Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 21 August 2015
Accepted 28 March 2016
Available online 16 April 2016
Keywords:
Network arch bridges
Structural optimization
Finite element analysis
Design
Sizing optimization
a b s t r a c t
A new design methodology, which evaluates the optimum configuration of network arch bridge schemes
is proposed. A three-step optimization algorithm is implemented in a FE model, with the purpose to
evaluate the bridge optimum configuration, involving the lowest material quantity and the best strength
performance level in all structural members of the bridge. The stability and the efficiency of the formulation were verified with respect to several bridge configurations ranging from small to large spans.
Moreover, parametric results are presented to investigate the interaction between cable-system, girder
and arch, giving rise to specific analyses useful for design purposes.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Tied arch bridges can be considered as enhanced construction
schemes, which are able to provide aesthetic, structural and economic performances to overcome small, medium and large spans
[1]. Most of the existing bridge configurations consist of an arch
and a girder, whose internal transferring forces are guaranteed
by the cable system, typically formed by cable elements. The cable
arrangement plays a fundamental role in the structural behavior,
since it is able to strongly influence the internal stress distribution
as well as the deformability properties of the entire bridge structure [2]. Several hanger geometries, such as vertical, inclined
V-shaped or network, are frequently utilized for design purposes
in tied arch bridges. From the structural point of view, V-shaped
or network (inclined hangers with multiple intersections) arch
bridges are preferred to conventional vertical hanger bridge
typologies, since they are able to guarantee a high efficient
response, which minimizes bending effects in both arch and girder
[3]. However, the hanger arrangement, especially in network arch
bridges, can be considered as a complex structural system, whose
elements, i.e. the hangers, interact by means of tension only internal forces with girder and arch [4]. In particular, each element of
the cable-system is affected by geometrical nonlinearities arising
from cable sag effects, which strongly influence the actual stress
distribution in the bridge components. As a consequence, a fundamental task to be achieved is the evaluation of the initial configuration under dead loads in terms of internal stresses and strains of
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: d.bruno@unical.it
(D. Bruno),
(P. Lonetti), arturo.pascuzzo@unical.it (A. Pascuzzo).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2016.03.011
0045-7949/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
paolo.lonetti@unical.it
14
15
X2
h
X1
(a)
(b)
Fig. 1. Bridge configuration and representative geometric lengths (a) existing configurations of tied arch bridges (b).
the live loads. The use of an optimization algorithm to simultaneously design hangers under both dead and live loads may lead to
severe computational efforts with convergence problems in the
solving procedure. A design procedure based on different steps
seems to circumvent the numerical difficulties to achieve the final
solution. Moreover, the division in two substeps is quite consistent
to the current design approach in bridge engineering, in which at
first, the zero configuration and subsequently the behavior under
the action of live loads are evaluated. Finally, improvements on
the convergence behavior, obtained by using the iterative procedure, can be explained in relationship to the dominant truss behavior of the cable system, which partially reduces the coupling
behavior between each element of the cable system. It is worth
noting that the number of unknown quantities, represented by
post tensioning stresses in the cables, is larger than the number
of available constraint equations defined by enforcing zero vertical
displacements at the intersection points between cable and girder.
As a consequence, in order to determine the initial configuration, a
numerical procedure for solving an indeterminate system of equations is required. To this end, an optimization problem is implemented, in which the objective scalar valued function g is
defined as the norm of girder vertical displacements under the
action of dead and permanent loads and the control variables are
the post tensioning forces in the hangers SC . Moreover, constraint
equations are introduced for the final stresses of the hangers and
the deformations of the arch and girder. Therefore, the optimization problem can be expressed as follows:
8
T
>
min SC g kU G2 X 1 k1 ; with SC fSL1 ; . . . ; SLNL ; SR1 ; . . . ; SRNR g
>
>
<
s:t: 0 6 SLi 6 SA ; 0 6 SRj 6 SA i 1 . . . NL ; j 1 . . . NR
>
>
>
: G G G
N E0 ; U 1 0; N A E0A ; hU 2A i 0
LA are the total length of the girder and the arch, X1 and S are the
spatial coordinates fixed on the girder and arch profiles, respec-
h
i
LR
max Sij
ULS
h
i
LR
6 SA ; max DSij
FLS
h
i
6 DSA ; max jU G2 j
SLS
6 dGA ;
16
The
evaluation
of
the
hanger
cross-section
vector
by introducing two design factors for each element of the cable sysLR
LR
LR
tem, namely Uij and Xij . In particular, Uij modifies the cross
section of the generic hanger with the aim to verify recommendations on the admissible strength, namely Eq. (2).1 and Eq. (2).2. In
LR
ij
tions on the girder, i.e. Eq. (2).3, increasing at the intersection points
with the girder, the stiffness of those cables affected by displacements larger than the allowable ones. The evaluation of the vector
A is achieved by using a secant approach, in which the current value
for the generic element of the cable system is based on the following piecewise functions:
LR k
ij
8
>
>
<
LR
LR k
LR k1
; i 1 . . . NL ; j 1 . . . NR
LR
LR k
ij
3
LR k
LR k
maxSLL ij maxDSLL ij
6
7
L
R
max 4 ULS
; FLS
5;i 1...N ;j 1...N
SA
D SA
4
where SLL and DSLL are the values of the stresses for the right (R) or
the left (L) oriented cables observed in the ULS or FLS combinations,
LR
k
g GLR X 1 ij
dGA
1; i 1 . . . NL ; j 1 . . . NR
maxjU2ij j
>
>
: SLS G LR
G
dA
if g GLR X 1 ij 6 0
LR
is applied until the values of Uij differ from the unity. The design of
both girder and arch is considered by solving two uncoupled optimization problems, in which the lowest material quantity involved
in such bridge components is achieved. In particular, the objective
scalar valued functions, which are minimized during the solving
procedure, correspond to the required steel quantities involved in
the bridge components, i.e. Q G or Q A . Moreover, the control variables
are represented by the characteristic lengths, which describe the
cross section shape, i.e. t G1 ; t G2 ; . . . ; t GnG and t 1A ; t2A ; . . . ; tnAA . Finally,
constrain equations, concerning the design criteria adopted for the
arch or the girder, i.e. D A or DG complete the optimization problem,
which is described by the following expressions:
8
>
min Q GA kcGA AGA k1
>
>
< AGA
s:t: AG tG1 ; t G2 ; . . . ; t GnG > 0; A A t 1A ; t2A ; . . . ; t nAA > 0;
>
>
>
: A
Dj 6 aA ; DGj 6 aG ; j 1 . . . NULS
with
k
aG aG
k1
B
min @1;
0
LR
are necessary and thus the factors Xij are supposed to be equal to
LR
Therefore, during the iterations, Uij and Xij are evaluated taking
@1;
k
C
A; a A
maxjU G2 X 1 j
X 1 2G
1
d2A
A k1 B
1
dG2
maxjU 2A X 1 j
C
A
X 1 2A
Fig. 3. Identification of the performance factors and the design criteria of arch and
girder.
sponding cross section areas, DjA and DGj represent the j-th values
of the design criterion involved in the bridge components and
NULS is the number of loading combinations defined by the design
recommendations. Moreover, aA and aG correspond to the limit
design thresholds, which modify the allowable maximum stress
levels in the bridge components on the basis of the requirement
achievements on bridge deformability. In particular, aA and aG are
equal to one, when bridge displacements are in agreement with
the serviceability displacement prescriptions; in such cases, the
design of the bridge components, i.e. arch and girder, are developed
essentially with respect to the maximum strength criterion.
Contrarily, when deformability prescriptions are not verified, an
increment of current stiffness is required and thus the design is performed consistently with the maximum displacement approach.
Such task is performed by reducing the maximum stress level,
17
Verified
Predicted
Verified
Predicted
Predicted
Predicted
Verified
Predicted
(Strength) ULS/FLS
NO
ULR
ij > 1
NO
ULR
ij > 1
YES
ULR
ij = 1
YES
ULR
ij 6 1
(Deformability) SLS
NO
XLR
>1
ij
YES
XLR
=1
ij
NO
XLR
>1
ij
YES
XLR
=1
ij
reached in the bridge, below the value provided by the design stress
criterion. It is worth noting that Eqs. (6) and (8) enforce the design
conditions on strength or deformability on the basis of a secant
approximation, whose final optimum configuration is guaranteed
by the iterative nature of the proposed algorithm. Such assumption
appears to be quite reasonable in relationship to the global behavior
of the network arch bridges, which typically are considered as
prevalent truss structures with reduced bending moments [4] or
at least a continuous beam with multiple elastic supports with
relative stiffness proportional to the mechanical characteristics of
the hangers [10]. The connection between each hangers is dealt
with by means of a needle-eye device, which allows for hanger
passing through another. As a consequence the cable system is
based on a dominant truss behavior, in which a modification of
the geometry in the hangers, produce small perturbations in the
stress internal resultants of the adjoining ones.
2.4. Tolerance condition (STEP 3)
The tolerance conditions should be checked to verify if the current solution has reached the converged configuration. The present
stage should be considered after the evaluation of the initial configuration (STEP1) and the design of the bridge components under
the external loads (STEP 2). In particular, it is required to verify if
the design obtained at the current iteration (k), in terms of crosssections of the bridge components, does not differ from the one
obtained in the previous iteration step (k 1) by means of the
following tolerance condition:
9
8
>
>
>
>
>
>
2
3
>
>
>
LR k
LR k1
G k
G k1
A k
A k1 >
=
<
X
Aij Aij
A
A
A
4
5
max
;
;
k1
k1
k1
LR
>
>
>
>
AG
A A
Aij
>
>
>
>
j 1;...;NR
>
>
;
:
;
L
i 1;...;N
6 toll:
9
CE ! 0 6 SLi 6 SA ; 0 6 SRj 6 SA i 1 . . . NL ; j 1 . . . NR
EQ ! K U SLR SG0 S0A F DL ;
CE;
NA 0 ! N
CE;
NG 0 ! N
L
A R
E0A
0 Si ; Sj ; U
L
G R
EG0
0 Si ; Sj ; U
10
0;
0:
where G is the global objective function concerning the norm of vertical girder displacements as defined by Eq. (1), K is the stiffness
18
matrix, U is the displacement vector, SG0 , S0A and SLR are the equiv
alent stress resultant vectors produced by the initial strain distribution in the girder, arch and cable system, respectively, and N0A ; NG0
are the constrain operator matrixes, which verify the initial bridge
configuration. Moreover, upper and lower bound constraints were
imposed on the design variables to ensure the accuracy of the explicit approximation. Since the proposed model is developed in the
framework of a NL formulation, the optimization problem requires
an iterative approach to determine the current solution. The governing equations concerning the STEP1 are solved in the framework
of gradient algorithms based on SNOPT method, in which the optimum solution is computed by the evaluation of the gradients of
both objective function and constraints by using numerical differentiation [23]. In particular, SNOPT uses a Sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP) algorithm, in which the objective function is
assumed to be a quadratic polynomial, whereas the constraints
are treated as linear. Finally, the optimum solution is derived iteratively by using the conjugate-gradient QP solver [25]. The analysis
under the action of LL was developed taking into account of the
stress and strain distributions arising from the DL configuration,
obtained by solving Eq. (10). However, in relationship to the
11
forces arising from the previous increment in element displacements and stresses from the dead load to the live load configurations, D U are the incremental displacement vector and PLLi is the
live load force vector of the current i-th loading combination. Starting from results obtained from Eq. (11), the design of arch, girder
LR
in terms of optimization factors Uij and Xij , which are determined by means of Eqs. (4)(6) on the basis of maximum stress
and displacement values extracted by the LL combinations. Similarly, the design of arch and girder cross-sections is here performed
by solving the following optimization problems, which are executed
separately on the basis of the maximum stress resultants involving
the minimum safety factors in the arch or in the girder:
G
12
spond to the design criteria, here introduced as Constraint Equations (CE) for the ultimate limit state design of the girder (G) and
the arch (A) and the sets t G1 ; t G2 ; . . . ; t GnG or t 1A ; t 2A ; . . . ; t nAA are the
control variables of the optimization problem. Moreover, Eqs. (10)
and (12) refer to classical optimization problems expressed in terms
of minimum displacements or volume minimization involved in the
arch or in the girder. The optimum solution is determined
iteratively on the basis of previously converged values arising from
the k 1 iteration, which are considered as initial values in the next
substep, leading to relatively low computational efforts in the
solving procedure.
4. Results
4.1. Analysis for medium span tied-arch bridges
The consistency of the proposed model is investigated for an
arch bridge scheme with a medium span length. The main aim of
the present analysis is to verify, for a bridge scheme involving a
low number of variables, the convergence behavior of the iterative
procedure and the reliability of the optimum configuration. However, subsequently more complex cases concerning long span
bridges will be investigated. The bridge scheme, reported schematically in Fig. 5, presents a total length between vertical supports
and a width equal to 50 m and 10 m, respectively. Moreover, a
parabolic profile of the arch, with an aspect ratio H/L equal to
0.17 is considered (Fig.5). The arch and the girder are assumed to
be made of S420 steel material (fyk = 420 N/mm2), with a Rectangular Hollow Section (RHS). For the cable prestressing steel, an allowable stress corresponding to 45% of the ultimate tensile strength,
fpk = 1690 MPa, minimum fatigue strength equal to Dr = 200 MPa,
modulus of elasticity E = 200 GPa and specific weight c = 77 kN/m3
are considered [20]. The deck has concrete plate and transverse
beams, which are assumed to be simply supported by the longitudinal edge beams. The hangers are distributed by means of a radial
arrangement with a uniform distribution along the arch profile and
a constant radial angle / equal to 60 with a spacing step equal to
5 m. As a consequence, the total number of elements of the cable
19
system for each arch is 18, i.e. 9 for each orientation. The dead
loads concerning the secondary elements or Nonstructural Loads
(NSL), due to road pavement, concrete platforms and guardrail,
are equal to 80 kN/m and 50 kN/m, respectively. The live loads,
defined according to [21], present a transverse distribution based
on three lines of LL, whose equivalent load values, equal to
P
P
Q k 3i1 Q 1ki 1200 kN and qk 3i1 qki 42 kN=m, are applied
directly to longitudinal edge beams, considering several positions
to obtain the worst loading scenarios. The design criteria adopted
for the arch and girder are consistent with prescriptions concerning buckling strength analysis arising from the Method II of Annex
D by Eurocodes [19] and those recommended by parametric studies developed in [26]. Finally, only LL concerning traffic loads are
considered by using factored or unfactored loading combinations
equal to 1.35DL + 1.5NL + 1.5LL or to DL + NL + LL to analyze ULS
or SLS/FLS, respectively. However, the generalization of the proposed model for considering also the effects of seismic or wind
forces, can be developed introducing additional loading combinations. Moreover, at this stage, not much emphasis was considered
on rigorous recommendations arising from existing design criteria,
since the essential aim of the presented investigation is to verify
the efficiency of the optimization algorithm.
At first, convergence behavior is investigated in terms of representative variables of the cable systems, such as the cross section
area of the hangers and the stresses involved in the cables to predict the initial configuration. In particular, in Figs. 6 and 7, for each
iteration, the cross sections of the hangers for the Left (L) or Right
(R) orientations are reported as a function of the number of iterations (NIT) required to obtain the optimum solution. The analysis
denotes that, with respect to the initial values, the final solution
is strongly modified and presents a convergent evolution toward
the optimum configuration, with a relatively low number of iterations. Moreover, the distribution of the cross sections and the initial stresses under DL at the final design configuration are reported
in Fig. 8. The sets of the hangers with left or right orientations
denote their lowest or largest values in proximity of the arch
springing points, respectively, because of the rigidity of the connection between arch and tie. Such results are consistent with
existing studies available from the literature on network arch
bridge design, in which the inefficiency of the lateral cables in
the transferring forces between girder and arch was proved by
many investigations (see for instance [12]). The distribution of
the cross-section areas is not symmetric due to the presence of
the simply supported constraint at the right end of the girder.
The optimum solution is reached enforcing the lowest material
utilization in the design of the bridge constituents. Such task is
analyzed by the results, described in Fig. 9a and b, in which distributions of the optimization factors UR;L , related to design criterion
for representative elements of the cable system from the initial to
the final configurations, are reported. The results denote that all
elements of the cable system, in the worst loading scenario, reach
the maximum allowable strength value provided by the design
criterion, i.e. close to the unity. As a consequence, in such configuration, the steel quantity, involved in the cable system and
predicted by the optimization procedure, is the lowest possible,
20
0.325
0.300
0.275
ALSA/gL
0.250
0.075
0.050
(1),
(5),
(8),
0.025
(3)
(7)
(9)
0.000
0
10
12
14
NIT
Fig. 6. Convergence behavior of representative normalized Left (L) cross-section
areas as a function of the number of iterations (NIT).
which ensures the best material utilization. The results denote that
the convergence behavior, in some hanger, appears to be irregular
toward the asymptotic value. Such phenomenon is produced by
the prevalence of the strength criterion utilized in the design of
the hangers, which can be related to the ULS (maximum stress)
or FLS (incremental stress) loading combinations. In order to verify
such occurrence, in Fig. 9a and b comparisons in terms of maximum values of the performance factors UR;L arising from both
design criteria, i.e. ULS or FLS, are reported. The results denote that
for the internal cables the worst criterion is the one concerning FLS
conditions, whereas, for the hangers located at bridge extremities,
ULS combinations produce the highest stress values. Moreover, the
evolution of the performance factors is not strictly convergent, but
it is affected by the prevalence of the worst design criterion, leading to discontinuities in the curves during the iteration steps.
The distribution of the cross-section characteristic lengths, the
steel quantities involved in the main constituents of the bridge
and the corresponding geometric properties are analyzed in Tables
2 and 3 and in Fig. 10. In particular, results reported in Table 2
show that the evolution of the cross-section lengths and the design
criteria presents an asymptotic convergent behavior toward the
optimum solution. Moreover, the values predicted by the design
criteria in the arch and girder reach the maximum allowable quantity, namely close to the unity, ensuring the lowest possible material quantity involved in such bridge components. From the results
reported in Fig. 10 or in Table 3, it transpires that the steel quantities, predicted in the arch and girder are quite comparable and are
much larger than the one involved in the cable system, i.e. within
the range between 12% and 15%. However, the importance of an
accurate design of the hangers should be considered not only for
structural reasons but also by the larger costs involved in such
elements than those required by girder and arch made of ordinary
steel, typically with ratios in the range between 3 and 7. Result
concerning geometric properties of the cross-sections denote that
dimensionless axial or bending stiffness ratios, i.e. IG/IA and AG/AA
respectively, differ within a range below than 15% (Fig. 10). Such
results are quite consistent with structural optimization achievements and current design approach developed in network arch
bridges, whose general aims are to minimize bending stresses
and girder/arch displacements, in such a way to reproduce a truss
structural scheme typically observed in the framework of network
systems. Moreover, since all the members under the worst design
scenario reach the lowest margin of safety, the optimum solution
Fig. 8. Distribution of the cross-section areas of the hangers and the stresses under DL as a function of the normalized girder position (X1/L).
21
Fig. 9. Distribution of the performance factor for the left (a) and right (b) hanger orientation as a function of the number of iterations (NIT) and the design criterion (FLS, ULS).
Table 2
Evolution cross section dimensions and the design criteria for the girder (DG) and arch
(DA) bridge components as a function of the number of iterations (NIT).
NIT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Girder
Arch
BG [m]
HG [m]
tG [m]
BA [m]
HA [m]
tA [m]
DG
DA
1.000
0.803
0.797
0.797
0.796
0.796
0.796
0.396
0.397
0.407
0.409
0.421
0.421
0.421
0.421
2.000
0.931
0.888
0.888
0.884
0.883
0.883
1.185
1.188
1.222
1.231
1.281
1.268
1.268
1.268
0.050
0.010
0.006
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
1.000
0.853
0.835
0.833
0.821
0.815
0.814
0.814
0.814
0.814
0.814
0.814
0.814
0.814
0.814
2.000
1.232
1.131
1.122
1.060
1.033
1.024
1.024
1.024
1.024
1.024
1.023
1.023
1.023
1.023
0.05
0.01657
0.00702
0.00512
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.427
0.878
0.950
0.949
0.952
0.954
0.960
1.019
0.972
0.978
0.981
0.981
0.981
0.981
0.981
0.976
0.967
0.953
0.968
0.950
0.953
0.976
0.988
0.998
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Fig. 10. Normalized material steel quantities involved in the Arch (A), Girder (G)
and Hangers (H), normalized ratios between cross-section areas (AG/AA) and inertial
moments (IG/IA) as a function of the number of iterations (NIT).
Table 3
Final values of the design variables related to the hangers.
Left
Right
2
Xi (m)
Si (MPa)
Ai (cm )
Xi (m)
Si (MPa)
Ai (cm2)
3.77
8.75
13.75
18.75
23.75
28.75
33.75
38.75
43.75
268
147
134
155
185
173
235
262
284
0.54
11.40
11.30
10.80
10.10
8.72
8.81
5.91
9.83
6.25
11.25
16.25
21.25
26.25
31.25
36.25
41.25
46.23
329
308
237
159
177
148
118
123
250
8.58
4.18
9.48
9.83
10.10
11.40
13.00
14.10
0.10
22
Fig. 12. Distribution of the performance factors for the hangers with left orientation
(UL) as a function of the number of iterations (NIT). Final distribution of the
performance factors (ULOPT) as a function of the dimensionless position of
hanger/girder intersection point on the girder (X1/L).
Fig. 13. Distribution of the performance factors for the hangers with right
orientation (UR) as a function of the number of iterations (NIT). Final distribution
of the performance factors (UROPT) as a function of the dimensionless position of
hanger/girder intersection point on the girder (X1/L).
Fig. 14. Distribution of the cross-section areas of the hangers as a function of the
normalized girder axis (X1/L) and number of iterations.
23
Fig. 17. NAB: normalized ratios between cross-section areas (AG/AA) and inertial
moments (IG/IA), worst values of the design criteria in the arch (DA) and girder (DG)
as a function of the number of iterations (NIT).
Fig. 18. VHAB: normalized ratios between cross-section areas (AG/AA) and inertial
moments (IG/IA), worst values of the design criteria in the arch (DA) and girder (DG)
as a function of the number of iterations (NIT).
Fig. 15. Maximum/minimum stresses under ULS and DL conditions.
Fig. 16. VHAB: distribution of the cross-section areas of the hangers and the
stresses under DL as a function of the normalized girder axis (X1/L).
Fig. 19. Comparisons between NAB and VHAB: normalized material steel quantities
involved in the Arch (A), Girder (G) and Hangers (H) as a function of the number of
iterations (NIT).
24
Table 4
Final values of the design variables related to the hangers for the vertical and network arch bridge schemes.
VHAB
NAB
Left
Right
Xi (m)
Si (MPa)
Ai (cm2)
Xi (m)
Si (MPa)
Ai (cm2)
Xi (m)
Si (MPa)
Ai (cm2)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
165
170
175
372
405
389
382
383
386
388
387
384
378
371
369
374
382
389
389
368
394
367
389
390
387
387
387
388
389
389
388
387
384
382
382
388
400
367
1.66
20.40
21.20
19.60
17.60
16.30
15.50
14.90
14.20
13.30
14.30
14.80
14.10
13.50
15.70
13.80
7.15
15.40
6.85
13.70
15.50
14.70
13.50
12.90
13.10
13.60
14.20
14.80
15.60
16.30
17.90
19.10
21.10
20.60
1.68
3.75
8.75
13.75
18.75
23.75
28.75
33.75
38.75
43.75
48.75
53.75
58.75
63.75
68.75
73.75
78.75
83.75
88.75
93.75
98.75
103.75
108.75
113.75
118.75
123.75
128.75
133.75
138.75
143.75
148.75
153.75
158.75
163.75
168.75
173.75
303
377
394
393
387
382
374
367
361
355
353
353
345
337
336
333
329
326
322
321
317
313
311
309
313
317
321
329
330
335
323
303
268
213
127
0.01
0.47
1.24
5.57
8.73
8.90
7.50
5.63
9.96
14.30
9.88
8.59
8.35
7.66
12.70
11.70
10.00
9.80
11.90
11.40
10.10
10.40
13.40
13.10
12.70
11.10
13.00
13.20
14.10
13.70
14.20
14.40
17.00
17.20
7.26
6.25
11.25
16.25
21.25
26.25
31.25
36.25
41.25
46.25
51.25
56.25
61.25
66.25
71.25
76.25
81.25
86.25
91.25
96.25
101.25
106.25
111.25
116.25
121.25
126.25
131.25
136.25
141.25
146.25
151.25
156.25
161.25
166.25
171.25
176.25
133
212
243
249
248
250
244
246
241
244
251
258
267
275
284
288
290
294
298
301
304
305
313
320
321
326
333
339
345
354
357
359
355
335
274
9.77
14.70
14.10
12.50
11.70
12.20
12.60
12.10
11.30
10.20
11.30
12.40
12.20
10.10
9.06
10.20
10.80
9.34
7.95
11.20
12.50
6.84
7.24
7.66
8.93
8.32
6.60
5.21
5.14
4.25
4.10
1.84
0.70
0.06
0.01
Table 5
Final values of the design variables related to the arch and girder for the vertical and
network arch bridge schemes.
Scheme
VHAB
NAB
Girder
Arch
AG [m2]
IGz [m4]
IGy [m4]
AA [m2]
IAz [m4]
IAy [m4]
0.438
0.088
0.373
0.052
0.251
0.036
0.257
0.2866
0.0277
0.115
0.115
0.0225
on arch bridge design, which point out enhanced stiffness properties due to the presence of inclined cables in NAB with respect to
conventional bridges based on vertical hanger arrangements [15].
Moreover, the proposed algorithm is able to evaluate the optimum
configuration, in which all the bridge components, i.e. arch, girder
and hangers, works under the worst scenarios to the design
strength. Finally, comparisons in terms of steel quantity for the
NAB and VHAB structural components are proposed in Fig. 19. In
particular, the current optimum solution predicted during the iterative procedure is described in terms of total material quantity
involved in girder, arch and hangers. From the results, it emerges
that, in NAB, a lower total steel quantity than the one involved in
VHAB is predicted, within a percentage error equal to 43.8%.
Although, in the VHAB, arch and cable system present values of
quantity of material lower than the ones predicted in the case of
NAB, i.e. almost 11% and 48% less, respectively, such reductions
of material volume are annihilated by a larger quantity involved
in the girder, which is the most prevalent in the total computation
of required volume material. Finally, the final value of design variables concerning the hangers, girder and arch are reported in
Tables 4 and 5.
5. Conclusions
An optimization model for network arch bridge schemes is proposed, in which the optimum solution is achieved by means of an
iterative methodology based on three-step algorithm. The proposed technique identifies the initial configuration under dead
loads in terms of post-tensioning forces in the hangers as well as
25
References
[1] Hu N, Dai GL, Yan B, Liu K. Recent development of design and construction of
medium and long span high-speed railway bridges in China. Eng Struct
2014;74:23341.
[2] Teich S. Development of general design principles for the hanger arrangements
of network arch bridges. Stahlbau 2011;80(2):10011.
[3] Tveit P. Considerations for design of network arches. J Struct Eng ASCE
1987;113(10):2189207.
[4] Tveit P. Optimal network arches for rail and road bridges. In: Proceedings of
the 4th international conference on new dimensions in bridges: flyovers,
overpasses & elevated structures; 2006. p. 2818.
[5] Martins AMB, Simes LMC, Negro JHJO. Optimization of cable forces on
concrete cable-stayed bridges including geometrical nonlinearities. Comput
Struct 2015;155:1827.
[6] Simes LMC, Negro JHJO. Optimization of cable-stayed bridges with boxgirder decks. Adv Eng Softw 2000;31(6):41723.
[7] Beyer WE. Preliminar analysis and hanger adjustment of tied arch bridges.
Doctoral dissertation, Montana State University; 1984.
[8] Qiao J, Wu H, Yang W. Optimal design of tied arch bridge. J Southwest Jiaotong
Univ 2015;50(2):300.
[9] Yongjun M, Haipeng B. Cable tension monitoring of suspender arch bridges
during cable tension adjustment stage basis on neural network algorithm. In:
International conference on remote sensing, environment and transportation
engineering (RSETE); 2011.
[10] Lonetti P, Pascuzzo A. Optimum design analysis of hybrid cable-stayed
suspension bridges. Adv Eng Softw 2014;73:5366.
[11] Chen DW, Au FTK, Tham LG, Lee PKK. Determination of initial cable forces in
prestressed concrete cable-stayed bridges for given design deck profiles using
the force equilibrium method. Comput Struct 2000;74(1):19.
[12] Pellegrino C, Cupani G, Modena C. The effect of fatigue on the arrangement of
hangers in tied arch bridges. Eng Struct 2010;32(4):11407.
[13] Lonetti P, Pascuzzo A. Vulnerability and failure analysis of hybrid cable-stayed
suspension bridges subjected to damage mechanisms. Eng Fail Anal
2014;45:47095.
[14] Lonetti P, Pascuzzo A. Design analysis of the optimum configuration of selfanchored cable-stayed suspension bridges. Struct Eng Mech 2014;51
(5):84766.
[15] Tveit P. Optimal network arches for road and rail bridges. In: Proceedings of
the 6th international conference on arch bridges, College of Civil Engineering,
Fuzhou University, Fuzhou China; 2011.
[16] Qiao J, Wu H, Yang W. Optimal design of concrete tied arch bridge. Xinan
Jiaotong Daxue Xuebao/J Southwest Jiaotong Univ 2015;50(2):3005.
[17] Islam N, Rana S, Ahsan R, Ghani SN. An optimized design of network arch
bridge using global optimization algorithm. Adv Struct Eng 2014;17
(2):197210.
[18] Christensen PW, Klarbring A. An introduction to structural optimization book
series solid mechanics and its applications, Springer series, vol. 153; 2008.
[19] BSI. Eurocode 3: design of steel structures. BS EN 1993-1-1:2005. London, UK;
2003.
[20] FIB. Bulletin no 30. Acceptance of stay cable systems using prestressing steels.
Lausanne, Switzerland; 2005.
[21] BSI. EN 19912. Eurocode 1 actions on structures. Part 2: Traffic loads on
bridges. European Committee for Standardization ed. London, UK; 2003.
[22] Maltab 6.1. The MathWorks Inc, Natick, MA; 2012.
[23] Comsol 4.4. Reference manual. COMSOL AB, Stockholm, Sweden; 2012.
[24] Greco F, Lonetti P, Pascuzzo A. Dynamic analysis of cable-stayed bridges
affected by accidental failure mechanisms under moving loads. Math Probl
Eng 2013:120 ID 302706.
[25] Gill PE, Murray W, Saunders MA. SNOPT: an SQP algorithm for large-scale
constrained optimization. Siam Rev 2005;47(1):99131.
[26] De Backer H, Outtier A, Van Bogaert P. Determining geometric out-of-plane
imperfections in steel tied-arch bridges using strain measurements. J Perform
Constr Facil 2014;28(3):54958.