ARTICLE IN PRESS

Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 961968

www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

Aluminum alloy tubular columnsPart I:

Finite element modeling and test verication
Ji-Hua Zhu, Ben Young
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, China
Received 23 February 2006; received in revised form 11 August 2006; accepted 18 August 2006
Available online 12 October 2006

Abstract
A numerical investigation on xed-ended aluminum alloy tubular columns of square and rectangular hollow sections is described in
this paper. The xed-ended column tests were conducted that included columns with both ends transversely welded to aluminum end
plates using the tungsten inert gas welding method, and columns without welding of end plates. The specimens were extruded from
aluminum alloy of 6061-T6 and 6063-T5. The failure modes included local buckling, exural buckling, interaction of local and exural
buckling, as well as failure in the heat-affected zone (HAZ). An accurate nite element model (FEM) was developed. The initial local and
overall geometric imperfections were incorporated in the model. The non-welded and welded material nonlinearities were considered in
the analysis. The welded columns were modeled having different HAZ extension at the ends of the column of 25 and 30 mm. The
nonlinear FEM was veried against experimental results. It is shown that the calibrated model provides accurate predictions of the
experimental loads and failure modes of the tested columns. The load-shortening curves predicted by the nite element analysis are also
compared with the test results.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Aluminum alloys; Buckling; Column; Experimental investigation; Finite element analysis; Heat-affected zone; Transverse welds

1. Introduction
Finite element analysis (FEA) is a powerful tool that can
be employed to a wide range of applications, such as
aluminium structures. The nite element approach provides many advantages over conducting physical experiments, especially when a parametric study of cross-section
geometry is involved. FEA is capable to predict the
ultimate loads and failure modes of aluminum structural
members, provided that the nite element model (FEM) is
reliable. Therefore, it is necessary to verify the model
against experimental results.
Aluminum tubular members are used in curtain walls,
space structures and other structural applications, and
these members can be joined by welding. The aluminum
tubular members are normally manufactured by heattreated aluminum alloys. This is because the heat-treated
alloys have notably higher yield stress than non-heatCorresponding author. Tel.: +852 2859 2674; fax: +852 2559 5337.

E-mail address: young@hku.hk (B. Young).

0263-8231/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tws.2006.08.011

treated alloys. The advantages of using aluminum alloys as

a structural material are the high strength-to-weight ratio,
lightness, corrosion resistance and ease of production.
However, when heat-treated aluminum alloys are welded,
the heat generated from the welding reduces the material
strength signicantly in a localized region, and this is
known as the heat-affected zone (HAZ) softening. It is
assumed that the HAZ extends 1 in (25.4 mm) to each side
of the center of a weld [1]. In the case of the 6000 Series
aluminum alloys, the heat generated from the welding can
locally reduce the parent metal strength by nearly half [2].
The effects of welding on the strength and behavior of
aluminum structural members depend on the direction,
location and number of welds. In aluminum structures,
welds are mainly divided into two types, namely (1)
transverse welds; and (2) longitudinal welds. Generally,
transverse welds are often used in connections, whereas
longitudinal welds are used for the fabrication of built-up
members [3]. Structural members such as columns may
easily connect to other structural members or parts by
welding at the ends of the columns. Hence, it is important

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.-H. Zhu, B. Young / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 961968

962

Nomenclature
B
COV
E
e
FEA
FEM
H
L
P
PExp
PFEA

overall width of SHS and RHS

coefcient of variation
initial Youngs modulus
axial shortening
nite element analysis
nite element model
overall depth of SHS and RHS
length of specimen
axial load
experimental ultimate load of column (test
strength)
ultimate load predicted by FEA

to investigate the behavior of aluminum columns with

transverse welds at the ends of the columns.
A series of xed-ended compression tests on aluminum
square and rectangular hollow section (RHS) columns has
been conducted by Zhu and Young [4]. The test program
included columns with both ends transversely welded to
aluminum end plates using tungsten inert gas (TIG)
welding method, and columns without welding of end
plates. Following the experimental investigation, a numerical investigation using FEA is performed and presented in
this paper. The objective of the numerical investigation
presented in this paper is to develop an advanced nonlinear FEM for the investigation on the strengths and
behavior of xed-ended aluminum columns with
and without transverse welds. Finite element program
ABAQUS [5] was used to perform the numerical analysis.
Initial geometric imperfections and material non-linearity
were included in the model. The FEM was veried against
the column test results conducted by Zhu and Young [4].
2. Summary of test program
The test program presented in Zhu and Young [4]
provided experimental ultimate loads and failure modes of
aluminum alloy square and RHSs compressed between
xed ends. The test specimens were fabricated by extrusion
using 6063-T5 and 6061-T6 heat-treated aluminum alloys.
The test program included 25 xed-ended columns with
both ends welded to aluminum end plates, and 11 xedended columns without the welding of end plates. In this
paper, the term welded column refers to a specimen with
transverse welds at the ends of the column, whereas the
term non-welded column refers to a specimen without
transverse welds. The testing conditions of the welded and
non-welded columns are identical, other than the absence
of welding in the non-welded columns.
The experimental program consisted of ve test series
with different cross-section geometry and type of aluminum alloy, as shown in Table 1 using the symbols
illustrated in Fig. 1. The series N-S1, N-R1 and N-R2

PFEA25 ultimate load predicted by FEA using 25 mm

heat-affected zone extension for welded column
PFEA30 ultimate load predicted by FEA using 30 mm
heat-affected zone extension for welded column
t
thickness of section
e
engineering strain
ef
elongation (tensile strain) at fracture

pl
true plastic strain
true
eu
elongation (tensile strain) at ultimate tensile
stress
s
engineering stress
strue
true stress
s0.2
static 0.2% proof stress
su
static ultimate tensile strength.
refer to the specimens of normal strength aluminum alloy
6063-T5 in nominal cross-section dimension of
44
44
1.1, 100
44
1.2 and 100
44
3.0 mm3, respectively. The series H-R1 and H-R2 refer to the
specimens of high strength aluminum alloy 6061-T6 in
nominal cross-section dimension of 100
44
1.2 and
100
44
3.0 mm3, respectively. The measured cross-section dimensions of each specimen are detailed in Zhu and
Young [4]. The specimens were tested between xed ends at
various column lengths ranging from 300 to 3000 mm. The
test rig and operation are also detailed in Zhu and Young
[4]. The experimental ultimate loads (PExp) and failure
modes observed at ultimate loads obtained from the nonwelded and welded column tests are shown in Tables 27.
Table 1
Nominal specimen dimensions
Test series

Type of material

Dimension H
B
t (mm)

N-S1
N-R1
N-R2
H-R1
H-R2

6063-T5
6063-T5
6063-T5
6061-T6
6061-T6

44
44
1.1
100
44
1.2
100
44
3.0
100
44
1.2
100
44
3.0

Note: 1 in 25.4 mm.

B
(a)

SHS

B
(b)
Fig. 1. Denition of symbols.

RHS

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.-H. Zhu, B. Young / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 961968

The test specimens were labeled such that the type of

aluminum alloy, test series, welding condition and specimen length could be easily identied, as shown in Tables
27. For example, the label H-R2-W-L1000 denes the
following specimen:

The rst letter indicates the type of material of the

specimen, where H refers to the high strength
aluminum alloy 6061-T6; and N refers to the normal
strength aluminum alloy 6063-T5.
The second part of the label indicates the cross-section
shape of the specimen, where R2 refers to an RHS
with
nominal
cross-section
dimension
of
100
44
3 mm3. The cross-section shape and dimension for other sections are shown in Table 1.
The third part of the label indicates the welding
condition. If a specimen has transverse welds to the
aluminum end plates, then W indicates a welded
column specimen; if a specimen was tested without
welding to the end plates, then the letter NW indicates
a non-welded column specimen.
The last part of the label L1000 indicates the length of
the specimen, where the letter L refers to the column
length and the following digits are the nominal length of
the specimen in millimeters (1000 mm).

The non-welded and welded material properties for each

series of specimens were determined by longitudinal tensile
coupon tests as detailed in Zhu and Young [4]. For the
non-welded tensile coupon tests, the coupon specimens
were taken from the face of the column specimens. For the
welded tensile coupon tests, the column specimens were
welded with two parallel welds along the longitudinal axis
of the face of the columns, and the coupon specimens were
taken between the parallel welds. The measured material

963

properties obtained from the coupon tests are summarized

in Table 8.
Initial overall geometric imperfections were measured on
all specimens prior to testing, except for the short specimens of 300 mm in length. The maximum measured overall
geometric imperfections at the mid-lengths were 1/2147,
1/1608, 1/3107, 1/1629 and 1/1750 of the specimen length
for Series N-S1, N-R1, N-R2, H-R1 and H-R2, respectively. Initial local geometric imperfections were measured
on ve square hollow section (SHS) and RHS specimens.
The maximum measured local geometric imperfections
were 16%, 29%, 2.4%, 16% and 16% of the section
thickness for Series N-S1, N-R1, N-R2, H-R1 and H-R2,
respectively. The details of the measurements are reported
in Zhu and Young [4].

3. Development of nite element model

3.1. General
The nite element program ABAQUS [5] version 6.5 was
used in the analysis for the simulation of aluminum alloy
xed-ended columns tested by Zhu and Young [4]. The
measured geometry, initial overall and local geometric
imperfections, and material properties of the test specimens
were used in the FEM. The model was based on the
centerline dimensions of the cross-sections. Residual
stresses were not included in the model. This is because
in extruded aluminum alloy proles, whatever the heat
treatment, residual stresses have very small values; for
practical purpose theses have a negligible effect on loadbearing capacity [2]. The simulation consisted of two steps.
The rst is eigenvalue analysis to determine the buckling
modes, whereas the second is loaddisplacement nonlinear
analysis. The FEM described in this section followed the

Table 2
Comparison of test and FEA results for non-welded columns
Specimen

N-S1-NW-L300
N-S1-NW-L1000
N-S1-NW-L1650
N-R1-NW-L300
N-R1-NW-L1000
N-R2-NW-L300
N-R2-NW-L1000
H-R1-NW-L300
H-R1-NW-L1000
H-R2-NW-L300
H-R2-NW-L1000

Note: 1 kip 4.45 kN.

Experimental

FEA

Comparison

PExp (kN)

Failure mode

PFEA (kN)

Failure mode

PExp
PFEA

34.1
33.7
33.6
42.3
41.7
147.9
145.8
53.3
51.6
209.2
202.4

L
L
F
L
L+F
L
F
L
L+F
L
F

32.2
31.9
31.6
41.2
41.3
147.9
144.7
56.5
54.2
198.2
189.0

L
L
F
L
L+F
L
L
L
L+F
L
F
Mean
COV

1.06
1.06
1.06
1.03
1.01
1.00
1.01
0.94
0.95
1.06
1.07
1.02
0.045

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.-H. Zhu, B. Young / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 961968

964

Table 3
Comparison of test and FEA results for welded columns of Series N-S1
Specimen

N-S1-W-L300
N-S1-W-L1000
N-S1-W-L1650
N-S1-W-L2350
N-S1-W-L3000

Experimental

FEA

Comparison

PExp (kN)

Failure mode

PFEA30 (kN)

PFEA25 (kN)

Failure mode

PExp
PFEA30

PExp
PFEA25

18.8
19.2
19.8
18.4
15.2

HAZ
HAZ
HAZ
F
F

16.5
17.1
17.7
15.6
12.8

17.0
17.6
18.5
16.2
13.2

HAZ
HAZ
HAZ
F
F
Mean
COV

1.14
1.13
1.12
1.18
1.19
1.15
0.028

1.11
1.09
1.07
1.14
1.15
1.11
0.029

Note: 1 kip 4.45 kN.

Table 4
Comparison of test and FEA results for welded columns of Series N-R1
Specimen

N-R1-W-L300
N-R1-W-L1000
N-R1-W-L1650
N-R1-W-L2350
N-R1-W-L3000

Experimental

FEA

Comparison

PExp (kN)

Failure mode

PFEA30 (kN)

PFEA25 (kN)

Failure mode

PExp
PFEA30

PExp
PFEA25

26.4
27.7
28.5
25.1
23.2

HAZ
HAZ
F+L
F+L
F+L

28.8
27.4
26.1
24.2
21.8

28.8
27.9
26.8
24.9
22.2

HAZ
HAZ
HAZ
F+L
F+L
Mean
COV

0.92
1.01
1.09
1.04
1.07
1.02
0.066

0.92
0.99
1.06
1.01
1.05
1.01
0.057

Note: 1 kip 4.45 kN.

Table 5
Comparison of test and FEA results for welded columns of Series N-R2
Specimen

N-R2-W-L300
N-R2-W-L1000
N-R2-W-L1650
N-R2-W-L2350
N-R2-W-L3000

Experimental

FEA

Comparison

PExp (kN)

Failure mode

PFEA30 (kN)

PFEA25 (kN)

Failure mode

PExp
PFEA30

PExp
PFEA25

101.0
89.7
85.4
74.3
60.4

HAZ
HAZ
F
F
F

91.1
89.0
81.5
66.8
55.1

96.4
94.0
84.1
69.2
56.4

HAZ
HAZ
HAZ
F
F
Mean
COV

1.07
1.01
1.05
1.11
1.10
1.07
0.038

1.01
0.95
1.02
1.07
1.07
1.02
0.048

Note: 1 kip 4.45 kN.

same approach as detailed in Yan and Young [6] for coldformed steel columns.

3.2. Type of element and finite element mesh

Shell element is one of the most appropriate types of
elements for modeling thin-walled metal structures. The
4-noded doubly curved shell elements with reduced
integration S4R were used in the model. The S4R element
has six degrees of freedom per node and proved to give

accurate solutions from previous research as described in

Yan and Young [6], and Ellobody and Young [7].
The size of the nite element mesh of 10
10 mm2
(length by width) was used in the modeling of the nonwelded columns. The 10
10 mm2 element size has been
used to simulate axially loaded xed-ended columns and
shown to provide good simulation results [6].
As mentioned in Section 1 of the paper, the heat-treated
aluminum alloys suffer loss of strength in a localized region
when welding is involved, and this is known as HAZ
softening. The welded columns were modeled by dividing

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.-H. Zhu, B. Young / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 961968

965

Table 6
Comparison of test and FEA results for welded columns of Series H-R1
Specimen

H-R1-W-L300
H-R1-W-L1000
H-R1-W-L1650
H-R1-W-L2350
H-R1-W-L3000

Experimental

FEA

Comparison

PExp (kN)

Failure mode

PFEA30 (kN)

PFEA25 (kN)

Failure mode

PExp
PFEA30

PExp
PFEA25

37.5
37.9
37.7
30.3
23.8

HAZ
HAZ
F+L
F+L
F+L

37.5
35.3
34.5
29.6
24.0

38.3
36.7
36.1
30.7
25.6

HAZ
HAZ
F+L
F+L
F+L
Mean
COV

1.00
1.07
1.09
1.02
0.99
1.04
0.043

0.98
1.03
1.04
0.99
0.93
0.99
0.046

Note: 1 kip 4.45 kN.

Table 7
Comparison of test and FEA results for welded columns of Series H-R2
Specimen

H-R2-W-L300
H-R2-W-L1000
H-R2-W-L1650
H-R2-W-L2350
H-R2-W-L3000

Experimental

FEA

Comparison

PExp (kN)

Failure mode

PFEA30 (kN)

PFEA25 (kN)

Failure mode

PExp
PFEA30

PExp
PFEA25

118.0
139.3
119.4
95.2
75.4

HAZ
HAZ
F
F
F

113.5
115.8
102.8
81.0
67.3

118.0
120.2
107.0
83.3
68.0

HAZ
HAZ
F
F
F
Mean
COV

1.04
1.20
1.16
1.18
1.12
1.14
0.056

1.00
1.16
1.12
1.14
1.11
1.11
0.056

Note: 1 kip 4.45 kN.

Table 8
Measured welded and non-welded material properties of tensile coupons
Specimen

E0 (GPa)

s0.2 (MPa)

su (MPa)

eu (%)

ef (%)

N-S1-W
N-S1-NW
N-R1-W
N-R1-NW
N-R2-W
N-R2-NW
H-R1-W
H-R1-NW
H-R2-W
H-R2-NW

71.1
70.4
65.1
69.1
67.5
67.5
67.7
70.3
69.6
68.9

64.8
188.5
83.7
195.9
70.4
189.1
109.3
260.0
99.1
275.4

111.4
209.5
121.9
218.7
137.7
213.2
159.8
276.3
156.0
283.1

7.9
8.6
6.4
6.7
13.1
10.1
6.6
7.3
6.9
9.1

10.0
9.9
8.1
9.9
17.8
12.3
8.9
7.6
11.6
10.1

Note: 1 ksi 6.89 MPa; W welded tensile coupon; NW non-welded tensile coupon.

the columns into different portions along the column

length, so that the HAZ softening at both ends of the
welded columns was included in the simulation. The
welded columns were separated into three parts, the HAZ
regions at both ends of the columns, and the main body of
the columns that are not affected by welding. The size of
the nite element mesh of approximately 10
10 mm2
(length
width) was used in the main body of the columns,
whereas different mesh size was considered in the HAZ
regions. In the rst case, the extension of HAZ was

assumed to be 25 mm and the mesh dimension of

8.3
10 mm2 (length
width) was used. In the second
case, the extension of HAZ was assumed to be 30 mm and
the mesh dimension of 10
10 mm2 (length
width) was
used. It should be noted that the American Specication [1]
and Austrian/New Zealand Standard [8] for aluminum
structures specied the HAZ shall be taken as 1 in
(25.4 mm). However, the European Code [9] for aluminum
structures assumed the HAZ extends to 30 mm for a TIG
weld while the section thickness is less than 6 mm.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
966

J.-H. Zhu, B. Young / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 961968

3.3. Boundary condition and loading method

350

Stress, (MPa)

300

The xed-ended boundary condition was simulated by

restraining all the degrees of freedom of the nodes at both
ends, except for the translational degree of freedom in the
axial direction at one end of the column. The nodes other
than the two ends were free to translate and rotate in any
directions. The displacement control loading method,
which is identical to that used in the column tests, was
used in the FEM. Compressive axial load was applied to
the column by specifying an axial displacement to the
nodes at one end of the column.

250
200
150
Engineeringcurve

100

True curve

50

Plasticity

0
0

4
Strain,

(%)

Fig. 2. Modeling of non-welded material plasticity for Series H-R1.

3.4. Material properties

In the modeling of non-welded columns, the material
properties obtained from the non-welded tensile coupon
tests were used. In the modeling of welded columns, the
material properties obtained from the non-welded tensile
coupon tests were used for the main body of the
columns, whereas the material properties obtained from
the welded tensile coupon tests were used for the HAZ
regions at both ends of the columns. The material
properties of the respective test series were used in the
FEM.
In the linear analysis stage of the simulation, the material
properties of the columns were only dened by density,
initial Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio. In the
non-linear analysis stage, material non-linearity or plasticity was included in the FEM using a mathematical
model known as the incremental plasticity model [5], in
which true stresses (strue) and true plastic strains
pl
true were
specied. The true stresses and true plastic strains were
obtained from the static engineering stresses (s) and strains
(e) using strue s1
, and
pl
true ln1
 strue =E, as
specied in ABAQUS [5], where E is the initial Youngs
modulus of the static engineering stressstrain curve.
The incremental plasticity model required only a
range of the true stressstrain curve from the point
corresponding to the last value of the linear range of the
static engineering stressstrain curve to the ultimate point
of the true stressstrain curve. Fig. 2 shows the stress
strain curve of the non-welded material plasticity for Series
H-R1.
3.5. Initial geometric imperfections
Both initial local and overall geometric imperfections
were incorporated in the model. Superposition of local
buckling mode and overall buckling mode with the
measured magnitudes was carried out. These buckling
modes were obtained by eigenvalue analysis of the columns
with very high value of width-to-thickness ratio and very
low value of width-to-thickness ratio to ensure
local and overall buckling occurs, respectively. Only the
lowest buckling mode (eigenmode 1) is used in the
eigenvalue analysis. All buckling modes predicted by

ABAQUS eigenvalue analysis are generalized to 1.0;

therefore, the buckling modes are factored by the measured
magnitudes of the initial local and overall geometric
imperfections.
4. Test verication
The developed FEM was veried against the experimental results. For the non-welded columns, the ultimate
loads and failure modes predicted by the FEA are
compared with the experimental results as shown in Table
2. It is shown that the ultimate loads (PFEA) obtained from
the FEA are in good agreement with the experimental
ultimate loads (PExp). Generally, the ultimate loads
predicted by the FEA are slightly lower than the
experimental ultimate loads, except for the specimens
H-R1-NW-L300 and H-R1-NW-L1000. The experimental-to-FEA ultimate load ratio (PExp/PFEA) for these
two specimens are 0.94 and 0.95, respectively. The mean
value of the experimental-to-FEA ultimate load ratio is
1.02 with the corresponding coefcient of variation
(COV) of 0.045 for the non-welded columns, as shown in
Table 2.
For the welded columns, both the ultimate loads
predicted by the FEA using the HAZ extension of 25 mm
(PFEA25) and 30 mm (PFEA30) are compared with the
experimental results as shown in Tables 37 for Series
N-S1, N-R1, N-R2, H-R1 and H-R2, respectively. It is
shown that the PFEA25 are in better agreement with the
experimental ultimate loads compared with the PFEA30.
The mean values of the experimental-to-FEA ultimate load
ratio (PExp/PFEA25) are 1.11, 1.01, 1.02, 0.99 and 1.11 with
the corresponding COV of 0.029, 0.057, 0.048, 0.046
and 0.056 for Series N-S1, N-R1, N-R2, H-R1 and HR2, respectively. The mean values of the load ratio PExp/
PFEA30 are 1.15, 1.02, 1.07, 1.04 and 1.14 with the
corresponding COV of 0.028, 0.066, 0.038, 0.043 and
0.056 for Series N-S1, N-R1, N-R2, H-R1 and H-R2,
respectively.
The failure modes at ultimate load obtained from the
tests and FEA for each specimen are also shown in Tables
27. The observed failure modes included local buckling

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.-H. Zhu, B. Young / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 961968

967

60
FEA

Axial load, P (kN)

50
40
30

Test

20
10
0
0

Axial shortening, e (mm)

Fig. 3. Comparison of experimental and FEA axial load-shortening
curves for specimen H-R1-NW-L1000.

35

Axial load, P (kN)

30

Fig. 5. Comparison of experimental and FEA deformed shapes for

specimen H-R2-NW-L1000.

FEA25

25
20

5. Conclusions

FEA30

15

Test

10
5
0
0

Axial shortening, e (mm)

Fig. 4. Comparison of experimental and FEA axial load-shortening
curves for specimen H-R1-W-L2350.

(L), exural buckling (F), interaction of local and exural

buckling (L+F), and failure in the HAZ. The failure
modes predicted by the FEA are in good agreement
with those observed in the tests, except for the specimens
N-R2-NW-L1000, N-R1-W-L1650 and N-R2-W-L1650.
Fig. 3 shows the comparison of the load-shortening
curves obtained from the test and predicted by the FEA
for the non-welded specimen H-R1-NW-L1000. It is
shown that the FEA curve follows the experimental curve
closely, except that the ultimate load predicted by the
FEA is slightly higher than the experimental value.
Fig. 4 also shows the load-shortening curves for the
welded specimen H-R1-W-L2350. The load-shortening
curves predicted by the FEA using the HAZ extension of
25 and 30 mm are shown in Fig. 4. Besides, Fig. 5(a)
shows the photograph of specimen H-R2-NW-L1000
immediately after the ultimate load has reached. The
specimen failed in exural buckling. Fig. 5(b) shows the
deformed shape of the specimen predicted by the
FEA right after the ultimate load. The resemblance of
Fig. 5(a) and (b) demonstrates the reliability of the FEA
predictions.

This paper presents a numerical investigation on xedended aluminum alloy square and RHSs non-welded and
welded columns using FEA. An advanced non-linear FEM
incorporating geometric imperfections and material nonlinearity was developed. Heat-treated aluminum alloys of
6063-T5 and 6061-T6 material were investigated. The
welded columns were modeled by dividing the column into
different portions along the column length, so that the
HAZ softening at both ends of the welded columns was
included in the simulation. Two different dimensions of the
HAZ extension were considered in the study that equal to
25 and 30 mm. The FEM was veried against the
previously reported test results that included ve test series
with column length varied from 300 to 3000 mm. It is
shown that the FEM provides accurate predictions of the
experimental ultimate loads and failure modes for both the
non-welded and welded columns. It is also shown that
ultimate loads predicted by the FEA using the HAZ
extension of 25 mm are in closer agreement with
the experimental results compared to the ultimate
loads predicted by the FEA using the HAZ extension of
30 mm.
References
[1] AA. Aluminum design manual. Washington, DC: The Aluminum
Association; 2005.
[2] Mazzolani FM. Aluminum alloy structures. 2nd ed. London: E & FN
Spon; 1995.
[3] Kissell JR, Ferry RL. Aluminum structuresa guide to their
specications and design. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 2002.
[4] Zhu JH, Young B. Test and design of aluminum alloys compression
members. J Struct Eng 2006;132(7):1095107.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
968

J.-H. Zhu, B. Young / Thin-Walled Structures 44 (2006) 961968

[5] ABAQUS analysis users manual, Version 6.5. ABAQUS, Inc., 2004.
[6] Yan J, Young B. Numerical investigation of channel columns with
complex stiffenersPart I: Tests verication. Thin-Walled Struct
2004;42(6):88393.
[7] Ellobody E, Young B. Structural performance of cold-formed high
strength stainless steel columns. J Construct Steel Res 2005;61(12):
163149.

[8] AS/ NZS. Aluminum structures Part 1: Limit state design, Australian/
New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 1664.1:1997. Sydney, Australia:
Standards Australia; 1997.
[9] EC9. Eurocode 9: Design of aluminum structuresPart 1-1: General
rulesGeneral rules and rules for buildings, DD ENV 1999-1-1:2000,
Final Draft October 2000. European Committee for Standardization,
2000.