Research Paper

Advances in Structural Engineering

1–18
Structural form and experimental Ó The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
research of truss arch bridge with sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13694332211020384

multi-point elastic constraints journals.sagepub.com/home/ase

Chen Qiu1,2 , Xiaoli Xie1, Mulin Pang1 and Huilan Song1

Abstract
With the increase of the arch bridge span, the mechanical properties of arch bridges will decrease rapidly. In order to solve this prob-
lem, triangular net is set between the arch rib and girder to form a kind of truss arch bridge in which arch rib acts as top chord, girder
acts as lower chord, triangular net acts as web member, and hangers provide elastic restrains at several points. The triangle stability of
the truss can improve linear stiffness of arch rib and girder, which will thus improve the mechanical properties of arch bridges. A test
bridge with a span of 50 m was built to prove the superiority of the truss arch bridge with multi-point elastic constraints (MTAB).
Structural stresses and displacements were obtained through dead load experiments, and the mechanical properties of the structure
were calculated through the finite element (FE) software. It is turned out that, compared with the conventional through arch bridge
(CTAB), the mechanical performance of the MTAB is greatly improved. The test values of structural stresses and displacements match
calculation values well. Moreover, with the same steel consumption, the more layers of the triangular net, the better the mechanical
properties of the structure.

Keywords
experimental research, mechanical property, structural form, through arch bridge, truss arch bridge

Introduction when the loads are applied, the interactions between

The through arch bridge (TAB) has lightweight
appearance, which can effectively reduce the girder
height, and generally uses tie bars to balance the hori-
zontal thrusts of the arch feet (Fan et al.,2020a, 2020b;
LaFronz et al., 2004; Robert and Soliman, 2014). In
addition, it can flexibly adopt various construction
methods such as arch before beam, beam before arch,
jacking, and rotation. So it has become one of the
most reasonable bridges for long-span highway or rail-
way bridges in areas with high clearance and poor geo-
logical conditions (Charles et al., 2000; Chen, 2009; Li
et al., 2012). In recent years, with the continuous pro-
motion of infrastructure construction in China, TAB
has also made great development, especially in the
application of high-speed railway line (Gou et al.,
2018; Liu et al., 2019), such as Dashengguan Railway
Bridge (Song et al., 2017).
The conventional through arch bridge (CTAB) is
generally composed of arch ribs, hangers, and girder.
As a small eccentric compression member, the arch ribs
have great stiffness. The girder is a continuous beam
with elastic constraints of hangers, which also has great
stiffness. But the hangers are flexible components,
the arch ribs and girder are not good, and the stiffness
of the girder can not be brought into full play. When
the span or the load level increases, the structure will
have great shear deformation and bending deforma-
tion, so the mechanical properties will decline rapidly.
Scholars all over the world have carried out a lot of
research works on how to improve the mechanical
properties of TAB, but most of them focused on a cer-
tain mechanical parameter. Among them, in terms of
strength and stiffness, Qu et al. (2011) and Lee et al.
(2013) considered that the use of concrete-filled steel
tube material for arch ribs can give full play to the
respective advantages of steel and concrete to make up
for each other’s shortcomings, which is an effective
1
College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Guangxi University,
Nanning, China
2
Department of Mechanical and Material Engineering, Wuzhou
University, Wuzhou, China
Corresponding author:
Mulin Pang, No.100 Daxue East Road, Xixiangtang District, College of
Civil Engineering and Architecture, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004,
China.
Email: 469354074@qq.com
2 Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)
way to achieve a breakthrough in long-span arch
bridge in the future. For example, Pingnan Third
Bridge (Xie et al., 2021), the largest arch bridge in the
world, has a span of 575 m. In terms of stability,
experts mainly studied the parameters of arch rib
transverse braces, arch rib inclination angle, wall
thickness of arch rib steel pipe, rise span ratio, arch
axis coefficient, etc., and the results can provide refer-
ences for structural stability design (Cai et al., 2012;
Liu et al., 2017; Xing et al., 2009). In terms of dynamic
characteristics, Li et al. (2008) mentioned that the
crossbar has obvious influence on the dynamic and
stabilization characteristics of the bridge.
Cheng and Qiang (2002) considered that the inclina-
tion angle of arch rib has a great influence on the low-
order natural frequencies of the structure, and increas-
ing the inclination angle within a certain range can
improved the natural frequencies. Gao and Zhou
(2014) considered that the natural frequencies of
through arch bridge can be improved by adding trans-
verse braces and arranging them reasonably.
The research results of the above scholars give sug-
gestions for improving a certain mechanical parameter
of TAB, but failed to achieve the comprehensive
improvement of mechanical properties. With the con-
tinuous increase of the TAB span, the structural stiff-
ness will decrease rapidly, the stability will become the
control parameter of design, and the influence of
dynamic characteristics on bridge safety will also
increase rapidly. Therefore, it is of great significance to
seek effective methods to comprehensively improve the
mechanical properties of TAB for realizing the break-
through of arch bridge span and meeting the future
traffic demand.
There are some problems in long span arch bridge
and hybrid system may be the solution. Nielsen system
arch bridge has been used in high-speed railway for a
long time (Zhang et al., 2009). Per (1987) proposed a
network arch bridge and it saves half the weight of
steel compared with similar spans of conventional steel
bridges. Farahmand and Barghian (2020a, 2020b) pro-
posed a cable-stayed arch bridge with a hanger system
and the stiffness and human comfort level for the
bridge were well improved by modifying the hanger
system.
Xie and his group have proposed a variety of new
arch bridge structures (Tang, 2019; Wang, 2019; Xie
et al., 2018, 2019a, 2019b). Through theoretical analy-
sis and FE calculation, it is proved that certain achieve-
ments have been made in improving the mechanical
properties of TAB. However, there are some problems
in the previous results, such as the rigid members
between the arch rib and the girder is too long, and its
linear stiffness is small. So, it is easy to lose stability
when the rigid members are compressed, and the
construction of long and large member is difficult. In
order to reduce the free length, improve the linear stiff-
ness and stability, and facilitate the construction, the
web members are set as a triangular net, and a truss
arch bridge with multi-point elastic constraints
(MTAB) is formed. Through numerical simulation and
experimental verification, the MTAB was further stud-
ied, and the differences of mechanical properties under
different structural forms were analyzed.
Structural form and mechanics principle
Structural form
The main components of MTAB include arch rib, gir-
der, triangular net, and hangers. According to the
number of layers of triangular net, it can be divided
into different structural forms (as shown in Figure 1).
The arch ribs act as the upper chord, the triangular net
acts as the web member, the girder acts as the lower
chord, and the hangers provide multi-point elastic con-
straints to the girder.
Mechanics principle
Along with the increase of span, the stiffness of CTAB
decreases, which results in the decrease of natural fre-
quency. To solve this problem, the truss structure with
multi-point elastic constraints is used to improve the
overall stiffness of the structure, so as to improve the
natural frequency.
The girder, arch ribs, and triangular net form truss
structure together. However, high truss height can
improve the stiffness of the structure, but its economy
becomes worse. In order to solve this problem, the gir-
der is used to replace the lower chord of the CTAB,
the hangers are retained, and the web members are
rearranged, so as to form the integral truss structure.
As shown in Figure 2, the truss height is 10 times or
even more than the CTAB, which is formed by the
main beam, arch rib, and web members. The structure
is simpler than the traditional truss arch structure, and
the truss height is significantly increased thus greatly
improves the ability to resist deformation.
Under dead loads, the arch structure can adjust the
internal force distribution of arch ring by selecting rea-
sonable rise-span ratio and arch axis coefficient, which
has superior mechanical properties. However, under
live loads, the arch structure is prone to large deforma-
tion at the quarter of the arch rib, which makes the
internal force increase sharply. To solve this problem,
the dead loads in stage I and II are loaded after the
CTAB is completed. That is, the arch structure of
CTAB bear all the dead loads firstly (Figure 3(a)), then
the web members are added to complete the system
Qiu et al. 3

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure 1. The structures of MTAB: (a) the structural form of one-layer triangular net, (b) the structural form of double-layer
triangular net, and (c) the structural form of three-layer triangular net.

Figure 2. Integral truss structure: (a) structure of CTAB and (b) structure of MTAB.
4 Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)
Figure 3. Structure system transformation.
transformation (Figure 3(b)). So, the truss structure is
formed to withstand the live loads.
In Nielson system arch bridge, the vertical hangers
are replaced by inclined hangers which are flexible
components. In MTAB, the triangular net is a rigid
member added to the CTAB, which forms truss struc-
ture together with the girder and arch ribs. And by
timely system transformation, the truss structure bear
most live loads.
Experimental study on static load of
MTAB
In order to verify the superiority of the mechanical
properties of MTAB, a test bridge was built with one-
layer triangular network. Through the static load
experiment, the stress and displacement of the struc-
ture were tested, and the results were compared with
the one calculated by FE software.
Introduction of test bridge
The test bridge was arranged with single arch rib, and
the horizontal thrusts of arch feet were balanced by tie
bars. The span L = 50 m, the deck width w = 5.7 m,
the rise span ratio f/L = 1/5, the arch axis adopts
catenary, and the coefficient of arch axis M = 1.2.
The upper structure is all steel structure, the founda-
tion is composite foundation, and the design load is
3.50 kN/m2. The parameters and consumption of main
components of the test bridge are shown in Table 1,
where the steel consumption of triangular net only
accounts for 3.50% of the total steel consumption of
the bridge. The structural layout and actual bridge are
shown in Figures 4 and 5 respectively. The rectangular
plate rubber bearings are set between the girder and
abutments, and the triangular net is welded with the
girder and arch rib. For the convenience of structural
form transformation, the flange plates (as shown in
Figure 6) are set on the triangular net. When the bolts
are loosened and the base plates are removed, and the
triangular net fails, at this time, the structure is a
CTAB; when the bolts are tightened and the base
plates are installed, the triangular net participates in
stress, at this time, the structure is a MTAB.
Analysis of FE calculation results
The three-dimensional model of the test bridge was
established by the FE software MIDAS Civil, and the
maximum stress smax of each component was calcu-
lated under four load conditions: (I) 1.2 3 dead load,
Qiu et al. 5

Table1. The parameters and consumption of members.

Members Section Material Dimensions (mm) Area (mm2) Consumption (t)

Arch rib Box section Q235 10003600310 31,600 13.37

Girder Box section Q235 5700 (upper board)/ 92,036 35.42
2900 (baseboard) 3 386 3 8
Triangular network 16#a U-steel Q235 160 3 63 3 6.5 2196 1.78
Hangers Solid circular section Wire 1770 u15.2 181 0.31

Figure 4. The structural layout of the test bridge (unit : mm).

Figure 6. The flange (unit : cm).

The calculation results of FE software show that the

Figure 5 The test bridge.
(II) 1.2 3 dead load + 1.4 3 live load, (III) 1.2 3
dead load + 1.4 3 live load + 1.05 3 tempera-
ture rise, (IV) 1.0 3 live load. And the maximum
deflection Wmax of the girder under the load condition
IV was calculated. The FE models of CTAB and
MTAB are shown in Figure 7, and the calculation
results are shown in Tables 2 and 3.
stress differences between the MTAB and the CTAB
are not obvious, but the girder deformations are quite
different. Specifically, the triangular net is a tension
compression member under all working conditions,
and the stress level is low: under the working condition
I, the maximum stress differences between the two
structures are very small; under the working condition
II, the maximum stress of the arch rib of the MTAB is
lower than that of the CTAB; under the working con-
dition III, the maximum compressive stress of the
6 Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)

Figure 7. The FE models: (a) the model of CTAB and (b) the model of MTAB.

Table 2. Calculation results of maximum structural stress.

Members smax (MPa)

CTAB MTAB
Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition
I II III IV I II III IV

Arch rib 220.7 2101.0 2123.5 257.3 220.3 294.5 2142.9 253.0
Girder 2.0/21.4 16.9/213.3 235.4 11.1/29.9 2.2/20.7 10.6/26.9 9.6/215.6 7.4/25.0
Hangers 72.6 241.8 193.4 120.9 77.5 243.6 230.4 118.6
Triangular net / / / / 11.4/210.9 45.6/227.1 49.6/274.7 29.0/217.3

-: Indicates compression.

Figure 8. Layout of water tanks.

Table 3. The table of calculation results for maximum MTAB is only 7.57 mm, which is 49.28% less than that
deflection of main beam under live load. of the CTAB.
In conclusion, the triangular net can improve the
Wmax (mm) Rate of change (%) mechanical properties of MTAB to a certain extent,
CTAB MTAB especially in improving the stiffness. However, it is nec-
essary to pay attention to the adverse effects on tem-
214.91 27.57 249.28 perature response caused by the increase of statically
indeterminate times.

girder of the MTAB is reduced by 19.8 MPa compared

with the CTAB. However, the triangular net increases
the statically indeterminate times of the structure, and
the maximum stress of the arch rib and hangers
increases significantly compared with the CTAB, in
which the maximum stress of the arch rib increases by
19.4 MPa and the maximum stress of the hangers
increases by 37.0 MPa; under the working condition
IV, the maximum stress of the MTAB is smaller than
that of CTAB, but the difference is not big. Under the
live load, the maximum deformation of the girder of
Layouts of test sections and test points
According to the analysis results of FE models under
working condition IV, the load location of the most
unfavorable load case (the maximum lower deflection
condition of the girder) is obtained. Through the static
load equivalent method, the test bridge was loaded by
water tanks, and the stresses and displacements of the
structure were tested. The loading processes were
divided into three levels, and the final loading weight
is 16t. The layout of water tanks is shown in Figure 8.
Qiu et al.
Figure 9 Stress test points on arch rib and girder.
Figure 10. Stress test points on arch rib.
Figure 11. Stress test points on girder.
Figure 12. Stress test points on triangular network.
Figure 13. Stress test points on hangers.
7
The arch feet, girder ends, L/8 section, 2L/8 section,
3L/8 section, 4L/8 section, 5L/8 section, 6L/8 section,
and 7L/8 section were selected as stress test sections, as
shown in Figure 9. The arch rib stress test points were
arranged at the upper and lower edges of the side of
arch rib, as shown in Figure 10. The girder stress test
points were arranged on the upper and lower surfaces,
as shown in Figure 11. The stress measuring points on
the triangular net were arranged at the upper and lower
ends of the channel steel, as shown in Figure 12. The
hanger stress test points were arranged at the lower
ends of anchors on one side of the cable surface, as
shown in Figure 13. The layout of displacement test
points of girder are shown in Figure 14. The strain of
each point is collected by the resistance strain gauge,
the displacement is collected by the dial indicator, and
the collected signal is processed and analyzed by the
multi-functional strain static test system. The field test
is shown in Figure 15.
Analysis of calculation and test results
The static load test was carried out in three levels. Due
to the large number of test components and points, the
8 Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)

Figure 14. Displacement test points on girder.

Figure 15. The field test: (a) multi-functional strain static test system, (b) water tank loading, (c) arch rib stress test points
(d) stress test point on the upper surface of girder, (e) stress point on the lower surface of girder, (f) stress test points on triangular
net, (g) stress test points on hangers, and (h) deflection test point of girder.
Qiu et al. 9

Figure 16. Arch rib stresses under the third level loading: (a) upper edge stresses and (b) lower edge stresses.

Figure 17. Girder stresses under the third level loading: (a) upper surface stresses and (b) lower surface stresses.

following figures are only test data in the third level.

The stresses of test and calculation values of arch rib,
girder, triangular net, and hangers are shown in
Figures 16 to 19 respectively, and the test and calcula-
tion values of girder displacement are shown in
Figure 20.
Where: s1, s2 are the upper and lower edge stresses
of arch rib sections in CTAB; s3, s4 are the upper and
lower edge stresses of arch rib sections in MTAB; s5,
s6 are the upper and lower surface stresses of girder in
CTAB; s7, s8 are the upper and lower surface stresses
of girder in MTAB; s9 are the stresses of triangular net
in MTAB; s10 are the stresses of hangers in CTAB; s11
are the stresses of hangers in MTAB; W1 are the deflec-
tions of girder in CTAB; W2 are the deflections of gir-
der in MTAB; TV are short for test values; and CV are
short for calculation values. Figure 18. Triangular net stresses under third-level loading.
10
Figure 19. Hanger stresses under third-level loading.
Figure 20. Girder deflections under third-level loading.
It can be seen from the figures that the test and cal-
culation stress data of arch rib, girder, triangular net,
hangers, and girder deflection of CTAB and MTAB
are in good agreement. Considering the idealized treat-
ment of boundary conditions and the defects in the
construction processes, the test data have high reliabil-
ity, and the test and calculation data can support each
other.
Through in-depth analysis of the data, it can be
seen that the triangular net makes the MTAB show
excellent mechanical properties, and its mechanical
properties are quite different from the CTAB, such as
the reduction of the maximum stresses of the arch rib,
girder, hangers, and the deflection of the girder.
Compared with the CTAB, the maximum stresses of
Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)
the upper and lower edges of the arch rib of the
MTAB are reduced by 66.97% and 40.81% respec-
tively. The maximum stresses on the upper and lower
surfaces of the girder in MTAB and CTAB appear at
the 3L/8 section, but the former is 28.57% and
27.24% less than the latter respectively. In terms of
hanger stresses, the maximum stresses of the MTAB
and CTAB both appear in the No. 9 hanger, but the
former is 6.30% less than the latter. The maximum
deflections of the girder in MTAB and CTAB are both
located at No. 4 test point, but the deflection of
MTAB is reduced by 42.08%. The range of the girder
deflection of the CTAB under load is larger. The maxi-
mum girder deflection of CTAB is 6.230 mm, while
that of MTAB is only 0.181 mm, which is reduced by
97.09%.
In conclusion, compared with the CTAB, the
mechanical properties of MTAB have been greatly
improved, specifically in the maximum stress of arch
rib, girder, hangers, and the maximum down and up
deflection of girder. Therefore, the strength and stiff-
ness of MTAB are effectively improved, and it is a
bridge structure with superior mechanical properties.
Design and analysis of a 488 m span
double track high-speed railway bridge
In order to further verify the superiority of the
mechanical properties of MTAB and study the differ-
ences of mechanical properties under different struc-
tural forms, taking the double track high-speed
railway arch bridge as an example, a three-dimensional
model is established by using the FE software to ana-
lyze its mechanical indexes, and the comparison with
the CTAB is carried out.
Structural arrangement
The structural arrangements of MTAB and CTAB are
shown in Figures 21 and 22 respectively. Taking the
double track high-speed railway arch bridge with a
span of 488 m as an example, the rise span ratio is 1/5,
the arch axis adopts catenary, the arch axis coefficient
is 1.4, the total width of the bridge deck is 18 m, and
the distance between two adjacent hangers is 12 m. By
adjusting the section size of steel box arch rib and tri-
angular net, the same steel consumption is ensured,
and the total steel consumption of both bridges is
about 17,700 tons.The cross sections of arch ribs are
shown in Figure 23, the cross section of triangular net
is shown in Figure 24, and other component para-
meters and material consumption of MTAB are shown
in Table 4.
Qiu et al. 11

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure 21. The structural layout of MTAB (unit : m): (a) structural arrangement of one-layer triangular net, (b) structural
arrangement of double-layer triangular net, and (c) structural arrangement of three-layer triangular net.

FE analysis of structural strength and temperature
response
Under the condition of completed bridge, the strength
and temperature response of the structure under four
load cases are analyzed. Load case I: 1.0 3 dead
loads; load case II: 1.0 3 (dead loads + live load of
train + overall rise of temperature); load case III:
1.0 3 (dead loads + live load of train + overall
cooling of temperature); load case IV: 1.0 3 live load
of train. Where the train load is ZK live load (standard
live load of China passenger dedicated line, as shown
in Figure 25), the initial temperature is 20°C, the final
temperature of temperature rise is 40°C, and the final
temperature of cooling is 0°C.
12 Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)

Figure 22. The structural layout of CTAB (unit : m).

Figure 23. Arch rib sections (unit : m): (a) arch rib sections of MTAB and (b) arch rib sections of CTAB.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 24. The cross sections of triangular net (unit : mm): (a) cross section of one-layer triangular net, (b) cross section of
double-layer triangular net, and (c) cross section of three-layer triangular net.
Qiu et al. 13

Table 4. Other component parameters and material consumption of MTAB.

Component Section Material Element Torsional Bending Area (m2) Consumption

type moment moment (t)
of inertia (m4) of inertia (m4)

Hangers Circular Standard Truss 6.44e26 3.22e26/3.22e26 6.36e23 266.9

1860
Girder Box shaped Q345 Beam 6.97e0 2.94e0/3.39e1 1.18e0 8037.2
Transverse connection Box shaped Q345 Beam 1.48e22 1.54e22/7.08e23 4.76e22 572.2
of arch rib

Table 5. Calculation results of maximum stress of arch rib in calculation models.

Load cases Maximum stress of arch rib (MPa)

CTAB MTAB
One-layer Double-layer Three-layer
triangular net triangular net triangular net

I 298.5 2101.1 299.3 292.5

II 2137.7 2138.5 2136.6 2126.9
III 2137.7 2138.5 2136.6 2126.9
IV 261.8 231.6 229.7 228.9

Figure 25. ZK live load.

The maximum stress curves of MTAB and CTAB

under load case III are shown in Figure 26. The maxi-
mum stress calculation results of arch rib of MTAB
and CTAB are shown in Table 5. It can be seen that
with the increase of triangular net layers, the maxi-
mum stress of MTAB decreases and the uniformity is
better. The maximum stress of MTAB with one-layer Figure 26. The maximum stress of arch ribs of MTAB and
triangular net is similar to that of CTAB, but the aver- CTAB under load case III.
age stress of MTAB is lower than that of CTAB, and
the distribution is more uniform. The larger stress of FE analysis of structural stiffness
CTAB is concentrated near 1/4L of arch rib, which is
much larger than the stress of arch foot. According to the requirements of code for Design of
In conclusion, the mechanical properties of MTAB Railway Bridges and Culverts (TB10002-2017), based
are slightly different under different layers of triangu- on the train load and temperature conditions, the stiff-
lar net. The more layer of triangular net, the better the ness of the model is studied under the following three
mechanical properties. That is to say, even the same load cases:
amount of steel is used, the maximum stress of arch
rib of MTAB is smaller than that of CTAB under the I: 1.0 3 train live load
action of various loads. Therefore, MTAB has better II: 0.63 3 train live load + 1.0 3 temperature
economy and advantages than CTAB. load
14
Table 6. Calculation results of girder deflections.
Load cases Deflections CTAB
I Maximum deflection of girder (mm) 357.7
II Maximum deflection of girder (mm) 225.4
III Maximum deflection of girder (mm) 357.7
I The sum of the upper and 575.5
lower deflections
(absolute values) of the
girder at L/4 span (mm)
III: 1.0 3 train live load + 0.5 3 temperature
load
The calculation results of girder deflection of
MTAB and CTAB are shown in Table 6. The results
of finite element analysis show that :
1) The maximum deflection of the girder meets
the requirements of the code, and the value is
mainly determined by the train live load, which
is little affected by the temperature load;
2) The maximum deflection of the girder of
MTAB is significantly reduced compared with
CTAB, and the more layer of triangular net,
the greater the reduction;
3) Under load case I, when the train live load acts
alone, the maximum deflection of the girder of
CTAB is 357.7 mm, while that of MTAB is
only 136.7, 130.4, and 120.1 mm under differ-
ent structural arrangements, which is 61.8%,
63.5%, and 66.4% less than the former
respectively;
4) Under load case II, the maximum deflections of
the girder of CTAB and MTAB are reduced,
the former is 225.4 mm, and the latter is only
86.2, 82.2, and 75.6 mm under different struc-
tural arrangements;
5) Under load case III, the maximum deflections
of the girders don’t change compared with load
case I;
6) In addition, under load case I, the sum of the
upper and lower deflections (absolute values) of
the girder at L/4 span of CTAB is 575.5 mm,
while there is no upper deflection of the girder
of MTAB.
In conclusion, under the same amount of steel con-
sumption, the stiffness of MTAB is much greater than
that of CTAB, and the more layers of triangular nets,
the greater the stiffness. The structure will not deflect
Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)
MTAB Allowable
value (mm)
One-layer Double-layer Three-layer
triangular net triangular net triangular net
136.7 130.4 120.1 488
86.2 82.2 75.6 488
136.7 130.4 120.1 488
136.7 130.4 120.1 610
under the static and live load of the train. It can be seen
that MTAB overcomes the inherent disadvantages of
the CTAB, and is more conducive to the high-speed
and smooth running of the train.
FE analysis of structural dynamic characteristics
According to the linear elastic theory, the dynamic
characteristics of the structure are analyzed.The fol-
lowing only gives the description of the first five natu-
ral frequencies and vibration modes of the calculation
model due to the article length. The specific results are
shown in Table 7.
The results of FE analysis show that:
1) The first-order vibration of MTAB and CTAB
are out-of-plane symmetric, and the natural fre-
quency of the former is slightly higher than that
of the latter;
2) The first order of in-plane vibration of CTAB
is low, and its natural frequency is only
0.3314 Hz, while the order of the MTAB is the
fourth or the fifth, and the natural frequencies
of different structural arrangements are 0.7399,
0.7178, and 0.7292 Hz, which are 123.3%,
116.6%, and 120.0% higher than the CTAB
respectively.
3) The natural frequency of the first anti-
symmetric torsion of MTAB is slightly lower
than that of CTAB. With the increase of the
layers of triangular net, the section size of mem-
bers decreases, and the natural frequency
decreases.
In conclusion, when the steel consumption is the
same, the natural frequency of the first in-plane vibra-
tion of MTAB is still significantly higher than that of
CTAB, while the natural frequencies of other vibration
modes have little differences. The number of layers and
the cross-section size of the triangular net have a great
Qiu et al. 15

side bending (same side of

First order of symmetrical

First order of symmetrical

side bending (reverse side
correlation with the natural frequency and vibration

First order symmetrical

triangular net structure

mode of MTAB.

Modal characteristics

of girder and arch)

First order of anti-
symmetric torsion

Local vibration of
girder and arch)

vertical bending
Three-layer triangular net
FE analysis of structural stability
Under the combined action of dead load and moving
load, the first bucking stability analysis and geometric
nonlinear stability analysis are carried out. Due to the
article length, the first five stability coefficients and
v (Hz)

0.2562

0.3455

0.6095

0.7292

0.7340
instability modes of the model are calculated. The spe-
cific results are shown in Table 8, and the stability cal-
culation results considering geometric non-linearity are
shown in Table 9.
side bending (same side of
First order of symmetrical

First order of symmetrical

side bending (reverse side

The results of FE software analysis show that:

First order symmetrical

Second order of anti-
Modal characteristics

of girder and arch)

First order of anti-
symmetric torsion

symmetric torsion
1) The first order instability modes of CTAB and
girder and arch)
Double-layer triangular net

vertical bending
MTAB are arch rib out-of-plane symmetry, the
stability coefficient of the former is 12.89, while
the stability coefficient of the latter is slightly
lower than the former due to the increase of tri-
angular net structure. The stability coefficient
of MTAB is slightly lower than that of CTAB,
v (Hz)

0.2495

0.3296

0.6101

0.7167

0.7178

but the difference is not significant;

2) After the number of triangular net layers
increases, the stability coefficient decreases
slowly with the decrease of the size. However,
side bending (same side of
First order of symmetrical

First order of symmetrical

side bending (reverse side

First order symmetrical

when in-plane instability occurs, the stability

Second order of anti-
Modal characteristics

coefficient of the CTAB is only 27.22, while the

of girder and arch)
First order of anti-
symmetric torsion

symmetric torsion

order of in-plane instability of MTAB is very

girder and arch)

vertical bending
Table 7. The first five natural frequencies and mode shapes of the calculation model.

high, and the stability coefficient is greatly

One-layer triangular net

improved;
3) When there is one-layer triangular net in
MTAB, the order of in-plane instability is the
nineth, and the stability coefficient is 40.09,
which is 47.28% higher than the CTAB;
v (Hz)

0.2718

0.3935

0.6409

0.7399

0.8030
MTAB

4) When there is double-layer of triangular net in

MTAB, the order of in-plane instability is the
17th, and the stability coefficient is 53.63, which
is 97.02% higher than the CTAB;
symmetrical side bending

symmetrical side bending

First order of arch anti-

5) When there is double-layer of triangular net in

Modal characteristics

First order of girder

First order of girder

symmetrical vertical

MTAB, there is no in-plane instability in the

symmetric vertical

symmetric torsion
First order anti-

first 100 orders;

Second order

6) Considering the geometric non-linearity, the

stability load coefficient of CTAB is 12.50, and
bending

bending

that of the MTAB is slightly lower, but the dif-

ference between them is very small.

In conclusion, the triangular net can greatly

v (Hz)

0.2450

0.2984

0.3314

0.6246

0.6444
CTAB

improve the in-plane stability of the structure, and the

more layers, the more significant the effect is. For the
arch bridge which needs to increase the rise height to
Mode orders

ensure the in-plane stability, it can reduce the rise span

ratio and reduce the difficulty of bridge construction.
Adding triangular net will weaken the out-of-plane
stability of the structure slightly, but it can eliminate
1

5
16 Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)

Table 9. Stability calculation results of considering geometric

symmetry of arch rib

symmetry of arch rib

symmetry of arch rib

symmetry of arch rib

symmetry of arch rib

non-linearity.

Out-of-plane anti-

Out-of-plane anti-
Instability modes

Out-of-plane

Out-of-plane

Out-of-plane
CTAB MTAB
Three-layer triangular net

One-layer Double-layer Three-layer

triangular net triangular net triangular net

12.50 11.01 10.91 10.88

coefficient
Stability

11.14

11.66

17.96

19.21

25.61
the adverse effects by reducing the rise span ratio and
inclining the arch rib inward.
symmetry of arch rib

symmetry of arch rib

symmetry of arch rib

symmetry of arch rib

symmetry of arch rib

Out-of-plane anti-
Instability modes

Conclusions
Out-of-plane

Out-of-plane

Out-of-plane

Out-of-plane
Double-layer triangular net

The MTAB is studied in this paper. The static load test

was carried out by building the test bridge, and the
mechanical properties of different structural forms are
analyzed by using the FE software. The advantages of
the mechanical properties of this bridge are verified.
coefficient
Stability

11.17

11.68

17.92

19.27

25.69

1) The structure of MTAB has higher strength

and bearing capacity. In the static load test,
compared with the CTAB, the maximum stress
of MTAB are reduced especially in arch rib
symmetry of arch rib

symmetry of arch rib

symmetry of arch rib

symmetry of arch rib

symmetry of arch rib

(reduced by 40.81%–66.97%) and girder

Out-of-plane anti-

Out-of-plane anti-
Instability modes

(reduced by 27.24%–28.57%), which are in

Out-of-plane

Out-of-plane

Out-of-plane

good agreement with the FE analysis. In terms

One-layer triangular net

of the FE analysis results of 488 m span double

track high-speed railway bridges, the overall
stress of MTAB is also reduced compared with
CTAB under the same amount of steel
coefficient

consumption.
Stability
Table 8. The calculation results of the first bucking stability analysis.

2) The structure of MTAB has higher overall

MTAB

11.26

11.70

18.10

19.61

25.91

structural stiffness. In the static load test, com-

pared with the CTAB, the lower and upper
deflection of girder in MTAB is reduced by
symmetry of arch rib

symmetry of arch rib

symmetry of arch rib

symmetry of arch rib

symmetry of arch rib

42.08% and 97.09% respectively, which are in

Out-of-plane anti-

Out-of-plane anti-

Out-of-plane anti-

good agreement with the FE analysis. In terms

Instability modes

of the FE analysis results of 488 m span double

Out-of-plane

Out-of-plane

track high-speed railway bridges, the stiffness

of MTAB is improved compared with CTAB
under the same amount of steel consumption.
3) The structure of MTAB has better dynamic
characteristics. The FE analysis results of
coefficient

488 m span double track high-speed railway

Stability
CTAB

12.89

13.97

23.35

26.15

27.22

bridges show the natural frequencies of MTAB

with one-three layers of triangular net are
improved by 123.3%, 116.6%, and 120.0%
Instability orders

respectively compared with CTAB when in-

plane vibration occurs for the first time.When
out-of-plane vibration occurs for the first time,
the natural frequency of MTAB is slightly
higher than that of CTAB.
1

5
Qiu et al.
4) The structure of MTAB has better stability.
The FE analysis results of 488 m span double
track high-speed railway bridges show the stabi-
lity coefficients of MTAB with one to two
layers of triangular net are improved by 47.28%
and 97.02% respectively compared with CTAB.
In terms of three-layer of triangular net in
MTAB, there is no in-plane instability in the
first 100 orders.
To sum up, the MTAB has good mechanical prop-
erties and economy, and can be applied to the con-
struction of extra long span, heavy load, and high-
speed railway bridge.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: The authors are grateful for the grants awarded by
the Guangxi Key R&D Plan (No. Guangxi Sciences
AB18126047) and the Systematic Project of Guangxi Key
Laboratory of Disaster Prevention and Structural Safety
(No. 2016ZDX0001). The grant have supported the works
described in this paper.
ORCID iD
Mulin Pang https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4388-8145
References
Charles WR, Gregory MR, Paul C, et al. (2000) Dynamic
response and fatigue of steel tied-arch bridge. Journal of
Bridge Engineering 5(1): 14–21. DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2000)5:1(14).
Chen BC (2009) View and review of arch bridge technology.
Journal of Fuzhou University (Natural Science Edition)
37(1): 94–106.
Chen HG and Qiang ZY (2002) Dynamic property analysis
of concrete filled steel tubular (CFST)X arch bridges.
Highway Transportation Science and Technology 2002(3):
63–65.
Fan BH, Su JZ and Chen BC (2020a) Condition evaluation
for through and half-through arch bridges considering
robustness of suspended deck systems. Advances in Struc-
tural Engineering 24(5): 962–976. DOI:
10.1177/1369433220945 835.
Fan BH, Wang SG and Chen BC (2020b) Dynamic effect of
tie-bar failure on through tied arch bridge. Journal of Per-
formance of Constructed Facilities 34(5): 04020089. DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001492.
17
Farahmand-Tabar S and Barghian M (2020a) Response con-
trol of cable-stayed arch bridge using modified hanger sys-
tem. Journal of Vibration & Control 26: 2316–2328. DOI:
10.1177/1077546320921635.
Farahmand-Tabar S and Barghian M (2020b) Formulating
the optimum parameters of modified hanger system in the
cable-arch bridge to restrain force fluctuation and over-
stressing problems, Journal of the Brazilian Society of
Mechanical Sciences and Engineering, 42(9): 322-330.
DOI: 10.1007/s40430-020-02513-0
Gao ZH and Zhou HP (2014) The influence of transverse
bracing on the dynamic characteristics of through
concrete-filled steel tube arch bridge. Gansu Science and
Technology 30(4): 87–89 + 66.
Gou HY, He YN, Zhou W, et al. (2018) Experimental and
numerical investigations of the dynamic responses of an
asymmetrical arch railway bridge. Proceedings of the Insti-
tution of Mechanical Engineers, Part F: Journal of Rail
and Rapid Transit 223(9): 2309–2323. DOI: 10.1177/
0954409718766929.
Cai JG, Xu YX, Feng J, et al. (2012) Effects of temperature
variations on the in-plane stability of steel arch bridges.
Journal of Bridge Engineering 17(2): 232–240. DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000208.
LaFronz NJ, Peterson DE, Turton RD, et al. (2004) Geolo-
gic characterization, Colorado river bridge foundations,
Hoover Dam Bypass. In: Geotechnical engineering for
transportation projects, Los Angeles, CA, 27–31 July 2004.
American Society of Civil Engineers/GEO Institute.
Lee SY, Park KH and Roh H (2013) Experimental fatigue
evaluation of prestressed concrete-filled steel tube I-
shaped bridge girders. Advances in Structural Engineer-
ing.16(5): 867–876. DOI: 10.1260/1369-4332.16.5.867.
Li LY, Cheng ZQ and Ge YJ (2008) Effects of arch rib cross-
bars on dynamic and stabilization characteristics of con-
crete filled steel tubular arch bridge. Journal of Highway
and Transportation Research and Development (English
Edition) 3(2): 98–103. DOI: 10.1061/JHTRCQ.0000253.
Li YD, Yao CR and Liang Y (2012) A brief discussion on
technical advancement and challenge of arch bridge.
Bridge Construction 42(2): 13–20.
Liu CY, Wang YY, Wu XR, et al. (2017) In-plane stability
of fixed concrete-filled steel tubular parabolic arches
under combined bending and compression. Journal of
Bridge Engineering 22(2): 1943–5592. DOI: 10.1061/
(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000993.
Liu KW, Yue F, Su Q, et al. (2019) Assessment of the use of
fiberglass-reinforced foam concrete in high-speed railway
bridge approach involving foundation cost comparison.
Advances in Structural Engineering 23(2): 388–396. DOI:
10.1177/1369433219867622.
Per T (1987) Considerations for design of network arches.
Journal of Structural Engineering 113(10): 1943–541X.
DOI: 10.1061/ (ASCE)0733-9445(1987)113:10(2189).
Qu HY, Li GQ, Chen SW, et al. (2011) Analysis of circular
concrete-filled steel tube specimen under lateral impact.
Advances in Structural Engineering 14(5): 941–951. DOI:
10.1260/1369-4332.14.5.941.
18
Robert H and Soliman K (2014) Chicago’s first tied-arch
bridge. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Con-
struction 19(3): 1943–5576. DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576. 0000212.
Song YS, Ding YL, Zhao HW, et al. (2017) Structural beha-
vior analysis of a continuous steel truss arch railway
bridge integrating monitoring data. Advances in Mechani-
cal Engineering 9(1): 233–241. DOI: 10.1177/16878
14016683316.
Tang J (2019) Research on the mechanical principle and
mechanical properties of large truss arch bridges. MSc The-
sis, Guangxi University, Nanning, China.
Wang J (2019) An effective method to improve the through arch
bridge. MSc Thesis, Guangxi University, Nanning, China.
Xie KZ, Wang HW, Guo X, et al. (2021) Study on the safety
of the concrete pouring process for the main truss arch
structure in a long-span concrete-filled steel tube arch
bridge. Mechanics of Advanced Materials and Structures
28(7): 731–740. DOI: 10.1080/15376494.2019.1601309.
Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)
Xie XL, Pang ML, Xiang GB, et al. (2019a) An effective
method to improve the natural frequency of arch-girder
consolidated arch bridges. Railway Standard Design
63(11): 55–59.
Xie XL, Xia Qin, Ou YP, et al. (2019b) An effective method
to improve the stiffness of arch-beam fixed arch bridges.
Journal of Tongji University (Natural Science Edition)
47(6): 747–754.
Xie XL, Xiang GB, Ou YP, et al. (2018) Principle and appli-
cation of triangular arch bridge. International Journal of
Science 5(12): 135–149.
Xing F, Zhu B and Wang XP (2009) Stability analysis for
CFST basket handle arch bridge. In: International confer-
ence on transportation engineering 2009. Southwest Jiao-
tong University, Chengdu, China, 25–27 July 2009.
American Society of Civil Engineers.
Zhang XD, Cao P and Xu JW (2009) Structural analysis of
tied arch bridge of Nielsen system. Bridge Construction
2009(6): 23–26.