Full-Range Stress-Strain Curves For Stainless Steel Alloys PDF

The University of Sydney
Department of Civil Engineering

Sydney NSW 2006
AUSTRALIA
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/
Centre for Advanced Structural Engineering
Full-range Stress-strain Curves for

Stainless Steel Alloys
Research Report No R811
By
Kim JR Rasmussen MScEng, PhD
November 2001

Centre for Advanced Structural Engineering
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au
Full-range Stress-strain Curves for Stainless Steel Alloys

Kim JR Rasmussen, MScEng, PhD
November 2001
Abstract:
The report develops an expression for the stress-strain curves for stainless steel alloys
which is valid over the full strain range. The expression is useful for the design and
numerical modelling of stainless steel members and elements which reach stresses
beyond the 0.2% proof stress in their ultimate limit state. In this stress range, current
stress-strain curves based on the Ramberg-Osgood expression become seriously
inaccurate principally because they are extrapolations of curve fits to stresses lower
than the 0.2% proof stress. The extrapolation becomes particularly inaccurate for
alloys with pronounced strain hardening.
The report also develops expressions for determining the ultimate tensile
strength (u) and strain (u) for given values of the Ramberg-Osgood parameters
(E0,0.2,n). The expressions are compared with a wide range of experimental data and
shown to be reasonably accurate for all structural classes of stainless steel alloys.
Based on the expressions for (u) and (u), it is possible to construct the entire stressstrain curve from the Ramberg-Osgood parameters (E0,0.2,n).
Keywords:
Stainless steel, stress-strain curves, Ramberg-Osgood curve, tests.
November 2001
Copyright Notice
Department of Civil Engineering, Research Report R811
2001 Kim JR Rasmussen
k.rasmussen@civil.usyd.edu.au
This publication may be redistributed freely in its entirety and in its original
form without the consent of the copyright owner.
Use of material contained in this publication in any other published works must
be appropriately referenced, and, if necessary, permission sought from the
author.
Published by:
Sydney, NSW, 2006
AUSTRALIA
November 2001
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au

November 2001
Introduction
Stainless steel alloys have low proportionality limits and extended strain-hardening
capability. The pronounced yield plateau familiar from structural steel is nonexistent and so
an equivalent yield stress is used in structural design, usually chosen as a suitable proof
stress. The nonlinear stress-strain behaviour is acknowledged in the American (ASCE, 1991),
Australian (AS/NZS 4673, 2001) and South African (SABS 1997) standards for cold-formed
stainless steel structures which define the stress-strain curve in terms of the Ramberg-Osgood
expression (Ramberg and Osgood, 1941),
=
+ p
E0
p
(1)
Equation 1 was originally developed for aluminium alloys but has proven suitable for other
nonlinear metals including stainless steel alloys. It involves the initial Youngs modulus (E0),
the proof stress (p) corresponding to the plastic strain p, and a parameter (n) which
determines the sharpness of the knee of the stress-strain curve. In the design of aluminium
and stainless steel structures, it has become industry practice to use the 0.2% proof stress
(0.2) as the equivalent yield stress. For this proof stress, the stress-strain relationship takes
the form,
n
.
=
+ 0.002
E0
0.2
(2)
It has also become standard practice to determine the parameter (n) using the 0.01% and
0.2% proof stresses which leads to the following expression,
n=
ln(20)
.
ln( 0.2 / 0.01 )
(3)
Equation 3 ensures that the Ramberg-Osgood approximation matches exactly the measured
stress-strain curve at the 0.01% and 0.2% proof stresses. It generally provides close
approximations to measured stress-strain curves for stresses up to the 0.2% proof stress.
In concentrically loaded columns, the strains are small when reaching the ultimate load
for all practical ranges of length. It is therefore possible to base the design on the RambergOsgood curve and achieve close agreement with experimental strengths, e.g. see Rasmussen
and Hancock (1993) and Rhodes et al. (2000). Rasmussen and Rondal (1997) used this result
to develop a direct relationship between the column strength and the parameters n and e,
where e is the nondimensional proof stress,
e=
0.2
.
E0
(4)
However, structural components which undergo significant straining before reaching their
ultimate capacity, such as plates in compression or shear, compact beams failing by in-plane
bending and tension members, may develop stresses beyond the 0.2% proof stress and strains
well in excess of the 0.2% total strain,
0. 2 =
0.2
+ 0.002.
E0
(5)
When the strains exceed the 0.2% total strain (0.2), the Ramberg-Osgood curve obtained on
the basis of the 0.01% and 0.2% proof stresses may become seriously inaccurate, tending to
November 2001
produce too high stresses, as shown in Fig. 1. This particularly applies to alloys with low
values of n. In this strain range, it is necessary to use a refined expression for the stress-strain
curve with wider applicability range. This report aims to develop such an expression within
the following constraints:
1.
Current values of n, such as those given in the American, Australian and South
African standards for stainless steel structures, shall remain applicable. This implies
that the stress-strain curve can be accurately determined using the Ramberg-Osgood
expression for stresses up to the 0.2% proof stress.
2.
In the stress range between the 0.2% proof stress and the ultimate tensile strength (u),
the stress-strain curve shall be defined in terms of a minimum of additional
parameters.
These constraints ensure simplicity in the stress-strain curve formulation. It will be

demonstrated that it is possible to obtain agreement with measured stress-strain curves within
tolerances that would be deemed acceptable for a wide range of applications.
Recent approaches
MacDonald et al. (2000) reported a series of tests on austenitic UNS30400 (AISI304)
stainless steel channel columns. Ramberg-Osgood curves were fitted to stress-strain curves
obtained from stub column and tension coupon testing by using the 0.01% and 0.2% proof
stresses to determine the n-parameter. The fitted Ramberg-Osgood curves were shown to err
significantly at strains exceeding the 0.2% total strain (0.2) and a modified expression was
suggested in the form
+ 0.002
E0
1
i + j

(6)
where the constants i, j and k took values ranging from 2.5 to 6 depending on the thickness of
the material tested. While this expression proved very accurate, it was limited in applicability
to the particular alloy and thicknesses tested.
Olsson (2001) studied advanced plasticity models for stainless steel alloys and performed
a large number of tests on uniaxially and biaxially loaded coupons. He plotted the stressstrain curves as true stress (t) vs engineering strain () and observed experimentally that the
stress-strain curve approached a straight line at large strains. He proposed that the true-stress
vs engineering strain curve be approximated by a Ramberg-Osgood curve for strains up to a
total strain of 2% and a straight line from this point onwards, as shown in Fig. 2. The straight
line was chosen as an average fit to the measured stress-strain curve. It was not required to
equal the true ultimate tensile strength (tu) at the ultimate total strain (u).
Acknowledging the relationship between the true and engineering stresses,
t = (1 + )
(7)
and observing that d/d0 for u, it is apparent that as u the true stress vs
engineering strain curve asymptotes to the line,
t = u (1 + ).
(8)
Evidently, the slope of this line and the intercept of the line with the stress axis both equal u,
as shown in Fig. 2. The slope of the line is different from the slope of the line through the true
2% proof stress and true ultimate tensile strength.
4
November 2001
While Olssons approach is attractive because of its theoretical justification, it lacks

accuracy at small strains since it assumes the Ramberg-Osgood curve is valid for total strains
up to 2%. Olsson determined the n-parameter by use of the 0.2% and 1% proof stresses which
implies compromised accuracy in the important strain range <0.2. In view of Constraint #1
stated in the Introduction, Olssons approach has not been adopted in this report. However, it
may prove appropriate for applications concerned mainly with large strains.
Test data
A wide range of tests has been used to develop the full-range stress-strain relation, including
coupon tests on austenitic, duplex and ferritic stainless steel alloys. To cover the practical
range of proof stress and n-values, the test data includes coupons cut from annealed plate as
well as cold-formed sections (rectangular hollow sections (RHS), circular hollow sections
(CHS) and channels sections). The data is summarised in Table 1. Thirteen tests were
performed on austenitic alloys (UNS30400, UNS30403, UNS31603), four on duplex alloys
(UNS31803), and two on ferritic alloys (UNS43000, 3Cr12). The values of n range from 4.45
to 12.2, as shown in Table 1. The values of nondimensional proof stress (e=0.2/E0) range
from 0.0014 to 0.0037.
Several references used for the experimental data did not include values of initial
modulus (E0) or proportionality stress (0.01). In these cases, the values were determined from
the stress-strain curves. In cases where the n-parameter was not presented, the value was
calculated using Eqn. 3.
Stress-strain curve expression

In view of Constraint #1 mentioned in the Introduction, the stress-strain curve is chosen as a
standard Ramberg-Osgood curve for stresses up to the 0.2% proof stress,
n
for 0.2 .
=
+ 0.002
(9)
E0
0.2
In developing a model for the part of the stress-strain curve between the 0.2% proof stress
and the ultimate tensile strength (u), it is noted that the stress-strain curve in this range is
similar in shape to the initial part of the stress-strain curve up to the 0.2% proof stress, as
shown in Fig. 3.
This observation suggests a linear transformation of the stress and strain and the use of
the Ramberg-Osgood expression (Eqn. 1) in the following form,
m
=
+ u p for > 0.2
E0.2
u
where and are the transformed strain and stress (see Fig. 3b), defined as
(10)
= 0.2
(11)
= 0.2 .
(12)
The initial modulus to the curve (E0.2) is also the tangent modulus of the stress-strain curve at
the 0.2% proof stress, as shown in Fig. 3. By requiring continuity in slope at 0.2, E0.2 is
obtained from Eqn. 9 as d / d
,
= 0.2

November 2001
E0
.
(13)
1 + 0.002n / e
In adopting Eqn. 1, the proof stress (p) is taken as the transformed ultimate tensile
strength ( u ),
E0.2 =
u = u 0.2
and accordingly, the plastic strain (p) is the transformed ultimate plastic strain ( u p ),
u p = u 0.2 u / E0 .
(14)
(15)
Stainless steel alloys are generally ductile and so negligible error is made by approximating
the transformed ultimate plastic strain by the total ultimate strain,
up u .
(16)
The exponent (m) is obtained by trial and error using the stress-strain curves reported in the
references summarised in note (b) of Table 1. Recognising that the exponent is dependent on
the ultimate tensile strength in relation to the 0.2% proof stress, the following expression was
obtained,
0.2
.
u
The full-range stress-strain curve can be written out in full as follows:
m = 1 + 3.5

for
+ 0.002
0.2
E0
=
0.2
0.2
+
u
E
0
.
2
u 0.2
(17)
0.2
(18)
m
+ 0.2 for > 0.2
where E0.2 and m are given by Eqns 13 and 17 respectively. Figures 4, 5 and 6 show typical
comparisons of the stress-stain curves obtained using Eqn. 18 with experimental data for
austenitic, duplex and ferritic alloys respectively. The complete set of curves for the 19 tests
listed in Table 1 are contained in Appendix A.
The agreement between the test and proposed full-range stress-strain curves is generally
excellent, while the Ramberg-Osgood curves extended past the 0.2% proof stress become
increasingly inaccurate with strain, as shown in Figs 4-6. The agreement is particularly good
for the UNS30403 alloy, as shown in Fig. 4. The coupon test on UNS40300 alloy conducted
by Korvink and van den Berg (1993) was only reported for strains up to 0.007, as shown in
Fig. 6. The agreement is good in this strain range. The agreement for the (duplex) UNS31803
is reasonable although the proposed curve is higher than the test curve immediately after the
0.2% proof stress, as shown in Fig. 5. The discrepancy is a consequence of the slope (E0.2) of
the Ramberg-Osgood curve determined at the 0.2% proof stress which is too high.
Expressions for u and u

The expression for the full-range stress-strain curve (Eqn. 18) involves three parameters
(E0,n,0.2) for 0.2 and two additional parameters (u,u) for >0.2. In many situations, the
values of u and u may not be available or may not be achievable experimentally, as in the
testing of compression coupons. To cater for these situations, equations are developed in this
section for the determination of u and u in terms of n and e, where e is the nondimensional
equivalent yield stress given by Eqn. 4.
November 2001
The experimental data is that contained in Table 1 augmented by the results given in a
report by the Steel Construction Institute (SCI, 1991) and reports by the Rand African
University (van der Merwe et al. 1986, van der Merwe and van den Berg 1987). These
reports do not contain complete stress-strain curves and could not be used for deriving a fullrange expression for the stress-strain curves, as described in Section 4. The SCI report details
227 tension and compression coupon tests on austenitic (UNS30403, UNS31603) and duplex
(UNS31803) alloys, while the South African reports detail tension and compression tests on
ferritic UNS40300 stainless steel and weldable 12% chromium containing corrosion resisting
steel, popularly know as 3Cr12, which is closely related to the ferritic alloy class. 288 tests
are contained in the South African reports for various thicknesses and direction of loading
(longitudinal and transverse). Only the mean values of the results for each alloy, thickness
and direction of loading have been used in this report, adding a further 12 tests to the
database. The British and South African experimental data is summarised in Appendix B.
Evidently, the 0.2% proof stress approaches the ultimate tensile strength when increased
by cold-forming, as is commonly found in austenitic alloys. This suggests that a relationship
may exist between the ratio 0.2/u and the 0.2% proof stress. Accordingly, the ratio (0.2/u)
is plotted against the nondimensional proof stress (e), as shown in Fig. 7. The graph indicates
a linear relationship when excluding the ferritic alloys. A line of best fit through the test data
for austenitic and duplex alloys produces the following equation,
0.2
= 0.2 + 185e (austenitic and duplex alloys).
(19)
u
The ferritic alloys (including 3Cr12) generally have larger n-values than austenitic and
duplex alloys. Hence, their stress-strain curves have sharper knees which explain the higher
values of (0.2/u) for given value of e, as shown in Fig. 7. To account for the influence of n,
the following expression for 0.2/u has been obtained,
0.2 + 185e
0.2
(all alloys).
=
(20)
u 1 0.0375( n 5)
Figure 8 shows the experimental values of (0.2/u) plotted against the approximate values
given by Eqn. 20. The data points are shown with solid markers and are not biased towards a
particular alloy. However, they have greater scatter compared to the data points based on
Eqn. 19 which are shown with open markers in Fig. 8. Equation 20 is therefore less accurate
than Eqn. 19 for austenitic and duplex alloys but is more generally applicable.
Finally, an expression is sought for determining the ultimate tensile total strain (u).
Recognising that u 0 for 0.2 u , the ultimate tensile strain is plotted against the ratio
of 0.2% proof stress to ultimate tensile strength, as shown in Fig. 9.
There is significant scatter in the plot, as could be expected given the generally large
variability in values of ultimate tensile strain. It is also not clear whether the ultimate tensile
strain quoted in the references were the uniform elongation at the ultimate tensile strength, as
has been assumed, or the total strain after fracture including local elongation in the area of
necking.
The line of best fit can be closely approximated by,
0.2
.
(21)
u
as shown with a solid line in Fig. 9. The data points are not biased towards a particular alloy
and no attempt has been made to explore a possible relationship between u and the nparameter.
u = 1

November 2001
With Eqns 20 and 21 at hand for determining u and u, the full-range stress-strain curves
can be obtained from Eqn. 18 for given values of E0, 0.2 and n.
To assess the effect of the variability associated with Eqns 20 and 21, stress-strain curves
have been determined for the combinations of u and u shown in Tables 2 and 3
respectively. In all cases, the Ramberg-Osgood parameters were taken as (E0=200 GPa,
0.2=400 MPa, n=6), and the reference values of (u=675 MPa, u=0.408) were determined
using Eqns (20,21). In Table 2, the ultimate tensile strength (u) is changed by 10% and
20% while keeping u=0.408 constant. Conversely, in Table 3, the ultimate tensile strain (u)
is changed by 20% and 40% while keeping u=675MPa constant. These changes in
ultimate tensile strength and strain are representative of the largest differences between test
data and the values of u and u determined using Eqns 19 and 20 respectively, as shown in
Figs 8 and 9. The stress-strain curves resulting from the values of u and u given in Tables 2
and 3 are shown in Figs 10 and 11 respectively.
The changes in stress at a strain of 2% are shown in the 4th columns of Tables 2 and 3. It
follows from Table 2 that for the chosen values of (E0,0.2,n), a reduction of 20% in u leads
to a 7.1% decrease in (=2%). According to Table 3, a reduction of 40% in u leads to a
2.7% increase in (=2%). Since these deviations in u and u represent the maximum
deviations of the test data, it can be concluded that the expressions given by Eqns 20 and 21
are likely to produce stress-strain curves with a maximum error of about 7% in stress at a
strain of 2%, which for many applications is a likely upper bound to the ultimate limit state
strains.
Conclusions
An expression has been derived (Eqn. 18) for the complete stress-strain curve for stainless
steel alloys. The expression involves the conventional Ramberg-Osgood parameters (E0, 0.2,
n) as well as the ultimate tensile strength (u) and strain (u). It has been shown to produce
stress-strain curves which are in good agreement with tests over the full range of strains up to
the ultimate tensile strain.
Expressions are also derived for the ultimate tensile strength (u) and strain (u) in terms
of the Ramberg-Osgood parameters, see Eqns 20 and 21. The expressions are generally in
reasonable agreement with experimental data. The maximum deviations observed are of the
order of 20% for the ultimate tensile strength (u) and 40% for the ultimate tensile strain (u).
It is shown that a deviation in u of 20% produces a maximum error in stress of 7.1% at a
strain of 2% for a typical stainless steel alloy. Likewise, a deviation in u of 40% produces a
maximum error in stress of 2.7% at a strain of 2%. It can be concluded that the maximum
variability associated with using Eqns 20 and 21 leads to a maximum error on the stress of
the order of 7% at a strain of 2%.
By using Eqns 20 and 21 to determine (u) and (u), the full-range stress-strain curve can
be obtained directly from the Ramberg-Osgood parameters (E0, 0.2, n). This result is
particularly useful for the design and numerical modelling of stainless steel structural
members and elements where the stress-strain curve is specified in terms of the RambergOsgood parameters, such as in the Australian, American and South African specifications for
stainless steel structures.

November 2001
References
ASCE, (1991), Specification for Cold-formed Stainless Steel Structural Members,
ANSI/ASCE-8, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York.
AS/NZS4673, (2001), Cold-formed Stainless Steel Structures, Standards Australia, Sydney.
Burns, T and Bezkorovainy, P, (2001), Buckling of Stiffened Stainless Steel Plates, BE
(Honours) Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sydney.
Korvink, SA and van den Berg, GJ, (1993), Web Crippling of Stainless Steel Cold-formed
Beams, Proceedings, SSRC Annual Technical Session.
MacDonald, M, Rhodes, J and Taylor, GT, (2000), Mechanical Properties of Stainless Steel
Lipped Channels, Proceedings, 15th International Specialty Conference on Cold-formed
Steel Structures. Eds RA LaBoube and W-W Yu, University of Missouri-Rolla, p. 673-686.
Olsson, A., (2001), Stainless Steel Plasticity Material Modelling and Structural
Applications, PhD thesis, Department of Civil and Mining Engineering, Lule University of
Technology, Sweden.
Ramberg, W and Osgood, WR, (1941), Determination of Stress-strain Curves by Three
Parameters, Technical Note No. 503, National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics,
(NACA).
Rasmussen, KJR and Hancock, GJ, (1993), Design of Cold-formed Stainless Steel Tubular
Members. I: Columns, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 119(8), p. 2349-2367.
Rasmussen, KJR and Rondal, J, (1997), Strength Curves for Metal Columns, Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, 123(6), p. 721-728.
Rhodes, J, MacDonald, M and McNiff, W, (2000), Buckling of Stainless Steel Columns
under Concentric and Eccentric Loading, Proceedings, 15th International Specialty
Conference on Cold-formed Steel Structures. Eds RA LaBoube and W-W Yu, University of
Missouri-Rolla, p. 687-699.
SABS, (1997), Structural Use of Steel. Part 4: The Design of Cold-formed Stainless Steel
Structural Members, The South African Bureau of Standards, Pretoria.
SCI, (1991), Tests on Stainless Steel Materials, Report No. SCI-RT-251, Steel Construction
Institute, London.
Talja, A and Salmi, P, (1995), Design of Stainless Steel RHS Beams, Columns and Beamcolumns, VTT Research Note 1619, Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo.
Van der Merwe, P, van den Berg, GJ, and Marshall, V, (1986), Experimental Stress-strain
Curves for Cold-rolled 3Cr12 Steel Sheets, Internal Report No. MD-21, Department of Civil
Engineering, Rand Afrikaans University, July.
Van der Merwe, P, and van den Berg, GJ, (1987), Experimental Stress-strain Curves for
Cold-rolled Type 430 Steel Sheets, Internal Report No. MD-36, Department of Civil
Engineering, Rand Afrikaans University, August.

Test
Alloya
Sourceb
Formc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
UNS30400
UNS30400
UNS30400
UNS30400
UNS30400
UNS30400
UNS30400
UNS30400
UNS30403
UNS30403
UNS30403
UNS30403
UNS31603
UNS31803
UNS31803
UNS31803
UNS31803
UNS43000
3Cr12
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
5
5
5
6
6
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
RHS
Ch
P
RHS
RHS
CHS
CHS
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
November 2001
E0
GPa
188
182
190
197
190
196
180
190
194
190
198
198
190
190
200
215
215
200
195
0.01
MPa
314
297
178
183
241
203
241
215
240
240
250
250
190
526
310
430
430
200
215
0.2
MPa
612
532
312
286
402
297
460
327
445
470
400
400
316
699
575
635
635
320
275
u
MPa
780
731
635
627
661
638
695
611
730g
730
675g
675
616
878
805
820
820
622d
444d
mf
0.40
0.45
0.65
0.65
0.55
0.61
0.34e
0.57
0.51g
0.51
0.51g
0.51
0.51
0.32
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.48e
0.38e
0.0032
0.0029
0.0016
0.0015
0.0021
0.0015
0.0026
0.0017
0.0023
0.0025
0.0020
0.0020
0.0017
0.0037
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0016
0.0014
4.49
5.14
5.33
6.71
5.85
7.87
4.66
7.0
4.85
4.45
6.37
6.37
5.88
10.6
4.85
7.68
7.68
6.37
12.2
3.7
3.5
2.7
2.6
3.1
2.6
3.3
2.9
3.1
3.3
3.1
3.1
2.8
3.8
3.5
3.7
3.7
2.8
3.2
a) UNS30400 AISI304 ENV1.4301; UNS30403 AISI304L ENV1.4306; UNS31603 AISI316L ENV1.4436;

UNS31803 ENV1.4462 Duplex 2205; UNS43000 AISI430 ENV1.4016; UNS41050 3Cr12 ENV1.4003
b) 1 Talja & Salmi (1995); 2 McDonald et al. (2000); 3 Olsson (2001); 4 Rasmussen & Hancock (1993);
5 Burns & Bezkorovainy (2001); 6 Korvink & van den Berg (1993)
c) RHS rectangular hollow section; CHS circular hollow section; Ch channel section; P plate or sheet
d) Ultimate tensile strength estimated using Eqn. 20.
e) Ultimate total strain estimated using Eqn. 21.
f) The parameter m is obtained using Eqn. 17.
g) Compression test. The values of u and u are assumed equal to the values for the corresponding tensile tests.
Table 1. Mechanical properties

10
u
(MPa)
810
743
675
608
540
November 2001
% change
in u
+20
+10
-10
-20
(=2%)
(MPa)
513
502
490
474
455
% change in
(=2%)
+4.8
+2.6
-3.2
-7.1
u=0.408, E0=200 GPa, 0.2=400 MPa, n=6
Table 2: Effect of change in u
% change
in u
0.571
0.490
0.408
0.326
0.255
+40
+20
-20
-40
(=2%)
(MPa)
481
485
490
496
502
% change in
(=2%)
-1.8
-1.0
+1.3
+2.7
u=675 MPa, E0=200 GPa, 0.2=400 MPa, n=6
Table 3: Effect of change in u

11
November 2001
Ramberg-Osgood Curve
E0
1
Test
0.2
0.01
0.2
0.0001 0.002
Figure 1. Typical stress-strain curve for stainless steel and Ramberg-Osgood approximation.
True Stress ( t )
(u , ut )
u
2
(2 , 2t )
Engineering Strain ()
Figure 2. Stress-strain curve in terms of true stress, and comparison with Olssons model.

12
November 2001
(u , u )
E 0.2
1
1
E0
0.2
E 0.2
0.2
0.002
0.2
(0.2 ,0.2 )
0.2
u
(b)
(a)
a) initial - curve
b) full - curve
Figure 3. Initial and full stress-strain curves.
1000
(MPa)
800
600
400
0.2
Test
Proposed Curve
Extended Ramberg-Osgood Curve
200
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Figure 4. Stress-strain curves for UNS30403 alloy. Test #9, see Table 1 for source.

13
November 2001
1000
(MPa)
800
600
0.2
400
Test
Proposed Curve
200
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
600
(MPa)
400
0.2
200
Test
Proposed Curve
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02

14
November 2001
1.0
0.8
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.2
= 0.2 + 185 (n-5)
u
0.2
0.001
Austenitic
Duplex
Ferritic
0.002
e
0.003
0.004
Figure 7. 0.2/
u vs e. (The ferritic alloy test results are not included in the regression fit shown).
1.0
0.8
0.2
(
u ) test
+20%
0.2
= 0.2 + 185e
u
+10%
0.2 0.2 + 185e

= ---------------------------------------------1 - 0.0375 (n-5)
u
-10%
0.6
-20%
0.4
0.2
(
)
0.2
0.2
0.2
= (
u ) theoretical
test
0.4
0.6
0.2
(
u ) theoretical
0.8
1.0
Figure 8. (
0.2/
u)test vs (
0.2/
u)theoretical

15
November 2001
1.0
+40%
0.8
+20%
0.6
0.2
u = 1
u
0.4
Austenitic
Duplex
Ferritic
0.2
0.0
0.2
-40%
-20%
0.4
0.2
0.6
0.8
1.0
Figure 9: u vs (
0.2/
u)

16
November 2001
600
Ramberg-Osgood
u (MPa)
400
0.2
200
0.005
810 (+20%)
743 (+10%)
675
608 (-10%)
540 (-20%)
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.015
0.020
Figure 10: Effect of change in u
600
Ramberg-Osgood
400
0.2
200
0.005
0.255 (-40%)
0.326 (-20%)
0.408
0.490 (+20%)
0.571 (+40%)
0.010
Figure 11: Effect of change in u

17
November 2001
Appendix A: Full-range Stress-strain Curves

This appendix contains comparisons of measured stress strain curves with stress-strain curves
obtained using Eqn. 18. The test numbers given in the figure captions refer to Table 1. Where
the full or large parts of the stress-strain curve was reported, comparisons are shown for the
full and initial parts of the curve.
The first six measured stress-strain curves (Figs A.1-A.6) are obtained from Talja and
Salmi (1995). The proposed curves in the same figures have been produced using the
Ramberg-Osgood parameters (E0, 0.2, n) also given in Talja and Salmi (1995). However, for
Tests #3, 4 and 5, the Ramberg-Osgood parameters and stress-strain curves were not obtained
from the same tests (although from nominally identical specimens) which probably explains
the discrepancies seen in Figs A.3 and A.4. There is also some doubts about the RambergOsgood parameters given in Talja and Salmi (1995) for Tests #1 and 2 in that the stress-strain
curves do not intercept the 0.2% proof stress as required. However, despite these
uncertainties, the shape of the proposed curves generally matches well the measured stressstrain curves, as shown in Figs A.1-A.6.

18
November 2001
800
600
(MPa)
0.2
400
200
Test
Proposed Curve
0
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
Figure A.1. Stress-strain curves for UNS30400 alloy. Test #1,

(Talja & Salmi (1995), coupon RHS 1a-ST-1N).
800
(MPa)
600
0.2
400
200
Test
Proposed Curve
0
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025

(Talja & Salmi (1995), coupon RHS 1a-ST-1W).

19
November 2001
600
(MPa)
400
0.2
200
Test
Proposed Curve
0
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025

(Talja & Salmi (1995), coupon RHS 2-ST-3N).
600
(MPa)
400
0.2
200
Test
Proposed Curve
0
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025

(Talja & Salmi (1995), coupon RHS 2-ST-3W).

20
November 2001
600
(MPa)
400
0.2
200
Test
Proposed Curve
0
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025

(Talja & Salmi (1995), coupon RHS 3a-ST-2N).
600
(MPa)
400
0.2
200
Test
Proposed Curve
0
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025

(Talja & Salmi (1995), coupon RHS 3a-ST-2W).

21
November 2001
1000
(MPa)
800
600
400
0.2
Test
Proposed Curve
200
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08

(McDonald et al (2000), coupon W).
( ))
800
(MPa)
600
400
0.2
200
Test
Proposed Curve
0
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
Figure A.8. Initial stress-strain curves for UNS30400 alloy. Test #7,
(McDonald et al (2000), coupon W).

22
November 2001
600
(MPa)
400
0.2
200
Test
Proposed Curve
0
0.05
0.10
0.15

(Olsson (2001), pp. 122 Fig. 5.6 ).
600
(MPa)
400
0.2
200
Test
Proposed Curve
0
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
(Olsson (2001), pp. 122 Fig. 5.6 ).

23
November 2001
1000
(MPa)
800
600
400
0.2
Test
Proposed Curve
200
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6

(Rasmussen & Hancock (1993), Coupon T1-SHS ).
800
(MPa)
600
400
0.2
200
Test
Proposed Curve
0
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
(Rasmussen & Hancock (1993), Coupon T1-SHS ).

24
November 2001
800
(MPa)
600
400
0.2
200
Test
Proposed Curve
0
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
(Rasmussen & Hancock (1993), Coupon C1-SHS ).

25
November 2001
800
(MPa)
600
400
0.2
200
Test
Proposed Curve
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6

(Rasmussen & Hancock (1993), Coupon T1-CHS ).
600
(MPa)
400
0.2
200
Test
Proposed Curve
0
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
(Rasmussen & Hancock (1993), Coupon T1-CHS ).

26
November 2001
800
(MPa)
600
400
0.2
200
Test
Proposed Curve
0
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
(Rasmussen & Hancock (1993), Coupon C1-CHS ).

27
November 2001
600
(MPa)
400
0.2
200
Test
Proposed Curve
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10

(Olsson (2001), pp. 123, Fig. 5.7 ).
600
(MPa)
400
0.2
200
Test
Proposed Curve
0
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
(Olsson (2001), pp. 123, Fig. 5.7 ).

28
November 2001
1000
(MPa)
800
600
0.2
400
Test
Proposed Curve
200
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10

(Olsson (2001), pp. 123, Fig. 5.8 ).
1000
(MPa)
800
600
0.2
400
Test
Proposed Curve
200
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
(Olsson (2001), pp. 123, Fig. 5.8 ).

29
November 2001
1000
(MPa)
800
600
0.2
400
Test
Proposed Curve
200
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4

(Burns & Bezkorovainy (2001), coupon LT2 ).
1000
(MPa)
800
600
0.2
400
Test
Proposed Curve
200
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
(Burns & Bezkorovainy (2001), coupon LT2 ).

30
November 2001
1200
1000
(MPa)
800
600
0.2
400
Test
Proposed Curve
200
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4

(Burns & Bezkorovainy (2001), coupon TT1 ).
1000
(MPa)
800
600
0.2
400
Test
Proposed Curve
200
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020

31
November 2001
1200
1000
(MPa)
800
600
0.2
400
Test
Proposed Curve
200
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4

1000
(MPa)
800
600
0.2
400
Test
Proposed Curve
200
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020

32
November 2001
600
(MPa)
400
0.2
200
Test
Proposed Curve
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02

(Korvink & van den Berg (1993), Coupon Type 430 ).
400
(MPa)
300
0.2
200
100
Test
Proposed Curve
0
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020

(Korvink & van den Berg (1993), Coupon Type 3Cr12 ).

33
November 2001
Appendix B: Coupon Test Data

Appendix B.1 summarises the test data contained in the report by the Steel Construction
Institute (SCI, 1991).
Appendix B.2 summarises the test data contained in the reports by van der Merwe et al.
(1986) and van der Merwe & van den Berg (1987) from Rand Afrikaans University. The data
are the mean values given in the reports.

34
November 2001
Appendix B.1: SCI Coupon Test Data

Alloy:
304L
Longitudinal Tension (LT)
Specimen
l. rate
2
(mm) (N/mm /s)

LT1
1.9
3
LT2
1.9
3
LT3
1.9
3
LT1R
4
3
LT4R
4
3
LT1R
10
3
LT2R
10
0.3
LT3R
10
30
LT4R
10
3
LT5R
10
0.3
LT6R
10
30
LT1
9.53
3
LT2
9.53
0.3
LT3
9.53
30
Average
Standard deviation
Coefficient of variation
s0.2
s1.0
su
elong.
E0
s0.01/s0.2
MPa
269.1
267.1
266.1
285.5
255.7
258.8
247.8
267.6
247.4
239.5
272.1
258.8
242.9
253.6
259.4
12.72
0.049
MPa
309.3
307.0
307.8
335.6
303.1
297.5
287.4
311.5
293.4
287.0
315.0
293.0
278.1
289.0
301.1
14.79
0.049
MPa
619.0
618.6
639.8
598.4
588.4
594.6
606.2
596.8
598.7
602.4
300.6
568.5
563.2
567.5
575.9
%
48
51
52
52
59
54
55
52
52
54
55
54
55
56
53.5
GPa
200.9
189.3
194.2
195.8
199.4
191.7
193.1
199.1
186.1
195.4
195.9
188.5
208.5
190.5
194.9
5.5
6.4
6.7
7.1
6.7
7.6
7.3
8.5
5.5
7.1
8.2
7.9
8.7
7.8
7.2
0.58
0.63
0.64
0.65
0.64
0.67
0.66
0.70
0.58
0.66
0.70
0.69
0.71
0.68
0.66
s0.2
MPa
264.9
260.3
279.7
270.0
261.1
279.9
265.7
264.0
278.0
264.9
258.5
233.2
259.9
249.0
235.9
260.4
257.3
261.3
13.00
0.050
s1.0
MPa
305.2
296.8
308.6
311.4
321.6
320.2
304.8
317.5
335.1
317.4
296.6
268.8
298.1
286.7
272
297.4
291.5
302.9
17.43
0.058
su
MPa
605.2
594.3
603.9
601.4
601.4
604.1
601.5
612.5
608.4
610
577.2
571.2
570.6
571
9.2
574.9
574.6
558.3
elong.
%
54
52
51
51
52
50
53
50
49
52
52
55
54
52
9
55
53
49.7
E0
GPa
201.8
203.2
201.2
180.8
194.9
210.6
201.5
205.1
208.9
212.7
196.4
198.9
202.0
190.1
213.2
194.3
202.0
201.0
s0.01/s0.2
9.3
9.2
10.0
10.1
9.6
9.1
9.7
8.6
7.3
8.7
9.8
9.4
6.4
7.7
9.2
10.0
8.2
9.0
0.72
0.72
0.74
0.74
0.73
0.72
0.73
0.71
0.66
0.71
0.74
0.73
0.62
0.68
0.72
0.74
0.70
0.71
Transverse Tension (TT)

Specimen
t
l. rate
(mm) (N/mm2/s)
1.9
3
1.9
0.03
1.9
30
1.9
3
1.9
0.03
1.9
30
1.9
3
4
3
4
30
4
3
9.53
3
9.53
0.03
9.53
30
9.53
3
9.53
0.03
9.53
30
9.53
3
TT1
TT2
TT3
TT4
TT5
TT6
TT7
TT1R
TT3R
TT4R
TT1
TT2
TT3
TT4
TT5
TT6
TT7
Average
Standard deviation

35
November 2001
Alloy:
304L
Longitudinal Compression (LC)
Specimen
l. rate
2
(mm) (N/mm /s)

4
3
4
0.3
4
30
4
3
4
0.3
4
30
4
3
10
3
10
0.3
10
30
10
3
10
0.3
10
30
10
3
9.53
3
9.53
3
9.53
3
LC1
LC2
LC3
LC4
LC5
LC6
LC7
LC1
LC2
LC3
LC4
LC5
LC6
LC7
LC1
LC2
LC3
Average
Standard deviation
s0.2
s1.0
su
elong.
E0
s0.01/s0.2
MPa
252.3
247.4
270.4
254.6
249.4
269.0
255.2
245.3
240.0
260.1
247.3
236.4
257.9
245.9
247.7
244.8
237.9
250.7
9.70
0.039
MPa
307.0
308.4
322.3
309.4
308.8
323.8
309.8
289.3
285.1
308.0
295.2
279.1
303.8
288.3
285.5
285.5
275.7
299.1
14.69
0.049
MPa
GPa
216.5
181.8
176.0
207.0
164.3
159.9
189.9
198.2
178.0
195.3
182.5
184.5
170.9
201.9
185.8
192.3
190.7
186.8
5.9
5.3
7.0
5.6
6.9
6.8
6.0
6.3
6.2
5.4
6.1
6.7
7.6
6.6
7.7
7.5
6.6
6.5
0.60
0.57
0.65
0.58
0.65
0.64
0.60
0.62
0.62
0.57
0.61
0.64
0.67
0.63
0.68
0.67
0.63
0.63
s0.2
MPa
264.5
258.3
284.1
267.0
256.9
280.9
267.3
249.6
243.1
262.9
249.6
241.4
261.1
248.1
246.0
250.4
240.1
257.1
12.98
0.050
s1.0
MPa
314.1
306.9
331.4
320.4
301.8
339.0
315.8
297.5
291.0
313.3
298.0
288.9
309.4
296.4
289.4
296.3
281.3
305.3
15.62
0.051
su
MPa
s0.01/s0.2
8.9
9.3
9.9
10.2
9.9
9.8
8.4
8.3
8.9
9.2
7.8
10.4
9.4
8.7
6.9
8.6
6.9
8.9
0.72
0.73
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.70
0.70
0.71
0.72
0.68
0.75
0.73
0.71
0.65
0.71
0.65
0.71
Transverse Compression (TC)

Specimen
t
l. rate
(mm) (N/mm2/s)
4
3
4
0.3
4
30
4
3
4
0.3
4
30
4
3
10
3
10
0.3
10
30
10
3
10
0.3
10
30
10
3
9.53
3
9.53
3
9.53
3
TC1
TC2
TC3
TC4
TC5
TC6
TC7
TC1
TC2
TC3
TC4
TC5
TC6
TC7
TC1
TC2
TC3
Average
Standard deviation

36
elong.
%
E0
GPa
195.1
191.5
216.0
169.1
191.6
192.2
208.2
181.7
177.8
181.7
212.7
186.1
193.8
219.6
168.0
186.2
186.4
191.6
November 2001
Alloy:
316L
Specimen
l. rate
2
(mm) (N/mm /s)

2
3
2
3
2
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
6
3
6
3
10
3
10
0.3
10
30
10
3
10
0.3
10
30
10
3
LT1
LT2
LT3
LT7
LT1R
LT4R
LT1
LT2
LT1R
LT2R
LT3R
LT4R
LT5R
LT6R
LT7R
Average
Standard deviation
s0.2
s1.0
su
elong.
E0
s0.01/s0.2
MPa
293.4
287.3
289.2
275.0
268.5
270.1
282.4
291.5
252.8
244.7
265.1
262.6
248.1
295.6
260.6
272.5
16.92
0.062
MPa
330.3
321.5
322.2
328.1
311.7
314.3
318.1
321.8
296.3
288.6
307.4
303.6
291.1
319.7
295.3
311.3
13.58
0.044
MPa
565.8
570.4
568.7
587.7
574.3
580.8
602.1
604.6
585.7
586.5
584.8
588.1
590.3
588.9
579.5
583.9
%
45
47
47
46
49
49
44
45
50
47
52
48
49
48
52
47.9
GPa
186.7
186.0
194.1
213.2
199.7
200.7
174.4
187.5
185.5
187.8
195.4
194.6
189.4
200.1
196.9
192.8
6.2
6.8
7.3
5.6
5.4
6.0
7.8
7.3
7.9
7.9
5.8
7.5
9.8
6.7
8.8
7.1
0.61
0.64
0.66
0.59
0.57
0.61
0.68
0.66
0.68
0.69
0.59
0.67
0.74
0.64
0.71
0.65
s0.2
MPa
310.1
298.6
320.1
308.7
294.7
318.1
306.2
290.5
289.1
292.8
286.4
287.8
257.7
245.3
274.0
249.4
289.3
22.76
0.079
s1.0
MPa
342.9
330.1
352.8
340.2
326.2
352.1
340.2
345.8
345.8
346.1
325.6
327.2
303.1
292.2
319.7
292.5
330.2
19.74
0.060
su
MPa
581.4
577.4
577.9
577.6
574.3
578.5
580.9
610.5
612.5
612.8
601.7
599.2
576.3
576.3
579
579.6
587.2
elong.
%
48
49
49
47
47
49
49
46
46
46
46
46
49
51
52
52
48.3
E0
GPa
201.2
205.4
196.6
197.8
204.0
197.4
197.0
201.5
211.7
191.2
215.3
216.8
210.6
202.0
213.0
181.3
202.7
s0.01/s0.2
11.3
10.5
12.0
11.3
11.4
12.7
11.0
7.4
6.4
7.6
6.2
6.8
7.1
6.1
7.9
8.1
9.0
0.77
0.75
0.78
0.77
0.77
0.79
0.76
0.67
0.63
0.67
0.62
0.64
0.66
0.61
0.69
0.69
0.70

Specimen
t
l. rate
(mm) (N/mm2/s)
2
3
2
0.03
2
30
2
3
2
0.03
2
30
2
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
6
3
6
3
10
3
10
0.3
10
30
10
0.3
TT1
TT2
TT3
TT4
TT5
TT6
TT7
TT7
TT1R
TT4R
TT1
TT2
TT1R
TT2R
TT3R
TT5R
Average
Standard deviation

37
November 2001
Alloy:
316L
Specimen
l. rate
2
(mm) (N/mm /s)

4
3
4
0.3
4
30
4
3
4
0.3
4
30
4
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
10
3
10
3
10
3
10
3
10
0.3
10
30
10
3
10
0.3
10
30
10
3
LC1
LC2
LC3
LC4
LC5
LC6
LC7
LC1
LC2
LC1R
LC2R
LC1
LC2
LC3
LC1
LC2
LC3
LC4
LC5
LC6
LC7
Average
Standard deviation

s0.2
s1.0
su
elong.
E0
s0.01/s0.2
MPa
273.5
274.2
294.1
281.2
274.7
293.0
282.9
291.6
297.3
296.0
305.6
243.2
245.2
250.1
260.6
247.7
275.5
253.4
243.8
264.9
251.2
271.4
20.31
0.075
MPa
314.3
307.4
339.2
328.0
317.4
336.7
327.7
325.6
334.8
335.7
349.3
321.4
320.0
319.5
307.0
291.7
318.8
291.7
287.5
298.6
286.0
317.1
18.15
0.057
MPa
GPa
174.9
183.3
182.7
176.7
163.3
179.1
154.7
144.3
150.6
177.8
187.1
183.9
168.1
162.8
115.9
173.8
186.0
178.0
180.5
216.0
218.6
174.2
8.4
7.2
8.0
7.5
8.7
6.9
8.7
12.4
10.5
11.2
10.1
3.2
3.3
3.5
9.1
5.7
8.7
8.3
10.3
11.0
6.6
8.1
0.70
0.66
0.69
0.67
0.71
0.65
0.71
0.78
0.75
0.77
0.74
0.40
0.41
0.42
0.72
0.59
0.71
0.70
0.75
0.76
0.63
0.66
38
Alloy:
November 2001
316L

Specimen
l. rate
2
(mm) (N/mm /s)

TC1
4
3
TC2
4
0.3
TC3
4
30
TC4
4
3
TC5
4
0.3
TC6
4
30
TC7
4
3
TC1
6
3
TC2
6
3
TC1
10
3
TC2
10
3
TC3
10
3
TC1
10
3
TC2
10
0.3
TC3
10
30
TC4
10
3
TC5
10
0.3
TC6
10
30
TC7
10
3
TC1
9.53
3
TC2
9.53
3
TC3
9.53
3
Average
Standard deviation

s0.2
s1.0
su
elong.
E0
s0.01/s0.2
MPa
301.6
295.2
314.3
301.7
294.2
312.5
302.4
301.1
297.1
287.2
285.9
293.4
269.9
254.9
276.1
262.4
259.7
283.5
263.9
303.8
256.0
273.2
285.9
18.61
0.065
MPa
339.3
336.6
356.8
339.5
339.1
351.4
342.6
340.9
333.7
341.0
342.2
355.0
307.0
295.5
314.7
303.6
292.8
317.3
304.4
352.8
296.0
317.1
328.2
21.03
0.064
MPa
GPa
178.9
187.5
194.8
188.4
184.8
194.6
185.3
198.7
175.9
199.4
194.9
191.9
181.2
180.6
193.1
179.7
191.0
201.8
193.6
202.2
199.5
202.4
190.9
11.2
12.1
12.6
12.3
11.1
12.9
13.7
8.6
11.4
9.5
7.3
7.0
10.8
11.2
9.4
9.3
9.1
9.3
10.5
9.2
9.3
10.5
10.4
0.76
0.78
0.79
0.78
0.76
0.79
0.80
0.71
0.77
0.73
0.66
0.65
0.76
0.77
0.73
0.73
0.72
0.73
0.75
0.72
0.72
0.75
0.74
39
November 2001
Alloy:
2205
Specimen
l. rate
2
(mm) (N/mm /s)

2
3
2
3
2
3
5
3
5
0.3
5
30
4.75
3
4.75
0.03
4.75
30
4.75
3
4.75
0.03
4.75
30
4.75
3
12
3
12
0.03
12
30
10
3
10
3
10
3
LT1
LT2
LT3
LT1
LT2
LT3
LT1
LT2
LT3
LT4
LT5
LT6
LT7
LT1
LT2
LT3
LT1R
LT4R
LT7R
Average
Standard deviation

s0.2
s1.0
su
elong.
E0
s0.01/s0.2
MPa
594.4
595.3
604.4
572.8
580.4
581.7
465.7
448.6
490.9
472.3
450.7
491.9
476.5
467.6
458.4
452.5
485.9
481.1
486.3
508.3
57.51
0.113
MPa
663.3
662.0
674.7
624.6
627.4
629.5
585.6
566.0
607.4
596.4
563.1
604.4
594.6
569.1
564.4
562.0
572.2
562.0
564.4
599.6
37.75
0.063
MPa
823.6
815.9
820.0
770.3
776.5
776.9
745.6
755.0
752.6
743.3
744.1
754.1
747.3
747.0
751.0
747.2
747.6
732.9
732.1
762.3
28.32
0.037
%
30
30
31
31
32
31
27
28
28
26
26
26
28
36
38
38
33
33
31
30.7
3.73
0.121
GPa
197.7
199.7
204.6
202.7
203.3
193.4
208.6
207.8
206.1
197.5
210.3
208.8
216.6
202.2
201.8
201.3
207.1
194.4
206.5
203.7
5.77
0.028
7.3
7.3
6.6
5.8
12.2
9.5
4.3
4.2
4.9
4.5
4.6
4.8
4.7
5.4
4.7
4.1
4.7
4.9
5.4
5.8
2.07
0.358
0.67
0.66
0.63
0.59
0.78
0.73
0.50
0.49
0.54
0.52
0.52
0.53
0.53
0.57
0.53
0.48
0.53
0.50
0.57
0.6
0.08
0.148
40
November 2001
Alloy:
2205
Specimen
l. rate
2
(mm) (N/mm /s)

2
3
2
0.03
2
30
2
3
2
0.03
2
30
2
3
5
3
5
0.03
5
30
5
3
5
0.03
5
30
5
3
4.75
3
4.75
0.03
4.75
30
4.75
3
4.75
0.03
4.75
30
4.75
3
12
3
12
0.03
12
30
12
3
12
0.03
12
30
12
3
10
3
10
3
10
3
TT1
TT2
TT3
TT4
TT5
TT6
TT7
TT1
TT2
TT3
TT4
TT5
TT6
TT7
TT1
TT2
TT3
TT4
TT5
TT6
TT7
TT1
TT2
TT3
TT4
TT5
TT6
TT7
TT1R
TT4R
TT7R
Average
Standard deviation

s0.2
s1.0
su
elong.
E0
MPa
620.8
596.1
644.0
618.1
592.5
641.7
613.5
629.9
576.0
614.0
583.3
568.8
612.8
578.5
492.4
481.0
526.8
512.6
485.2
533.2
513.0
487.2
451.5
511.9
494.8
462.6
520.9
491.2
510.0
508.9
512.6
547.9
58.52
0.107
MPa
697.1
673.3
722.7
689.3
669.5
723.0
699.5
670.9
655.0
695.9
670.8
613.7
667.3
667.3
619.4
607.4
641.1
627.8
602.1
645.0
626.5
594.1
570.5
618.1
596.0
567.6
628.7
594.9
595.6
596.4
590.7
639.9
44.24
0.069
MPa
844.9
919.5
842.5
835.4
859.2
842.3
838.6
812.5
812.9
818.7
812.8
777.6
781.1
814.6
771.5
772.4
772.6
778.5
780.4
785.8
779.7
777.2
775.5
779.1
777.5
774.7
780.6
776.9
760.3
761.1
770.2
799.6
36.25
0.045
%
28
27
29
27
29
28
26
27
24
29
29
30
28
28
26
27
22
24
27
28
28
31
34
36
36
35
31
37
28
30
28
28.9
3.55
0.123
GPa
206.3
212.5
207.8
209.8
215.6
207.1
211.4
220.3
206.1
210.5
218.7
212.7
210.1
222.6
207.3
232.0
211.9
214.5
216.3
223.1
204.9
221.1
232.2
225.4
215.3
218.5
214.5
211.9
205.5
201.3
224.9
214.6
7.80
0.036
41
s0.01/s0.2
5.8
5.6
6.0
5.4
4.7
5.5
5.0
5.3
5.1
5.6
4.6
0.60
0.59
0.60
0.58
0.53
0.58
0.55
0.57
0.56
0.59
0.52
12.1
4.1
4.1
3.5
4.4
3.9
3.6
4.2
4.0
3.9
3.2
4.0
4.4
3.6
4.1
4.4
4.6
5.4
5.1
4.8
1.57
0.323
0.78
0.48
0.48
0.43
0.51
0.47
0.44
0.49
0.48
0.46
0.39
0.47
0.51
0.43
0.48
0.50
0.52
0.57
0.56
0.5
0.07
0.143
November 2001
Alloy:
2205
Specimen
l. rate
2
(mm) (N/mm /s)

5
3
5
3
5
3
4.75
3
4.75
0.03
4.75
30
4.75
3
4.75
0.03
4.75
30
4.75
3
12
3
12
3
12
3
10
3
10
0.03
10
30
10
3
10
0.03
10
30
10
3
TC1
TC2
TC3
TC1
TC2
TC3
TC4
TC5
TC6
TC7
TC1
TC2
TC3
TC1
TC2
TC3
TC4
TC5
TC6
TC7
Average
Standard deviation

s0.2
s1.0
su
elong.
E0
s0.01/s0.2
MPa
585.1
583.8
586.4
521.6
489.1
527.1
512.2
497.3
553.0
515.2
484.0
491.8
474.3
507.1
472.7
531.3
499.0
476.7
518.5
497.9
516.2
36.01
0.070
MPa
677.7
677.4
681.9
615.0
598.4
643.9
607.7
598.9
643.2
616.3
612.1
610.7
602.9
578.1
590.3
631.6
578.5
544.7
586.6
567.2
613.2
37.16
0.061
MPa
GPa
207.2
209.2
228.7
205.3
200.8
213.7
205.8
197.0
210.7
195.0
172.7
196.1
238.0
213.0
194.3
205.7
200.4
196.7
206.3
190.0
204.3
13.71
0.067
6.4
6.8
5.4
5.7
5.2
5.6
5.8
5.8
5.5
5.8
5.3
4.3
3.0
13.1
5.4
5.2
5.7
5.4
6.0
6.2
5.9
1.87
0.318
0.63
0.64
0.57
0.59
0.56
0.59
0.60
0.60
0.58
0.60
0.57
0.50
0.37
0.80
0.58
0.56
0.59
0.57
0.61
0.62
0.6
0.08
0.129
42
November 2001
Alloy:
2205
Specimen
l. rate
2
(mm) (N/mm /s)

5
3
5
3
5
3
4.75
3
4.75
0.3
4.75
30
4.75
3
4.75
0.3
4.75
30
4.75
3
12
3
12
3
12
3
10
3
10
0.3
10
30
10
3
10
0.3
10
30
10
3
LC1
LC2
LC3
LC1
LC2
LC3
LC4
LC5
LC6
LC7
LC1
LC2
LC3
LC1
LC2
LC3
LC4
LC5
LC6
LC7
Average
Standard deviation

s0.2
s1.0
su
elong.
E0
s0.01/s0.2
MPa
475.9
476.5
471.8
510.0
490.6
521.9
513.2
479.8
513.9
497.3
459.7
466.3
473.8
480.4
451.2
513.4
476.0
450.0
497.0
483.7
485.1
21.39
0.044
MPa
609.6
618.6
612.8
588.3
585.8
616.0
614.1
569.2
614.8
583.0
576.8
577.0
578.7
564.9
537.3
600.2
540.7
528.8
580.0
547.5
582.2
28.05
0.048
MPa
GPa
212.1
199.0
195.6
196.3
190.9
204.4
197.6
184.7
208.9
192.2
239.6
202.4
187.6
180.6
186.0
192.5
163.7
186.9
179.6
161.2
193.1
16.97
0.088
3.7
3.8
3.5
5.7
5.7
6.0
6.1
5.9
5.2
6.0
2.9
3.9
5.0
6.0
6.1
6.4
6.7
6.2
7.4
7.2
5.5
1.27
0.232
0.45
0.45
0.42
0.59
0.59
0.61
0.61
0.60
0.56
0.61
0.35
0.47
0.55
0.61
0.61
0.63
0.64
0.62
0.67
0.66
0.6
0.09
0.156
43
November 2001
Appendix B.2: South African Coupon Test Data
a)
b)
c)
d)
Test
Alloya
Sourceb
Formc
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
430
430
430
430
430
430
430
430
3Cr12
3Cr12
3Cr12
3Cr12
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
E0
GPa
195
222
196
222
195
219
195
213
196
223
201
230
0.01
MPa
209
262
219
287
235
300
235
287
222
272
236
273
0.2
MPa
304
332
331
366
312
344
334
363
318
353
307
339
u
MPa
518
562
517
557
510
548
521
549
480
491
482
506
md
0.29
0.28
0.30
0.28
0.30
0.27
0.23
0.26
0.30
0.33
0.27
0.24
0.0016
0.0015
0.0017
0.0016
0.0016
0.0016
0.0017
0.0017
0.0016
0.0016
0.0015
0.0014
8.00
12.5
7.24
12.4
10.6
22.0
8.47
12.8
8.36
11.4
11.3
13.9
3.1
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.1
3.2
3.2
3.3
3.3
3.5
3.2
3.3
UNS43000 AISI430 ENV1.4016, UNS41050 3Cr12 ENV1.4003

7 van der Merwe & van den Berg (1987); 8 van der Merwe et al. (1986)
P plate or sheet
The parameter m is obtained using Eqn. 17.

44

Full-Range Stress-Strain Curves For Stainless Steel Alloys PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full-Range Stress-Strain Curves For Stainless Steel Alloys PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The University of Sydney

Department of Civil Engineering