Engineering Structures 260 (2022) 114221

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Buckling behavior and design of concentrically loaded T-section aluminum

alloy columns
Lin Yuan, Qilin Zhang *
College of Civil Engineering, Tongji University, 1239 Siping Road, Shanghai 200092, PR China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Tees are utilized as chord members in a number of arrangements of aluminum alloy trusses. The purpose of this
Aluminum alloy T-section columns study is to investigate the buckling behavior and design methods of concentrically loaded T-section aluminum
Local buckling alloy columns. Using column tests and finite element analysis, this study analyzed the buckling modes and ul­
Eurocode 9
timate strengths of high-strength aluminum alloy T-columns under axial compression and validated the nu­
Torsional buckling
Flexural-torsional buckling
merical model against the experimental results. Comparisons with the current Eurocode 9 and Direct Strength
Method (DSM) design rules were also conducted. Fixed- and pin-ended columns exhibit a quite different buckling
behavior. The failure modes of flexural buckling about the two principal axes could be treated with sufficient
safety and accuracy using the column design rules in Eurocode 9 and DSM. The effects of the effective centroid
shift due to the local buckling of slender parts could be ignored. The Eurocode 9 and DSM leads to inaccurate and
conservative results for fixed-ended columns failing by local-torsional buckling and flexural–torsional buckling.
The paper recommends suggestions based on the DSM approach that improve the design strength predictions for
aluminum alloy T-section columns.

1. Introduction T-sections are monosymmetric, and when subjected to uniform

Aluminum alloys are increasingly utilized in the construction in­
dustry due to their excellent corrosion resistance in humid and corrosive
environmental conditions, low self-weight and ease of fabrication. The
elastic modulus of aluminum alloys is about one-third that of steel and
hence the top priority needs to be given to stability and buckling
behavior. Lots of research has been made on the global buckling
behavior of bi-symmetric cross-sections, such as I-sections, rectangular
and circular hollow sections [1–6], whereas monosymmetric or asym­
metric cross-sections are not so widely studied, such as angles [7–9] and
channels [10]. Extruded aluminum profiles can be adjusted to fit many
different purposes and hence they often end up asymmetric. The use of
the extrusion technique makes asymmetric cross-sections in aluminum
more common than in steel. Therefore, it is especially vital that
aluminum design specifications can handle asymmetric cross-sections.
These are some reasons for studying the buckling behavior of
aluminum columns with asymmetric sections. T-section is a typical
monosymmetric section and widely used as chords of aluminum trusses.
To choose a totally asymmetric cross-section would likely have been a
too large step.
compression, the possible global buckling modes include flexural
buckling in the plane of the web (Fig. 1(a)) and flexural–torsional
buckling (Fig. 1(b)). When the element is slender, the local buckling of
the composing element may be dominant. The shape of the local buck­
ling mode for a slender T-section column depends on the cross-section
dimensions and the length of the column, which will be discussed
further in Section 3.2. Fig. 1(c) shows a possible shape. A few in­
vestigations have been conducted on the buckling behavior of metal T-
section members [11–13]. There are different theoretical methods to
predict the ultimate strength of aluminum sections and members. The
effective thickness method, adopted by EN1999-1–1 (EC9) [14], reduces
the actual thickness of slender elements affected by local stability. Su
et al. [15] extended the Continuous Strength Method (CSM) to
aluminum stocky sections to consider strain hardening effects. Piluso
and Pisapia [16] presented an entirely theoretical approach for pre­
dicting the ultimate resistance of aluminum alloy members subjected to
local buckling under uniform compression. The application of plastic
buckling theory provided a good agreement with available experimental
values. For aluminum columns, Zhu and Young [17] modified the Direct
Strength Method (DSM) [18], which could predict the ultimate strengths

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: zhangqilin@tongji.edu.cn (Q. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.114221
Received 8 September 2021; Received in revised form 11 March 2022; Accepted 31 March 2022
Available online 5 April 2022
0141-0296/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Yuan and Q. Zhang Engineering Structures 260 (2022) 114221

Fig. 1. Buckling modes of T-section columns.

of rectangular hollow columns accurately. On the reviewed papers, it
can be seen that there is a lack of experimental information on the
buckling behavior of T-columns. Besides, aluminum columns’ flexur­
al–torsional buckling and local buckling behavior have not been thor­
oughly investigated.
Experimental investigations have been conducted on eleven T-sec­
tion columns made from high-strength aluminum alloy 7075-T6. The
program comprised fifteen tensile coupon tests, seven fixed-ended col­
umn tests, and four pin-ended column tests. Initial geometric imper­
fections of the specimens were measured before the compression column
tests. The experimental results were used for the validation of finite
element (FE) models. Moreover, a series of parametric results were
generated. The design provisions given in EC9 and DSM were assessed
by the ultimate strengths of T-section columns obtained from the tests
and FE analysis.
2. Experimental investigation
2.1. Test overview
Five cross-sections were selected after a careful study of the cross-
sectional behavior, as given in Table 1. The sectional geometric pa­
rameters of the T-section are shown in Fig. 2. The plate slenderness of
the five cross-sections is classified as Class 4 according to the slenderness
limits for flat outstand parts defined in EC9 [14]. The geometric di­
mensions of the tested specimens were measured and presented in
Table 2. “L” is the column length. The test specimens are labeled such
that the bearing condition, the section ID, and the nominal length are
shown. For example, the label “F-SS1-450” could be interpreted as fol­
lows: i) “F” refers to the fixed-ended boundary condition; ii) “SS1” refers
to the cross-section given in Table 1; iii) the number “450” is the nom­
inal length of the specimen in millimeters. Besides, the initial geometric
imperfections of all specimens were measured before compression tests.
The maximum values of the initial torsional twist (tanβ) and crooked­
ness parallel to the y-axis (dV) and x-axis (dH) were given in Table 2.
2.2. Material testing
Fifteen tensile coupon tests were conducted to determine the 7075-
T6 alloy properties of the specimens. For each cross-section, three cou­
pons were extracted from the center of the web plate and flange plate
along the longitudinal direction. The dimensions of the coupons were in
Table 1
Cross-section dimensions, geometric properties of selected cross-sections.
Section Cross-section dimensions Plate slenderness
ID
bf tf H tw(mm) A βw = βf =
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm2) hw/tw b/tf
Fig. 2. Geometry and notation of T-section.
accordance with the Chinese Standard for Tensile testing for Metallic
materials [19] (Fig. 3). The tensile coupons were tested in Tinius Olsen
150ST (maximum test load of 150 kN) with a displacement rate of 2
mm/min. Fig. 4 plots the stress–strain curves for coupons extracted from
Section DS2. The average values of the elastic modulus E, the proof stress
(f0.1 and f0.2), the ultimate strength (fu), the ultimate strain (εu), and the
exponent n in the Ramberg-Osgood law [20] for each section are sum­
marized in Table 3. The average values of f0.2 and fu are 521.4 MPa and
588.7 MPa, respectively.
2.3. Test setup and instrumentation
Compression tests of aluminum alloy 7075-T6 T-columns were con­
ducted under fixed and pinned ends to investigate their buckling
behavior. A hydraulic jack with a capacity of 2000 kN was used for
applying compression load onto the specimens. The anchor device
consisted of a hardened endplate and four profiled stiffening plates. Two
pairs of bolts were used to adjust the spacing of the stiffing plates to
clamp the specimen (Fig. 5(a)). The anchor device constrained end
twisting and warping of the column ends. For rigidly-fixed tests, the
endplate was directly connected to the load plate, which could introduce
the applied load to the specimens. For pinned tests, the endplate was
hinged connected to the load plate through knife edges (Fig. 5(b)), and
thus the specimen was free to rotate about two principal axes at both
ends. Table 4 shows the boundary conditions in the tests. Fig. 6 shows
the test set-up for the rigidly fixed and pin-ended specimens.
Each specimen was carefully aligned geometrically, so that the cross-
sectional centroid and centroid of the bearing plate coincided. The x-axis
and y-axis of the cross-section of the specimen were parallel to the
adjacent and far-away knife edges, respectively. In this case, the corre­
sponding effective buckling lengths (Lx and Ly) in both directions are
depicted in Fig. 6 and given in Table 2. Two draw-wire displacement
sensors (DS1 and DS2) were positioned on the bottom endplate and
extended to the top endplate to measure the end shortening and rotation
of the specimen. Four LVDTs were placed at the mid-height of the
specimen to record the specimen’s lateral displacements. Besides, four
strain gauges (SGs) were attached at a distance of 5 mm from the tips of
the web and flange, and two SGs were attached at the center of the
flange and web at the mid-height to record the structural behavior with
progressing load increments. After the specimen was aligned in the
testing machine, the test was started with an initial load of 1/15 of the
predicted ultimate load capacity of the column. This was done to pre­
serve the alignment established at the beginning of the test. Further
loads were applied at a rate of 6.9 MPa/min [21], and the corresponding
deflections, strains and loads were recorded instantly.

SS1 75 6.4 41 6.4 701.4 5.4 5.4 2.4. Test results

SS2 102 6.4 54 6.4 957.4 7.4 7.5
DS1 102 6.4 76 6.4 1098.2 10.9 7.5 Fig. 7 shows the failure mode for all tested specimens. The specimen
DS2 75 9.5 75 9.5 1334.8 6.9 3.4 F-DS1-550 exhibited an evident torsional twist in the failure mode. As
DS3 75 6.4 75 6.4 919.0 10.7 5.4
can be seen from Fig. 8, the torsional twist and lateral deflections were

2
L. Yuan and Q. Zhang Engineering Structures 260 (2022) 114221

Table 2
Measured geometries and initial imperfections of the T-section specimens.
Specimen bf (mm) H (mm) tf (mm) tw (mm) L (mm) Lx (mm) Ly (mm) tanβ (10− 2) dH (mm) dV (mm) Pu,test (kN)

F-SS1-450 75.4 41.09 6.53 6.49 451.0 – – 1.3 0.15 0.13 364
F-SS1-600 75.3 41.09 6.47 6.47 600.0 – – 1.8 0.32 0.08 322
F-DS1-550 102.3 76.07 6.49 6.55 549.5 – – 0.8 0.15 0.38 417
F-DS2-500 75.2 75.15 9.58 9.58 500.5 – – 1.0 0.28 0.32 719
F- DS2-750 75.2 75.10 9.60 9.54 750.0 – – 1.8 0.33 0.42 657
F-DS2-1000 74.5 74.91 9.38 9.54 1001.0 – – 2.8 0.69 0.52 556
F-DS3-1000 75.0 75.13 6.51 6.46 1000.5 – – 3.0 0.78 0.27 305
P-SS1-350 75.1 41.19 6.50 6.49 350.2 478.1 580.8 0.5 0.22 0.13 227
P-SS2-350 102.4 54.12 6.41 6.48 350.4 478.3 581.0 0.7 0.16 0.08 387
P-SS2-550 102.4 54.17 6.51 6.55 549.7 681.5 780.3 1.0 0.56 0.09 213
P-SS2-750 102.2 54.15 6.51 6.62 751.0 884.4 981.6 1.3 0.62 0.36 158

Fig. 5. Anchor device and knife edges for pin-ended conditions.

Table 4
Boundary conditions adopted in experiments.
Displacement in Rotation about Warping
x, y, z axes x, y, z axes
Fig. 3. Details of the tensile coupon tests. ux uy uz θx θy θz θw

Fixed-ended boundary condition

Bottom ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
Top ● ● ○ ● ● ● ●
Pin-ended boundary condition
Bottom ● ● ● ○ ○ ● ●
Top ● ● ○ ○ ○ ● ●

(Free: ○; Constrained: ●).

barely noticeable for loads up to the ultimate load, where it became most
evident (Fig. 7(a)). When the applied load was close to the peak load,
LVDT-1 and LVDT-2 moved towards the opposite direction, while LVDT-
4 moved longer than LVDT-3 since it was located farther from the shear
center. For the cross-section DS2, when the member length was 500 mm
(F-DS2-500), failure was initiated by local buckling of the flange and
web. At the ultimate load, the specimen failed because of the combi­
nation of local buckling and torsional buckling (Fig. 7(b)). For F-DS2-
Fig. 4. Experimental stress–strain curves of coupons extracted from the Sec­ 750, F-DS2-1000 and F-DS3-1000, all these specimens failed by flexural
tion DS2. buckling about the symmetry axis (Fig. 7(c, d, e)). Two flexual buckling
directions about the asymmetry axis (x-axis) were observed from the
tests, namely “FBx-D” and “FBx-U”, indicating that the failed column
Table 3
buckled away from and towards the flange, respectively. The specimens
Measured material properties of T-section specimens.
F-SS1-450 and F-SS1-600 failed in the FBx-D mode (Fig. 7(f, g)), while
Section label E (MPa) f0.1 (MPa) f0.2 (MPa) fu (MPa) εu (%) n
the four specimens in the pin-ended tests failed in the FBx-U mode
SS1 74,700 466.6 475.3 553.4 12.8 24.4 (Fig. 7(h - k)). Fig. 9 compares the longitudinal strain distribution of the
SS2 74,082 537.9 554.6 610.1 15.4 37.2 cross-section at the mid-height for the two flexural buckling directions.
DS1 71,500 453.8 461.2 538.7 14.6 24.0
DS2 75,300 556.1 564.0 627.8 11.0 35.5
For the specimen F-SS1-450, the distribution of longitudinal strain
DS3 74,500 547.5 552.2 613.5 14.0 35.9 demonstrated a uniform compression into the cross-section in the early
Average 74,016 512.4 521.4 588.7 13.6 31.4 loading phase. When the ultimate load was reached, the flange and web
were compressed. In the descending post-buckling path, the induced
“downward” bending generated additional compression in the flange
and tensile strain in the web tip (Fig. 9(a)). Conversely, for the specimen

3
L. Yuan and Q. Zhang Engineering Structures 260 (2022) 114221

Fig. 6. Test set-up of column tests.

Fig. 7. Failure mode of tested specimens (TB: torsional buckling, FBx: flexural buckling about x-axis, FBy: flexural buckling about y-axis, LB: local buckling, U:
upward, D: downward).

4
L. Yuan and Q. Zhang Engineering Structures 260 (2022) 114221

Fig. 8. The specimen F-DS1-550 (a) load–displacement curve and (b) load-torsional rotation curve.

Fig. 9. The strain distribution at the mid-height for the specimen (a) F-SS1-450 and (b) P-SS1-350.

P-SS1-350 (Fig. 9(b)), the induced “upward” bending generated addi­

tional compression strain at the web tip. Table 2 summarizes the ulti­
mate compression load Pu,test.

3. Numerical modeling

3.1. Finite element model

Finite element models were developed in software ABAQUS and used

for geometrically and materially non-linear analyses with imperfections.
The specimens and the endplates were discretized by using S4R shell
elements. The mesh had an element size of 2.5 × 2.5 mm in columns and
5 × 5 mm in endplates. In order to simulate equivalent bearing condi­
tions at the ends of the specimens in column tests, the endplate was
modeled as a rigid body. The endplates were constrained in the refer­
ence points RP-1 and RP-2 through kinematic coupling (Fig. 10), and
thus warping was restrained at both ends. The reference points were
assigned at the center of the endplates. The geometric centroid of the T-
section was coincident with the RPs of the rigid plates. A concentrated
load was applied at the top end through RP-2, so that uniform
compression was introduced into the column. The boundary condition
was modeled by applying rotational and translational constraints to the
reference points. The bottom reference point RP-1 was totally
restrained, while the top reference point RP-2 was permitted to undergo Fig. 10. The finite element model.

5
L. Yuan and Q. Zhang Engineering Structures 260 (2022) 114221

only free vertical translation for rigidly fixed-ended specimens. As for

pin-ended specimens, all the three translations and twists were
restrained at the bottom point RP-1, and the two horizontally trans­
lations and the twisting degree of freedom were restrained at the top
point RP-2, as listed in Table 4. The end surface of the T-section columns
was defined as the slave surface, and the rigid endplate was defined as
the master surface. The surface interaction between the column end and
Fig. 12. Distribution patterns of initial geometric imperfection of (a) FTB (b)
the endplate was applied by using a tie constraint. The material prop­
FBx and (c) LB.
erties were taken from the average values of the tensile coupon tests. The
engineering material curve was converted into a multi-linear model
consisting of true stress and log plastic strain. Fig. 11 compares the
engineering stress–strain curve and true stress–strain curve.
In the numerical calculations, the superposition of initial geometric
imperfections in the shape of the first global mode and local mode were
assigned to all FE models. According to GB 5237.1–2008 [22], the global
imperfection amplitudes are equal to e0,global = L/1000, and local
imperfection amplitudes are equal to e0,local = hw/125. The first global
buckling mode was “FTB” or “FBx”, representing flexural–torsional
buckling (Fig. 12(a)) and flexural buckling about the x-axis (Fig. 12(b)),
respectively. In each column, two cases of local imperfection directions
were considered using the method in [13]. For the local imperfection,
local mode may not participate in the critical buckling mode but its
bifurcation load may be close to the critical load, so higher-order
buckling mode representing local shape was introduced into the FE
models. The local imperfections considered were the shape that the web
and flanges exhibit several half-waves (Fig. 12(c)). Residual stresses in
Fig. 13. Comparison of experimental and numerical ultimate loads.
aluminum alloy extruded profiles [23] are very small and hence are
neglected in the analysis. As can be seen from Fig. 13, the ultimate
strengths calculated from the numerical analysis were quite close to the
experimental values (the mean and CoV value of Pu,test/Pu,FE = 1.005
and CoV = 0.038. The failure shape of the specimens in the numerical
analysis presented good agreement with the experimental tests, as
typically shown in Fig. 14. Therefore, the FE model was validated and
able to be used for the following parametric study.

3.2. Column buckling behavior analysis and parametric study

In the parametric analysis, four standard American extruded T-sec­

tions were selected from the Aluminum Design manual [24], as shown in
Table 5. By using the validated FE model, the buckling resistance was
obtained for all of the cross-sections for a variety of different lengths
under fixed-ended and pin-ended conditions. For each cross-section, by
using the GBTUL software [25], the signature curves (Pcr vs. L) and the
modal participation diagrams were obtained (Fig. 15). The length
associated with the transition point LT between torsional mode (or
flexural–torsional mode) to flexural mode about the asymmetry axis is
highlighted as a red dashed line in the signature curve. The GBT
deformation modes in Fig. 15(f) indicate that they are: mode 2
Fig. 11. Comparison between engineering stress–strain curve and true
stress–strain curve.
Fig. 14. Deformed shapes at failure from the experiments and finite
element analysis.
(asymmetry-axis bending), mode 3 (symmetry-axis bending), 4 (tor­
sion), and 5–8 (local buckling). The following observations can be made
from Fig. 15:
i) When the flange and web of the cross-section have the same plate
slenderness (βw = βf), local buckling is not mixed with the
torsional buckling in the critical mode (Fig. 15(a.2, b.2)). It is that
the flange has no rotational restraint on the web along the
adjoined edge, and hence the buckling mode involves pure tor­
sion about the plate simply supported edge and the web exhibits
no transverse bending [12]. Besides, the higher-order bifurcation
loads of local buckling were much higher than the critical loads,
as evidenced by Table 6.
ii) Fixed- and pin-ended columns exhibit quite a different buckling
behavior. For example, for the cross-section T76.2–76.2–5.04,
under fixed-ended condition, The torsional mode 4 is mixed only
with the local mode (Fig. 15(c.2)) for L < LT, and pure flexural
mode 3 occurs for L > LT. However, for pin-ended condition,
flexural buckling mode 3 is always coupled with torsional mode 4
and flexural–torsional mode is the dominant global buckling
mode for L < LT (Fig. 15(d.2).

6
L. Yuan and Q. Zhang Engineering Structures 260 (2022) 114221

Table 5
Cross-section geometry and buckling modes.
ID bf (mm) H (mm) tf, tw (mm) βw βf Fixed-ended columns Pin-ended columns

LT (mm) Modes L < LT Modes L > LT LT (mm) Modes L < LT Modes L > LT

S1 76.2 40.0 4.2 8.6 8.5 550 3þ4 2 450 3 þ 4 2

S2 63.5 31.8 4.8 6.1 5.6 275 4 2 225 3 þ 4 2þ8
S3 76.2 76.2 5.0 7.1 14.1 1150 4þ5þ6 3 – 4 þ 5 3þ4
S4 114.3 76.2 8.0 6.6 8.5 1525 4þ6þ7 2 1000 3 þ 4þ6 2

iii) The shape of the local mode involved in the critical buckling
mode depends mainly on the flange slenderness relative to the
web. As shown in Fig. 15(d.2, e.2), modes 5 and 6 participate in
the mixed local-torsional-flexural modes for pinned columns
T76.2–76.2–5 and T114.3–76.2–8, respectively. For the former
cross-section, the flange can provide clamped rotational restraint
on the web along the adjoined edge since the flange’s slenderness
is much less than the web slenderness (βw = 2βf). As a result, the
flange exhibits a rigid-body rotation about the adjoined edge
while the web exhibits transverse bending (mode 5). However,
for the latter cross-section, since the flange’s slenderness is
slightly less than the web slenderness (βw = 1.3βf), the flange
provides boundary conditions between simply-supported and
fixed along the adjoined edges. As a result, the flange and web
exhibit both torsion and transverse bending, but the flange has a
smaller rotation than the web (mode 6).
are shown in Eqs. (4)-(6). Pne is the nominal axial strength for flexural,
torsional, torsional-flexural for columns. Pcre is the critical elastic
buckling load for the corresponding global buckling mode. Pnl is the
nominal axial force for local buckling. Pcrl is the critical elastic local
buckling load. The value of Pcrl could not be determined from the
signature curves directly since the signature curves of the T-columns
analyzed in this paper do not exhibit local minima corresponding to
local buckling. In this paper, Pcrl is calculated by using the revised
buckling coefficient k influenced by the element interaction, which was
derived by Bleich [26] for the web plate in T-sections, see Eq. (7). The
interaction coefficient ζ can be computed by Eq. (8).
Pn = min(Pne , Pnl ) (4)
⎧
⎨ (0.658λ2c )P for λ ⩽1.5
(5)
y c
Pne = ( )
⎩ 0.877/λ2c Py for λc > 1.5

4. Assessment of EN 1999–1-1 and DSM design rules for ⎧

⎪ Pnl = Pne for λl ⩽0.776
aluminum alloy T-columns ⎪
⎨(
)0.4 )( )0.4
(
Pnl = Pcrl Pcrl (6)
⎪
⎪ 1 − 0.15 Pne for λl > 0.776
In this section, the European code EN 1999–1-1 (EC9) [14] and the ⎩ Pne Pne
Direct Strength Method given in [18] are summarized and then assessed
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
using the experimental data in Section 2 and the numerical data ob­ where Py = Af0.2;λc = Py /Pcre ;λl = Pne /Pcrl .
tained from the FE parametric study.
( )2
1
k= 0.65 + (7)
4.1. European structural code EN 1999–1-1 3ζ + 4
( )3
The European design code for aluminum structures EN 1999–1-1 tw 1
ζ= ( )2 (8)
(EC9) [14] utilizes different buckling curves for columns failing by tf t w bf
1 − 0.106
flexural–torsional buckling and flexural buckling. According to EC9, the 2tf hw

design load-carrying capacity of concentrically loaded compression

members, without any consideration for welding, is calculated by Eq.
(1). χ is the corresponding buckling curve reduction factor, and φ is the
buckling coefficient, as given by Eq. (2), where λ is the non-dimensional
slenderness. In Eqs. (1) and (3), Aeff is the effective cross-sectional area
allowing for local buckling in slender parts but is taken as the gross
cross-section area for cases in which the local buckling mode is the same
as torsional buckling. α is the imperfection factor, equal to 0.2 for both
flexural–torsional buckling and flexural buckling. λ0 is the limit of the
horizontal plateau, equal to 0.6 for flexural–torsional buckling for sec­
tions composed entirely of radiating outstands and 0.1 for flexural
buckling. Pcr is the elastic critical buckling load.
/ flexural–torsional buckling (FTB – mode 3 þ 4). They are carefully
Pu,EC = χ Aeff f0.2 γ M1 (1)
1 ( ) loads.
χ = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅⩽1.0 with ϕ = 0.5 1 + α(λ − λ0 ) + λ2
ϕ+ ϕ2 − λ2
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
λ =
Aeff f0.2
Pcr
4.2. Direct Strength Method for cold-formed steel structures
The Direct Strength Method (DSM) was developed for cold-formed
carbon steel members. As summarized in [18], the column design
rules for the DSM that takes the local and global buckling into account
4.3. Accuracy assessment of the design procedures for T-columns in
EN1999-1–1 and DSM
In this subsection, the accuracy of the EC 9 and DSM design methods
for the buckling strength predictions of T-section columns is investigated
with respect to high-strength aluminum alloy 7075-T6. The FE data
obtained through the parametric analysis in Section 3.2 and the exper­
imental data are utilized in the comparative study. The FE failure modes
included flexural buckling about the symmetry axis (FBy – mode 3),
flexural buckling about the asymmetry axis (FBx – mode 2), local-
torsional buckling (LTB – mode 4 þ 5 or 4 þ 6), and symmetric-axis
considered and analyzed to evaluate the corresponding design failure
(2) For cases in which flexural buckling is the failure mode, the FE and
test results are plotted in the form of Pu/Aeff f0.2 vs. the non-dimensional
slenderness shown in Fig. 16(a). The EC9 column curve for flexural
(3) buckling is also shown. Besides, Fig. 16(b) presents the ratio between the
ultimate strength and the DSM predictions (Pu/Pn) in terms of the global
buckling slenderness λc. It can be observed that the current EC9 column
curve for flexural buckling and DSM column design rules are found safe
and accurate for the analyzed columns failing by FBx and FBy. The
values of Pm, CoV and reliability index β of the ratio Pu/Pu,EC for FBx and
FBy columns are found to be 1.10, 0.05, 2.93; and 1.02, 0.04, 2.62
respectively (see Table 7). In fact, if the cross section is asymmetric, then

7
L. Yuan and Q. Zhang Engineering Structures 260 (2022) 114221

Fig. 15. Signature curves, modal participation diagrams for T-sections in parametric analysis.

there might be a shift in the neutral axis. However, aluminum extrusions
usually do not contain very slender plate elements because the extrusion
process is generally unsuited for producing them. Based on the analyzed
columns, it is concluded that the effects of effective centroid shift can be
ignored for the design of concentrially loaded columns.
Fig. 17 compares the numerical strengths and the nominal axial
strengths predicted by EC9 and DSM for columns failing by LTB and FTB.
It is found that the design strength predictions are particularly conser­
vative for fixed-ended columns failing by LTB and FTB. The mean and
CoV of the Pu,FE/Pu,EC ratio is 1.57/0.22 and 1.62/0.28 for LTB and FTB
columns, respectively. The mean and CoV of the Pu,FE/Pu,DSM ratio is
1.32/0.08 and 1.41/0.03, indicating a slight improvement of the mean

8
L. Yuan and Q. Zhang Engineering Structures 260 (2022) 114221

Table 6 mode plays a more critical role than the flexural buckling mode in the
Examination for higher-order bifurcation loads of local buckling. post-buckling range. The ultimate load can be determined with the
ID BCs L Critical (First) Higher-order local buckling mode nominal axial force for local buckling in DSM (Eq. (6)) and the critical
(mm) buckling mode elastic local buckling load Pcrl is replaced by the critical torsional
Shape Load Order Shape Bifurcation buckling load. When a column with Pcrft < Pcrt,∞, its representative point
(kN) load (kN) falls in domain 2 of the signature curve, and the globally flexural
S1 Fixed 200 3þ4 475.2 5 9 844.2
buckling mode about the symmetry axis is decisive in the post-buckling
S1 Pinned 125 3þ4 192.7 4 9 519.5 behavior. The ultimate load can be calculated by employing the current
S2 Fixed 150 4 887.1 3 8 1185.9 DSM provisions for concentrically loaded T-columns bending about the
S2 Pinned 150 3þ4 339.3 6 8 776.6 symmetry axis. As the member’s length increases, the post-buckling
behavior exhibits local-dominant mode for short to moderate lengths
and globally flexural-dominant mode for moderate to long lengths. The
and a slightly lower CoV compared to the current EC9 procedure. For
movement from “local” to “global” is taken into account by the sug­
pin-ended columns failing by FTB, the comparisons between the nu­
gested approach. Fig. 17(a, b, c) shows the comparison of FE results
merical strengths to the code predictions are shown in the last row of
against the results predicted by the suggested design approaches. The
Table 7. The mean and CoV of the ratio Pu,FE/Pu,EC are 1.21 and 0.09,
values of Pm, CoV and reliability index β of the ratio Pu,FE/Pu,pred for LTB
respectively for such columns. The DSM predictions, in this case are
and FTB columns are found to be 1.05, 0.06, 2.72; and 1.01, 0.05, 2.55
quite close with their EC9 counterparts.
respectively (see Table 7). It indicates that the suggested design
approach leads to quite accurate and economic predictions for torsional-
4.4. Modified DSM approach
involved buckling ultimate loads of fixed-ended columns. Finally, the
suggestions for the application of DSM to aluminum alloy concentrically
In this section, a modified DSM strength prediction model is pro­
loaded tees are summarized in Table 8.
posed to improve the prediction accuracy for fixed-ended columns
failing by FTB and LTB. Fig. 18 depicts a typical signature curve of a
5. Conclusions
fixed-ended T-section. The asymptotic value of the critical pure torsional
buckling load for very long columns is calculated by Eq. (9) and defined
The buckling behavior of aluminum alloy T-columns under axial
as Pcrt,∞.
compression were investigated in this study. Eleven column tests were
⃒
GJ + π2 EIw /LT2 ⃒⃒ GJ conducted under fixed-ended and pin-ended conditions. A finite element
Pcrt,∞ = = 2 (9)
2 2
r0 + y 0 ⃒
LT =∞ r 2
0 + y0
model was developed and validated against the experimental results.
Using the validated FE model, four typical cross-sections were selected
where G is the shear modulus of elasticity. LT is the effective length in the parametric study. The buckling behavior and ultimate loads of
against torsion. J is the torsional constant.r02 = i2x + i2y + y20 , where ix these sections over a wide range of lengths were determined through the
and iy are the radii of gyration about the x-axis and y-axis, respectively. GBTUL analysis and numerical simulations. The generated data were
y0 is the shear center coordinate (see Fig. 2). then compared with the current Eurocode 9 [14] and DSM [18] design
By comparing the critical FTB load Pcrft with the value Pcrt,∞, two methods. Based on the results analyzed in this work, we conclude the
domains in the Pcrft vs. L curve are divided. When a column with Pcrft > following:
Pcrt,∞, its representative point falls in domain 1, and local/torsional

Fig. 16. Comparison of the FB ultimate strengths with the design rules in (a) EC9 and (b) DSM.

Table 7
Means, CoVs and relability indexes of the numerical-to-predicted ultimate strength ratios provided by EC9, DSM and proposed design suggestions.
Group Pu/Pu,EC Pu/Pu,DSM Pu/Pu,pred

Pm CoV β Pm CoV β Pm CoV β

FBx columns 1.10 0.05 2.93 1.08 0.04 2.88

FBy columns 1.02 0.04 2.62 1.05 0.05 2.73
Fixed-ended LTB columns 1.57 0.22 3.24 1.32 0.08 3.64 1.05 0.06 2.72
Fixed-ended FTB columns 1.62 0.28 2.92 1.41 0.03 4.08 1.01 0.05 2.55
Pin-ended FTB columns 1.21 0.09 3.23 1.28 0.10 3.34

9
L. Yuan and Q. Zhang Engineering Structures 260 (2022) 114221

Fig. 17. Comparison of FEA and predicted strengths for columns failing by LT and FT buckling.

(i) Local buckling is the same as torsional buckling and is not

involved in the critical torsional mode when the flange and web
have the same slenderness. Fixed-ended columns can exhibit pure
flexural buckling mode about the symmetry axis after the tran­
sition length, while pin-ended columns always present coupled
flexural–torsional mode before the transition length.
(ii) For flexural buckling, the EC9 buckling curve and DSM column
design rules may be safely and accurately used for the design of
extruded high-strength aluminum alloy T-columns with slender
cross-sections. The effect of effective centroid shift caused by the
local buckling of slender parts can be ignored.
(iii) The torsional buckling curve in EC9 and the DSM column design
rules offer safe but quite conservative predictions of local-
torsional and flexural–torsional strengths of fixed-ended col­
umns. Two domains are defined in the signature curve to identify
the torsional-dominant and flexural-dominant buckling mode,
Fig. 18. Definition of two length domains. respectively. Based on the two different buckling behavior, the
suggested DSM-based design approach was proposed for the
design of fixed-ended aluminum alloy columns failing in
Table 8 torsional-involved buckling mode.
Suggestions for application of DSM to aluminum alloy concentrically loaded
tees. Declaration of Competing Interest
Fixed-ended columns Pin-ended columns

Pcrx < Pcrx > Pcrft, Pcryt > Pcrx > Pcrx < Pcrft Pcrx > Pcrft The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
Pcrft Pcrt,∞ Pcrft, interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
Pcryt < the work reported in this paper.
Pcrt,∞

Pcre FBx – FBy FBx FTB Acknowledgements

Pcrl L T L L L
Pn min(Pne, Pnl min(Pne, min(Pne, min(Pne,
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
Pnl) Pnl) Pnl) Pnl)
of China (Grant No. 51738009). The authors are greatly thankful for the
L = Pcr for local mode using Eq. (7). T = torsional mode with LT = 0.5L. experimental help of the State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in
FBx/FBy = Pcr for flexural buckling about the asymmetry axis, and symmetry Civil Engineering in Tongji University.
axis, respectively.
FTB = Pcr for symmetry axis flexural–torsional buckling.

10
L. Yuan and Q. Zhang Engineering Structures 260 (2022) 114221

References [11] Sena Cardoso F, Rasmussen KJR. Behavior and design of concentrically loaded T-
section steel columns. J Struct Eng 2014;140(7):04014039. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000969.
[1] Adeoti GO, Fan F, Wang YJ, Zhai XM. Stability of 6082–T6 aluminium alloy
[12] Dinis PB, Camotim D, Silvestre N. On the local and global buckling behaviour of
columns with H-section and rectangular hollow sections. Thin-Walled Struct 2015;
angle, T-section and cruciform thin-walled members. Thin-Walled Struct 2010;48
89:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2014.12.002.
(10–11):786–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2010.04.012.
[2] Wang YQ, Yuan HX, Chang T, Du XX, Yu M. Compressive buckling strength of
[13] Taras A, Kugler P, Unterweger H. On the behaviour and Eurocode design of T-
extruded aluminium alloy I-section columns with fixed-pinned end conditions.
section columns, beams and beam-columns with slender webs. J Constr Steel Res
Thin-Walled Struct 2017;119:396–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
2017;129:250–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2016.10.017.
tws.2017.06.034.
[14] Eurocode 9: Design of aluminum structures – Part 1-1: General structural rules.
[3] Wang YJ, Fan F, Lin SB. Experimental investigation on the stability of aluminium
EN1999-1-1. European Committee for Standardization; 2007.
alloy 6082 circular tubes in axial compression. Thin-Walled Struct 2015;89:54–66.
[15] Su MN, Young B, Gardner L. The continuous strength method for the design of
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2014.11.017.
aluminium alloy structural elements. Eng Struct 2016;122:338–48. https://doi.
[4] Wang ZX, Wang YQ, Sojeong J, Ouyang YW. Experimental investigation and
org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.04.040.
parametric analysis on overall buckling behavior of large-section aluminum alloy
[16] Piluso V, Pisapia A. Interactive plastic local buckling of box-shaped aluminium
columns under axial compression. Thin-Walled Struct 2018;122:585–96. https://
members under uniform compression. Thin-Walled Struct 2021;164:107828.
doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2017.11.003.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2021.107828.
[5] Zhao Y, Zhai X, Wang J. Buckling behaviors and ultimate strength of 6082–T6
[17] Zhu JH, Young B. Aluminum alloy tubular columns—Part II: Parametric study and
aluminum alloy columns with square and circular hollow sections under eccentric
design using direct strength method. Thin-Walled Struct 2006;44(9):969–85.
compression–Part I: Experiments and finite element modeling. Thin-Walled Struct
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2006.08.012.
2019;143:106207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2019.106207.
[18] North American Specification for the design of cold-formed steel structural
[6] Yuan L, Zhang QL, Ouyang YW. Experimental investigation and design method of
members. Washington, DC: American Iron and Steel Institute; 2001.
the flexural buckling resistance of high-strength aluminum alloy H-columns.
[19] GB/T 228.1-2010. Metallic materials-tensile testing- Part 1: Method of test at room
Structures 2021;35:1339–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.11.013.
temperature. Beijing: Standards Press of China; 2010.
[7] Wang YQ, Wang ZX, Hu XG, Han JK, Xing HJ. Experimental study and parametric
[20] Ramberg W, Osgood WR. Description of stress-strain curves by three parameters.
analysis on the stability behavior of 7A04 high-strength aluminum alloy angle
Technical note 902. Washington, DC: National Advisory Committee for
columns under axial compression. Thin-Walled Struct 2016;108:305–20. https://
Aeronautics; 1943.
doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2016.08.029.
[21] Ziemian RD, editor. Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures, 6th ed.
[8] Hu XG, Cheng YF, et al. Tests on domestic 703 high-strength aluminum alloy angle
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2010.
members in axial compression. J Tongji Univ (Nat Sci) 2020;48:10.
[22] GB 5237.1-2008. Aluminum alloy extruded profiles for architecture – Part 1: Mill
[9] Wang Z, Wang Y, Yun X, Gardner L, Hu X. Experimental and numerical study of
finish profiles. Beijing: Standards Press of China; 2008.
fixed-ended high-strength aluminum alloy angle-section columns. J Struct Eng
[23] Mazzolani FM. Aluminium alloy structures. 2nd ed. London: E&FN Spon; 1995.
2020;146(10):04020206. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-
[24] Bebiano R, Camotim D, Gonçalves R. GBTUL 2.0 – a second-generation code for the
541X.0002773.
GBT-based buckling and vibration analysis of thin-walled members. Thin-Walled
[10] Zhu JH, Li ZQ, Su MN, Young B. Behaviour of aluminium alloy plain and lipped
Struct 2018;124:235–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2017.12.002.
channel columns. Thin-Walled Struct 2019;135:306–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/
[25] Aluminum Design Manual. Washington, DC: The Aluminum Association; 2020.
j.tws.2018.11.010.
[26] Bleich F. Buckling strength of metal structures. NewYork, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1952.

11