Diapo 1 :

Hello to everyone, First, I would like to thank you for your interest in my work by agreeing to
be part of this jury. It is an honor for me to have the opportunity to discuss the results of my
research with all of you.
today I am going to present you my end of degree project entitled “Optimization of Aluminum
Deck and Steel Girder Bridges in Highway Application”. We will be focusing on the use of the
reduction factor on slender aluminum sections.
We will conduct a finite element analysis on a slender aluminum and steel section and compare
the results.

Table of contents:
This research work is composed of six parts.
First, I will start with a brief introduction.
Then I will present the literature review on aluminum bridges and Eurocode 9.
I will be conducting a case study on slender aluminum and steel section according to Eurocode
9 and 3. The steel section is taken as a reference section for this work.
Then I will present the finite element modeling and results with discussion behind the work.
And I will finish with a conclusion.

Chapter 1:
This work is proposed by Mr. Charles-Darwin in order to optimize the aluminum highway
bridges. For this matter he proposed a study on class 4 aluminum sections according to
Eurocode 9, since class 4 sections are cheaper. However, they are more likely to buckle if they
have to bear too much weight.
The background on this project; is the equations and buckling curves do not give enough
background. Also, Geometric imperfections have a significant impact on the buckling
resistance of slender sections.
The aim of this work is (2 first phrases)
The purpose of this work (last phrase)

Chapter 2:
Moving on to the literature review on aluminum bridges and Eurocode 9.
I will start of with some of the advantages for using aluminum in construction.
Some of the disadvantages such as initial project cost and the innovative nature of concept
which means that there are few people who are familiar with the aluminum in construction. So,
you don’t find a lot of engineers that wanting to work on aluminum bridges.
Presenting the mechanical properties of aluminum that we will be using in this work, such as
Mass density…

Diapo:
There is a lot of bridges constructed partially or entirely with aluminum and here is some of
them.

Diapo:
Continuing to literature review on Eurocode 9. This part will cover the equations of the flexural
buckling on aluminum sections.
First, we will start with cross-section classification. Eurocode 9 classify the sections into 4
classes: class 1.
Second, read from the diapo.
Next, the buckling resistance for aluminum sections is given by two formulas. One for class 1,
2 and 3 and the other one for class 4. Since we are only focusing on class 4 sections. The
buckling resistance is equal to the reduction factor multiplied by affective area and the yield
stress divided by coefficient of buckling resistance.
Finally, the buckling curves are divided into two classes if the material…
The curves shown in this figure are the two buckling curves of the reduction factor depending
on the non-dimensional slenderness. And this is the equation of the reduction factor used to
calculate the buckling resistance.

chapter 3:
Moving on to the next chapter where I will present a slender aluminum section and a slender
steel section taken as a reference section, since the use of slender steel section in bridge
construction is common.
Starting off with the aluminum section, with the material and dimensions.
For the classification of the section, using this figure in Eurocode 9 our section is classified as
class 4 section.
Now for the Euler buckling load and non-dimensional slenderness of the aluminum section.
The Euler buckling load is equal to seven point twelve thousand and thirty nighen ten power
five newtons.
And finally, the reduction factor was found to be equal to. And the buckling resistance was
found to be equal to.
Same as the aluminum section, for the steel section I will go through the material and
dimensions of the section.
Then the Euler buckling load and non-dimensional slenderness was found to be.
And finally, the reduction factor and the buckling resistance of the section.

chapter 4:
For the next chapter I will be presenting some of the important steps for the finite element
modeling and I will be using the aluminum section as an example and the same procedures are
done for the steel section.
Starting off with the modeling procedure, we need to sketch the section exactly as presented in
the previous chapter, and we need to partition the model in order to have more freedom on the
web or the flanges.
For the boundary condition, the section will be Pined-pined which means a simply supported
section. The two-reference point are added to apply the boundary conditions and the load
exactly at the center of the section.
Going to the material modeling, using the nominal stress-strain curves, we determine the true
stress and true strain for the aluminum and steel section. For the aluminum section the true
strain was found to be equal (..), and the true stress was found to be equal (..). Same for the steel
section the true strain was found to be equal (..) and the true stress was found to be equal (..).
These values will be used in the material modeling for both sections.
Moving on to meshing the sections, we choose a meshing of 50 mm for the aluminum and the
steel section. We also conducted a sensitivity study on meshing that I will be presenting in the
next chapter.
Last but not least, for the non-linear buckling analysis we used Riks method which is generally
used to …, combined with the load proportionality factor.

chapter 5:
In this chapter, I will present the finite element results and I will be discussing them.
First of all, we will start with the linear buckling analysis, for the aluminum section as shown
in those images, the different buckling shapes, and modes. Every buckling mode generate an
Eigenvalue equal to the Euler buckling load, since we are interested in the first shape for the
flexural buckling the Eigne value is (…) and the Euler load is (…), as we can see the difference
does not exceed the 0.25%.
Same for the steel section the Eigen value is equal to (…) and the Euler buckling load is equal
to (…) and the difference does not exceed the 0.25%.
As I said before, we conducted a sensitivity study on the meshing of the aluminum section. We
started of by 50 mm, then 25 mm, 12.5 mm and finally 9mm. As you can see in this table the
values are pretty close and the difference between the 50 mm and the 9 mm is 0.24%. This
figure makes it quite obvious that the data are converging. In fact, the 9 mm will be a better
option but since the difference does not exceed the 0.24% and due to computational time, we
used the 50 mm for both sections.
Moving on to the non-linear buckling analysis to calculate the buckling resistance of the
aluminum and steel section. To calculate the buckling resistance as I said before we used Riks
method combined with imperfection to predict the behavior of sections under the critical
loading. In order to observe the behavior, we used the load proportionality factor function that
multiply the load magnitudes given on the loading data lines. For each imperfection
programmed in ABAQUS, the result is a curve of the exact behavior of the section.
As an example, the curve on this image for the aluminum section keeps rising as long as the
load is multiplied and each time the software analyses if that load can cause the collapse of the
element or not, until we reach a certain point where the section collapse. That point indicates
the buckling resistance of the section and using the formula given here we can conclude that
the buckling resistance calculated by ABAQUS is (…) and the buckling resistance is equal to
(…) and the difference is equal to 26%. Same for the steel section, we generate the load
proportionality factor curve, and we calculate the buckling resistance. The buckling resistance
calculated with ABAQUS was found to be equal to (…) and the difference between the buckling
resistance calculated with Eurocode 3 is 0.34%.
I’d like to discuss these results in more depth, as you can see here the first table resume the
result of the buckling load calculated with ABAQUS and the Euler formula. The difference is
not significant for both sections and does not exceed the 0.25%. However, while calculating the
buckling resistance there is a significant difference for the slender aluminum section contrary
to the steel section. As you can see in this table the difference is 26% for the aluminum section
and 0.34% for the steel section. I’d like to put the situation into some kind of perspective, ( read
from diapo ).

I’d like to make some recommendations regarding this, first of all the reduction factor formula
can be updated and tested on difference section. The imperfection factor, the horizontal plateau
and the coefficient of the buckling resistance must be changed or updated. Adding another
buckling class for slender section can give a better classification and more accurate result for
the reduction factor. For example, this work by (…), proposed another buckling class called
class C, and updated the other buckling classes, as you can see here these are the old values for
the imperfection factor, the horizontal plateau, and the coefficient of the buckling resistance
and the here are some of the requested changes.

Chapter conclusion:
The objective of this end-of-study project was to verify the reduction factor for slender
aluminum section.
Based on an extensive literature review of aluminum bridge decks and the equations of
Eurocode 9, we further investigated the suitability of class 4 aluminum sections for the use in
civil engineering, particularly in bridges where they will carry excessive loads. In order to do
that, we calculated the buckling resistance of the aluminum section using Eurocode 9 and
proceeded to verify it with a finite element software.

The Eurocode 3 for steel sections is always updated the buckling curves and the imperfection
values are being revised till this day. That’s why we have more accurate result for steel sections.

In future, Eurocode 9 will add another buckling class for welded and non-welded slender
sections, and some of the values will be revised. For now, Eurocode 9 as we said before, goes
in the sense of security. And in the future, we will have more accurate results to use slender
aluminum sections in highways bridges.