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

net/publication/359501113

Experimental and numerical analyses on axial cyclic behavior of H-section

aluminium alloy members

Article  in  Structural Engineering & Mechanics · February 2022

DOI: 10.12989/sem.2022.81.1.011

CITATIONS READS

0 16

4 authors, including:

Xinquan Chang
Southeast University (China)
2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Xinquan Chang on 11 March 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Structural Engineering and Mechanics, Vol. 81, No. 1 (2022) 11-28
https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2022.81.1.011 11

Experimental and numerical analyses on axial cyclic behavior

of H-section aluminium alloy members
Jinzhi Wu1,2, Jianhua Zheng1, Guojun Sun1,2 and Xinquan Chang1
1
Faculty of Architecture, Civil and Transportation Engineering, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing 100124, PR China
2
The Key Laboratory of Urban Security and Disaster Engineering, MOE, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing 100124, PR China

(Received July 27, 2021, Revised October 6, 2021, Accepted October 9, 2021)

Abstract. This paper considers the combination of cyclic and axial loads to investigate the hysteretic performance of H-
section 6061-T6 aluminum alloy members. The hysteretic performance of aluminum alloy members is the basis for the seismic
performance of aluminum alloy structures. Despite the prevalence of aluminum alloy reticulated shells structures worldwide,
research into the seismic performance of aluminum alloy structures remains inadequate. To address this deficiency, we design
and conduct cyclic axial load testing of three H-section members based on a reliable testing system. The influence of slenderness
ratios and bending direction on the failure form, bearing capacity, and stiffness degradation of each member are analyzed. The
experiment results show that overall buckling dominates the failure mechanism of all test members before local buckling occurs.
As the load increases after overall buckling, the plasticity of the member develops, finally leading to local buckling and fracture
failure. The results illustrate that the plasticity development of the local buckling position is the main reason for the stiffness
degradation and failure of the member. Additionally, with the increase of the slenderness ratio, the energy-dissipation capacity
and stiffness of the member decrease significantly. Simultaneously, a finite element model based on the Chaboche hybrid
strengthening model is established according to the experiment, and the rationality of the constitutive model and validity of the
finite element simulation method are verified. The parameter analysis of twenty-four members with different sections,
slenderness ratios, bending directions, and boundary conditions are also carried out. Results show that the section size and
boundary condition of the member have a significant influence on stiffness degradation and energy dissipation capacity. Based
on the above, the appropriate material constitutive relationship and analysis method of H-section aluminum alloy members
under cyclic loading are determined, providing a reference for the seismic design of aluminum alloy structures.
Keywords: axial cyclic loading; H-section member aluminum alloy member; hysteretic performance; numerical
analysis; seismic analysis

1. Introduction Chapuis and Galambos 1982). Most of the research on

Aluminum alloy has a low mass weight, high strength to
weight ratio, good plasticity and aesthetic, low-temperature
performance, excellent corrosion resistance, and is non-
magnetic. Due to these significant advantages, it is widely
used as a favorable material in structural engineering,
including in spatial structures and buckling-resistance
braces (Liu and Li 2016, Wang and Usami 2013). Over
the past decades, extensive analytical, numerical, and
experimental investigations on the performance of
aluminum alloy members have been reported in the
literature.
In foreign countries, the research and application of
aluminum alloy structures commenced in the late 1980s. In
the last century, the United States and Europe have
promulgated the design specifications of aluminum alloy
structures (Specification for Aluminum Structures 1976,
ECCS 1978). Numerous studies have since been conducted
across the globe to study the behavior of aluminum alloy
members under compression (Hill et al. 1956, Clark 1955,
Corresponding author, Associate Professor
E-mail: sunguojun@bjut.edu.cn
Copyright © 2022 Techno-Press, Ltd.
http://www.techno-press.com/journals/sem&subpage=7
aluminum alloy members is focused on one-way load-
bearing capacity. In order to quickly estimate the bearing
capacity of circular tube members in aluminum alloy grids,
the buckling behavior over the post buckling regions is
investigated experimentally by Hiyama et al. (2000) using
aluminum alloy specimen with various slenderness ratios.
Based on the experiments, they demonstrated the
effectiveness of a simplified analysis method for calculating
the ultimate strength using an equivalent slenderness ratio
for the members. Meng and Gao (2012) conducted an axial
compression experiment on 6061-T6 aluminum alloy
members with a circular section, finding that members with
a bolt ball hinge in the truss structure could be regarded as
hinging at both ends and that the critical buckling bearing
capacity of the members increased with the increase of wall
thickness. A series of axial compression experiments of
small-diameter thin-walled circular section aluminum alloy
members made of 6063-T5 and 6061-T6 were conducted by
Zhu and Young (2006) at the University of Hong Kong. The
results showed that constraints at both ends of the members
played a decisive role in buckling bearing capacity.
Following experiments on 63 profiled 6061-T6 aluminum
alloy members under axial compression, Guo et al. (2015)
obtained a fitting method based on the least square method
ISSN: 1225-4568 (Print), 1598-6217 (Online)
12 Jinzhi Wu, Jianhua Zheng, Guojun Sun and Xinquan Chang
according to 213 experimental data points, which could be
used for calculating the overall stability coefficient of the
axial compressive aluminum alloy members. Wang et al.
(2016) investigated the stability of aluminum alloy axial
compressive members to obtain stability coefficients and
calculation formulas in different sections and slenderness
ratios. Wang et al. (2020) conducted an experimental
investigation on the overall and local stability of aluminum
alloy members, including failure form, deformation
performance, and ultimate bearing capacity. He then
compared the research results with Chinese, American,
European, and Australian specifications to adjust and
optimize the specified parameters in 2020. Similarly, Zhou
and Young (2019) found the strengths of aluminum alloy
members with square hollow section is lower than design
strengths in code when subjected to combined bending and
web crippling by experimental and numerical
investigations. Thus, they proposed a bending and web
crippling interaction equation for aluminum square hollow
section specimens for design reference. In addition to the
studies on conventional sections, relevant scholars ( Su et
al. 2014, Liu and Zhang 2016, Chang et al. 2016) have
begun to study the compressive stability of heteromorphic
section members to improve the design methods of
aluminum alloy compression members. Due to aluminum
domes and steel domes have many differences, such as
elasticity module, roof structures, and joint rigidities, so it
makes the design and analysis method of steel spatial
structures not fully suitable for aluminum alloy dome
structures. Liu et al. (2015) proposed a stability analysis
method for estimate the bearing capacity of aluminum
dome, considering the influence of structural imperfection,
member initial curvature, semi-rigid joint, and skin effect.
Two years later, the static stability behavior of the
aluminum alloy single-layer spherical latticed shell
structure was studied by Liu (2017) and showed that the
eccentric compression performance of H-section members
significantly influenced the global rigidity of the structure
and its ultimate capacity. The investigations were carried
out on the static properties of aluminum members,
including buckling strength, the interaction between
different buckling modes, and the post-buckling load-
carrying capacity of the member.
Lightweight aluminum alloy structures are increasingly
being used in seismically active regions. Aluminum alloy
H-section members may be used for critical members and
components and are expected to undergo inelastic cyclic
deformations without suffering from a significant loss of
strength. Meanwhile, some aluminum alloy structures have
collapsed owing to earthquakes and other natural disasters.
To understand why this occurs, on the one hand, we need to
check whether the design of the structure itself is sound. On
the other hand, researches (Landolfo and Mazzolani 1997,
De Matteis et al. 2004) have shown that the members used
in the structure can break or lose stability under the cyclic
load of an earthquake, resulting in a loss of structural
bearing capacity and the eventual collapse of the entire
structure. Thus, a thorough understanding of the cyclic
behavior of aluminum alloy members is fundamental to
their seismic design.
Although the above-mentioned studies have considered
the influence of section and slenderness ratios on the load-
carrying performance of members, spatial structural
members are usually subjected to cyclic loading under the
action of earthquakes. Thus, only considering the
compressive bearing capacity or tensile bearing capacity of
members is not adequate. To this end, Chen and Zhang
(2019) studied the influence of various parameters, such as
alloy types and slenderness ratios, on the hysteretic
behavior of compression aluminum members under cyclic
axial loading, demonstrating that specimens with smaller
slenderness ratios exhibited superior performance under
axial cyclic loading. However, their investigations remained
at a theoretical level and lacked experimental verification.
Wen et al. (2020) showed that an increase in the H-beam
height and flange width could improve the bending bearing
capacity of H-beam welded hollow spherical joints. Thus,
research has demonstrated that the mechanical performance
of aluminum alloy structures largely depends on the
members.
This paper presents a comprehensive experimental and
numerical investigation of the axial cyclic behavior of an
aluminum alloy H-section member to assess the hysteretic
performance and failure mechanism due to variations in
slenderness ratio and bending direction. Based on the
Chaboche hybrid reinforcement model, parameter analysis
is carried out using the finite element (FE) software
simulation test process. Moreover, the effects of the
member’s boundary condition on hysteretic performance
are evaluated using the FE model.
2. Experimental investigation
2.1 Experiment specimens
H-section members are widely used for aluminum alloy
reticulated shell structures. Modern manufacturing
technology is simple and mature. H-section aluminum alloy
members are manufactured using the compression molding
process, in which the cast aluminum bar is extruded in the
mold, and the semi-finished product is taken out for
oxidation electrophoresis. Unlike members with closed
sections, H-section members are prone to buckling along
the weak axis when subjected to earthquakes due to the
large difference in stiffness between the strong axis and the
weak axis. The axial cyclic loading test objects employed
herein are three H-section 6061-T6 aluminum alloy
members with the section size of H250 mm×125 mm×5
mm×9 mm, as shown in Fig. 1. Both ends of the members
are hinge end constraints, which means the fixed hinge end
of the members cannot undergo translational deformation in
three directions and rotational deformation along the Y-axis
and Z-axis and can only rotate along the X-axis. Moreover,
the constraint condition of the loading end is similar to that
of the fixed hinge end, but the freedom of translational
deformation along the member length is released. To
prevent the welding process reducing the strength of the
aluminum alloy material, the member is bolted to the steel
plate at the connection part, and the steel plates are welded
to the end plates. To prevent damage to the bolted
connection part, the size of the flange in the connection part
 Experimental and numerical analyses on axial cyclic behavior of H-section aluminium alloy members 13

(a) Dimension configuration of C0-1 and C0-2 member (b) Dimension configuration of C1-1 member

(c) Schematic diagram of member and coordinate system

* X-axis is the direction parallel to the flange of section. Y-axis is the direction parallel to the web of section. Z-axis is
the direction along the member length.
Fig. 1 Section weakening diagram of H-section member

Table 1 Detailed parameters of experiment members

Bending Connection section Member section Connection Total length Member
Specimen λy λx
direction size/mm size/mm length /mm /mm length /mm
C0-1 X-axis 270 1140 600 80 15.2
C0-2 X-axis H250×125×5×9 H250×80×5×9 325 1975 1435 120 23.5
C1-1 Y-axis 270 1140 600 80 15.2

is larger than the test section so that the bearing capacity of

Axial cyclic loading test for H-section
the connecting part is 1.2 times that of the experiment aluminium alloy members

section. The design length of the bolted connection part is

Lateral braces
270 mm at both ends of C0-1 and C0-2 and is 325 mm for Bolt connection
Pin shaft
C1-1. The nominal slenderness ratio along the major axis of
C0-1 and C0-2 is 80 and 120, respectively. In the aluminum
alloy reticulated shell structures, the roof panels are
embedded on the members. This will increase the stiffness
of the member and restrain the bending of the member
around the weak axis. Under the action of horizontal
seismic load, the in-plane bending moment and out-of-plane Fig. 2 Experimental device
bending moment of the members are in different
proportions, and the members may bend around the strong
axis first. Therefore, the C0-1 and C0-2 members are 2.2 Experiment schemes
designed to bend along the strong axis. The C1-1 member is
designed to bend along the weak axis, with a slenderness 2.2.1 Experimental facilities
ratio of 80. Detailed parameters of the experiment members The member was placed horizontally in the reaction
are shown in Table 1 and Fig. 1. The X-axis is the strong force frame (Fig. 2), and an ES-100 hydraulic pressure
axis of the H-section, and the Y-axis is the weak axis in the experimenting machine was used for loading. Both ends
Fig. 1(c). were hinged using the loading method, meaning that the
14 Jinzhi Wu, Jianhua Zheng, Guojun Sun and Xinquan Chang

Lateral brace Lateral brace

Node connection Pin shaft Pin shaft
Node connection
Pin shaft Pin shaft

Node connection

(a) Loading device for C0-1 member (b) Loading device for C0-2member

Node connection

(c) Loading device for C1-1 member

Fig. 3 Loading device for each member

Section number

Loading-end (pin position) Fixed-hinge end

Strain gauge
Strain rosette

* “L” means the member length.

Fig. 4 The arrangement of strain gauge

Fig. 5 The arrangement of displacement meters

loading point of each member was the center position of the
pin hinge. All external forces were transmitted to the
member through the center position of the pin hinge, and
the position of the member was adjusted to achieve axial
loading.
For the purpose of restricting possible out-of-plane
displacement, lateral braces were arranged on both sides of
the C0-1 and C0-2 members’ longitudinal axis during axial
cyclic loading. To consider the different lengths of the
experimental members, different numbers of lateral braces
 Experimental and numerical analyses on axial cyclic behavior of H-section aluminium alloy members
Table 2 Description of displacement meter
Number of
Type Range(mm)
displacement meter
D1, D2 Thimble ±100
D3, D4 Thimble ±100
D5, D6,
Dynamic cable ±300
D7, D8
D9, D10, D11, D12 Dynamic cable ±300
D13, D14 Dynamic cable ±300
D15, D16 Dynamic cable ±300
were arranged for C0-1 and C0-2. The lateral braces did not
directly contact the flanges of the experimental members;
instead, 2-mm gaps were left on each side of the flanges in
order to avoid affecting the development of member
deformation. The loading device of each member is
illustrated in Fig. 3.
2.2.2 Measuring-point arrangement
Strain gauges were used to measure the strain and
displacement changes of five main sections during the
loading process (Fig. 4). The nomenclature is SW-S-N and
SF-S-N, in which SW represents the strain gauge of the
web, SF represents the strain gauge of the flange, S
represents the section number, and N represents the gauge
number. The 16 displacement meters arranged on the
members are named D1 to D16, as shown in Fig. 5.
The cross-sectional dimensions of the members in the
section 1 and section 5 change, leading to a more
complicated stress distribution. Thus, one strain rosette was
arranged in the middle of the upper and lower flanges and
the middle of one side of the web to measure the transverse
strain, longitudinal strain, and shear strain, respectively.
Strain gauges were arranged in the middle of the flanges
and on one side of the web of section 2 and section 4 to
measure the longitudinal strain of the flange and the
transverse strain of the web. In the middle of the upper and
lower flanges of the section 2 and section 4, and the middle
of one side of the web, a strain gauge was arranged to
measure the longitudinal strain of the flange and the
transverse strain of the web. To record the mid-span
longitudinal strain and transverse strain of the member
under load, eight strain gauges and two strain rosettes were
arranged in the section 3. Among them, six strain gauges
were arranged on the outer and middle parts of the flange to
facilitate the measurement of the strain on the tension and
compression sides of the flange. The other two strain
gauges were arranged perpendicular to each other in the
middle of one side of the web, and two strain gauges were
arranged on the other side of the web to monitor the
longitudinal and transverse strains of the web.
The number, type, accuracy, arrangement direction, and
arrangement purpose of the displacement meter are shown
in Table 2.
2.2.3 Loading protocol
According to the Specification for Seismic Test for
Buildings (2015). The loading of each experiment was
divided into two stages: the preloading stage and the formal
15
Arrangement Measuring
Accuracy (mm)
direction purpose
0.01 Horizontal Rotation in the plane
0.01 Horizontal Out-of-plane rotation
0.001 Horizontal Axial displacement
0.001 Vertical Section deflection
0.001 Horizontal Rotation in the plane
0.001 Horizontal Axial displacement
Fig. 6 Loading protocol
loading stage. Preloading was carried out before the
experiment. The load, which was approximately 10% of the
bearing capacity estimated using the finite element method
(FEM), was applied to ensure the whole device and member
were in the normal working state and the alignment was
corrected. Meanwhile, the experimental facilities such as
the jack, strain gauges, displacement meters, and hinges
were checked to ensure normal operation. During the
formal loading stage, the horizontal load was applied to all
members via the mixed loading method that adopted a
loading-control scheme in the former stage and a
displacement-control scheme in the latter stage. According
to the FEM, before the member entered the plasticity stage,
it underwent local buckling in the elastic stage. Before
member buckling, the loading-control scheme was adopted,
and the loading level was determined via the estimated
bearing capacity of the member by FEM. Each level of load
was set to an integer multiple of 50 kN in cyclic loading and
held the load for 1 to 2 minutes when the load peak was
reached. In the elastoplastic stage, after the local buckling
of the member, the displacement-control loading scheme
was adopted. The displacement was recorded as δy when
the member experienced local buckling. The displacement
amplitude was increased by δy, 2 δy, 3 δy, 5 δy, and 7 δy,
among other multiples. Each level of load was cycled twice
until tensile failure of the member occurred to stop the
experiment (Fig. 6). During the experiment, the loading and
unloading speeds were kept consistent to ensure the stability
of the measured data.
2.3 Experiment phenomenon
In the experiment involving the C0-1 specimen, with an
increase in the loading amplitude, the in-plane instability of
16 Jinzhi Wu, Jianhua Zheng, Guojun Sun and Xinquan Chang

(a) Local buckling of C0-1 in eleventh cycle (b) Local buckling of C0-2 in tenth cycle

(c) Local buckling of C1-1 in ninth cycle

Fig. 7 Local buckling of each specimen

(a) failure mode of C0-1 in thirteenth cycle (b) failure mode of C0-2 in fourteenth cycle

(c) failure mode of C1-1 in fourteenth cycle

Fig. 8 failure mode of each specimen

the specimen as a whole occurred first; the mid-span
section’s upper flange was tensioned, and the maximum
deflection was 0.4 mm. When the loading stepped into the
11th cycle with a load amplitude of 550 kN, the middle of
the web was partially flexed and dented medially. Next,
local buckling deformation accumulated obviously and was
unrecoverable along with reversion (shown in Fig. 7(a)).
When the loading stepped into the 13th cycle with a
compression horizontal displacement amplitude of 3 δy, the
lower flange in the middle of the member was severely
buckled and deformed and compressed to fracture. Owing
to the large local strain, the crack extended from the bottom
to the top of the mid-span cross-sectional lower flange,
accompanied by a loud noise (shown in Fig. 8(a)). The
proportion of local buckling area to the total area was 32%.
For the experiment involving the C0-2 member, when
the load of the member under stretching or compression
was approximately 50 kN, the bolt slippage made a noise.
Local buckling initially took place in the 10th cycle with a
load amplitude of 500 kN (shown in Fig. 7(b)). Viewed
along the length of the member, the web presented a
sinusoidal buckling shape. At this time, a horizontal
member displacement of 3.96 mm was recorded as the
buckling displacement δy, and local bucking plastic
deformation became unrecoverable and developed rapidly.
Finally, with the deepening of web buckling, the flange near
the loading end was compressed to buckling and twisted.
When cyclic loading entered the 14th cycle with an
amplitude of 5 δy, the upper flange near the loading end
broke under tension, and a crack developed straight to the
lower flange. Several sinusoidal buckling areas appeared
along the length of the web of the member, and the
 Experimental and numerical analyses on axial cyclic behavior of H-section aluminium alloy members
Table 3 Phenomena of each specimen
Number of cycles C0-1
at buckle 11th
Load at buckle 550 kN
Local buckling in middle
Type of buckle
of the web
Number of cycles at failure 13th
Displacement at failure 3δy
Compressed tear of the lower Compressed tear of the upper Tension tear of the lower flange
Type of failure
flange in the mid-span
proportion of local buckling area to the total area was 19%.
The failure mode of the member is shown in Fig. 8(b).
Unlike the above two experiments, no lateral braces
were arranged in the C1-1 member experiment, so the
member could bend around the weak axis. The out-of-plane
instability of the experiment involving the C1-1 member
occurred when the member was stretched or compressed to
approximately 450 kN, accompanied by a sound of a bolt
sliding. When the ninth cycle was carried out, local
buckling occurred in the web of section 3, and the
horizontal displacement of 1.65 mm at that time was
regarded as buckling displacement δy (shown in Fig. 7(c)).
When loaded to the 10th cycle with a displacement
amplitude of 2 δy, the member buckled in a sinusoidal
waveform along its longitudinal axis. The web in the mid-
span of the member and the web near the fixed-hinged end
bulged in different directions. Subsequently, this local
bucking became unrecoverable. When the cyclic loading
entered the 14th cycle with an amplitude of 6 δy, as the
tensile load reached 700 kN, the crack extended from the
bottom flange to the mid web in section 1. The member
broke, and this was accompanied by a loud noise. Finally,
the proportion of local buckling area to the total area was
19%. The fracture failure shape is shown in Fig. 8(c).
The phenomena of each specimen are summarized in
Table 3. For members C0-1 and C0-2, the results show that
a larger member slenderness ratio leads to a smaller local
buckling proportion of the members before failure.
Members C0-1 and C1-1 occur obvious overall buckling,
which is first due to out-of-plane instability. Local buckling
then occurs, and plasticity accumulates rapidly, followed by
failure at the local buckling position. It can be seen that the
members bent in-plane have a lower proportion of local
buckling when they are damaged, which means they have a
lower bearing capacity and fail with non-obvious
deformation.
It is worth noting that the failure locations of the three
specimens are different. Although the bending direction is
along the strong axis, C0-1 has a larger proportion of the
plastic zone due to its small slenderness ratio, and the
plasticity is evenly distributed along the length direction.
Eventually, due to buckling under compression and the
largest bending moment occurring at the mid-span section,
fracture failure occurs at the bottom of the mid-span
section. The plastic development of C0-2 is uneven and is
mainly distributed in the area near the loading end. Finally,
the plasticity develops rapidly at the junction of the two
buckling half-waves outside the web plane. At the same
17
C0-2 C1-1
10th 9th
500 kN 450 kN
Local buckling in middle Local buckling in middle
of the web of the web
14th 14th
5δy 6δy
flange near the loading end near the fixed hinge end
Fig. 9 Load-displacement curve of each specimen
time, under the action of axial force and bending moment,
the upper flange is torn under tension. Subsequently, the
components that are divided in two continue to be
compressed and staggered, causing the web to tear.
Although the slenderness ratios of the C0-1 and C1-1
specimens are both equal to 80, the C1-1 specimen has no
lateral restraint, so it experiences out-of-plane instability
first. As the out-of-plane displacement of the web gradually
increases, the flange of the specimen begins to twist around
the Z-axis due to the restriction of the degree of freedom in
the node connection area. Plasticity continues to develop at
the junction of the mid-span flange and the node
connection. When loaded to the failure load, the junction
between the node connection area and the member will
fracture due to plastic accumulation.
2.4 Analysis of experiment results
2.4.1 Hysteresis response
Energy is transferred into the member by an earthquake
in the seismic energy field, which has a continuous process
of absorbing and dissipating energy. The area of load-
displacement hysteresis curve obtained during the low-cycle
reciprocating loading reflects the energy dissipation
capacity of the member. The load-displacement hysteresis
curves of the three members are shown in Fig. 9. In this
paper, calculus performed on Origin Software was used to
solve the area enclosed by each hysteresis loop of each
member in the hysteresis curve. The results are shown in
Table 4, where it can be observed that the larger the
calculated area, the stronger the energy dissipation capacity
and deformation ability.
The results show that the members experiencing in-
plane buckling with a small slenderness ratio have better
seismic performance. The member with a larger slenderness
18 Jinzhi Wu, Jianhua Zheng, Guojun Sun and Xinquan Chang
Table 4 Energy dissipation capacity of each specimen
Specimen C0-1 C0-2
Slenderness ratio λy 80 120
Bending direction X-axis X-axis
Energy dissipation/kJ 22.969 19.207
800 C0-1
600 C0-2
400 C1-1
Load (kN)
200
0
-200
-400
-600
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10
Displayment (mm)
Fig. 10 Skeleton curve of each specimen
ratio or without out-of-plane constraint is prone to local
buckling where the buckling stress is concentrated. Under
axial cyclic loading, the stiffness of the buckled part of the
member is severely degraded. Therefore, this area can
easily become the weakest part of the member and makes
the member fail before the other parts fully enter plasticity.
This mechanism limits the energy dissipation capacity of
members. It also reflects that the larger the buckling range
of the member, the more energy it consumes. Furthermore,
the area in the compression stage is larger than that of the
tensile stage, meaning that the energy dissipation of the
members after local buckling is more obviously reflected in
the compression stage. The area of the hysteresis loop
increases suddenly when most of the member has reached
plasticity. After local buckling under compression, the
stiffness of the member on the compression side reduces
significantly, so member deformation under compression is
greater than that under tension.
The effective section in the buckling part is gradually
reduced at the plastic stage, which weakens the bearing
capacity of the member. Although the sections of the three
members are the same, their fracture loads and ultimate
bearing capacity are different. Among them, the member
with a smaller slenderness ratio and in-plane bending has a
larger fracture load due to higher material utilization rate.
Due to the action of lateral braces, the critical load of the
member failed by global buckling is significantly higher
than that failed by local buckling, and the degradation
degree is relatively weak. This is because the material
utilization rate of the overall buckling is relatively higher
than that of the local buckling, and the overall performance
of the member is not degraded significantly due to the
degradation of local materials.
2.4.2 Skeleton curve
The skeleton curve is an envelope curve obtained by
sequentially connecting the load extreme points of each
loading cycle in the same direction as that of the hysteresis
curve and is shown in Fig. 10. As shown in the skeleton
1.1
C1-1 1.0
80 0.9
Y-axis 0.8
Ki/K1
15.368 0.7
0.6
C0-1
0.5 C0-2
0.4 C1-1
0.3
1 2 3 4 5 6
i
Fig. 11 Stiffness degradation curve of each specimen
curve, with the increase of the displacement of the member
15 end, the bearing capacity of the member still increases
slowly after the tension stage develops plasticity, displaying
significant strengthening. Until the member buckles, the
bearing capacity of the member does not decrease. At the
stage of buckling, the members reach the ultimate bearing
capacity soon under compression and the bearing capacity
displays significant degradation phenomenon later on.
Comparing members C0-1 and C0-2 with different
slenderness ratios, the bearing capacity degenerates more
significantly with the increase of slenderness ratio. The
comparison between members C0-1 and C1-1 indicates that
the bearing capacity of out-of-plane bending degrades more
seriously.
2.4.3 Stiffness degradation curve
The secant stiffness of each stage loaded by three
members is illustrated in Fig. 11. The calculation formula of
secant stiffness is as follows
|+𝑁𝑖 | + |−𝑁𝑖 |
𝐾𝑖 = (1)
|+𝛿𝑧𝑖 | + |−𝛿𝑧𝑖 |
where Ni is the maximum tension and maximum pressure of
the member under the i-th cycle, and δi is the maximum
elongation and compression of the member under cycle i.
When the members maintain the same peak load, the
peak point displacement increases with the increase of cycle
times. The analysis results show that each member
experiences stiffness degradation. However, with the
increase of slenderness ratio, the stiffness degradation rate
decreases slightly, and the stiffness of the member that is
bent along the weak axis has the least degradation. As the
buckling area of the member increases, the damage of the
material becomes more serious, so the stiffness degradation
is more significant. Therefore, the stiffness of the member
with a small slenderness ratio degrades first, while the
stiffness of the member with a large slenderness ratio and
the member without lateral constraint degrades more
thoroughly due to the coupling effect of local and global
buckling. Thus, the stiffness degradation rate of these two
kinds of members is mainly controlled by local buckling
and is relatively slow.
3. Numerical analyses
 Experimental and numerical analyses on axial cyclic behavior of H-section aluminium alloy members
Fig. 12 Loading device of the 300-kN test machine
Table 5 Material parameters of specimen calibration
Sections
of σ0 Q∞ b C1 γ1 C2 γ2 C3 γ3 C4 γ4
materials
H6061-
205 28.7 4.8 8297 278 3501 146 3988 171.6 5194 190
T6
3.1 Finite element model
The numerical model of the aluminum member with the
cyclic hardening constitutive relation model of modulus
was established by the finite element software ABAQUS. In
this model, the Chaboche hybrid strengthening model was
used to describe the mechanical properties of aluminum
alloy materials under cyclic loading, and a material
hysteresis property test was carried out. Samples of
aluminum alloy base material were taken from the flange
and the web, and each sampling location corresponded to
four loading specimens. The detailed specifications were
determined according to the Metallic materials-Tensile
testing Specification (2010). The cyclic loading test was
completed using a QBS-300 hybrid universal material
testing machine, with controlled loading by strain, a 0.6
mm/min average loading rate, and an 8 mm strain gauge
distance (shown in Fig. 12). In the material property test,
four loading systems were adopted in order to better verify
the fitted constitutive relationship. Based on the Chaboche
model, the definition of the cyclic constitutive relationship
of aluminum alloy material was completed. The key
material parameters of the Chaboche constitutive model are
shown in Table 5. The elastic modulus E measured by the
experiment was 70400 MPa, and Poisson’s ratio υ was
0.325. The parameters in Table 5 are derived from the
following equations.
The isotropic strengthening part defines the yield
surface, which is expressed in Eq. (2).
− pl
iso
 0 =  0 + Q (1 − e −b ) (2)
where σ|0 is the material stress at zero strain, 𝜀̅−𝑝𝑙 is the
equivalent plastic strain, Q∞ is the maximum change value
of the yield surface, and biso is the change rate of the yield
surface with increasing plastic strain.
For the yield surface 𝜎𝑖0 of the i-th cycle, the
calculation method in Eq. (3) can be expressed as
 i0 = ( it −  ic ) / 2 (3)
19
Where 𝜎𝑖𝑡 is the maximum tensile stress corresponding
to the i-th cycle, and 𝜎𝑖𝑐 is the maximum compressive
stress corresponding to the i-th cycle.
𝑝𝑙
The equivalent plastic strain 𝜀𝑖 of the i-th cycle is
shown in Eq. (4)
𝑝𝑙
𝜀 = (4𝑖 − 3)Δ𝜀 𝑝𝑙 /2 (4)
𝑝𝑙
The change value of plastic strain Δ𝜀 in Eq. (5) can
be expressed as
Δ𝜀 𝑝𝑙 = 𝛥𝜀 − 2𝜎1𝑡 /𝐸 (5)
Based on the hysteresis curve of the material test, the
material parameters Q∞ and b in Eq. (2) can be obtained by
fitting curve. In the constitutive model, the backstress-αk in
kinematic strengthening is expressed in Eq. (6).
𝑝𝑙 𝑝𝑙
𝛼𝑘 = (𝐶𝑘𝑖𝑛,𝑘 /𝛾𝑘 ) × (1 − 𝑒 −𝛾𝑘 𝜀 ) + 𝛼𝑘,1 𝑒 −𝛾𝑘 𝜀
{𝛼 = ∑𝑚𝑘=1 𝛼𝑘 (6)
where 𝐶𝑘𝑖𝑛,𝑘 /𝛾𝑘 represents the maximum amount of
change in the backstress, 𝐶𝑘𝑖𝑛,𝑘 is the initial value of the
kinematic strengthening model, and 𝛾𝑘 is the rate of
change of the backstress as the plastic strain increases. In
order to meet the requirement of accuracy, the multi-
backstress superposition shown in the following formula
can be used to obtain a more accurate fitting curve.
According to the hysteretic curve of material test, the data
𝑝𝑙
pairs (𝜎𝑖 , 𝜀𝑖 ) can be determined by Eq. (7)
pl
εi = εi -σi /E-ε0p (7)
where 𝜀𝑝0 is the strain value at the intersection of the stress-
strain curve and the strain axis.
𝑝𝑙
Employing the data pair (𝜎𝑖 , 𝜀𝑖 ) for curve fitting
provides the parameter values of 𝐶𝑘 and 𝛾𝑘 , where k is the
backstress number. Finally, the parameter values of 𝐶𝑘 and
𝛾𝑘 are input into the cyclic hardening module in ABAQUS
to realize the definition of aluminum alloy material cyclic
constitutive relation. The fitted stress-strain curves under
four cyclic loading systems are shown in Fig. 13 and
demonstrate the correctness of the aluminum alloy material
cyclic constitutive model.
In the definition of boundary conditions, two reference
points, RP-1 and RP-2, are set at both ends of the member.
Both ends are coupled to the two reference points, and the
distance between the two reference points to the member
end is consistent. The detailed boundary condition of the
member is shown in Fig. 14. Lateral constraints are added
to both sides of the members C0-1 and C0-2, respectively,
to prevent the members from weak axis instability. In this
paper, three kinds of cell grids with dimensions of 0.8, 1,
and 1.2 cm are used, and the discreteness of the calculated
results is less than 2%. Therefore, the subsequent
calculation of this paper employs a 1 cm scale cell grid.
In order to improve the authenticity of the finite element
model, member defects must be introduced to achieve the
effect of buckling. The scale of the initial geometric defect
in the finite element model was considered to be about
1/1000 of the total length of the member according to the
buckling mode of the first order eigenvalue. The model was
adjusted according to the experimental phenomenon after
20 Jinzhi Wu, Jianhua Zheng, Guojun Sun and Xinquan Chang

Fig. 13 Stress-strain curve under four cyclic loading system

U1=U2=UR2=UR3=0 U1=U2=U3=UR2=0
Load end RP-2 Fixed hinge end RP-1

* “U” and “UR” mean the translation deformation and the rotation deformation. “1” means the direction parallel to the
flange of section. “2” means the direction parallel to the web of section. “3” means the axial direction of member.
Fig. 14 Boundary condition

(a) Comparison of failure shape for C0-1 member

(b) Comparison of failure shape for C0-2 member

(c) Comparison of failure shape for C1-1 member

Fig. 15 Comparison of failure mode between simulation and experiment
 Experimental and numerical analyses on axial cyclic behavior of H-section aluminium alloy members 21

(a) Load-displacement curve of C0-1 (b) Load-displacement curve of C0-2 (c) Load-displacement curve of C1-1
Fig. 16 Comparison of load-displacement curve of in-plane between simulation and experiment

(a) Load-displacement curve of section 2 (b) Load-displacement curve of section 3 (c) Load-displacement curve of section 4
Fig. 17 Comparison of load-displacement curve of out-of-plane for C1-1 between simulation and experiment

calculation, and residual stress was not considered. The
members were modeled by 3D solid elements, with mesh
sizes of 10 mm, and the element type was set as C3D8I. The
linear quadrilateral continuum element of type C3D8I was
enhanced in ABAQUS by incompatible modes to improve
the bending behavior. This process can eliminate artificial
stiffening due to Poisson’s effect in bending, which avoids
inaccurate stress and stiffness overestimation, making the
model suitable for simulating the H-section member under
eccentric cyclic loading.
3.2 Comparison between FEM and experiment
The comparison of failure modes between the FEM and
experiment is shown in Fig. 15. It can be seen from the
figure that the failure pattern of the model is consistent with
the experiment, but the failure position is different. Since
the test specimen is geometrically symmetrical, failure will
occur in the middle of the specimen under axial loading.
Actually, the failure location of the test is near the end,
indicating that the failure position is sensitive to the initial
defect and installation deviation, and FEM cannot
accurately consider these error factors. However, the
ultimate bearing capacity, load-displacement curve and
failure mode calculated by FEM are basically consistent
with the test results. It can be seen that FEM is still
effective in predicting the deformation and failure of
members, and can provide a reference for engineering
applications.
The comparison of the in-plane load-displacement
curves of the numerical simulation and experiment are
shown in Fig. 16 and illustrate that satisfactory agreement is
generally obtained where the shapes of the hysteretic loops
are captured well by FEM. Since the C1-1 member has no
lateral restraint, its main deformation is the out-of-plane
deformation of the web. Fig. 17 shows the simulation and
experimental load and out-of-plane displacement of the web
for three sections, indicating its hysteresis performance
when bending along the weak axis and subjected to axial
force. The FEM results are similar to the experiment, and
section 2 has the largest lateral displacement. The hysteresis
curve of the member shows a linear change in the initial
stage of loading, indicating that the stiffness is essentially
the same. When the load gradually increases, the slope of
the hysteresis curve decreases, and the area of the
compression side is larger than the area of the tension side,
indicating that the member has entered the plastic stage and
predominantly dissipates energy through compression
deformation.
The load-strain curve in Figs. 18-20 indicates that a
large strain occurs in section 3 of members C0-1 and C0-2
and contributes to energy dissipation. Peak plastic strain
develops at the mid-span lower flange area, explaining the
experimental observations that the initial fracture begins at
the lower flange of section 3 and propagates to the
remaining part of the section. However, a large strain
occurs in section 2 of member C1-1 that contributes to
energy dissipation. This is mainly due to the substantial
local buckling that develops near section 1 and the
concentrated plasticity development.
According to the above comparison, the FEM with the
introduction of initial defects based on the Chaboche hybrid
22 Jinzhi Wu, Jianhua Zheng, Guojun Sun and Xinquan Chang

800 800
Finite element simulation Finite element simulation
600 600
2-1 section data 2-2 section data
400 400
Load (kN)

200 200

Load (kN)
0 0
-200 -200
-400 -400
-600 -600
-10000 -5000 0 5000 -22500 -15000 -7500 0 7500
Strain (με) Strain (με)
(a) Load-strain curve of top flange in section 2 (b) Load-strain curve of bottom flange in section 2
800 Finite element simulation 800 Finite element simulation
600 3-1 section data 600 3-2 section data

400 400
Load (kN)

Load (kN)
200 200
0 0
-200 -200
-400 -400
-600 -600
-15000 -7500 0 7500 -22500 -15000 -7500 0 7500
Strain (με) Strain (με)
(c) Load-strain curve of top flange in section 3 (d) Load-strain curve of bottom flange in section 3
800 800
600 Finite element simulation 600 Finite element simulation
4-1 section data 4-2 section data
400 400
Load (kN)

200 200
Load (kN)

0 0
-200 -200
-400 -400
-600 -600
-800 -800
-10000 -5000 0 5000 -20000 -15000 -10000 -5000 0 5000
Strain (με) Strain (με)
(e) Load-strain curve of top flange in section 4 (f) Load-strain curve of bottom flange in section 4
* The first number in the figure “1-2 section” represents the section number, and the second number “1” and “2”
represent the upper and lower flanges, respectively.
Fig. 18 Comparison of load-strain curve of C0-1 between simulation and experiment

800 Finite element simulation 800 Finite element simulation

2-1 section data 2-2 section data
600 600
400 400
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

200 200
0 0
-200 -200
-400 -400
-600 -600

-7500 0 7500 15000 -7500 0 7500 15000

Strain (με) Strain (με)
(a) Load-strain curve of top flange in section 2 (b) Load-strain curve of bottom flange in section 2
Fig. 19 Comparison of load-strain curve of C0-2 between simulation and experiment
 Experimental and numerical analyses on axial cyclic behavior of H-section aluminium alloy members 23

800 800
Finite element simulation
600 600 3-2 section data

400 400
200
Load (kN)

200

Load (kN)
0 0
-200 -200
-400 -400
3-1 section data
-600 Finite element simulation -600
-7500 0 7500 15000 -5000 0 5000 10000
Strain (με) Strain (με)
(c) Load-strain curve of top flange in section 3 (d) Load-strain curve of bottom flange in section 3
800 800
Finite element simulation Finite element simulation
600 4-1 section data
600 4-2 section data
400 400
200

Load (kN)
200
Load (kN)

0 0
-200 -200
-400 -400
-600 -600
-10000 0 10000 -5000 0 5000 10000
Strain (με) Strain (με)
(e) Load-strain curve of top flange in section 4 (f) Load-strain curve of bottom flange in section 4
Fig. 29 Continued

800 Finite element simulation 800 Finite element simulation

2-1 section data 2-2 section data
600 600
400
Load (kN)

400
Load (kN)

200 200
0 0

-200 -200

-400 -400

-600 -600
-15000-10000 -5000 0 5000 10000 15000
-10000 -5000 0 5000 10000 15000
Strain (με) Strain (με)
(a) Load-strain curve of top flange in section 2 (b) Load-strain curve of bottom flange in section 2
800
800
600
600
400
400
Load (kN)

200
Load (kN)

200
0
0
-200
-200
-400
Finite element simulation -400
Finite element simulation
-600 3-1 section data
-600 3-2 section data
-5000 0 5000 10000 15000
-10000 -5000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Strain (με)
Strain (με)
(c) Load-strain curve of top flange in section 3 (d) Load-strain curve of bottom flange in section 3
Fig. 20 Comparison of load-strain curve of C1-1 between simulation and experiment
24 Jinzhi Wu, Jianhua Zheng, Guojun Sun and Xinquan Chang

800 Finite element simulation 800 Finite element simulation

4-1 section data 4-2 section data
600 600
400 400

Load (kN)
Load (kN)

200 200
0 0
-200 -200
-400 -400
-600 -600
-5000 -2500 0 2500 5000 7500 10000 -10000 -5000 0 5000 10000 15000
Strain (με) Strain (με)
(e) Load-strain curve of top flange in section 4 (f) Load-strain curve of bottom flange in section 4
Fig. 20 Continued

Table 6 Member dimensions in parametric analysis

strengthening constitutive model of material property is Section
reliable and can reflect the variations in energy dissipation Member Slenderness Calculation Bending Boundary
dimension
number ratio λ length/mm direction condition
capacity and member stiffness well. (mm)
JX60-1 60 1760
Strong
3.3 Parameter study JX80-1 80 2352
axis
JX100-1 H 100 2952
3.3.1 Parameter design and loading protocol JX60-2 250×125×5×9 60 1760
Following the validation of simulation, a further Weak
JX80-2 80 2352
axis
parametric study was performed to investigate the influence JX100-2 100 2952 Hinged
of an extended range of slenderness and sectional JD60-1 60 2000 connection
dimension parameters on the axial cyclic response of H- JD80-1 80 2652
Strong
section aluminum alloy members. A wide range of axis
JD100-1 H 100 3318
parametric analyses for 24 H-section aluminum alloy 200×140×6×8
JD60-2 60 2000
members was conducted by FEM. In fact, the connection in Weak
JD80-2 80 2652
an aluminum alloy structure is semi-rigid, but a rigid axis
JD100-2 100 3318
connection is generally used as the default in engineering
design. Therefore, in the parameter analysis, the rigid GX60-1 60 3520
Strong
connection and hinged members were simulated and GX80-1 80 4704
axis
compared. The 24 members were made up of two groups GX100-1 H 100 5904
with different section sizes, including H 250 mm×125 GX60-2 250×125×5×9 60 3520
Weak
mm×5 mm×9 mm and H 200 mm×140 mm×6 mm×8 mm. GX80-2 80 4704
axis
The specific parameters are shown in Table 6. The material GX100-2 100 5904 Rigid
constitutions and initial defects used in the FEM are the GD60-1 60 4000 connection
same as those mentioned above. The method for calculating Strong
GD80-1 80 5304
axis
the slenderness ratio of members is expressed in Eq. (8). In GD100-1 H 100 6636
the equation, μ is the coefficient for effective length, L GD60-2 200×140×6×8 60 4000
represents the length of the member, and i represents the GD80-2 80 5304
Weak
radius of gyration. When the two ends of the axial axis
GD100-2 100 6636
compressed member are hinged, the coefficient for effective
* In the member number, J and G represent the boundary
length is 1. When the two ends of the axial compressed conditions as hinged connection and rigid connection,
member are rigidly connected, the coefficient for effective respectively. D and X represent the section dimensions of
length is 0.5. H200×140×6×8 and H250×125×5×9, respectively. “60”, “80” and
𝜇𝐿 “100” indicate the value of slenderness ratio. “1” and “2”
𝜆= (8) respectively represent bending direction is around strong axis and
𝑖 weak axis.
The initial yield displacement of each member was
determined under monotonic load, which was recorded as
δy. The yield displacement δy was taken as the axial according to the Specification for Seismic Test for
displacement corresponding to the loading end when the Buildings (2015). The member was loaded with each
member entered the yield stage under monotonic load. A displacement amplitude for three cycles.
constant amplitude reciprocating cycle with a displacement
amplitude difference of 0.25 δy was observed in the elastic 3.3.2 Skeleton curve
state for one cycle. In the inelastic state, the displacement The skeleton curves of each member obtained by
amplitude increased by δy, 2 δy, 3 δy, 5 δy, and 7 δy, parameter analysis are shown in Fig. 21. The ultimate
 Experimental and numerical analyses on axial cyclic behavior of H-section aluminium alloy members 25

1.0x106 1.0x106
8.0x105 8.0x105
6.0x105 6.0x105
4.0x105 GD60-1 4.0x105 GD80-1
GD80-2
F (N)

2.0x105

F (N)
GD60-2 2.0x105
JD60-1 JD80-1
0.0 0.0 JD80-2
JD60-2
-2.0x105 -2.0x105 GX80-1
GX60-1
-4.0x105 -4.0x105 GX80-2
GX60-2
JX80-1
-6.0x105 JX60-1 -6.0x105
JX80-2
-8.0x105 JX60-2 -8.0x105
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100
w (mm) w (mm)
(a) Skeleton curve of members with λ of 60 (b) Skeleton curve of members with λ of 80
6
1.0x10 1.0x106
5
8.0x10 8.0x105
6.0x10 5
GD100-1 6.0x105
4.0x10 5
GD100-2 4.0x105
GD60-1
JD100-1

F (N)
2.0x105
F (N)

5
2.0x10 GD80-1
JD100-2 0.0 GD100-1
0.0
GX100-1 JD60-1
-2.0x10 5
GX100-2 -2.0x105
JD80-1
-4.0x105 JX100-1 -4.0x105 JD100-1
5 JX100-2 -6.0x105
-6.0x10
-8.0x105 -8.0x105

-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100

w (mm) w (mm)
(c) Skeleton curve of members with λ of 100 (d) Skeleton curve of members with section of
H200×140×6×8

1.0x106 1.0x106

5.0x105 5.0x105
F(N)
F (N)

GD60-1 JD60-1
0.0 0.0
GD80-1 JD80-1
GD100-1 JD100-1
-5.0x105 GX60-1 -5.0x105 JX60-1
GX80-1 JX80-1
GX100-1 JX100-1
-1.0x106 -1.0x106

-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100

w (mm) w（mm)
(e) Skeleton curve of members with rigid connection (f) Skeleton curve of members with hinged connection
Fig. 21 Parametric analysis of skeleton curves

tensile bearing capacity of the members with the same
section size but different slenderness ratios is very close,
indicating that the ultimate tensile bearing capacity has
nothing to do with the slenderness ratio. However, the
member that is bent around the weak axis has a larger area
of buckling, and the overall damage is more serious, so its
ultimate tensile bearing capacity is about 20% lower than
that of the member which is bent around the strong axis, as
can be seen from Figs. 21(a)-(c). From the perspective of
energy consumption capacity, members that bend around
the major axis have better energy dissipation capacity than
those bent around the weak axis. Furthermore, when the
bending direction is the same, the increase in the overall
slenderness ratio decreases the energy consumption
capacity. Based on the above, in the seismic design of the
reticulated shell, limiting the slenderness ratio of members
can improve the energy dissipation capacity of the structure.
As can be seen from Fig. 21(d), with the increase of the
slenderness ratio, the critical buckling capacity of the
members decreases slightly. Under the action of axial cyclic
loading, the stiffness degradation of the member that is bent
along the major axis during the loading process is more
significant than that of the member that is bent along the
weak axis.
Huck bolts are usually used to connect aluminum alloy
reticulated shell structures together. This kind of connection
is a semi-rigid connection between a rigid connection and a
hinged connection. A rigid connection is generally used as
the default in engineering design. Different boundary
conditions will affect the seismic performance of the
members. As can be seen from Fig. 21(e)-(f), the skeleton
curves of the rigid and hinged members with the same
26 Jinzhi Wu, Jianhua Zheng, Guojun Sun and Xinquan Chang

800 800 Web

600 Web 600 Top flange
Top flange
400 400 Lower flange
Lower flange
Load (kN)

Load (kN)
200 200
0 0
-200
-200
-400
-400
-600
-600
-800
-200 -100 0 100 200 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300
Stress (MPa) Stress (MPa)
(a) Load-stress curve in elastic stage (b) Load-stress curve in first stage load after buckled
Fig. 22 Load-stress curve of JX60-1’s buckled section

1000 1000
800 Web Flange
800
600 600
400 400

Load (kN)
Load (kN)

200 200
0 0
-200 -200
-400 -400
-600 -600
-800 -800
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300
Stress (MPa) Stress (MPa)
(a) Load-stress curve of web without buckling (b) Load-stress curve of flange without buckling
Fig. 23 Load-stress curve of section without buckling of JX60-1

slenderness ratio are basically the same. The coefficients for
the effective length of the members with the same
slenderness ratio are different, meaning that the energy
dissipation capacity of the rigid connection member is
better than that of the hinged member when the length is the
same. In the aluminum alloy reticulated shell, the
connection of the H-section members is a semi-rigid
connection, which is between the hinged connection and the
rigid connection. However, in general engineering design,
seismic analysis is performed according to the rigid
connection, which leads to the designed seismic capacity of
the member being larger than the actual capacity. This
problem must be considered in the design process.
3.3.3 Effective section weakening
Since the tensile stiffness of the member is related to the
elastic modulus E of aluminum alloy and the section size of
the member, the influence of external load on the elastic
modulus can be ignored. Therefore, the degradation of
stiffness is mainly caused by the reduction of the effective
section of the member section. The coupling of the damage
behavior of aluminum alloy under low-cycle reciprocating
loading and the local buckling behavior of the H-section
member can significantly reduce the effective area of the
member section.
Taking JX60-1 as an example, the load-stress curve at
the buckling position is shown in Fig. 22. In the elastic
stage, the stress of the upper and lower flanges always
maintains linear growth, and the web compresses and yields
before approaching the buckling load. This indicates that
plasticity occurs first in the web. At the same time, the
upper and lower flanges begin to bear the load on part of the
web. As shown in Fig. 22(b), in the first stage of loading
after buckling, the stress of the flange entered to the
plasticity at about 205 MPa, and the load-stress curve no
longer presents a straight line. In contrast, the stress of the
web does not continue to rise after reaching about 100 MPa,
indicating that the member has suffered slight local
buckling, so the web cannot bear more load. Fig. 23 shows
the load-stress curves of the section without buckling and
indicates that plastic development in the buckled part is
more sufficient than in the other part, meaning that buckling
will significantly damage the aluminum alloy. As the
loading continues, the plasticity of the buckling part rapidly
deepens, resulting in a large residual strain and a reduction
in the effective section area.
5. Conclusions
Experimental research on the hysteretic behavior of H-
section aluminum alloy members under a low-cycle
reciprocating load was presented in this paper. The
hysteresis response, energy dissipation, and stiffness
degradation of the member under axial cyclic loading in the
biaxial direction were studied. The conclusions are as
 Experimental and numerical analyses on axial cyclic behavior of H-section aluminium alloy members
follows:
• The experimental results show that the energy
dissipation capacity, the area of plastic development
zone, and the stiffness degradation rate of H-section
aluminum alloy members decrease with the increase of
slenderness ratio. This rule is especially obvious in
members that bend in the plane. In addition, the skeleton
curves of test and parametric study shows that the
ultimate bearing capacity of the member that bends out-
of-plane is significantly lower than that of the member
bent in-plane. The slenderness ratios should be restricted
in the structural design to improve the seismic
performance of the members.
• FEM based on the Chaboche hybrid strengthening
constitutive model and initial geometric defects is
suitable for the H-section aluminum alloy members
under cyclic loading. According to the finite element
simulation, the members fail due to the development of
plasticity caused by bending and local buckling, which
is consistent with the test observation. The 6061-T6
aluminum alloy sample was subjected to a cyclic
loading test, and its cyclic constitutive model was fitted.
• The results from the parametric study show that the
peak tensile resistance has nothing to do with the
slenderness ratio. The overall damage degree of the
member bending around the weak axis under the axial
cyclic load is more serious than that of the member
bending around the strong axis, resulting in a decrease
of peak tensile resistance of about 20%. Not only that,
the energy dissipation capacity of rigidly connected
members is better than that of hinged members. The
default rigid connection design in engineering seismic
design will overestimate the actual seismic performance,
because the connection in aluminum alloy reticulated
shell is a semi-rigid connection.
Acknowledgement
This work was sponsored by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (grant number 51778016) and
Beijing Municipal Natural Science Foundation, China
(grant number 8182006).
Reference
Aluminum Association (1976), Specification for Aluminum
Structures, Washington, USA.
Chang, Y., Liu, M. and Wang, P. (2016), “Interacted buckling
failure of thin-nailed irregular-shaped aluminum alloy column
under axial compression”, Thin Wall. Struct., 107, 627-647.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2016.07.008.
Chapuis, J. and Galambos, T.V. (1982), “Restrained crooked
aluminum columns”, J. Struct. Div., 108(3), 511-524.
https://doi.org/10.1061/JSDEAG.0005900.
Chen, X. and Zhang, Z. (2019), “Theoretical research on
aluminium members under cyclic axial loading”, Proceedings of
the 5th International Conference on Civil Engineering and
Transportation (ICCET 2015), 226-229.
https://doi.org/10.2991/iccet-15.2015.44.
Clark, J.W. (1955), “Plastic strength of structural members: A
27
symposium: Eccentrically loaded aluminum columns”, Tran.
Am. Soc. Civil Eng., 120(1), 1116-1132.
https://doi.org/10.1061/TACEAT.0007256.
De Matteis, G., Landolfo, R., Manganiello, M. and Mazzolani,
F.M. (2004), “Inelastic behaviour of I-shaped aluminium
beams: numerical analysis and cross-sectional classification”,
Comput. Struct., 82(23), 2157-2171.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2004.03.071.
ECCS (1978), European Recommendations for Aluminium Alloy
Structures, European Convention for Construction Steelwork,
Brussels, Belgium.
GB/T 228.1-2010 (2010), Metallic Materials-Tensile Testing-Part
1: Method of Test at Room Temperature, China.
Guo, X., Liang, S. and Shen, Z. (2015), “Experiment on aluminum
alloy members under axial compression”, Front. Struct. Civil
Eng., 9(1), 48-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-014-0271-9.
Hill, H.N., Hartmann, E.C. and Clark, J.W. (1956), “Design of
aluminum alloy beam-columns”, Tran. Am. Soc. Civil Eng.,
121(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1061/TACEAT.0007323.
Hiyama, Y., Ishikawa, K., Kato, S. and Okubo, S. (2000),
“Experiments and analysis of the post-buckling behaviors of
aluminum alloy double layer space grids applying ball joints”,
Struct. Eng. Mech., 9(3), 289-304.
http://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2000.9.3.289.
JGJ/T 101-2015 (2015), Specification for Seismic Test of
Buildings, China Planning Press, China.
Landolfo, R. and Mazzolani, F.M. (1997), “Different approaches
in the design of slender aluminium alloy sections”, Thin Wall.
Struct., 27(1) 85-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-8231(96)00015-8.
Liu, H., Chen, Z., Xu, S. and Bu, Y. (2015), “Structural behavior
of aluminum reticulated shell structures considering semi-rigid
and skin effect”, Struct. Eng. Mech., 54(1), 121-133.
http://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2015.54.1.121.
Liu, H., Ding, Y. and Chen, Z. (2017), “Static stability behavior of
aluminium alloy single-layer spherical latticed shell structure
with Temcor joints”, Thin Wall. Struct., 120, 355-365.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2017.09.019.
Liu, M., Chang, Y., Wang, P. and Zhang, L. (2016), “Buckling
behaviors of thin-walled aluminum alloy column with irregular-
shaped cross section under axial compression in a fire”, Thin
Wall. Struct., 98, 230-243.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2015.02.008.
Liu, Y., Zhou, L. and Wang, C.L. (2016), “Low-cycle fatigue
testing of a novel aluminum alloy buckling-restrained brace”,
Key Eng. Mater., 710, 345-350.
https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.710.345.
Meng, X.W. and Gao, W.Y. (2002), “Experimental research and
application on the aluminium alloy bolted ball joint net frame”,
Symposium on the 10th National Spatial Structure Symposium,
603-607. (in Chinese)
Su, M.N., Young, B. and Gardner, L. (2014), “Testing and design
of aluminum alloy cross sections in compression”, J. Struct.
Eng., 140(9), 04014047.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000972.
Wang, C.L., Usami, T., Funayama, J. and Imase, F. (2013), “Low-
cycle fatigue testing of extruded aluminium alloy buckling-
restrained braces”, Eng. Struct., 46, 294-301.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.07.016.
Wang, Y., Lin, S., Feng, F., Zhai, X. and Qian, H. (2016),
“Numerical simulation of aluminum alloy 6082-T6 columns
failing by overall buckling”, Adv. Struct. Eng., 19(10), 1547-
1574. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369433216643899.
Wang, Z., Wang, Y., Yun, X., Gardner, L. and Hu, X. (2020),
“Experimental and numerical study of fixed-ended high-
strength aluminum alloy angle-section columns”, J. Struct.
Eng., 146(10), 04020206.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002773.
28 Jinzhi Wu, Jianhua Zheng, Guojun Sun and Xinquan Chang

Wen, S., Liu, H., Chen, Z. and Ying, J. (2020), “Ultimate bearing
behavior of H-beam welded hollow spheres under eccentric
compression”, Eng. Struct., 212, 110-522.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110522.
Zhou, F. and Young, B. (2019), “Combined bending and web
crippling of aluminum SHS members”, Steel Compos. Struct.,
31(2), 173-185. http://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2019.31.2.173.
Zhu, J.H. and Young, B. (2006), “Experimental investigation of
aluminium alloy circular hollow section columns”, Eng. Struct.,
28(2), 207-215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.07.012.

PL

View publication stats