Engineering Structures 118 (2016) 210227

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Constitutive model for full-range elasto-plastic behavior of structural

steels with yield plateau: Calibration and validation
Fangxin Hu, Gang Shi , Yongjiu Shi
Key Laboratory of Civil Engineering Safety and Durability of China Education Ministry, Department of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, PR China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: With the formulation and implementation of a new constitutive model for full-range elasto-plastic
Received 2 December 2015 behavior of structural steels with yield plateau being presented in a companion paper, this paper is
Revised 27 March 2016 concerned with the detailed calibration methods of material dependent parameters incorporated in that
Accepted 29 March 2016
model. The restriction equations extracted from the consistency condition in the formulation together
Available online 8 April 2016
with some empirical assumptions give rise to a very concise technique to evaluate the model parameters
using only tensile coupon test results. After calibration, the constitutive model is used to predict the
Keywords:
cyclic behavior of materials, members, connections and frames made of structural steels with yield
Constitutive model
Plastic behavior
plateau. The close fit between the experimental results and simulated ones validates the accuracy of
Structural steel the constitutive model. The work in this paper demonstrates further the advantages and efficiency of
Yield plateau the proposed constitutive model, especially in the absence of cyclic coupon test results.
Calibration 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Validation

1. Introduction condition [3]. As we know, for the traditional combined hardening

Nowadays structural analysis tools based on finite element
method gain more and more popularity among the researchers
and engineers, especially in applications involving cyclic or earth-
quake loading where the material enters the inelastic range [1]. In
such applications, accurate description of the material response is
essential to arrive at a reasonable and reliable prediction of the
hysteretic or seismic behavior of structural components or systems
[2]. Thus, numerous constitutive models have been proposed by
researchers to characterize the basic material elasto-plastic behav-
ior in various loading conditions. In a companion paper by the
authors [3], existing cyclic plasticity models were briefly reviewed
and a new constitutive model to describe the elasto-plastic behav-
ior of structural steels with yield plateau has been formulated and
implemented in the general-purpose finite-element program ABA-
QUS/Standard [4]. This model consists of a yield surface with
isotropic and kinematic hardening, a memory surface to measure
the dependency of response on the loading amplitude, and a
bounding surface specifically to deal with the behavior within
yield plateau. What makes this model different from the others
are the description of cyclic softening and hardening behavior
using unified kinematic hardening and isotropic hardening coupled
with the memorization effects, and the carefully devised restric-
tion equations on material parameters by using the consistency
Corresponding author.
or multisurface models comprehensively reviewed in the compan-
ion paper [3], in order to calibrate material dependent parameters
substantial cyclic coupon tests are usually required and consider-
able attempts are taken to arrive at optimal combination of those
parameters through optimization analysis. Such a procedure can
be especially troublesome when only tension coupon test results
are available, which is common in engineering practice. Thus, a
constitutive model which can be calibrated conveniently without
cyclic coupon tests will be of great value to carry out numerical
analysis.
In this view, this paper is concerned with the calibration
method on material parameters of the constitutive model pro-
posed in the companion paper. After that, the performance of the
proposed model is validated at the structural material, member,
connection and frame level by means of finite-element analysis
to simulate the experimental responses.
2. Calibration on material parameters
In general, material parameters for cyclic plasticity constitutive
models have to be calibrated using coupon test results under both
monotonic and cyclic loadings. According to the formulation in the
companion paper [3], there are 19 material parameters in total to
be determined. Except for the Poissons ratio v which is taken as
0.3 for structural steels in general, the other 18 parameters can
be categorized into two groups:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.03.060
0141-0296/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 F. Hu et al. / Engineering Structures 118 (2016) 210227
wu
u memory scalar cl and kinematic hardening parameters C l1 , cl1 , C l2 , cl2
y loading cycles before the yield plateau disappears to determine the
E
stp u ening parameters since they are coupled in describing the cyclic
-y
Fig. 1. Monotonic true stress-strain curve from tensile coupon test.
(1) Parameters determined easily by tensile coupon test, includ-
ing the Youngs modulus E, yield stress ry, plastic strain at
the end of yield plateau epst .
(2) Parameters determined necessarily by cyclic coupon test,
including the threshold amplitude of plastic strain
epst , scalar
cs for short-range and cl for long-range memory, parameters
bs, Qs for short-range and bl, Ql for long-range isotropic hard-
ening, and parameters C s1 , cs1 , C s2 , cs2 for short-range and C l1 ,
c l
C l2 , l
c for long-range kinematic hardening.
1, 2
2.1. Calibration using monotonic loading
The Youngs modulus E, yield stress ry and plastic strain at the
end of yield plateau epst can be easily determined based on a typical
monotonic stressstrain curve from the tensile coupon test, as
shown in Fig. 1. Note that the true stress and strain are used which
can be obtained using the following equations
e ln1 e
r 1 es
where e and s are nominal or engineering strain and stress, respec-
tively. Such a simple determination method is valid only if the
strain along the gauge length is uniform and the stress across the
cross section is uniform too. However, Eqs. (1) and (2) no longer
hold after necking initiates which is assumed at the peak load of
a tensile coupon test. In order to obtain the post-necking true
stress-strain curve, Jia and Kuwamura [5] has proposed a modified
weighted average method based on an assumption of linear harden-
ing modulus [6] with the upper and lower bound being the true
stress at the point necking initiates [7] and zero, respectively. Intro-
ducing a weighted average factor w, the true stress after necking
initiates can be given as
r ru wru e  eu
where eu and ru are ultimate true strain and stress corresponding to
the peak load. Eq. (3) indicates that the post-necking hardening
modulus is a constant wru, as shown in Fig. 1. The optimal weighted
average factor w can be obtained after several iterations to result in
a best fitting of the experimental post-necking loaddeformation
curve using numerical simulation.
2.2. Calibration using cyclic loading
In order to get an accurate estimation of the rest material
parameters, several cyclic loading types are necessary, including:
(1) cyclic loading tests to measure the change in the elastic range
(i.e. the size of yield surface) between each successive loading cycle
so as to determine bs, Qs and bl, Ql; (2) cyclic loading tests in small
amplitudes to determine short-range memory scalar cs and
211
kinematic hardening parameters C s1 , cs1 , C s2 , cs2 in the plateau region;
(3) cyclic loading tests in large amplitudes to determine long-range
in the hardening region; and (4) cyclic loading tests with sufficient
threshold amplitude of plastic strain
epst , which distinguishes the
plateau region and hardening region. However, such a calibration
procedure may result in different sets of memory scalars and hard-
behavior, and it is nearly impossible to separate them from each
other no matter how many cyclic loading tests are conducted.
Therefore, a much more concise and simplified calibration proce-
dure is proposed in the following subsection based on several
appropriate assumptions.
2.3. Simplified procedure
According to the cyclic loading experiments by Nishimura et al.
[8,9], the size of elastic range contracts to about (0.50.7)ry at a
relatively high rate in cycles with small amplitudes, which is
employed and extrapolated here as the first assumption
Assumption 1. Empirical values of the saturation and its rate for
softening of the size of yield surface
s
Q s 0:30:5ry and b 300400 4
can be used, and such saturation of softening should be completed
within the yield plateau in the case of monotonic loading.
Fig. 2 shows the comparison in the evolution of elastic range for
three kinds of structural steels SS400, SM570 and LYR60 from the
experiments by Nishimura et al. [8,9], and a good agreement can be
found using empirical values above. Based on Assumption 1, the
size of elastic range at the end of yield plateau should approach
1 to ry + Qs, as shown in Fig. 3, where the true stress-plastic strain
curve is obtained by subtracting the elastic strain from the curve
2 in Fig. 1, and oEr represents the boundary of elastic range
( denotes the upper bound while denotes the lower one).
The evolution of total backstresses which geometrically represent
the center of elastic range, is also indicated in red in Fig. 3.
A large number of cyclic loading experiments show that the
Bauschinger effect takes place generally at the same stress level
after unloading and reversed loading in moderate amplitudes. As
such, a second assumption can be presented as
Assumption 2. The lower bound of elastic range remains
unchanged after strain hardening initiates until the ultimate stress
at the necking point, and the saturation for hardening of the size of
yield surface should be completed at the ultimate stress in the case
of monotonic loading.
3 This assumption thus can be used to determine the long-range
isotropic hardening parameters. The saturation Ql is easily calcu-
lated with reference to Fig. 3
ru  ry
Ql 5
2
and the saturation rate bl is obtained by a best fitting of the mono-
tonic loading curve.
According to the formulation in the companion paper [3], a con-
dition on the saturation of short-range backstresses is assumed
X
2
C sj
Q s 6
csj
j1
which indicates that the short-range backstresses have reached
their saturated values at the end of yield plateau in monotonic load-
ing, and remain constant in subsequent strain hardening, as shown
212 F. Hu et al. / Engineering Structures 118 (2016) 210227

1.0

0.8

0.6
R/y

0.4 E x p e rim e n t E x p e rim e n t E x p e rim e n t

Equation Equation Equation
(Qs=-0.4y, bs=350) (Qs=-0.35y, bs=350) (Qs=-0.45y, bs=350)
0.2

0.0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03
p p p
(a) (b) (c)
Fig. 2. Evolution of elastic range for structural steels (a) SS400, (b) SM570 and (c) LYR60 (experiments by Nishimura et al. [8,9]).

in Fig. 3. To further evaluate the parameters in Eq. (6), in the com-

panion paper another equation is obtained to ensure the consis-
tency condition
s
mincsj P b 7
j

In lack of small amplitude cyclic coupon test results, we thus

introduce another assumption to easily calibrate the short-range
kinematic hardening parameters.

Assumption 3. The saturation rate of short-range kinematic

hardening can be determined empirically as

cs1 10cs2 and cs2 bs 8

and a general proportion between the saturation of each short-
range backstress component can be supposed as
Fig. 3. Monotonic true stress-plastic strain curve. C s1 C s2
: s 1:2 9
c1 c2
s

Eq. (9) is then used together with Eqs. (4), (6) and (8) to deter-
mine those parameters associated with short-range kinematic
hardening.
R50
Since the size of yield surface is saturated after the ultimate
gau stress is reached, and recall that the subsequent linear hardening
ge can be assumed according to Section 2.1, it is therefore natural to
len
gth set one of the long-range backstress components as nonlinear
of and the other as linear. Eq. (3) can be manipulated to obtain the
60 20
following
10 10
wru
r ru ep  epu 10
1  wEru
80
30 where epu is the plastic strain at the ultimate stress. Eq. (10) gives the
hardening modulus after the ultimate stress point in the true stress-
plastic strain curve as shown in Fig. 3, and this hardening modulus
is just assumed as the parameter associated with the second long-
range linear backstress component, i.e.
Fig. 4. Finite-element model of Q235 plate bar specimens.

Table 1
Calibrated parameters for benchmark experiments of steel materials.

Authors Steel E epst Qs Ql C s1 C s2 C l1 C l2 cs

s l
Gr. ry

epst b b c s
1 c s
2 c l
1 c l
2
cl

Wang et al. Q235 200,000 0.0072 203.5 125.2 203500.0 40700.0 2657.3 362.2 0.5
407.0 0.0036 300 25 3000 300 30 0 0.3
Nishimura et al. SS400 206,920 0.0125 107.9 137.2 125860.0 25172.0 2016.5 194.0 0.5
269.7 0.0060 350 17 3500 350 20 0 0.2
Jia et al. SS400 206,000 0.0148 109.6 142.0 127866.7 25573.3 2292.0 194.0 0.5
274.0 0.0060 350 18 3500 350 20 0 0.2
Fujimoto et al. SM490 209,600 0.0131 133.8 151.7 133800.0 26760.0 2324.6 204.3 0.5
334.5 0.0060 300 17 3000 300 20 0 0.3
 F. Hu et al. / Engineering Structures 118 (2016) 210227 213

(a)
600

Nominal stress (MPa)

400

Experiment (L1-1)
Experiment (L1-2)
200 Experiment (L1-3)
Experiment (L1-4)
Simulation
0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Nominal strain

(b) 600 Experiment

(c) 600 Experiment
Simulation Simulation
Nominal stress (MPa)

Nominal stress (MPa)

400 400

200 200

0 0

-200 -200

-400 -400

-600 -600
-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Nominal strain Nominal strain

(d) 600 Experiment

(e) 600 Experiment
Simulation Simulation
Nominal stress (MPa)

Nominal stress (MPa)

400 400

200 200

0 0

-200 -200

-400 -400

-600 -600
-0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Nominal strain Nominal strain

(f) Experiment
(g) 600 Experiment
600
Simulation Simulation
Nominal stress (MPa)
Nominal stress (MPa)

400 400

200 200

0 0

-200 -200

-400 -400

-600 -600
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Nominal strain Nominal strain

(h) 600 Experiment

(i) 600 Experiment
Simulation Simulation
Nominal stress (MPa)

Nominal stress (MPa)

400 400

200 200

0 0

-200 -200

-400 -400

-600 -600
-0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Nominal strain Nominal strain

Fig. 5. Comparison between experimental and simulated results of Q235 coupons: (a) monotonic type; (b) cyclic type L3-1; (c) cyclic type L3-3; (d) cyclic type L4-1; (e) cyclic
type L6-1; (f) cyclic type L6-2; (g) cyclic type L7-1; (h) cyclic type L7-3; and (i) cyclic type L8-1.
214 F. Hu et al. / Engineering Structures 118 (2016) 210227

(a)
Experiment
600 Simulation

True stress (MPa)

400

200

0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Plastic strain

(b) 600 Experiment

(c) 600 Experiment
Simulation Simulation
400 400
True stress (MPa)

True stress (MPa)

200 200

0 0

-200 -200

-400 -400

-600 -600
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03
Plastic strain Plastic strain

(d) 600 Experiment

(e) 600 Experiment
Simulation Simulation
400 400
True stress (MPa)

True stress (MPa)

200 200

0 0

-200 -200

-400 -400

-600 -600
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
Plastic strain Plastic strain

(f) 600 Experiment

(g) 600 Experiment
Simulation Simulation
400 400
True stress (MPa)

True stress (MPa)

200 200

0 0

-200 -200

-400 -400

-600 -600
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04
Plastic strain Plastic strain

Fig. 6. Comparison between experimental and simulated true stress-plastic strain curves of SS400 steel: (a) monotonic type; (b) cyclic type 1; (c) cyclic type 2; (d) cyclic type
3; (e) cyclic type 4; (f) cyclic type 5; and (g) cyclic type 6.

wru while the saturation rate cl1 is obtained by a best fitting of the
C l2 and cl2 0 11
1  wEru monotonic loading curve.
Then the other long-range nonlinear backstress component should The last empirical assumption is about the threshold amplitude
also be saturated at the ultimate stress. Thus, the saturation of this of plastic strain
epst and memory scalars cs and cl, which cannot be
backstress component can be calculated with reference to Fig. 3 determined only by monotonic tensile coupon test results for sure.
Since the material will not experience any cyclic hardening for
C l1 fully reversed loading amplitudes smaller than
epst or when the
ru  ry Q s Q l  Q l  C l2 epu  epst
cl1 accumulated plastic strain doesnt reach epst , the following equation
ru  ry wru is required in order to correctly capture the transition from the
 ep  epst 12
2 1  wEru u yield plateau to the hardening region for monotonic loading
 F. Hu et al. / Engineering Structures 118 (2016) 210227 215

while the memory scalars can be taken as

ga cs 0:5 and cl 0:20:4 15

ug
el When Eq. (14) does not satisfy Eq. (13),
epst can be just taken as
en
gth cs epst .
19 of
5
R1

30
Consequently, in cases that cyclic coupon test results are not
R5 available, the above four assumptions together with those equa-
66 tions provide a simplified approach to determine the material
dependent parameters for the proposed constitutive model. It
can be found from the subsequent validation examples that such
a simplified procedure is viable and appropriate for engineering
application.

Fig. 7. Finite-element model of SS400 round bar specimens. 3. Validation using experimental results

pst
e 6 e cs pst 13 In order to verify the performance of the proposed constitutive
Then the last assumption can be described as model, several benchmark experiments at the level of steel mate-
rials, members, connections and frames were simulated using ABA-
Assumption 4. The threshold amplitude of plastic strain must QUS/Standard with the UMAT subroutine in which this model was
satisfy Eq. (13) in any case first and then it can be generally in the implemented as illustrated in the companion paper [3]. The results
order of of numerical simulation are compared with those experimental
ones in detail. According to the simplified calibration procedure

epst 0:40:6% 14 in Section 2.3, the material parameters associated with monotonic

Fig. 8. Comparison between experimental and simulated results of SS400 coupons: (a) KA01; (b) KA03; (c) KA04; (d) KA05; (e) KA06; and (f) KA07.
216 F. Hu et al. / Engineering Structures 118 (2016) 210227

response, i.e., Youngs modulus E, yield stress ry, plastic strain at 3.1. Validation at the level of materials
the end of yield plateau epst , long-range isotropic hardening param-
eters bl and Ql, long-range kinematic hardening parameters C l1 , cl1 , 3.1.1. Test on Q235 steel coupons by Wang et al. [10]
Plate bar specimens using Q235 structural steel in China were
C l2 , l
c are determined based on the tensile coupon test results
2,
tested using a variety of loading histories by Wang et al. [10],
which are generally provided in the benchmark experiments; the
including monotonic tension, various incremental and decre-
others including threshold amplitude of plastic strain
epst , short-
mented amplitude cycles. Finite-element model of the specimens
range isotropic softening parameters bs and Qs, short-range kine-
using solid elements is shown in Fig. 4. The tests were
matic hardening parameters C s1 , cs1 , C s2 , cs2 , memory scalars cs and
displacement-controlled by an extension meter with a gauge
cl are empirically determined if without any cyclic coupon test length of 20 mm, which was adopted to measure the elongation
results. of uniform middle part. The calibrated material parameters are

Fig. 9. Comparison between experimental and simulated true stress-true strain curves of SM490 steel: (a) monotonic type; (b) amplitude type 1; (c) amplitude type 2; (d)
amplitude type 3; (e) half amplitude type; (f) shift type; and (g) random type.
 F. Hu et al. / Engineering Structures 118 (2016) 210227 217

Fig. 8(a). The experimental and simulated cyclic curves are com-
pared in Fig. 8(b)(f), where the abscissa is the change in gauge
length and the ordinate is the force imposed on the specimen.
The comparison indicates that the proposed constitutive model
can well simulate the yield plateau and cyclic behavior, especially
the stabilization of stress under cyclic loading at constant ampli-
10
0 tudes (see KA04 in Fig. 8(c)). Note that the comparative study by
Jia and Kuwamura [11] has verified that the nonlinear kinematic
100

hardening model in ABAQUS underestimates the load in reversal

0 much better simulation for a single-full-cycle, but still cannot
30
t
Fig. 10. Finite-element model of heat-treated SHS stub columns.
shown in Table 1 based on the average result of four monotonic
tensile stress-strain curves in Fig. 5(a). The experimental and sim-
ulated cyclic stress-strain curves are compared in Fig. 5(b)(i).
Note that nominal stress and strain are used in those curves. Based
on the comparison, it is found that the yield plateau and Baushin-
ger effect in reversed cycles are simulated well.
3.1.2. Test on SS400 steel coupons by Nishimura et al. [8,9]
Experiments on SS400 structural steel in Japan under different
kinds of uniaxial cyclic loading conditions were conducted by
Nishimura et al. [8,9], including monotonic tension, incremental,
constant and half amplitude cycles, shift-type and random cycles.
The comparison between the experimental and simulated true
stress-plastic strain curves are reported in Fig. 6(b)(g) with mate-
rial dependent parameters shown in Table 1 which are calibrated
on the basis of monotonic response in Fig. 6(a). It is found that
the proposed model gives satisfactory simulation of cyclic behavior
under various and even complicated loading histories.
3.1.3. Test on SS400 steel coupons by Jia et al. [11]
Round bar hourglass-type specimens using SS400 structural
steel in Japan were tested using a variety of loading histories by
Jia and Kuwamura [11]. Finite-element model of the specimens
using solid elements is shown in Fig. 7. The tests were
displacement-controlled by an extension meter with a gauge
length of 30 mm to measure the elongation, including monotonic
tension, single-full-cycle, five-constant-cycle, and cycles before
and after necking of the specimens. The calibrated material param-
eters are shown in Table 1 based on the monotonic tensile curve in
cycles, while the combined hardening model in ABAQUS gives
simulate the load stabilization at constant cycles. The good perfor-
mance of the proposed model can be explained by the memoriza-
tion effects of the loading history on isotropic hardening, which is
certainly not included in the traditional combined hardening
model. Those who are interested with the performance of the
existing models in ABAQUS are suggested to further refer to the
well-presented results by Jia and Kuwamura [11].
3.1.4. Test on SM490 steel coupons by Fujimoto et al. [12]
Experiments on SM490 structural steel in Japan under different
kinds of uniaxial cyclic loading conditions were conducted by
Fujimoto et al. [12], including monotonic tension, various incre-
mental and half amplitude cycles, shift-type and random cycles.
The comparison between the experimental and simulated true
stress-true strain curves are reported in Fig. 9(b)(g) with material
dependent parameters shown in Table 1 which are calibrated on
the basis of monotonic response in Fig. 9(a). It is found that the
proposed model gives good simulation of cyclic behavior under
various loading conditions.
3.2. Validation at the level of members
3.2.1. Test on SHS stub columns by Jia et al. [13]
Experimental tests were conducted by Jia et al. [13] on twelve
heat-treated square hollow section (SHS) stub columns made of
STKR400 steel in Japan, whose solid finite-element model is shown
in Fig. 10. The length and width of all the specimens were 300 and
100 mm, respectively. In order to study the effects of width-to-
thickness ratio and type of seismic waves, those specimens were
categorized into three groups; each group consisted of four speci-
mens with the same thickness (2.1, 4.2 or 8.4 mm) but under four
different loading histories, i.e., monotonic tension, a single full
cycle, incremental, and constant amplitude loading. Each specimen
was rigidly connected to the testing machine using bolts through
two base plates welded to the end of the specimen. Although the

Table 2
Calibrated parameters for benchmark experiments of steel members.

Authors Steel Gr. E epst Qs Ql C s1 C s2 C l1 C l2 cs

s l
ry
epst b b c s
1 c s
2 c l
1 c l
2
cl

Jia et al. STKR400 (RH1) 204,900 0.0363 105.0 87.3 122516.1 24503.2 1016.3 262.7 0.5
262.5 0.0060 350 14 3500 350 24 0 0.2
STKR400 (RH2) 208,350 0.0211 92.4 115.5 107788.6 21557.7 1576.7 277.6 0.5
231.0 0.0060 350 14 3500 350 24 0 0.2
STKR400 (RH3) 213,900 0.0360 95.3 94.1 111206.7 22241.3 1209.9 234.8 0.5
238.3 0.0060 350 14 3500 350 24 0 0.2
Nishikawa et al. SM490 (No. 2) 206,000 0.0165 151.4 125.7 151440.0 30288.0 4017.9 201.8 0.5
378.6 0.0060 300 25 3000 300 45 0 0.3
SM490 (No. 3) 206,000 0.0165 147.2 129.5 147200.0 29440.0 4196.6 200.8 0.5
368.0 0.0060 300 25 3000 300 45 0 0.3
SM490 (No. 6) 206,000 0.0133 137.7 132.9 137720.0 27544.0 4362.8 195.4 0.5
344.3 0.0060 300 25 3000 300 45 0 0.3
SS400 (No. 8) 206,000 0.0183 115.8 102.7 135146.7 27029.3 2444.1 183.3 0.5
289.6 0.0060 350 25 3500 350 35 0 0.2
218 F. Hu et al. / Engineering Structures 118 (2016) 210227

(a) 400 (b) 400

200 200

Force (kN)

Force (kN)
0 0

-200 -200
Experiment Experiment
Simulation Simulation
-400 -400
0 20 40 60 80 100 -25 0 25 50 75 100
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

(c) 400 (d) 400

200 200
Force (kN)

Force (kN)
0 0

-200 -200
Experiment Experiment
Simulation Simulation
-400 -400
-20 -10 0 10 20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

(e) 800 (f) 800

400 400
Force (kN)
Force (kN)

0 0

-400 -400
Experiment Experiment
Simulation Simulation
-800 -800
0 20 40 60 80 100 -25 0 25 50 75 100
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

(g) 800 (h) 800

400 400
Force (kN)
Force (kN)

0 0

-400 -400
Experiment Experiment
Simulation Simulation
-800 -800
-20 -10 0 10 20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 11. Comparison between experimental and simulated forcedisplacement curves of heat-treated SHS stub columns: (a) RH1-1; (b) RH1-2; (c) RH1-3; (d) RH1-4; (e) RH2-
1; (f) RH2-2; (g) RH2-3; (h) RH2-4; (i) RH3-1; (j) RH3-2; (k) RH3-3; and (l) RH3-4.

material properties of the SHS columns differed over the cross sec-
tion, the material parameters associated with the monotonic
response were calibrated based on the measured results of tensile
coupons cut from the flat part suggested in [13]. Material parame-
ters corresponding to the cyclic response were determined empir-
ically referring to those of SS400 steel in Table 1. The material
parameters finally used in the simulation are summarized in
Table 2 for each series of specimens with the same thickness.
Perfect model was employed in the simulation of specimens under
monotonic tension, while for those under cyclic tension and com-
pression, geometric imperfection was introduced into finite-
element models to simulate local buckling, as suggested in [13].
On the basis of comparison shown in Figs. 11 and 12, the simula-
tion using proposed constitutive model can accurately predict
the forcedisplacement curves and also capture the typical failure
modes (necking and buckling). Since the ductile fracture or damage
was not considered in the material constitutive model, the simula-
tion may overestimate the strength after the crack initiation and
subsequent propagation occurred in the last few cycles of the
experiments.
 F. Hu et al. / Engineering Structures 118 (2016) 210227 219

(i) 1200 (j) 1200

600 600

Force (kN)

Force (kN)
0 0

-600 -600
Experiment Experiment
Simulation Simulation
-1200 -1200
0 20 40 60 80 100 -25 0 25 50 75 100
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

(k) 1200 Experiment (l) 1200

Simulation
600 800
Force (kN)

Force (kN)
0 0
Experiment
Simulation
-600 -800

-1200 -1200
-20 -10 0 10 20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 11 (continued)

Fig. 12. Comparison between experimental and simulated failure modes: (a) initiation of necking in Specimen RH1-1 and (b) buckling mode in Specimen RH1-3 (images by
Jia et al. [13]).

3.2.2. Test on bridge columns by Nishikawa et al. [14,15]

Cyclic loading tests on thin-walled steel bridge pier rectangular
and circular columns were carried out in Japan by Nishikawa et al.
[14,15]. Four specimens which were made of SM490 or SS400
steels, i.e. No. 2, No. 3, No. 6 and No. 8, were chosen for simulation. 3 stiffeners (No. 2)
.9
1603

7 stiffeners (No. 3) 83
1603

Some of those specimens were also used by Goto et al. [16] and 806.22 891 8 o. 6)
Ucak and Tsopelas [2] as benchmark examples to verify the consti- (N 91.3
8 o. 8)
tutive models they proposed. Fixed at its base, each specimen was (N
subjected to a constant axial load and quasi-static cyclic horizontal
load. As for the loading program, half amplitude of dy0 was alter- t = 16.1
nately imposed first and then one cycle was applied at each ampli- (No. 6)
t = 9.05
1800

tude level that was gradually increased as integral multiples of the t = 8.7
1800

displacement dy0, where dy0 is the displacement of the loading (No. 8)

point when the specimen yields at the lower end. Details of those
specimens can be found in [15]. Fig. 13 depicts the finite-element
model of the rectangular and circular specimens, where for compu-
tational efficiency only the lower part of the column was dis-
cretized with shell elements, while the upper part was modeled Fig. 13. Finite-element model of rectangular and circular bridge columns.
220 F. Hu et al. / Engineering Structures 118 (2016) 210227

(a) 2000 (b)

Experiment 2000 Experiment

Horizontal load (kN)

Horizontal load (kN)

1000 Simulation Simulation
1000

0 0

-1000
-1000

-2000
-2000
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Horizontal displacement (mm) Horizontal displacement (mm)

(c) 2000 (d) 800

Experiment Experiment

Horizontal load (kN)

Horizontal load (kN)

1000 Simulation 400 Simulation

0 0

-1000 -400

-2000 -800
-200 -100 0 100 200 -100 -50 0 50 100
Horizontal displacement (mm) Horizontal displacement (mm)

Fig. 14. Comparison between experimental and simulated loaddisplacement curves of bridge columns: (a) No. 2; (b) No. 3; (c) No. 6; and (d) No. 8.

Fig. 15. Comparison between experimental and simulated buckling modes in (a) Specimen No. 2 and (b) Specimen No. 8 (images from Goto [16] and Usami [18]).

using beam elements, as suggested in [2,16]. Coupling constraint
was employed to connect beam elements to shell elements. The
number of finite elements was determined based on the conver-
gence of solutions. The material dependent parameters are sum-
marized in Table 2 for each specimen. Fig. 14 shows the
comparison of the hysteretic curves obtained from simulation with
the experimental ones. Close agreement is observed, indicating
accurate description of the steel material response. Note that the
simulation may overestimate the lateral strength in the post peak
region, especially in Specimen No. 3. This can be attributed to the
effect of geometrical imperfection or specimen-foundation interac-
tion which were not considered in the simulation. Fig. 15 depicts
the experimental and simulated buckling modes of both rectangu-
lar and circular specimens. It is clear that the local deformation
patterns, i.e. inward in flanges and outward in webs of the rectan-
gular specimen, and an elephant foot bulge in the circular speci-
men, are successfully captured. Furthermore, the comparison of
experimental and simulated radial displacements for a circular
specimen (No. 8) at the displacement amplitudes of 3dy and 6dy
(dy is the yield displacement) shown in Fig. 16 reveals that the sim-
ulation successfully predicts the size and growth of the bulge,
although some discrepancy is visible in the position of maximum
deformation point. Similar results have been also obtained inde-
pendently in [2,16,17], where some of them argued that this could
be due to the effect of residual stresses or rigid foundation assump-
tion employed in the simulation.
3.3. Validation at the level of connections
3.3.1. Test on beam-to-column connections by Wang et al. [19]
Cyclic loading experiments were conducted by Wang et al. [19]
on five full-scale welded beam-to-column connections with com-
pact or noncompact beam webs. Presence of longitudinal stiffeners
was studied. Details of those specimens can be found in [19]. The
 F. Hu et al. / Engineering Structures 118 (2016) 210227 221

300 300
Experiment (+3y) Experiment (-3y)
Simulation (+3y) Simulation (-3y)
240 Experiment (+6y) 240 Experiment (-6y)
Simulation (+6y) Simulation (-6y)

Height (mm)

Height (mm)
180 180

120 120

60 60

0 0
-10 0 10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0 10
Radical displacement (mm) Radical displacement (mm)
(a) (b)
Fig. 16. Comparison between experimental and simulated radial displacements in Specimen No. 8: (a) at displacements +3dy and +6dy; (b) at displacements 3dy and 6dy.

the hysteretic curves obtained from simulation with the experi-

mental ones, where the abscissa is expressed in terms of the story
drift angle d/L (d is the tip displacement at the beam end while L is
Beam
the distance between the loading point and the column centerline),
H5501504.510
(J1-0, 0 LSs) while the ordinate is expressed in terms of the normalized story
(J1-1, 2 LSs) force P/PP (P is the force at the beam end and PP is the force corre-
(J1-2, 4 LSs) Lateral restraint sponding to the measured full plastic moment strength of the
1800

H550150610 beam section). Fig. 19 depicts the comparison of failure modes in

(J2-1, 2 LSs) experiments and simulations after the last full cycle. It is evident
Longitudinal stiffener (LS)
H550150810 4.5701100 that the proposed constitutive model exhibits quite good perfor-
(J3-0, 0 LSs)
mance in simulating the overall cyclic behavior and local buckling
Column Pin-support shapes.
H4002001414
3.3.2. Test on beam-to-column joint panels by Ikarashi et al. [21]
Cyclic loading experiments were conducted by Ikarashi et al.
0
Pin-support 255 [21] on five welded beam-to-column joint panels. Details of those
specimens can be found in [21]. The solid finite-element model is
shown in Fig. 20, where the right flange of the upper beam segment
Fig. 17. Finite-element model of beam-to-column connections.
was pin-supported and the left one of the lower beam segment was
roller-supported to release the horizontal movement. After a
constant axial load was applied on the joint panel, cyclic vertical
shell finite-element model is shown in Fig. 17, where the column loads were imposed by displacement control at two ends of the
was assumed to be pin-supported and the lateral restraint was column asymmetrically. Displacement amplitudes in terms of
provided near the middle point of the beam. Cyclic displacement shear angle of joint panel were adopted and only one cycle was
histories were specified at the beam end according to the protocol applied for the amplitude of 1/400, 1/200, 1/100, 1/50 and 1/33
in AISC Seismic Provisions [20]. Q235 steel was used and the mate- respectively. The presence of 5.5 mm thick doubler plates was
rial dependent parameters for each kind of plate of the same thick- investigated. SS400 steel was used and the material dependent
ness are summarized in Table 3. Fig. 18 shows the comparison of parameters for flange, web and doubler plates are summarized in

Table 3
Calibrated parameters for benchmark experiments of steel connections.

Authors Steel Gr. E epst Qs Ql C s1 C s2 C l1 C l2 cs

ry
epst bs bl cs1 cs2 cl1 cl2 cl

Wang et al. Q235 (4.5 mm) 206,000 0.0185 157.5 119.7 157500.0 31500.0 2249.0 277.6 0.5
315.0 0.0050 300 25 3000 300 30 0 0.3
Q235 (6 mm) 206,000 0.0181 194 95.8 194000.0 38800.0 1468.9 290.2 0.5
388.0 0.0050 300 25 3000 300 30 0 0.3
Q235 (8 mm) 206,000 0.0184 161.5 110.3 161500.0 32300.0 1992.4 272.2 0.5
323.0 0.0050 300 25 3000 300 30 0 0.3
Q235 (10 mm) 206,000 0.0186 147.5 125.5 147500.0 29500.0 2443.8 273.4 0.5
295.0 0.0050 300 25 3000 300 30 0 0.3
Q235 (14 mm) 206,000 0.0187 134.0 109.0 134000.0 26800.0 2093.0 243.3 0.5
268.0 0.0050 300 25 3000 300 30 0 0.3
Ikarashi et al. SS400 (Flange) 210,000 0.0040 111.6 115.9 130200.0 26040.0 3247.0 178.9 0.5
279.0 0.0020 350 30 3500 350 40 0 0.2
SS400 (Web) 221,000 0.0040 112.0 119.4 130666.7 26133.3 3286.1 181.7 0.5
280.0 0.0020 350 30 3500 350 40 0 0.2
SS400 (Doubler plate) 213,000 0.0125 89.2 102.8 104066.7 20813.3 1341.8 150.1 0.5
223.0 0.0060 350 17 3500 350 20 0 0.2
222 F. Hu et al. / Engineering Structures 118 (2016) 210227

(a) 1.5 (b) 1.5

1.0 Experiment 1.0 Experiment
Simulation Simulation
0.5 0.5

P/PP

P/PP
0 0

-0.5 -0.5

-1.0 -1.0

-1.5 -1.5
-0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
/L /L

(c) 1.5 (d) 1.5

1.0 Experiment 1.0 Experiment
Simulation Simulation
0.5 0.5
P/PP

P/PP
0 0

-0.5 -0.5

-1.0 -1.0

-1.5 -1.5
-0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
/L /L

(e) 1.5
1.0

0.5
P/PP

-0.5

-1.0

-1.5
-0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
/L

Fig. 18. Comparison between experimental and simulated hysteretic curves: (a) Specimen J1-0; (b) Specimen J1-1; (c) Specimen J1-2; (d) Specimen J2-1; and (e) Specimen J3-
0.

Fig. 19. Comparison between experimental and simulated buckling modes in: (a) Specimen J1-0; (b) Specimen J1-1; (c) Specimen J1-2; (d) Specimen J2-1; and (e) Specimen
J3-0 (images by Wang et al. [19]).

Table 3. Fig. 21 shows the comparison of the hysteretic curves nate is the vertical load imposed on the column ends P. It can
obtained from simulation with the experimental ones, where be found that the simulation coincide well with the experimen-
the abscissa is the shear angle of joint panel c, while the ordi- tal results.
 F. Hu et al. / Engineering Structures 118 (2016) 210227 223

Beam 12N/mm
H400200813 port
Pin-sup
P

125
Column
H250250914
Beam
N H20015068 Coupling

1500
12N/mm
600

125
P 600 port
r-sup no doubler plate (H0300/H0303)
Rolle
1 doubler plate (H0503) Column
2 doubler plates (H0700/H0703)
H170170810
tdp = 5.5

1500
Fig. 20. Finite-element model of beam-to-column joint panels. 3000

Fig. 22. Finite-element model of one-bay two-story steel frame.

3.4. Validation at the level of frames

3.4.1. Test on one-bay two-story frame by Guo et al. [22]

distributed forces were applied on both floors representing the
Cyclic loading experiment was conducted by Guo et al. [22] on a
gravity load, cyclic incremental displacement was imposed with
half-scale welded one-bay two-story steel frame. Details of the
two cycles repeated for each amplitude at a reference node located
specimen can be found in [22]. The shell finite-element model is
at two-thirds in height of the second story. This reference node was
shown in Fig. 22, where two column bases were fixed. After
coupled to the loading positions at both floors so that the applied

(a) 300 Experiment (b) 300 Experiment

Simulation Simulation
200 200

100 100
P (kN)

P (kN)

0 0

-100 -100

-200 -200

-300 -300
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04
(rad) (rad)

(c) 300 Experiment

Simulation
200

100
P (kN)

-100

-200

-300
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04
(rad)

(d) 300 Experiment (e) 300 Experiment

Simulation Simulation
200 200

100 100
P (kN)

P (kN)

0 0

-100 -100

-200 -200

-300 -300
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04
(rad) (rad)

Fig. 21. Comparison between experimental and simulated hysteretic curves: (a) Specimen H0300; (b) Specimen H0303; (c) Specimen H0503; (d) Specimen H0700; and (e)
Specimen H0703.
224 F. Hu et al. / Engineering Structures 118 (2016) 210227

Table 4
Calibrated parameters for benchmark experiments of steel frames.

Authors Steel Gr. E epst Qs Ql C s1 C s2 C l1 C l2 cs

ry

epst bs bl cs1 cs2 cl1 cl2 cl

Guo et al. Q235 206,000 0.0186 146.5 75.5 146500.0 29300.0 1187.7 222.2 0.5
293.0 0.0050 300 25 3000 300 30 0 0.3
Nishikawa et al. SS400 (6 mm) 206,000 0.0183 116.8 101.5 136285.3 27257.1 2334.4 194.0 0.5
292.0 0.0060 350 25 3500 350 35 0 0.2
SS400 (8 mm) 206,000 0.0183 122.3 94.6 142688.0 28537.6 2094.3 194.0 0.5
305.8 0.0060 350 25 3500 350 35 0 0.2
Li et al. Q235 200,000 0.0188 117.5 110.5 117500.0 23500.0 2211.0 228.3 0.5
235.0 0.0050 300 25 3000 300 30 0 0.3
Kim et al. SS400 (6.5 mm) 216,600 0.0202 134.0 116.2 156333.3 31266.7 1590.9 198.8 0.5
335.0 0.0060 350 17 3500 350 19 0 0.2
SS400 (9 mm) 207,900 0.0184 128.0 116.3 149333.3 29866.7 1620.3 193.6 0.5
320.0 0.0060 350 17 3500 350 19 0 0.2

(a) 300 (b) 300

200 Experiment 200 Experiment
Simulation Simulation
100 100
P (kN)

0 P (kN) 0

-100 -100

-200 -200

-300 -300
-80 -40 0 40 80 -160 -80 0 80 160
(mm) (mm)

Fig. 23. Comparison between experimental and simulated hysteretic curves: (a) first floor and (b) second floor.

2
P N Experiment
1 Simulation

N
P/Py

0
Beam
60060068

-1
Column
60060066
56 -2
00 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Stiffeners 00
61
606 /y

Fig. 25. Comparison between experimental and simulated hysteretic curve.

Fig. 24. Finite-element model of steel portal frame.
horizontal force at the second floor could be always kept as two
times that at the first floor. Q235 steel was used and the material
dependent parameters are summarized in Table 4. Fig. 23 shows
the comparison of the hysteretic curves obtained from simulation
with the experimental ones at both stories, where the abscissa is
the displacement D at each floor, while the ordinate is the total
horizontal load P at the reference node. It can be found that the
simulation gives an acceptable accuracy for cyclic behavior of the
steel frame.
3.4.2. Test on one-bay one-story frame by Nishikawa et al. [23]
Cyclic loading experiment was conducted by Nishikawa et al.
[23] on a thin-walled steel portal frame. The shell finite-element
model is shown in Fig. 24, where two column bases were fixed.
Both column and beam members were composed of stiffened
box sections using additional longitudinal stiffeners and
diaphragms. In the beam-to-column connection parts all panels
of both beam and column sections were strengthened by doubling
the thickness. More details about the specimen can be found in
[23]. SS400 steel was used and the material dependent parameters
are summarized in Table 4. The frame was tested under cyclic
lateral loadings with the constant vertical loads of N = 0.12Ny
(Ny is the squash load of the column section) at the top of the
frame. One cycle was applied at each amplitude level that was
gradually increased as integral multiples of the displacement dy,
where dy is the displacement of the loading point when the speci-
men yields at the column base. Fig. 25 shows the comparison of the
hysteretic curve obtained from simulation with the experimental
one, where the abscissa is the normalized lateral displacement
d/dy and the ordinate is the normalized lateral force P/Py. The result
obtained from simulation agrees well with that from experiment,
especially the strength in the post peak region when severe local
deformation occurs as shown in Fig. 26. Fig. 27 shows the compar-
ison in the strain distribution along two flanges of each column
 F. Hu et al. / Engineering Structures 118 (2016) 210227 225

Fig. 26. Comparison between experimental and simulated deformation (image by Nishikawa et al. [23]).

(a) 6000 (b) 6000

5000 5000
Height (mm)

Height (mm)
4000 4000
Experiment Experiment
3000 Simulation 3000 Simulation
Experiment Experiment
Simulation Simulation
2000 2000

1000 1000

0 0
-15000 -10000 -5000 0 5000 10000 15000 -15000 -10000 -5000 0 5000 10000 15000
Average strain () Average strain ()

Fig. 27. Comparison between experimental and simulated strain distribution along the (a) left column and the (b) right column.

Beam Seismic weight

720

C801256.59 0.746t for each floor

Beam Seismic weight
H1251256.59 2.52t for each floor
2000
720

Earthquake acceleration
Loma Prieta
2400

Earthquake acceleration
Column
El Centro NS H1251256.59 Northridge
Column
720

H604533 2450

1200
Fig. 30. Finite-element model of one-bay two-story steel frame.

Fig. 28. Finite-element model of one-bay three-story steel frame.

15

10 Experiment
Simulation
1st story drift (mm)

-5

-10

-15
0 4 8 12 16 20
Time (s)

Fig. 29. Comparison between experimental and simulated displacement history at first story under the scaled El Centro earthquake.
226 F. Hu et al. / Engineering Structures 118 (2016) 210227

when the peak lateral strength is reached. The simulation gives
well prediction to the measured results in the experiment.
3.4.3. Test on one-bay three-story frame by Li et al. [24]
Shaking table tests for a one-bay three-story steel frame were
conducted by Li et al. [24] under the El Centro earthquake
(the NS component). A plane frame was extracted from the original
3D frame for simulation and its finite-element model is shown in
Fig. 28. Beams and columns were made of channel and wide flange
sections, respectively. Details of the test specimen and the earth-
quake record can be found in [24]. Q235 steel was used and the
material dependent parameters are summarized in Table 4.
Rayleigh damping was adopted in simulation assuming a damping
ratio of 5%. The experimental and simulated displacement history
for the first story under the El Centro earthquake with its peak
ground acceleration scaled to 0.7g (g is gravity acceleration) is
compared in Fig. 29. It can be found that the simulation gives
acceptable accuracy in predicting the inelastic dynamic behavior,
especially the maximum displacement response.
3.4.4. Test on one-bay two-story frame by Kim et al. [25]
Shaking table tests for a one-bay two-story steel frame were
conducted by Kim et al. [25] under two earthquake records, i.e.
Loma Prieta (47125 Capitola) earthquake and Northridge (90055
Simi Valley-Katherine Rd) earthquake. A plane frame was extracted
from the original 3D frame for simulation and its finite-element

(a)
1st story displacement (mm)

40 Experiment
Simulation
20

-20

-40

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (s)

80
2nd story displacement (mm)

(b) Experiment
40 Simulation

-40

-80
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (s)

60
1st story displacement (mm)

(c) Experiment
40
Simulation
20

-20

-40

-60
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (s)
2nd story displacement (mm)

80 (d) Experiment
Simulation
40

-40

-80

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (s)

Fig. 31. Comparison between experimental and simulated displacement histories: (a) first story and (b) second story under the Loma Prieta earthquake; (c) first story and (d)
second story under the Northridge earthquake.
 F. Hu et al. / Engineering Structures 118 (2016) 210227
model is shown in Fig. 30. Beams and columns were made of the
same wide flange sections and cross stiffeners were used in all
beam-to-column connections to strengthen the panel zones.
Details of the test specimen and earthquake records can be found
in [25]. SS400 steel was used and the material dependent parame-
ters are summarized in Table 4. Rayleigh damping was adopted in
simulation assuming a damping ratio of 5%. The experimental and
simulated displacement history for each story under each earth-
quake record is compared in Fig. 31, where the ordinate represents
the relative displacement of each story to the ground level. The
shapes of those displacement histories obtained from the simula-
tion and the experiment are nearly the same, except for the second
story under the Northridge earthquake whose response shows a
considerable difference in the permanent drift.
4. Conclusions
In this paper, the calibration method is discussed about a new
constitutive model developed in the companion paper for cyclic
behavior of structural steels with yield plateau. A simplified proce-
dure to calibrate the model parameters is elaborated based on
several reasonable assumptions. Based on this procedure, those
elastic and long-range hardening parameters (E, ry, epst , Ql, bl, C l1 ,
c l
C l2 , l
c should be calibrated using only monotonic tensile
1, 2)
coupon test results, while it is acceptable to determine the short-
range hardening parameters and memory scalars (
epst , Qs, bs, C s1 ,
cs1 , C s2 , cs2 , cs, cl) empirically but still based on consistency conditions
in the lack of cyclic coupon test results. Such a calibration proce-
dure will be rather useful in engineering practice.
The performance of the constitutive model is tested and
validated against numerous experimental results on steel materi-
als, members, connections and frames. Comparisons of the model
simulations with those experimental results show that after the
proposed constitutive model is successfully implemented into the
commercially available finite-element program such as ABAQUS/
Standard, the inelastic static (monotonic or cyclic) and dynamic
response of structural components or systems made of steels with
yield plateau can be accurately captured, and the implementation
technique proposed in the companion paper shows excellent
numerical stability.
Although quite a few structural steels have been calibrated and
validated in this study which is certainly limited to those with
yield plateau, further work is still required on those structural
steels without obvious yield plateau, e.g. low yield point steels
and high strength steels. Besides, it is noteworthy that all of the
validation experiments considered here are destructive ones to test
the performance of the proposed model in simulations of structural
steel components up to failure. Whether or not this constitutive
model can be used to predict those quasi-non-destructive experi-
ments, e.g. instrumented indentations [26,27] or small punch tests
[28], deserves further investigation.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr. Liang-Jiu Jia of Tongji
University, Shanghai, China, for kindly providing the experimental
data for the heat-treated SHS stub columns. The authors also grate-
fully acknowledge the support for this work, which was sponsored
by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.
227
51478244), and the Excellent Young Scientist Programme of the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51522806).
References
[1] Bathe K-J. Finite element procedures. Upper Saddle River (NJ, US): Prentice-
Hall, Inc.; 1996.
[2] Ucak A, Tsopelas P. Accurate modeling of the cyclic response of structural
components constructed of steel with yield plateau. Eng Struct
2012;35:27280.
[3] Hu FX, Shi G, Shi YJ. Constitutive model for full-range elasto-plastic behavior of
structural steels with yield plateau: formulation and implementation. Eng
Struct 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.02.037 [in press].
[4] ABAQUS. ABAQUS analysis users guide (version 6.13). Providence (RI,
US): Dassault Systmes Simulia Corp.; 2013.
[5] Jia LJ, Kuwamura H. Ductile fracture simulation of structural steels under
monotonic tension. J Struct Eng (ASCE) 2014;140(5):47282.
[6] Bridgman PW. Studies in large plastic flow and fracture: with special emphasis
on the effects of hydrostatic pressure. New York (US): McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc.; 1952.
[7] Ling Y. Uniaxial true stress-strain after necking. AMP J Technol 1996;5:3748.
[8] Nishimura N, Ono K, Ikeuchi T, Shinke T. Experimental investigation on
hysteretic behavior of structural steels in plastic range. Steel Construct Eng
1994;1(1):17382 [in Japanese].
[9] Nishimura N, Ono K, Ikeuchi T. A constitutive equation for structural steels
based on a monotonic loading curve under cyclic loading. Doboku Gakkai
Ronbunshu 1995(513):2738 [I-31, in Japanese].
[10] Shi YJ, Wang M, Wang YQ. Experimental and constitutive model study of
structural steel under cyclic loading. J Construct Steel Res 2011;67:118597.
[11] Jia LJ, Kuwamura H. Prediction of cyclic behaviors of mild steel at large plastic
strain using coupon test results. J Struct Eng (ASCE) 2014;140(2):44154.
[12] Fujimoto M, Hashimoto A, Nakagomi T, Yamada T. Study on fracture of welded
connections in steel structures under cyclic loads based on nonlinear fracture
mechanics. Part 1: formulation of multi-axial stress-strain relations of
structural steel for cyclic loads. J Struct Construct Eng 1985;356:93102 [in
Japanese].
[13] Jia LJ, Koyama T, Kuwamura H. Experimental and numerical study of
postbuckling ductile fracture of heat-treated SHS stub columns. J Struct Eng
(ASCE) 2014;140(7):16580.
[14] Nishikawa K, Yamamoto S, Natori T, Terao K, Yasunami H, Terada M. An
experimental study on improvement of seismic performance of existing steel
bridge piers. J Struct Eng (JSCE) 1996;42A:97586 [in Japanese].
[15] Nishikawa K, Yamamoto S, Natori T, Terao K, Yasunami H, Terada M.
Retrofitting for seismic upgrading of steel bridge columns. Eng Struct
1998;20(46):54051.
[16] Goto Y, Wang QY, Obata M. FEM analysis for hysteretic behavior of thin-walled
columns. J Struct Eng (ASCE) 1998;124(11):1290301.
[17] Gao SB, Usami T, Ge HB. Ductility evaluation of steel bridge piers with pipe
sections. J Eng Mech 1998;124(3):2607.
[18] Usami T, Ge HB. Cyclic behavior of thin-walled steel structuresnumerical
analysis. Thin-Wall Struct 1998;32(13):4180.
[19] Wang W, Zhang YY, Chen YY, Lu ZH. Enhancement of ductility of steel moment
connections with noncompact beam web. J Construct Steel Res
2013;81:11423.
[20] ANSI/AISC 341-10. Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. Chicago
(IL, US): American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC); 2010.
[21] Ikarashi K, Kaneko H, Yanase H, Aono M. Hysteresis loop model of joint panels
in H-shaped column to beam connections. J Struct Construct Eng
2005;597:11926 [in Japanese].
[22] Guo B, Guo YL, Liu F, Li GM, Chi Y. Research on cyclic behavior of welded and
bolted steel frames. J Build Struct 2006;27(2):4756 [in Chinese].
[23] Nishikawa K, Murakoshi J, Takahashi M, Okamoto T, Ikada S, Morishita H.
Experimental study on strength and ductility of steel portal frame bridge pier.
J Struct Eng (JSCE) 1999;45A:23544 [in Japanese].
[24] Li HQ, Ben QG, Yu ZC, Zhang YQ, Lv XL. Analysis and experiment of cumulated
damage of steel frame structures under earthquake action. J Build Struct
2004;25(3):6974 [in Chinese].
[25] Kim SE, Lee DH, Ngo-Huu C. Shaking table tests of a two-story unbraced steel
frame. J Construct Steel Res 2007;63(3):41221.
[26] Buljak V, Maier G. Proper orthogonal decomposition and radial basis functions
in material characterization based on instrumented indentation. Eng Struct
2011;33(2):492501.
[27] Tezcan J, Hsiao KJ. Nondestructive evaluation of material strength using depth-
sensing indentation. Eng Struct 2008;30(8):220610.
[28] Maier G, Buljak V, Cocchetti G, Garbowski T, Novati G. Mechanical
characterization of materials and diagnosis of structures by inverse analyses:
some innovative procedures and applications. Int J Comput Meth 2014;11
(3):107292.