Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Design Optimization of Composite Steel Box Girder in Flexure
Design Optimization of Composite Steel Box Girder in Flexure
Girder in Flexure
Yasir I. Musa1 and Manuel A. Diaz, M.ASCE2
Abstract: Composite girders consisting of concrete deck on built-up girders are frequently used in bridge construction for their economic
advantages. The use of composite girders results in a very economical design. Additional savings can be obtained in design and material
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Riyan Febriyansyah on 02/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
costs for some members by automating design approaches based on optimization techniques. This paper describes the use of EXCEL
Solver to find the minimum weight for a composite trapezoidal box cross section for a two lane bridge. Design aid tables were generated
for structural steel Grades 250, 345, 485, and 690 MPa, and different spans varying from 3.0– 100 m. The search for the minimum cross
section used in this research satisfies the 17th Edition of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
Specifications—Load Factor Design method.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1084-0680共2007兲12:3共146兲
CE Database subject headings: Bridges, composite; Bridges, girder; Box girder; Composite materials; Optimization; Computer
software.
146 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / AUGUST 2007
design lane.
M u = FyS 共7兲
The traffic lanes shall be placed in such numbers and positions
on the roadway, and the loads shall be placed in such position 2. Shear capacity. The shear capacity for unstiffened webs is
within their individual traffic lanes, so as to produce the maxi- limited to the plastic or buckling shear force and is calculated
mum stress in the member under consideration 共AASHTO 2002兲. as follows:
The effects of the live load need to be amplified to consider the
dynamic nature of the loads. The impact 共dynamic兲 effect is Vu = CV p 共8兲
defined herein as an amplification factor applied to the static re-
The shear capacity for stiffened webs, and 共d0 / D兲 艋 3, shall be
sponse to achieve the dynamic load effect. This factor is defined
determined by including postbuckling resistance due to tension-
by
field action as follows:
I=
15,000
L + 38,000
艋 0.30 共1兲 再
Vu = V p C +
0.87共1 − C兲
冑1 + 共d0/D兲2 冎 共9兲
The load effects for most common bridges are approximated V p⫽plastic shear force and is determined as follows:
by using a “beam method” which is a simplification to the three-
V p = 0.58FyDtw 共10兲
dimensional 共3D兲 behavior of the bridge. To achieve this linear-
ization or a one-dimensional 共1D兲 design, the axle loads are The constant C is equal to the buckling shear stress divided by the
change to wheel loads by using distribution factors. The distribu- shear yield stress, and is determined as follows:
tion factor represents the percentage of the truck load that is
carried by a beam element. The fraction of wheel load for the box D 500冑k
For ⬍ 共11兲
girders is given by tw 冑Fy
0.85
WL = 0.1 + 1.7R + 共2兲 C = 1.0 共12兲
Nw
冉冊
The optimization considers both material and instability failure C= 共16兲
D 2
共global and local兲. Local instability is usually dictated by either Fy
the buckling of compression flanges or the buckling of the web. tw
The recommended cross sections satisfy the limitation on unstiff- where k⫽buckling coefficient and is given by
ened compression flanges designed for a yield stress, Fy. This
limitation requires a width-to-thickness ratio equal to or less than k = 5 + 共5 ÷ 共d0/D兲2兲 共17兲
the value obtained from following the formula
The design shear Vw for a web shall be calculated using the fol-
lowing equation:
b 1,100
艋 共5兲
t 冑Fy Vw = V/cos 共18兲
PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / AUGUST 2007 / 147
Ȳ s =
冉 冊
2共b*t兲tf ts +
ttf
2
冉
+ 2hwtw ts + ttf +
hw cos
2
冊 冉
+ 共b*t兲bf + ts + ttf + hw cos +
tbf
2
冊 共20兲
2btftbf + 2hwtw + bbfttf
148 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / AUGUST 2007
tsbs共ts/2兲
+ 2btfttf共ts + ttf/2兲 + 2hwtw共ts + ttf + 共hw cos 兲/2兲 + bbfttf共ts + ttf + hw cos + tbf/2兲
3n
Ȳ c3n = 共26兲
共tsbs/3n兲 + 2ttfbtf + 2hwtw + b f t f
• Distance from top of slab to composite section N.A using n = n
tsbs共ts/2兲
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Riyan Febriyansyah on 02/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
+ 2btfttf共ts + ttf/2兲 + 2hwtw共ts + ttf + 共hw cos 兲/2兲 + bbfttf共ts + ttf + 共hw cos 兲 + tbf/2兲
n
Ȳ cn = 共27兲
共tsbs/n兲 + 2ttfbtf + 2hwtw + b f t f
冉 冊
n
N
• Section modulus at top steel for composite section using wco = ␥co ⫻ thickness 共mm兲 ⫻ width 共mm兲
mm3
n = 3n
共36兲
Ic3n Concrete unit weight= ␥c = 2.35⫻ 10 N / mm ; thickness
−5 3
⬘ =
Scts 共30兲
Ȳ c3n − ts = 205 mm; width= 3,960 mm; and, thus
• Section modulus at bottom steel for composite section
wco = 2.35 ⫻ 10−5 ⫻ 205 ⫻ 3,960 = 20 N/mm 共37兲
共n = 3n兲
Moment due to slab weight
Ic3n
⬘ =
Scbs 共31兲
共ts + ttf + hw cos + tbf − Ȳ c3n兲 20 ⫻ 共40 ⫻ 1,000兲2
M1 = = 4 ⫻ 109 N/mm 共38兲
8
• Section modulus at top of concrete for composite section
共n = 3n兲 Shear due to slab weight
PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / AUGUST 2007 / 149
冉 冊
Shear due to barrier weight
共␥sA兲L
15.5 ⫻ 共40 ⫻ 1,000兲 Shear = 1.3 4 ⫻ 105 + 共56兲
V3 = = 3.1 ⫻ 105 N 共45兲 2
2
• Load on long-term composite section 共n = 30兲
7. Live loads. The HS20-44 live load imposed may be a truck • Dead load rail and wearing surface
load or lane load. But for this span, truck loading governs.
The center of gravity of the three axles lies between the two Moment = 1.3共3.1 ⫻ 109 + 1.2 ⫻ 109兲 = 5.59 ⫻ 109 N/mm
heavier loads and is 1.46 m from the center load. Maximum 共57兲
moment occurs under the center axle load when its distance
from midspan is the same as the distance of the center of Shear = 1.3共3.1 ⫻ 105 + 1.2 ⫻ 105兲 = 5.59 ⫻ 105 N
gravity of the loads from midspan, or
共58兲
40
− 0.73 = 19.27 m • Load on composite section 共n = 10兲
2
Moment = 1.3关D + 1.67共L + I兲兴 共59兲
Then, the maximum moment is
MT =
325 冉 40
2
+ 0.73 冊 2
再 冎
Wl = 0.1 + 1.7 ⫻ 1 + 0.85/2 = 2.225 wheels = 1.113 axles
共48兲 Vu = V p C +
0.87共1 − C兲
共63兲
冑1 + 共d0/D兲2
M LL = 1.113 ⫻ 2,868 = 3,192 kN/m 共49兲
9. Solution using EXCEL Solver. The setup for the spreadsheet
Though this moment does not occur at midspan as do the is shown below:
maximum dead load moments, stresses due to M LL may be On the Solver Parameter window, the target cell is the area of
combined with those from M DL 共slab and girder兲 and M SDL the steel girder. As a first choice, guess cell contains: Top flange
共wearing surface and barriers兲 to produce the maximum thickness and width, bottom flange thickness and width, and web
stress. For the maximum shear with the truck load, the height and thickness. Constraints are shear stresses, top and bot-
outer 145 kN load should be placed at the support. Then the tom flange stresses, top flange buckling, and web height-to-
shear is given by thickness ratio.
150 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / AUGUST 2007
Results
Conclusions
For each case, EXCEL Solver provides an answer report; for this
particular example, the total tensile stress is 250 MPa, which
EXCEL Solver was used for the optimum design of transversely
equals the yield stress of Grade 250 steel. The web and top flange
stiffened steel–concrete trapezoidal box girders. The design is
slenderness reached the maximum value of 191.6 and 32.4, re-
based on the standard specifications for highway bridges
spectively. EXCEL also provides a sensitivity report. This report
共AASHTO 2002兲 adopted by AASHTO. The load factor design
gives the final values for all the parameters’ cross section dimen-
sions and stresses. The bottom flange width is governed by the method was used for the design. Design tables have been gener-
minimum value specified by AASHTO Specifications Article ated for different steel grades 共250, 345, 485, and 690 MPa兲, and
10.51. span lengths varying from 3 – 100 m. The results can be summa-
Table 1 summarizes the recommended optimum cross section rized as follows:
dimensions. As expected, the efficiency of using high strength 1. Grade 250 steel can be used optimally for span lengths up to
steel is more significant for longer spans. Table 2 is a comparison 15 m;
of weights for Grade 250 and Grade 690 steels. For a span of 2. By using Grade 690 MPa steel for span lengths less than
40 m, the cross section area 共weight兲 needed for Fy = 250 MPa 20 m, we are not gaining any savings on the cross-sectional
can be reduced by more than 50% using Fy = 690 MPa. The cost area;
3. Web thickness of 10 mm can be used optimally for span
lengths up to 35 m; and
Table 2. Box Section Weight Comparison between Grade 250 and Grade 4. The savings on materials is significant when using Grade
690 Steel 690 MPa steel for spans longer than 30 m; however,
Weight for Weight for Saving in
since the cost of Grade 690 steel is higher than Grade 250
Span Grade 250 Grade 690 weight steel, the savings in materials are not the same as the cost
共m兲 共N / mm兲 共N / mm兲 共N/mm兲 savings.
The spreadsheet developed can be used to obtain design recom-
10 1.59 0.83 0.76
mendations for different deck widths, number of lanes, and
20 3.61 1.93 1.68
type of railings. However, the design results presented in this
30 5.79 3.24 2.55
paper are limited to the geometric configuration of the sample
40 8.26 4.44 3.82
problem described. The results should be treated as preliminary
50 11.38 6.14 5.24
design values, since fatigue and deflection checks have not been
60 19.25 8.01 11.24
included.
PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / AUGUST 2007 / 151
152 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / AUGUST 2007