Tensile Tests of Cold-Formed Stainless Steel Tubes

Man-Tai Chen, A.M.ASCE 1; and Ben Young, F.ASCE 2

Abstract: In this study, an experimental program on cold-formed stainless steel tubular sections with and without perforations under pure tension
is presented. Nine cross section series made of ferritic, lean duplex, and austenitic stainless steel were included. The square and rectangular
stainless steel tubes had a nominal outer dimension ranging from 20 to 80 mm and nominal wall thickness ranging from 1.5 to 4 mm, while
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 06/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the nominal diameters of circular tubes were 60.5 and 76.3 mm. Tensile coupon tests were performed to determine the mechanical properties, and
21 full cross section tensile tests were performed on 9 specimens with circular perforations and the rest without perforation. Tensile test results
were discussed and further compared with the tensile strengths predicted by the prevalent design rules for stainless steel structures, such as the
American Specification SEI/ASCE8, Australian/New Zealand Standards AS/NZS4673, and European Code EN1993-1-4. The comparisons
reveal that the tensile strength predictions by these design rules are quite conservative and scattered for cold-formed stainless steel tubular
sections with and without perforations. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002738. © 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Perforation; Stainless steel; Tensile capacity; Tensile tests; Tubular sections.

Introduction
The development of forming technology has allowed the produc-
tion of steel sections with different cross section profiles (Chen and
Young 2018b, 2019d, 2020a, b; Chen et al. 2020a, b) and different
steel grades (Lai et al. 2019a, b; Ma et al. 2015; Wang et al. 2019b;
Yan et al. 2019; Zhang et al. 2019b). Stainless steel sections can be
hot-rolled or cold-formed (Liang et al. 2019a; Wang et al. 2019a;
Zhang et al. 2019a). Research into different stainless steel sections
under various loading conditions has been carried out worldwide,
and some key studies are reviewed, as follows. The mechanical
properties and cross sectional behavior of various stainless steel
sections have been investigated, such as austenitic stainless steel
material properties (Winter and Wang 1969) and tubular sections
(Gardner and Nethercot 2004; Rasmussen and Hancock 1993), lean
duplex stainless steel square and rectangular hollow sections (SHS
and RHS) (Huang and Young 2012; Theofanous and Gardner
2010), high strength austenitic and duplex stainless steel SHS
and RHS (Young and Lui 2005), and ferritic stainless steel SHS
and RHS (Afshan and Gardner 2013). The column behavior of aus-
tenitic stainless steel sections (He et al. 2019; Young and Hartono
2002; Young and Liu 2003), lean duplex stainless steel SHS and
RHS (Huang and Young 2014b), and ferritic stainless steel SHS
and RHS (Afshan and Gardner 2013; Bock et al. 2015) has also
been studied. In addition, the structural behavior of stainless steel
sections under combined loadings, such as austenitic (Liang et al.
2019b; Rhodes et al. 2000), duplex (Lui et al. 2014), lean duplex
1
Assistant Professor, State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering, Dept.
of Civil Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ., Shanghai 200240, China;
formerly, Postdoctoral Fellow, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Hong
Kong, Pokfulam Rd., Hong Kong, China (corresponding author). ORCID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8106-6949. Email: mantai.chen@sjtu.edu.cn
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hong Kong
Polytechnic Univ., Hong Kong, China; formerly, Professor, Dept. of Civil
Engineering, Univ. of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Rd., Hong Kong, China.
Email: ben.young@polyu.edu.hk
Note. This manuscript was submitted on October 31, 2019; approved
on March 5, 2020; published online on June 17, 2020. Discussion period
open until November 17, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engi-
neering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445.
(Huang and Young 2014a) and ferritic (Arrayago et al. 2016; Zhao
et al. 2016) stainless steel sections under combined compression
and bending, and stainless steel sections under combined bending
and web crippling (Zhou and Young 2007), has been investigated
through experimental and numerical studies.
The tension force is one of the basic loadings in structures,
especially for truss structures. It is crucial to examine the tensile
behavior of stainless steel members in order to have a better under-
standing of the performance of the whole structures. However, it
should be noted that to date there has been no experimental inves-
tigation on the structural behavior of cold-formed stainless steel
tubular sections with the whole cross section under tension, which,
therefore, is the focus of this study.
In the present paper, an experimental study on cold-formed stain-
less steel tubular sections under pure tension is described. Four fer-
ritic stainless steel (EN 1.4003) sections, three lean duplex stainless
steel (EN 1.4062 and EN 1.4162) sections, and two austenitic stain-
less steel (EN 1.4301) sections were included in the experimental
program. Tensile coupon tests were performed to determine the me-
chanical properties of the cold-formed stainless steel tubes. Besides,
a total of 21 cold-formed stainless steel tubes, including 9 specimens
with circular perforations and the rest without perforation, were
tested under pure tension to investigate the cross sectional tensile
behavior. The test preparations, setup, and results are presented and
discussed. The results obtained from the tensile tests of cold-formed
stainless steel tubes were employed to assess the existing design
rules for stainless steel structures, such as the American Specifica-
tion SEI/ASCE8 (ASCE 2002), Australian/New Zealand Standards
AS/NZS4673 (AS/NZS 2001), and European Code EN1993-1-4
(CEN 2006). The reliability of these design rules for the design
strength predictions of cold-formed stainless steel tubular sections
with and without perforations is also assessed in this study.
Test Specimens
General
Nine stainless steel sections, including four ferritic stainless
steel (EN 1.4003) SHS and RHS, three lean duplex stainless steel
(EN 1.4062 and EN 1.4162) SHS and RHS, and two austenitic

© ASCE 04020165-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020165

 stainless steel (EN 1.4301) circular hollow sections (CHS), were
employed in the experimental program. The cross sectional geom-
etries of unperforated and perforated sections are shown in Fig. 1.
Seven square and rectangular cross section sizes (H × B × t) were
considered, which were 50 × 50 × 4, 60 × 40 × 4, 60 × 60 × 3,
and 80 × 60 × 4 of ferritic stainless steel (EN 1.4003) as well as
50 × 20 × 1.5, 50 × 50 × 2.5, and 60 × 40 × 2 of lean duplex stain-
less steel (EN 1.4162, EN 1.4162 and EN 1.4062, respectively),
where H and B are the outer section depth and width, respectively,
and t is the wall thickness. Two circular cross sections of austenitic
stainless steel (EN 1.4301) with the nominal cross section dimen-
sions (D × t) being 60.5 × 2.8 and 76.3 × 3 were also included,
where D is the outer diameter of CHS.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 06/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
A total of 21 tensile members, including 12 members without
perforation and 9 members with different sizes of circular perfora-
tions, were tested. For perforated tensile specimens, two opposite
centrally located circular perforations were made at mid-height of
the specimen on the larger flat depth of RHS or on the flat width
containing welding seam for SHS. The ratio of the nominal diam-
eter of circular perforations to the flat width of section excluding
the corners (do =h) was designed to be 0.3 or 0.6 in order to inves-
tigate the influence of perforations on the tensile behavior of cold-
formed stainless steel tubular sections. The gauge length of the
specimen for axial displacement measurement was designed to be
400 mm such that it was long enough to include the effects of
residual stresses and geometric imperfections resulted from the
forming process and to install the axial displacement measuring
Fig. 1. Dimensions of tensile specimen: (a) cross section geometries;
and (b) 3D view of the specimen.
© ASCE 04020165-2
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020165
device. The total length of tensile specimens was designed to be
800 mm, which was equal to the sum of two grip lengths (200 mm
for each grip length) and 400 mm gauge length.
The tensile specimens were labeled in a way that the stainless
steel type, nominal cross section geometry, and size of circular per-
foration could be identified. The first two letters refer to the stain-
less steel type of tensile specimen, where FS, LS, and AS mean
ferritic, lean duplex, and austenitic stainless steel sections, respec-
tively. Following the stainless steel type, the nominal cross section
dimensions are described. For perforated tensile specimen, a hy-
phen together with the following value is added to show the nomi-
nal size of circular perforation in terms of the do =h ratio. A letter R
is added at the end of the label if the test is repeated. For instance,
the label LS50 × 20 × 1.5 − 0.3R indicates a repeated test on lean
duplex stainless steel perforated tensile member with the nominal
cross section geometries being 50 × 20 × 1.5 mm and circular
perforations of do =h ¼ 0.3. The measured cross sectional geom-
etries and diameters of circular perforations are reported in Tables 1
and 2, where Ag and An are the gross cross section area and the net
area of the section measured at the location of perforation if any,
respectively.
Tensile Coupon Tests
Tensile coupon tests were performed to characterize the mechanical
properties for each stainless steel section investigated in this study.
Tensile coupon specimen was machined longitudinally from the
tube at the location with 90° angle from the welding seam for all
specimens, except that the tensile coupon specimen was machined
longitudinally from the face with larger depth for rectangular hol-
low sections. A total of nine tensile coupon specimens, including
seven flat coupon specimens from square and rectangular sections,
and two curved coupon specimens from circular sections, were
tested. The dimensions of flat and curved coupon specimens fol-
lowed the recommendations by the ASTM-E8M (ASTM 2016)
and Huang and Young (2014c), respectively, which have been suc-
cessfully adopted in different research studies (Cai et al. 2019; Chen
and Young 2018a, 2019b). The gauge lengths of flat and curved
coupon specimens were 50 and 25 mm, respectively. The label of
tensile coupon specimens was composed of the stainless steel type,
where FC, LC, and AC mean ferritic, lean duplex, and austenitic
stainless steel coupon specimens, respectively, and the nominal
cross section dimensions, as shown in Table 3.
In accordance with the suggestions by Huang and Young
(2014c), the tensile coupon specimens were loaded at constant dis-
placement rates of 0.05 and 0.8 mm=min at elastic and plastic
stages, respectively. The tensile coupon test setup is shown in Fig. 2.
Strain gauges and calibrated extensometer were installed to the
coupon specimens so as to measure the longitudinal strain and
elongation. The applied displacement was halted for 100 s at vari-
ous positions to mitigate the effect of different loading rates on the
test results as well as to derive the static stress-strain responses.
Three typical stress-strain curves of the ferritic, lean duplex, and
austenitic stainless steel types are shown in Fig. 3. The static
mechanical properties obtained from the tensile coupon tests (with
subscript “c”), such as the Young’s modulus (Ec ), 0.2% proof stress
(σ0.2-c ), ultimate stress (σu-c ), and tensile strain at fracture (εf-c ),
were derived from the corresponding static stress-strain responses,
as reported in Table 3. It should be noted that the tensile strains at
fracture for coupon specimens in this study refer to the nonpropor-
tional tension strains at fracture captured by the extensometers over
the gauge lengths of 50 and 25 mm for flat and curved coupons,
respectively. The stainless steel sections investigated in this study
were from the same batch of steel as those previously investigated
J. Struct. Eng.
 Table 1. Measured cross section dimensions of rectangular and square hollow sections
Specimen Grade H (mm) B (mm) t (mm) ro (mm) ri (mm) do (mm) do =h Ag (mm2 ) An (mm2 )
FS80 × 60 × 4 EN 1.4003 80.1 59.9 3.79 7.8 4.1 — — 965.9 965.9
FS80 × 60 × 4 − 0.3 EN 1.4003 80.1 60.0 3.80 7.9 4.0 19.5 0.30 968.1 819.8
FS80 × 60 × 4 − 0.6 EN 1.4003 80.2 60.0 3.78 7.8 4.1 39.0 0.60 965.2 670.0
FS60 × 60 × 3 EN 1.4003 60.2 60.2 2.88 6.2 3.4 — — 637.4 637.4
FS60 × 40 × 4 EN 1.4003 59.9 40.2 3.86 7.1 3.2 — — 679.1 679.1
FS60 × 40 × 4R EN 1.4003 59.9 40.0 3.89 7.1 3.2 — — 682.7 682.7
FS60 × 40 × 4 − 0.6 EN 1.4003 59.9 40.1 3.89 7.1 3.2 26.4 0.58 682.5 477.2
FS50 × 50 × 4 EN 1.4003 50.2 50.0 3.89 8.0 4.2 — — 677.6 677.6
LS60 × 40 × 2 EN 1.4062 60.3 40.4 2.09 4.2 2.1 — — 392.4 392.4
LS60 × 40 × 2 − 0.3 EN 1.4062 60.2 40.4 2.07 4.1 2.1 15.6 0.30 388.9 324.3
LS60 × 40 × 2 − 0.6 EN 1.4062 60.3 40.4 2.07 4.1 2.1 31.2 0.60 389.3 259.9
LS50 × 50 × 2.5 EN 1.4162 49.7 50.1 2.63 3.4 0.8 — — 487.5 487.5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 06/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

LS50 × 50 × 2.5 − 0.3 EN 1.4162 49.7 50.1 2.64 3.4 0.8 11.5 0.27 489.6 428.7
LS50 × 50 × 2.5 − 0.6 EN 1.4162 49.6 50.1 2.63 3.4 0.8 23.5 0.55 487.5 363.8
LS50 × 20 × 1.5 EN 1.4162 50.3 20.6 1.58 3.2 1.6 — — 207.4 207.4
LS50 × 20 × 1.5 − 0.3 EN 1.4162 50.2 20.7 1.57 3.1 1.6 13.1 0.30 206.5 165.3
LS50 × 20 × 1.5 − 0.3R EN 1.4162 50.2 20.7 1.58 3.2 1.6 13.1 0.30 207.6 166.1

Table 2. Measured cross section dimensions of circular hollow sections Different stiffening methods, such as welding stiffening steel plates,
Specimen Grade D (mm) t (mm) Ag (mm2 ) inserting wooden blocks (Chen and Young 2019a, c; Su et al.
2014a, b), and infilling with concrete, have been adopted for stiff-
AS60.5 × 2.8 EN 1.4301 60.4 2.87 519.1
ening various structural members. In this study, to ensure the full
AS60.5 × 2.8R EN 1.4301 60.4 2.88 520.3
AS76.3 × 3 EN 1.4301 76.4 3.05 701.5 contact between stiffening material and the stainless steel tube with-
AS76.3 × 3R EN 1.4301 76.2 3.04 698.0 out introducing additional imperfections and residual stresses to the
tube as well as to offer sufficient resistance to the gripping pressure,
regions at both ends of the tensile specimens were stiffened by in-
filling with C80 high strength concrete. Fillers and superplasticizer
by the same research group with the coupon test results reported in were added to improve the performance of concrete and ease the
(Huang and Young 2012; Li and Young 2017; Li 2017; Xing 2019). casting process (Lai et al. 2019b, 2020a, b, c, forthcoming), espe-
The static mechanical properties derived from the corner coupon cially for infilling concrete into small cross sections. As the gripping
tests of the corresponding RHS and SHS stainless steel sections length of the specimen was designed to be 200 mm, the stiffening
were collected from the aforementioned investigations and summa- length of around 220 mm was adopted, meaning that specimen was
rized in Table 3. By comparing the material strengths obtained from infilled with concrete only at both ends with a length of around
flat and corner coupon tests, corner strength enhancement was 220 mm at each end and the middle region of around 360 mm had
found, and the corner region possessed higher material strengths no concrete infilled, as shown in Fig. 1.
than the flat region by 23% and 28% on average in terms of 0.2% Before infilling the end regions of stainless steel tubes with con-
proof stress and ultimate stress, respectively. crete, the foamed plastic was used to create the supporting platform
for the infilled concrete during casting. The reason why foamed
plastic was chosen is that due to its deformability and resiliency, the
Tensile Tubular Specimen Preparation foamed plastic could be squeezed into the stainless steel tube and
The tensile tubular specimens were saw-cut to a length of 800 mm. rebounded such that the foamed plastic was in full contact with the
In order to prevent the possible crushing failure of the steel tubes inner surface of the tube to prevent the leakage of mortar during
at the two ends of specimens during the gripping process, the grip- concreting. In the meantime, the expansion force of foamed plastic
ping ends of the tensile specimens should be properly stiffened. was large enough to create sufficient friction between the foamed

Table 3. Measured static mechanical properties obtained from tensile coupon tests
Flat/curved coupon Corner coupona
Ec σ0.2-c σu-c εf-c Ecc σ0.2-cc σu-cc εf-cc
Section (GPa) (MPa) (MPa) (%) nc σu-c =σ0.2-c (GPa) (MPa) (MPa) (%) σu-cc =σ0.2-cc
FC80 × 60 × 4 218 457 469 17.9 4.7 1.03 209 593 633 13.0 1.07
FC60 × 60 × 3 204 451 468 18.9 7.2 1.04 200 533 577 11.9 1.08
FC60 × 40 × 4 202 478 502 11.9 7.4 1.05 209 573 640 13.1 1.12
FC50 × 50 × 4 205 473 506 11.3 4.9 1.07 191 557 592 13.6 1.06
LC60 × 40 × 2 198 607 744 33.0 5.3 1.23 198 766 926 11.6 1.21
LC50 × 50 × 2.5 197 641 769 33.1 4.5 1.20 207 833 1,079 19.0 1.30
LC50 × 20 × 1.5 201 667 778 35.2 3.8 1.17 — — — — —
AC60.5 × 2.8 190 314 705 61.4 2.5 2.24 — — — — —
AC76.3 × 3 201 228 700 61.4 1.9 3.07 — — — — —
a
Corner coupon results collected from the literature (Huang and Young 2012; Li and Young 2017; Li 2017; Xing 2019).

© ASCE 04020165-3 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020165

 plastic and stainless steel tube in order to support the concrete dur-
ing casting and curing processes.
The foamed plastic was cut into shape with the dimensions
being a bit larger than the inner cross section dimensions of stain-
less steel tube and was then forced into the steel tubes (as shown in
Fig. 4) with the clearance distance between the surface of foamed
plastic and the adjacent edge of the tube being around 220 mm.
When casting concrete into the first end of the specimen, a wooden
rod with a length of 550 mm was inserted into the tube so as to
provide extra support to the foamed plastic platform in case of the
platform slippage due to the self-weight of concrete. After the con-
crete in the first end region had hardened and developed its initial
strength, a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) tube with a length of 300 mm
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 06/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

was inserted from another end of specimen to offer extra support to

the foamed plastic platform before squeezing the foamed plastic
into the other end of the stainless steel tube, and subsequently, an-
other end region was infilled with concrete. For perforated tensile
specimens, two opposite circular perforations were made on the
(a) (b) lathe machine.
In order to provide platforms for the arms of linear variable
Fig. 2. Tensile coupon test setup and test rig: (a) flat coupon test; and
differential transducer (LVDT) to point at and to measure the
(b) curved coupon test.
elongation of the tensile specimen within the gauge length, a pair

600 900

800
500
700
400 600
Stress (MPa)

Stress (MPa)

500
300
400
200 300

200
100 Test curve Test curve
100
Static curve Static curve
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
(a) Strain (%) (b) Strain (%)

800

700

600
Stress (MPa)

500

400

300

200
Test curve
100
Static curve
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
(c) Strain (%)

Fig. 3. Typical stress-strain curves obtained from tensile coupon tests: (a) FC50 × 50 × 4; (b) LC60 × 40 × 2; and (c) AC76.3 × 3.

© ASCE 04020165-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020165

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 06/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a) (b)
Fig. 4. Preparation of tensile specimens: (a) inserting foamed plastic before concreting; (b) concreting end region of specimens; and (c) sticking
acrylic blocks.
of acrylic blocks were symmetrically adhered on the tensile speci-
men with the clear distance between a pair of acrylic blocks equal
to the designed gauge length of 400 mm using high-performance
epoxy adhesive and silicone sealant, as shown in Fig. 4. The acrylic
blocks used for circular section tensile specimens were customized
made to fit the outer profile of circular section, while cuboid acrylic
blocks were used for square and rectangular section specimens.
Tensile Tests of Stainless Steel Sections
Test Setup and Procedure
The perforated and unperforated cold-formed stainless steel tubular
sections were loaded under pure tension. All the tensile specimens
were tested in a SANS tensile testing machine (MTS). The testing
apparatus for tensile tests of stainless steel sections is shown in
Fig. 5. For the alignment of the specimen, the tensile specimen was
first clamped to an auxiliary 90° angle steel block, and the upper-
end region was then gripped to the machine, as shown in Fig. 5.
Subsequently, the 90° angle steel block was removed, and the lower
end region was gripped. The gripping pressure was increased to a
certain value such that the pressure was large enough to produce
Fig. 5. Testing apparatus for tensile tests of stainless steel tubes.
© ASCE
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020165
(c)
sufficient friction to prevent the slippage of the specimen during
testing, but not too large to crush the end regions of the specimen.
In order to measure the elongation of the tensile specimen, a
100 mm LVDT together with a 25 mm LVDT was installed where
the arm of the 100 mm LVDT touched the lower surface of the upper
acrylic block and the arm of the 25 mm LVDT touched the upper
surface of the lower acrylic block. The elongation of the specimen
within the 400 mm gauge length could be determined by the dif-
ference of readings of the two LVDTs. Strain gauges were also at-
tached to the specimen to measure the longitudinal strains. The
displacement-controlled loading method with the displacement rates
of 0.5 and 4 mm=min at the initial stage and after the elastic stage,
respectively, was employed in the tensile testing. The applied dis-
placement was halted for 100 s at different locations so as to derive
the static structural responses of the tensile member. The applied
load, readings from LVDTs, and strain gauges were recorded at
1 s intervals throughout the test.
Results and Discussion
The key experimental results of tensile tests of cold-formed stain-
less steel tubular sections with and without perforations, such as the
static ultimate tensile strength (Pu ) and the corresponding tensile
elongation of the specimen at ultimate within the 400 mm gauge
length (δu ), are reported in Tables 4–6. The static stress-strain and
load-axial displacement responses for cold-formed stainless steel
tubular sections with and without circular perforations under pure
tension are plotted, as shown in Figs. 6–14, for each cross section
series. For stainless steel sections without perforations, the average
stress-strain responses over the complete cross section with the
presence of residual stresses and strength enhancement due to
cold-forming were also obtained. It should be noted that the tensile
strain of tubular specimens in this study refers to the average tensile
strain over the 400 mm gauge length. Therefore, the reported ten-
sion strain at fracture for tensile tubular specimen was calculated by
dividing the axial deformation over the gauge length at fracture
with the 400 mm gauge length, which did not reflect the localized
tensile strain at the necking region. The average stress-strain re-
sponses obtained from tensile tests of tubular sections are plotted
together with the corresponding stress-strain responses obtained
from tensile coupon tests, as depicted in Figs. 6–14. Based on
the average stress-strain responses over the complete cross section
obtained from the tensile tests of stainless steel tubular sections, the
cross sectional mechanical properties can be further obtained and
04020165-5 J. Struct. Eng.
 Table 4. Tensile test results of ferritic stainless steel sections and comparison with design strength predictions
Pu Pu Pu
Specimen Pu (kN) δu (mm) An =Ag Pu =Pu;o Ag σ0.2 (kN) An σ0.2 (kN) An σu (kN) PASCE PAS PEC
FS80 × 60 × 4 502.5 4.0 1.00 1.00 441.1 441.1 453.0 1.14 1.14 1.14
FS80 × 60 × 4 − 0.3 449.6 2.1 0.85 0.89 442.2 374.4 384.5 1.20 1.20 1.17
FS80 × 60 × 4 − 0.6 374.3 1.8 0.69 0.74 440.8 306.0 314.2 1.22 1.22 1.19
FS60 × 60 × 3 323.2 3.9 1.00 1.00 287.7 287.7 298.0 1.12 1.12 1.12
FS60 × 40 × 4 364.3 3.9 1.00 1.00 324.4 324.4 340.6 1.12 1.12 1.12
FS60 × 40 × 4R 361.9 3.7 1.00 1.00 326.2 326.2 342.4 1.11 1.11 1.11
FS60 × 40 × 4 − 0.6 269.9 1.7 0.70 0.74 326.1 228.0 239.3 1.18 1.18 1.13
FS50 × 50 × 4 367.1 3.7 1.00 1.00 320.8 320.8 342.7 1.14 1.14 1.14
Mean 1.16 1.16 1.14
COV 0.036 0.036 0.024
ϕ 0.85 0.85 1.00
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 06/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

β 3.39 3.16 2.53

Table 5. Tensile test results of lean duplex stainless steel sections and comparison with design strength predictions
Pu Pu Pu
Specimen Pu (kN) δu (mm) An =Ag Pu =Pu;o Ag σ0.2 (kN) An σ0.2 (kN) An σu (kN) PASCE PAS PEC
LS60 × 40 × 2 285.3 25.8 1.00 1.00 238.1 238.1 291.8 1.20 1.20 1.20
LS60 × 40 × 2 − 0.3 255.1 5.2 0.83 0.89 235.9 196.8 241.1 1.30 1.30 1.08
LS60 × 40 × 2 − 0.6 217.3 3.7 0.67 0.76 236.2 157.7 193.3 1.38 1.38 1.12
LS50 × 50 × 2.5 391.7 10.4 1.00 1.00 312.4 312.4 374.8 1.25 1.25 1.25
LS50 × 50 × 2.5 − 0.3 366.9 5.2 0.88 0.94 313.7 274.7 329.6 1.34 1.34 1.17
LS50 × 50 × 2.5 − 0.6 328.7 3.5 0.75 0.84 312.4 233.1 279.7 1.41 1.41 1.18
LS50 × 20 × 1.5 161.8 10.2 1.00 1.00 138.4 138.4 161.3 1.17 1.17 1.17
LS50 × 20 × 1.5 − 0.3 144.6 4.1 0.80 0.89 137.8 110.3 128.6 1.31 1.31 1.12
LS50 × 20 × 1.5 − 0.3R 144.9 3.8 0.80 0.90 138.5 110.8 129.3 1.31 1.31 1.12
Mean 1.30 1.30 1.16
COV 0.060 0.060 0.044
ϕ 0.85 0.85 1.00
β 3.76 3.53 2.55

Table 6. Tensile test results of austenitic stainless steel sections and comparison with design strength predictions
Pu Pu Pu
Specimen Pu (kN) δ u (mm) An =Ag Pu =Pu;o Ag σ0.2 (kN) An σ0.2 (kN) An σu (kN) PASCE PAS PEC
AS60.5 × 2.8 322.2 203.8 1.00 1.00 163.1 163.1 366.1 1.98 1.98 1.98
AS60.5 × 2.8R 348.6 248.2 1.00 1.00 163.5 163.5 366.9 2.13 2.13 2.13
AS76.3 × 3 456.7 249.5 1.00 1.00 159.9 159.9 491.2 2.86 2.86 2.86
AS76.3 × 3R 457.3 237.1 1.00 1.00 159.1 159.1 488.8 2.87 2.87 2.87
Mean 2.46 2.46 2.46
COV 0.192 0.192 0.192
ϕ 0.85 0.85 1.00
β 3.57 3.44 3.11

compared with the mechanical properties obtained from tensile
coupon tests as well as the available corresponding stub column
test results collected from the literature, as shown in Table 7. Fig. 15
shows the tensile specimens after failure and shows that all tensile
specimens failed near the mid-length of the specimen, except for
specimen AS60.5 × 2.8, as shown in Fig. 15(c). By comparing the
test results of specimen AS60.5 × 2.8 and the corresponding re-
peated specimen, the differences in 0.2% proof stresses and ultimate
stresses were only 1.6% and 7.3%, respectively. In this study, the
tensile specimens did not fail by premature failure due to stress con-
centration near the gripping positions.
Through observation during the tensile tests, the fracture of the
tubular sections stemmed from the fracture of the weld seam or the
corner regions. The fracture of the weld seam or the corner region
formed a minor crack on the cross section and then the crack was
propagated until the fracture of the section. In terms of material
strengths, the 0.2% proof stress and ultimate stress obtained from
the tensile tests of tubular sections were only 3% and 5% higher
than the counterparts obtained from tensile coupon tests on aver-
age, respectively, despite the fact that the corner strength enhance-
ments in terms of 0.2% proof stress and ultimate stress were 23%
and 28% on average, as reported earlier in this paper. This is be-
cause the corner regions with higher material strengths only occu-
pied a small portion of the total cross section area for the specimens
investigated in this study.
Results obtained from perforated specimens were compared
with those obtained from the unperforated specimen counterparts
in terms of the reduction in cross section area (An =Ag ) and the

© ASCE 04020165-6 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020165

 600 600
FS80×60×4
FS80×60×4-0.3
500 500 FS80×60×4-0.6

Axial Load (kN)

400 400
Stress (MPa)

300 300

200 200

100 FS80×60×4 (Tubular specimen) 100

FC80×60×4 (Coupon specimen)
0 0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 06/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
(a) Strain (%) (b) Axial displacement (mm)

Fig. 6. Stress-strain responses and load-axial displacement histories for test series FS80 × 60 × 4: (a) comparison of static stress-strain responses for
tubular and coupon specimens; and (b) static load-axial displacement histories for specimens with and without perforations.

600 350
FS60×60×3
500 300

250
Axial Load (kN)

400
Stress (MPa)

200
300
150
200
100
100 FS60×60×3 (Tubular specimen) 50
FC60×60×3 (Coupon specimen)
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
(a) Strain (%) (b) Axial displacement (mm)

Fig. 7. Stress-strain responses and load-axial displacement history for test series FS60 × 60 × 3: (a) comparison of static stress-strain responses for
tubular and coupon specimens; and (b) static load-axial displacement history.

600 400
FS60×40×4
350 FS60×40×4R
500 FS60×40×4-0.6
300
Axial Load (kN)

400
Stress (MPa)

250

300 200

150
200
FS60×40×4 (Tubular specimen) 100
100 FS60×40×4R (Tubular specimen) 50
FC60×40×4 (Coupon specimen)
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 5 10 15 20 25
(a) Strain (%) (b) Axial displacement (mm)

Fig. 8. Stress-strain responses and load-axial displacement histories for test series FS60 × 40 × 4: (a) comparison of static stress-strain responses for
tubular and coupon specimens; and (b) static load-axial displacement histories for specimens with and without perforations.

© ASCE 04020165-7 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020165

 600 400
FS50×50×4
350
500
300

Axial Load (kN)

400
Stress (MPa)

250

300 200

150
200
100
100 FS50×50×4 (Tubular specimen)
50
FC50×50×4 (Coupon specimen)
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 5 10 15 20
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 06/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) Strain (%) (b) Axial displacement (mm)

Fig. 9. Stress-strain responses and load-axial displacement history for test series FS50 × 50 × 4: (a) comparison of static stress-strain responses for
tubular and coupon specimens; and (b) static load-axial displacement history.

800 300

700
250
600
Axial Load (kN)

200
Stress (MPa)

500

400 150

300
100
200
LS60×40×2 (Tubular specimen) 50 LS60×40×2
100 LS60×40×2-0.3
LC60×40×2 (Coupon specimen) LS60×40×2-0.6
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
(a) Strain (%) (b) Axial displacement (mm)

Fig. 10. Stress-strain responses and load-axial displacement histories for test series LS60 × 40 × 2: (a) comparison of static stress-strain responses for
tubular and coupon specimens; and (b) static load-axial displacement histories for specimens with and without perforations.

900 450
800 400
700 350
Axial Load (kN)

600 300
Stress (MPa)

500 250
400 200
300 150
200 100
LS50×50×2.5 (Tubular specimen) LS50×50×2.5
100 50 LS50×50×2.5-0.3
LC50×50×2.5 (Coupon specimen) LS50×50×2.5-0.6
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
(a) Strain (%) (b) Axial displacement (mm)

Fig. 11. Stress-strain responses and load-axial displacement histories for test series LS50 × 50 × 2.5: (a) comparison of static stress-strain responses
for tubular and coupon specimens; and (b) static load-axial displacement histories for specimens with and without perforations.

© ASCE 04020165-8 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020165

 900 180
800 160
700 140

Axial Load (kN)

600 120
Stress (MPa)

500 100
400 80
300 60
200 40 LS50×20×1.5
LS50×20×1.5 (Tubular specimen) LS50×20×1.5-0.3
100 20
LC50×20×1.5 (Coupon specimen) LS50×20×1.5-0.3R
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 06/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) Strain (%) (b) Axial displacement (mm)

Fig. 12. Stress-strain responses and load-axial displacement histories for test series LS50 × 20 × 1.5: (a) comparison of static stress-strain responses
for tubular and coupon specimens; and (b) static load-axial displacement histories for specimens with and without perforations.

800 400

700 350

600 300
Axial Load (kN)
Stress (MPa)

500 250

400 200

300 150

200 AS60.5×2.8 (Tubular specimen) 100

100 AS60.5×2.8R (Tubular specimen) 50 AS60.5×2.8

AC60.5×2.8 (Coupon specimen) AS60.5×2.8R
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
(a) Strain (%) (b) Axial displacement (mm)

Fig. 13. Stress-strain responses and load-axial displacement histories for test series AS60.5 × 2.8: (a) comparison of static stress-strain responses for
tubular and coupon specimens; and (b) static load-axial displacement histories.

800 500

700 450
400
600
350
Axial Load (kN)
Stress (MPa)

500 300
400 250

300 200
150
200 AS76.3×3 (Tubular specimen) 100
100 AS76.3×3R (Tubular specimen) AS76.3×3
50
AC76.3×3 (Coupon specimen) AS76.3×3R
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
(a) Strain (%) (b) Axial displacement (mm)

Fig. 14. Stress-strain responses and load-axial displacement histories for test series AS76.3 × 3: (a) comparison of static stress-strain responses for
tubular and coupon specimens; and (b) static load-axial displacement histories.

© ASCE 04020165-9 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020165

 Table 7. Comparison of mechanical properties obtained from tensile and compression tests
Comparison
Tensile tubular specimen Stub columna Stub column Coupon
Section E (GPa) σ0.2 (MPa) σu (MPa) εf (%) n σu =σ0.2 σu-sc (MPa) σu =σu-sc σ0.2 =σ0.2-c σu =σu-c
FS80 × 60 × 4 217 478 520 7.4 4.4 1.09 565 0.92 1.05 1.11
FS60 × 60 × 3 206 471 507 7.6 4.6 1.08 545 0.93 1.04 1.08
FS60 × 40 × 4 207 488 537 4.5 3.4 1.10 573 0.94 1.02 1.07
FS60 × 40 × 4R 210 475 530 4.9 3.2 1.12 573 0.93 0.99 1.06
FS50 × 50 × 4 207 503 542 4.6 4.9 1.08 593 0.91 1.06 1.07
LS60 × 40 × 2 195 624 727 17.9 4.9 1.16 691 1.05 1.03 0.98
LS50 × 50 × 2.5 200 664 803 12.9 3.8 1.21 790 1.02 1.04 1.05
LS50 × 20 × 1.5 188 650 780 16.4 4.7 1.20 — — 0.97 1.00
AS60.5 × 2.8 195 312 621 56.6 4.7 1.99 530 1.17 0.99 0.88
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 06/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

AS60.5 × 2.8R 194 307 670 64.2 6.4 2.19 530 1.26 0.98 0.95
AS76.3 × 3 194 282 651 65.8 8.8 2.31 484 1.35 1.24 0.93
AS76.3 × 3R 205 278 655 65.5 8.3 2.36 484 1.35 1.22 0.94
a
Stub column test results collected from the literature (Huang and Young 2014b; Li 2017; Xing 2019).

(b)

(a) (c)

Fig. 15. Photo of failed tensile specimens: (a) ferritic stainless steel specimens; (b) lean duplex stainless steel specimens; and (c) austenitic stainless
steel specimens.

corresponding reduction in ultimate tensile strength (Pu =Pu;o ), as
shown in Tables 4–6, where Pu;o = ultimate tensile strength of the
counterpart specimen without perforation in the corresponding
cross section series. The results show that the reduction in the ten-
sile loading capacity of the specimen due to perforations was less
than the reduction in net section area since the circular perforations
were made in the flat plate regions with lower material strengths.
Results obtained from the stub column tests conducted by
Huang and Young (2014b), Li (2017), and Xing (2019) were col-
lected for comparison. The stub column specimens were from the
same batch of material as the tensile specimens in this study. The
compressive ultimate stresses of stub columns (σu-sc ), which were
obtained by dividing the experimental ultimate capacities by the
cross sectional areas, were compared with the corresponding tensile
ultimate stresses obtained in this study, as shown in Table 7. The
table shows that for austenitic circular sections, the tensile ultimate
stress was 28% on average higher than the compressive ultimate
stress obtained from the stub column test counterpart. This might
be because the occurrence of inelastic local buckling in the stub
columns has limited the development of the significant strain hard-
ening of the material. In contrast, for lean duplex stainless steel
sections, the strain hardening of the material was less significant
and therefore the ratio of σu =σu-sc was only slightly larger than
unity. For ferritic stainless steel sections, the ratio of σu =σu-sc was
less than unity, which might be due to the insignificant strain hard-
ening of such material and the anisotropy of the material.
Reliability Analysis
The tensile test results of cold-formed stainless steel tubular sections
were compared with the design strength predictions by the American
Specification SEI/ASCE8 (ASCE 2002), Australian/New Zealand
Standards AS/NZS4673 (AS/NZS 2001), and European Code

© ASCE 04020165-10 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020165

 EN1993-1-4 (CEN 2006). The reliability analysis specified in
the AISI-S100 (AISI 2016) was carried out to assess these design
methods. The reliability index (β) shall not be less than 2.5 for a
reliable design method. The dead load (DL) and live load (LL) com-
binations of 1.2DL þ 1.6LL, 1.2DL þ 1.5LL, and 1.35DL þ 1.5LL
were employed for the SEI/ASCE8 (ASCE 2002), AS/NZS4673
(AS/NZS 2001) and EN1993-1-4 (CEN 2006), respectively, for
calculating the calibration coefficient. By adopting different values
of the resistance factor (ϕ) for different design rules, as shown in
Tables 4–6, the reliability indices of various design rules could be
determined.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 06/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Evaluation of Design Methods
The existing design rules for stainless steel structures, such as
the SEI/ASCE8 (ASCE 2002), AS/NZS4673 (AS/NZS 2001)
and EN1993-1-4 (CEN 2006), in predicting the tensile resistances
of cold-formed stainless steel tubular sections were assessed by
comparing the results obtained from the tensile tests of cold-formed
stainless steel tubes with the design strength predictions. The me-
chanical properties obtained from tensile coupon tests in this study
and the measured cross section geometries were adopted in the
nominal strength (unfactored design strength) predictions.
Generally, there are two different approaches for predicting
the tensile strengths of cold-formed stainless steel tubular sections
with and without perforations. The first approach states that the
tensile strength shall be determined as the product of yield stress
and net cross section area, which is the approach adopted by
the SEI/ASCE8 (ASCE 2002) and the AS/NZS4673 (AS/NZS
2001). The second approach states that the tensile strength shall
be taken as the lesser of plastic strength of gross cross section
(the product of yield stress and gross cross section area) and the
ultimate strength of the net section (the product of ultimate stress
and net cross section area), which is the approach adopted by the
EN1993-1-4 (CEN 2006).
The test-to-predicted strength ratio of specimens was evaluated,
as shown in Tables 4–6, for ferritic, lean duplex, and austenitic
stainless steel sections, respectively. For the predictions by the SEI/
ASCE8 (ASCE 2002) (PASCE ) and the AS/NZS4673 (AS/NZS
2001) (PAS ), which adopt the first approach, the mean values of
the test-to-predicted strength ratio for ferritic, lean duplex, and aus-
tenitic stainless steel sections are 1.16, 1.30, and 2.46, respectively,
with the corresponding coefficients of variation (COV) being 0.036,
0.060, and 0.192, respectively. For the SEI/ASCE8 (ASCE 2002),
the reliability indices are 3.39, 3.76, and 3.57 for ferritic, lean du-
plex, and austenitic stainless steel sections tensile members, respec-
tively. For the AS/NZS4673 (AS/NZS 2001), the reliability indices
are 3.16, 3.53, and 3.44 for ferritic, lean duplex, and austenitic
stainless steel sections tensile members, respectively. For the
predictions by the EN1993-1-4 (CEN 2006) (PEC ), which adopts
the second approach, the mean values of Pu =PEC for ferritic, lean
duplex, and austenitic stainless steel sections are 1.14, 1.16, and
2.46, respectively, with the corresponding COV being 0.024, 0.044,
and 0.192, respectively. The reliability indices are 2.53, 2.55, and
3.11 for ferritic, lean duplex, and austenitic stainless steel sections
tensile members, respectively.
The results show that all these three design rules provide quite
conservative and reliable tensile strength predictions for cold-
formed stainless steel tubular sections with and without perfora-
tions. The results also show that the design strength predictions
by both approaches for austenitic stainless steel sections are very
conservative, which may be due to the neglect of significant strain
hardening of austenitic material in the tensile strength calculations
© ASCE 04020165-11
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020165
by using only the yield stress. The strength predictions are less
conservative for lean duplex sections and are even less for ferritic
sections in this study due to the less significant strain hardening of
materials.
Conclusions
An experimental study on cold-formed stainless steel tubular
sections with and without perforations under pure tension is de-
scribed. The tensile specimens investigated in this study were made
of ferritic stainless steel (EN 1.4003), lean duplex stainless steel
(EN 1.4062 and EN 1.4162), and austenitic stainless steel (EN
1.4301). Nine cross section series were considered. The mechanical
properties were determined by tensile coupon tests, and the tensile
behaviors of cold-formed stainless steel tubular sections were in-
vestigated by full cross section tensile tests. A total of 21 tensile
tubular specimens, including 9 specimens with circular perforations
and the rest without perforation, were tested under pure tension.
The test results are presented and discussed and further employed
to assess the existing design rules for stainless steel structures,
such as the American Specification SEI/ASCE8 (ASCE 2002),
Australian/New Zealand Standards AS/NZS4673 (AS/NZS 2001),
and European Code EN1993-1-4 (CEN 2006). The comparisons
show that the tensile strength predictions by these design rules are
quite conservative and reliable for cold-formed stainless steel
tubular sections with and without perforations under pure tension.
Data Availability Statement
All data, models, and code generated or used during the study
appear in the published article.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to STALA Tube Finland for supplying the
square and rectangular stainless steel test specimens.
References
Afshan, S., and L. Gardner. 2013. “Experimental study of cold-formed fer-
ritic stainless steel hollow sections.” J. Struct. Eng. 139 (5): 717–728.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000580.
AISI (American Iron and Steel Institute). 2016. North American specifica-
tion for the design of cold-formed steel structural members. AISI S100.
Washington, DC: AISI.
Arrayago, I., E. Real, and E. Mirambell. 2016. “Experimental study on fer-
ritic stainless steel RHS and SHS beam-columns.” Thin Walled Struct.
100 (Mar): 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2015.12.004.
ASCE. 2002. Specification for the design of cold-formed stainless steel
structural members. SEI/ASCE 8. Reston, VA: ASCE.
AS/NZS (Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand). 2001. Cold-formed
stainless steel structure. AS/NZS 4673. Sydney, Australia: AS/NZS.
ASTM. 2016. Standard test methods for tension testing of metallic materi-
als. ASTM E8M. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
Bock, M., I. Arrayago, and E. Real. 2015. “Experiments on cold-formed
ferritic stainless steel slender sections.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 109 (Jun):
13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2015.02.005.
Cai, Y., W. M. Quach, M. T. Chen, and B. Young. 2019. “Behavior and
design of cold-formed and hot-finished steel elliptical tubular stub
columns.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 156 (May): 252–265. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.jcsr.2019.02.006.
J. Struct. Eng.
 CEN (European Committee for Standardization). 2006. Design of steel
structures. 1.4: Supplementary rules for stainless steel. EN 1993-1-4.
Brussels, Belgium: CEN.
Chen, M. T., and B. Young. 2018a. “Cross-sectional behavior of cold-
formed steel semi-oval hollow sections.” Eng. Struct. 177 (Dec):
318–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.08.057.
Chen, M. T., and B. Young. 2018b. “Experimental and numerical investi-
gation on pin-ended cold-formed steel semi-oval hollow section com-
pression members.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 151 (Dec): 174–184. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.09.009.
Chen, M. T., and B. Young. 2019a. “Behavior of cold-formed steel elliptical
hollow sections subjected to bending.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 158 (Jul):
317–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.02.022.
Chen, M. T., and B. Young. 2019b. “Material properties and structural
behavior of cold-formed steel elliptical hollow section stub columns.”
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 06/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Thin Walled Struct. 134 (Jan): 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws
.2018.07.055.
Chen, M. T., and B. Young. 2019c. “Structural behavior of cold-
formed steel semi-oval hollow section beams.” Eng. Struct. 185 (Apr):
400–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.01.069.
Chen, M. T., and B. Young. 2019d. “Structural performance of cold-formed
steel elliptical hollow section pin-ended columns.” Thin Walled Struct.
136 (Mar): 267–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2018.11.024.
Chen, M. T., and B. Young. 2020a. “Beam-column tests of cold-formed steel
elliptical hollow sections.” Eng. Struct. 210 (May): 109911. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109911.
Chen, M. T., and B. Young. 2020b. “Tests of cold-formed steel semi-
oval hollow section members under eccentric axial load.” J. Struct.
Eng. 146 (4): 04020027. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X
.0002468.
Chen, M. T., B. Young, A. D. Martins, D. Camotim, and P. B. Dinis.
2020a. “Experimental investigation on cold-formed steel stiffened
lipped channel columns undergoing local-distortional interaction.” Thin
Walled Struct. 150 (May): 106682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2020
.106682.
Chen, M. T., B. Young, A. D. Martins, D. Camotim, and P. B. Dinis.
2020b. “Uniformly bent CFS lipped channel beams experiencing
local-distortional interaction: Experimental investigation.” J. Constr.
Steel Res. 170 (Jul): 106098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2020
.106098.
Gardner, L., and D. A. Nethercot. 2004. “Experiments on stainless steel
hollow sections. 1: Material and cross-sectional behaviour.” J. Constr.
Steel Res. 60 (9): 1291–1318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2003.11
.006.
He, A., Y. Liang, and O. Zhao. 2019. “Experimental and numerical studies
of austenitic stainless steel CHS stub columns after exposed to elevated
temperatures.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 154 (Mar): 293–305. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.12.005.
Huang, Y., and B. Young. 2012. “Material properties of cold-formed lean
duplex stainless steel sections.” Thin Walled Struct. 54 (May): 72–81.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2012.02.003.
Huang, Y., and B. Young. 2014a. “Experimental investigation of cold-
formed lean duplex stainless steel beam-columns.” Thin Walled Struct.
76 (Mar): 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2013.11.006.
Huang, Y., and B. Young. 2014b. “Structural performance of cold-formed
lean duplex stainless steel columns.” Thin Walled Struct. 83 (Oct):
59–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2014.01.006.
Huang, Y., and B. Young. 2014c. “The art of coupon tests.” J. Constr. Steel
Res. 96 (May): 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2014.01.010.
Lai, M. H., S. A. M. Binhowimal, L. Hanzic, Q. Wang, and J. Ho.
Forthcoming. “Dilatancy mitigation of cement powder paste by poz-
zolanic and inert fillers.” Struct. Concr. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco
.201900320.
Lai, M. H., S. A. M. Binhowimal, L. Hanzic, Q. Wang, and J. Ho. 2020a.
“Cause and mitigation of dilatancy in cement powder paste.” Constr.
Build. Mater. 236 (Mar): 117595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat
.2019.117595.
Lai, M. H., M. T. Chen, F. M. Ren, and J. C. M. Ho. 2019a. “Uni-axial
behaviour of externally confined UHSCFST columns.” Thin Walled
Struct. 142 (Sep): 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2019.04.047.
© ASCE 04020165-12
J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020165
Lai, M. H., L. Hanzic, and J. C. M. Ho. 2019b. “Fillers to improve passing
ability of concrete.” Struct. Concr. 20 (1): 185–197. https://doi.org/10
.1002/suco.201800047.
Lai, M. H., C. W. Li, J. C. M. Ho, and M. T. Chen. 2020b. “Experimental
investigation on hollow-steel-tube columns with external confinements.”
J. Constr. Steel Res. 166 (Mar): 105865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr
.2019.105865.
Lai, M. H., W. Song, X. L. Ou, M. T. Chen, Q. Wang, and J. C. M. Ho.
2020c. “A path dependent stress-strain model for concrete-filled-steel-
tube column.” Eng. Struct. 211 (Jun): 110312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.engstruct.2020.110312.
Li, H. T., and B. Young. 2017. “Cold-formed ferritic stainless steel tubular
structural members subjected to concentrated bearing loads.” Eng.
Struct. 145 (Aug): 392–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017
.05.022.
Li, L. 2017. “Structural performance of concrete-filled cold-formed stain-
less steel members.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of
Hong Kong.
Liang, Y., V. V. K. Jeyapragasam, L. Zhang, and O. Zhao. 2019a. “Flexural-
torsional buckling behaviour of fixed-ended hot-rolled austenitic stain-
less steel equal-leg angle section columns.” J. Constr. Steel Res.
154 (Mar): 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.11.019.
Liang, Y., O. Zhao, Y.-L. Long, and L. Gardner. 2019b. “Stainless steel
channel sections under combined compression and minor axis bend-
ing. 1: Experimental study and numerical modelling.” J. Constr.
Steel Res. 152 (Jan): 154–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2018
.03.027.
Lui, W.-M., M. Ashraf, and B. Young. 2014. “Tests of cold-formed duplex
stainless steel SHS beam–columns.” Eng. Struct. 74 (Sep): 111–121.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.05.009.
Ma, J. L., T. M. Chan, and B. Young. 2015. “Material properties and
residual stresses of cold-formed high strength steel hollow sections.”
J. Constr. Steel Res. 109 (Jun): 152–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr
.2015.02.006.
Rasmussen, K., and G. Hancock. 1993. “Design of cold-formed stainless
steel tubular members. II: Beams.” J. Struct. Eng. 119 (8): 2368–2386.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1993)119:8(2368).
Rhodes, J., M. Macdonald, and W. McNiff. 2000. “Buckling of cold
formed stainless steel columns under concentric and eccentric loading.”
In Proc., 15th Int. Specialty Conf. on Cold-Formed Steel Structures,
687–699. Rolla, MO: Univ. of Missouri-Rolla.
Su, M.-N., B. Young, and L. Gardner. 2014a. “Continuous beams of alu-
minum alloy tubular cross sections. I: Tests and FE model validation.”
J. Struct. Eng. 141 (9): 04014232. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST
.1943-541X.0001214.
Su, M.-N., B. Young, and L. Gardner. 2014b. “Deformation-based design
of aluminium alloy beams.” Eng. Struct. 80 (Dec): 339–349. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.08.034.
Theofanous, M., and L. Gardner. 2010. “Experimental and numerical stud-
ies of lean duplex stainless steel beams.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 66 (6):
816–825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2010.01.012.
Wang, F., B. Young, and L. Gardner. 2019a. “Experimental study of square
and rectangular CFDST sections with stainless steel outer tubes under
axial compression.” J. Struct. Eng. 145 (11): 04019139. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002408.
Wang, F., O. Zhao, and B. Young. 2019b. “Flexural behaviour and strengths
of press-braked S960 ultra-high strength steel channel section beams.”
Eng. Struct. 200 (Dec): 109735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct
.2019.109735.
Winter, G., and S. Wang. 1969. Cold-rolled austenitic stainless steel:
Materials properties and structural performance. Rep. No. 334. Ithaca,
NY: Dept. of Structural Engineering, Cornell Univ.
Xing, B. 2019. “Behavior and design of concrete-filled cold-formed
lean duplex stainless steel structural members.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept.
of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Hong Kong.
Yan, J. J., M. T. Chen, W. M. Quach, M. Yan, and B. Young. 2019.
“Mechanical properties and cross-sectional behavior of additive manu-
factured high strength steel tubular sections.” Thin Walled Struct.
144 (Nov): 106158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2019.04.050.
J. Struct. Eng.
 Young, B., and W. Hartono. 2002. “Compression tests of stainless steel
tubular members.” J. Struct. Eng. 128 (6): 754–761. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:6(754).
Young, B., and Y. Liu. 2003. “Experimental investigation of cold-formed
stainless steel columns.” J. Struct. Eng. 129 (2): 169–176. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2003)129:2(169).
Young, B., and W.-M. Lui. 2005. “Behavior of cold-formed high strength
stainless steel sections.” J. Struct. Eng. 131 (11): 1738–1745. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:11(1738).
Zhang, L., K. H. Tan, and O. Zhao. 2019a. “Experimental and numerical
studies of fixed-ended cold-formed stainless steel equal-leg angle sec-
tion columns.” Eng. Struct. 184 (Apr): 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.engstruct.2019.01.083.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 06/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Zhang, L., F. Wang, Y. Liang, and O. Zhao. 2019b. “Press-braked S690 high
strength steel equal-leg angle and plain channel section stub columns:
Testing, numerical simulation and design.” Eng. Struct. 201 (Dec):
109764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109764.
Zhao, O., L. Gardner, and B. Young. 2016. “Buckling of ferritic stain-
less steel members under combined axial compression and bending.”
J. Constr. Steel Res. 117 (Feb): 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr
.2015.10.003.
Zhou, F., and B. Young. 2007. “Experimental investigation of cold-formed
high-strength stainless steel tubular members subjected to combined
bending and web crippling.” J. Struct. Eng. 133 (7): 1027–1034. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:7(1027).

© ASCE 04020165-13 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2020, 146(9): 04020165