Journal of Constructional Steel Research 123 (2016) 18–30

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Behavior of Q690 high-strength steel columns: Part 1:

Experimental investigation
Tian-Ji Li a,c, Guo-Qiang Li a,b,⁎, Siu-Lai Chan c, Yan-Bo Wang a
a
College of Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
b
State Key Laboratory for Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, China
c
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China

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

Article history: With the increasing application of high-strength steel over the past years, the urgent problem is to determine
Received 28 December 2015 buckling curves in current codes for design of axial compression columns fabricated by high-strength steel.
Received in revised form 16 March 2016 The current design curves cannot cover the high-strength steel columns due to that the available curves were
Accepted 21 March 2016
based on research of mild carbon steels. To study the overall buckling behavior of high-strength steel columns,
Available online 6 May 2016
an experimental investigation on the ultimate bearing capacity of weld box and H columns with a nominal
Keywords:
yield stress of 690 MPa subjected to axial compression was carried out. Twelve columns with slenderness ratios
Axial compression ranging from 30 to 70 were comprised in the experiment. The geometrical dimensions and initial geometrical im-
High-strength steel perfection involving initial deflection and loading eccentricity were measured. The buckling deformation and
Overall buckling bearing capacity of the columns were studied on the basis of the test results. By comparing the experimental re-
Welded box- and H-sections sults with the buckling curves stipulated in GB50017-2003, Eurocode 3, and ANSI/AISC 360-10, it is found that the
Experiments current design curves underestimate the ultimate strength of the axially loaded box and H columns welded by
690 MPa high-strength steel plates. The curves “a” in the corresponding codes such as GB50017-2003 and
Eurocode 3 are found to be suitable for the welded 690 MPa high-strength steel box- and H-columns buckling
about minor axis. The test results are intended to assess the accuracy of the numerical method presented in
Part 2 of the paper.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction applicability of the current codes for high-strength steels produced by

Over the past two decades, high-strength steel with yielding strength
more than 460 MPa has been progressively applied in the structural ele-
ments of high-rise buildings, large-span buildings and bridges, taking the
advantages of architecture, structure, and cost and resource savings.
Compared with ordinary steel products, utilizing high-strength steel
can reduce the sectional dimension and self-weight of members subject-
ed to the identical load, which contributes to easier handling and trans-
portation. Consequently, the lesser consumption of steels generates the
greater economic and environmental efficiency. However, the Chinese
code for design of steel structures GB 50017-2003 [1] is suitable for the
steels with a design yield strength not more than 420 MPa. Although de-
sign yield strength of the steels is up to 700 MPa and 690 MPa in the
European and American codes [2,3], the buckling curves used to predict
the ultimate strength of axially compressed columns are based on the ex-
perimental and theoretical research of the steels with yield strength to be
less than 400 MPa. Thus, further research needs to be done to verify the
⁎ Corresponding author at: College of Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai,
China.
E-mail address: gqli@mail.tongji.edu.cn (G.-Q. Li).
URL: http://www.steelpro.net/content.aspx?info_lb=48&flag=2 (G.-Q. Li).
the new process (TMCP or Q&T).
In the twentieth century, several researchers conducted some valu-
able studies on the overall buckling behavior and ultimate strength of
welded high-strength steel columns under axial compression [4–6],
but the high-strength steels possessed inferior mechanical properties
compared with current high-strength steel. Shi and Bijlaard [7] modeled
a series of 690 MPa steel welded box- and I-columns through the finite
element method and these modeled columns were based on the exper-
iments carried out by Usami and Fukumoto [4] and Rasmussen and
Hancock [6]. In recent years, Ban et al. [8] and Wang et al. [9–11] con-
ducted many significant works in experimental investigation and nu-
merical analysis for 460 MPa high-strength steel welded box- and H-
section columns subjected to axial load. In the experiment of Ban et al.
[8], the cylindrical hinge did not reach the expected objective as an ide-
ally pin-ended support because of the friction existing in the contact
surfaces of the cylindrical hinge. By contrast, Wang et al. [9–11] de-
signed and manufactured two curved surface supports that have
enough rotation capability as expected. They performed a parametric
analysis for the box- and H-columns based on the obtained experimen-
tal results and the analytical results were compared with Eurocode 3
[12] and the Chinese codes for steel structures design GB 50017-2003
[1] to validate the applicability of the codes for design of 460 MPa

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2016.03.026
0143-974X/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 T.-J. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 123 (2016) 18–30 19

Fig. 1. Definition of symbols for column sections, (a) Box section; (b) H section.

high-strength steel columns. Shi et al. [13] experimentally investigated ultimate capacity of the columns was obtained against the predictions
the overall buckling behavior about the major axis of welded high- of GB 50017-2003, Eurocode 3, and ANSI/AISC 360-10. Based on
strength steel I-columns with end restraints. These columns involved 4 the comparisons, some recommendations for design of Q690 high-
S690 steel columns and 4 S960 steel columns. The authors performed strength steel columns regarding to overall buckling under axial com-
parametric analysis based on the finite element method and compared pression were discussed.
with the Chinese codes GB 50017-2003 [1], American specification for
structural steel buildings ANSI/AISC 360-10 [3], and Eurocode 3 [12]. 2. Experimental program
For S690 and S960 steel I-columns, they found that the buckling curve
“a” and “a0” could be adopted to design the columns in GB 50017- To investigate the overall buckling behavior of axially loaded high-
2003 [1] and Eurocode 3 [12], respectively; the buckling curve specified strength steel columns, twelve specimens of columns with welded
in ANSI/AISC 360-10 [3] was inappropriate for design of the I-columns. box- and H-sections were fabricated from flame-cut Q690 steel plates,
Ban et al. [14] experimentally investigated the overall buckling behavior nominal yield strength of which is 690 MPa. The width-to-thickness ra-
of 6 axially loaded S960 steel columns including welded box- and I- tios of the box- and H-sections ranged from 7 to 13 and from 6 to 8 for
columns with pin-ended supports. They built a finite element model to flange, respectively, and the slenderness of the column specimens var-
conduct parametric studies and provided the suggested buckling curves ied from 30 to 70. The both ends of the specimens were hinged.
in European and Chinese codes for design of S690 welded columns.
This paper aims to investigate the overall buckling behavior of high- 2.1. Design and manufacture of specimens
strength steel welded box- and H-columns with the nominal yield
strength of 690 MPa. Twelve specimens comprising of box- and H- The Q690 steel plates with 16 mm of nominal thickness were flame-
columns with slenderness ratios in the range of 30–50 were fabricated cut to strips and all component plates were welded by complete penetra-
by flame-cut Q690 steel plates and monitored until failure under axial tion welding (Fig. 1). These specimens were fabricated by gas metal arc
compression via adopting ideally pin-ended supports. The load-deflec- welding (GMAW), for which an ER120S-G filler wire with the identical
tion and load-strain curves were provided from the experiment. The nominal yield stress of Q690 high-strength steel was adopted. The mea-
sured dimensions of the box- and H-columns are respectively listed in
Table 1
Table 1 and Table 2 in which B, H, t, tf, tw are illustrated in Fig. 2. L is the
Measured dimensions of box column specimens. length of the specimens, Le is the effective length of the specimens, A is
the cross-sectional area, I is the moment of inertia of a cross-section, Iv
Specimen B t L Le A I
label (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm2) (cm4)
λ λ is the moment of inertia of a cross-section about v-axis, λ and λv are
the slenderness ratio for box-specimens and H-specimens bending
B-30-1 236.23 16.20 2501 2811 14,258 11,567 31.2 0.571
B-30-2 236.47 16.10 2502 2812 14,192 11,548 31.2 0.571 about v-axis, and λ and λv are the non-dimensional slenderness ratio
B-50-1 192.37 16.02 3300 3610 11,301 5906 50.0 0.915 for box-specimens and H-specimens bending about v-axis. To prevent
B-50-2 192.52 16.02 3302 3612 11,310 5921 49.9 0.913 local instability, the width-to-thickness ratios of the columns should not
B-70-1 140.88 16.07 3300 3610 8023 2118 70.3 1.287 go beyond the limiting ratio specified in the related codes. The ratio limits
B-70-2 140.48 16.08 3299 3609 8001 2098 70.5 1.290
of the box- and H-sections indicated in the codes are as follows:

Table 2
Measured dimensions of H column specimens.

Specimen label B (mm) H (mm) tf, tw (mm) L (mm) Le (mm) A (mm2) Iv (cm4) λv λv

H-30-1 260.85 259.19 16.08 1701 2011 12,040 4765 32.0 0.586
H-30-2 260.82 260.35 16.25 1700 2010 12,179 4814 32.0 0.586
H-50-1 241.75 236.30 16.03 2602 2912 11,024 3782 49.7 0.910
H-50-2 240.47 238.15 16.16 2601 2911 11,098 3752 50.0 0.915
H-70-1 209.21 204.78 16.26 3201 3511 9605 2488 69.0 1.263
H-70-2 209.38 205.24 16.24 3202 3512 9606 2491 69.0 1.263
20 T.-J. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 123 (2016) 18–30

Fig. 2. Stress–strain relation of Q690 steel plates.

For box-sections: Eurocode 3 [12] requires.

Chinese code GB 50017-2003 [1] requires.
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi h 235
h 235 ≤ 42  ε ¼ 42 for Class 3 cross‐sections ð2Þ
≤ 40 ð1Þ t fy
t fy

ANSI/AISC 360-10 [3] requires.

Table 3
Results for tension coupons. sffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
h E 200000
Specimen label E (GPa) fy(MPa) fu(MPa) fy/fu εu Δ% ≤ 1:40 ¼ 1:40 ð3Þ
t fy fy
L16-A1 243.1 772 827 0.93 0.0682 22
L16-A2 238.9 779 833 0.94 0.0594 23
L16-A3 202.3 779 834 0.94 0.0609 20 where fy is equal to 690 MPa. The limiting width-to-thickness ratios
L16-A4 243.4 772 827 0.93 0.0583 21 specified in the Chinese, European, and American codes are obtained
L16-A6 239.6 756 810 0.93 0.0593 21 from Eqs. (1)–(3) to be 23.3, 24.5, and 23.8, respectively.
Mean value 233.5 772 826.2 0.93 0.0612 21
For H-sections:

Fig. 3. Specimens and test setup.

 T.-J. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 123 (2016) 18–30 21

Fig. 4. Elevation of curved surface supports, (a) Top support; (b) Bottom support.

Fig. 5. Arrangement of displacement transducers and strain gages, (a) Elevation; (b) Cross section.
22 T.-J. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 123 (2016) 18–30

Fig. 5 (continued).

Chinese code GB 50017-2003 [1] requires. ANSI/AISC 360-10 [3] requires.

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
bf 235 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
≤ ð10 þ 0:1λÞ 30 ≤ λ ≤ 100 for flanges ð4Þ bf kc E 200000  kc
tf fy ≤ 0:64 ¼ 0:64 ; 0:35 ≤ kc ¼ 4= h=t w ≤0:76
tf fy fy ð8Þ
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi for flanges
h 235
≤ ð25 þ 0:5λÞ 30 ≤ λ ≤ 100 for webs ð5Þ
tw fy sffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
h E 200000
≤ 1:49 ¼ 1:49 for webs ð9Þ
tw fy fy
Eurocode 3 [12] requires.
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
bf 235 With Eqs. (4)–(9), when fy equals 690 MPa, the limiting width-to-
≤ 14  ε ¼ 14 Class 3 cross‐sections for flanges ð6Þ
tf fy thickness ratios of outstanding flanges specified in the Chinese code
are ranging from 7.6 to 11.7, with a variable slenderness ratio λ; and
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi the ratios of webs are varying from 23.3 to 43.8. However, the limiting
h 235
≤42  ε ¼ 42 Class 3 cross‐sections for webs ð7Þ ratios of outstanding flanges and webs specified in the European code
tw fy
are 8.2 and 24.5, respectively. Such limit ratios range from 6.4 to 9.5
 T.-J. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 123 (2016) 18–30
for outstanding flanges in the American code, with varying kc, and the
limit ratio of webs is 25.4.
According to the above-mentioned code limits, the three width-to-
thickness ratios of the box-column specimens were selected to be 7,
10, and 13. For the H- column specimens, the width-to-thickness ratios
of outstanding flanges were designed as 6, 7, and 8, and those of webs
were 11, 13, and 14. Obviously, width-to-thickness ratios of the sections
of all the column specimens satisfy the provisions of the codes.
2.2. Material properties
To obtain the stress–strain relations of Q690 high-strength steel, five
tensile coupons were prepared in line with GB/T 2975-1998 [15] and
the cutting direction was perpendicular to the rolling direction when
the samples were taken. An extensometer was used to determine longi-
tudinal strains which contribute to a precise Young's modulus. The
monotonic tensile test was performed in accordance with GB/T 228-
2002 [16] and the loading speed was 0.5 mm/min. The test results of
the coupons are listed in Table 3. In this table, E is the Young's modulus;
Δ% represents the percentage of elongation after rupture; εu is the ulti-
mate strain; fy and fu denote the yield strength and ultimate tensile
strength, respectively. The stress–strain curve that describes the mean
values of the five tensile coupons is shown in Fig. 2.
2.3. Test arrangement and loading setup
The axial compression test on the box- and H-columns was conduct-
ed by using the 10,000-kN universal testing machine of the State Labo-
ratory for Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering at Tongji University.
The specimens and test setups are illustrated in Fig. 3. A pair of curved
surface supports with enough rotation capacity shown in Fig. 4, de-
signed by Wang et al. [9,10], was used to simulate the hinged connec-
tion. The H-section columns were bent about the minor axis. For the
box-column specimens, the boundary conditions of both ends of each
column were pinned about the u axis and fixed about the v axis, as
shown in Fig. 1(a). For the H-columns, the boundary conditions of
each column were pinned about minor axis v and fixed about major
axis u, as shown in Fig. 1(b). The layout of linear varying displacement
transducers (LVDTs) and strain gages is depicted in Fig. 5. LVDTs H01-
03 and H06 monitored the in-plane and out-of-plane defections at the
mid-height of the columns, respectively. H04 and H05 respectively
measured the in-plane lateral defections at the three-eighth and five-
eighth heights of the columns. V1 and V2 captured the vertical defor-
mation of the columns. Twelve strain gages were attached onto the
Fig. 6. Box and H columns after failure.
23
external surfaces for the box-columns at the mid-height and 13 for
the H-columns. Another, four strain gages were attached for the box-
columns at the bottom ends and five for the H-columns. The data cap-
tured by these gages were used to monitor the stress–strain state of
the sections of the columns.
After column setup, a preloading equal to 10% of the estimated fail-
ure load was applied to check the operating state of a strain data logger
and LVDTs and to determine positive direction of LVDTs. Then, the pre-
load was unloaded. During the test, loading was executed differently in
two stages. At the first stage, loading was executed by force control and
at the second stage by axial displacement control. In the range of 80% of
the predicted failure load, the loading increments were controlled by a
force increment with 10% of the estimated load. When the loading
forces exceed 80% of the predicted failure load, the loading increments
were controlled by a displacement increment at a rate of 1 mm/min to
avoid abrupt failure of the specimens. If the peak load was attained,
the monitored load declined gradually. Eventually, the test column
was considered as a failure with the monitored load less than 60% of
the failure load and was unloaded. The failure modes of all of the spec-
imens are categorized as the overall buckling, as shown in Fig. 6, and
local buckling is not observed before peak load. The columns can be
regarded as in-plane bending because of the very small out-of-plane lat-
eral deflections of the columns measured from the test.
3. Experimental results and discussion
3.1. Overall buckling behavior
The obtained experimental results of the specimens are listed in
Table 4, in which Pu is the measured ultimate bearing capacity of the
specimens; fy is the measured yield strength; and A denotes the sectional
area of the specimens. The load–deflection relations at the mid-height of
the specimens of columns with box-section and H-section are shown in
Fig. 7 and Fig. 8, respectively. Except specimens B-30 and H-30 series, the
average readings from LVDTs H01-H03 of the other specimens were
adopted to represent the mid-height deflection because of the slight de-
viations between such LVDTs. The failure mode of all the 12 test columns
is the overall buckling as expected (Fig. 6). Slight crookedness of the
specimens is gradually expanded under increasing axial load, when
overall buckling is occurred, the curved surface supports can reflect the
free rotation at both ends, as shown in Fig. 9. When the monitored load
approaches the ultimate capacity of the columns, the slope of the load–
deflection curves gradually decrease. Once the specimens reach the
limit state (i.e., the occurrence of overall buckling), the lateral deflection
24 T.-J. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 123 (2016) 18–30

Table 4 The initial geometric imperfections of all the specimens are listed in
Ultimate strength of columns. Table 5, in which v0 and e0 are the initial deflection and loading eccen-
Specimen label Pu (kN) Pu/Afy tricity, respectively. As depicted in Fig. 7 and Fig. 8, the slope of the
B-30-1 5771.5 0.649
load–deflection curves and ultimate strength of the specimens decrease
B-30-2 9751.5 0.890 with increasing initial geometric imperfections. The columns are in-
B-50-1 6444.5 0.739 creasingly sensitive to initial imperfections with the increase of the slen-
B-50-2 7180.0 0.822 derness ratios.
B-70-1 3258.5 0.526
Note that the ultimate strength of B-30-1 is less than that of B-30-2.
B-70-2 2897.0 0.469
H-30-1 8493.0 0.914 One factor was that the former has much larger initial crookedness
H-30-2 8994.0 0.957 against the latter. Another factor was that the flame was used for
H-50-1 7207.0 0.847 straightening of the specimen in the process of fabrication and the
H-50-2 7124.5 0.832 flame heating decreased the strength of steel [17]. The measured yield-
H-70-1 3039.0 0.421
H-70-2 3690.0 0.498
ing strength and ultimate strength of the steel exposed to flame are
listed in Table 6, where B-1 to B-4 are the steel coupons taken from
Note: B-30-1 and H-70-1 were straightened by flame heating method.
specimen B-30-1 after test as illustrated in Fig. 10, fy′ and fu′ are the mea-
sured yielding strength and tensile strength of the steel exposed to
considerably increase with the slow decrease of the monitored load. flame, respectively, and fy is the measured yielding strength of the
When the loading force reaches 60% of the ultimate strength of the spec- steel unexposed to flame. The stress–strain curves of coupons B-1 to
imens, the tested column is treated as a complete failure and unloaded. B-4 is shown in Fig. 11. Given the breakdown of the extensometer

Fig. 7. Load–deflection curves of box columns, (a) B-30-1; (b) B-30-2; (c) B-50-1 and B-50-2; (d) B-70-1 and B-70-2.
 T.-J. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 123 (2016) 18–30 25

Fig. 8. Load–deflection curves of H columns, (a) H-30-1; (b) H-30-2; (c) H-50-1 and H-50-2; (d) H-70-1 and H-70-2.

attached onto B-4, a hardening stage of this specimen was undetected flame decline to 80%, 82%, and 81% of its original yielding strength, re-
and not depicted in stress–strain curve. It can be found that the yield spectively. The aforementioned results indicate that the straightening
strength of coupon B-3 unexposed to flame was almost unchanged. By method by flame heating is unfavorable to the strength of columns
contrast, the yield strength of coupons B-1, B-2 and B-4 exposed to made of Q690 high-strength steel.

Fig. 9. Support rotation, (a) Before loading; (b) After failure.

26 T.-J. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 123 (2016) 18–30

Table 5
Initial geometric imperfections.

Specimen label e0 (mm) v0 (mm) |(e0 + v0)/Le | × 10−3

B-30-1 0.8 27.0 9.89

B-30-2 2.4 2.5 1.74
B-50-1 0.1 −1.0 0.25
B-50-2 −0.8 −1.5 0.64
B-70-1 0.9 −1.0 0.03
B-70-2 −0.5 −1.0 0.42
H-30-1 1.0 1.0 0.99
H-30-2 0 0.5 0.25
H-50-1 −1.5 1.0 0.17
H-50-2 −0.5 −0.5 0.34
H-70-1 −0.8 −2.0 0.80
H-70-2 0 −1.5 0.43

3.2. Load–strain curves

Twelve and thirteen strain gages were respectively attached to the

Fig. 11. Stress–strain relation of coupons B-1 to B-4.
exterior at mid-height of box and H columns, as shown in Fig. 5. For
the critical section at the mid-height of the box columns, strain gages
S02 and S08 monitored the strains at the mid-width of the webs, 70-2 can be regarded as the sectional yielding mode, elastic–plastic in-
which can be acknowledged as the average strain of this section. stability mode and elastic instability mode respectively.
Whereas S04, S06, S10, and S12 presented the strains at the edges of
the flanges of the box sections. For the section of the H columns, S02 4. Comparison of the results from experiments and design codes
and S08 can express the average strain of the section at the mid-width
of the flanges. Whereas S03, S07, S01, and S09 provided the strains at The codes for design of steel structures GB50017-2003 [1], Eurocode
the tips of the H section flanges. 3 [12], and ANSI/AISC 360-10 [3] were adopted to estimate the ultimate
Fig. 12 indicates that when reaching the failure load, the com- strength of the specimens. The measured geometric sizes and material
pressive strain at mid-width of the webs for specimen B-30-2 accounts properties were applied in the estimation. The estimated load-bearing
for 101.8% of the yield strain, fy/E, which can be recognized as strength capacities of the specimens were compared against the experimental
failure. For specimen B-70-1 with a large slenderness, this strain results.
occupies 57.5% of the yield strain under the failure load. This In GB 50017-2003 [1], the design buckling resistance of an axial
demonstrates that B-70-1 buckled in elastic state. It is found that the av- compression member is expressed as,
erage strain at the failure of specimen B-50-1 constitutes 85.9% of the
yield strain, and the compressive flange completely yields. So, the insta- Nd ¼ φAf y ð10Þ
bility mode of specimen B-50-1 can be categorized under elastic–plastic
type.
It can be seen from Fig. 13 that the compressive strains located in the where φ is the reduction factor for overall buckling.
middle of the sectional flanges of the specimens H-30-1, H-50-2, and H-
70-2 account for 159.2%, 95.1%, and 56% of the yield strain, fy/E, respec- When λ ≤ 0:215; φ ¼ 1−α 1 λ
2
ð11Þ
tively. These demonstrate the failure of the specimens H-30-1 and H-
" ffi#
 2
 rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2 2
 2
α2 þ α3 λ þ λ − α2 þ α3 λ þ λ −4λ
;
Table 6 When λ N 0:215 φ¼ 2
Material properties of specimens B-30-1. 2λ
ð12Þ
Specimen f'y (MPa) f'u (MPa) fy (MPa) f'y/fy

B-1 617 720 772 0.80

B-2 630 753 772 0.82 in whichλ is the non-dimensional slenderness; and α1, α2 and α3 are the
B-3 780 836 772 1.01 factors corresponding to the appropriate types of cross-sections (Class a,
B-4 625 743 772 0.81
b, and c sections).

Fig. 10. Areas of Specimen B-30-1 exposed to flame and location of coupons used for material test.
 T.-J. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 123 (2016) 18–30 27

Fig. 12. Load–strain curves of box columns, (a) B-30-2; (b) B-50-1; (c) B-70-1.
Fig. 13. Load–strain curves of H columns, (a) H-30-1; (b) H-50-2; (c) H-70-2.

The design resistance against axial compressive buckling of a column where χ is the reduction factor for overall buckling, which can be
is taken in Eurocode 3 [12] as, expressed as follows:

Nd ¼ χAf y ð13Þ When λ ≤ 0:2; χ¼1 ð14Þ

28 T.-J. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 123 (2016) 18–30

1 follows:
When λ N 0:2; χ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ; ð15Þ
Φ þ Φ2 −λ
2  
f cr 2
When λ ≤ 1:5; χ¼ ¼ 0:658λ ð19Þ
fy
2
in which Φ ¼ 0:5½1 þ αðλ−0:2Þ þ λ , and α is the imperfection factor
for the corresponding buckling curve. f cr 0:877
When λ N 1:5; χ¼ ¼ ; ð20Þ
In ANSI/AISC 360-10 [3], the design buckling resistance of an axially fy λ
2

compressed column is calculated as,

The comparison between the measured ultimate bearing capacity of
Nd ¼ ϕc f cr A ð16Þ the specimens and the relevant buckling curves of GB50017-2003,
Eurocode 3, and ANSI/AISC360-10 were conducted on the basis of
in which φc is the resistance factor, for which a value of 0.9 is recom- nondimensionalization, as shown in Fig. 14–Fig. 16. In accordance
mended. fcr represents the critical stress, written as follows: with the related provisions of GB 50017-2003 (2003), the buckling
curve c is suited for welded box columns with a maximum width-to-
sffiffiffiffiffi  
E fy thickness ratio of 20. The specimens B-30, B-50, and B-70 satisfy this
When λ ≤ 4:71 ; f cr ¼ 0:658 f e f y ; ð17Þ condition. Fig. 14(a) illustrates that the reduction factors of all the spec-
fy
imens of the box columns are higher than buckling curves “c” and “b”,
sffiffiffiffiffi except that of specimen B-30-1, which was impaired by flame heating
E and needs to be rejected. This finding suggests that the provisions for
When λ N 4:71 ; f cr ¼ 0:877f e ; ð18Þ
fy welded box columns with Q690 steel are conservative. If the average
data in Fig. 14(a) are adopted, the buckling curve “a” could be appropri-
ate for this kind of columns. GB50017-2003 specifies that for flame-cut
where λ is the slenderness ratio and f e ¼ πλ2E.
2

welded H columns with plates of less than 40 mm, buckling curve “b” is
If non-dimensional slenderness λ substitutes for the slenderness appropriate. The specimens H-30, H-50, and H-70 are suitable for classi-
ratio λ in Eqs. (17) and (18), these two equations can be obtained as fication under this provision. However, as shown in Fig. 14(b), the

Fig. 14. Comparison of test results and GB 50017-2003, (a) Box columns; (b) H columns. Fig. 15. Comparison of test results and Eurocode 3, (a) Box columns; (b) H columns.
 T.-J. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 123 (2016) 18–30
reduction factors of all the columns are higher than buckling curve “a”,
except H-70-1, which was also straightened by flame heating. These re-
sults indicate that curve “a” may be suited for Q690 flame-cut welded H
columns.
As specified in Eurocode 3, buckling curve “c” is appropriate for
welded box columns with a less than 30 width-to-thickness ratio. The
specimens B-30, B-50, and B-70 are suitable for classification under
this provision. Fig. 15(a) shows that the reduction factors of the speci-
mens are larger than that depicted by curve “a”, except the unusable re-
sults of specimen B-30-1. The result indicates that buckling curve “a” is
more appropriate than curve “c”. For the welded H columns with plates
of less than 40 mm, buckling curve “c” is suited when buckling occurs
about the minor axis. However, Fig. 15(b) depicts that except for the re-
duction factor of specimen H-70-1, those of the other columns are
higher than curve “a”. The obtained experimental data suggest that
curve “a” is appropriate for this type of H columns.
For the design of steel columns under axial compression, a
single buckling curve is employed as stipulated in ANSI/AISC 360-10.
The curve is suitable for compression columns without slender ele-
ments. It can be seen from Fig. 16 that the buckling curve is in general
conservative for reduction factors of both welded Q690 steel box- and
H-columns if ignoring the unusable results of specimens B-30-1 and
H-70-1 which were impaired by flame heating, which concludes that
Fig. 16. Comparison of test results and ANSI/AISC 360-10, (a) Box columns; (b) H columns.
29
the provisions of the American code for welded Q690 box and H col-
umns without slender elements are conservative.
5. Conclusions
The overall buckling behavior of Q690 welded box columns and
flame-cut H columns was experimentally investigated on twelve axially
compressed specimens. Based on the results of the experiments, the fol-
lowing summaries can be drawn as:
(1) The failure mode of all the specimens is global instability as antic-
ipated. The curved surface supports can rotate as an ideal hinge
boundary connection for the axially compressed specimens.
(2) The ultimate capacity of specimens B-30-1 and H-70-1 is con-
siderably impaired by flame heating for straightening during
fabrication. The yield strength of Q690 steel plates exposed
to flame may decrease by 20% or worse. Therefore, flame
heating treatment for straightening is prohibited for Q690 steel
columns.
(3) On the basis of the comparison between the test results and the re-
lated codes, the Chinese (GB50017-2003), European (Eurocode 3),
and American (ANSI/AISC 360-10) codes underrate the ultimate
capacity of Q690 welded box columns and flame-cut H columns.
For GB 50017-2003, buckling curve “a” is more appropriate for
the two types of columns rather than curves “c” and “b”. For
Eurocode 3, curve “a” agrees with the test data more satisfactory
better than curve “c”. The aforementioned summaries are based
on the experimental results. However, the test data derived are
not sufficient and additional numerical investigations are required
to validate the conclusions.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the financial support by the National Key
Technology R&D Program of Ministry of Science and Technology of
China (Grant No. 2012BAJ13B02) and National Natural Science Founda-
tion of China (Grant No. 51378378). The fourth author appreciates the
financial support by China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant No:
2014M561518). The authors also would like to thank Wen-Yang Liu
for his help for conducting the experiments.
References
[1] GB 50017–2003, Code for design of steel structures, Beijing: China Architecture &
Building Press, 2003 (in Chinese).
[2] Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures, Part 1–12: Additional rules for the extension
of EN 1993 up to steel grades S700, EN 1993-1-12, Brussels: European Committee
for Standardization, 2007.
[3] ANSI/AISC 360-10, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, AISC, Chicago, 2010.
[4] T. Usami, Y. Fukumoto, Local and overall buckling of welded box columns, J. Struct.
Div. 108 (1982) 525–542.
[5] F. Nishino, L. Tall, Experimental Investigation of the Strength of T-1 Steel Columns,
Fritz Engineering Laboratory Report, Lehigh University, 1970.
[6] K.J.R. Rasmussen, G.J. Hancock, Tests of high strength steel columns, J. Constr. Steel
Res. 34 (1995) 27–52.
[7] G. Shi, F. Bijlaard, Finite Element Analysis on the Buckling Behaviour of High
Strength Steel Columns, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Ad-
vances in Steel Structures, Singapore, 2007 504–510.
[8] H.Y. Ban, G. Shi, Y.J. Shi, Y.Q. Wang, Overall buckling behavior of 460 MPa high
strength steel columns: experimental investigation and design method, J. Constr.
Steel Res. 74 (2012) 140–150.
[9] Y.B. Wang, G.Q. Li, S.W. Chen, F.F. Sun, Experimental and numerical study on the be-
havior of axially compressed high strength steel columns with H-section, Eng.
Struct. 43 (2012) 149–159.
[10] Y.B. Wang, G.Q. Li, S.W. Chen, F.F. Sun, Experimental and numerical study on the be-
havior of axially compressed high strength steel box-columns, Eng. Struct. 58
(2014) 79–91.
[11] Y.B. Wang, G.Q. Li, S.W. Chen, F.F. Sun, Parametric Study on the Ultimate Load-
Bearing Capacity of Q460 High Strength Steel H-Shaped Columns under Axial
CompressionProgress in Steel Building Structures 2013.
[12] Eurocode 3, Design of steel structures, Part 1–1: general rules and rules for build-
ings, EN 1993-1-1, Brussels: European Committee for Standardization, 2005.
30 T.-J. Li et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 123 (2016) 18–30

[13] G. Shi, H.Y. Ban, F.S.K. Bijlaard, Tests and numerical study of ultra-high strength steel [16] GB/T 228-2002 Metallic materials: Tensile Testing at Ambient Temperature, Stan-
columns with end restraints, J. Constr. Steel Res. 70 (2012) 236–247. dards Press of China, Beijing, 2002 (in Chinese).
[14] H.Y. Ban, G. Shi, Y.J. Shi, M.A. Bradford, Experimental investigation of the overall [17] X.H. Qiang, F.S.K. Bijlaard, H. Kolstein, Post-fire mechanical properties of high
buckling behaviour of 960 MPa high strength steel columns, J. Constr. Steel Res. strength structural steels S460 and S690, Eng. Struct. 35 (2012) 1–10.
88 (2013) 256–266.
[15] GB/T 2975-1998 Steel and steel products: location and preparation of test pieces for
mechanical testing, Standards Press of China, Beijing, 1998 (in Chinese).