Thin-Walled Structures 54 (2012) 7281

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Thin-Walled Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

Material properties of cold-formed lean duplex stainless steel sections

Yuner Huang, Ben Young n
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, China

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 17 December 2011
Received in revised form
2 February 2012
Accepted 2 February 2012
Available online 4 March 2012

This paper presents the behaviour of cold-formed lean duplex stainless steel for six different sections,
among which two are square hollow sections and four are rectangular hollow sections. The test
specimens were cold-rolled from at strips of lean duplex stainless steel. The material properties of
high strength cold-formed lean duplex stainless steel square and rectangular hollow sections were
determined. Tensile coupons in the at portions and corners of each section were tested. Hence, the
Youngs moduli, 0.2% proof stresses, 1.0% proof stresses, tensile strengths, elongation at fracture and the
RambergOsgood parameter (n) of lean duplex material for each section were measured. The material
properties of the complete cross-sections in the cold-worked state were also obtained from stub
column tests. The initial local geometric imperfections of the six sections were measured, and the
proles of the local imperfections along cross-section were plotted for each section. Residual stresses
were measured for section 150  50  2.5 using the method of sectioning. The membrane and bending
residual stress distributions in the cross-section were obtained and plotted. Furthermore, nite element
model of stub columns was developed and compared well with the test results. The stub column test
strengths were also compared with the design strengths predicted by the American Specication,
Australian/New Zealand Standard and European Code for stainless steel structures. Generally, the three
specications conservatively predicted the column strengths. The European Code provides the most
conservative prediction.
& 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Cold-formed
Finite element model
Lean duplex
Local imperfection
Residual stress
Stainless steel
Stub column test
Tensile coupon test

1. Introduction
Stainless steel sections have been increasingly used in architectural and structural applications, due to their aesthetic appearance, superior corrosion resistance, ease of maintenance and ease
of construction. Currently, most of the stainless steel structures
are made of austenitic and ferritic stainless steel. However, the
lean duplex stainless steel has been developed and becoming an
attractive choice for application in construction projects, due to
its superior structural performance and the comparable corrosion
resistance compared to austenitic type of stainless steel. In
addition, the low Nickel content in lean duplex makes it more
economical, considering the high cost of Nickel. The lean duplex
stainless steel material of type EN 1.4162 (LDX2101) with the
Nickel composition around 1.5% has been investigated in this
study. The lean duplex material is relatively new in civil engineering application, and investigation on the behaviour is limited.
Hence, it is not covered in the American Specication (ASCE) [1],
Australian/New Zealand Standard (AS/NZS) [2] and European
Code (EC3) [3].

Corresponding author. Tel.: 852 2859 2674; fax: 852 2559 5337.
E-mail address: young@hku.hk (B. Young).

0263-8231/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tws.2012.02.003

Young and Lui [4] investigated the behaviour of cold-formed

high strength austenitic and duplex stainless steel of square
hollow sections (SHS) and rectangular hollow sections (RHS).
Tensile coupon tests, residual stress measurements and stub
column tests were conducted to obtain the material properties
of the test specimens. The initial local geometric imperfections of
the specimens were also measured. It was shown that the ASCE
[1], AS/NZS [2] and EC3 [3] are generally conservative for coldformed high strength stainless steel stub columns. Theofanous
and Gardner [5] carried out material tests on lean duplex stainless
steel, including tensile and compressive coupon tests at at and
corner portions of SHS and RHS. Gardner and Nethercot [6]
conducted a series of tensile and compressive coupon tests as
well as stub column tests on austenitic stainless steel type EN
1.4301 cold-formed SHS, RHS and circular hollow sections (CHS).
A stressstrain model predicting corner material properties based
on at material properties was proposed. It was also found that
EC3 is conservative in predicting cross-section compression
strength, especially for stocky columns, while the proposed
method by Gardner and Nethercot [6] provides better and less
scatter predictions. Chen and Young [7] conducted a series of
coupon tests on duplex and austenitic stainless steel types EN
1.4462 and EN 1.4301 at elevated temperatures. The coupons
were tested under steady state and transient state methods.

Y. Huang, B. Young / Thin-Walled Structures 54 (2012) 7281

ro
t

Notation
A
Ae
B
beff
COV
D
D
Eo
Eo,c
Eo,f
Et
fn
k
L
le
n
PASCE

PAS/NZS

PEC3

PExp
PFEA
ri

gross area
effective area
overall width of specimen
effective width
Coefcient of variation
overall depth of specimen
distance from the weld along cross-section
initial Youngs modulus
initial Youngs modulus obtained from corner
coupon test
initial Youngs modulus obtained from at
coupon test
tangent modulus
buckling stress in Australian/New Zealand Standard
effective length factor
length of specimen
effective length of specimen
RambergOsgood parameter
unfactored design strengths (nominal strength) calculated using material properties obtained from tensile coupon tests for American Specication
unfactored design strengths calculated using material
properties obtained from tensile coupon tests for
Australian/New Zealand Standard
unfactored design strengths calculated using material
properties obtained from tensile coupon tests for
European Code
experimental ultimate load (test strength)
ultimate load calculated from nite element analysis
inner corner radius of specimen

A unied equation for yield strength, elastic modulus, ultimate

strength and ultimate strain at elevated temperatures was proposed. Furthermore, a stressstrain model was also proposed and
the stressstrain model accurately predicted the test results.
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the behaviour of
cold-formed lean duplex stainless steel square and rectangular
hollow sections. The material properties of the test specimens
were investigated by carrying out tensile coupon tests. Hence, the
Youngs modulus, 0.2% proof stress, 1.0% proof stress and tensile
strength of lean duplex material for each section were obtained.
The material properties of the complete cross-section in the coldworked state were also obtained from stub column tests. The
initial local geometric imperfections of the sections were also
measured, and the proles of the local imperfections were plotted
for each section. Residual stresses induced in the cold-forming
process were measured using the method of sectioning. The
membrane and bending residual stress distributions in the
cross-section of the specimen were obtained and plotted. Finite
element model was developed to simulate the stub column tests

a
b

e
ef
etrue,pl
lo
l1

r
s
snominal
strue
su
su,c
su,f
su,mill
s0.2
s0.2,c
s0.2,f
s0.2,mill
s1.0
s1.0,c
s1.0,f
s1.0,mill

73

outer corner radius of specimen

thickness of specimen
coefcient of buckling stress in Australian/New Zealand Standard
coefcient of buckling stress in Australian/New Zealand Standard
tensile strain
tensile strain after fracture based on gauge length of
25 mm
plastic true strain
coefcient of buckling stress in Australian/New Zealand Standard
coefcient of buckling stress in Australian/New Zealand Standard
value in calculating effective area in American Specication, Australian/New Zealand Standard and
European Code
tensile stress
nominal stress
true stress
static tensile strength
static tensile strength at corner
static tensile strength in at portion
tensile strength stated in mill certicate
static 0.2% tensile proof stress
static 0.2% tensile proof stress at corner
static 0.2% tensile proof stress in at portion
0.2% tensile proof stress stated in mill certicate
static 1.0% tensile proof stress
static 1.0% tensile proof stress at corner
static 1.0% tensile proof stress in at portion
1.0% tensile proof stress stated in mill certicates.

and the numerical results were veried with the test results.
Furthermore, the stub column test strengths were compared with
the design strengths predicted by the American Specication [1],
Australian/New Zealand Standard [2] and European Code [3].

2. Test specimens
The tests were carried out on two square hollow sections (SHS)
and four rectangular hollow sections (RHS) of lean duplex stainless steel type EN 1.4162. The test specimens were cold-rolled
from at strips and the nominal 0.2% proof stress is 450 MPa [8].
The chemical composition of the test specimens obtained from
mill certicates is summarised in Table 1. It should be noted that
the Nickel (Ni) content of 1.5% to 1.6% in the lean duplex stainless
steel test specimens is much lower than the duplex stainless steel
type EN 1.4362 with 4.8% and Austenitic stainless steel type EN
1.4301 with 8.3% [8]. One stub column was compressed between
xed ends for each section. The nominal lengths of the stub

Table 1
Chemical composition of lean duplex stainless steel type EN 1.4162 specimens.
Section

C (%)

Si (%)

Mn (%)

P (%)

S (%)

Cr (%)

Ni (%)

Mo (%)

Cu (%)

N (%)

50  30  2.5
50  50  1.5
50  50  2.5
70  50  2.5
100  50  2.5
150  50  2.5

0.020
0.019
0.032
0.022
0.022
0.032

0.72
0.66
0.65
0.69
0.69
0.65

4.88
4.91
5.01
4.93
4.93
5.01

0.023
0.021
0.020
0.022
0.022
0.020

0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001

21.4
21.3
21.5
21.4
21.4
21.5

1.6
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6

0.21
0.38
0.21
0.30
0.30
0.21

0.31
0.28
0.21
0.30
0.30
0.21

0.220
0.226
0.220
0.221
0.221
0.220

74

Y. Huang, B. Young / Thin-Walled Structures 54 (2012) 7281

columns are 150, 150, 150, 210, 300 and 450 mm for specimens
with nominal cross-section dimensions 50  30  2.5, 50  50 
1.5, 50  50  2.5, 70  50  2.5, 100  50  2.5 and 150  50  2.5,
respectively. The measured cross-section dimensions of the test
specimens, which were the average measured values at both ends
of each specimen, are shown in Table 2 using the nomenclature
dened in Fig. 1. The test specimens were supplied by the
manufacturer in un-cut lengths of 6000 mm. Each specimen was
cut to a specied length. Both ends of the specimens were milled
at and then welded to 20 mm thick steel end plates for testing.

For each side of the cross-sections, local geometric imperfections

were assumed to be zero at the corners, and the vertical distance of
the at portions relative to the corners were measured as the
geometric imperfection. Readings were taken at 2 mm intervals
across the cross-sections. The convex proles are indicated by positive
values and the concave proles as negative values. The measured
local geometric imperfection proles of the six sections are shown in
Figs. 38. The vertical axis plotted the measured local imperfections
and the horizontal axis plotted the location in cross-section of
the specimens. The maximum measured initial local geometric

3. Geometric imperfection measurements

Initial local geometric imperfections of specimens were measured
for each section. The measurements were obtained at mid-length of
the specimens using dial gauge with an accuracy of 0.001 mm. Fig. 2
shows the setup of the local geometric imperfection measurement.
Table 2
Measured specimen dimensions.
Specimen Depth Width Thickness
D (mm) B (mm) t (mm)

Inner
Length Area A
Outer
radius ro radius ri L (mm) (mm2)
(mm)
(mm)

SC1L150
SC2L150
SC3L150
SC4L210
SC5L300
SC6L450

5.0
3.0
3.2
4.0
3.3
4.3

50.2
50.5
50.3
70.4
100.1
150.0

30.3
50.5
49.7
50.8
50.9
50.2

2.557
1.493
2.487
2.523
2.510
2.463

1.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
2.0

150.0
150.0
150.0
210.0
300.1
450.0

364.3
285.4
458.6
570.3
718.0
944.8

Fig. 3. Measured local geometric imperfection proles of section 50  30  2.5.

Max. imperfection = 0.310 mm

b
c

h
g

d
e

f
weld

Fig. 1. Denition of symbols and location of tensile coupon in cross-section.

bc

de

fg

Fig. 4. Measured local geometric imperfection proles of section 50  50  1.5.

Max. imperfection = 0.101 m

b
c

h
g

d
e

f
weld

Fig. 2. Setup of local geometric imperfection measurement.

bc

de

fg

Fig. 5. Measured local geometric imperfection proles of section 50  50  2.5.

Y. Huang, B. Young / Thin-Walled Structures 54 (2012) 7281

Max. imperfection = 0.226 m

b
c

h
weld
g

d
e

f g

de

bc

Fig. 6. Measured local geometric imperfection proles of section 70  50  2.5.

h
weld
g

de

bc

Max. imperfection = 0.348 m

c
d
f

fg

75

sectioning, and the strains were converted to residual stresses.

The at portion of the specimen was marked into strips of 10 mm
widths, and the strain gauges of 3 mm gauge lengths were
attached around half of the cross-section, as shown in Fig. 9(a).
The seamless weld was located in the middle of the ange of the
section. Therefore, the residual stress distribution is assumed to
be symmetric in half of the section.
The initial readings before cutting the specimen were recorded
for each strip on both outer and inner surfaces. The specimen was
then cut into strips using a GF Agie Charmilles wire cut machine
with an accuracy of 0.005 mm. The specimen was cut by a wirecutting method under water to eliminate any additional stresses
resulting from the cutting process, as shown in Fig. 9(b). After
cutting, the residual strains were then measured on both outer
and inner surfaces of each strip. However, strain gauges cannot be
attached on the inner surfaces of corners, due to the small inner
corner radius. Therefore, residual stresses at the corners are not
plotted in Figs. 10 and 11. The differences in longitudinal strains
in each strip before and after cutting were converted to residual
stresses by multiplying the measured Youngs modulus. The
membrane and bending residual stresses were calculated as the
average and difference in residual stress measurements on the

Fig. 7. Measured local geometric imperfection proles of section 100  50  2.5.

Max. imperfection = 0.679 mm

b
c

h
weld
g

d
e

bc

de

fg

Fig. 9. Residual stress measurements. (a) Strain gauges attached on specimen and
(b) wire-cutting method under water.

200
Fig. 8. Measured local geometric imperfection proles of section 150  50  2.5.

150

imperfections were 0.066, 0.310, 0.101, 0.226, 0.348, and 0.679 mm

for 50  30  2.5, 50  50  1.5, 50  50  2.5, 50  70  2.5, 100 
50  2.5, and 150  50  2.5 specimens, respectively.

4. Residual stress measurements

Stress,  (MPa)

100
50

-50

20

40

60

80

100

120

-100
-150

Residual stresses are induced in the specimens during the

cold-forming process. The magnitudes and distributions of the
residual stresses for the cold-formed lean duplex stainless steel
sections were measured. The residual stress measurements were
conducted on a 150  50  2.5 specimen of 300 mm length. The
longitudinal residual strains were measured by the method of

-200

140

160

180

200

f g
e
d weld
c
b a

-250
Distance, d (mm)
Fig. 10. Measured membrane residual stress distributions in cold-formed lean
duplex stainless steel rectangular hollow section 150  50  2.5.

76

Y. Huang, B. Young / Thin-Walled Structures 54 (2012) 7281

outer and inner surfaces, respectively. The negative value of

membrane stress indicates a compressive stress in the specimen,
and the negative value of bending stress indicates a higher tensile
residual strain at the inner surface of the cross-section. The
maximum membrane and bending residual stresses of the specimen are 32.5% and 60.8% of the measured 0.2% proof stress,
respectively. Figs. 10 and 11 show the measured membrane and
bending residual stresses distributions in the cross-section of the
RHS 150  50  2.5 specimen, respectively.

5. Tensile coupon tests

5.1. General
Tensile coupon tests were conducted to determine the material properties of the test specimens. Longitudinal tensile coupons, which are extracted from the untested specimens belong to
the same batch of the stub column specimens, were tested for
each section. The tested coupons were taken from both at
portions and corners of the cold-formed lean duplex stainless
steel specimens. The material properties of the coupons including

450

400

Stress,  (MPa)

350
300

c
a

250
g

200
f g

150
100

e
d weld
c
ba

50
0
0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140

Distance, d (mm)

160

180

200

Fig. 11. Measured bending residual stress distributions in cold-formed lean

duplex stainless steel rectangular hollow section 150  50  2.5.

the static 0.2% proof stress (s0.2), static 1.0% proof stress (s1.0),
static ultimate tensile strength (su), initial Youngs modulus (Eo)
and elongation at fracture (ef) of a gauge length of 25 mm were
measured. Stressstrain curves obtained from the tensile coupon
tests were plotted for each section, and the RambergOsgood
parameter (n) using the RambergOsgood expression n ln(0.01/
0.2)/ln(s0.01/s0.2) were calculated.
5.2. Flat coupon tests
The at coupons were taken from the centre of the face at 901
angle from the weld for all specimens. The location of the at
coupons extracted from the sections is shown in Fig. 1. The at
coupons were extracted from the web of RHS. The dimensions of
at coupons conformed to the Australian Standard AS 1391 [9]
and the American Standard ASTM E 8M [10] for the tensile testing
of metals using a 6 mm wide coupon and a gauge length of
25 mm.
An MTS testing machine was used in the tests. The calibrated
extensometer of 25 mm gauge length was mounted onto the
specimens by three-point contact knife edges to measure the
longitudinal strain during the tests. Two linear strain gauges were
attached at mid-length to the centre of both faces of each coupon
to determinate the initial Youngs modulus. Tensile load was
applied to the specimens with the loading rate of 0.04 mm/min in
the elastic range and 0.8 mm/min in the plastic range of the
stressstrain curves. The strain rate of the tests measured by the
extensometer conformed to the Australian Standard AS 1391 [9]
and the American Standard ASTM E 8M [10]. To eliminate the
effect of loading rate during the tests, the static stressstrain
curves were obtained by pausing the applied straining for 1.5 min
near the 0.2% proof stress, the ultimate tensile strength and postultimate strength. Necking effect at the mid-length of coupons
was observed in each specimen, as shown in Fig. 12(a).
The measured material properties are summarised in Table 3.
It is shown that the static 0.2% proof stress (s0.2,f) ranged from
610 to 683 MPa, the 1.0% proof stresses (s1.0,f) from 648 to
766 MPa and the ultimate tensile strength (su,f) ranged from
727 to 788 MPa. The RambergOsgood parameter (n) ranged from
4 to 8. The test specimens elongated by 35 to 49% of 25 mm gauge
length at fracture. The nominal 0.2% proof stress (snominal) of

Fig. 12. Setup of tensile coupon tests. (a) Flat coupon test and (b) corner coupon test.

Y. Huang, B. Young / Thin-Walled Structures 54 (2012) 7281

Table 3
Coupon test results obtained from at coupons.
Section

50  30  2.5
50  50  1.5
50  50  2.5
70  50  2.5
100  50  2.5
150  50  2.5

s0.2,f

s1.0,f

su,f

(MPa)

(MPa)

Eo,f
(GPa)

(MPa)
683
610
635
613
625
664

732
648
694
652
660
766

764
734
756
738
727
788

198
194
198
194
200
202

7
5
6
8
6
4

(%)

s0:2,f
snominal

39
44
44
44
49
35

1.52
1.36
1.41
1.36
1.39
1.48

ef

900
800

600
500
400

50302.5

distance of 20 mm from both ends of the coupons and the

coupons were tested between two pins, so that the coupons were
loaded through the centroid, as shown in Fig. 12(b).
The corner coupons were tested using the same MTS testing
machine as the at coupons. The same method of testing as the
at coupon tests was adopted, except the three-point contact
knife edges of the extensometer were replaced by a standard
knife edge mounted onto the curved specimens. Similar to the at
coupon tests, static stressstrain curves were obtained by pausing
the applied straining during testing. The measured material
properties are summarised in Table 4. It is shown that the 0.2%
proof stress (s0.2,c) ranged from 788 to 882 MPa, the 1.0% proof
stress (s1.0,c) from 953 to 1053 MPa and the ultimate tensile
strength (su,c) from 967 to 1079 MPa. The RambergOsgood
parameter (n) ranged from 4 to 6. The test specimens elongated
by 15 to 22% of 25 mm gauge length at fracture. The static stress
strain curves for the six sections are shown in Fig. 14. To
investigate the strength enhancement effect due to cold-working,
the static 0.2% and 1.0% proof stresses as well as the ultimate
tensile strength (su) of the at and corner coupons are compared
in Table 5. The 0.2% proof stress (s0.2) was increased by 15 to 41%,

50501.5

300

50502.5

200

70502.5
100502.5

100

Table 4
Coupon test results obtained from corner coupons.

150502.5

0
0

10

20

30
Strain, (%)

40

50

60

Fig. 13. Static stressstrain curves obtained from tensile coupon tests in at
portions.

450 MPa was compared with the measured 0.2% proof stress
(s0.2) of the specimens, as shown in Table 3. The measured 0.2%
proof stresses are approximately 40% larger than the nominal
values. The static stressstrain curves for the six sections are
shown in Fig. 13. The measured 0.2% and 1.0% proof stresses as
well as ultimate tensile strengths obtained from at coupon tests
were compared with the corresponding values given in the mill
certicates, as summarised in Table 5. The measured values of
0.2% and 1.0% proof stresses are larger than those stated in mill
certicates for all specimens. The 0.2% and 1.0% proof stresses
obtained from the at coupon tests ranged from 1 to 26% and 2 to
25% larger than the values shown in the mill certicates, respectively. The ratio of ultimate tensile strengths obtained from at
coupon tests to those values shown in the mill certicates ranged
from 0.93 to 1.02. It should be noted that the material properties
stated in the mill certicates were also obtained by tensile
coupon tests, where coupon specimens were taken from the
transverse direction to the rolling direction of the coil, and the
straining rate of the tensile coupon tests is higher than the
coupon tests reported in this study. However, the at coupon
specimens were taken from the longitudinal direction of the coldformed sections and static stressstrain curves were used to
obtain the material properties in this study.
5.3. Corner coupon tests
The cold-forming process of the cold-formed lean duplex
stainless steel leads to a signicant strength enhancement of
the material properties at the corners compared to the at
portions in the sections. Therefore, coupons obtained from corners of each section were also tested. The corner coupons were
extracted near the welds of the sections as shown in Fig. 1. The
tested corner coupons were 4 mm width and 25 mm gauge
length. Two holes having a diameter of 7 mm were drilled at a

Section

50  30  2.5
50  50  1.5
50  50  2.5
70  50  2.5
100  50  2.5
150  50  2.5

s0.2,c

s1.0,c

su,c

(MPa)

(MPa)

Eo,c
(GPa)

(MPa)
788
824
833
844
882
831

962
995
1053
975
1020
953

975
1012
1079
995
1033
967

192
200
207
200
203
199

4
5
5
5
5
6

ef
(%)
22
15
19
21
17
18

1200

1000

Stress, (MPa)

Stress, (MPa)

700

77

800

600
50302.5

400

50501.5
50502.5
70502.5

200

100502.5
150502.5

0
0

10

Strain, (%)

15

20

25

Fig. 14. Static stressstrain curves obtained from tensile coupon tests at corners.

Table 5
Comparison of experimental results with mill certicates and corner property
with at property.
Section

s0:2,f
s0:2,mill

s1:0,f
s1:0,mill

su,f
su,mill

s0:2,c
s0:2,f

s1:0,c
s1:0,f

su,c
su,f

50  30  2.5
50  50  1.5
50  50  2.5
70  50  2.5
100  50  2.5
150  50  2.5

1.26
1.06
1.01
1.07
1.07
1.05

1.25
1.04
1.02
1.09
1.06
1.13

1.02
0.93
0.94
0.95
0.93
0.98

1.15
1.35
1.31
1.38
1.41
1.25

1.31
1.54
1.52
1.50
1.55
1.24

1.28
1.38
1.43
1.35
1.42
1.23

78

Y. Huang, B. Young / Thin-Walled Structures 54 (2012) 7281

the 1.0% proof stress (s1.0) was increased by 24 to 55%, and the
ultimate tensile strength (su) was increased by 23 to 43%.

900
800

6. Stub column tests

Stub column tests were conducted for each cold-formed lean
duplex stainless steel section to determine the material properties of the complete cross-section in the cold-worked state. A total
of six stub columns were tested which consisted of specimens
SC1L150, SC2L150, SC3L150, SC4L210, SC5L300 and SC6L450. The
specimen lengths of the stub columns were complied with the
Structural Stability Research Council Guidelines [11]. The measured cross-section dimensions and specimen length of the stub
columns are shown in Table 2. The columns were compressed
between xed ends using a hydraulic testing machine, as shown
in Fig. 15. The xed-ended bearings were restrained against the
minor and major axis rotations as well as twist rotations and
warping. Two steel end plates were welded to the ends of each
specimen. The axial strains were obtained by longitudinal strain
gauges attached at the four corners of the stub columns at the
mid-length in order to avoid the effect of local buckling. In
addition, three transducers were used to measure the axial
shortening of the specimens.
A 1000 kN capacity hydraulic testing machine was used to
apply compressive axial force to the stub column specimens.
Displacement control was used to drive the hydraulic actuator at
a constant speed of 0.5 mm/min. The static load was obtained by
pausing the applied straining for 2 min near the 0.2% proof stress,
ultimate strength and post ultimate range of the stub columns.
Table 6 shows the measured material properties obtained from
the stub column tests, which included the static 0.2% proof stress
(s0.2), static ultimate strength (su), initial Youngs modulus (Eo),

Stress, (MPa)

700
600
500
SC1L150

400

SC2L150

300

SC3L150

200

SC4L210

100

SC5L300
SC6L450

0
0

0.5

1
Strain, (%)

1.5

Fig. 16. Static stressstrain curves obtained from stub column tests.

parameter n and failure mode, where L indicates local buckling

and Y indicates material yielding. The average yield strength of
the specimen is the yield stress in the at portion multiplied by
the area of at portion plus corner yield stress multiplied by the
area of corners. In this study, the specimen is regarded as failed by
material yielding when the experimental ultimate load (PExp) is
greater than the average yield strength of the specimen. The static
stressstrain curves obtained from the stub column tests for each
section are plotted in Fig. 16.
In comparison with tensile coupon tests, the stub column tests
included the effect of residual stress and the strength enhancement due to the cold-forming process. For specimens SC2L150,
SC5L300 and SC6L450, the ultimate stresses obtained from the
stub column tests are much smaller than those obtained from
coupon tests due to local buckling failure. It should be noted that
due to local buckling, the 0.2% proof stress (s0.2) of stub column
specimen SC2L150 could not be reached before the ultimate
strength. According to clause 6.3 of the ASCE Specication [1],
the compressive yield stresses shall be taken as either the
maximum compressive strength of the section divided by the
cross-section area or the stress determined by the 0.2% offset
method, whichever is reached rst in the test. Therefore, the
ultimate stress was regarded as the compressive yield stress for
specimen SC2L150. For specimen SC4L210, which is classied as
slender section in EC3 Part 14 [3], the failure was found to be
material yielding. The stub column may be inuenced by local
buckling. Therefore, the ultimate stress of the stub column is
slightly smaller than that of at coupon, although it was failed by
material yielding. For specimens SC1L150 and SC3L150, the
ultimate stresses of stub columns are greater than that of at
coupons, and smaller than that of corner coupons.

7. Finite element model

Fig. 15. Test setup of stub column.

Table 6
Material properties obtained from stub column tests.
Specimen

SC1L150
SC2L150
SC3L150
SC4L210
SC5L300
SC6L450

s0.2

su
(MPa)

Eo
(GPa)

(MPa)

Failure
mode

660
N/A
690
621
545
430

880
515
791
723
548
452

205
194
202
204
207
202

4
4
3
3
4
8

Y
L
Y
Y
L
L

The nite element programme ABAQUS version 6.11 was used

to simulate the stub column tests. The measured geometry, initial
local geometric imperfections and material properties obtained
from tensile coupon tests of at portions and corners were used in
the nite element model. In addition, the measured membrane
residual stress prole was incorporated in the model of specimen
SC6L450.
A four-noded doubly curved shell element with reduced
integration S4R was used to model the SHS and RHS stub
columns. A mesh of size 5 mm  5 mm (length by width) was
adopted in the at portions of the columns. A ner mesh was used
at the corners to ensure the curvature was accurately modelled.

Y. Huang, B. Young / Thin-Walled Structures 54 (2012) 7281

The stub columns were compressed between xed ends. Therefore, the ends of the column were modelled by restraining against
all degrees of freedom, except for the displacement at the loaded
end in the direction of the applied load. The nodes other than the
two ends were free to translate and rotate in any directions. The
load was applied at the two reference points at the middle of the
two ends, which are coupled with the surfaces of the crosssection at both ends. The loading was applied by displacement
control method, which is identical to the stub column tests, by
specifying a displacement of 5 mm. Compressive axial load was
applied to the column by specifying an axial displacement to the
nodes at one end of the column. The loading was applied by a
static RIKS step available in the ABAQUS library. The nonlinear
geometric parameter (*NLGEOM) was included to deal with the
large displacement analysis.
The measured stressstrain curves of at portions and corners
of each section were included in the model. ABAQUS allows for a
multi-linear stressstrain curve to be used. The rst part of the
curve represents the elastic part up to the proportional limit
stress with the measured Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio
was taken as 0.3. In the plastic analysis, the static stressstrain
curve obtained from tensile coupon tests was converted to true
stress and logarithmic true plastic strain curve. The true stress
(strue) and true plastic strain (etrue,pl) were calculated using Eqs.
(1) and (2)

strue s1 e

etrue,pl ln1 e2strue =Eo

where s and e are the measured stress and strain obtained from
tensile coupon tests, respectively. The true plastic stressstrain
curves converted from at coupon test results were input as the
material properties in modelling the at portion of the specimens,
while those converted from the corner coupon test results were
used in the corners of the specimens.
The measured local geometric imperfections were also incorporated in the nite element model. The local buckling mode was
superposed on the stub column model. The local buckling mode
was obtained by carrying out Eigenvalue analyses of the stub
columns with a large D/t ratio, and using the BUCKLE procedure
available in the ABAQUS library with the load applied within the
step. The rst buckling mode predicted by the ABAQUS Eigenvalue analysis are normalised to 1.0, thus the buckling mode was
factored by the measured magnitudes of the initial local geometric imperfections of each section.
The stub column strengths (PFEA) predicted by the nite
element analysis are compared with the test results (PExp), as
shown in Table 7. A maximum difference of 5% was found
between the experimental and numerical results for column
SC4L210. The mean value of PExp/PFEA ratio is 1.04 with the

79

coefcient of variation (COV) of 0.008 are shown in Table 7. The

failure modes predicted by the nite element analysis are identical to the test results. The nite element model is capable of
predicting the local buckling and material yielding failure of the
cold-formed lean duplex stainless steel stub columns. Fig. 17
shows the comparison of the experimental and nite element
analysis failure mode of local buckling of specimen SC6L450. It is
observed that good agreement has been achieved between both
results.
In addition, the measured residual stress prole in the crosssection of 150  50  2.5 was also included in the model of
specimen SC6L450 to investigate the effect of residual stress on
the column strength of cold-formed lean duplex stainless steel
stub columns. It should be noted that the material properties
obtained from the at and corner coupon tests have already taken
account of the bending residual stress effect, hence, only the
membrane residual stress was included in the model. The
measured membrane residual stresses were included in the nite
element model using the ABAQUS (*INITIAL CONDITIONS, TYPESTRESS) parameter. The stub column model was partitioned
into strips of the same widths as those on the specimen for the
residual stress measurements. The residual stress distribution is

Fig. 17. Comparison of experimental and nite element analysis of specimen

SC6L450. (a) Experimental and (b) nite element model.

Table 7
Comparison of stub column strengths obtained from tests, FEA and design predictions.
Specimen

SC1L150
SC2L150
SC3L150
SC4L210
SC5L300
SC6L450

Test

FEA

Comparison

PExp (kN)

Failure mode

le (mm)

PFEA (kN)

Failure mode

P Exp
P ASCE

P Exp
P AS=NZS

PExp
P EC3

P Exp
P FEA

316.1
147.1
362.2
413.2
394.0
428.1

Y
L
Y
Y
L
L

75.0
75.0
75.0
105.0
150.1
225.0

302.6
142.6
347.2
392.2
382.3
412.0

Y
L
Y
Y
L
L
Mean
COV

1.23
0.95
1.23
1.19
1.05
1.06
1.12
0.103

1.26
0.95
1.23
1.22
1.07
1.04
1.13
0.111

1.27
1.12
1.24
1.29
1.17
1.20
1.22
0.053

1.04
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.03
1.04
1.04
0.008

80

Y. Huang, B. Young / Thin-Walled Structures 54 (2012) 7281

500
450
400

Load (kN)

350
300
250
200
150

Test

100

FEA without residual stress

50

FEA with residual stress

0
0

3
4
Displacement (mm)

Fig. 18. Comparison of load-displacement curves of test and FEA for specimen
SC6L450.

assumed to be symmetrical. The specimen SC6L450 had the PExp/

PFEA ratio of 1.03 for the nite element model includes residual
stress compared with the PExp/PFEA ratio of 1.04 for the model
without considering residual stress. It is shown that the nite
element model including residual stress is 1% more accurate than
that without considering residual stress. The load-displacement
curves of the test and nite element analysis of specimen
SC6L450 are shown in Fig. 18. It is shown that the effect of
residual stress on column strength is small.

8. Comparison of stub column test strengths with design

strengths
The unfactored design strengths (nominal strengths) were
calculated using the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
Specication [1] for the design of cold-formed stainless steel
structural members, Australian/New Zealand Standard (AS/NZS)
[2] for cold-formed stainless steel structures and European
Code (EC3) [3]: Design of steel structuresPart 1.4: General
rulesSupplementary rules for stainless steels. In calculating
the design strengths, the effective lengths (le) were taken as half
of the measured specimen lengths for xed-ended column tests,
as shown in Table 7. The effective length factor (k) of xed-ended
column was taken as 0.5. The design strengths were calculated
using the average measured cross-section dimensions and the
measured material properties obtained from the coupon tests in
at portions for each section as detailed in Table 3. It should be
noted that these specications do not cover the material of lean
duplex stainless steel.
In ASCE Specication, the column design rules are detailed in
clause 3.4 of the Specication for concentrically loaded compression members. The tangent modulus (Et) equation as a function of
buckling stress is shown in Appendix B of the ASCE Specication.
This design procedure involves an iterative process. Firstly, a trial
normal stress is assumed and then the tangent modulus is
computed. Based on the calculated tangent modulus, a new
normal stress is obtained until it converges. The effective area
(Ae) is calculated according to clause 2.2.1 of the Specication, and
the corners are assumed to be fully effective.
In AS/NZS Standard, the stub column design strengths were
calculated using the alternative design method given in clause
3.4.2 of the standard. The calculation of buckling stress (fn)
requires the determination of values a, b, lo and l1 according to
the type of materials. It should be noted that the values of lean
duplex material are not covered by the AS/NZS Standard. Therefore, the values of S31803 (duplex) given in Table 3.4.2 of the AS/

NZS Standard were used to calculate the buckling stress. The

calculation of effective areas was based on clause 2.2.1.2 of the
standard. Similarly, the corner areas were considered as fully
effective.
In the European code, the design strengths of stub columns
were calculated based on the resistance of cross-sections in
compression. According to clause 5.1 of EC3 Part 1.4 [3], the
design strengths of stub columns were calculated based on clause
6.2.4 of the EC3 Part 1.1: General rules and rules for buildings
[12]. Section classication of the specimens according to
Table 5.2 of the EC3 Part 1.4 for maximum width-to-thickness
ratios for compression parts are required to calculate the design
strengths. In this study, specimens SC1L150 and SC3L150 were
classied as class 3 sections, whereas specimens SC2L150,
SC4L210, SC5L300 and SC6L450 were classied as class 4 sections.
According to clause 5.2.3 of the EC3 Part 1.4, the effective widths
(beff) were calculated based on EC3 Part 1.5: Plated structural
elements [13], except that the reduction factor (r) was calculated
by Eq. 5.1 of the EC3 Part 1.4 for cold-formed or welded internal
elements.
The stub column test strengths are compared with the unfactored design strengths predicted by the ASCE Specication [1], AS/
NZS Standard [2] and European Code [3] for the stainless steel
structures, as shown in Table 7. The design strengths predicted by
the ASCE, AS/NZS and EC3 Specications are all conservative,
except for specimen SC2L150 predicted by the ASCE Specication
and AS/NZS Standard. The mean values of PExp/PASCE, PExp/PAS/NZS
and PExp/PEC3 ratios are 1.12, 1.13 and 1.22 with the corresponding
coefcients of variation (COV) of 0.103, 0.111 and 0.053, respectively. Generally, the European Code provides the most conservative and less scattered predictions.

9. Conclusions
The behaviour of cold-formed lean duplex stainless steel
sections has been described. Square and rectangular hollow
sections cold-rolled from lean duplex stainless steel were investigated. Initial local geometric imperfections of these sections
were measured and the imperfection proles were presented. The
membrane and bending residual stresses were measured using
the method of sectioning, and the residual stress distributions in
the cross-section of the specimen were plotted. Tensile coupon
tests were conducted in at portion and corner of the crosssection for each section. It is shown that the material properties of
0.2% proof stress and ultimate tensile strength of the corner
coupons increased up to 41% and 43% compared with the at
coupons due to cold-working process, respectively. Stub column
tests were also conducted to determine the material properties of
the complete cross-section in the cold-worked state. Finite element model was developed to simulate the stub column tests. It is
shown that the numerical results compared well with the test
results. Furthermore, the stub column test strengths were compared with the design strengths predicted by the American,
Australian/New Zealand Standard and European specications
for stainless steel structures. It is shown that the design strengths
predicted by the three specications are generally conservative
for the cold-formed lean duplex stainless steel stub columns.

Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to STALA Tube Finland for supplying
the lean duplex stainless steel test specimens. The research work
described in this paper was supported by a grant from The

Y. Huang, B. Young / Thin-Walled Structures 54 (2012) 7281

University of Hong Kong under the seed funding programme for

basic research.

References
[1] ASCE. Specication for the design of cold-formed stainless steel structural
members. SEI/ASCE 8-02; Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers;
2002.
[2] AS/NZS. Cold-formed stainless steel structures. Australian/New Zealand
Standard, AS/NZS 4673:2001. Sydney (Australia): Standards Australia; 2001.
[3] EC3. Design of steel structuresPart 1.4: General rulesSupplementary
rules for stainless steels. European Committee for Standardization, ENV
1993-1-4, CEN, Brussels; 2006.
[4] Young B, Lui WM. Behavior of cold-formed high strength stainless steel
sections. J Struct Eng ASCE 2005;131(11):173845.
[5] Theofanous M, Gardner L. Experimental and numerical studies of lean duplex
stainless steel beams. J Constr Steel Res 2010;66(6):81625.

81

[6] Gardner L, Nethercot DA. Experiments on stainless steel hollow

sectionsPart 1: material and cross-sectional behaviour. J Constr Steel Res
2004;60(9):1291318.
[7] Chen J, Young B. Stress-strain curves for stainless steel at elevated temperatures. Eng Struct 2006;28(2):22939.
[8] Yrjola P. Stainless steel hollow sections handbook. Finnish Constructional
Steelwork Association, Finland, 2008.
[9] AS. Metallic materialstensile testing at ambient temperature. Australian
Standard, AS 1391-2007. Sydney (Australia).Standards Association of Australia; 2007.
[10] ASTM E. 8M. Standard test methods for tension testing for metallic materials.
E 8M-97. West Conshohocken, USA: American Society for Testing and
Materials; 1997.
[11] Galambos TV, editor. Guide to stability design criteria for metal structures.
5th ed.. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.; 1998.
[12] EC3. Design of steel structuresPart 1.1: General rules and rules for
buildings. European Committee for Standardization, ENV 1993-1-1, CEN,
Brussels; 2005.
[13] EC3. Design of steel structuresPart 1.5: Plated structural elements. European Committee for Standardization, ENV 1993-1-5, CEN, Brussels; 2006.