Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 17341744

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Experimental tests on pure aluminium shear panels with welded stiffeners

G. De Matteis a, , F.M. Mazzolani b , S. Panico b
a University of Chieti/Pescara G. dAnnunzio, Faculty of Architecture (PRICOS), Viale Pindaro, 42, 65127 Pescara, Italy
b University of Naples Federico II, Department of Structural Engineering (DIST), P.le Tecchio 80, 80125 Napoli, Italy

Received 15 January 2007; received in revised form 23 November 2007; accepted 26 November 2007
Available online 21 February 2008

Abstract
Pure aluminium is an innovative material recently proposed in the field of seismic engineering, due to both low yield strength and high ductility
features. Aimed at evaluating the energy dissipation capacity of stiffened pure aluminium shear panels, an experimental investigation has been
recently developed. In the current paper the results of two cyclic tests on aluminium panels with welded stiffeners subjected to shear loads are
provided. Tested specimens have in-plane dimensions 1500 1000 mm, with a thickness of 5 mm and are made of AW 1050A alloy, which is
characterised by a high degree of purity (more than 99.50%), also subjected to heat treatment to improve the materials mechanical features. Such
a material has been chosen due to its very low yield strength (about 20 MPa after heat treatment), high hardening ratio (about 4) and large ductility
(about 40%). Two different configurations of welded stiffeners have been adopted, in order to investigate the effect of plate local slenderness. On
the whole, the obtained results pointed out a good structural performance of tested panels, measured in terms of strength, stiffness and dissipative
capacity, proving that the proposed system can be usefully employed as a special device for passive seismic protection of new and existing
structures.
c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Pure aluminium; Shear panels; Shear buckling; Dissipative devices; Ductility; Cyclic behaviour

1. Introduction
A recent approach in the seismic design of structures is
based on the adoption of special seismic protection devices
acting as sacrificial elements during seismic events, thus
limiting the damage of both structural and non-structural
elements. Within metallic yielding-based devices, diagonal
bracings and panel systems can be conveniently used with high
efficiency.
In the first case, the dissipative function is carried out by
either ductile braces [1] or Added Damping And Stiffness
(ADAS) elements [2]. Notoriously, in the former category
Buckling Inhibited Braces (BIB) and Unbonded Braces are
included. They are composed of a steel core, as load-carrying
and dissipative element, placed inside a lateral support jacket,
so as to obtain a buckling restrained bracing which is able
Corresponding address: University of Naples Federico II, Department of
Structural Engineering (DIST), P.le Tecchio 80, 80125 Napoli, Italy. Tel.: +39
081 7682444; fax: +39 081 5934792.
E-mail address: demattei@unina.it (G. De Matteis).

c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0141-0296/$ - see front matter
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.11.015

to dissipate energy under both tensile and compression axial

forces, providing a stable hysteretic behaviour without any
pinching and/or degradation of strength and stiffness up to the
system failure. In the latter category, the dissipative system
is installed either between the foundation and the structure
or between two relevant parts of the structure. The system is
differentiated in relation to the shape of the device (for instance
X-shaped, E-shaped, U-shaped, -shaped, honeycomb-shaped
and so on), as well as for the type of dissipative mechanism on
which the system is based (for instance based on flexural, shear,
axial and torsional deformations).
When shear panel systems are employed, stiffening,
strengthening and dissipative functions are carried out by either
the basic plate constituting the panel or by the connecting
system between shear panels and the bearing structure [3].
The former solution appears more effective and promising. In
fact, firstly, the adopted plates, when rigidly connected to the
external frame, may easily provide high in-plane strength and
stiffness; secondly, the possibility to have a quite uniform shear
stress distribution throughout the plate ensures a large energy
dissipation capacity due to the large size of yielding fields.

1735

G. De Matteis et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 17341744

Table 1
Mechanical features of typical LYS steel and heat treated pure aluminium EN-AW 1050A
Material

f 0.2 (N mm2 )

f u (N mm2 )

u (%)

E (N mm2 )

E/ f 0.2

= f u / f 0.2

LYS steel
Heat treated pure aluminium (EN-AW 1050A)

86
21.3

254
80

50
45

210 000
70 000

2441
3286

2.95
3.76

In order to enhance the dissipative capacity, shear panels

should be conceived in order to increase the shear buckling
threshold and, in the meantime, to reduce the yielding interstory
drift, so to allow the seismic protection of the primary
structure also for reduced lateral loads. To this purpose,
adequate stiffener configurations must be applied, helping shear
panels to provide a pure shear dissipative mechanism with
plastic deformations developing before the occurrence of shear
buckling. Plate buckling may be more easily controlled when
low yield strength metals are adopted. As a consequence,
shear panels made of low yield strength materials may be
characterised by a very stable hysteretic behaviour up to large
deformation levels, with a conspicuous strain-hardening under
cyclic loads and with limited strength and stiffness degradation
arising from buckling waves. A first solution is represented by
the so-called LYSW (Low Yield Shear Walls), which in the last
decade has been proposed and adopted mainly in Japan [4].
Also, the use of common aluminium alloys has been proposed
to develop new devices for passive protection of structures
subjected to seismic and wind loading [59].
Actually, an alternative and more effective solution for the
fabrication of dissipative shear panels could be based on the
use of pure aluminium owing to lower yielding stress and easier
availability in the world market. Therefore, a wide experimental
campaign to investigate the energy dissipation capacity of
aluminium stiffened shear panels has been undertaken at the
University of Naples Federico II in cooperation with the
University of Chieti-Pescara G. dAnnunzio. Two aluminium
alloys have been employed, namely AW 1050A and AW
5154A. The former, also indicated as pure aluminium, is
characterised by a very high degree of purity (99.50% of
aluminium), while the latter is an alloy commonly used for the
civil engineering applications. The experimental activity is still
ongoing and six shear panels, four made of AW 1050A and
two made of AW 5154A, have been tested so far [10]. This
experimental activity was preceded by a preliminary numerical
study based on both static and dynamic inelastic analyses
carried out in order to evaluate the seismic performance of
steel frames equipped with pure aluminium shear panels [11].
The obtained results clearly showed that these panels provide
a useful stiffening effect, a significant energy dissipation
contribution and also a remarkable increase of global strength,
on the whole increasing the performance of the structural
system. These effects allowed a significant global economical
advantage, measured in terms of saving of steel weight of the
basic structure when compared to the employment of other
technical solutions, i.e. the ones based on the use of simple
moment resisting steel frames. The economical analysis also
considered the major cost related to the employed aluminium
for shear panels, which was duly taken into account.

In this paper, the results of two cyclic tests carried out on the
AW 1050A aluminium panels are presented. In the following,
for each test the obtained cyclic response of the specimen
is described and the corresponding experimental behaviour is
interpreted by means of synthetic numerical parameters, which
are used to evaluate the supplied structural performance in
terms of dissipated energy, secant stiffness and plastic strength.
2. The experimental program
2.1. The adopted material
According to the purpose of this study, the selected material
is the aluminium alloy AW 1050A, which is characterised
by a limited conventional yield strength (about 20 MPa) and
large ductility (larger than 40%). It is important to observe
that the shear panel specimens, after the fabrication, have been
subjected to heat treatment, which aids a further improvement
of the mechanical features and is also useful to reduce the
residual stresses produced by welding during the fabrication
process. In particular, a number of specimens have been
submitted to a cycle of heat treatments characterised by
different phases with constant temperature, each one having a
duration of four hours [9].
In Table 1, the mechanical features of the above heat treated
aluminium alloy are shown and are also compared with the ones
related to a typical low yield strength (LYS) steel. It is worth
noticing that due to the processed heat treatment, the aluminium
alloy AW 1050A is very suitable for the application under
consideration. In fact, it is characterised by a very high value
of the ratio between Youngs modulus (E) and the conventional
yield strength at 0.2% offset strain ( f 02 ), which means a high
aptitude to avoid buckling [12].
2.2. Geometry of tested panels
The experimental tests have been carried out on panel specimens measuring 1500 by 1000 mm, with a thickness t = 5 mm
[10,11,13]. Tested specimens are endowed with longitudinal
and transversal open rectangular-shaped stiffeners having a
depth of 60 mm and obtained by the same sheeting used for
the base shear plate and welded to the base shear plate. In order
to reduce the sheeting shape distortion produced by shrinkage,
the welds has been subdivided into segments and the ribs have
been placed on both sides of the sheeting, therefore balancing
the residual strain produced during the welding process.
In the present paper, two different types of panel
configuration have been considered, which are characterised by
a different geometry of the applied ribs (see Fig. 1). For panel
type B, the ribs are placed on both sides of the plate according
to square fields with side length b = 500 mm. Contrarily, the

1736

G. De Matteis et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 17341744

The external shear load has been applied by means of an

articulated steel frame composed of very rigid members and
equipped with lateral out-of-plane braces [9] (see Fig. 2).
3. Test results

Fig. 1. Geometrical configuration of tested shear panels.

panel configuration type F is stiffened with ribs alternatively

placed on the two sides of the plate in order to obtain square
fields with b = 250 mm and to balance the out-of-plane
deflection induced by the welding process. As a consequence,
the internal fields of the tested shear panels are characterised by
different slenderness ratios, namely b/t = 100 for panel type
B and b/t = 50 for panel type F.

The main results of the experimental tests are provided

in terms of system reaction force versus the applied lateral
displacement. In the following, for each specimen such a
relationship has been normalized considering the average shear
stress acting on the horizontal panel side, assuming a nominal
cross-section A = 5000 mm2 (the panel width B is 1000 mm),
and the equivalent shear strain , which has been evaluated
as the ratio between the applied displacement and the panel
nominal depth H = 1500 mm. It is worth noting that the
considered shear strain includes only the part related to the
panel shear deformation, since the slips occurring in the panel
connections as well as the displacements of the reaction frame
have been deducted from the global measured displacement.
The cyclic response of tested specimens has also been
interpreted by considering three synthetic numerical parameters
(see Fig. 3), which characterise the behaviour of the system
in terms
of maximum hardening ratio (max /02 with 02 =
f 02 / 3), secant shear stiffness (G sec ) and equivalent viscous
damping factor (eq ). Therefore, the experimental data have
been processed for each panel by drawing the max /02 ,
G sec and eq curves. Moreover, in order to evaluate
the degradation of strength, energy dissipation capacity and
secant shear stiffness due to low cycle fatigue effects,
max /02 , G sec and eq have also been represented in the form
of bar diagrams as a function of the cycle number.
The obtained hysteretic curves for tested specimens together
with the applied displacement history are shown in Fig. 4. In
the same figure, some pictures illustrating the main collapse
modes of tested specimens are also provided. In order to better
emphasise the progressive behaviour of the system during the
loading process, the cyclic response of the tested panels has

Fig. 2. Testing lay-out.

G. De Matteis et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 17341744

Fig. 3. Definition of dissipated energy (E d ), equivalent viscous damping ratio

(eq ) and secant shear stiffness (G sec ).

been divided into four different significant phases. In Figs. 5

and 6, the relevant phenomena are depicted for each phase
and the corresponding panel hysteretic cycles are shown. The
above phases have been subdivided according to the following
criteria:

phase 1: Negligible buckling phenomena;

phase 2: Occurrence of local buckling;
phase 3: Occurrence of global buckling;
phase 4: Collapse of the specimen.

4. Analysis of the obtained results

The obtained shear forceshear deformation response
diagrams are rather complicate, since they incorporate a number
of different phenomena occurring during the tests. On the other
hand, it has to be observed that the hysteretic response of the
tested panels appears to be quite dissipative, even though, in the
initial part of the loading process, the behaviour is conditioned
by some slipping phenomena due to initial imperfections and
local buckling of some plate portions. In particular, the buckling
phenomena developing in the lower portions of the panels are
due to normal stresses equilibrating the flexural moment at the
base of the plate, producing a pinching effect on the shape
of the shear stressshear strain curve. These phenomena are
evident at displacement amplitude equal to 8 mm (0.0053
rad) for panel type F and 5 mm (0.0033 rad) for panel type
B. For both the panel types, the first behavioural phase develops
up to shear deformation of 0.01 rad. In such a range local
shear buckling waves are reduced and involve only the upper
and bottom corners of the panel (see Figs. 5 and 6phase 1).
Local shear buckling of the single plate portions developed for
an applied deformation amplitude equal to 30.0 mm (0.02
rad) for panel type F and 23.0 mm (0.015 rad) for panel
type B (see Figs. 5 and 6phase 2). As a consequence, outof-plane displacements throughout diagonals in compression
and the consequent activation of diagonal tension fields were
evident. For increasing out-of-plane displacements of the local
buckling waves, strength peaks became clearly visible in the
cyclic curves. This is due to a sort of stiffening effect produced
by corrugated shape of buckled panel portions. This effect is
also reflected in the fatter shape of hysteretic cycles, evidencing

1737

an enhanced dissipative capacity of the specimen (see Figs. 5

and 6phase 3).
It is important to observe that at this deformation stage, the
shear stress on the panel was decidedly larger than theone
corresponding to the conventional elastic limit (02 = f 02 / 3),
emphasising that significant plastic deformations were ongoing.
Due to the stable post-buckling behaviour, a significant increase
of the global stiffness and dissipative capacity of the system
was evident, especially for panel type F. The phenomenon
increased as long as it involved more plate portions. As a
consequence, the dissipative capacity of the system gradually
increased as long as the deformation amplitude increased. A
better performance was noticed when the maximum strength
was attained, which practically coincides with the pure shear
strength of the system. Buckling phenomena of the ribs
developed when a displacement larger than 47.0 mm (0.031
rad) and 55.0 mm (0.037 rad) was imposed for panel type
B and for panel type F, respectively. This behavioural phase
was characterised by a strength degradation followed by a
significant increase of stiffness. Due to rib buckling, the shear
stressshear strain diagram showed a sort of double bulge
effect. Finally, a noticeable strength degradation occurred for
displacements larger than 53.0 mm (0.035 rad) for panel
type F and larger than 80.0 mm (0.053 rad) for panel
type B. Global buckling phenomena developed up to the
complete collapse of the system, which was due to failure of
surrounding connections, by tearing of the aluminium plate in
correspondence of the panel-to-frame bolted connection holes
for shear deformation equal 0.05 rad and 0.095 rad for panel
type F and type B, respectively (see Figs. 5 and 6phase 4).
5. Comparison of results
By comparing the cyclic shear stressshear strain curves of
the two examined panel configurations, it is clearly evident that
the number of cycles performed by the panel type B is higher
than panel type F, despite the larger b/t ratio of the former
(b/t = 50 versus b/t = 100). Such a result can be ascribed
to two main reasons: (a) in the panel type F a premature
tension failure of perimeter panel-column connections occurred
due to both excessive slipping in the cover plates and overdimensioned diameters of joining holes carried out in the
fabrication process; (b) in some parts of the panels, owing to the
fact that the ribs were alternatively placed on each side of the
plate and not continuously welded, the buckling waves passed
from one side to the other side of a stiffener, causing a reduction
of the exerted lateral restraining action (see details of Fig. 6
phase 2). For this reason, the effective b/t field ratio resulted
larger than the nominal one. On the contrary, for panel type B,
thanks to the bilateral restraining action exerted by the ribs, the
shear buckling was confined to the single plate portion up to the
complete failure of the panel, which occurred for tension failure
of connections preceded by the tearing of central points of each
plate portion enclosed by the ribs, forming a sort of X-shaped
failure lines in each field (see details of Fig. 5phase 4).
In order to allow a clear comparison between the two
tested panel configurations, the experimental data have been

1738

G. De Matteis et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 17341744

Fig. 4. Hysteretic curves, applied shear deformation histories and collapse mechanisms of tested AW 1050A specimens: (a) panel type B, (b) panel type F.

G. De Matteis et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 17341744

1739

Fig. 5. Sequence of behavioural mechanisms for tested shear panel AW 1050A type B and corresponding hysteretic cycles.

processed by drawing for each panel the max /02 , G sec

evaluate the degradation of strength, energy dissipation capac-

and eq diagrams (see Figs. 7a, 8a). Moreover, in order to

ity and secant shear stiffness due to low cycle fatigue effects,

1740

G. De Matteis et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 17341744

Fig. 6. Sequence of behavioural mechanisms for tested shear panel AW 1050A type F and corresponding hysteretic cycles.

max /02, , G sec and eq have been also drawn in the form of bar

In the same Figures, the characteristic zones related to the

diagrams as a function of the cycle number (see Figs. 7b, 8b).

phases illustrated in Figs. 5 and 6 are also shown. Finally in

G. De Matteis et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 17341744

1741

Fig. 7. Cyclic performance of shear panel AW 1050A type B: (a) interpolation curves; (b) histograms.

Fig. 9, a direct comparison of the performance of tested panels is provided in terms of interpolation curves of the above
selected synthetic parameters.
By observing the above diagrams, it is worth noting that the
examined F and B panels present an average equivalent viscous
damping equal to 26% and 23%, respectively. The maximum
value of factor eq (even larger than 30%) is got in the initial
and in the final loading phases. On the contrary, in both the
cases, there is a strong reduction of such an equivalent viscous
damping ratio for intermediate deformation amplitude, namely
ranging from 0.013 rad to 0.054 rad for panel type F and
0.005 rad to 0.045 rad for panel type B. This evidences the
fact that the dissipative behaviour of pure aluminium shear
panels can be more profitable for very small deformation
amplitude (i.e. at serviceability limit state of the structure)
and for very large deformation amplitude (i.e. in the collapse

condition of the structure). On the contrary, the dissipative

capacity of tested shear panels appears to be slightly reduced
for an intermediate deformation range, the equivalent viscous
damping ratio assuming for both panel types a minimum value
of about 13% for = 0.03 rad.
It is also interesting to observe the trend of G sec curves,
which shows that the global stiffness of tested specimens
rapidly decreases as long as the applied deformation amplitude
increases. In particular, even for very small values of , the
obtained stiffness of the specimen is remarkably lower than the
nominal shear stiffness of the specimen (about 26 000 MPa).
This aspect emphasises that the actual susceptibility of the
specimen to buckle is significantly larger than the one that could
be predicted on the basis of the elastic material features E
and f 02 .

1742

G. De Matteis et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 17341744

Fig. 8. Cyclic performance of shear panel AW 1050A type F: (a) interpolation curves; (b) histograms.

Finally, the max /02 curves allow the determination of

the maximum strength exploitable by the system for a given
deformation amplitude. In both the cases, the maximum value
of max /02 is greater than 3, assuming a value comparable
to the material hardening ratio, thus evidencing the actual
possibility of tested shear panels to exploit the full shear
strength. This outcome confirms the important issue that
the experienced buckling phenomena do not limit the shear
capacity of the system.
6. Conclusions
In this paper the results of two experimental tests on AW
1050A heat treated pure aluminium shear panels have been
provided. The examination of the obtained results emphasised
that the proposed system is able to exhibit a structural behaviour

characterised by large hysteretic cycles and large ductility with

a shear plastic collapse mechanism. Therefore, on the whole it
can be profitably employed as passive control device in framed
structures.
An additional significant outcome of the study is that
the sheeting shape distortion produced by weld shrinkage
and the heat effects due to welding process may influence
the hysteretic response of the system, conditioning the
occurrence of premature buckling phenomena, even though the
experienced buckling phenomena do not limit the maximum
shear capacity of the system. On the other hand, the tests
presented in this paper have to be intended as a part of a
wider experimental program aimed at assessing the effect of
buckling phenomena on aluminium shear panels with different
stiffener configurations. In fact, the aforementioned drawbacks
may be overcome by avoiding welded stiffeners, but employing

G. De Matteis et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 17341744

1743

Fig. 9. Comparison between tested panels (interpolation curves).

steel channel ribs bolted to the basic aluminium sheeting by

means of friction high-strength steel bolts as already shown
in [11].
Acknowledgments
This study has been developed in the framework of both
research projects Innovative steel structures for the seismic
protection of new and existing buildings: design criteria
and methodologies (MIUR) and Development of innovative
approaches for the design of steel and composite structures
(RELUIS).
References
[1] Clark W, Kasai K, Aiken ID, Kimura I. Evaluation of design
methodologies for structures incorporating steel unbonded braces for
energy dissipation. In: Proceedings of the 12th world conference on
earthquake engineering. Paper No. 2240, CD-ROM. 2000.

[2] Aiken ID, Whittaker AS. Development and application of passive energy
dissipation techniques in the USA. In: Proc. of the international PostSmirt conference seminar on isolation. Energy Dissipation and Control
of Vibration of Structures. 1993.
[3] Pinelli JP, Moor C, Craig JI, Goodno BJ. Testing of energy dissipating
cladding connections. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics
1996;25:12947.
[4] Nakagawa S, Kihara H, Torii S, Nakata Y, Matsuoka Y, Fyjisawa K,
et al. Hysteretic behaviour of low yield strength steel panel shear walls:
experimental investigation. In: Proc. of the 11th WCEE. Elsevier; 1996.
CD-ROM, Paper No. 171.
[5] Rai DC, Wallace BJ. Aluminium shear-link for enhanced seismic
performance. Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics
1998;27:31542.
[6] Rai DC, Wallace BJ. Aluminium shear-link for seismic energy dissipation.
In: Proc. 12th world conf. on earthquake engineering. Paper No. 0279 on
CD-ROM. 2000.
[7] Foti D, Diaferio M. Shear panels for seismic protection of buildings. In:
Structural dynamics-EURODYN 99. 1999.
[8] Rai DC. Inelastic cyclic buckling of aluminium shear panels. Journal of
Engineering Mechanics 2002;128(11):12337.
[9] De Matteis G, Mazzolani FM, Panico S. Pure aluminium shear panels

1744

G. De Matteis et al. / Engineering Structures 30 (2008) 17341744

as passive control system for seismic protection of steel moment resisting

frames. In: Proceedings of the 4th STESSA conference (behaviour of steel
structures in seismic areas). 2003. p. 599607.
[10] De Matteis G, Panico S, Mazzolani FM. Experimental tests on stiffened
aluminium shear panels. In: Proc. XI international conference on metal
structures. 2006.
[11] De Matteis G, Mazzolani FM, Panico S. Pure aluminium shear
panels as dissipative devices in moment-resisting steel frames.
Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2007;

36:84159. Published online 2 January 2007 in Wiley InterScience

www.interscience.wiley.com. doi:10.1002/eqe.656.
[12] De Matteis G, Formisano A, Panico S, Mazzolani FM. Numerical
and experimental analysis of pure aluminium shear panels. Comput
Struct 2007, in press, available on line at http://www.sciencedirect.com,
doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2007.05.027.
[13] De Matteis G, Panico S, Formisano A, Mazzolani FM. Experimental tests
on pure aluminium shear panels under cyclic loading. In: Proc. IZIIS
40EE 21C earthquake engineering in 21st Century. 2005.