Conceptual Design of Modular Bridges Including Layout

Optimization and Component Reusability

Alexis Tugilimana1; Ashley P. Thrall, A.M.ASCE2; and Rajan Filomeno Coelho3

Abstract: Modular or panelized bridges, comprised of stacked rectangular panels forming girder-type bridges, are the most widely used
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universitat Munchen on 05/08/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

approach for rapidly erectable bridging. Limitations of these systems, however, include inefficient material distribution of both panels and lat-
eral bracing. This research addresses this challenge by implementing structural optimization for the conceptual design of modular bridges,
including module topology and spatial orientation optimization. This contribution generalizes an existing formulation for optimizing modular
trusses to include (1) reusability of modules among multiple structures and (2) practical considerations in design, such as multiple types of
modules, multiple load cases, the capability to compute the displacements in an elastic design formulation, and limitation on stresses. This
methodology is demonstrated for the conceptual design of single- and double-story simply supported bridges. Further studies find that (1)
incorporating module reusability results in a trade-off between constructability and material efficiency and (2) better designs can be obtained
by modifying the module configuration. This research culminates in guidelines to assist designers during preliminary design phases. DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001138. © 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Modular design; Structural optimization; Topology optimization.

Introduction structural optimization method to modular structures, in which the

The state of the practice in rapidly erectable bridging is to assemble
rigid rectangular modules or panels [Fig. 1(a)] in a longitudinal con-
figuration to form a girder-type bridge. Panels can be stacked verti-
cally or transversely to achieve longer spans and/or carry higher
loads [Fig. 1(b)]. This is the predominant approach for rapidly erect-
able gap-crossing solutions. The universality of this approach has
been demonstrated through the Bailey, Mabey-Johnson, and Acrow
systems, which have been widely used for military operations, tem-
porary civil infrastructure, and disaster relief since World War II
(Joiner 2001; Russell and Thrall 2013; Acrow Bridge 2016).
Limitations of the efficiency of these systems include that (1) the
cross section is not varied with changing flexural and shear
demands along the span and (2) when stacked the material is con-
centrated at the neutral axis in which it contributes little to the load-
carrying capacity (Gerbo et al. 2016; Wang et al. 2016). This paper
addresses these limitations by implementing structural optimization
to achieve more efficient panelized bridging systems.
Existing research in structural optimization of modular struc-
tures has focused on module topology periodicity, in which the
design domain is divided into unit cells that share the same topol-
ogy. Huang and Xie (2008) extended the bidirectional evolutionary
1 main advantages of modular design: the capability of reusing
Ph.D. Student, BATir Dept., Univ. Libre de Bruxelles, Avenue F.
Roosevelt, 50, CP 194/2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium (corresponding author).
E-mail: atugilim@ulb.ac.be
2
Myron and Rosemary Noble Assistant Professor, Structural Engineer-
ing, Kinetic Structures Laboratory, Dept. of Civil & Environmental
Engineering & Earth Sciences, Univ. of Notre Dame, 159 Fitzpatrick
Hall, Notre Dame, IN, 46566.
3
Industrial Collaborator, BATir Dept., Univ. Libre de Bruxelles,
Avenue F. Roosevelt, 50, CP 194/2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on December 16, 2016; approved
on May 31, 2017; published online on September 1, 2017. Discussion pe-
riod open until February 1, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702.
module topology is optimized for minimum compliance. Chen et al.
(2010) adapted this strategy to the multiobjective optimization of
continuous structures for maximum stiffness and thermal conduc-
tivity. Ryvkin and Fuchs (1999) and Moses et al. (2003) applied a
Fourier transform to reduce the periodic problem into the optimiza-
tion of one representative unit cell. Although these strategies
improve design, they only consider modularity as a simple topology
repetition for a module arrangement a priori defined. These
approaches are known to decrease the performance of the optimized
design (e.g., higher optimized compliance) when numerous mod-
ules are considered (Huang and Xie 2008; Moses et al. 2003).
In a recent contribution, Tugilimana et al. (2017) demonstrated
that this limitation can be reduced when the spatial orientation of
each module is considered as an additional design variable. This
strategy applies a continuum-based formulation for the lower bound
plastic design optimization of modular trusses. However, this
method is limited to the optimization of only one type of module
under one load case (neglecting self-weight). Additionally, the use
of plastic design only focuses on the equilibrium between internal
and external forces, disregarding the evaluation of the displace-
ments that allow elastic equilibrium.
Despite the design improvements using the strategies dis-
cussed previously, these methods do not yet exploit one of the
components in different projects. This results in a reduction of the
effort and investment dedicated to the design of all of the struc-
tures. Further, components can be prefabricated and mass pro-
duced, resulting in a reduction in fabrication costs and higher
quality products. Finally, ensuring component reusability enables
stakeholders to stockpile modules and use them for military oper-
ations and disaster relief, situations for which the site conditions
(i.e., span) and loading may not be known a priori. However,
there is limited existing research investigating optimization of
modular structures incorporating reusability. Fellini et al. (2004)
and Torstenfelt and Klarbring (2006) integrated the capability of
using car components in multiple automotive body structures by

© ASCE 04017094-1 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(11): 04017094

 a5 a5 a2

a1 a3 a4 a4 a3 a1 a4 a3 a1

a2 a2 a5
(a)

a1 a2 a3
(b)

(s) (s) (s)

λ m,1 λ m,2 λ m,3
Fig. 1. (a) Bailey Bridge panel (b) in a double-triple girder-type con-
(c)
figuration (reprinted from Department of the Army 1986)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universitat Munchen on 05/08/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

am = λ m,1 a1 λ m,2 a2 λ m,3 a3

minimizing the total mass of the vehicles involved in the design,
under all of the constraints occurring in each scenario. Kalyanmoy
et al. (2015) extended the latter methodology to multiobjective
optimization of small-scale applications including a cantilever
beam and a three-bar truss problem. The efficiency of these strat-
egies lies in the fact that they aggregate multiple scenarios into a
unique optimization problem that can be solved by standard opti-
mization strategies. However, most of the applications focus on
automotive engineering and do not consider large-scale civil
applications.
Objectives and Scope
The objective of this paper is to develop a conceptual design strat-
egy using module topology and spatial orientation optimization for
modular bridges including (1) reusability of modules among multi-
ple structures and (2) practical considerations, such as multiple
types of modules, multiple load cases, the capability to compute the
displacements in an elastic design formulation, and a limitation on
the stresses. This contribution is applied to the conceptual design of
single- and a double-story simply supported bridges. First, the capa-
bility of the methodology for designing lightweight structures is
demonstrated by optimizing each bridge considered separately.
Second, the impact of integrating component reusability is investi-
gated by considering the two structures simultaneously. Third, the
impact of module configuration (i.e., module type definition and
position in the structure) is studied, incorporating also the influence
of module reusability. This contribution culminates in guidelines
that can assist designers in defining modular structure properties
(e.g., module definition, number of different modules) during pre-
liminary design phases.
Optimization Problem
This approach generalizes the formulation introduced in Tugilimana
et al. (2017) to include (1) reusability of modules and (2) practical
design considerations.
First, some notations are presented. Multiple structures, indi-
cated by the index s [ {1,…,smax} (where smax = total number of
structures), are considered for the reusability of the modules. The
different types of modules are denoted by the index i [ {1,…, NT},
where NT corresponds to the total number of different types of mod-
ules in each structure. Each structure s is subjected to a series of Nc
load cases, indicated by the index k [ {1,…, Nc}. Each load case k
ðsÞ
in the structure s is represented by a force vector f k and is associ-
ðs Þ
ated with a displacement vector uk . The total number of modules
in the structure s is denoted by M(s).
(s) (s) (s)
+ +
(d)
Fig. 2. Relationship between the module orientation and the
module topology denoted am: (a) module rotation; (b) correspond-
ing topologies; (c) associated design variables; and (d) module
topology
Design Variables
Conventional methods for optimizing material distributions for
bridge design use truss topology optimization with a ground struc-
ture approach (Descamps and Filomeno Coelho 2013). This method
discretizes the design domain into a grid of interconnected truss ele-
ments (a so-called a ground structure), in which the cross-sectional
areas are continuous variables (Dorn et al. 1964). This assumption
follows from the observation that most material distribution optimi-
zation procedures for continuum domains converge toward trusslike
configurations exhibiting low bending and shear (Bendsøe and
Sigmund 2003).
Following this approach, this paper considers the optimization
of multiple types of modules by focusing on their cross-sectional
ð Þ
vectors, denoted by ai 0 for the ith module type and concatenated in
a global topology design variable as follows:
n o
ð Þ ð Þ ð Þ
að0Þ ¼ a10 ; …; ai 0 ; …; aN0T (1)
Including spatial orientation to module topology optimization
follows the strategy introduced in Tugilimana et al. (2017). This
prior work emphasized that a continuous optimization formulation
cannot be derived if rotations are modeled as rigid body displace-
ments. Continuously rotating the modules inherently results in their
disconnection, making the application of the supports and the loads
impossible and, therefore, the analysis of the structure. To circum-
vent this, Tugilimana et al. (2017) focused only on rotations ensur-
ing the module assembly and demonstrated that these rotations con-
sist of a finite set of possible module orientations that can be
ð Þ
modeled by a permutation of the cross-sectional vector ai 0 [Figs.
2(a and 2b)]. The problem was therefore transformed into a discrete
optimization problem, aiming to select the best module orientation
among this discrete set of rotations.
To derive a continuous equivalent formulation, each module to-
pology has been expressed as a linear combination of all of the top-
ologies ensuring the module assembly, in which the variables of
ðs Þ
this combination, denoted λm;p for the pth rotation of the mth mod-
ule in structure s, are considered as additional design variables
[Figs. 2(c and d)]. The convergence toward only one of these con-
figurations is ensured by the introduction of complementary con-
straints for each module m as follows:

© ASCE 04017094-2 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(11): 04017094

 X
Np suffers from the well-known stress singularity phenomenon, which
sÞ
λðm;p  1 ¼ 0 8m ¼ 1; …; MðsÞ ; 8s ¼ 1; …; smax (2) means that the optimality conditions cannot be satisfied when stress
p¼1 constraints are integrated (Achtziger and Kanzow 2008). To over-
come this issue, Stolpe and Svanberg (2003) considered the internal
ðsÞ
X
Np forces te;k as additional design variables (for the kth load case and in
sÞ
 1 ¼ 0 8m ¼ 1; …; MðsÞ ; 8s ¼ 1; …; smax
2
λðm;p (3) the eth element in structure s) and disaggregated the equilibrium
p¼1 equations as follows:

ðs Þ
where Np = number of coefficients λm;p in the mth module of struc- X
Ne;s
ðsÞ ðsÞ
X
Ne;s  
te;k cðesÞ ¼ f k þ r ae að0Þ ; kðsÞ lðesÞ gðesÞ
ture s, which depends on the ground structure node distribution and
ðs Þ e¼1 e¼1
connectivities of the module. For clarity, the coefficients λm;p are
concatenated in a spatial orientation design variable vector kðsÞ for 8k ¼ 1; …; Nc ; 8s ¼ 1; …; smax (5a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universitat Munchen on 05/08/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

structure s. This emphasizes an important characteristic of this

novel formulation: although the module topology variable a(0) is  
common for the different structures, the spatial orientation of the E ae að0Þ ; kðsÞ ðsÞ ðsÞ
ðsÞ
cðesÞ> uk ¼ te;k 8e ¼ 1; …; Ne;s ;
modules remains dependent on the considered structure, justifying le
the presence of the index s on the design variables kðsÞ .
In the remainder of the paper, any truss element e contained in 8k ¼ 1; …; Nc ; 8s ¼ 1; …; smax (5b)
 be written
structure s will  implicitly with respect to the design varia- ðs Þ ðsÞ
bles, i.e., ae að0Þ ; kðsÞ 8e ¼ 1; …; Ne;s , where Ne,s = total number of where ce and ge = direction cosine vector and the gravitational
bars in the structure. load vector of the eth element in the structure s; and r = material
density. The second term of Eq. (5a) represents the self-weight of
Objective Function and Constraints the structure and generalizes the formulation introduced in
Tugilimana et al. (2017) to account for the member self-weight.
To include the reusability of the modules between the smax numbers This research evaluates yielding of elements in tension and com-
of structures, this paper follows the formulation introduced in pression, neglecting global and member-level stability, which are
Torstenfelt and Klarbring (2006). This prior work minimizes the usually considered in later design stages (Briseghella et al. 2013;
sum of the objective functions corresponding to each structure Krog et al. 2002). Following the AASHTO LRFD bridge design
under all of the constraints involved in the multiple scenarios. On specifications (AASHTO 2012), the stresses in compression and
this basis, an objective function ensuring the design of cost-effective tension are limited to Uc Fy and Uy Fy, respectively, where Fy =
trusses can be formulated by focusing on the volume of the smax yield strength; and U = resistance factor (Uc = 0.9, Uy = 0.95).
structures, denoted vtotal, as follows: ðs Þ
Considering the internal forces te;k as additional design variables
leads to a formulation for the stress limitation in compression and
smax X
X Ne;s  
vtotal ¼ lðesÞ ae að0Þ ; kðsÞ (4) tension as follows:
s¼1 e¼1 ðs Þ
 
te;k  ae að0Þ ; kðsÞ Uc Fy 8e ¼ 1; …; Ne;s ;
ðsÞ
where le = length of the eth truss element in structure s. Eq. (4) can 8k ¼ 1; …; Nc 8s ¼ 1; …; smax (6)
be reformulated into a weighted sum of the volumes of the different
module types, with weights that correspond to the number of mod-
ðs Þ
 
ules in each type in the structures. Therefore, this objective function te;k  ae að0Þ ; kðsÞ Uy Fy 8e ¼ 1; …; Ne;s ;
is well suited for the present application because it will minimize
the volume of each module type, accounting for their repetition in 8k ¼ 1; …; Nc 8s ¼ 1; …; smax (7)
multiple structures.
Regarding practical design considerations, this paper first
extends the formulation introduced in Tugilimana et al. (2017) to Problem Formulation
consider multiple load cases. This is achieved by aggregating all of
the constraints (i.e., stress limitation and equilibrium) related to The novel formulation for the module topology and spatial orienta-
each load case into a unique formulation, ensuring that the opti- tion optimization, incorporating module reusability, multiple types
mized design is feasible for all load cases. of modules, multiple load cases with the self-weight, and stress lim-
The optimization formulation is then extended to ensure elastic itations, can be stated as follows:
equilibrium under multiple load cases. Focusing on the kth load
case, conventional truss topology optimization problems integrate X
smax X
Ne;s  
Minimize lðesÞ ae að0Þ ; kðsÞ (8a)
the equilibrium equations using a displacement analysis model, ðsÞ ðsÞ
að0Þ ;uk ;tk ;kðsÞ s¼1 e¼1
ðs Þ
considering the displacement field vector uk as additional design
variables (Bendsøe and Sigmund 2003). Such an approach (a so-
called simultaneous analysis and design) includes a series of addi- X
Ne;s
ðs Þ ðsÞ
X
Ne;s  
tional equality constraints ð0Þ ðsÞ ðs Þ
 of theform K a ; k uk  f k ¼ 0
ðsÞ
subject to te;k cðesÞ  f k  r ae að0Þ ; kðsÞ lðesÞ gðesÞ ¼ 0
ð0Þ ðsÞ
for structure s, where K a ; k = stiffness matrix parameterized e¼1 e¼1
by the topological and rotational design variables. Therefore, this (8b)
formulation searches the cross-sectional areas a(0) and the displace-
ðs Þ
ment vectors uk , such that at the solution the previously mentioned  
equality constraints are enforced, ensuring elastic equilibrium of all E ae að0Þ ; kðsÞ ðsÞ ðsÞ
ðsÞ
cðesÞ> uk  te;k ¼ 0 8e ¼ 1; …; Ne;s (8c)
the structures considered in the process. However, this formulation le

© ASCE 04017094-3 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(11): 04017094

   ðsÞ
ae að0Þ ; kðsÞ Uc Fy  te;k  0 8e ¼ 1; …; Ne;s (8d)
ðsÞ
 
te;k  ae að0Þ ; kðsÞ Uy Fy  0 8e ¼ 1; …; Ne;s (8e)
8k ¼ 1; …; Nc ; 8s ¼ 1; …; smax
X
Np
sÞ
λðm;p  1 ¼ 0 8m ¼ 1; …; MðsÞ ; 8s ¼ 1; …; smax (8f )
p¼1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universitat Munchen on 05/08/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
X
Np
sÞ
 1 ¼ 0 8m ¼ 1; …; MðsÞ ; 8s ¼ 1; …; smax
2
λðm;p (8g)
p¼1
in which Eqs. (8b) and (8c) ensure equilibrium, Eqs. (8d) and (8e)
limit the stresses in compression and tension respectively, and Eqs.
(8f) and (8g) allow the algorithm to converge toward a configuration
in which all of the modules are correctly assembled.
Eqs. (8a)–(8g) present attractive outcomes compared with the
state of the art in optimization of modular structures. First, it inte-
grates the simultaneous optimization of the module rotation and
spatial orientation, making the strategy competitive with respect to
any other approaches neglecting the module rotation (Huang and
Xie 2008; Chen et al. 2010). Second, it generalizes the existing plas-
tic design formulation already reported in Tugilimana et al. (2017)
to a more general framework corresponding to the preliminary
design of truss systems. Finally, this methodology includes the reus-
ability of the modules among multiple structures, with each one
subjected to different load cases.
From a practical viewpoint, Eqs. (8a)–(8g) can be efficiently
solved by an interior-point method coupling line-search and trust-
region methods. This strategy iteratively updates the design variables
ðsÞ ðsÞ
a(0), uk , tk , and kðsÞ using a gradient-based method. At each itera-
tion, the objective function vtotal and constraints [Eqs. (8b)–(8g)] are
evaluated. The convergence criteria are based on a Lagrangian for-
mulation, which exploits the stationarity of the objective function
and the feasibility of the constraints [Eqs. (8b)–(8g)] with respect to
the design variables. The update scheme uses a combination of a line
search and a trust region, depending on the positive semidefiniteness
of the Hessian of the Lagrangian. A flowchart summarizing the nu-
merical procedure is depicted in Fig. (3). More details can be found
in Byrd et al. (1999) and Byrd et al. (2000). Note that the simultane-
ous analysis and design in Eqs. (8a)–(8g) does not require any
 analysis
explicit structural  ðsof the truss structures [i.e., resolution of
Þ ðsÞ
the system K að0Þ ; kðsÞ uk ¼ f k ]. The algorithm iteratively con-
verges toward a solution respecting Eqs. (8b) and (8c). At this point,
for a cross-sectional vector a(0) and module rotations kðsÞ , the struc-
ðs Þ
ture is at equilibrium under the applied loads f k .
Case Studies
The conceptual design strategy proposed in this paper is demon-
strated for two simply supported bridge case studies spanning 24.38
m (80 ft) and 48.77 m (160 ft). These spans are representative of
single- and double-story Bailey systems, respectively (Department
of the Army 1986), offering the opportunity for comparison with a
state-of-the-practice system. A depth of 1.524 m (5 ft) and 3.048 m
(10 ft), respectively, were selected to represent the depth of these
Bailey systems and to ensure that both structures exhibit the same
span-to-depth ratio (Fig. 4).
© ASCE 04017094-4
J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(11): 04017094
Initialization
a(0), uk(s), t(s)
k ,λ
(s)
Compute v totalwith Eq. (8a)
and constraints with Eq. 8(b-g)
Update
Check optimality using a(0), uk(s), t(s)
k ,λ
(s)
a Lagrangian formulation using a line-search
or a trust-region
Convergence?
No
yes
End
Fig. 3. Flowchart summarizing the iterative resolution of Eqs. (8a)–(8g)
Deck Abutment
D Girders
L
4.572
m
Fig. 4. Simply supported bridge case studies (Note: Single-story struc-
ture: span L = 24.5 m, depth D = 1.52; double-story structure: span L =
48.7 m; depth D = 3.05 m)
Conventional Bailey bridges use a through-type deck. In this
paper, a configuration involving a deck on the top of the girders
(Fig. 4) is investigated as an improvement on the state of the prac-
tice because it (1) prevents vehicular collisions with the load
bearing structure and (2) enables more efficient lateral bracing
between the girders (because these no longer conflict with vehicu-
lar traffic). Each bridge carries one lane of vehicular traffic on a
deck supported by two girders spaced at 4.572 m (15 ft), to allow
a 3.658-m (12-ft) design lane as prescribed by AASHTO (2012).
As a simply supported bridge, one extremity of each girder is
restrained in translation in all directions, whereas the other one is
free to translate along the longitudinal axis.
All elements are assumed to be ASTM A36 steel (AASHTO
2012), characterized by a yield strength Fy of 248 MPa (36 ksi), a
Young’s modulus E of 200E3 GPa (29,000 ksi), and a density r of
7,800 kg/m3 (0.28 lb/in3).The dead load (DL) includes the self-weight
of the structure and the deck [a lightweight deck is assumed with a
self-weight of 13.1 kN/m (900 lb/ft)]. For the live load, the optimiza-
tion procedure is implemented for the worst loading on a simply sup-
ported span. The vehicular loads are those prescribed by AASHTO
(2012) and correspond to a uniformly distributed lane load (LA) of
9.34 kN/m (640 lb/ft) on the full span, and a design truck load (TL) of
35.58/142.3/142.3 kN (8/32/32 kip) positioned at midspan [Fig. 5(a)].
The tandem loads are not considered because the design TL governs
for this simply supported system. Wind loads (WLs) of 2.39 kPa (50
psf) are applied separately in two opposite directions orthogonal to
J. Bridge Eng.
 the bridge length [Fig. 5(b)], leading to two different load cases
(WL1 and WL2) associated with each wind direction. These loads
are combined according to the Strength V combination prescribed by
AASHTO (2012). A multiple presence factor of 1.2 is applied to the
live load because only one vehicular lane is included. A dynamic
impact factor of 1.33 is associated with the TLs. The two load combi-
nations (LCs) considered in the analysis are
LC1 : 1:25 DL þ 1:35  1:2 LA þ 1:35  1:2  1:33 TL
þ 0:4 WL1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universitat Munchen on 05/08/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Type 1 has a length of 1.524 m (5 ft), a height of 1.524 m (5 ft), and
a width 0.6 m (2 ft). These dimensions are selected because they
have the same height but half the length of conventional panels to
take advantage of module rotation. Based on the precedent of exist-
ing panelized bridges, these dimensions ensure that the module is
easily transportable and manageable for erection on site. Module
Type 1 consists of a ground structure with 120 truss elements [Figs.
6(a–d)]. The girder of the single-story structure is consequently di-
vided into 16 modules, and the girder of the double-story structure
is 64 modules stacked in two layers [Figs. 6(e and f)]. The lateral
(9)
bracing consists of three different types of modules, Module Types
2 and 3 [Figs. 7(a–e)], which consist of diagonal elements and

LC2 : 1:25 DL þ 1:35  1:2 LA þ 1:35  1:2  1:33 TL
þ 0:4 WL2
where DLs, TLs, and WLs are concatenated in the force vectors f k ;
and the load factor of 1.25 is applied to the self-weight in Eq. (8b).
Definition of Module Configurations
This paper investigates the impact of the module definition (i.e.,
ground structure) and distribution (i.e., position in the structure) on
the optimized design. This is performed by considering the follow-
ing two module configurations.
In Configuration I, four types of modules are considered (Figs. 6
and 7). Each girder is comprised of rectangular modules: Module
Module Type 4 [Fig. 7(f)], which is a single transverse element.
Module Type 4 is inspired by conventional panelized systems, in
(10) which the deck is supported by transverse beams (transoms) every
3.048 m (10 ft). Module Types 2 and 3 offer the opportunity for
ðsÞ
improved lateral bracing strategies for these systems. Figs. 7(g and h)
depict the position of each type of module in the single- and double-
story bridges, respectively. The corresponding number of modules
in each structure and their number of elements in each type are
indicated in Table 1.
Although Configuration I follows a module distribution similar
to the state-of-the-practice systems, Configuration II (Figs. 8 and 9)
aims to improve a deficiency of the existing systems: a concentra-
tion of material along the neutral axis of the girders. The module di-
vision for the lateral bracing remains the same as Configuration I
(Fig. 7). The difference lies in the module girders, which are now di-
vided into a rectangular box [denoted Module Type 5, Figs. 8(a–d)]

35.58kN 142.3kN 142.3kN

9.340 kN/m

4.267m 4.267m WL1 WL2

(a) (b)

Fig. 5. Live load distribution on the simply supported bridge shown in (a) elevation and (b) cross section

Module Type 1

1.524 m

1.524 m
1.524 m 0.600 m
(a) (b)
0.600 m 1.524 m
(d)
0.600 m

(c)

(e)

(f)

Fig. 6. Module Type 1 shown in (a) elevation, (b) cross section, (c) plan, and (d) isometric views; these modules form the girders for Configuration I
in the (e) single-story and (f) double-story structures

© ASCE 04017094-5 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(11): 04017094

 Module Type 2 Module Type 3

1.524 m

4.5
3.05 m 4.572 m 72
m
(a) (b) 3.048 m
(e)

Module Type 4
4.572 m 1.524 m
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universitat Munchen on 05/08/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

4.5
72 4.5
m 72
(c) 3.048 m m
(d) (f)

1.524 m Type 1
1.524 m
1.524 m Type 2
8 m
4.572 m 3.04 Type 3
m
48 Type 4
(g)
4.572 m 3.0
(h)

Fig. 7. Module Type 2 shown in (a) elevation, (b) cross section, (c) plan, and (d) isometric views; Module Type 3 shown in (e) isometric view;
Module Type 4 shown in (f) isometric view; module positions for Configuration I in the (g) single-story and (h) double-story structures

Table 1. Module Types for Configuration I
Number of modules
Module type Number of bars Single-story Double-story
1 120 32
2 4 8 32
3 2 16
4 1 18
and a planar rectangular component [denoted Module Type 6, Fig.
8(e)]. Module Type 6 is only positioned at the bottom and the top of
the girders and is not placed at midheight for the double-story struc-
ture (Fig. 9). A summary of the number of modules in each structure
is given in Table 2 for Configuration II.
Regarding the load implementation on the modules of
Configurations I and II, the self-weight of the deck and the live
loads are equally distributed on each girder. Because Module Type
4 mimics the transverse elements supporting the deck, these loads
are applied every 3.048 m (10 ft) at the top chord, at the module
joints. This corresponds to the extremities of Module Type 1 for
Configuration I and Module Types 5 and 6 for Configuration II.
Their magnitudes are taken proportionally to the area of the deck
supported by each transverse element. For the WL, the horizontal
pressure of 2.39 kPa (50 psf) is projected at the four corners of each
Module Type 1 for Configuration I and Module Type 5 for
Configuration II, assuming the entire plain vertical square surface
of the 1.524-m (5-ft) side is exposed to the wind. This conservative
application of the WL enables its easier implementation for the pre-
liminary design stage. This implementation procedure, coupled
with the definition of load cases LC1 and LC2 [Eqs. (9) and (10),
ðsÞ
respectively], enables the definition of the external force vector f k .
A more advanced design step would require the consideration of
WL on live loads and WLs applied only on the surface of the truss
elements.
128 Results
48 Implementing the new optimization methodology [Eqs. (8a)–(8g)]
51 on the two case studies using Configurations I and II leads to opti-
mized designs that demonstrate (1) the capability of the methodol-
ogy to efficiently optimize module topology and spatial orientation
including different types of module and practical design constraints,
(2) the impact of module reusability, and (3) the impact of the mod-
ule configuration on the optimized designs. Results are summarized
and compared in Table 3.
Demonstration of Methodology
This paper first demonstrates the optimization strategy for the
single- and double-story Configuration I structures because they
most closely represent the state of the practice. Results do not
include component reusability.
Optimized Module Type I in single-story Configuration I [Figs.
10(a–d)] is composed of large horizontal elements on the bottom
and top, forming the chords that resist flexure in the global bridge
structure. These are joined by diagonal elements for shear resist-
ance. The optimized spatial orientation of the modules along the
girder is such that there is a 180° rotation about the axis perpendicu-
lar to the span [Fig. 11(a)] for one of every two modules. This spa-
tial orientation ultimately results in a Warren truss type system [Fig.
10(j)], which is conventionally known for its economy because it
does not include vertical members. For lateral bracing, the optimi-
zation procedure has removed Module Type 4 (i.e., the transverse

© ASCE 04017094-6 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(11): 04017094

 Module Type 5 Module Type 6

1.524 m

1.524 m
1.524 m 0.600 m
(a) (b) 1.524 m
0.600 m
0.600 m 1.524 m (e)
0.600 m (d)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universitat Munchen on 05/08/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(c)

Type 5 Type 6

(f)

(g)

Fig. 8. Module Type 5 shown in (a) elevation, (b) cross section, (c) plan, and (d) isometric views; Module Type 6 shown in (e) isometric view; these
modules form the girders for Configuration II in the (f) single-story and (g) double-story structures

Type 2
Type 5
Type 3
Type 6
Type 4
(a) (b)

Fig. 9. Module positions for Configuration II in the (a) single-story and (b) double-story structures

Table 2. Module Types for Configuration II topology and spatial orientation optimization. The optimized
rotations of Module Type 1 in the bottom layer of the girder are
Number of modules
identical to that in the single-story structure, whereas the compo-
Module type Number of elements Single-story Double-story nent in the top layer has rotated 180°[(Fig. 11(b)]. This orienta-
1 — — —
tion, coupled with the optimized Module Type 1 in Fig. 12(d),
2 4 8 32 enables the elimination of material at the neutral axis, solving the
3 2 16 48 issue of material inefficiency imposed by module topology perio-
4 1 18 51 dicity. Also, in Fig. 12(i) the optimized material distribution in
5 64 32 128 the girders exhibits strong similarities with the Howe truss sys-
6 28 64 128 tem, in which the diagonal members are subjected to compression
and the vertical elements are in tension (under the loads consid-
ered here). The large top and the bottom chord ensure sufficient
elements) by enforcing its cross section to be zero. Module Type 2 bending resistance. The simultaneous spatial orientation and
[Figs. 10(e–h)] only includes two diagonal members with the same module topology optimization enables the definition of a Module
orientation in half of the structure. The symmetry with respect to Type 1 that is lighter for the double-story structure than for the
midspan is ensured by the spatial orientation optimization. Module single-story system (Table 3). For lateral bracing, Module Types
Type 3 is composed of two crossing members [Fig. 10(i)]. Coupled 3 and 4 have been removed. Module Type 2 is composed of four
with Module Type 2 and the crossing elements in the diagonal of crossing members with two thicker elements in the diagonal plane
Module Type 1, these modules enable the transmission of the WL of the rectangular prism defining the module [Figs. 12(e–h)]. The
to the supports and maintain the internal forces below the maximum optimized orientation of the lateral bracing modules follows that
allowable value. of Module Type 1: one of every two modules along the bottom
The optimized Module Type 1 in double-story Configuration layer is rotated 180° around the vertical axis, and the modules on
II [Figs. 12(a–d)] exhibits topological characteristics similar to the top layer are also rotated 180° around the longitudinal axis.
that of the single-story structure, except that no large elements are This enables the generation of a bracing system linking the top
generated at the top side of the component. This topological dif- and the bottom chords, as well as the neutral axis, for the trans-
ference results from the simultaneous optimization of module mission of the WL to the supports.

© ASCE 04017094-7 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(11): 04017094

 Table 3. Detailed Comparison of the Optimized Module Type Volumes, Optimized Structure Volumes, and Material Efficiencies for the Single- and
Double-Story Structures Including or Not Module Reusability

Mod. Type Vol. (10−3 m3)

Struct. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Struct. Vol. (10−3 m3) Mat. Eff. (m2/kN)
Single-story: Conf. I 29.09 0.364 0.364 0 — — 939.7 8.269
Double-story: Conf. I 26.96 0 3.497 0 — — 3.570 8.706
Reus.: Conf. I 39.00 0 4.312 0 — — 1.284 (S) 5.144 (D) 6.05 (S) 6.043 (D)
Reus.: Conf. II — 0.560 2.713 0 8.506 18.62 1.495 (S) 3.587 (D) 5.2 (S) 8.666 (D)
Note: Struct. = structure; Mod. = module; Vol. = volume; Mat. = material; Eff. = efficiency; S = single-story; D = double-story; Conf. = configuration;
Reus. = reusability.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universitat Munchen on 05/08/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Module Type 1 Module Type 2

1.524 m 1.524 m

3.048 m 4.572 m
1.524 m 0.600 m (f)
(e)
(a) (b)

0.600 m (d)

(c)
4.572 m
Module Type 3

4.57 (h)
2m 8m
3.04 (g)
(i)

(j)

(k)

(l)

Fig. 10. Single-story structure without module reusability for Configuration I; optimized Module Type 1 shown in (a) elevation, (b) cross section,
(c) plan, and (d) isometric view; optimized Module Type 2 shown in (e) elevation, (f) cross section, (g) plan, and (h) isometric view; isometric view
of the optimized Module Type 3 in (i); the optimized single-story structure is shown in (j) elevation, (k) plan view, and (l) isometric view

The efficiency of these two systems is demonstrated through a the self-weight because the bending moment of a simply supported
comparison with the state-of-the-practice Bailey bridges. This pa- bridge is proportional to the span squared. The self-weight of the
per uses the material efficiency metric introduced in Gerbo et al. Bailey bridge is based on data available from the Department of the
(2016), which is defined to be the span length squared divided by Army (1986) and includes the panels [2.566 kN (577 lb)], the end

© ASCE 04017094-8 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(11): 04017094

 180°
180° 180°
180° 180°
(a) (b)
Fig. 11. Optimized rotation of Module Type 1 in the (a) single-story
structure and the (b) double-story structure
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universitat Munchen on 05/08/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
posts [0.56 kN (126 lb)], the transoms [2.749 kN (618 lb)], the sway
bracing [0.302 kN (68 lb)], and the vertical and horizontal bracing
of the panels [0.196 kN (44 lb)]. Because this work neglects global
stability and the presence of the deck, the stringers and other struc-
tural elements contributing to the lateral stability are not included.
According to the dimensions of those structural elements, a double-
single structure (analogous to the single-story structure investigated
here) and a double-double structure (analogous to the double-story
structure) have material efficiencies of 4.16 and 5.127, respectively.
The material efficiencies shown in Table 3 demonstrate the
improvement of the proposed systems compared with the state-of-
the-practice Bailey bridges. However, conventional panelized sys-
tems are usually designed to be used in multiple applications.
Therefore, a more relevant comparison with existing modular
bridges requires the integration of module reusability. This is
addressed by the next subsection.
Impact of Module Reusability
To demonstrate the impact of module reusability, the single-
and double-story structures of Configuration I are optimized
simultaneously.
Optimized Module Type 1 in Configuration I [Figs. 13(a–d)]
exhibits strong topological similarities with the single-story solu-
tion without reusability, but differs from the double-story solution
by the presence of large horizontal elements at the top side of the
module. Indeed, the large horizontal elements at the bottom of
the module are generated by the double-story structure, whereas
the elements at the top of the module result from the considera-
tion of the single-story structure. Both top and bottom sides of the
modules are linked by diagonal members with a cross-sectional
area close to that from the solution without module reusability in
the double-story structure. Integrating reusability leads to a sin-
gle-story structure exhibiting strong similarities with a Warren
truss system [Figs. 13(e and f)], whereas the double-story struc-
ture now possesses large horizontal elements at the neutral axis
because of topology periodicity and the interaction with the sin-
gle-story system. For lateral bracing, the solution stays close to
that in the double-story structure without reusability, because the
wind effects are dominant when the surface exposed to the wind
is greatest, corresponding to the larger span and the greater depth
of the structure.
The impact of module reusability is clearly illustrated by focus-
ing again on the material efficiency (Table 3). The simultaneous
consideration of the two structures forces the optimization proce-
dure to merge the topological characteristics of each optimized
design when it is considered separately. Compared with the opti-
mized designs without reusability, the material efficiencies have
decreased but remain higher than that of the state-of-the-practice
Bailey bridges.
© ASCE 04017094-9
J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(11): 04017094
Impact of Module Configuration
Because module reusability negatively impacts the material effi-
ciency of the double-story structure, an alternative design using
Configuration II is investigated.
The results (Fig. 14) show that optimized Module Type 5 [Figs.
14(a–d)] consists of the diagonal elements required for carrying
shear, whereas Module Type 6 [Fig. 14(e)] ensures the bending re-
sistance of the global bridge structure. Using Module Type 5 with
Module Type 6 on its bottom and top sides enables the definition of
a component similar to Module Type 1 in the Configuration I
single-story structure, whereas only using Module Type 6 on the
bottom side mimics Module Type 1 in the double-story structure
without reusability. In the single-story structure, the use of Module
Types 5 and 6 to form the girders results in a slightly heavier struc-
ture than the one obtained with Configuration I using reusability
because the topology periodicity of Module Type 6 requires that the
bottom and the top sides of the girders be identical. However, the
use of two different module types in the girders enables the genera-
tion of a double-story structure free of material at the neutral axis,
reducing material inefficiency obtained by topology periodicity
when reusability is included. This improvement is followed by the
generation of small inclined and vertical elements in Module Type 5
that are not present in Module Type 1 of Configuration I. These are
required to ensure elastic equilibrium at the neutral axis because of
the absence of Module Type 6 at this position.
A material efficiency of 5.199 is obtained with Configuration
II single-story structure including reusability (Table 3). The
decrease of efficiency compared with the solution involving
Configuration I results from the topology periodicity of Module
Type 6 and the generation of the small inclined and vertical ele-
ments in Module Type 5. However, a significant improvement is
brought to the double-story structure by Configuration II, in
which a material efficiency of 8.666 is obtained. Despite the con-
sideration of reusability, this value stays close to that obtained in
the double-story structure without reusability in Configuration I,
demonstrating the capability of the present methodology with
Configuration II to generate lightweight modular structures.
Discussion
As indicated in Table 3, the proposed approach is able to design
lightweight modular bridges exhibiting competitive material effi-
ciencies compared with the existing panelized systems. This
improvement is explained by the simultaneous consideration of the
module topology and spatial orientation optimization, limiting the
negative impact of topology periodicity imposed by modularity.
This is clearly illustrated in Fig. 12(i), in which the girders of the
double-story structure seem to be composed of square modules with
a length of 3.048 m (10 ft), whereas Module Type 1 is only a length
of 1.524 m (5 ft). Simultaneously optimizing module topology and
module spatial orientation, therefore, enables the grouping of the
modules into larger components, which is equivalent to a reduction
of the total number of modules and a decrease of the negative
impact of topology periodicity.
The impact of module reusability on the optimized topology and
optimized material efficiency has been clearly demonstrated by the
simultaneous consideration of the single- and double-story struc-
tures. The optimized spatial orientations remain unchanged whether
module reusability is included or not, but the optimized module top-
ologies clearly gather the topological characteristics of the solutions
of each structure considered separately. From a material distribution
viewpoint, Configuration I single-story structure with reusability
J. Bridge Eng.
 Module Type 2

Module Type 1 1.524 m

3.048 m 4.572 m
1.524 m (e) (f)

1.524 m 0.600 m
(a) (b)

4.572 m
0.600 m (d)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universitat Munchen on 05/08/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(c)

(h)
(g)

(i)

(j)

(k)

Fig. 12. Double-story structure without module reusability for Configuration I; optimized Module Type 1 shown in (a) elevation, (b) cross section,
(c) plan, and (d) isometric view; optimized Module Type 2 shown in (e) elevation, (f) cross section, (g) plan, and (h) isometric view; the optimized dou-
ble-story structure shown in (i) elevation, (j) plan view, and (k) isometric view

stays close to the solution without reusability. However, the mate-
rial efficiency of the double-story structure significantly decreases
because of topology periodicity of Module Type 1 coupled with the
consideration of reusability, leading to the generation of material at
the neutral axis. However, measuring the impact of reusability on
the design cannot only rely on the material efficiency. Indeed,
allowing structures to share a common set of modules (1) decreases
the time required for designing multiple structures because only one
optimization process has to be performed; (2) decreases fabrication
cost because mass production can be implemented, which also
results in a higher quality product; and (3) improves the on-site
erection because the modules can be stockpiled for future use, are
transportable, and are easily assembled because few connections
need to be made.
The comparison between Configurations I and II emphasizes the
sensitivity of the optimized design to the module definition and dis-
tribution. Including module reusability in Configuration I results in
a decrease of the material efficiency of 27 and 31% for the single-
story and double-story structures, respectively. Using Configuration
II strongly limits the deterioration of the material efficiency for the
double-story structure (0.46% of decrease compared with the solu-
tion without reusability), whereas the single-story sees its material
efficiency decreasing a little. This evolution is followed by addi-
tional small elements in the optimized topology of the girder mod-
ules. Therefore, selecting an appropriate module configuration for a
given problem is a challenge for designers. Indeed, finding a module
definition that ensures material efficiency requires large modifica-
tions to the project, which can only be applied at preliminary design
stages. Moreover, module definition involves a trade-off between ef-
ficiency (i.e., minimizing the impact of topology periodicity), low
manufacturing cost of the modules, and simple assembly of the com-
ponents (through a small number of connections and a simple mod-
ule topology). In the case studies presented in this research, Module
Configuration I uses only four different types of modules, limiting
the manufacturing cost and the number of connections required for
erection. However, these advantages result in a low material effi-
ciency when module reusability is introduced. On the other hand,
Module Configuration II improves the efficiency by considering five

© ASCE 04017094-10 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(11): 04017094

 Module Type 1

1.524 m
0.600 m

1.524 m 0.600 m
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universitat Munchen on 05/08/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)

Fig. 13. Optimized Module Type 1 in Configuration I with reusability shown in (a) elevation, (b) cross section, (c) plan, and (d) isometric view; opti-
mized single-story structure shown in (e) elevation and (f) plan view; optimized double-story structure shown in (g) elevation and (h) plan view; only
Module Type 1 is depicted in detail (a–d) because most topological modifications occur in the girders and not in the lateral bracing

types of modules, but it exhibits a more complex topology. This neg-
atively impacts the erection cost and time because more connections
are required between the modules.
Finally, these lightweight modular structures are obtained due to
the well-adapted mathematical structure of the optimization problem
formulation [Eqs. (8a)–(8g)]. The relevant assumptions brought to
the initial design problem enable the derivation of the objective func-
tion and constraints written explicitly in terms of all of the design
variables. This allows the application of sparse interior-point algo-
rithms coupling Newton step and trust-region methods, which are
well-known for the handling of large-scale optimization problems.
In the present application, Configuration I double-story structure
without reusability involves 39,077 design variables and 38,360
equality and 76,428 inequality constraints. When module reusability
is included, these values increase up to 49,425, 48,898, and 97,740,
respectively. To illustrate the processing of Eqs. (8a)–(8g),
Configuration I single- and double-story structures without reusabil-
ity converge after 9,981 s (99 iterations) and 22,431 s (165 iterations)
CPU on a 2  12 core Intel Haswell processor with 256 GB RAM.
With reusability, 37,896 (131 iterations) is required on the same
computer. Note that these performances are purely illustrative
because the convergence speed and the number of iterations depend
on the starting point.
Guidelines for the Design of Modular Structures
This discussion highlights a challenge for designers: selecting a
modular configuration at early design stages. However, this paper
shows that preliminary decisions can help isolate module defini-
tions and distributions that maintain a good compromise between
efficiency and constructability. These decisions are summarized by
the following guidelines:
• Defining module types: The module types should follow the
division of the structure into its different subsystems (e.g.,
girders that carry gravity loads in bending and lateral bracing
that transmits WLs to the supports), and their ground structures
should be adapted to the load path they have to carry.
Following these rules in the present application, Module Type
1 (and Module Types 5 and 6 in Configuration II) have been
chosen to be able to generate rectangular prism girders, with a
sufficiently dense ground structure for light optimized designs.
Module Types 2–4 have been selected to mimic existing brac-
ing systems used in the bridge industry, and they are associated
with less dense ground structures to avoid convergence toward
complex topologies between the girders.
• Number of module types: Selecting the number of different
types of modules is also a trade-off between efficiency and

© ASCE 04017094-11 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(11): 04017094

 Module Types 5 and 6

1.524 m 0.600 m
0.60 4m
0m 1.52
1.524 m 0.600 m
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universitat Munchen on 05/08/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(f)

(g)

(h)

(i)

Fig. 14. Optimized Module Type 5 in Configuration II with reusability shown in (a) elevation, (b) cross section, (c) plan, and (d) isometric view; opti-
mized Module Type 6 shown in isometric view in (e); optimized single-story structure shown in (f) elevation and (g) plan view; optimized double-
story structure shown in (h) elevation and (i) plan view; only Module Types 5 and 6 are depicted in detail (a–e) because most topological modifications
occur in the girders and not in the lateral bracing

ease of fabrication of components and erection. As shown in
the results, using few different types of modules (in Confi-
guration I) can improve fabrication and erection, despite a
decrease of material efficiency because of topology perio-
dicity when module reusability is included. At early design
stages, a relevant choice in the number of module types
could include the comparison of multiple possibilities as
performed in this paper, with an ultimate decision according
to the technical specifications and particular demands of the
stakeholders.
• Module dimensions: Dimensions of the ground structure of the
different module types should be mostly driven by constraints
related to transportation and on-site erection of the compo-
nents. For structures composed of modules carried by individ-
uals (as opposed to using heavy lifting equipment),
conventional dimensions of 3.05 m (10 ft), used in precedents
such as Bailey, Acrow, or Mabey-Johnson (Joiner 2001;
Russell and Thrall 2013), should not be exceeded. However,
for projects using heavy lifting equipment, larger dimensions
can be considered still within the constraints of transportabil-
ity, and should be preferably transportable in ISO containers.
• Module reusability: The effects of module reusability mostly
depend on the number of module types and their definition.
Increasing the number of module types can considerably
improve the total weight when module reusability is included.
However, this also results in more complex topologies with
numerous connections required between modules. Therefore,
module reusability should be used primarily for temporary
structures, in which the economy brought by reusability of the
components can counterbalance the loss in material efficiency
and the increase in fabrication complexity.
Conclusions
In this paper, a novel strategy for the design optimization of modular
structures is proposed, generalizing the existing formulation for mod-
ule topology and spatial orientation optimization to (1) reusability of
modules among multiple structures and (2) practical design consider-
ations, such as multiple types of modules, multiple load cases, the
capability of computing the displacements in an elastic design formu-
lation, and a limitation on the member stress. This contribution is
aimed at assisting engineers at early design stages, in which crucial
but complicated decisions have to be made about the module defini-
tion, their distribution in the structures, and the possibility of includ-
ing the reusability of the modules. To address this challenge, the exist-
ing plastic design formulation for optimizing module topology and
module spatial orientation has been extended to include elastic

© ASCE 04017094-12 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(11): 04017094

 equilibrium in a disaggregated form, which is well suited to include
stress limitations without numerical singularity. The handling of reus-
ability has been performed by considering the module topology as
common design variables for the different structures, whereas the
module spatial orientations have been associated with each structure
separately. The resulting large-scale optimization problem is well
suited for the application of mathematical programming using sparse
interior-point method and sequential quadratic programming.
This methodology has been demonstrated for case studies of two
simply supported bridges. The results have demonstrated the practical
ability of the proposed methodology to define lightweight designs at
preliminary stages. Additionally, the impact of module reusability has
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Technische Universitat Munchen on 05/08/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
been illustrated, in which it has been shown that there is a trade-off
between material efficiency and constructability. This work has also
emphasized that better designs can be obtained by modifying the
module configuration. This paper culminates in guidelines for design-
ers at preliminary design stages, related to the module definition,
dimensions, and distribution within the structures.
Future areas of research could investigate extensions of the pro-
posed methodology to meet requirements of further design stages.
Most panelized bridge systems are composed of beam elements.
Therefore, one improvement could consist of integrating structural
elements subjected to bending and shear, under additional constraints
well known to be dominant in a system such as member-level stability.
Further, the lateral bracing modules should be investigated for their
ability to contribute to global stability of the system. Additional load
cases should be considered consistent with design code. Importantly,
earthquake loads should be included for design in seismic zones.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank the Fond National de la
Recherche Scientifique (FNRS, Belgium) for its financial support.
References
AASHTO. (2012). AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications, customary
U.S. units, Washington, DC.
Achtziger, W., and Kanzow, C. (2008). “Mathematical programs with van-
ishing constraints: Optimality conditions and constraint qualifications.”
Math. Program., 114(1), 69–99.
Acrow Bridge. (2016). “Acrow 300 series vs. 700XS series.” Proc., Florida
DOT Design Conf., Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT),
Tallahassee, FL.
Bendsøe, M. P., and Sigmund, O. (2003). Topology optimization: Theory,
methods, and applications, Springer, Berlin.
Briseghella, B., Fenu, L., Lan, C., Mazzarolo, E., and Zordan, T. (2013).
“Application of topological optimization to bridge design.” J. Bridge
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000416, 790–800.
© ASCE 04017094-13
J. Bridge Eng., 2017, 22(11): 04017094
Byrd, R. H., Gilbert, J. C., and Nocedal, J. (2000). “A trust region method
based on interior point techniques for nonlinear programming.” Math.
Program., 89(1), 149–185.
Byrd, R. H., Hribar, M. E., and Nocedal, J. (1999). “An interior point algo-
rithm for large scale nonlinear programming.” SIAM J. Optim., 9(4),
877–900.
Chen, Y., Zhou, S., and Li, Q. (2010). “Multiobjective topology optimiza-
tion for finite periodic structures.” Comput. Struct., 88(11–12),
806–811.
Department of the Army. (1986). “Bailey bridge.” Field manual no. 5-277,
Headquarters, Dept. of the Army, Washington, DC.
Descamps, B., and Filomeno Coelho, R. (2013). “A lower-bound for-
mulation for the geometry and topology optimization of truss
structures under multiple loading.” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim.,
48(1), 49–58.
Dorn, W. S., Gomory, R. E., and Greenberg, H. J. (1964). “Automatic
design of optimal structures.” J. de Mecanique, 3, 25–52.
Fellini, R., et al. (2004). “A sensitivity-based commonality strategy for fam-
ily products of mild variation, with application to automotive body
structures.” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 27(1–2), 89–96.
Gerbo, E., Casias, C., Thrall, A., and Zoli, T. (2016). “New bridge forms
composed of modular bridge panels.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061
/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000871, 04015084.
Huang, X., and Xie, Y. M. (2008). “Optimal design of periodic structures
using evolutionary topology optimization.” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim.,
36(6), 597–606.
Joiner, J. (2001). One more river to cross: The story of British military
bridging, Pen and Sword Books, South Yorkshire, U.K.
Kalyanmoy, D., Zhu, L., and Kulkarni, S. (2015). “Multi-scenario, multi-
objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms: Initial results.”
Proc., 2015 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC),
IEEE, New York, 1877–1884.
Krog, L., Tucker, A., and Rollema, G. (2002). “Application of topology, siz-
ing and shape optimization method to optimal design of aircraft compo-
nents.” Proc., Altair Hyperworks 3rd UK Conf., Altair, Troy, MI, 1–12.
Moses, E., Fuchs, M. B., and Ryvkin, M. (2003). “Topological design of
modular structures under arbitrary loading.” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim.,
24, 407–417.
Russell, B., and Thrall, A. (2013). “Portable and rapidly deployable
bridges: Historical perspective and recent technology develop-
ments.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000454,
1074–1085.
Ryvkin, M., and Fuchs, M. B. (1999). “Optimal design of infinite repetitive
structures.” Struct. Optim., 18(2–3), 202–209.
Stolpe, M., and Svanberg, K. (2003). “A note on stress-constrained truss to-
pology optimization.” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 25(1), 62–64.
Torstenfelt, B., and Klarbring, A. (2006). “Structural optimization of modu-
lar product families with application to car space frame structures.”
Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 32(2), 133–140.
Tugilimana, A., Thrall, A. P., Descamps, B., and Filomeno Coelho, R.
(2017). “Spatial orientation and topology optimization of modular
trusses.” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 55(2), 459–476.
Wang, Y., Thrall, A. P., and Zoli, T. P. (2016). “Adjustable module for
variable depth steel arch bridges.” J. Constr. Steel Res., 126(Nov),
163–173.
J. Bridge Eng.