Advances in Engineering Research, volume 120

International Forum on Energy, Environment Science and Materials (IFEESM 2017)

Second-order Nonlinear Analysis of Aluminium Alloy Frame

Xiawei Tan1, a, Zheng Zhang1, b, Juanjuan Huang1,c and Rensheng Liao1,d

1
School of Civil Engineering, Fujian University of Technology, No.33 Xue Fu South Road,
University Town, Fuzhou, Fujian, P.R. China, 350118
a
tanxiawei_fz@163.com,bfrp_creep@sina.com, chjj850382@163.com,d18060592156@163.com

Keywords: aluminium alloy frame, nonlinear analysis, finite element analysis

Abstract. Aluminum alloy is widely used in civil engineering because of the advantages of light
weight and high strength. But the elastic modulus of aluminum alloy is only one-third of steel, and the
deformation of aluminum alloy is more notable. Second-order nonlinear finite element analysis is
performed to analyze a multilayer aluminum alloy frame. Precise second-order nonlinear analysis is
compared with the approximate second-order analysis method which is adopted by the Chinese
structural aluminum alloy design code GB50429. The approximate second-order analysis method
adopted by the code are found partial to be unsafe when material nonlinearity being considered. It is
recommanded that the current frame design method be modified to provide a safe and reliable design
for Aluminum alloy frame considering both geometric and material nonlinearities .

Introduction
Aluminium alloy materials have many advantages such as light, high strength, good corrosion
resistance and good plasticity, which are the reasons why aluminium alloy structures are widely used
in civil engineering. At present, several countries have incorporated the second-order theory into
structural aluminum alloy design codes [1-3]. The formulas for second-order effect of the frame
structure of the GB50429 [3] are based on the second-order elastic analysis, which are the same as the
Chinese structural steel design code GB50017 [4]. However, the aluminum alloy has a significant
residual deformation before its carrying capacity reaches the nominal yield strength. At the same time,
the steel with the same yield strength is still in its elastic deformation stage. In this range, if it is still
designed according to the elastic method whether there will be greater error and insecurity, which
needs further study. In view of this situation, the large-scale general finite element software ABAQUS
is used to analyze second-order nonlinear behaviors of a typical multilayer aluminum alloy frame
structure. Through comparison with the approximate second-order analysis method, to discuss the
applicability of GB50429 on the second-order analysis directly follow GB50017 relevant formulas,
and then some suggestions on aluminum alloy frame structure analysis and design are put forward.

Analysis Methods of Aluminum Alloy Frame Structure

The first-order analysis is a balanced analysis of the undeformed structure. When the structure has no
side shift or the second-order calculation method is designed partial to be safe, the first-order
calculation method can be used to analyze the whole structure. Except these cases, the analysis of
frames needs to conduct second-order analysis [2]. When using second-order linear analysis,
Consideration should be given to the effects of various defects in the structure and members (such as
the initial tilt and initial eccentricity of the column) on internal forces, I.e. geometric nonlinearity. For
the stability of frame structure, in principle it is ought to use second-order nonlinear analysis. That is,
in addition to considering the geometric nonlinearity, the material nonlinearity also should to be
considered. Therefore, the second-order effect of aluminum alloy structure according to its true
stress-strain relationship should be carried out.

Copyright © 2018, the Authors. Published by Atlantis Press.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/). 124
 Advances in Engineering Research, volume 120

Finite Element Analysis Method

The frame is calculated by using the linear beam element B21 in ABAQUS. Based on the
Timoshenko beam theory, the influence of transverse shear deformation is considered in addition to
the deformation such as axial, bending and torsion. It is suitable for structural analysis of large strain
and large deformation.
For the geometric nonlinearity, the large deformation switch is required to be opened in the
analysis step. At the same time, the initial roll of the aluminum alloy frame is H /1000 (H is the total
height of the frame) as the initial geometrical defect of the whole structure [5]. The analysis did not
take into account the semi-rigid, the column feet and nodes are set to rigid connection.
The stress-strain curve of aluminium alloy adopt Ramberg-Osgood model [6], which are verified
to be appropriate for aluminium alloys structure analysis.

Second-order Nonlinear Analysis

The internal forces of the aluminum alloy frame are calculated and analyzed by the second-order
nonlinear analysis and the approximate formulas recommended by GB50429. The concrete example
and analysis results are as follows.
Figure 1 is the 2-bay 5-story aluminum alloy frame calculation sketch, the frame section size and
its section characteristics are shown in table 1. The elastic modulus of aluminium alloy was set to 70
GPa, and Poisson's ratio was set to 0.3. The nominal yield strength of aluminium alloy was set to 240
MPa. By adjusting the ratio of the horizontal load H to the vertical load q, the ΣN·Δu/(ΣH·h) of the
aluminum alloy frame is 0.06, 0.08 ... 0.28, respectively. When ΣN·Δu/(ΣH·h) are 0.06, 0.08,0.10 ...
0.24, 0.25, 0.26 and 0.26, q are 40, 53.3, 66.7, 80, 93.3, 106.7, 120, 133.3, 146.7, 160, 167, 173.3,
186.7 kN / m, respectively.
Table 1. Section properties of beams and columns of 2-bay 5-story frame
Section Section types A/m2 Moment of inertia / m4
Left beam HN500×200×10×16 1.14×10-2 4.78×10-4
Right beam HN600×200×11×17 1.35×10-2 7.82×10-4
Side column HW350×350×12×19 1.74×10-2 4.03×10-4
Middle column HW400×400×13×21 2.20×10-2 6.69×10-4

Fig 1. Calculation sketch of 2-bay 5-story aluminum alloy frame

It can be seen from Fig.2 that when ΣN·Δu/(ΣH·h) ratio is 0.1 and the yield stress σmax = 1/2f0.2, the
difference between the second-order elasticity analysis and the second-order nonlinear analysis is so
obvious that should not be neglected. With the increase of σmax, the difference between the
second-order elasticity analysis and the second-order nonlinear analysis is getting bigger and bigger.

125
 Advances in Engineering Research, volume 120

From σmax = 1/2f0.2 to σmax = f0.2, the difference between the 2-bay 5- story framework is from 20% to
146%. Therefore, it is recommended GB50429 on the σmax taken as 1/2f0.2.
2.5 2.5

2 2
M Ⅱ′/M Ⅱ

M Ⅱ′/M Ⅱ
1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
member number member number

(a) Column end moment（σmax=1/2f0.2） (b) Column end moment（σmax=f0.2）

Notes: The ordinate in the graph is the ratio of the bending moment (M'II) of the second order
elastic-plastic analysis to the bending moment (MII) calculated by the approximate second-order
analysis, the same below.
Fig 2. Column end moment ratio of 2-bay 5-story aluminum alloy frame
When the internal force analysis is taken as σmax = 1/2f0.2, it can be seen from Fig. 3 that in the first
stage, when ΣN·Δu/(ΣH·h) is between 0.06 and 0.1, the differences between second-order
elastic-plastic analysis and second-order elastic analysis is from 1.40% to 4.90%，which are so small
that it could be neglected. Therefore, when ΣN·Δu/(ΣH·h) ≤0.1, the second-order elastic analysis can
be used to calculate the internal force of frames, which is consistent with the rules of GB50429. In the
second stage, with the increase of ΣN·Δu/(ΣH·h), the ratio of the bending moment of the second-order
elastic-plastic analysis to the bending moment of the second-order elastic analysis is also increased.
When the ΣN·Δu/(ΣH·h) is 0.25, the gap between the two up to 91%, which is partial to unsafe, and
should not be ignored, therefore it is recommended the GB50429 to be amended to meet the safety
and design meets. In the third stage, when the ΣN·Δu/(ΣH·h) increases from 0.25 to 0.26 and 0.28
respectively, the ratio of the bending moment of the two analysis increases sharply, and the maximum
increases are 27.8% and 46.4% respectively, which in the structural design is not allowed to appear.
At this time GB50429 will no longer apply, but GB50429 also made the relevant provisions, that is,
when the ΣN·Δu/(ΣH·h) >0.25, the use of approximate design method error is large, this time should
be appropriate to increase the lateral stiffness of the structure. At the same time, it can be seen from
Fig. 3 that it is reasonable to carry out the second-order analysis of frame structure in GB50429 with
0.1﹤ΣN·Δu/(ΣH·h) ≤0.25, i.e. the second stage. Since the stresses of beams are quite small and no
control effect and the dispersion are large, this paper only selects the bending moment of columns for
comparative analysis.

Conclusions
Through the calculation and analysis of the paper, the following conclusions can be drawn:
(1) Because of the notable nonlinearity of the aluminum alloy, when the yield stress is
σmax=1/2f0.2, the difference between second-order elastic analysis and second-order nonlinear analysis
is very obvious, which should not be overlooked.
(2) it is reasonable to carry out the second-order analysis of frame structure in GB50429 with 0.1
﹤ΣN·Δu/(ΣH·h) ≤0.25, i.e. the second stage.
(3) In consideration of the material nonlinearity of Aluminum Alloy will have a great impact on
the frame of internal force calculation. When 0.1﹤ΣN·Δu/(ΣH·h) ≤0.25, with the increase of the ratio
of ΣN·Δu/(ΣH·h), the differences between second-order nonlinear and second-order elastic internal

126
 Advances in Engineering Research, volume 120

force analysis increases from 4.9% to 91%, which are partial to unsafe, and should not be ignored, and
if the influence is neglected, the internal force calculation result will be too small and the design
3 3 3
2.5 2.5 2.5
2 2 2
M Ⅱ′/M Ⅱ

M Ⅱ′ /M Ⅱ

M Ⅱ′/M Ⅱ
1.5 1.5 1.5
1 1 1
0.5 Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ 0.5 Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ 0.5 Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ
0 0 0
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
∑N ·Δ u /(∑H ·h ) ∑N ·Δ u /(∑H ·h ) · u /(∑H ·h )
∑NΔ

(a)member 1 (b) member 8 (c) member 13

3 3 3
2.5 2.5 2.5

2 2 2
M Ⅱ′ /M Ⅱ

M Ⅱ′/M Ⅱ
M Ⅱ′/M Ⅱ

1.5 1.5 1.5

1 1 1
0.5 Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ 0.5 Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ 0.5 Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ

0 0 0
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
∑ N ·Δ u /(∑H ·h ) ∑N ·Δu /(∑H ·h ) ∑N ·Δu /(∑H ·h )

(d)member 18 (e) member 21 (f) member 25

Fig 3. Internal force analysis results of 2-bay 5-story aluminum alloy frame
will be unsafe. Therefore, It is necessary to continue the study and put forward relavant design
proposals or modify relavant formulas at that range.

Acknowledgments
This work was financially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (51208109),
National Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province (2017J01670) and Key Project of Fujian
College Youth Natural Fund (JZ160465).

References
[1] Aluminum Association. Aluminum design manual: specifications & guidelines for aluminum
structures．Arlington: Aluminum Association Inc, 2005．
[2] Eurocode 9: Design of aluminium structures-Part 1-1: General structural rules. European
Committee for Standarization. 2007. p. 11.．
[3] National standards of P.R.C: Code for the design of aluminium structures GB 50429-2007.
[4] National standards of P.R.C: Code for the design of steel structures GB 50017-2003.
[5] Liu J. Second-order Inelastic Theory and Application of Higher Analysis of Steel Structures
(Science Press, Beijing 2012).
[6] M.M. Federico: Aluminium alloy structures (Chapman & Hall, London 1995).

127