See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331155176

Behaviour of stainless steel bolts after exposure to elevated temperatures

Preprint in Journal of Constructional Steel Research · February 2019

DOI: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.02.021

CITATIONS READS

21 1,805

6 authors, including:

George Adomako Kumi Professor Zhong Tao

Old Dominion University Western Sydney University
2 PUBLICATIONS 21 CITATIONS 223 PUBLICATIONS 12,506 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Xingqiang Wang Tai Thai

Western Sydney University University of Melbourne
16 PUBLICATIONS 506 CITATIONS 170 PUBLICATIONS 11,091 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Professor Zhong Tao on 16 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1 This is the preprint of the following paper submitted to Journal of Constructional Steel
2 Research

3 Y. Hu*, S.L. Tang, G.A. Kumi, Zhong Tao*, X.Q. Wang, H.T. Thai (2018). Behaviour
4 of stainless steel bolts after exposure to elevated temperatures. Journal of
5 Constructional Steel Research (accepted for publication).

6 Behaviour of stainless steel bolts after exposure to

7 elevated temperatures

8 Ying Hu a,b,*, Sheng-Lin Tang a,b, Adomako Kumi George a,b, Zhong Tao c,*,

9 Xing-Qiang Wang c,d , Huu-Tai Thai e

a
10 Key Laboratory of New Technology for Construction of Cities in Mountain Areas (Chongqing
11 University), Ministry of Education, Chongqing 400045, PR China

b
12 School of Civil Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045, China

c
13 Centre for Infrastructure Engineering, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia

d
14 Department of Civil Engineering, Shandong Polytechnic, Jinan, Shandong Province, 250104, China

e
15 Department of Infrastructure Civil Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010,
16 Australia

17 ABSTRACT

18 This paper presents experimental results of residual material properties of stainless steel bolts
19 (austenitic grades A2-70 and A4-70) after exposure to elevated temperatures. Effects of
20 temperature (20−900 °C) and cooling method (cooling in air and cooling in water) on the
21 mechanical properties (i.e., Young’s modulus, yield stress, ultimate strength, ultimate strain
22 and strain hardening exponent) of the two types of bolts are investigated. The residual
23 properties of the stainless steel bolts are also compared with those of structural austenitic
24 stainless steel and conventional high-strength structural bolts made of carbon steel. It was
25 found that the exposure to elevated temperature only had a marginal influence on the residual
26 behaviour of stainless steel bolts, which is consistent with the observation for structural
27 austenitic stainless steel. In general, stainless steel bolts have superior post-fire performance
28 compared with conventional carbon steel bolts. Based on the test data, an existing model
29 proposed earlier for structural austenitic stainless steel was modified to predict stress−strain
30 curves of stainless steel bolts after exposure to elevated temperatures.

31 Keywords: Stainless steel bolts, post-fire, residual properties, material model, stress-strain
32 curves.

33 * Corresponding authors.

34 E-mail addresses: y.hu@cqu.edu.cn (Y. Hu); z.tao@westernsydney.edu.au (Z.Tao).

2
Notation
= Elastic modulus at room temperature;
= Elastic modulus after exposure to high temperature T (°C);
= Elastic modulus at 0.2% yield stress after exposure to high temperature T (°C);
= Elastic modulus at failure point after exposure to high temperature T (°C);

. = 0.01% proof stress at room temperature;

. = 0.01% proof stress after exposure to high temperature T (°C);

= Yield stress (0.2% proof stress) at room temperature;
= 0.2% proof stress after exposure to high temperature T (°C);

. = Stress corresponding to 1.0% strain at room temperature;

. = Stress corresponding to 1.0% strain after exposure to high temperature T (°C);

. = Stress corresponding to 2.0% strain at room temperature;

. = Stress corresponding to 2.0% strain level after exposure to high temperature T (°C);
= Ultimate strength at room temperature;
= Ultimate strength after exposure to high temperature T (°C);
= Strength at fracture at room temperature;
= Strength at fracture after exposure to high temperature T (°C);
= Strain at ultimate strength at room temperature;
= Strain at ultimate strength after exposure to high temperature T (°C);
= Strain at fracture at room temperature;
= Strain at fracture after exposure to high temperature T (°C);
=
Strain hardening exponent representing the post-fire stress-strain curve when the stress is lower than fyT;
=
Strain hardening exponent representing the post-fire stress-strain curve that passes through fyT and fuT;
= Specified temperature (°C).
35

36

3
37 1. Introduction

38 High-strength structural bolts made of carbon steel (referred to as carbon steel bolts in

39 the following) have been broadly utilised in bolted connections for transferring loads from

40 one member to another. Therefore, the bolts need to withstand both thermally and

41 mechanically induced loads occurring in the structural system [1, 2]. In the event of fire, a

42 connection might fail due to the rupture of high-strength structural bolts, which could lead to

43 a potential collapse of or damage to the structure emanating from localised failure of

44 structural elements. The failure of bolts has been observed in the full-scale fire tests at

45 Cardington, as well as in some fire incidents [3, 4]. To avoid this type of failure, stainless

46 steel bolts may be used to replace the conventional carbon steel bolts, as suggested by Hu et

47 al. [5].

48 There is increasing interest in using stainless steel bolts in steel frames because of their

49 good fire resistance and excellent corrosion resistance [5, 6]. Based on the atomic crystalline

50 structure, structural stainless steel can be classified into three major groups: austenitic,

51 martensitic and ferritic. The crystalline structure of stainless steel is mainly dependent on the

52 heat treatment method and chemical composition, such as the content of nickel and

53 chromium [7]. The presence of a certain amount of chromium in stainless steel creates an

54 invisible surface film that resists oxidation and makes the material corrosion resistant. The

55 presence of some other chemical constituents, such as nickel and molybdenum, could further

56 enhance the corrosion resistance, material strength and fire resistance. As for stainless steel

57 bolts, austenitic alloy has dominantly been used to make this type of bolt.

58 In the past, extensive studies have been conducted to investigate the ambient and

59 elevated temperature behaviour of structural stainless steel alloys [5, 8, 9]. For example,

60 Mirrambell and Real [10], Rasmussen [11], Gardner and Ashraf [12], Quach et al. [13], Tao

61 and Rasmussen [14] and Arrayago et al. [15] have studied mechanical properties of different

62 types of stainless steel at room temperature and a number of stress−strain models have been
4
63 proposed accordingly. The elevated temperature mechanical properties of stainless steel have

64 been investigated by Chen and Young [16] and Gardener et al. [17]. Based on test data, a

65 number of reduction factors have been incorporated into ambient temperature stress−strain

66 models to consider the property deterioration at elevated temperatures.

67 Compared with structural stainless steel, much less research has been conducted on

68 stainless steel bolts. In manufacturing stainless steel bolts, the bolts are normally cold forged

69 to obtain the final required diameter. It is expected that the cold forging process has some

70 influence on the bolt behaviour. Hu et al. [5] and Moreno and Baddoo [8] investigated the

71 material properties of stainless steel bolts at elevated temperatures. They found that stainless

72 steel bolts performed better than the carbon steel counterparts, but reduction factors proposed

73 in the existing design codes for structural stainless steel are not always safe for stainless steel

74 bolts. Based on regression analysis, new reduction factors were proposed accordingly for the

75 elastic modulus, yield stress and tensile strength.

76 Due to the long history of use in construction, there are extensive studies on carbon steel

77 bolts in fire [2, 18-20] or after exposure to elevated temperatures [21]. These studies

78 highlight the significant influence of temperature on the performance of the carbon steel bolts.

79 To the best knowledge of the authors, however, no study has been reported on the post-fire

80 behaviour of stainless steel bolts. Therefore, there is a need to fill this knowledge gap since

81 the material properties of stainless steel bolts are quite different from those of the carbon

82 steel bolts.

83 This paper aims to study the post-fire mechanical performance of stainless steel bolts of

84 two common austenitic grades A2-70 and A4-70. Effects of temperature and cooling method

85 on the mechanical properties will be investigated, followed by the proposal of a stress−strain

86 model for the bolts after exposure to elevated temperatures.

87 2. Experimental Investigation

5
 88 2.1 Preparation of tensile coupons
89 Stainless steel bolts A2-70 and A4-70 (M20 ×120) were selected for this study. The

90 material properties of the bolts comply with the Chinese specification GB/T 3098.6 [22], or

91 the equivalent code BS EN ISO 3506-1 [23]. The A2-70 bolts were manufactured using

92 stainless steel grade EN 1.4301, whereas the A4-70 bolts used EN 1.4401 [24]. Chemical

93 composition of the stainless steel bolts are presented in Table 1. As can be seen, A4-70

94 contains more manganese and molybdenum in comparison with A2-70. Meanwhile, the

95 former has less sulfur, phosphorus and carbon in the base metal. As shown in Fig. 1, the

96 A2-70 bolts were fully threaded, whereas the A4-70 bolts were partially threaded. In this test

97 program, a total of 104 standard coupon specimens were extracted from the two types of

98 stainless steel bolts, i.e., 52 coupons for each type of bolt. The dimensions of the coupons

99 shown in Fig. 2 were determined according to BS EN ISO 6892-1 [25]. The gauge length Lo

100 of the coupon is determined by Lo = 5.65 So0.5, where So is the cross-sectional area.

101 2.2 Heating and cooling

102 An electronically controlled heating furnace with a maximum heating power of 500 W,

103 was used to perform heating and cooling tests (see Fig. 3a). The furnace is able to reach a

104 temperature up to 950 oC. The bolts were directly heated from room temperature to 12

105 different target temperatures (100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 650, 700, 750, 800, 850 and 900

106 °C). Two duplicate specimens were prepared for each test condition. A sample was heated for

107 about 100 min before reaching its target temperature. After that, the target temperature was

108 maintained for 25 min (soak time), which is longer than the minimum soak time of 20 min

109 specified in ASTM E21-09 [26]. This would ensure a uniform temperature distribution in the

110 specimen. Once the soak time was reached, the bolts were cooled either in air or water. A

111 thermocouple was installed to detect the temperature inside the chamber. Meanwhile, the

112 temperature of the bolt was also monitored by a thermocouple in contact with the bolt head

113 through a drilled hole. It should be noted that all specimens were free from loading during
6
114 heating and cooling. Fig. 3b presents typical temperature−time curves of the bolts obtained in

115 the heating-cooling process. In the case of water cooling, the temperature drops to room

116 temperature in a few seconds. But for air cooling, it takes more than 40 min for the bolts to

117 cool down to ambient temperature.

118 2.3 Tensile Testing

119 After heat treatment of the bolts, coupons were milled from the bolts, as described in

120 Section 2.1. The coupons were tested in tension using a servo-controlled testing machine. A

121 uniaxial extensometer with a gauge length of 25 mm was mounted on the coupon to measure

122 the extension. A strain-controlled method was used to conduct the tensile testing according to

123 BS EN ISO 6892-1 [25]. An initial strain rate (ėLc) of 0.00025/s was adopted until the coupon

124 yielded, then the strain rate was increased to 0.002/s until fracture. To achieve the specified

125 strain rate, the crosshead separation rate was set as vc= Lc × ėLc, in which Lc is the parallel

126 length of the coupon specimen. During the testing, load, extension and the crosshead

127 separation were recorded to generate full-range stress−strain curves.

128 3. Experimental results and discussion

129 3.1 General observation

130 Visual observation is a useful method to estimate the maximum temperature attained

131 during the fire [20]. Fig. 4 demonstrates the color change of typical bolts as a result of

132 heating and subsequent cooling down to room temperature. As can be seen, the color

133 changed to light brown (gold) after exposure up to 300 oC, then turned into light blue in the

134 range of 650 to 750 oC, and finally changed to black after 800 oC.

135 3.2 Residual mechanical properties

136 3.2.1 Stress−strain curves

137 The measured full-range stress−strain (σ−ε) curves are presented in Figs. 5 and 6. As

138 expected, all curves demonstrate a nonlinear response without a well-defined yield plateau. It

139 seems that these curves are marginally influenced by the cooling method. Meanwhile, the
7
140 influence of temperature on the curve generally is not significant when the temperature is

141 lower than 700 °C. Beyond this limit, some obvious strength deterioration can be observed.

142 From the measured stress−strain curves, key residual properties of the material can be

143 extracted, including the Young’s modulus (EsT), yield stress (fyT), ultimate strength (fuT),

144 strain hardening exponents (nT), ultimate strain (εuT) and fracture strain (εfT). The subscript T

145 in these parameters suggests that they are for bolts after exposure to elevated temperatures.

146 For clarity, the corresponding parameters for room temperature materials are designated as Es,

147 fy, fu, n, εu, and εf respectively in this study. As indicated in Fig. 7, the Young’s modulus EsT is

148 defined as the slope of the initial linear-elastic range of the stress−strain curve in accordance

149 with Eurocode 3 [27] and Australian standard AS/NZS 4673 [28]. The yield stress fyT is

150 defined as the 0.2% proof stress [27, 28], whereas the ultimate strength fuT is taken as the

151 peak stress of the curve. Definitions of other parameters are shown in Fig. 7 and details can

152 be found in [7]. The measured residual properties of the bolts are presented in Table 2, where

153 values are average of duplicate tests.

154 3.2.2 Residual elastic modulus

155 The measured values of residual elastic modulus given in Table 2 are used to evaluate

156 the effects of different parameters. For comparison purposes, the normalised values of EsT/Es

157 are plotted in Fig. 8 as a function of temperature. Due to the use of extensometer instead of

158 strain gauges, values of EsT/Es show a variation up to 20%. Despite this, it can be concluded

159 that the methods of cooling in air (CIA) and cooling in water (CIW) have no obvious

160 influence on EsT. Meanwhile, both types of stainless steel bolts have no obvious deterioration

161 in elastic modulus when the temperature increases up to 900 °C. This is consistent with the

162 observation reported by Tao et al. [7] for structural austenitic stainless steel, where the

163 reported test data are also shown in Fig. 8. Therefore, the ratio of EsT/Es is taken as unity for

164 stainless steel bolts, as expressed by Eq. (1).

8
 =1 20 ≤ ≤ 900 ℃ (1)

165 3.2.3 Residual yield stress

166 The yield stresses fyT obtained from the stress−strain curves are presented in Table 2. To

167 illustrate the change in fyT due to heat exposure, the ratios of fyT/fy are depicted in Fig. 9(a) as

168 a function of temperature. For both types of stainless steel bolts, the cooling method has no

169 significant influence on the fyT/fy ratio. When T is 100 °C, the yield stress is not obviously

170 affected. However, the temperature has obvious influence on fyT when T reaches 200 °C or

171 higher. For A2-70, there is an increase in yield stress when T is between 200 and 600 °C, and

172 the maximum increase of 18% is obtained at 400 oC. A more significant increase in yield

173 stress is observed for A4-70 in the temperature range 200−700 °C, and the maximum

174 increase of 28% is obtained at 500 oC. After reaching the peak, the fyT/fy ratio decreases

175 almost linearly with increasing temperature. It seems that the influence of temperature on

176 stainless steel bolts is different from that on structural austenitic stainless steel. As reported

177 by Tao et al. [7], yield stress of structural austenitic stainless steel does not change obviously

178 when the temperature is 500 oC or less. Beyond this temperature, the fyT/fy ratio decreases

179 with increasing temperature, as shown in Fig. 9(a). Obviously, structural austenitic stainless

180 steel does not show an obvious increase in yield stress due to heat treatment. To explain the

181 increase in yield stress for stainless steel bolts due to heat treatment, Fig. 9(b) compares the

182 initial stress−strain curve of A4-70 without heat treatment with that of the bolt exposed to

183 500 °C and cooled in air. The increase in yield stress could be explained by the decreased

184 nonlinearity due to heat treatment. As mentioned before, stainless steel bolts are normally

185 made by cold-forging. This process leads to a high density of dislocations and causes

186 increased nonlinearity. After the heat treatment, the density of dislocations decreases, leading

187 to reduced nonlinearity. From regression analysis, Eqs. (2) and (3) are proposed to predict fyT

188 for A2-70 and A4-70 stainless steel bolts, respectively. The predictions from the models are

9
189 compared with the test data in Fig. 9(a), indicating a reasonable agreement. It should be

190 noted that more test data, especially those from different manufacturers, are required to

191 verify the accuracy of the proposed formulae.

20 ≤ ≤ 100 ℃
1.0
= 0.94 0.6 " /1000 100 ' ≤ 400 ℃
1.50 % 0.8 " /1000
for A2-70 bolts (2)

400 ' ≤ 900 ℃

1.0 20 ≤ ≤ 100 ℃
= 0.94 0.60 " /1000
1.67 % 0.86 " /1000 100 ' ≤ 500 ℃ for A4-70 bolts (3)

500 ' ≤ 900 ℃

192

193 Table 2 also presents the stresses f1.0T and f2.0T retrieved from the stress−strain curves,

194 where f1.0T and f2.0T are the stresses corresponding to the total strains of 1.0% and 2.0%,

195 respectively. In general, the influence of temperature on f1.0T and f2.0T is similar to that on fyT.

196 3.2.4 Residual ultimatestrength

197 The ratios of fuT/fu are plotted in Fig. 10 as a function of temperature. To compare with

198 the residual ultimate strength of structural austenitic stainless steel, the corresponding test

199 data reported by Tao et al. [7] are also depicted in this figure. It seems temperature has no

200 significant influence on the ultimate strength of stainless steel bolts, which is consistent with

201 the observation on structural austenitic stainless steel [7]. It should be noted that there is a

202 slight increase in ultimate strength at 400 and 500 °C for the stainless steel bolts. Meanwhile,

203 there is a slight decrease in ultimate strength when T is higher than 650 °C. But in general the

204 strength variation is not significant. Therefore, similar to Tao et al. [7], no deterioration in

205 ultimate strength is considered for stainless steel bolts, as shown in Eq. (4).

=1
)*+
)*
20 ≤ ≤ 900 ℃ (4)

206 3.2.5 Ultimatestrain

207 The ratios of εuT/εu are depicted in Fig. 11 as a function of temperature. It seems that the

10
208 ultimate strain εuT is not obviously affected by the cooling method. However, the bolt type

209 and temperature indeed have some influence. For A2-70, εuT increases slightly with

210 increasing temperature, although a slight decrease is observed for a water cooled specimen

211 after exposure to 900 oC. As for A4-70, the trend is different. A moderate decrease in εuT

212 takes place up to 500 oC, followed by an increase in εuT with increasing temperature. After

213 exposure to 900 oC, εuT could increase by 40% for A4-70. In contrast, εuT of structural

214 austenitic stainless steel does not change below 800 oC and increases slightly above this

215 temperature, as reported by Tao et al. [7]. Since the variation in εuT for stainless steel bolts is

216 different from that of structural austenitic stainless steel, Eqs. (5) and (6) are proposed to

217 predict εuT of A2-70 and A4-70 bolts respectively based on regression analysis.

218

,-
= 1.1 " 1.0 20 ≤ ≤ 900 ℃
,- 10000
for A2-70 (5)

,- 1.0 % 6.81 " . " 10/0 20 ≤ ≤ 500 ℃

=
,- 1.24 " 0.21
1000 500 ' ≤ 900 ℃
for A4-70 (6)

219 3.2.6 Strain hardening exponent

220 The ratios of nT/n are depicted in Fig. 12 as a function of temperature. In general, nT

221 shows an increasing trend after exposure to elevated temperatures. However, the measured

222 values of nT demonstrate significant variation, as also observed by Tao et al. [7] for structural

223 austenitic stainless steel. This was explained by Tao et al. [7] as a result of test errors of

224 elastic modulus. It should be noted that the variation in nT only slightly affect the initial stage

225 of a predicted σ−ε curve. An increase of only 5% was reported in [7] for f1% when nT

226 decreases from 17.7 to 7.8. Therefore, Eq. (7) originally proposed in [7] for structural

227 austenitic stainless steel is tentatively used herein to predict nT of stainless steel bolts.

1 1 ≤ 500 ℃
= 1 2.5 " 10/23 % 5004 500 ' ≤ 800 ℃
1
1.75 800 ' ≤ 900 ℃
(7)

11
228 3.3 Discussion of results

229 For the safety assessment of fire-damaged buildings, residual properties of different

230 materials are required for conducting an accurate and reliable structural analysis [29]. The

231 use of materials with high strength retention would be advantageous to reduce costs for

232 repairing a fire-damaged structure. In Section 3.2, the residual properties of stainless steel

233 bolts have been compared with those of structural austenitic stainless steel. In this section,

234 further comparisons are made with stainless steel reinforcing bars and conventional

235 high-strength bolts made of carbon steel. For this purpose, test data are collected from

236 Felicitti et al. [30] for stainless steel rebars, and from Kodur et al. [1], Yahyai et al. [31], Yu

237 [32] and Lou et al. [33] for carbon steel bolts. In the comparisons, average values of stainless

238 steel bolts are used since the cooling method has no significant influence on their residual

239 material properties as reported in Section 3.2.

240 3.3.1 Comparison with carbon steel bolts

241 Post-fire properties of grades 8.8 and 10.9 carbon steel bolts have been reported in [1,

242 31-33]. Typical σ−ε curves of grade 10.9 carbon steel bolts presented by Yahyai et al. [31]

243 are compared with those of grade A4-70 stainless steel bolts (cooled in air) in Fig. 13(a). The

244 residual elastic modulus, yield stress and ultimate strength are further compared between the

245 stainless and carbon steel bolts in Fig. 13(b), (c) and (d), respectively. As expected, the

246 stainless steel bolts have much higher deformation capacity than the carbon steel

247 counterparts. Therefore, the use of stainless steel bolts would be able to accommodate the

248 large deformation demand of connections in the heating and cooling periods. Meanwhile, the

249 stainless steel bolts show much less deterioration in strength and elastic modulus compared

250 with the carbon steel bolts. For example, the stainless steel bolts have no obvious reduction

251 in ultimate strength at 900 °C, but the carbon steel bolts can lose up to 60% ultimate strength

252 at this temperature. Due to the strength deterioration, it is normally recommended to replace

253 carbon steel bolts after fire exposure. However, the current research indicates that stainless

12
254 steel bolts may be reused after fire exposure due to the minimum influence of temperature. It

255 should also be noted that carbon steel bolts might be susceptible to phase change (martensite

256 formation) when heated to 800 °C or above and then cooled in water. As shown in Fig. 13(c)

257 and (d), the yield stress and ultimate strength of some grade 10.9 carbon steel bolts [33]

258 significantly increased due to this treatment. In contrast, the behaviour of the austenitic

259 stainless steel bolts is not obviously affected by the cooling method as mentioned earlier.

260 3.3.2 Comparison with stainless steel reinforcing bars

261 Felicetti et al. [30] reported post-fire properties of hot-rolled and cold-worked austenitic

262 stainless steel rebars. As pointed out in [34], the residual behaviour of hot-rolled stainless

263 steel rebars is very similar to that of structural austenitic stainless steel. In general, hot-rolled

264 stainless steel rebars show very minimal strength deterioration after exposure to elevated

265 temperatures, as shown in Fig. 14. But this is not the case for cold-worked stainless steel

266 rebars. Typical σ−ε curves of cold-worked stainless steel rebars presented by Felicetti et al.

267 [30] are compared with those of grade A4-70 stainless steel bolts (cooled in air) in Fig. 14(a).

268 The residual yield stress, ultimate strength, and ultimate strain are further compared between

269 the stainless steel rebars and bolts in Fig. 14(b), (c) and (d), respectively. Although the

270 cold-worked rebars also demonstrate very good deformation capacity, their strength starts to

271 deteriorate after exposure to 500 °C or above. Compared with the ultimate strength

272 deterioration shown in Fig. 14(c), the deterioration of yield stress shown in Fig. 14(b) is

273 much more significant for the cold-worked rebars. In contrast, the cold-forged stainless steel

274 bolts show little strength deterioration. Furthermore, the cold-worked rebars have much

275 smaller deformation capacity than the bolts at ambient temperature due to the cold-working.

276 However, their deformation capacities are close to each other after exposure to 850 oC.

277 4. Stress−strain model for post-fire stainless steel bolts

278 Regardless of exposure to elevated temperatures, stainless steel bolts demonstrate a

279 rounded response with no well-defined yield stress, as shown in Figs. 5-7. Wang et al. [34]
13
280 proposed a two-stage σ−ε model for structural austenitic stainless steel after exposure to

281 elevated temperatures, based on the full-range σ−ε model proposed by Rasmussen [11] for

282 stainless steels at room temperature. Wang et al.’s model is capable to describe the σ−ε

283 relation up to the ultimate strength. Tao et al. [7] further revised this model to incorporate the

284 necking stage and to cover three different types of stainless steels, including austenitic,

285 duplex and ferritic alloys. Tao et al.’s model is expressed by Eqs. (8)─(12) in Table 3.

286 According to the comparison given in Section 3, it is possible to adopt this three-stage model

287 to describe the σ−ε response of stainless steel bolts after exposure to elevated temperatures.

288 Some modifications to the model, however, may be necessary. In Tao et al.’s model, a total of

289 eight parameters (EsT, fyT, fuT, εuT, nT, εfT, ffT, EfT) are required, but equations have been

290 provided to determine them from five room temperature parameters (Es, fy, fu, εu, n). From

291 the discussion in Section 3.2, Eqs. (2) and (5) should be used to predict fyT and εuT,

292 respectively, for A2-70 bolts. As for A4-70 bolts, Eqs. (3) and (6) should be used instead for

293 predicting the two parameters. To predict the strain εfT and modulus EfT at the fracture point,

294 it is found that Eqs. (13) and (14) proposed by Tao et al. are still applicable to stainless steel

295 bolts, which can be seen from the comparisons between predictions and experimental data in

296 Fig. 15(a) and (b). However, the stress ffT at the fracture point will be overestimated for

297 stainless steel bolts if Tao et al.’s model is used. Therefore, based on regression analysis, Eqs.

298 (15) and (16) given in Table 3 are proposed to predict ffT for A2-70 and A4-70, respectively.

299 For clarity, all expressions of the σ−ε model for post-fire stainless steel bolts are

300 summarised in Table 3, where Eqs. (2), (3), (5), (6), (15) and (16) are proposed in this study

301 and other equations presented in [7] remain unchanged. The predicted curves from this model

302 are compared with typical test curves in Figs. 16 and 17, indicating a very good agreement. It

303 is worth noting that the test curves of A4-70 at 300 °C or below exhibit more linear elastic

304 behaviour compared with the predicted curves, as can be seen from Fig. 17 (a) and (b). This

14
305 is likely due to the more significant strain-hardening of A4-70 at room temperature.

306 5. Conclusions

307 An experimental investigation has been conducted to study the residual material

308 properties of stainless steel bolts after exposure to elevated temperatures. The following

309 conclusions can be drawn within the scope of this study:

310 (1) The behaviour of austenitic stainless steel bolts is not obviously affected by the cooling

311 method. However, the temperature and bolt type have some influence on the yield stress,

312 ultimate strain, strain hardening exponent, as well as the stress, strain and modulus at the

313 fracture point. The extent of influence on the yield stress, ultimate strain and the fracture

314 stress of stainless steel bolts is slightly more significant compared with structural

315 austenitic stainless steel.

316 (2) Compared with cold-worked stainless steel rebars or conventional high-strength bolts

317 made of carbon steel, stainless steel bolts show much less deterioration in strength and

318 elastic modulus. It is possible to reuse stainless steel bolts after fire exposure due to the

319 minimum influence of temperature.

320 (3) A σ−ε model proposed earlier for structural austenitic stainless steel was modified in this

321 study to predict σ−ε curves for post-fire stainless steel bolts until fracture. Due to the

322 limitation of data, this model is only valid for austenitic grades A2-70 and A4-70 bolts

323 after exposure to elevated temperatures up to 900 °C. There is a need to extend this

324 model for temperatures above 900 °C. Meanwhile, more test data, especially those from

325 different manufacturers, are required to further verify the accuracy of the proposed

326 model.

327 Acknowledgement

328 The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support from National Natural

329 Science Foundation of China (NSFC Project No. 51578092), Chongqing Science and

330 Technology for Fundamental Science and Cutting-edge Technology (CSTC Project No.
15
331 cstc2016jcyjA1097) and Chongqing Science and Technology Commission for Technology

332 Innovation of Social Business and Insurance (CSTC Project No. cstc2015shmszx1227).

333 Comments and assistance toward this research project from Mr. JL Wen and Mr. G Yao at

334 Shenyang National Laboratory for Material Science of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, are

335 also highly appreciated.

336

337 References:
338 [1] V. Kodur, M. Yahyai, A. Rezaeian, M. Eslami, A. Poormohamadi. Residual mechanical properties of high
339 strength steel bolts subjected to heating-cooling cycle. J CONSTR STEEL RES. 131 (2017), 122-131.

340 [2] Y. Hu, L. Shen, S. Nie, B. Yang, W. Sha. FE simulation and experimental tests of high-strength structural
341 bolts under tension. J CONSTR STEEL RES. 126 (2016), 174-186.

342 [3] S. Lamont. The behavior of Multi-storey Composite Steel Framed Structures in response to Compartment
343 Fires [PhD Thesis]. Edinburgh: The University of Edinburgh; 2001.

344 [4] SCI. Investigation of Broadgate Phase 8 Fire. The Steel Construction Institute, Silwood Park, Ascot,
345 Berkshire, 1998.

346 [5] Y. Hu, C.B. Yang, L.H. Teh, Y. Yang. Reduction factors for stainless steel bolts at elevated temperatures. J
347 CONSTR STEEL RES. 148 (2018), 198-205.

348 [6] L. Gardner. The use of stainless steel in structures. Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials. 7 (2010),
349 45-55.

350 [7] Z. Tao, X.Q. Wang, M.K. Hassan, T.Y. Song, L.A. Xie. Behaviour of three types of stainless steel after
351 exposure to elevated temperatures. J CONSTR STEEL RES (2018).

352 [8] E.N. Moreno, N.R. Baddoo. Stainless Steel in Fire. The Steel Construction Institute, Silwood Park, Ascot,
353 United Kingdom, 2007.

354 [9] L.H. Han, C.Y. Xu, Z. Tao. Performance of concrete filled stainless steel tubular (CFSST) columns and joints:
355 Summary of recent research. J CONSTR STEEL RES (2018).

356 [10] E. Mirambell, E. Real. On the calculation of deflections in structural stainless steel beams: an experimental
357 and numerical investigation. J CONSTR STEEL RES. 54 (2000), 109-133.

358 [11] K.J.R. Rasmussen. Full-range stress–strain curves for stainless steel alloys. J CONSTR STEEL RES. 59
359 (2003), 47-61.

360 [12] L. Gardner, M. Ashraf. Structural design for non-linear metallic materials. ENG STRUCT. 28 (2006),
361 926-934.

362 [13] W.M. Quach, J.G. Teng, K.F. Chung. Three-stage full-range stress-strain model for stainless steels. J
363 STRUCT ENG. 134 (2008), 1518-1527.

364 [14] Z. Tao, K.J.R. Rasmussen. Stress-strain model for ferritic stainless steels. J MATER CIVIL ENG. 28 (2016),
365 6015009.

366 [15] I. Arrayago, E. Real, L. Gardner. Description of stress–strain curves for stainless steel alloys. MATER
16
367 DESIGN. 87 (2015), 540-552.

368 [16] J. Chen, B. Young. Stress–strain curves for stainless steel at elevated temperatures. ENG STRUCT. 28
369 (2006), 229-239.

370 [17] L. Gardner, A. Insausti, K.T. Ng, M. Ashraf. Elevated temperature material properties of stainless steel alloys.
371 J CONSTR STEEL RES. 66 (2010), 634-647.

372 [18] B.R. Kirby. The behaviour of high-strength grade 8.8 bolts in fire. J CONSTR STEEL RES. 33 (1995), 3-38.

373 [19] F. Hanus, G. Zilli, J.M. Franssen. Behaviour of Grade 8.8 bolts under natural fire conditions—Tests and
374 model. J CONSTR STEEL RES. 67 (2011), 1292-1298.

375 [20] V. Kodur, S. Kand, W. Khaliq. Effect of temperature on thermal and mechanical properties of steel bolts. J
376 MATER CIVIL ENG. 67 (2012), 765-774.

377 [21] G. Lou, S. Yu, R. Wang. Mechanical properties of high-strength bolts after fire. Journal of Building
378 Structures. 165 (2012), 373-383.

379 [22] SAC. GB/T 3098.6, Mechanical properties of fasteners - stainless steel bolts, screws and studs.
380 Standarization Administration of the People's Republic of China, Beijing, P.R. China, 2014.

381 [23] CEN. BS EN ISO 3506-1, Mechanical Properties of Corrosion-resistant Stainless Steel Fasteners—Part 1:
382 Bolts, Screws and Studs. European Committee of Standardization, Brussels, 1998.

383 [24] ISO. ISO 4954, Steels for cold heading and cold extruding. International Orgnization for Standardization,
384 Switzerland, 2018.

385 [25] CEN. BS EN ISO 6892-1, Metallic Materials - Tensile Testing - Part 1: Method of Test at Room Temperature.
386 European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 2016.

387 [26] ASTM. Standard Test Methods for Elevated Temperature Tension Tests of Metallic Materials. American
388 Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohochken (PA), 2009.

389 [27] CEN. Eurocode 3, Design of Steel Structures - Part 1-4: General rules - Supplementary Rules for Stainless
390 Steels. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 2006.

391 [28] Standards Australia. AS/NZS 4673, Cold-formed stainless steel structures. Sydney Australia, 2001.

392 [29] Z. Tao, X.Q. Wang, B. Uy. Stress-strain curves of structural and reinforcing steels after exposure to elevated
393 temperatures. J MATER CIVIL ENG. 25 (2013), 1306-1316.

394 [30] R. Felicetti, P.G. Gambarova, A. Meda. Residual behavior of steel rebars and R/C sections after a fire.
395 CONSTR BUILD MATER. 23 (2009), 3546-3555.

396 [31] M. Yahyai, V. Kodur, A. Rezaeian. Residual mechanical properties of high-strength steel bolts after exposure
397 to elevated temperature. J MATER CIVIL ENG. 30 (2018), 1-10.

398 [32] L. Yu. Behavior of Bolted Connections During and After a Fire [PhD Thesis]. Texas: The University of Texas
399 at Austin; 2006.

400 [33] G. Lou, S. Yu, R. Wang, G. Li. Mechanical properties of high-strength bolts after fire. Proceedings of the
401 Institution of Civil Engineers - Structures and Buildings. 165 (2012), 373-383.

402 [34] X.Q. Wang, Z. Tao, T.Y. Song, L.H. Han. Stress–strain model of austenitic stainless steel after exposure to
403 elevated temperatures. J CONSTR STEEL RES. 99 (2014), 129-139.

404

17
405 Captions for Tables

406 Table 1 Chemical composition of stainless steel bolts.

407 Table 2 Residual mechanical properties of stainless steel bolts.

408 Table 3 Revised stress−strain model for stainless steel bolts after exposure to elevated
409 temperatures.

410 Captions for Figures

411 Fig. 1. Stainless steel bolts (unit: mm): (a) A2-70 fully threaded; (b) A4-70 partially threaded.

412 Fig. 2. Typical steel coupon (unit: mm).

413 Fig. 3. Experimental setup: (a) Installed coupon; (b) Temperature−time curve.

414 Fig. 4. Stainless bolts after heating and cooling down to room temperature.

415 Fig. 5. Stress-strain curves of grade A2-70 stainless steel bolts.

416 Fig. 6. Stress-strain curves of grade A4-70 stainless steel bolts.

417 Fig. 7. Key parameters to define a full-range stress−strain curve (modified from Tao et al.
418 [7]).

419 Fig. 8. Variation of Young’s modulus with temperature.

420 Fig. 9. fyT after exposure to elevated temperatures: (a) Variation of fyT with temperature; (b)
421 Comparison of initial σ−ε curves.

422 Fig. 10. Variation of ultimate strength with temperature.

423 Fig. 11. Variation of ultimate strain with temperature.

424 Fig. 12. Variation of strain hardening exponent with temperature.

425 Fig. 13. Comparison between stainless and carbon steel bolts: (a) stress−strain curves; (b)
426 Young’s modulus; (c) yield stress; (d) ultimate strength.

427 Fig. 14. Comparison between stainless steel bolts and rebars: (a) stress−strain curves; (b)
428 yield stress; (c) ultimate strength; (d) ultimate strain.

429 Fig. 15. Determining parameters at the fracture point: (a) εfT; (b) EfT; (c) ffT.

430 Fig. 16. Comparison of predicted stress−strain curves with typical measured curves for
431 A2-70.

18
432 Fig. 17. Comparison of predicted stress−strain curves with typical measured curves for
433 A4-70.

434

19
435 Tables

436 Table 1. Chemical composition of stainless steel bolts.

Bolt
C Si Mn P S Ni Cr Mo Cu N
type

Material A2-70 0.032 0.4 0.62 0.044 0.044 8.04 18.33 0.08 0.83 0.051
certificate a
A4-70 0.03 0.39 1.04 0.028 0.001 10.02 16.06 2.03 − 0.041

BS EN ISO A2-70 0.1 1.0 2.0 0.045 0.03 8.0~19.0 15.0~20.0 − 4.00 0.22
3506-1
A4-70 0.08 1.0 2.0 0.045 0.03 10.0~15.0 16.0~18.5 2.0~3.0 4.00 0.22

a
437 Provided by the supplier.

438

20
 Tables 2. Residual mechanical properties of stainless steel bolts.

fyT (MPa) f1.0T (MPa) f2.0T (MPa) fuT (MPa) EsT (GPa) ɛuT (%) ɛfT (%) nT
T (oC) CIA CIW CIA CIW CIA CIW CIA CIW CIA CIW CIA CIW CIA CIW CIA CIW
A2-70 20 434.0 434.0 494.2 494.2 534.3 534.3 694.8 694.8 189.1 189.1 48.5 48.5 60.7 60.7 9.5 9.5
100 432.6 429.1 489.0 480.6 526.3 514.8 697.4 693.4 214.1 204.5 49.5 49.3 61.6 60.9 11.7 10.2
200 463.8 435.1 511.3 478.1 543.4 505.5 700.6 687.0 214.0 211.0 51.3 51.5 63.1 63.6 13.1 12.1
300 491.3 488.1 552.5 528.1 562.1 556.8 699.6 704.9 202.7 205.8 49.9 51.9 62.7 63.5 14.8 15.6
400 510.2 490.2 551.0 528.4 580.6 555.5 723.3 697.1 211.5 171.0 48.8 51.0 60.5 62.6 14.9 13.9
500 494.8 484.5 533.2 521.4 556.0 542.3 706.2 686.7 215.7 208.1 50.8 51.3 63.7 63.5 16.4 13.8
600 487.7 458.4 523.7 495.5 544.2 516.8 706.1 701.4 211.4 212.0 50.0 53.2 62.9 65.4 14.7 15.0
650 441.8 424.6 476.7 457.5 496.5 477.5 708.5 688.6 214.0 206.5 51.6 53.3 63.5 64.6 13.7 11.9
700 428.9 396.7 455.8 453.0 474.8 449.6 703.2 688.6 212.8 213.0 51.2 52.7 63.3 64.5 13.3 9.0
750 404.5 392.3 437.0 421.4 458.8 442.4 701.9 696.7 208.6 212.3 51.1 52.3 63.0 63.6 13.8 7.2
800 395.7 368.6 423.1 401.7 443.9 422.3 695.5 685.1 184.4 221.2 51.0 49.6 64.2 60.8 13.8 8.8
850 381.2 365.7 409.3 395.9 430.2 417.4 692.4 688.3 209.8 194.1 54.2 55.2 65.8 66.0 15.0 9.7
900 365.4 363.9 394.1 394.5 413.7 415.9 675.2 684.8 209.2 214.0 57.5 45.1 68.7 52.4 18.5 11.6
A4-70 20 429.5 429.5 536.8 536.8 594.0 594.0 716.3 716.3 209.1 209.1 36.5 36.5 54.3 54.3 5.8 5.8
100 433.0 434.6 542.9 537.5 602.3 594.9 720.1 717.6 219.9 206.1 36.9 36.6 54.4 54.3 6.3 6.1
200 464.5 464.1 559.9 552.3 610.6 602.0 719.3 714.9 204.1 212.4 35.5 38.4 53.1 54.3 7.5 7.1
300 501.5 500.3 577.5 572.3 619.5 612.1 723.8 717.0 215.8 212.6 35.8 36.0 52.5 52.9 9.1 9.6
400 522.0 516.9 592.7 579.6 630.5 616.7 729.5 721.7 203.4 198.7 32.0 35.2 50.7 52.4 9.9 9.9
500 540.8 548.1 606.5 609.8 639.3 644.2 738.2 745.0 219.4 201.7 30.3 30.9 50.2 49.7 9.4 9.0
600 509.1 512.7 565.1 568.9 593.3 598.7 722.7 728.6 206.0 206.3 36.3 36.8 53.5 54.4 9.1 9.3
650 492.3 489.7 540.7 535.5 567.4 563.3 714.5 712.8 219.1 211.4 37.6 40.2 55.8 56.8 10.1 9.4
700 476.0 460.9 516.1 501.9 538.5 526.6 706.7 702.9 217.5 205.5 40.6 42.6 58.2 59.5 11.6 7.9
750 462.4 429.7 493.6 464.1 514.6 486.6 702.9 683.8 222.4 209.5 42.7 45.1 60.6 63.4 12.7 9.1
800 431.8 423.1 463.3 455.1 485.9 479.0 691.2 687.6 206.1 214.5 46.2 46.2 62.7 63.7 12.7 9.0
850 415.5 413.7 444.9 446.3 466.9 464.4 682.6 684.3 212.4 206.1 46.2 49.9 64.2 64.5 13.0 9.8
900 411.8 393.8 443.4 433.8 464.2 459.2 688.5 667.9 207.5 191.1 48.0 48.2 64.8 61.8 13.7 8.7
1 Table 3. Revised stress−strain model for stainless steel bolts after exposure to elevated temperatures.

Expression Bolt type Equation number

9 9
<+
⎧ 0.002 : ; 9≤
⎪
⎪
(8a)
9% 9%
>+
, = 0.002 ,-= : ; '9≤
⎨ - %
-
⎪
(8b)

⎪ 9% B
,- 3,? % ,- 4 @ A
-
⎩ ? % - ? ≤9' -
(8c)

=
1 0.0021 /
(9)

C =1 3.53 / - 4 (10)
%
,-= = ,- % 0.002 % %
-
(11)

- % ?
E= E≤1
? 3,? % ,- 4
(12)

=1 20 ≤ ≤ 900℃ (1)

1.0 20 ≤ ≤ 100℃
= 0.943 0.57 " /1000 100 ' ≤ 400℃
(2)

1.459 % 0.72 " /1000 400 ' ≤ 900℃

for A2-70

1.0 20 ≤ ≤ 100℃
= 0.932 0.68 " /1000 100 ' ≤ 500℃
1.702 % 0.86 " /1000 500 ' ≤ 900℃
for A4-70 (3)

=1 20 ≤ ≤ 900℃
)*+
- )*
(4)

= 1.1 " 1.0

F*+ G
F* HIIII
20 ≤ ≤ 900℃ for A2-70 (5)

,-
,- 1.0 % 6.81 " . " 10/0 20 ≤ ≤ 500℃
=
,- 1.24 " 0.21 500 ' ≤ 900℃
1000
for A4-70 (6)

1 ≤ 500 ℃
1
1 = 1 2.5 " 10/2 3 % 5004 500 ' ≤ 800 ℃
1
1.75 800 ' ≤ 900 ℃
(7)

1.8,- ,- ≤ 0.18
,? ,? = J
0.324 0.853,- % 0.184 ,- K 0.18
(13)

? ? = 0.04 20 ≤ ≤ 900℃ (14)

= 0.47 0.84 " 3 % 14 20 ≤ ≤ 900℃

? -
?
for A2-70 (15)

= 0.41 0.71 " 3 % 14 20 ≤ ≤ 900℃

? -
for A4-70 (16)

2
 3 Figures

(a) (b)

6 Fig. 1. Stainless steel bolts (unit: mm): (a) A2-70 fully threaded; (b) A4-70 partially threaded.

9 Fig. 2. Typical steel coupon (unit: mm).

Soak time
Heating (25min)
Cooling

1000 ts
o
T=900 C
Cooling in water
800 o Cooling in air
T=700 C
T ( C)

600 o
T=500 C
o

400 o
T=200 C

200 o
T=100 C

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
10 Time (min)

11 (a) (b)

12 Fig. 3. Experimental setup: (a) Installed coupon; (b) Temperature-time curve.

23
13

14 (a) A2-70 (b) A4-70

15 Fig. 4. Stainless steel bolts after heating and cooling down to room temperature.

o o
700 600 C 700 500 C
o
200 C
600 600 o
o
800 C o 700 C
900 C

Stress (MPa)
o
Stress (MPa)

500 20 C 500
o
100 C

400 400 o
300 C
o
400 C
300 300

200 200

100 100
Cooling in air (CIA) Cooling in air (CIA)
0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
16 Strain Strain
17 (a) (b)
o o
700 o o 700 300 C 700 C
400 C 600 C
o
600 500 C
600 o
20 C o
Stress (MPa)

900 C
Stress (MPa)

500 800 C
o o 500
200 C o
100 C
400 400

300 300

200 200

100 100

Cooling in water (CIW) Cooling in water (CIW)

0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
18 Strain Strain

19 (c) (d)
20 Fig. 5. Stress-strain curves of grade A2-70 stainless steel bolts.

21

24
22

23

24

25

26

700 700
o
600 o
800 C 600
20 C o
600 C
o
o 100 C

Stress (MPa)
200 C
Stress (MPa)

o
500 500 700 C
o
o
300 C
400 400 C 400 o
900 C
300 300 o
500 C

200 200

100 100
Cooling in air (CIA) Cooling in air (CIA)
0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
27 Strain Strain

28 (a) (b)
o
700 600 C 700
o
800 C o
600 o 600 900 C
400 C
o
500 C
Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)

500 200 C
o o
20 C 500

400 400
o o
300 C 700 C
300 300
o
100 C
200 200

100 100
Cooling in water (CIW) Cooling in water (CIW)
0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
29 Strain Strain

30 (c) (d)
31 Fig. 6. Stress-strain curves of grade A4-70 stainless steel bolts.

25
 Stress Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

ΕfΤ

fuT
ΕsΤ B 1
ΕyΤ f2.0T
1
f1.0T ffT C
1

fyT
A Fracture point

f0.01T
O
0.01% 0.2%
ε1.0Τ ε2.0Τ εuΤ εfΤ Strain
32

33 Fig. 7. Key parameters to define a full-range stress-strain curve (modified from Tao et al. [7]).

34

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2
EsT /Es

1.0

0.8

0.6 A2-70 CIA

A2-70 CIW
0.4 A4-70 CIA
A4-70 CIW
0.2 Eq. (1)
Structural austenitic stainless steel [7]
0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
35 T (oC)

36 Fig. 8. Variation of Young’s modulus with temperature.

26
 1.4
700
1.3 Increased by 28%
600 f0.2 T
1.2

Stress (MPa)
fyT /fy=1 500
fyT /fy 1.1 f0.2

1.0
400

0.9 300
A2-70 CIA
A2-70 CIW
0.8 A4-70 CIA 200
A4-70 CIW o
Eq. (2) for A2-70
T=20 C
0.7 100 o
Eq. (3) for A4-70 T=500 C
Structural austenitic stainless steel [7]
0.6 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
37 T (oC) Strain (%)

38 (a) (b)

39 Fig. 9. fyT after exposure to elevated temperatures: (a) Variation of fyT with temperature; (b) Comparison of initial σ−ε curves.

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.0
fuT /fu

0.9

0.8
A2-70 CIA
A2-70 CIW
0.7
A4-70 CIA
A4-70 CIW
0.6 Eq. (4)
Structural austenitic stainless steel [7]
0.5
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
40 T (oC)

41 Fig. 10. Variation of ultimate strength with temperature.

27
 1.8
A2-70 CIA
A2-70 CIW
1.6 A4-70 CIA
A4-70 CIW
Eq. (5) for A2-70
1.4 Eq. (6) for A4-70
Proposed model in [7]

εuT /εu
1.2

1.0

0.8
εuT /εu=1.0

0.6

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

42 T (oC)

43 Fig. 11. Variation of ultimate strain with temperature.

4.0
A2-70 CIA
A2-70 CIW
3.5
A4-70 CIA
3.0 A4-70 CIW
Structural austenitic stainless steel [7]
2.5
nT/n

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5 Eq. (7)

0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Τ ( C)
o
44

45 Fig. 12. Variation of strain hardening exponent with temperature.

46

47

48

49

50

28
 O
O
300 C
1.0 600 C 1.2

1.0
Normalized stress
O O
20 C 900 C
0.8 O
20 C O
300 C
0.8
0.6

ΕsT /Εs
O
600 C
0.6

0.4 A2-70 (Averaged)

O
900 C 0.4 A4-70 (Averaged)
8.8 CIA [1]
8.8 CIA [33]
0.2 0.2 8.8 CIW [33]
Stainless steel bolts 10.9 CIA [33]
Carbon steel bolts [31] 10.9 CIW [33]
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
51 Strain T (oC)

52 (a) (b)

1.2 1.2

1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8
A2-70 (Averaged)
f0.2T /f0.2

fuT /fu
A4-70 (Averaged)
0.6 A2-70 (Averaged) 0.6 8.8 CIA [1]
A4-70 (Averaged) 8.8 CIA [33]
8.8 CIA [1] 8.8 CIW [33]
0.4 8.8 CIA [33] 0.4 10.9 CIA [33]
8.8 CIW [33] 10.9 CIW [33]
10.9 CIA [33] 10.9-SCM435 Cooled in the furnace [31]
0.2 10.9 CIW [33] 0.2 10.9-10B21 Cooled in the furnace [31]
10.9-SCM435 Cooled in the furnace [31] A325 CIA [32]
10.9-SAE10B21 Cooled in the furnace [31] A490 CIA [32]
0.0 0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
53
T (oC) T (oC)

54 (c) (d)

55 Fig. 13. Comparison between stainless and carbon steel bolts: (a) stress-strain curves; (b) Young’s modulus; (c) yield stress; (d)
56 ultimate strength.

29
 O O
1.6
20 C 700 C
1.0 O
850 C 1.4
Hot-rolled
O
20 C 1.2

Normalized stress
0.8
O
700 C
1.0

f0.2T / f0.2
0.6
850 C
O 0.8

0.4 0.6

0.4
A2-70 (Averaged)
0.2 A4-70 (Averaged)
0.2
Stainless steel bolts Hot-rolled stainless steel rebars [30] Cold-worked
Cold-worked stainless steel rebars [30] Cold-worked stainless steel rebars [30]
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
57 Strain T (oC)

58 (a) (b)

1.6
2.8 A2-70 (Averaged)
1.4 A4-70 (Averaged)
Hot-rolled Hot-rolled stainless steel rebars [30]
2.4
Cold-worked stainless steel rebars [30]
1.2
2.0 Cold-worked
1.0
fuT / fu

εuT /εu
1.6
0.8
1.2
0.6

0.4 Cold-worked 0.8

A2-70 (Averaged)
A4-70 (Averaged) Hot-rolled
0.2 0.4
Hot-rolled stainless steel rebars [30]
Cold-worked stainless steel rebars [30]
0.0 0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
o
59
T ( C) T (oC)

60 (c) (d)

61 Fig. 14. Comparison between stainless steel bolts and rebars: (a) stress-strain curves; (b) yield stress; (c) ultimate strength; (d)
62 ultimate strain.

30
 0.8 0.10
A2-70 CIA
0.7 A2-70 CIW
A4-70 CIA
0.08
0.6 A4-70 CIW
Eq. (14)
0.5
0.06

EfT /EsT
εfT

0.4 Eq. (13)

0.3 0.04
A2-70 CIA
0.2 A2-70 CIW
A4-70 CIA 0.02
0.1 A4-70 CIW
Structural austenitic stainless steel [7]
0.0 0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
εuT T (oC)
63

64 (a) (b)

1.3
A2-70 CIA
A2-70 CIW
1.2 A4-70 CIA
A4-70 CIW
1.1 Eq. (15) for A2-70
Eq. (16) for A4-70
ffT /fyT

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6
1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2
fuT /fyT
65

66 (c)

67 Fig. 15. Determining parameters at the fracture point: (a) ƐfT ; (b) EfT; (c) ffT.

31
 800 800

700 700

600 600

500 500
Stress (MPa)

Stress (MPa)
400 400

300 Es=189.1GPa ; fy =434.0MPa; fu=694.8MPa 300 Es=189.1GPa ; fy =434.0MPa; fu=694.8MPa

n=9.5; εu=0.485 n=9.5; εu=0.485
200 200
Predicted Predicted
100 o
Test (T=20 C, CIA) 100 o
Test (T=300 C, CIA)
o o
Test (T=20 C, CIW) Test (T=300 C, CIW)
0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
68 Strain Strain

69 (a) (b)
800
700
700
600
600
500
500

Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)

400
400
Es=189.1GPa ; fy =434.0MPa; fu=694.8MPa Es=189.1GPa ; fy =434.0MPa; fu=694.8MPa
300
300
n=9.5; εu=0.485 n=9.5; εu=0.485
200 200
Predicted Predicted
100 o 100 o
Test (T=600 C, CIA) Test (T=900 C, CIA)
o o
Test (T=600 C, CIW) Test (T=900 C, CIW)
0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
70 Strain Strain
71 (c) (d)

72 Fig. 16. Comparison of predicted stress-strain curves with typical measured curves for A2-70.

73

74

75

76

32
 800 800

700 700

600 600

Stress (MPa) 500 500

Stress (MPa)
400 400

300 Es=209.1GPa ; fy =429.5MPa; fu=716.3MPa 300 Es=209.1GPa ; fy =429.5MPa; fu=716.3MPa

n=5.8; εu=0.365 n=5.8; εu=0.365
200 200
Predicted Predicted
100 o
Test (T=20 C, CIA) 100 o
Test (T=300 C, CIA)
o o
Test (T=20 C, CIW) Test (T=300 C, CIW)
0 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
77 Strain Strain

78 (a) (b)

800 800

700 700

600 600

500 500

Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)

400 400
Es=209.1GPa ; fy =429.5MPa; fu=716.3MPa Es=209.1GPa ; fy =429.5MPa; fu=716.3MPa
300 300
n=5.8; εu=0.365 n=5.8; εu=0.365
200 200
Predicted Predicted
100 o 100 o
Test (T=600 C, CIA) Test (T=900 C, CIA)
o o
0
Test (T=600 C, CIW) 0
Test (T=900 C, CIW)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
79 Strain Strain

80 (c) (d)

81 Fig. 17. Comparison of predicted stress-strain curves with typical measured curves for A4-70.

33

View publication stats