materials

Article
Plastic Behavior of Metallic Damping Materials
under Cyclical Shear Loading
Chaofeng Zhang, Longfei Wang, Meiping Wu * and Junhua Zhao
Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Advanced Food Manufacturing Equipment & Technology,
Mechanical Engineering School of Jiangnan University, Wuxi 214122, China; zcf830703@163.com (C.Z.);
wx333vip@126.com (L.W.); junhua.zhao@163.com (J.Z.)
* Correspondence: wmp169@jiangnan.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-510-8591-0586

Academic Editor: Thomas Fiedler

Received: 20 April 2016; Accepted: 17 June 2016; Published: 21 June 2016

Abstract: Metallic shear panel dampers (SPDs) have been widely adopted in seismic engineering.
In this study, axial and torsional specimens of four types of metallic damping materials, including
three conventional metallic steels as well as low yield strength steel 160 (LYS160), were tested in
order to investigate the material response under repeated large plastic strain and low cycle fatigue
between 10 and 30 cycles. The present study demonstrated that both the deformation capacity and
fatigue performance of LYS160 were underestimated by the conversion from the traditional uniaxial
tensile test. The main difference in the failure mechanism between LYS160 and the three conventional
materials was determined from the scanning electron microscopy data. The dominant failure mode
in LYS160 is stable interlaminate slip and not bucking. Our results provide physical insights into the
origin of the large deformation capacity, which is an important foundation for the lightweight design
of SPDs.

Keywords: low yield strength steel; cyclic shear loading; failure mechanism; fatigue performance;
stability; large plastic shear strain

1. Introduction
Metallic dampers, categorized as passive dampers, are widely adopted in seismic structural
systems. The earthquake energy is mainly dissipated by cyclical axial tension-compression, bending,
and shearing of the metallic dampers. When the metallic dampers are under tension and compression
loading, they are prone to necking and instability, which leads to the poor deformation capacity of the
damper. Restraint components were generally introduced to improve the stability of the braces [1].
In addition, the sufficient resist force and stiffness of the damper can also be provided by optimization
design when the metallic damper is under bending [2]. Each damper has its own advantage. Here, the
importance of shear panel dampers (SPDs) is emphasized as it has aroused attention of researchers in
recent years [3,4].
The stability of the shear panel is an important factor in ensuring high performance of the
SPD [5]. When the panel is thin or the width-to-thickness ratio of the panel is high, out-of-plane
buckling is likely to be produced, which is not beneficial for achieving a high deformation capacity [6].
In general, two methods are used to improve the stability of the SPD. One method involves adoption
of high-strength buckling restraining components [7,8]. The distance between the buckling restraining
components and the energy dissipation panel is rarely small. Although out-of-plane shear buckling
can be inhibited, the improvement in the deformation capacity of the SPD is limited. Another method
involves reduction of the width-to-thickness ratio of the shear panel using transverse [9], vertical [10],
or cross stiffeners [11,12]. However, the presence of welding seams, which accompanied the stiffeners,

Materials 2016, 9, 496; doi:10.3390/ma9060496 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2016, 9, 496 2 of 14

prevents the improvement of the deformation capacity of the SPD. Thus, it is better to improve the
deformation capacity of moderate shear panels using a low width-to-thickness ratio [13].
The corner stress concentration is very high when the width-to-thickness ratio of the shear panel is
low [14,15]. Design optimizations, such as strengthening the weak part of the panel and weakening the
strong part of the panel, have been traditionally used to improve the strain distribution. Accordingly,
profiled panels [16] and transition arcs [17] at the panel corners were designed. However, these two
methods do not work when the plastic deformation of the SPD is very large. The deformation capacity
of the SPD can be considerably improved when the corner stress concentration is suppressed by
the ribs. In addition, since the welding seams located at the ends of the ribs are prone to cracking,
stiffeners can be introduced to prevent overlapping of the plastic hinges and the ends of the ribs. The
performance of the developed SPD was fairly stable even under constant dynamic loading [18] or
random dynamic loading [19].
When an incremental shear strain loading sequence of ˘5% is applied, the ultimate shear strain
of the SPD is around 60%, which is approximately equal to the elongation of the SPD material. This
implies that the ultimate deformation capacity, as well as the failure mechanism, cannot be evaluated
by monotonic tension, cyclic tension-compression [20], or cyclic bending [21]. Lack of knowledge
about the ultimate deformation capacity of the damping material makes it very difficult to judge the
pros and cons of the SPD lightweight design. The loading condition of the SPD is approximately equal
to the simple shear, which is the same as the loading condition of the torsional tests. Therefore, it is
necessary and reasonable to investigate the failure mechanism and the ultimate deformation capacity
of the metallic material by torsional tests. In order to take into account the actual working conditions
of the damper, the present study considered the ultimate deformation capacities of the material when
the low cycle fatigue numbers are between 10 and 30.
To meet the increasing need for improved damper performance, materials such as aluminum [22]
and low yield strength steel (LYS) were adopted or developed for SPDs [23]. Although stainless steel
316 (SS316) is not currently used as a metallic material for SPD [24], it has been tested and analyzed
in the present work since its deformation capacity is much larger than that of ordinary carbon steel
(Q235). Hence, four types of metallic materials, namely aluminum 6061 (AL6061), low yield strength
steel 160 (LYS160; yield strength = 160 MPa), Q235, and SS316 were researched and compared.
Traditional studies have shown that an SPD has advantages of compact structure and excellent
performance through a reasonable design. However, a detailed investigation of the damping materials
is important in order to optimize the SPD design. Therefore, in this study, axial and torsional specimens
were tested to investigate the available ultimate shear plastic strain under low cycle fatigue. The failure
mechanism was also analyzed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Our results provide physical
insights into the origin of the large deformation capacity, which is important for the lightweight design
of the damper.

2. Test Procedure

2.1. Test Setup and Specimen

Figure 1 shows the experimental setup. The displacement control method was applied by
a computer-controlled actuator (INSTRON, Boston, MA, USA; capacity = 250 kN) to the tensile
specimens quasi-statically via a movable head (Figure 1a). One end of the torsion specimen was fixed
to the base and the other end of the specimen was connected to the rotatable head of the torsion
testing machine (Figure 1b). The monotonic tensile and torsion tests were conducted using these
two machines, respectively. Cyclical torsion specimens were rotated forwards or backwards according
to the negative and the positive rotation of the driving motor (Figure 1b).
 Materials 2016, 9, 496 3 of 14

Materials 2016, 9, 496

and unreduced sections were used to avoid stress concentration. The shapes and sizes of the 3 of 14
specimens for all the monotonic and cyclical tests were identical [25].

(a) (b)
Figure 1. Test setup. (a) Tensile testing machine; (b) Torsion testing machine.
Figure 1. Test setup. (a) Tensile testing machine; (b) Torsion testing machine.
2.2. Test Plan
An overview of the test specimen is also presented in Figure 1. The standard specimens were
2.2.1. Monotonic Test
machined as round bars with a reduced cross-section. The reduced section diameter was not notched
and maintainedAs listed
at 10inmm
Table 1, a
with 24reduced
standardlength
specimens of mm.
of 100 four different
Transitionmaterials were designed
arcs between to
the reduced and
investigate their performance under monotonic tensile and shear loading. Clarification of the
unreduced sections were used to avoid stress concentration. The shapes and sizes of the specimens for
maximum performance of the metallic material is crucial for the lightweight design of the SPD.
all the monotonic and cyclical tests were identical [25].
Therefore, the maximum shear strain and the maximum shear stress of the specimens were
calculated from the angle-moment curve of the torsion testing machine using the following
2.2. Testequation:
Plan

2.2.1. Monotonic Test   D

=  100% (1)
360  L
As listed in Table 1, 24 standard specimens of four different materials were designed to investigate
their performance under monotonic tensile and 3shear T loading. Clarification of the maximum
max (2)
performance of the metallic material is crucial for the 4 W t lightweight design of the SPD. Therefore,
the maximum
where γ shear strainstrain,
is the shear and the
θ is maximum shearDstress
the torsion angle, of the specimens
is the diameter, wereTcalculated
L is the length, from the
is the torsion
angle-moment curve of the
 torsion testingsection
3 is the torsion machine using the following equation:
moment, and Wt  D modulus.
16
θ ˆ πD
γ“ ˆ 100% (1)
360
Table 1. Details of the˝ monotonic
ˆL test specimens.

Test Type
No. Name Diameter (mm) 3 T (mm)
Length
τmax “ Tension Torsion (2)
1 Q235 4 Wt Ten1 Tor1
2 strain,
where γ is the shear Q235θ is the torsion angle, D is the diameter, Ten2 Tor2
L is the length, T is the torsion
3 π 3 Q235 Ten3 Tor3
moment, and Wt “416 D AL6061
is the torsion section modulus. Ten4 Tor4
5 AL6061 Ten5 Tor5
6 AL6061Table 1. Details
10
of the monotonic
100
test specimens.
Ten6 Tor6
7 SS316 Ten7 Tor7
8 SS316 Ten8 Tor8
Test Type
No. 9NameSS316 Diameter (mm) Length (mm) Ten9 Tor9
10 LYS160 Tension
Ten10 Tor10 Torsion
11 LYS160 Ten11 Tor11
1 12
Q235LYS160 Ten1
Ten12 Tor12
Tor1
2 Q235 Ten2 Tor2
3 Q235 Ten3 Tor3
4 AL6061 Ten4 Tor4
5 AL6061 Ten5 Tor5
6 AL6061 Ten6 Tor6
10 100
7 SS316 Ten7 Tor7
8 SS316 Ten8 Tor8
9 SS316 Ten9 Tor9
10 LYS160 Ten10 Tor10
11 LYS160 Ten11 Tor11
12 LYS160 Ten12 Tor12
Materials 2016, 9, 496 4 of 14
Materials 2016, 9, 496 4 of 14

2.2.2.
2.2.2. Cyclical
Cyclical Shear
Shear Test
Test
The
Theload
loadwaswas applied
appliedby the
by shear strainstrain
the shear (converted from thefrom
(converted torsion
theangle) control,
torsion angle)andcontrol,
the loading
and
pattern is shown
the loading in Figure
pattern 2. The in
is shown cycles were2.fully
Figure reversed
The cycleswith
werestrain
fullyratio R = “γmin
reversed /γmaxstrain
with ” = −1, ratio
and
only
R = “γthe strain
min /γmax amplitude
” = ´1, and was varied.
only According
the strain to thewas
amplitude different
varied.seismic design
According tocodes, the maximum
the different seismic
response cycles
design codes, theofmaximum
the metallic damper
response range
cycles of from 10 to 30
the metallic cycles.range
damper Along with
from 10the
to 30monotonic test
cycles. Along
results,
with thethe loading shear
monotonic amplitudes
test results, were obtained
the loading as long as the
shear amplitudes fatigue
were cyclesaswere
obtained longnot more
as the than
fatigue
30. Thewere
cycles applied shearthan
not more strain amplitudes
30. The of each
applied shear material
strain are listed
amplitudes in material
of each Table 2. are
One fatigue
listed cycle2.
in Table
represents
One fatiguea cycle
complete reciprocating
represents motion.
a complete Thus, themotion.
reciprocating corresponding
Thus, thefatigue cycle numbers
corresponding fatigueatcycle
the
first reversal
numbers andfirst
at the thereversal
second reversal are 1/4 reversal
and the second and 3/4 fatigue
are 1/4life,
andrespectively.
3/4 fatigue life, respectively.

Figure
Figure 2.
2. Loading
Loading pattern.
pattern.

Table
Table 2.
2. Details
Details of
of the
the cyclical
cyclical shear
shear test
test specimens.
specimens.
Shear Strain Fatigue Cycle
No. Material Name Shear Strain Fatigue Cycle
No. Material Name (%) (Nf)
1 Q235-1 (%)
62.8 (Nf)
1.75
12 Q235-1
Q235-2 62.8
47.0 4.501.75
2 Q235-2 47.0 4.50
3 Q235 Q235-3 31.3 8.00
3 Q235 Q235-3 31.3 8.00
44 Q235-4
Q235-4 15.6
15.6 19.25
19.25
55 Q235-5
Q235-5 12.5
12.5 30.75
30.75
66 AL-1
AL-1 15.6
15.6 1.751.75
77 AL-2
AL-2 12.5
12.5 4.004.00
AL6061
AL6061
88 AL-3
AL-3 9.8
9.8 4.254.25
9 AL-4 6.2 17.75
9 AL-4 6.2 17.75
10
10 SS-1
SS-1 30.0
30.0 1.751.75
11 SS-2 15.0 8.25
11
12
SS316 SS-2
SS-3 15.0
12.0 8.25
11.25
SS316
12
13 SS-3
SS-4 12.0
9.0 11.25
21.25
13
14 SS-4
LYS-1 9.0
171.4 21.252.25
14
15 LYS-1
LYS-2 171.4
114.2 2.255.00
16
15 LYS160 LYS-3
LYS-2 85.6
114.2 5.009.50
17 LYS-4 57.1 20.00
16 LYS160 LYS-3 85.6 9.50
18 LYS-5 51.3 26.00
17 LYS-4 57.1 20.00
18 LYS-5 51.3 26.00
3. Results and Discussion
3. Results
3.1. and Test
Monotonic Discussion

The specimens
3.1. Monotonic Test showed different failure modes for tension and torsion tests (Figure 3). In order to
demonstrate the failure details of the specimens more clearly, the overall failure was replaced by the
localThe specimens
failure showed
or the fracture different
face. failure modes
Some important for tension
features and torsion
of the fracture tests
surface of (Figure 3). In order
the specimens were
to
also observed by SEM. The mark lines were also labeled for observing the test results conveniently.by
demonstrate the failure details of the specimens more clearly, the overall failure was replaced
the local failure or the fracture face. Some important features of the fracture surface of the specimens
were also observed by SEM. The mark lines were also labeled for observing the test results
conveniently.
Materials 2016, 9, 496 5 of 14
Materials 2016, 9, 496 5 of 14
Materials 2016, 9, 496 5 of 14
Materials 2016, 9, 496 5 of 14

Figure3.3.Images
Figure Imagesof
of the
the specimens
specimens before
beforeand
andafter
afterthe
thetests.
tests.
Figure 3. Images of the specimens before and after the tests.
Figure 3. Images of the specimens before and after the tests.
3.1.1.
3.1.1. Failure
Failure Mode
Mode
3.1.1. Failure Mode
3.1.1.ItFailure
is wellMode
known that the failure stages of a material under monotonic tension include elastic
It is
It
well known
is wellplastic
that the failure stages
knowndeformation,
that the failure
of
stages and
a material
of a terminating
under monotonic
material under
monotonictension tensioninclude
include elastic
elastic
deformation,
It is well known that the failurenecking,
stages of a material underfracture.
monotonic As shown
tension ininclude
Figure elastic
4, the
deformation,
deformation, plastic deformation,
plastic deformation, necking,
necking,andandterminating
terminatingfracture. As shown
fracture. Assection
shownin Figure 4, the 4,
in Figure fracture
the
fracture
deformation, section of LYS160
plastic was thenecking,
deformation, smallest,and andterminating
represented fracture.
the largest As shownshrinkage.
in Figure As the
4, the
section of
fracture LYS160
section was
of the
LYS160 smallest,
was the and represented
smallest, and the largest
represented section
the largest shrinkage.
section As the
shrinkage. elongation
As the
elongation of theofspecimen is positively correlated with the section shrinkage in a shrinkage.
significant As way,theit be
of fracture
the specimen
elongation
section
of the
LYS160 was
is specimen
positively the smallest,
iscorrelated
positively withandtherepresented
correlated section the largest
shrinkage
with theelongation in asection
section shrinkage significant
in a four way, it
significant can
way, it
can be understood
elongationthat of the that
specimen LYS160 possesses
is positively the
correlatedmaximum
with the among among
section shrinkage the materials.
in a significant way, Initthe
understood
can be LYS160
understood thatpossesses
LYS160 the maximum
possesses the elongation
maximum elongationthe among
four materials.
the four In addition,
materials. In
addition,
can the fracture
be understood thatmorphology of LYS160
LYS160 possesses thewas a dimpleelongation
maximum pattern with amongfeatures of plastic
the four fracture,
materials.
fracture
addition,
which morphology
was the fracture
also of
different LYS160
morphology
from wasrest
the aofdimple
LYS160
of the pattern
specimens with
was a dimple(seefeatures of
pattern5).
Figure plastic
with
A fracture,
features
large number which
of plastic
of the wasIn
fracture,
dimples also
addition, the fracture morphology of LYS160 was a dimple pattern with features of plastic fracture,
different from
whichdistributed
were the rest
was also differentof the
on the from specimens
from theface.
fracture (see
rest of
The Figure 5).
the specimens A large number
(see Figure 5). of the
A large dimples
number were distributed
of phenomena
the dimples
which was also different the rest of thedimples
specimens were
(seelarge and5).
Figure deep.
A large Both of these
number of the dimples
onimplied
the fracture
were distributedface.
sufficientononThethe
plastic dimples
fracture were
deformationface. large
The and
dimples
of LYS160. deep.
were Both
largeof these
and phenomena
deep. Both of implied
these sufficient
phenomena
were distributed the fracture face. The dimples were large and deep. Both of these phenomena
implied
plastic sufficient of
deformation plastic
LYS160.deformation of LYS160.
implied sufficient plastic deformation of LYS160.

(a) (b) (c) (d)

(a) (b) (c) (d)
Figure(a) (b)tension. (a) Q235; (b)
4. Failure modes under (c)AL6061; (c) SS316; (d)
(d)LYS160.
Figure 4. Failure modes under tension. (a) Q235; (b) AL6061; (c) SS316; (d) LYS160.
Figure4.4.Failure
Figure Failuremodes
modes under
under tension. (a)Q235;
tension. (a) Q235;(b)
(b)AL6061;
AL6061;(c)(c)SS316;
SS316;(d)(d) LYS160.
LYS160.

Figure 5. Fracture section of LYS160.

Figure 5. Fracture section of LYS160.
Figure 5.
Figure 5. Fracture
Fracture section
sectionofofLYS160.
LYS160.
No necking was observed in the monotonic torsion tests (Figure 6). The fracture sections were
almost No necking was observed in the monotonic torsion tests (Figure 6). The fracture sections were
Noperpendicular to the axial
necking was observed in direction. Cracks
the monotonic or steps
torsion could
tests be found
(Figure 6). Theinfracture
the middle and edges
sections were
almost
of No perpendicular
necking
the fracture to
was observed
sections the axial direction.
in the Cracks
monotonic or
torsion steps could
tests be
(Figure found in
6). The the middle
fracture and edges
sections were
almost perpendicular toofthe
theaxial
Q235, AL6061,
direction. and SS316
Cracks specimens
or steps could be(Figure
found6a–c).
in theThe fracture
middle andsurface
edges
of LYS160
almost theperpendicular
fracture sections of the Q235, AL6061, and SS316 specimens (Figure 6a–c). The fracture surface
of the fracture sections of the Q235, AL6061, and SS316 specimens (Figure 6a–c). The fracture surface of
of specimen to the
(Figure axial
6d) direction.
was very Cracks
smooth, or steps
while thecould be
fracture found
surfacesin the
of middle
the other and edges
specimens
offracture
theof
were LYS160 specimen
sections
veryspecimen of(Figure
rough. Insteadthe Q235,6d)
of6d) was
cracks very
AL6061,
or smooth,
andmany
steps, while
SS316 the fracture
specimens
filamentous surfaces
(Figure
concentric of the
6a–c). The
circles other
were specimens
fracture surface
distributed
LYS160 (Figure was very smooth, while the fracture surfaces of the other specimens
were
of were
LYS160 very
homogenously rough.
specimen Instead
onInstead
(Figure of
the fracture6d) cracks
surface
was or
verysteps, many
ofsmooth,
LYS160. Infilamentous
addition, concentric
the cracks circles
between were
the distributed
circles were
very rough. of cracks or steps, manywhile the fracture
filamentous surfaces
concentric of the
circles wereother specimens
distributed
werehomogenously
rarelyverysmall.
rough. on the fracture
Instead of surface
cracks or of LYS160.
steps, many Infilamentous
addition, the cracks between
concentric circles the
were circles were
distributed
homogenously on the fracture surface of LYS160. In addition, the cracks between the circles were
rarely small.
homogenously
rarely small. on the fracture surface of LYS160. In addition, the cracks between the circles were
rarely small.
The flat regions within the same approximate diameter (marked with a square in Figure 6b–d) were
selected for SEM analysis. The highlighted parts in Figure 7a,b show that brittle fracture was the
main failure mode. Moreover, several brittle cracks and a number of cavities were also visible in
AL6061 and SS316. Meanwhile, in LYS160, the smooth friction trace between the layers was very
clear. The
Materials 2016,fracture
9, 496 surface of the LYS160 specimen was a slip plane composed of thousands6 ofof
14
Materials 2016,
parallel 9, 496
slip lines. 6 of 14

The fracture surfaces of AL6061, SS316, and LYS160 were further observed by SEM (Figure 7).
The flat regions within the same approximate diameter (marked with a square in Figure 6b–d) were
selected for SEM analysis. The highlighted parts in Figure 7a,b show that brittle fracture was the
main failure mode. Moreover, several brittle cracks and a number of cavities were also visible in
AL6061 and SS316. Meanwhile, in LYS160, the smooth friction trace between the layers was very
clear. The fracture surface of the LYS160 specimen was a slip plane composed of thousands of
parallel slip lines. (a) (b) (c) (d)
Figure
Figure 6.
6. Failure
Failuremodes
modes under
under torsion.
torsion. (a)
(a)Q235;
Q235;(b)
(b)AL6061;
AL6061; (c)
(c) SS316;
SS316; (d)
(d) LYS160.
LYS160.

The fracture surfaces of AL6061, SS316, and LYS160 were further observed by SEM (Figure 7).
The flat regions within the same approximate diameter (marked with a square in Figure 6b–d) were
selected for SEM analysis. The highlighted parts in Figure 7a,b show that brittle fracture was the main
failure mode. Moreover, several brittle cracks and a number of cavities were also visible in AL6061
(a) in LYS160, the (b)
and SS316. Meanwhile, smooth friction trace (c)between the layers (d)was very clear. The
fracture surface of the
Figure LYS160modes
6. Failure specimen
underwas a slip
torsion. (a)plane
Q235;composed
(b) AL6061;of
(c)thousands of parallel slip lines.
SS316; (d) LYS160.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 7. SEM images of the fracture sections under shear. (a) AL6061; (b) SS316; (c) LYS160.

3.1.2. Mechanical Properties

The monotonic stress-strain responses of the materials are displayed in Figure 8. Regardless of
the type of test (tension or torsion), the stress-strain curves of the specimens were primarily
composed of three parts: elastic range, plastic range, and failure range. No large stiffness differences
were observed between (a) the four materials in the (b) tension and the torsion tests. The (c) reduction in the
cross-sectional
Figure
area due to necking caused increased stresses (without increased force) in the plastic
Figure 7. 7. SEM
SEM images
images of of the
the fracture
fracture sections under shear.
shear. (a)(a) AL6061;
AL6061; (b) (b) SS316;
SS316; (c)
(c) LYS160.
LYS160.
range, and the stresses dropped slowly insections under
the failure range (Figure 8a). In contrast, the shear areas
were
3.1.2. unchanged, and the shear stresses increased with an increase in the torque. The increasing
Mechanical Properties
3.1.2. Mechanical
torque Properties fracture of the specimens, which is expressed as the sharp drop in the
leads to instantaneous
The monotonic
stresses stress-strain responses oftensile
the materials are displayed in Figure 8. Regardless of
Theinmonotonic
the failure range (Figure
stress-strain 8b). The
responses of the yield are
materials strength
displayedof LYS160
in Figure was 225 MPa, which
8. Regardless of the
the type of than
was test that
(tension or torsion), thethe stress-strain curves of thebetween specimens thesewere primarily
typesmaller
of test (tension oroftorsion),
Q235, while maximum
the stress-strain strength
curves of the difference
specimens were primarily two materials
composed of
composed
was narrowed of three
to 41 parts:
MPa. elastic
A similarrange,trend plastic
was range,
observed and infailure
the range.
torsional No large
tests. stiffness differences
three parts: elastic range, plastic range, and failure range. No large stiffness differences were observed
wereInobserved
the between thealthough
four materials in the tension and the torsion tests. Thethereduction
largest, itinhadthe
between thecase
fourof tension,
materials in the tension theanddeformation
the torsioncapacity
tests. The ofreduction
SS316 was not
in the cross-sectional area
cross-sectional
merits area
of high caused due
strength to necking
(986 MPa) caused
along increased stresses
with increased
large deformation (without increased
capacity force)
(35%). and in the
However, plastic
the
due to necking increased stresses (without force) in the plastic range, the stresses
range, and the
deformation stresses
capacity of dropped
SS316 was slowly
the in theinfailure
lowest the range
case of (Figure
shear. It 8a). In
may be contrast,
a good the shear
choice to areas
design
dropped slowly in the failure range (Figure 8a). In contrast, the shear areas were unchanged, and the
were
the unchanged,
damper and the
byincreased
utilizing the shear
tension stresses increased with
and compression of The an increase
SS316. LYS160 in the torque.
showed the best The increasing
deformation
shear stresses with an increase in the torque. increasing torque leads to instantaneous
torque
capacity leads to instantaneous
irrespective of thewhich fracture
loading of the specimens,
condition.asIn which is expressed as the sharp drop in the
fracture of the specimens, is expressed thethe
sharpcasedropof tension, the ultimate
in the stresses deformation
in the failure range
stresses
capacity in the
of LYS160 failure range
was around (Figure 8b).
50%, which The tensile
was almost yield strength of LYS160 was 225 MPa, which
(Figure 8b). The tensile yield strength of LYS160 wastwo, 225 1.5,
MPa, and four times
which that of Q235,
was smaller SS316,
than that of
was AL6061,
and smaller than that of Q235,
respectively. while the maximum thestrength difference between these oftwo materials
Q235, while the maximum In the
strength case of torsion,
difference between ultimate
these two deformation
materials was capacity
narrowed LYS160 was
to 41 MPa.
wasfive,
3.5, narrowed
and fourto 41 MPa.
times thatA ofsimilar trend was observed
AL6061,inrespectively.
the torsional tests.
A similar trend was observed inQ235, SS316,
the torsional and
tests.
In the case of tension, although the deformation capacity of SS316 was not the largest, it had
In the case of tension, although the deformation capacity of SS316 was not the largest, it had merits
merits of high strength (986 MPa) along with large deformation capacity (35%). However, the
of high strength (986 MPa) along with large deformation capacity (35%). However, the deformation
deformation capacity of SS316 was the lowest in the case of shear. It may be a good choice to design
capacity of SS316 was the lowest in the case of shear. It may be a good choice to design the damper
the damper by utilizing the tension and compression of SS316. LYS160 showed the best deformation
by utilizing the tension and compression of SS316. LYS160 showed the best deformation capacity
capacity irrespective of the loading condition. In the case of tension, the ultimate deformation
irrespective of the loading condition. In the case of tension, the ultimate deformation capacity of
capacity of LYS160 was around 50%, which was almost two, 1.5, and four times that of Q235, SS316,
LYS160 was around 50%, which was almost two, 1.5, and four times that of Q235, SS316, and AL6061,
and AL6061, respectively. In the case of torsion, the ultimate deformation capacity of LYS160 was
respectively. In the case of torsion, the ultimate deformation capacity of LYS160 was 3.5, five, and
3.5, five, and four times that of Q235, SS316, and AL6061, respectively.
four times that of Q235, SS316, and AL6061, respectively.
Materials 2016, 9, 496 7 of 14
Materials 2016, 9, 496 7 of 14
Materials 2016, 9, 496 7 of 14

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 8. Stress–strain curves under monotonic test. (a) Tension test results; (b) Torsion test results.
Figure 8. Stress-strain curves under monotonic test. (a) Tension test results; (b) Torsion test results.
Figure 8. Stress–strain curves under monotonic test. (a) Tension test results; (b) Torsion test results.
The continuous plastic deformation capacity of the material after the yielding process is very
TheThe
importantcontinuous
continuous plastic
for the dampingplasticdeformation
deformation
material. Thecapacity
capacity of the
of the material
plastic deformation material after
after
ratio η (η the
the (εyielding
= yielding
max/εy) was
process
process is is
applied very
very
to
important
important for for the
the damping
damping material.
material. The
The plastic
plastic deformation
deformation
evaluate the energy dissipation capacity of the material. As shown in Figuremax ratio
ratioη (η
η =
(η (ε
= (ε
max /εy ) was
/ε
9, the ) applied
was
y maximum to
applied
evaluate
evaluate the
to deformation energy
the ratio
energy dissipation
tensioncapacity
dissipation
under capacity
was aroundofofthe
the material.
81.material.
Suppose AsAs shown
the shown in in
fatigue Figure
Figure
cycle is9, 9,
the
30, themaximum
themaximum
usable
deformation
deformation
maximum ratioratio
plasticunderunder
strain is tension
tension waswas
not more thanaround
around 3ε81. 81.
the Suppose
Suppose
y. In casethe the fatigue
of fatigue
torsion, cycle iscycle
the plastic30, theis usable
30, themaximum
deformation usable
ratios
maximum
plastic strainby
increased plastic
is at
not strain
more
least is
onethan not
order more
3εyof
. In than 3ε .
the case ofFor
magnitude. y In the case
torsion,
LYS160, of torsion,
thethe
plastic the plastic
deformation
plastic deformation
deformationratios ratio increasedratiosby
difference
increased
was increased
at least by at least
one orderbyoftwo one order of
orders of For
magnitude. magnitude.
magnitude.
LYS160,This For LYS160,
suggests
the plastic the plastic
that the shear
deformation deformation
loading
ratio ratio
is more
difference wasdifference
beneficial
increased
was
byfor increased
twoutilizing
orders of theby twodeformation
full ordersThis
magnitude. of magnitude.
capacity that
suggests This
and suggests
energy
the shear that theisshear
dissipation
loading moreloading
capacity of theis material.
beneficial more beneficial
In thethe
for utilizing
for utilizing
previous the
studies, full
the deformation
material capacity
properties and
under energy
shear dissipation
were generally capacity
converted
full deformation capacity and energy dissipation capacity of the material. In the previous studies, of the
from material.
the In test
tensile thethe
previousHowever,
results. studies, the the material
ultra properties
large plastic under shear were
deformation generally
capacity (760%) converted
of LYS160 from
would the be
tensile test
covered
material properties under shear were generally converted from the tensile test results. However, the
results.
up However,
by this traditional themethod
ultra large
of plastic deformation capacity (760%) of LYS160 would be covered
conversion.
ultra large plastic deformation capacity (760%) of LYS160 would be covered up by this traditional
up by this traditional method of conversion.
method of conversion.

Figure 9. Plastic deformation ratios of the test specimens.

Figure9.9.Plastic
Figure Plasticdeformation
deformation ratios
ratios of
of the
thetest
testspecimens.
specimens.
3.2. Cyclical Torsion Test
3.2.3.2. Cyclical
Cyclical Torsion
Torsion Test
Test
3.2.1. Failure Mode
3.2.1.
3.2.1. Failure
Failure Mode
Mode
The failure modes under cyclical torsion tests are presented in Figure 10. The upper part of the
figure
TheThe failure
represents
failure modes
modes under
the axial
under cyclical
failure torsion
mode,
cyclical while
torsion tests
theare
tests presented
lower
are part ofin
presented the
in Figure 10.
figure
Figure The
Theupper
represents
10. upper part
the of of
thethe
fracture
part
figure
surface.
figure represents
During the
represents theaxial
axialfailure
unidirectionalfailure mode,
torsion,
mode, the while the lower
lower part
test specimens
while the part of
were the
thefigure
always
of kept represents
figure straight.
represents the
The fracture
buckling
the fracture
surface. During unidirectional torsion, theAL6061
test specimens were always keptloading
straight.(Figure
The buckling
surface. During unidirectional torsion, the test specimens were always kept straight. The 10d,h).
phenomenon appeared in the Q235 and specimens under cyclical buckling
phenomenon
This appeared
shows appeared
that the small incrack
the Q235
or theand AL6061 specimens underincyclical loading (Figure 10d,h).
phenomenon in the Q235 andplastic
AL6061 residual deformation
specimens theseloading
under cyclical two materials
(Figurewere likely
10d,h). This
This shows that the small crack or the plastic residual deformation in these two materials were likely
shows that the small crack or the plastic residual deformation in these two materials were likely to
 to trigger the instability under the low cycle fatigue loading. The fracture surfaces of the specimens
looked quite different. No large peaks or valleys were observed in the monotonic tests, while they
were evident in all the specimens (Figure 10a–l) under cyclical loading, except for LYS160 (Figure
10m–p). Moreover, a large crack was found on the fracture surface of the AL6061 specimen (Figure
10h). This suggests that the failure mode was affected by the fatigue crack, which was mainly caused
Materials
by the2016, 9, 496
alternating stresses. 8 of 14

The fracture cross-sections of all the specimens were still perpendicular to the axis. LYS160 was
the only specimen in which the fracture surfaces were kept smooth without any cracks. Instead of
trigger the instability under the low cycle fatigue loading. The fracture surfaces of the specimens
the filamentous concentric circles found in the monotonic loading tests, several small planes without
looked quite different. No large peaks or valleys were observed in the monotonic tests, while they were
metallic luster were observed in the cyclical loading tests. The surface exhibited the appearance of a
evident in all the specimens (Figure 10a–l) under cyclical loading, except for LYS160 (Figure 10m–p).
typical ductile failure, resulting from the cyclical accumulated damage caused by interlaminate
Moreover, a large crack was found on the fracture surface of the AL6061 specimen (Figure 10h). This
deformation. One noticeable difference was also discovered between the LYS160 specimens and the
suggests that the failure
other specimens under mode was affected
the cyclical by theonly
tests. LYS160 fatigue crack,along
cracked which
thewas mainly
radial caused
direction by the
(Figure
alternating stresses.
10m–p), while all of the conventional materials exhibited cracked along the axial direction.

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h)

(i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) (o) (p)

Figure 10. Failure modes under cyclical shear loading. (a) Q235-2; (b) Q235-3; (c) Q235-4; (d) Q235-5;
Figure 10. Failure modes under cyclical shear loading. (a) Q235-2; (b) Q235-3; (c) Q235-4; (d) Q235-5;
(e) AL-1; (f) AL-2; (g) AL-3; (h) AL-4; (i) SS-1; (j) SS-2; (k) SS-3; (l) SS-4; (m) LYS-2; (n) LYS-3;
(e) AL-1; (f) AL-2; (g) AL-3; (h) AL-4; (i) SS-1; (j) SS-2; (k) SS-3; (l) SS-4; (m) LYS-2; (n) LYS-3; (o) LYS-4;
(o) LYS-4; (p) LYS-5.
(p) LYS-5.

To compare the failure mechanism, enlarged views of the cracks in LYS160 and Q235 are shown
The fracture
in Figure cross-sections
11. There were two of all the
large specimens
cracks were
parallel to thestill perpendicular
marked line in theto the axis.
Q235 LYS160
specimen. was
This
thesuggests
only specimen in which
that the cracks the to
belong fracture surfaces were
the opening-mode kept (I
fracture smooth without
type), which any cracks.
is caused by theInstead
cyclical of
thenormal
filamentous
stress.concentric
Combinedcircles
with found in the monotonic
the sliding-mode fractureloading tests,
(II type) at several smallsurface,
the fracture planes without
Q235
exhibited
metallic a hybrid
luster fracture mode.
were observed in theThe fracture
cyclical modestests.
loading of AL6061 and SS316
The surface were similar
exhibited to that of of
the appearance
Q235. As
a typical shown
ductile in Figure
failure, 11, several
resulting fromparallel radialaccumulated
the cyclical cracks were observed in LYS160.
damage caused There were
by interlaminate
deformation. One noticeable difference was also discovered between the LYS160 specimens and the
other specimens under the cyclical tests. LYS160 only cracked along the radial direction (Figure 10m–p),
while all of the conventional materials exhibited cracked along the axial direction.
To compare the failure mechanism, enlarged views of the cracks in LYS160 and Q235 are shown in
Figure 11. There were two large cracks parallel to the marked line in the Q235 specimen. This suggests
that the cracks belong to the opening-mode fracture (I type), which is caused by the cyclical normal
stress. Combined with the sliding-mode fracture (II type) at the fracture surface, Q235 exhibited a
hybrid fracture mode. The fracture modes of AL6061 and SS316 were similar to that of Q235. As
Materials 2016, 9, 496 9 of 14

Materials 2016, 9, 496 9 of 14

shown in Figure 11, several parallel radial cracks were observed in LYS160. There were also many
also
micromany micro
cracks cracks distributed
distributed among these among these
visible visible
cracks. Thecracks. Theradial
exclusive exclusive
crackradial crackindirection
direction LYS160
in LYS160 suggested
suggested that shear that shear dominated
dominated the failure the failure From
behavior. behavior. Fromof
the point the point
crack of crack distribution,
distribution, the whole
the wholewas
specimen specimen was in
in the state of the state of interlaminate
interlaminate slip. The crackslip. The crack
number and number and size
size improved theimproved
uniformitythe
of
uniformity of the shear In
the shear deformation. deformation.
view of the In viewpoints,
above of thethe
above points,
stable the stable
uniform uniformslip
interlaminate interlaminate
is likely to
slip is likely in
be produced to LYS160
be produced in LYS160
even under even under
the cyclical theTaking
loading. cyclical loading. of
advantage Taking advantage ofhigh
this characteristic, this
characteristic, high deformation
deformation capacity and energycapacity andcapacity
dissipation energy dissipation capacity could be obtained.
could be obtained.

Figure
Figure 11.
11. Comparison
Comparison of
of the
the failure
failure mechanism
mechanism in
in Q235
Q235 and
and LYS160.
LYS160.

3.2.2.
3.2.2. Hysteretic
Hysteretic Curve
Curve
The
The hysteresis
hysteresis curves
curves of of the
the specimens
specimens are are shown
shown in in Figure
Figure 12.12. The
The experimental
experimental results
results clearly
clearly
showed that all the materials exhibit a good hysteretic curve, with a stable
showed that all the materials exhibit a good hysteretic curve, with a stable and saturated shape. The and saturated shape. The
hysteretic curves of Q235, AL6061, and SS316 were spindle shaped.
hysteretic curves of Q235, AL6061, and SS316 were spindle shaped. When the plastic strain amplitude When the plastic strain
amplitude
was small, was
the small,
overallthe overall
shape shape
of the of the
plastic plasticwas
region region
like was like With
an arc. an arc.the
With the increase
increase of the of the
strain
strain amplitude,
amplitude, the arcs thewere
arcs shortened
were shortened gradually.
gradually. WhenWhen the strain
the strain amplitudes
amplitudes of Q235of Q235 and SS316
and SS316 were
were
62.8% and 30%, respectively, the transition arcs between the elastic range and the plastic rangerange
62.8% and 30%, respectively, the transition arcs between the elastic range and the plastic were
were negligible and the shape of the hysteresis became like a parallelogram.
negligible and the shape of the hysteresis became like a parallelogram. In contrast, regardless of the In contrast, regardless
of the strain
strain amplitude,
amplitude, the shapethe shape of the hysteretic
of the hysteretic curve for curve for LYS160
LYS160 was rectangular.
was rectangular.
The elastic stiffness values of all four materials were
The elastic stiffness values of all four materials were approximately 200 approximately 200 MPa.
MPa. After
After the elastic
the elastic
process, ductilebehavior
process, ductile behavior waswas observed
observed where where the post-yield
the post-yield stiffnessstiffness
reduced reduced
sharply. The sharply. The
post-yield
post-yield stiffness (<5 MPa) was much smaller than the elastic stiffness.
stiffness (<5 MPa) was much smaller than the elastic stiffness. The post-yield stiffness of LYS160 was The post-yield stiffness of
LYS160 was always close to 0 in this study. Similar to LYS160, AL6061
always close to 0 in this study. Similar to LYS160, AL6061 exhibited almost perfect elastic–plastic exhibited almost perfect
elastic–plastic
deformation. Hence, deformation. Hence,
the bilinear model thewith
bilinear model with
zero post-yield zero post-yield
stiffness is suitable stiffness is suitable
for describing for
the shear
describing the shear behavior of these two materials. When the response
behavior of these two materials. When the response strain amplitudes of Q235 and SS316 were larger strain amplitudes of Q235
and
thanSS316 were
30%, the larger model
bilinear than 30%,wasthe bilinear by
applicable model was applicable
appropriate adjustmentby appropriate adjustment
of the post-yield of the
stiffness.
post-yield stiffness.
The monotonic torsion test results (see the dash lines) were also inserted in the respective hysteretic
curvesTheformonotonic
comparing torsion test results
the mechanical (see The
property. the yield
dash strength
lines) were underalso inserted
cyclical in the
loading wasrespective
generally
hysteretic curves for comparing the mechanical property. The yield
larger than that under monotonic loading. The Bauschinger effect was also more or less observed strength under cyclical loadingin
was generally larger than that under monotonic loading. The Bauschinger
all the tests. The reversal yield strength was smaller than the former yield strength in the opposite effect was also more or
less observed
loading in allSince
direction. the tests. The reversal
the strain amplitudeyieldwasstrength was smaller
the same, than the of
the magnitudes former yield strength
the maximum and
in the opposite loading direction. Since the strain amplitude was the
minimum stresses were almost the same, and no obvious cyclical softening or hardening was observed.same, the magnitudes of the
maximum and minimum stresses were almost the same, and no
Kinematic hardening was evident in the hysteretic curves of Q235 and SS316. Besides the kinematic obvious cyclical softening or
hardening
hardening, was smallobserved. Kinematic also
isotropic hardening hardening
existed was evident
in Q235. On the in the hysteretic
contrary, curves of hardening
both kinematic Q235 and
SS316. Besides the kinematic hardening, small isotropic hardening also
and isotropic hardening were negligible in the hysteretic curves of AL6061 and LYS160. As the loading existed in Q235. On the
contrary, both kinematic hardening and isotropic hardening were negligible
strain amplitudes and the amplitude differences were both relatively small, the isotropic hardening in the hysteretic curves
was
of AL6061 and LYS160. As the loading strain amplitudes and the amplitude
not easy to be observed in AL6061. Since the loading strain amplitudes and the amplitude differences differences were both
relatively
for LYS160small,
were the isotropic
10 times hardening
larger than those wasof not easy to
AL6061, thebeisotropic
observed in AL6061.
hardening Since the loading
demonstrated in the
strain amplitudes and the
figure was also relatively small. amplitude differences for LYS160 were 10 times larger than those of
AL6061, the isotropic hardening demonstrated in the figure was also relatively small.
Materials 2016, 9, 496 10 of 14
Materials 2016, 9, 496 10 of 14

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 12. Hysteretic curves of the test specimens. (a) Q235; (b) AL6061; (c) SS316; (d) LYS160.
Figure 12. Hysteretic curves of the test specimens. (a) Q235; (b) AL6061; (c) SS316; (d) LYS160.

3.2.3 Low Cycle Fatigue

3.2.3. Low Cycle Fatigue
Strain–LifeFatigue
Strain-Life FatigueCurve
Curve
The phenomenon
The phenomenon of of sudden
sudden fracture
fracture isis the
thematerial
materialfailure
failuremode
modeunder
undertorsion
torsionloading,
loading, just as
just
necking
as neckingis considered
is considered as the failure
as the mode
failure under
mode tension
under loading.
tension Therefore,
loading. the number
Therefore, of fatigue
the number of
cycles to fracture was set when the stress begins to drop. The deformation
fatigue cycles to fracture was set when the stress begins to drop. The deformation capacity capacity is theismost
the
important
most parameter
important for theforlightweight
parameter designdesign
the lightweight of the of
damper.
the damper.Hence,Hence,
insteadinstead
of stress,of the strain–
stress, the
fatigue curve curve
strain-fatigue was plotted as shown
was plotted in Figure
as shown 13. The13.
in Figure abscissa represented
The abscissa the fatigue
represented cycles and
the fatigue the
cycles
ordinate represented the shear strain amplitude. Similar to the traditional fatigue
and the ordinate represented the shear strain amplitude. Similar to the traditional fatigue curve, the curve, the strain–
fatigue curve curve
strain-fatigue was composed
was composed of three parts:parts:
of three steep steep
drop area,
drop transition area and
area, transition areaflat
andarea. In theInsteep
flat area. the
drop area (left dash lines of the fitting curves), the strain amplitude dropped
steep drop area (left dash lines of the fitting curves), the strain amplitude dropped dramatically dramatically while the
while
fatigue cycle was small in number. On the contrary, even a small drop
the fatigue cycle was small in number. On the contrary, even a small drop in the strain amplitudein the strain amplitude leads
to a sharp
leads increase
to a sharp in the
increase number
in the number of fatigue
of fatigue cycles
cyclesin in
the
theflat
flatarea
area(right
(rightdash
dash lines
lines of the fitting
of the fitting
curves). The fit curves of the test results, which are shown as solid lines in the figure,
curves). The fit curves of the test results, which are shown as solid lines in the figure, were located in were located in
the transition area. The Miner rule was not suitable for evaluating the material
the transition area. The Miner rule was not suitable for evaluating the material fatigue performance fatigue performance
in this
in this area.
area. The
The strain-life
strain–lifefatigue
fatiguecurves
curvesexhibited
exhibited the the nonlinear
nonlinear property,
property,which
whichcan canbebeexpressed
expressed
as follows:
as follows:
´0.495
LYS160 : γ γ
LYS160: “=255.88pN
255.88(Nffq)−0.495 (3)
(3)
0.598
Q235 : γ “ 99.577pNf q´ (4)
Q235: γ = 99.577(Nf)−0.598 (4)
Al6061 : γ “ 39.874pNf q´0.485 (5)
Al6061: γ = 39.874(Nf)−0.485 (5)
SS316 : γ “ 19.147pNf q´0.375 (6)
SS316: γ = 19.147(Nf)−0.375 (6)
Materials 2016, 9, 496 11 of 14
Materials 2016, 9, 496 11 of 14

Figure 13. Fatigue

Figure 13. Fatigue curves
curves of
of the
the test specimens.
test specimens.

Applicable Strain
Applicable Strain Amplitude
Amplitude
The traditional
The traditional studies
studies have
have focused
focused on on thethe fatigue
fatigue lifelife cycles
cycles greater
greater thanthan 30.30. However,
However, the the
cyclical shear behavior of the metallic damping material under large
cyclical shear behavior of the metallic damping material under large plastic response was studied here plastic response was studied
herethe
for forfirst
thetime.
first The
time.fatigue
The fatigue cycle ranging
cycle ranging from 10from to 3010was to selected
30 was selected
from thefrom the viewpoint
viewpoint of practical of
practical applications. It is evident from Figure 13 that the fatigue
applications. It is evident from Figure 13 that the fatigue performances of SS316 and AL6061 are very performances of SS316 and
AL6061
poor. Theare very performance
fatigue poor. The fatigue of Q235 performance
was better of thanQ235the was better than two
aforementioned the aforementioned
materials, but it was two
materials,
still far poorerbut than
it wasthatstill far poorer
of LYS160, which than that ofanLYS160,
exhibited which exhibited
overwhelmingly an overwhelmingly
superior fatigue performance.
superior fatigue performance.
When the fatigue cycle was 10 (Dash line V1), the applicable strain amplitude of LYS160 was 81.8%,
which When the fatigue
was around 3.27 cycle
timeswas that10of (Dash
Q235 (25%).line V1),Thethe applicable strain
corresponding amplitude
applicable strainofamplitudes
LYS160 was of
81.8%, which was around 3.27 times that of Q235 (25%).
SS316 and AL6061 were only 13% and 8%, respectively. The applicable strain amplitude of LYS160The corresponding applicable strain
amplitudes
was 10 timesofthat SS316 and AL6061
of AL6061. Whenwere only 13%
the fatigue cycleand was8%, respectively.
30 (Dash line V2),The the applicable strain
applicable strain
amplitude of
amplitudes ofLYS160
SS316 and wasAL6061
10 times werethatfarofsmaller
AL6061.than When the the
valuefatigue cycle(13%).
for Q235 was 30 (Dash
The line V2),
applicable the
strain
applicable strain amplitudes of SS316 and AL6061 were far smaller
amplitude of LYS160 dropped from 81.8% to 47.5%, which was still 3.65 times that of Q235. In addition, than the value for Q235 (13%).
Theultimate
the applicable strain
strain amplitude
amplitude of of LYS160
LYS160 was dropped
aroundfrom 81.8%that
3.3 times to 47.5%,
of Q235 which
in the was still 3.65 shear
monotonic times
that of
test. Q235. In addition,
Supposing the fatigue the ultimate
cycles werestrain
the same,amplitude of LYS160
the multiple was around
differences in the3.3 times thathad
amplitude of Q235
little
in the monotonic shear test. Supposing the fatigue cycles were the
change in the present research range. This indicates that, under the condition that the fatigue cyclessame, the multiple differences in
the amplitude had little change in the present research range. This indicates that, under the
were not more than 30, the amplitude difference between Q235 and LYS160 under cyclical loading can
condition that the fatigue cycles were not more than 30, the amplitude difference between Q235 and
be evaluated from the amplitude difference under monotonic loading, regardless of the effect of the
LYS160 under cyclical loading can be evaluated from the amplitude difference under monotonic
fatigue cycle.
loading, regardless of the effect of the fatigue cycle.
Fatigue Cycles
Fatigue Cycles
Adequate low cycle fatigue performance of the metallic damping material is very important.
Hence, Adequate
the fatigue lowperformances
cycle fatigueofperformance
the two mostofpopular the metallic
materials,damping
LYS160 material
and Q235, is very
wereimportant.
compared
Hence, the fatigue performances of the two most popular
with each other. When the strain amplitude was 81.8% (Dash line H1), the corresponding materials, LYS160 and Q235, were
number
compared
of with each
fatigue cycles other. When
of LYS160 and Q235 the strain
were 10 amplitude
and two,was 81.8% (Dash
respectively. Theline H1), the corresponding
difference between these
number of fatigue cycles of LYS160 and Q235 were 10 and two,
two materials was a factor of 5. This increased to a factor of 7.5 when the strain amplitude wasrespectively. The difference between
47.5%
these two materials was a factor of 5. This increased to a factor of 7.5
(Dash line H2), with the respective fatigue cycles being 30 and four for LYS160 and Q235, respectively. when the strain amplitude was
47.5%the
With (Dash line H2),
decrease of thewith
straintheamplitude,
respectiveLYS160 fatiguehad cycles being 30 and
an increased fatiguefourperformance
for LYS160 advantage
and Q235,
over Q235. Taking the consideration of the application, the fatigue performance of LYS160 was fatigue
respectively. With the decrease of the strain amplitude, LYS160 had an increased at least
performance
five times higher advantage
than thatoverof Q235.Q235. Taking the consideration of the application, the fatigue
performance
In addition,of LYS160 was at
the ultimate leaststrain
shear five times
of LYS160higherwasthan that of Q235.
considered as the elongation under monotonic
In addition, the ultimate shear strain
tension, which was around 50%. Meanwhile, when 50% shear strain of LYS160 was considered
was adopted as theinelongation
the cyclicalunder
shear
monotonic
loading test,tension, which was fatigue
the corresponding aroundcycle 50%.was Meanwhile, when 50%
26. This suggests thatshear strain wasstrain
the applicable adopted in the
amplitude
cyclical
or shear performance
the fatigue loading test, the corresponding
of LYS160 is seriously fatigue cycle was 26.byThis
underestimated the suggests that the applicable
simple conversion from the
strain amplitude
coupon test results. or the fatigue performance of LYS160 is seriously underestimated by the simple
conversion from the coupon test results.
Materials 2016, 9, 496 12 of 14
Materials 2016, 9, 496 12 of 14

Accumulated Energy
Accumulated Energy
Accumulated energy (AE) is also an important factor to evaluate the seismic performance of the
Accumulated energy (AE) is also an important factor to evaluate the seismic performance of
damper. Normalized stress–strain energy (AE = stress × strain, MPa%) was adopted to evaluate the
the damper. Normalized stress-strain energy (AE = stress ˆ strain, MPa%) was adopted to evaluate
damper performance. The horizontal axis represents the strain amplitude, while the vertical axis
the damper performance. The horizontal axis represents the strain amplitude, while the vertical axis
represents the accumulated energy. As shown in Figure 14, the accumulated energies of the three
represents the accumulated energy. As shown in Figure 14, the accumulated energies of the three
traditional materials were relatively concentrated, and the value for Q235 was the largest among the
traditional materials were relatively concentrated, and the value for Q235 was the largest among the
three materials. A large gap was observed between LYS160 and the conventional materials. When
three materials. A large gap was observed between LYS160 and the conventional materials. When the
the strain amplitude of LYS160 was 171.3%, the AE was 4.3 × 105 (MPa%), which was still larger than
strain amplitude of LYS160 was 171.3%, the AE was 4.3 ˆ 105 (MPa%), which was still larger than the
the maximum AE of Q235 (two dashed lines). When the strain amplitude was 51.3%, the AE of
maximum AE of Q235 (two dashed lines). When the strain amplitude was 51.3%, the AE of LYS160
LYS160 was 1.2 × 106 (MPa%), which was five times that of Q235. The AE of Q235 and AL6061
was 1.2 ˆ 106 (MPa%), which was five times that of Q235. The AE of Q235 and AL6061 decreased
decreased linearly with the increase of the strain amplitude. The accumulated energy-strain curves
linearly with the increase of the strain amplitude. The accumulated energy-strain curves of LYS160
of LYS160 and SS316 were nonlinear. Hence, the Miner rule was still unsuitable for the AE
and SS316 were nonlinear. Hence, the Miner rule was still unsuitable for the AE evaluation. The
evaluation. The accumulated energy–strain relation can be expressed as follows:
accumulated energy-strain relation can be expressed as follows:
LYS160: AE = 3 × 107γ−0.842 (7)
LYS160 : AE “ 3 ˆ 107 γ´0.842 (7)
Q235: AE = −3665.9γ + 377,502 (8)
Q235 : AE “ ´3665.9γ ` 377, 502 (8)
Al6061:
Al6061 AE“= ´6475.4γ
: AE −6475.4γ +`261,642
261, 642 (9)
(9)

SS316 : AE
SS316: × 1066γγ−1.703
AE“= 22 ˆ ´1.703
(10)
(10)

Figure
Figure 14.
14. Accumulated
Accumulated energy.
energy.

3.3. Stability
3.3. Stability and
and Failure
Failure Mechanism
Mechanism
The test
The test results
results proved
proved thethe instability
instability of of the
the traditional
traditional materials
materials under
under cyclical
cyclical shear.
shear. However,
However,
LYS160 always maintained perfect stability, irrespective of the loading condition
LYS160 always maintained perfect stability, irrespective of the loading condition (monotonic shear (monotonic shear
or cyclical shear) with large plastic strain. There was a significant difference
or cyclical shear) with large plastic strain. There was a significant difference between the failurebetween the failure
mechanism of
mechanism of LYS160
LYS160 andand those
those ofof the
the traditional
traditional materials.
materials.
The shear deformation of LYS160 can be
The shear deformation of LYS160 can be regarded as slippageregarded as slippage
amongamong
numerous numerous
parallel parallel
circular
circular planes. The good stability of the slippage was attributed to the simple shear
planes. The good stability of the slippage was attributed to the simple shear loading, the two fixed loading, the two
fixed of
ends ends
the of the specimens,
specimens, zerodeformation,
zero axial axial deformation,
and the and
normalthe vector
normalofvector of the restrained
the restrained slip plane.slip
In
plane. In other words, shear deformation is likely to be produced under simple
other words, shear deformation is likely to be produced under simple shear loading. As the loading shear loading. As the
loading condition
condition of the SPD of isthe SPD to
similar is the
similar to the
torsional torsional
tests, tests,
the shear the shear deformation
deformation should be
should be incorporated
incorporated into the buckling shape evaluation, and the traditional buckling
into the buckling shape evaluation, and the traditional buckling analysis method for predicting the analysis method for
predicting the stability should be
stability should be reconsidered for LYSPD.reconsidered for LYSPD.
Materials 2016, 9, 496 13 of 14

4. Conclusions
Axial and torsional specimens of four types of metallic damping materials were tested in this
study. The material properties including the mechanical performance, plastic response and the failure
mechanism under large repeated plastic shear loading as well as low cycle fatigue were investigated in
detail. This study provided a reference for the material properties which are important for lightweight
design. The main results are summarized as follows:

(1) The deformation capacity of LYS160 was underestimated by the conversion from the traditional
tensile test. The maximum shear strain of LYS160 is 760%, which is more than 25 times that of
the elongation.
(2) When the fatigue cycles are 10 and 30, the applicable shear strain amplitudes of LYS160 are
81.8% and 47.5%, respectively. The fatigue life of LYS160 is at least five times that of Q235 when
the same strain amplitude is adopted in the cyclical shear loading.
(3) Owing to the small transition between the elastic and plastic region, the perfect elastic-plastic
model can describe the mechanical property of LYS160 well, under large repeated plastic shear
loading. The nonlinear hardening should be considered in the case of Q235 as its applicable shear
strain amplitude is not more than 25%.
(4) Dimple and slip plane are the failure behaviors of LYS160 under the tension and the shear loading,
respectively, which are characterized as the plastic fracture. It is totally different from the failure
mechanism of the conventional metallic materials.

Acknowledgments: The authors acknowledge the support provided by the National Science Foundation of China
(Grant Nos. 51408263, 51575237, 51375209, 11572140, and 11302084), and Fundamental Research Funds for the
Central University (JUSRP41502 and JUSRP11529).
Author Contributions: Chaofeng Zhang designed the experiments; Longfei Wang performed the experiments;
Meiping Wu analyzed the data; Chaofeng Zhang and Junhua Zhao wrote the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Takeuchi, T.; Hajjar, J.F.; Matsui, R.; Nishimoto, K.; Aiken, I.D. Effect of local buckling core plate restraint in
buckling restrained braces. Eng. Struct. 2012, 44, 304–311. [CrossRef]
2. Vasdravellis, G.; Karavasilis, T.L.; Uy, B. Large-scale experimental validation of steel posttensioned
connections with web hourglass pins. J. Struct. Eng. 2013, 139, 1033–1042. [CrossRef]
3. De Matteis, G.; Landolfo, R.; Mazzolani, F.M. Seismic response of MR steel frames with low-yield steel shear
panels. Eng. Struct. 2003, 25, 155–168. [CrossRef]
4. Mistakidis, E.S.; de Matteis, G.; Formisano, A. Low yield metal shear panels as an alternative for the seismic
upgrading of concrete structures. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2007, 38, 626–636. [CrossRef]
5. Estrada, I.; Real, E.; Mirambell, E. A new developed expression to determine more realistically the shear
buckling stress in steel plate structures. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2008, 64, 737–747. [CrossRef]
6. Brando, G.; de Matteis, G. Experimental and numerical analysis of a multi-stiffened pure aluminium shear
panel. Thin Walled Struct. 2011, 49, 1277–1287. [CrossRef]
7. Deng, K.; Pan, P.; Li, W.; Xue, Y. Development of a buckling restrained shear panel damper. J. Constr. Steel Res.
2015, 106, 311–321. [CrossRef]
8. Brando, G.; D’Agostino, F.; de Matteis, G. Experimental tests of a new hysteretic damper made of buckling
inhibited shear panels. Mater. Struct. 2013, 46, 2121–2133. [CrossRef]
9. Deng, K.; Pan, P.; Su, Y.; Ran, T.; Xue, Y. Development of an energy dissipation restrainer for bridges using a
steel shear panel. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2014, 101, 83–95. [CrossRef]
10. Rai, D.C.; Annam, P.K.; Pradhan, T. Seismic testing of steel braced frames with aluminum shear yielding
dampers. Eng. Struct. 2013, 46, 737–747. [CrossRef]
11. Brando, G.; de Matteis, G. Design of low strength-high hardening metal multi-stiffened shear plates.
Eng. Struct. 2014, 60, 2–10. [CrossRef]
Materials 2016, 9, 496 14 of 14

12. Chen, Z.; Dai, Z.; Huang, Y.; Bian, G. Numerical simulation of large deformation in shear panel dampers
using smoothed particle hydrodynamics. Eng. Struct. 2013, 48, 245–254. [CrossRef]
13. Piedrafita, D.; Cahis, X.; Simon, E.; Comas, J. A new modular buckling restrained brace for seismic resistant
buildings. Eng. Struct. 2013, 56, 1967–1975. [CrossRef]
14. Abebe, D.Y.; Jeong, S.J.; Getahune, B.M.; Segu, D.Z.; Choi, J.H. Hysteretic characteristics of shear panel
damper made of low yield point steel. Mater. Res. Innov. 2015, 19, 902–910. [CrossRef]
15. Bouvier, S.; Haddadi, H.; Levée, P.; Teodosiu, C. Simple shear tests: Experimental techniques and
characterization of the plastic anisotropy of rolled sheets at large strains. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2006, 172,
96–103. [CrossRef]
16. Zhang, C.; Zhang, Z.; Shi, J. Development of high deformation capacity low yield strength steel shear panel
damper. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2012, 75, 116–130. [CrossRef]
17. Liu, Y.; Shimoda, M. Shape optimization of shear panel damper for improving the deformation ability under
cyclic loading. Struct. Multidisc. Optim. 2013, 48, 427–435. [CrossRef]
18. Zhang, C.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, Q. Static and dynamic cyclic performance of a low-yield-strength steel shear
panel damper. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2012, 79, 195–203. [CrossRef]
19. Zhang, C.; Aoki, T.; Zhang, Q.; Wu, M. Experimental investigation on the low-yield-strength steel shear
panel damper under different loading. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2013, 84, 105–113. [CrossRef]
20. Dusicka, P.; Itani, A.M.; Buckle, I.G. Cyclic response of plate steels under large inelastic strains. J. Constr.
Steel Res. 2007, 63, 156–164. [CrossRef]
21. Tateishi, K.; Hanji, T.; Minami, K. A prediction model for extremely low cycle fatigue strength of structural
steel. Int. J. Fatigue 2007, 29, 887–896. [CrossRef]
22. De Matteis, G.; Mazzolani, F.M.; Panico, S. Experimental tests on pure aluminium shear panels with welded
stiffeners. Eng. Struct. 2008, 30, 1734–1744. [CrossRef]
23. Nakashima, M.; Iwai, S.; Iwata, M.; Takeuchi, T.; Konomi, S.; Akazawa, T.; Saburi, K. Energy dissipation
behavior of shear panels made of low yield steel. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 1994, 23, 1299–1313. [CrossRef]
24. Nip, K.H.; Gardner, L.; Davies, C.M.; Elghazouli, A.Y. Extremely low cycle fatigue tests on structural carbon
steel and stain-less steel. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2010, 66, 69–110. [CrossRef]
25. Zhang, C.; Zhu, J.; Wu, M.; Yu, J.; Zhao, J. The lightweight design of a seismic low-yield-strength steel shear
panel damper. Materials 2016, 9, 424. [CrossRef]

© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).