concept of the expected
yield stress and the expected tensile strength, and these are
used in design rather than the values provided by the
material standards. As an example, the expected yield
stress is given by the expression RyFy — the multiplier Ry
reflects the variability of the yield stress of the particular
steel grade, and this is applied in addition to the resistance
factor for the relevant limit state. For example, for the most
commonly used American structural steel today, A992, the
value of Ry is 1.1, demonstrating that this steel grade has
relatively small strength variability. For what used to be the
most common structural steel, ASTM A36, with a yield
stress of 250 MPa, the value of Ry is 1.5, emphasizing
the very significant strength variability of this material.
In fact, this level of variability was one of the reasons for
the development of steel grade A992, since structural
failures during the Northridge earthquake were prompted
by overstrength A36 material in some members and
tensile strength Fu yield ratio Y
410–550 0.62–0.45
450 0.77
480 0.71
620–760 0.78–0.64
450 0.85 (max)
550 0.81
450 0.85 (max)
760–900 0.91–0.77
 Reidar BJORHOVDE. Concepts and implementation of strain-based criteria in design codes for steel structures
connections. The designers realized that they could not
depend on the yield stress being the specified minimum
value, as given by the relevant ASTM standard, since
unanticipated limit states (failures) governed the behavior
of some members and connections.
Several other factors also play important roles, such as
the steel production methods (e.g., conventional and
thermo-mechanical control processes [9]). The changes
that have taken place over the past 25 years in North
America in going from iron ore and coke-based ingot steel
to scrap-based continuous cast steel have resulted in
materials that are significantly different, but have been
clearly improved as far as metallurgy and mechanical
properties are concerned. Steel chemistry and weldability,
and especially the carbon and alloy contents further
emphasize the complex problems facing the designer and
the fabricator in the steel selection process. These issues
were taken into account in the development of the criteria
for what is now the most commonly used structural steel in
the United States, the A992 steel [6].
5 Performance indications of current
structural steels
Current structural steels in the United States span the range
from the mild, carbon-manganese A36, to the high
strength, quenched and tempered A514 and the quenched
and self-tempered A913. For hot-rolled shapes the old
methods have given way to continuous casting. For
structural shapes in the United States, almost all production
is based entirely on this technology. As a result, steel
chemistry has changed perceptibly, such that steel now
gains its strength less from carbon and more from a variety
of alloying elements. The current steels have significantly
lower levels of carbon than previous production runs.
Values of C-content less than 0.10% are the norm; this
contrasts with a carbon content of 0.2% and higher for
earlier steels.
The lower carbon and higher alloying elements contents
result in steels with acceptable strength and ductility
characteristics, as defined by the material standards.
Further, the lower carbon, in particular, means that
weldability is significantly improved. Fracture toughness
is improved as well, indicating that fatigue performance
and resistance to brittle fracture are enhanced [9]. Never-
theless, localized effects of cold straightening, for
example, continue to affect the performance of the steel,
especially in connection regions. On the other hand, the
issue of through-thickness strength and ductility, which
used to be regarded as critical for the performance of
seismic connections, for example, has been found to be
much less important than originally conceived. In the
extensive study by Dexter et al. [10] the through thickness
limit state never governed the behavior. It is unfortunate
that in spite of these findings, a major international design
213
code like Eurocode 3 [11] maintains through thickness
requirements that are not needed.
The basic quality and variety of structural steels
available to designers and fabricators have therefore been
improved significantly, yet problems persist. As demon-
strated earlier in this paper, this has at least partly been
caused by misinterpretation of materials standards and
what they imply for the actual in-structure performance of
the steel. Of equal importance are clearly functions that are
controlled directly by the designer and the fabricator: it is
unrealistic to expect the material to provide for all of the
stiffness, strength and deformability that are needed by the
structure under all expected service conditions.
An evaluation of the ductility and deformability
requirements of the current American structural steel
design specification for non-seismic applications [12] is
provided in the following. It is emphasized that most of
these requirements, where they exist, are implied rather
than explicit. This has frequently been the result of an
engineering tradition of focusing on stress and strength
rather than strain and deformation. The AISC seismic code
[8] obviously has very detailed deformation requirements,
but these are necessitated by extreme performance needs
and go far beyond the intent of this paper. However, a
discussion of some of the seismic criteria will be provided
in certain cases, since they have evolved from non-seismic
requirements.
6 Deformation criteria for some elements
and connections
6.1 General observations
Between structural strength, stiffness and deformability,
the first two are supplied relatively easily, although
improvements continue to be made through higher material
strength and improved production methods for the steel.
Further, many structures are controlled by the need for
stiffness, in the form of deflection or drift limits or dynamic
response characteristics. For these cases the use of higher
strength steel is not advantageous. Framing system, high
redundancy, well-defined load paths and less reliance on a
limited number of structural elements are keys to
successful performance.
Possibly of the greatest significance are the problems
and solutions for the variety of connection types and
details that are utilized in structures. These are the regions
where the material will be exposed to the highest degrees
of restraint and the highest local deformation demands,
during shop fabrication and field erection, as well as during
high-demand service conditions. The connections influ-
ence local ductility demands and framing performance, as
evidenced by numerous examples from various fabrication
and construction operations. Similarly, problems have
developed during many of the earthquakes that have taken
214 Front. Struc. Civ. Eng. 2012, 6(3): 210–216
place in the past several years. Many reports of fractured
welds and base metal details have been publicized. The
basic concept that cyclic loads above yield for low-
ductility steel will cause fracture after a few cycles (and
conversely for a high-ductility steel) continues to be
correct, but the problem is severely aggravated under
multi-dimensional degrees of restraint.
The following examples examine some of the primary
American design criteria for steel members and connec-
tions.
6.2 Tension members
Chapter D of the AISC Specification [12] detail the
strength criteria for tension members. These are possibly
the simplest structural elements, and the ones whose
performance is closest to the uniaxial conditions of the
basic tension test. The limit states of gross cross section
yielding and effective net section fracture are well defined,
although the reliability of the fracture case is less than that
of the overall yield. The reason for this is the greater
variability of the tensile strength (Fu) of the steel, as well as
the influence of the geometry of the net section and the
shear lag associated with the cross-sectional shape and the
placement of the end connection.
Ductility is recognized through the reference to strain
hardening, stress concentrations, and the importance of
large deformations accompanying the yielding of the gross
cross section. These observations are based on various full-
and reduced-scale tension member tests, but no data are
presented on actual deformation demands. However, in
view of the relatively simple (other than within the end
connection regions) condition of these members and their
satisfactory behavior over the long-term, it is generally
accepted that ductility and deformation needs have been
assessed correctly. Deformation data are judged to be
roughly comparable to tension specimen tests, although
specific results in support of this finding are not presented.
However, it is understood that the deformations that will
occur in full-size tension members will be larger than those
of the material tests, primarily due to residual stress, initial
crookedness and eccentric application of the axial load.
6.3 Columns
Chapter E of the AISC Specification [12] gives the design
criteria for columns and other compression members.
Since column buckling is primarily a stability phenomenon
that is not related to local or overall deformation demands,
the questions of material performance are not central to the
issues at hand.
6.4 Beams
Chapter F of the AISC Specification [12] addresses the
design criteria for laterally supported and unsupported
beams, and sections of Chapter B detail local buckling and
other compactness issues. Chapter I gives the criteria for
composite members; these will not be examined here.
The overall behavior of beams is based on ultimate limit
states involving in-plane or out-of-plane failure. For
example, for a laterally supported, compact beam, the
ultimate limit state is the development of a plastic hinge at
the location of the maximum moment. The strength in this
case is therefore governed by the fully plastic moment, Mp,
of the cross section. As another example, for a laterally
unsupported beam with an unbraced length larger than Lr,
the ultimate limit state is governed by elastic lateral-
torsional buckling.
However, in all of these cases there is no clear indication
of a required deformation or rotation capacity. This is
implied only through the criteria used to define compact-
ness or the capacity of the cross section to rotate after
reaching the fully plastic moment. Specifically, flange and
web width-to-thickness ratios are established to allow full
yielding in the cross section. In addition, the beam has to
be capable of rotating a certain amount beyond what
constitutes the theoretical full plastification rotation, θp,
before local buckling or strain hardening occurs at the
ultimate rotation value, θu. The deformation demand is
therefore inelastic and concentrates on the ability of the
compression flange to deform sufficiently longitudinally
without buckling locally, and of the tension flange to
deform sufficiently longitudinally before strain hardening
or fracture occurs. The deformation capacity is therefore
very much a function of the type of steel, or, in other
words, the level of the yield stress as well as the shape of
the stress-strain relationship. The rotation need also
depends on the type of loading, to the effect that structures
in seismically active areas must be capable of supplying
significantly larger inelastic rotations. A summary of some
of the key compactness criteria are given in Table 2.
Only the requirements for the flange of a W-shape are
given in Table 2, as an example. It is interesting to note that
the current seismic b/t-criterion was used for non-seismic
applications as recently as the 7th edition of the allowable
stress design specification of AISC (1970); the change of
the constant from 0.30 to 0.38 was made in the 8th edition
(1980).
Table 2 Compactness criteria and associated beam rotation demands
non-seismic seismic
flange b/t-ratio 0.38 √(E/Fy) 0.30 √(E/Fy)
( = 65/√Fy) ( = 52/√Fy)
rotation demand ratio θu/θp ≥3 7 to 9
unbraced length, Lp 1.76ry√(E/Fyf) —
unbraced — 0.086ry(E/Fy)
length, Lpd
In the table, the term ry is the y-axis radius of gyration; θu
is the rotation developed before local buckling or strain
 Reidar BJORHOVDE. Concepts and implementation of strain-based criteria in design codes for steel structures
hardening occurs; and θp is the rotation developed as the
fully plastic moment is reached. The unbraced length
criteria pertain to the maximum length that will allow the
development of the fully plastic moment for a laterally
unsupported beam. Since plastic design response char-
acteristics are needed for seismic conditions, the require-
ments are much more demanding.
The key data in Table 2 are the rotation demand ratio,
θu/θp. The original data for the non-seismic ratio are based
on numerous beam tests, as reported by Yura et al. [13].
The history of the seismic deformation demand is not as
clear; the demand ratio value of 7 to 9 is primarily based on
studies by Popov and others, but specific references for this
work cannot be cited.
For beams in 250 and 350 MPa yield stress steel, the
rotation demand ratios are governed by the occurrence of
local buckling or strain hardening in the compression
flange. Limited studies have been made of higher strength
steel, but research work at the US Steel Research
Laboratory in the 1960s and early 1970s showed that for
Fy = 700 MPa, tension flange fracture governed the beam
behavior. At the time, US Steel was exploring the potential
development of hot-rolled shapes in such high strength
steel; this was unsuccessful as a result of the limited
rotation capacity.
Studies of beams with yield stress values from 380 to
550 MPa are very limited at this time, and no definitive
conclusions can be reached for such members. However,
the practical utilization of higher strength beams is
questionable, especially in seismic areas. This is in part
caused by the “strong column, weak beam” concept, as
well as the fact that beam size is frequently governed by
stiffness, rather than strength. Since the modulus of
elasticity is independent of the level of yield stress, using
higher strength material for beams is unnecessary.
6.5 Connections
Welds and bolts are addressed in Chapter J of the AISC
Specification and connection details are covered in Chapter
K [12]. These are the most complex sections of the
specification and the attention given to strength limit states
as opposed to deformations is very substantial. This is done
in spite of the fact that the deformation response often
controls the actual ultimate limit state.
In the following only some of the requirements will be
examined. However, in view of the severe deformation
demands that are placed on many types of connections, it
would seem important to assess all of these specification
criteria in detail in order to gain a clear understanding of
what is expected of the material when the connections are
designed according to the Specification. This is especially
important for many types of beam-to-column moment
connections and some welded tension member splices, for
which localized material deformation demands can be very
high [2,3].
215
6.6 Welded splices in heavy shapes
The criteria for welded splices in very heavy wide-flange
shapes are qualitative, but clear recognition is given to the
fact that the combination of residual stress, localized high
deformation demand due to fabrication operations, high
localized hardness, and low fracture toughness in the core
area of hot-rolled shapes have the potential for leading to
cracks and propagation of cracks [2,3]. The event that
caused this change in the AISC Specification was the
bottom chord fracture in one of the trusses for the Orange
County Civic Center in Orlando, Florida. The core area
problem is much less important now, since continuous
cast shapes have smaller and less pronounced cores. The
shapes that cracked in the Florida structure were all ingot-
based.
6.7 Overlap in fillet welded joints
Single lap welded joints will rotate when subjected to axial
forces in the longitudinal direction, due to the eccentricity
of one plate relative to the other. Figure 2 shows a typical
connection example. The Specification recognizes the need
for a certain length of overlap between the plates or
members in the joint, equal to five times the thickness of
the thinnest part, but not less than 25 mm. If this is
satisfied, “… the resulting rotation will not be exces-
sive....” [12]. Specifics are not given as regards to rotation
magnitudes.
Fig. 2 Fillet-welded lap joint with load eccentricity
6.8 Short vs. long bolted joints
Short bolted joints generally deform in such a fashion that
localized yielding allows for a redistribution of the bolt
forces to load each bolt equally. This is not the case with
long bolted joints, for which the non-uniform strain
distribution leads to significant differences in the actual
bolt loads. In particular, the outermost bolts will have the
higher loads, leading to the potential for an “unzipping”
type of failure. The AISC Specification recognizes this
behavior by reducing the tabulated bolt strength values by
20% for connections longer than 1270 mm. However, the
actual deformation demand is only accounted for qualita-
tively.
216 Front. Struc. Civ. Eng. 2012, 6(3): 210–216
6.9 Bearing strength at bolt holes
This is one of the few cases where deformation and
strength limit states are explicitly recognized. Research has
shown that the hole deformation will increase beyond
6 mm when the nominal factored bolt load exceeds 2.4
dtFu [12], where d is the bolt diameter, t is the thickness of
the material and Fu is the tensile strength of the steel [14].
Under many circumstances this will be unacceptable, due
to the contribution of such deformations to overall
connection deformations. If the bolt load increases to
3 dtFu, the limit state will be that of hole ovalization or
“dishing”.
6.10 Beam-to-column connections
The criteria for the design of the details of beam-to-column
connections are given in Chapter K of the AISC
Specification [12]. The section provides extensive ultimate
limit state criteria for local flange bending, local web
yielding, web crippling, side sway web buckling, com-
pression web buckling, panel zone web shear, unframed
beam and girder ends, additional stiffeners requirements
for concentrated forces, and additional doubler plate
requirements for concentrated forces. It is only in the
treatment of panel zone web shear that strength and
deformation are explicitly recognized. It is formulated
qualitatively, to the effect that different equations are used
to determine the nominal strengths if panel zone deforma-
tions are considered in the frame stability analysis.
The Commentary for the Specification gives qualitative
observations involving deformation needs, such as “... that
flange must be sufficiently rigid to prevent deformation of
the flange ....” [12]. A detailed evaluation is provided for
the panel zone behavior and the importance of its
deformation as regards to the story and overall drifts of
the structure.
7 Summary
The paper has presented a discussion of issues related to
performance demands for steel in structures, especially
under high restraint and high dynamic load conditions. It is
shown that the use of elementary materials standards
requirements, which reflect uniaxial tension test response,
is unacceptable as a means to assess the response of the
steel in the structure during actual operating conditions.
Designers and fabricators must fully understand the
material behavior. However, it is also clear that the steel
cannot assure satisfactory behavior by itself. Only together,
through 1) material choice, 2) local and overall structural
design, and 3) shop and field fabrication techniques and
operations, will overall performance demands be met. In
all cases strict adherence to specified procedures is
essential. Future developments may see improved material
standards, particularly if upper and lower limits are placed
on the specified yield stress values, as was done in the case
of the steel grade ASTM A992, and/or yield ratios are
defined and required.
References
1. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). Commentary on
highly restrained welded connections. AISC Engineering Journal,
1973, 10(3): 61–73
2. Fisher J W, Pense A W. Experience with the use of heavy W-shapes
in tension. AISC Engineering Journal, 1987, 24(2): 63–77
3. Bjorhovde R. Solutions for the use of jumbo shapes, In: Proceedings
of AISC National Steel Construction Conference, Miami Beach,
Florida, 1988, June 8–11 (pp. 2–1 to 2–20)
4. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Recommended
seismic design criteria for new steel moment-frame buildings,
Bulletin No. 350, FEMA, Washington, D.C, 2000
5. Kato B. Deformation capacity of steel structures. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, 1990,17 (1): 33–94
6. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Standard
Specification for Structural Steel Shapes, Standard No. A992,
ASTM, Conshohocken, PA, 2011
7. Lay M G. Structural Steel Fundamentals, Australian Road Research
Board, Vermont South, Victoria, Australia, 1982
8. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). Seismic Provi-
sions for Structural Steel Buildings, Standard No. ANSI/AISC 341–
10, Chicago, IL, 2010
9. Barsom J M. High performance steels, American Society of Metals,
Advanced Materials & Processes, 1996, No. 3, 27–31
10. Dexter R J, Prochnow S D, Perez M I. Constrained through-
thickness strength of column flanges of various grades and
chemistries. AISC Engineering Journal, 2001, 38(4): 181–198
11. European Committee for Standardization (ECS). Eurocode 3:
Design of Steel Structures – Part 1.1: General Rules and Rules for
Buildings, Standard No. 1993–1–1, ECS, Brussels, Belgium, 2005
12. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). Specification for
Structural Steel Buildings, Standard No. ANSI/AISC 360–10,
Chicago, IL, 2010
13. Yura J A, Galambos T V, Ravindra M K. The Bending Resistance of
Steel Beams. Journal of the Structural Division, 1978, 104(ST9):
1355–1370
14. Kulak G L, Fisher J W, Struik J H A. Guide to Design Criteria for
Bolted and Riveted Joints, 2nd Ed., Wiley-Interscience, New York,
NY, 1987