buildings
Article
Transverse Analysis of Box Girders with Corrugated Steel Webs
Fen Xu 1 , Yikai Cheng 2 , Kangjian Wang 3, * and Man Zhou 2, *
Citation: Xu, F.; Cheng, Y.; Wang, K.;
Zhou, M. Transverse Analysis of Box
Girders with Corrugated Steel Webs.
Buildings 2024, 14, 574. https://
doi.org/10.3390/buildings14030574
Academic Editor: Nerio Tullini
Received: 12 January 2024
Revised: 7 February 2024
Accepted: 14 February 2024
Published: 21 February 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Buildings 2024, 14, 574. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14030574
1 School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Jiangsu Open University, Nanjing 210000, China;
fenxu@jsou.edu.cn
2 School of Civil Engineering, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China; 2022202100043@whu.edu.cn
3 School of Architectural Engineering and Art Design, Suzhou Vocational Institute of Industrial Technology,
Suzhou 215104, China
* Correspondence: wangkjw@163.com (K.W.); civilzm1988@163.com (M.Z.); Tel.: +86-152-5186-7705 (M.Z.)
Abstract: The utilisation of box girders with corrugated steel webs (CSWs) represents an innovative
approach to bridge superstructure design that has garnered substantial popularity worldwide, with
a notable prevalence in both Asia and Europe. Compared with traditional box girders, they avoid
web cracking, improving the prestressing efficiency and bridge spanning ability. As an innovative
box girder, a corrugated web can increase the cantilever length and transverse stiffness, and at
the same time, it reduces the dead weight of the bridge deck. However, little research has been
conducted on the mechanical properties of this novel spine-like box girder with CSWs, especially
its transverse performance, although it has been used in many applications. In this paper, the effect
of the web form on the behaviour of box girders is introduced. Therefore, three representative
three-dimensional (3D) finite-element models (i.e., corrugated web box girder, flat web box girder,
and ordinary equivalent concrete web box girder) have been established to quantitatively investigate
the influence of corrugated web stiffness on transverse stress under the action of gravity and vehicle
loads. Generally, significant differences in the mechanical performance of box girders with CSWs have
been observed compared with conventional box girders with concrete webs. Additionally, parametric
studies to investigate the influences of the corrugation dimensions (in term of the corrugation height,
web thickness, panel width, web height and elastic modulus) on the transverse stiffness of such
bridges are analyzed. The results show that a new stiffness formula can be put forward to consider
the effect of web height, and a high-strength steel web needs to be developed urgently for box girders
with CSWs in the near future. Overall, the results of this investigation can be used as a reference for
transverse designing and segmental construction of similar projects.
Keywords: transverse analysis; box girder; corrugated steel web; stiffness; numerical analysis
1. Introduction
Corrugated plates are widely used in many industrial fields such as profiled steel
sheets in containers, construction fences in infrastructure constructions, steel beams and
columns of industrial factories, arch bridges, cable-stayed bridges and girder bridges. A
box girder bridge with corrugated steel webs (CSWs) is a new type of composite bridge.
Due to its unique structural features and light weight, it is one of the preferred composite
structures in Asia’s bridge engineering because of both its engineering economic value
and aesthetic appearance. It consists of folded steel webs, along with top and bottom
concrete flanges. In this design, the concrete flanges are responsible for withstanding axial
forces and bending moments, while the CSWs bear shear forces, effectively utilizing the
material strength of both concrete and steel. On the other hand, for single box girder bridges
with the same dimensions, the traditional single-cell box girder (i.e., the two-webbed box
section) with ordinary concrete webs has many shortcomings such as the decline in the
bearing capacity caused by concrete web cracking, the increase in shear deformation and
deflection caused by concrete structure self-weight and prestressing loss. Compared with
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings
Buildings 2024, 14, 574 2 of 28

traditional concrete webs, CSWs effectively solve the problem of web cracking. This novel
structure, indeed, has many other advantages, such as its high prestressing efficiency
and convenience for assembly construction. It has been widely applied in Japan and
has recently been vigorously promoted in China [1]. With the maturing of design theory
of bridge girders and improvements in the level of manufacture and construction, this
new type of bridge is becoming increasingly competitive in medium- and large-span
bridge construction.
By reviewing the existing literature, it could be found that many scholars have focused
on the buckling behaviour of the box girder bridge with CSWs. This included local and
global buckling as well as interactive buckling of straight girders with CSWs, because shear
buckling is the controlling factor in the design of such girders [2–9]. With the increase
in urban populations and traffic flow, prestressed concrete wide box girders have been
increasingly used for constructing new bridges and/or reconstructing old bridges. In
general, the length of the side cantilever of a conventional box girder is less than 4 m, and
the transverse bending moment capacity is the controlling factor for the dimensions of the
bridge deck.
The study of its transverse performance can be traced to ordinary continuous concrete
box girders. Guo and Zheng [10] delivered the “TYL” framework analysis method of
transverse internal force analysis of box girders, which was recommended by the American
Bridge Handbook and then extended to the rectangular box girder with cantilever. Some
scholars have conducted quantitative studies on the basic mechanical behaviour of the
concrete box girder structure. Zheng and Liu [11] briefly introduced the structural forms
and mechanical characteristics of wide box girders. The transverse stress of the ribbed
concrete wide box girder was analysed by Zhou et al. [12], and it was found that the rib
has a certain reduction effect on the transverse stress. The strutted box widening method
(SBWM) was, as well, introduced to allow a two-lane concrete bridge to be designed and
constructed so that it can easily be widened into a three- or four-lane bridge due to future
traffic volume increase. Additionally, based on the folded plate method in conjunction with
a plane frame analysis, the computer program STRUTBOX allows for deck prestressing
and other reinforcing to be proportioned for transverse flexure [13–15].
On the other hand, the arching action, compressive membrane action and geometric
arching are important issues that have been considered in the literature, with particular
emphasis on their effects on bridge decks. Generally, the analytical methods including
arching action significantly reduce the required amount of reinforcement for the deck slab.
Additionally, it has been concluded that compressive membrane action may occur and can
be used in the design and assessment of box girder structures [16,17]. A rational frame
model that can consider the effects of arching action for the top deck slab on the prediction
of ultimate load capacity was proposed, and the flexural strength enhancement of the upper
slab from the restraints of webs and arching action was also derived [18].
In design practice, the transverse bending analysis of box girder bridges is commonly
carried out by modelling the cross-section as a frame of unit width with imaginary supports
at the web locations. Based on the error in simple frame analysis (SFA) at the web–top
flange junction and under the sagging moment, a set of correction factors for the results of
SFA have been proposed. Alternatively, the results of a method using influence surfaces
for elastic plates (ISM), as recommended by AASHTO, are generally highly conservative
compared to the SFA results [19,20]. When analysing the localised transverse bending
from concentrated wheel loads, designers commonly use an equivalent frame model [21].
Furthermore, based on the stress field theory and the application of the static theorem of
plasticity, an analytical model of interaction between longitudinal shear and transverse
bending was presented [22].
With respect to composite box girders with CSWs, some scholars have studied their
transverse performance. Based on elastic thin plate theory, combined with the traditional
plane frame method, the formulae for calculating the transverse internal forces of box gird-
ers with CSWs were derived by Li’s team, which have been verified by loading tests [23,24].
Buildings 2024, 14, 574 3 of 28

Later, Zhao and Ye [25] converted wheel loads to a continuous half wave sine load dis-
tributed along the span. Then, they substituted the continuous load into the framework
analysis model of the box girder with CSWs for calculation of the transverse internal forces.
On the other hand, in order to study the effective width of the box girder bridge with
CSWs, according to the standard values of the existing highway bridge and finite element
results, the bridge standard values were corrected, and the correction coefficient of effective
distribution width under different cases was obtained [26]. According to the basic principle
of frame analysis, Jia et al. [27] considered the influence of the web and bottom slab of
bridge deck on the transverse deflection, and put forward the transverse force calculation
model of box girders with CSWs. Furthermore, combined with the structural characteristics
of box girders with CSWs, a method for calculating the transverse bending moment of top
slabs was established [28].
From the authors’ view point, the structural analysis and quantitative evaluation
of box girders in previous studies are insufficient, and few studies have focused on the
factors affecting the transverse analysis of box girders with CSWs. Therefore, it is of great
significance to analyse the transverse performance of box girders with CSWs with respect to
both theory and engineering practice. The influence of web stiffness on the transverse stress
conditions and the differences between different webs on bridge decks were determined in
this study for the first time. In addition, in this paper, the authors simulate three different
box girder models, and parametric analysis of the transverse performance of box girders
with CSWs is then carried out based on the verified finite element models. Overall, the
results of this work can serve as a reference for those designing similar engineering projects.

2. Box Girders with Different Webs

Since the appearance of PC girders in the 1930s, the modern bridge technology has
made great progress compared with the stone and wooden bridge, which increased the
spanning ability of the bridges. Later, according to the experience of the construction of
truss-type composite girder bridges in France, the concrete webs of traditional box girders
were successfully replaced by flat steel webs (FSWs) of box girders, namely, prestressed
steel–concrete composite box girders, which reduced the weight of bridges [8].
In the design of bridges, it was found that FSWs have a great constraint to the deforma-
tion of the top and bottom concrete flanges of the box girders in the longitudinal direction of
the bridges. This resulted in the reduction of the prestress efficiency of the concrete section.
In order to improve the prestressing efficiency, the Campenon Bernard (CB) Company of
France in 1975 put forward the idea of replacing the FSWs with corrugated steel webs
(CSWs), which can freely be elongated and compressed along the longitudinal direction due
to the accordion effect. Thus, more novel composite box girders with CSWs were formed.
According to the engineering experience, the concrete section of the box girder is
determined by the transverse design. The maximum cantilever length of wide box girders
can reach 6 m, and the deck width of box girders with a single-box single room is up to
18 m. In Figure 1, the evolution relations of three typical box girders with different web
types are given, which have the same top and bottom concrete flanges. Three types of box
girders have different connections between the webs and concrete flanges. Specifically,
corrugated and flat steel webs are typically connected to the top and bottom concrete
flanges through embedded shear connectors including weld studs, perforated plates, and
angle irons, ensuring compliance with both longitudinal shear and transverse bending
requirements. In the case of a conventional concrete box girder, overlapping steel bars are
used to connect the concrete web and the top/bottom flange, which improves the reliability
of the connection.
Based on the principle of equivalent stiffness, equivalent analysis models for box
girders with equivalent concrete webs (ECWs), box girders with FSWs and box girders with
CSWs have been established, which satisfy the following relationships: the thickness of
FSW is equal to that of CSW, i.e., ts = tcsw , and the thickness expression of ECW satisfies the
 to connect the concrete web and the top/bottom flange, which improves the reliability of
the connection.
Based on the principle of equivalent stiffness, equivalent analysis models for box
Buildings 2024, 14, 574 girders with equivalent concrete webs (ECWs), box girders with FSWs and box girders 4 of 28
with CSWs have been established, which satisfy the following relationships: the thickness
of FSW is equal to that of CSW, i.e., ts = tcsw, and the thickness expression of ECW satisfies
the following
following equation
equation tc =ttccsw
= tcsw (Ecsw
(Ecsw /E/Ec ).c).Here,
Here,EEcsw
csw and Ecc are
are the Young’s elasticity moduli
moduli
of CSWs
CSWs and
and ECWs,
ECWs, respectively.
respectively.

Top concrete flange

Steel-concrete Flat steel web ts

box girders (FSW)

Improved
steel web Bottom concrete flange (a) box girders with
ts=tcsw
model FSWs

tcsw
box girders Corrugated steel
with CSWs web (CSW)

Equivalent
concrete (b) box girders with
tc=tcsw(Ecsw/Ec)
web model CSWs

Equivalent concrete tc
Equivalent concrete
web (ECW)
box girders

(c) box girders with

ECWs

Three different
Figure 1. Three
Figure different box girder models.

2.1. Box
2.1. Box Girders
Girders with
with Flat
Flat Steel
Steel Webs
Webs

Box girders with FSWs (belongingtototraditional

Box girders with FSWs (belonging traditionalsteel–concrete
steel–concretecomposite
composite box girders)
box gird-
are substitution models of box girders with ordinary concrete webs. They are simpler and
ers) are substitution models of box girders with ordinary concrete webs. They are simpler
easier to make than truss box girders. FSWs are often presented as forms of coffered flat
and easier to make than truss box girders. FSWs are often presented as forms of coffered
webs (including vertical and longitudinal stiffeners attached by welding) in the practice of
flat webs (including vertical and longitudinal stiffeners attached by welding) in the prac-
engineering, which could improve the stability of the webs, as shown in Figure 2b. The
tice of engineering, which could improve the stability of the webs, as shown in Figure 2b.
vertical stiffeners are mainly used to prevent the shear buckling and the stress concentration
The vertical stiffeners are mainly used to prevent the shear buckling and the stress con-
caused by the concentrated forces, while the longitudinal stiffeners are mainly used to
centration caused by the concentrated forces, while the longitudinal stiffeners are mainly
prevent the buckling of the webs under the action of bending compressive stresses. When
used to prevent the buckling of the webs under the action of bending compressive stresses.
the thickness of stiffeners is smaller than the thickness of the web, the stiffeners bend,
When the thickness of stiffeners is smaller than the thickness of the web, the stiffeners
accompanied with an out-of-plane deformation of the web under the condition of instability.
bend, accompanied with an out-of-plane deformation of the web under the condition of
Accordingly, the stiffeners play an important role in increasing the stiffness of the web.
instability. Accordingly,
When the thickness the stiffeners
of stiffeners play
is larger thananthe
important
thicknessrole in increasing
of the the stiffness
webs, the stiffeners of
could
the web. When the thickness of stiffeners is larger than the thickness of the webs,
restrain the out-of-plane deformation of the web under buckling. So, in this case, there is the stiff-
eners could restrain
no out-of-plane the out-of-plane
deformation deformation
on the stiffeners; thus,of
thethe web under
stiffeners playbuckling. So, in
a supporting this
role to
case, there
the web. is no out-of-plane deformation on the stiffeners; thus, the stiffeners play a sup-
porting role to the web.
 Buildings2024,
Buildings 2024,14,
14,574
x FOR PEER REVIEW 55 of
of2830

Steel material Concrete material

ts=tcsw tc=tcsw(Ecsw /Ec)

ts tc

(a) FSW (d) ECW

ts tcsw

vertical stiffener longitudinal stiffener longitudinal panel inclined panel

Steel material Steel material

welding

(b) Coffered FSW (c) CSW

Figure2.2.Different
Figure Differentweb
webforms.
forms.
2.2. Box Girders with Corrugated Steel Webs
2.2. Box Girders with Corrugated Steel Webs
Box girders with CSWs own improved steel web models compared with box girders
Box girders
with FSWs. CSWswith haveCSWs own
a higher improved
shear bucklingsteel web models
strength compared
than FSWs and arewith box girders
slightly more
with FSWs.
flexible CSWs
in shear have
than a higher
FSWs [29]. shear buckling compared
Furthermore, strength thanwithFSWs and are slightly
conventional FSWs,more
the
flexible inin
difference shear
the than FSWs
cost of CSWs[29].
is Furthermore, compared
small, as the welding withstiffeners
steel conventional FSWs, the dif-
are eliminated, as
ferenceininFigure
shown the cost2c.
of CSWs is small,
So, CSWs can as the welding
overcome steel stiffeners are
the disadvantages eliminated,welding-
of traditional as shown
in FigureFSWs
stiffened 2c. So, CSWs
such caninstability
as web overcomedue the to
disadvantages of traditional
fatigue, residual stress and welding-stiffened
normal stress. In
FSWs such as web instability due to fatigue, residual stress
addition, for box girders with CSWs, resistance to section distortion and normalis stress.
higherIn addition,
and more
for box along
uniform girdersthewith CSWs, resistance
component comparedto section
with distortion
box girders is FSWs.
with higher and more uniform
along the component compared with box girders with FSWs.
2.3. Equivalent Box Girders with Concrete Webs
2.3. Box
Equivalent
girdersBox
withGirders
ECWs with
areConcrete Webs
equivalent box girder models to box girders with CSWs.
These Box girders
girders with
could ECWs are using
be suggested equivalent box girder
the MIDAS Civil models to software
2020 v.3.1 box girders
[30].with
TheCSWs.
large
These girders could
three-dimensional beelement
finite suggested using MIDAS
software the MIDAS
CivilCivil 2020 can
2020 v.3.1 v.3.1
besoftware [30]. The
used to calculate
the mechanical
large behaviour of
three-dimensional box element
finite girders with CSWsMIDAS
software by making corrugated
Civil 2020 v.3.1webs
can equivalent
be used to
tocalculate
concretethe
webs.
mechanical behaviour of box girders with CSWs by making corrugated webs
equivalent to concrete webs.
3. Computational Models
In the following
3. Computational sections, the geometric parameters of the simplified models for the
Models
bridgeInapplication of box girdersthe
the following sections, with CSWs are
geometric given. Considering
parameters the different
of the simplified modelsmaterial
for the
properties of concrete and steel, the finite element models are established. Combined
bridge application of box girders with CSWs are given. Considering the different material with
different
properties of concrete and steel, the finite element models are established. Combinedwith
working conditions, the finite element numerical calculations of box girders with
CSWs are carried out.
different working conditions, the finite element numerical calculations of box girders with
CSWs are carried out.
3.1. Model Parameters
3.1. Box
Modelgirders with CSWs are 36 m simply supported girders with a width of 12 m, a
Parameters
height of 2.5 m, a cantilever length of 3 m, a bottom concrete slab width of 6.4 m, a top
Box girders with CSWs are 36 m simply supported girders with a width of 12 m, a
concrete slab thickness of 300 mm and a bottom concrete slab thickness of 250 mm. The
height of 2.5 m, a cantilever length of 3 m, a bottom concrete slab width of 6.4 m, a top
CSW has a web thickness of 9 mm, a corrugation height of 170 mm, a longitudinal panel
concrete
length slabmm
of 300 thickness of 300 mm
and a projected andofa the
length bottom concrete
inclined panelslab thickness
in relation of 250
to the mm. The
longitudinal
CSW
axis of has
300 amm,
webasthickness
shown inofFigure
9 mm,3a.
a corrugation height of 170 mm, a longitudinal panel
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 30

Buildings 2024, 14, 574 length of 300 mm and a projected length of the inclined panel in relation to the longitudi-
6 of 28
nal axis of 300 mm, as shown in Figure 3a.

(d) Elevation of vehicle load layout on the bridge girder with FSWs, CSWs or ECWs

Figure 3. Parameters and vehicle load layout of box girder models with CSWs.

3.2. Finite Element

3.2. Finite Element Models
Models
In
In order
order toto establish
establish the
the transverse analysis models
transverse analysis models of of the
the box
box girders
girders with
with CSWs,
CSWs,
finite
finite element (FE) pre-processing of large finite element general software ANSYS [31] [31]
element (FE) pre-processing of large finite element general software ANSYS 12.1 has
has been considered. It is noteworthy that our chosen modelling methodology for the box
been considered. It is noteworthy that our chosen modelling methodology for the box
girders has been rigorously validated through experimental verification in prior studies,
girders has been rigorously validated through experimental verification in prior studies,
ensuring the reliability of the finite element models [32–34]. Based on the creation of key
ensuring the reliability of the finite element models [32–34]. Based on the creation of key
points and lines, CSWs are established through vertical drag along an arbitrary vertical
points and lines, CSWs are established through vertical drag along an arbitrary vertical
line. On the basis of surface creation, the upper and lower concrete slabs are obtained by a
line. On the basis of surface creation, the upper and lower concrete slabs are obtained by
similar stretching technique. The three-dimensional (3D), eight-node solid element SOLID
a similar stretching technique. The three-dimensional (3D), eight-node solid element
45 was utilised to simulate the top and bottom slabs of box girders with CSWs, while the
SOLID 45 was utilised to simulate the top and bottom slabs of box girders with CSWs,
four-node shell element shell 63 was used to simulate the CSWs, as shown in Figure 4. The
while the four-node shell element shell 63 was 3used to simulate the CSWs, as shown in
concrete slabs have a density set at 2500 kg/m . In the elastic phase, the finite element
Figure 4. The concrete slabs have a density set at 2500 kg/m3. In the elastic phase, the finite
model employs linear elastic constitutive relations, incorporating a concrete material elastic
element model employs linear elastic constitutive relations, incorporating a concrete ma-
modulus of 34.5 GPa and a Poisson ratio of 0.2. The FSWs and CSWs are made of the
terial elastic
same type ofmodulus
steel thatofhave
34.5aGPa and aofPoisson
density 7850 kg/m ratio3 .ofThe
0.2.constitutive
The FSWs and CSWsofare
relation themade
steel
of the same
material type of steel that
is characterised as a have
linearaelastic
density of 7850
state, kg/m .aThe
featuring
3
steelconstitutive relation
material elastic of the
modulus
steel
of 210material is characterised
GPa, a Poisson ratio of as a linear
0.3, and anelastic state, featuring
acceleration of gravitya steel material
of 9.8 elastic mod-
m/s2 . Considering
ulus of 210 GPa, a Poisson ratio of 0.3, and an acceleration of gravity of
that the models are in an elastic stage throughout, there will be no occurrence of .interface 9.8 m/s 2 Consid-

ering that
relative the
slip modelsthe
between areconcrete
in an elastic stage
flanges andthroughout,
webs. Therefore,there will be parts
these no occurrence
are merged of
interface relative slip between the concrete flanges and webs. Therefore,
into a single instance with the main girder by Boolean operations, ensuring coordinated these parts are
merged into aand
deformation single instance
reliable with the main girder by Boolean operations, ensuring coor-
connections.
dinated deformation and reliable connections.
OR PEERBuildings
REVIEW 2024, 14, 574 7 of 30 7 of 28

Figure
Figure 4. Finite element 4. Finite
models element
of box models
girders of box
with girders with
different webs.different webs.

3.3. Load Case and Boundary Condition

3.3. Load Case and Boundary Condition
In the analysis of the finite element models, the self-weight and the unfavourable
In the analysis vehicle
of theload cases
finite have been
element considered.
models, Generally, the
the self-weight design
and the of the concrete bridge
unfavourable
deck is controlled by vehicle load. The five-axle load is used for the live load, and the
vehicle load cases have been considered. Generally, the design of the concrete bridge deck
total wheel load is 55 t [35]. Two load cases were set up, which correspond to different
is controlled by vehicle
vehicleload. The five-axle
load positions. The mostload is used for
unfavourable the
load live
was load, along
arranged and the total
the longitudinal
wheel load is 55 t [35]. Two load
direction, cases by
determined were set up, which
the influence correspond
line of bending to different
moments, as shown invehicle
Figure 3. The
load positions. The third
mostwheel
unfavourable load was
load of the vehicle act onarranged along the
the girder mid-span longitudinal
along direc-
the longitudinal direction.
Translational displacements in all directions at both ends
tion, determined by the influence line of bending moments, as shown in Figure 3. The of girders were constrained to
form simply supported girders, as shown in Figure 4.
third wheel load of the vehicle act on the girder mid-span along the longitudinal direction.
Translational displacements in all
3.4. Extraction directions
Positions at both ends of girders were constrained to
for Analysis
form simply supported girders,
Currently,as shown
the in Figure
unfavourable 4. and deflection paths are extracted from ANSYS
stress
post-processing results. When the vehicle load is placed on the cantilever of the bridge deck,
the transverse
3.4. Extraction Positions for Analysisstress of Path B (the cantilever root) and the vertical deflection (deflection
induced by longitudinal bending of the box girder is not included) of Path C (the cantilever
Currently, the unfavourable
end) are extracted. stress
Whenandthedeflection
vehicle loadpaths areon
is acting extracted frommid-span
the transverse ANSYS of the
post-processing results.
bridge When thetransverse
deck, the vehicle load isstress
tensile placedandon the cantilever
vertical deflection ofofthe
the bridge
adverse position
deck, the transverse stress of Path B (the cantilever root) and the vertical deflection (de-vertical
(path A) are extracted at the same time. In the same way, the transverse stress and
deflection values under gravity action can be obtained. Considering the longitudinal
flection induced by longitudinal bending of the box girder is not included) of Path C (the
symmetry section of box girders with CSWs, it can be seen that the mid-span path of the
cantilever end) are extracted. When
girders is Path the vehicle
A. Among them, Aload is acting on the transverse mid-span
m , Bm and Cm are the middle points of paths A, B and C,
of the bridge deck, the transverse tensile stress and vertical deflection of the adverse posi-
respectively.
tion (path A) are extracted Underat the
theaction
sameoftime.
self-weight
In the and live load,
same way,thethecorresponding
transverse transverse
stress and stress of
the path of the cantilever root represents the mechanical properties of the negative bending
vertical deflection values under gravity action can be obtained. Considering the longitu-
moment region near the web. The stress and deflection of the transverse mid-span path are
dinal symmetry sectionused of box girders
to represent with CSWs,
the mechanical it can beofseen
characteristics that thepositive
the mid-span mid-span path
bending moment
of the girders is PathinA.
theAmong them,flange,
upper concrete Am, Basm and
shown Cminare the5.middle points of paths A, B
Figure
and C, respectively.
Under the action of self-weight and live load, the corresponding transverse stress of
the path of the cantilever root represents the mechanical properties of the negative bend-
ing moment region near the web. The stress and deflection of the transverse mid-span
path are used to represent the mechanical characteristics of the mid-span positive bending
moment in the upper concrete flange, as shown in Figure 5.
Buildings 2024, 14,
Buildings 2024, 14, 574
x FOR PEER REVIEW 88 of 30
of 28

Figure 5. Extraction positions of transverse stress and deflection of box girders with different
webs. 5. Extraction positions of transverse stress and deflection of box girders with different webs.
Figure

4. Stiffness Comparison of Box Girders with Different Webs

4. Stiffness Comparison of Box Girders with Different Webs
Because there are differences among the web forms of the three considered typical box
Because
girders, there there are differences
is a difference in the among
degree the web formsofofthe
of constraint the three considered
corresponding webtypical
to the
box girders, there is a difference in the degree of constraint of the corresponding
bridge deck, and the stiffness contribution of webs will be different. Here, the conversion web to
the bridge
value deck,
of ECW and theisstiffness
thickness 55 mm. contribution
The variationoflaw
webs willtransverse
of the be different. Here,
stress andthe conver-
deflection
under the action of two kinds of loads (vehicle load and gravity) is discussed below. de-
sion value of ECW thickness is 55 mm. The variation law of the transverse stress and
flection under the action of two kinds of loads (vehicle load and gravity) is discussed be-
low.Vehicle Load Action
4.1.
As shown in Figure 6, under vehicle load action, the transverse tensile stress and
4.1. Vehicleat
deflection Load
theAction
cantilever end and the mid-span of the box girders with CSWs are lower
than As shown
those of theinbox
Figure 6, under
girders vehicle
with FSWs andloadtheaction, the transverse
box girders with ECWs. tensile stress
Among and de-
them, the
flection at the
transverse cantilever
stress end and
and deflection the mid-span
values are similar of at
thethebox girders with
cantilever end and CSWs are lower
mid-span of
box
thangirders
those of with
theFSWs and with
box girders ECWs.
with FSWs and the box girders with ECWs. Among them,
For the position
the transverse of the
stress and transverse
deflection cantilever
values of boxatgirders
are similar with CSWs,
the cantilever end the
andtransverse
mid-span
stress
of boxof the bridge
girders deck below
with FSWs and withte vehicle
ECWs.rear axle is greater than that below the vehicle
middleForaxle, but deflections
the position of the twocantilever
of the transverse are similar. ofRelative
box girdersto box
withgirders
CSWs,with FSWs, the
the transverse
transverse
stress of the bridge deck below te vehicle rear axle is greater than that below thereduced
stress of the bridge deck below the rear axle of box girders with CSWs is vehicle
by 10%; axle,
middle the reduction rate ofof
but deflections thethe
deflection of the bridge
two are similar. deck
Relative tobelow the rear
box girders axleFSWs,
with is 15.8%,
the
while the transverse
transverse stress
stress of the of the
bridge bridge
deck belowdeck thebelow the middle
rear axle axle of with
of box girders box girders
CSWs is with
re-
CSWs
ducedisbyreduced
10%; the byreduction
12.8% andratethe of
reduction rate of of
the deflection thethe
deflection of thebelow
bridge deck bridgethe
deckrearbelow
axle
the middle
is 15.8%, axlethe
while is 17.9%.
transverse stress of the bridge deck below the middle axle of box gird-
For the position
ers with CSWs is reduced of thebytransverse
12.8% and mid-span of box rate
the reduction girders with
of the CSWs, the
deflection of transverse
the bridge
stress and deflection of the bridge
deck below the middle axle is 17.9%. deck below the vehicle rear axle are greater than those
below Forthe vehicle
the positionmiddle
of theaxle. Relative
transverse to box girders
mid-span with FSWs,
of box girders the transverse
with CSWs, stress
the transverse
of the bridge deck below the rear axle of box girders with CSWs is
stress and deflection of the bridge deck below the vehicle rear axle are greater than those reduced by 13.5%,
the
belowreduction ratemiddle
the vehicle of the deflection
axle. Relativeof the bridge
to box deckwith
girders below the the
FSWs, reartransverse
axle is 14.5%,
stresstheof
transverse stress of the bridge deck below the middle axle of box
the bridge deck below the rear axle of box girders with CSWs is reduced by 13.5%, the girders with CSWs is
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 30

Buildings 2024, 14, 574 9 of 28

reduction rate of the deflection of the bridge deck below the rear axle is 14.5%, the trans-
verse stress of the bridge deck below the middle axle of box girders with CSWs is reduced
by 13.8%by
reduced and the reduction
13.8% rate of therate
and the reduction deflection
of the of the bridge
deflection of deck below deck
the bridge the middle
belowaxle
the
is 14.7%.axle is 14.7%.
middle

(a) Transverse stress and deflection of the cantilever of bridge decks.

(b) Transverse stress and deflection of the mid-span of bridge decks.

Figure 6. Transverse stress and deflection of box girders with different webs under vehicle load
Figure 6. Transverse stress and deflection of box girders with different webs under vehicle load action.
action.
From the above situation, it can be found that under the vehicle load, compared
From the above situation, it can be found that under the vehicle load, compared with
with the FSWs and ECWs, CSWs can greatly reduce the transverse deflection of the free
the FSWs and ECWs, CSWs can greatly reduce the transverse deflection of the free side of
side of the cantilever slab and greatly reduce the transverse stress of the mid-span of the
the cantilever
bridge deck. slab and greatly reduce the transverse stress of the mid-span of the bridge
deck.
4.2. Gravity Action
4.2. Gravity Action
As shown in Figure 7, under gravity action, relative to box girders with FSWs and box
Aswith
girders shown in Figure
ECWs, CSWs7,can under gravityreduce
effectively action,therelative
tensileto box in
stress girders with FSWs
the negative momentand
box girders with ECWs, CSWs can effectively reduce the tensile stress in the
region and the vertical deflection at the cantilever end of the bridge deck. The transverse negative mo-
ment region
mid-span and the of
deflection vertical deflection
the bridge deck at the cantilever
is also decreasing, end
andof the amplitude
bridge deck. ofThe
the trans-
stress
verse
in the mid-span
middle span deflection of thesmall,
is relatively bridge deck
but hasisincreased
also decreasing, andextent.
to a certain the amplitude
Among of the
them,
stress
the in the
stress andmiddle spanvalues
deflection is relatively
on thesmall,
bridgebut has of
decks increased to a with
box girders certain extent.
FSWs andAmong
ECWs
them,
are the Relative
close. stress and deflection
to box girdersvalues on thethe
with FSWs, bridge decks of
transverse box of
stress girders with FSWs
the cantilever rootand
of
ECWs
box are close.
girders with Relative
CSWs is to box girders
reduced with
by 4.1%, andFSWs, the transverse
the deflection of thestress of theend
cantilever cantilever
of box
root of box
girders withgirders
CSWs with CSWsby
is reduced is reduced
6.5%. In by 4.1%, and
a similar the deflection
manner, of thetensile
the transverse cantilever
stressend
in
the middle
of box spanwith
girders of box
CSWsgirders with CSWs
is reduced is improved
by 6.5%. by 0.077
In a similar MPa,the
manner, andtransverse
the deflection of
tensile
the mid-span of box girders with CSWs is reduced by 0.07 mm.
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 30

Buildings 2024, 14, 574 stress in the middle span of box girders with CSWs is improved by 0.077 MPa, and
10 ofthe
28
deflection of the mid-span of box girders with CSWs is reduced by 0.07 mm.

(a) Transverse stress and deflection of the cantilever of bridge decks.

(b) Transverse stress and deflection of the mid-span of bridge decks.

Figure 7. Transverse stress and deflection of box girders with different webs under gravity action.
Figure 7. Transverse stress and deflection of box girders with different webs under gravity action.

From the
From theabove
abovediscussion,
discussion,it itcan
can
bebe found
found that,
that, under
under deaddead weight,
weight, the CSW
the CSW can
can also
also effectively reduce the transverse deflection and stress of the free side of the cantilever
effectively reduce the transverse deflection and stress of the free side of the cantilever slab.
slab. However,
However, the absolute
the absolute valuesvalues
of the of the deflection
deflection and of
and stress stress of the mid-span
the mid-span of the
of the bridge
bridge
deck aredeck
veryare veryon
small small on the whole.
the whole.

5. Parametric Analysis of Box Girders with CSWs

In view
view ofof the
the condition
condition of
of gravity
gravity action,
action,the
thetransverse
transversestress
stressandanddeflection
deflectionininnega-
neg-
tive
ativeand
andpositive
positivemoment
momentzones
zonesofofbridge
bridgedecks
decks ofof box
box girders
girders with
with CSWs
CSWs are analysed,
respectively,
respectively, which
which involves
involves aa series
series of
of corrugation
corrugation parameters
parameters of of CSWs. Additionally,
CSWs. Additionally,
these parameters are closely related to the stiffness of the corrugated
these parameters are closely related to the stiffness of the corrugated web, web, and consequently
and conse-
they affect the transverse stress and deflection distribution of the bridge
quently they affect the transverse stress and deflection distribution of the bridge deck cantilever or
deck can-
mid-span of box girders with CSWs. In order to analyse the main factors (including
tilever or mid-span of box girders with CSWs. In order to analyse the main factors (includ- corru-
gation height, web
ing corrugation thickness,
height, panel length,
web thickness, web
panel height
length, weband elasticand
height modulus) that affectthat
elastic modulus) the
transverse stiffness, the
affect the transverse transverse
stiffness, performance
the transverse of box girders
performance with
of box CSWs with
girders is parameterised.
CSWs is pa-
rameterised.
5.1. Transverse Stress and Deflection of the Cantilever (Paths B and C)
With the increase
5.1. Transverse in the
Stress and corrugation
Deflection of theheight of the
Cantilever box girders
(Paths with CSWs, the transverse
B and C)
stress of Path B and the deflection of Path C decrease. When the corrugation height increases
With the increase in the corrugation height of the box girders with CSWs, the trans-
from 130 mm to 230 mm (with an increment of 20 mm), the transverse peak stress of Point
verse stress of Path B and the deflection of Path C decrease. When the corrugation height
Bm drops from 2.029 MPa to 1.913 Mpa, accompanied by a drop ratio of 5.72%, and the
peak deflection of Point Cm decreases from 2.257 mm to 2.008 mm, with a drop ratio of
11.03%, as shown in Figure 8.

Buildings 2024, 14, 574
increases from 130 mm to 230 mm (with an increment of 20 mm), the transverse peak
stress of Point Bm drops from 2.029 MPa to 1.913 MPa, accompanied by a drop ratio of
5.72%, and the peak deflection of Point Cm decreases from 2.257 mm to 2.008 mm, with 11
a of 28
drop ratio of 11.03%, as shown in Figure 8.

(a) Transverse stress of Path B with variable corrugation height.

Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 30

(b) Transverse peak stress and deflection of cantilever with variable corrugation height.

(c) Deflection of Path C with variable corrugation height.

Figure 8. The effect of corrugation height on the transverse stress and deflection of Paths B and C.
Figure 8. The effect of corrugation height on the transverse stress and deflection of Paths B and C.
When the thickness of webs increases, the transverse stress of Path B and the deflec-
When the thickness of webs increases, the transverse stress of Path B and the deflection
tion of Path C decrease. When the thickness of the webs increases from 8 mm to 22 mm
of Path C decrease. When the thickness of the webs increases from 8 mm to 22 mm (with
(with an increment of 2 mm), the transverse peak stress of Point Bm drops from 1.996 MPa
antoincrement of 2 mm), the transverse peak stress of Point Bm dropsof
1.902 MPa, accompanied by a drop ratio of 4.71%, and peak deflection
from 1.996 MPa to
Point Cm de-
creases from 2.203 mm to 1.9128 mm, with a drop ratio of 13.17%, as shown in Figure 9.
 (c) Deflection of Path C with variable corrugation height.
Figure 8. The effect of corrugation height on the transverse stress and deflection of Paths B and C.

Buildings 2024, 14, 574 When the thickness of webs increases, the transverse stress of Path B and the deflec- 12 of 28
tion of Path C decrease. When the thickness of the webs increases from 8 mm to 22 mm
(with an increment of 2 mm), the transverse peak stress of Point Bm drops from 1.996 MPa
1.9021.902
to Mpa,MPa, accompanied
accompanied by aby a drop
drop ratioratio of 4.71%,
of 4.71%, andand
peakpeak deflection
deflection of of Point
Point CmCmdecreases
de-
creases from 2.203 mm to 1.9128 mm, with a drop ratio of 13.17%, as shown
from 2.203 mm to 1.9128 mm, with a drop ratio of 13.17%, as shown in Figure 9. in Figure 9.

Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 30

(a) Transverse stress of Path B with variable web thickness.

(b) Transverse peak stress and deflection of cantilever with variable web thickness.

(c) Deflection of Path C with variable web thickness.

Figure 9. The effect of web thickness on the transverse stress and deflection of Paths B and C.
Figure 9. The effect of web thickness on the transverse stress and deflection of Paths B and C.
With the increase in the panel segment length (length of longitudinal panel or pro-
jected length of inclined panel in relation to longitudinal axis) of the CSWs, the transverse
stress of Path B increases, while the deflection of Path C decreases. Here, under the prem-
ise that the total length of box girders with CSWs is constant, the numbers of different
panel segments of box girders with CSWs should be converted according to the variation
in panel segment lengths. When the length of the longitudinal panel and projected length
Buildings 2024, 14, 574 13 of 28

With the increase in the panel segment length (length of longitudinal panel or projected
length of inclined panel in relation to longitudinal axis) of the CSWs, the transverse stress of
Path B increases, while the deflection of Path C decreases. Here, under the premise that the
total length of box girders with CSWs is constant, the numbers of different panel segments
of box girders with CSWs should be converted according to the variation in panel segment
lengths. When the length of the longitudinal panel and projected length of the inclined
panel in relation to the longitudinal axis (these two lengths are equal here) increase from
250 mm to 430 mm (with an increment of 30 mm), the transverse peak stress of Point Bm
tends to increase from 1.9828 to 1.9972 MPa, accompanied by a growth rate of 0.73%,
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 ofand
30
the peak deflection of Point Cm tends to decrease from 2.182 to 2.142 mm, with a drop ratio
of 1.83%, as shown in Figure 10.

(a) Transverse stress of Path B with variable panel length.

(b) Transverse peak stress and deflection of cantilever with variable panel length.

Figure 10. Cont.

Buildings 2024, 14, 574 14 of 28

(b) Transverse peak stress and deflection of cantilever with variable panel length.

Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 30

(c) Deflection of Path C with variable panel length.

Figure 10. The effect of panel length on the transverse stress and deflection of Paths B and C.
Figure 10. The effect of panel length on the transverse stress and deflection of Paths B and C.
When the height of webs increases, both the transverse stress of path B and the de-
When the height of webs increases, both the transverse stress of path B and the
flection of Path C increase. When the height of webs increases from 2.2 m to 4.3 m (with
deflection of Path C increase. When the height of webs increases from 2.2 m to 4.3 m
an increment of 0.3 m), the transverse peak stress of Point Bm increases from 1.975 to 2.0195
(with an increment of 0.3 m), the transverse peak stress of Point Bm increases from 1.975 to
MPa, accompanied by a growth rate of 2.25%, and the peak deflection of Point Cm in-
2.0195 MPa, accompanied by a growth rate of 2.25%, and the peak deflection of Point Cm
creases from 2.173 to 2.1826 mm with a growth rate of 0.44%, as shown in Figure 11.
increases from 2.173 to 2.1826 mm with a growth rate of 0.44%, as shown in Figure 11.

(a) Transverse stress of Path B with variable web height.

Figure 11. Cont.

 Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 30
Buildings 2024, 14, 574 15 of 28

(b) Transverse peak stress and deflection of cantilever with variable web height.

(c) Deflection of Path C with variable web height.

Figure11.
Figure 11.The
The effect
effect of
of web
web height
heighton
onthe
thetransverse
transversestress
stressand
anddeflection of of
deflection Paths B and
Paths C. C.
B and
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 30
Buildings 2024, 14, 574 16 of 28

With the increase in the modulus of elasticity of the webs, both the transverse stress
With
of Path the the
B and increase in theofmodulus
deflection of elasticity
Path C decrease. Whenof the
thewebs, bothofthe
modulus transverse
elasticity stress
increases
of Path B and the deflection of Path C decrease. When the modulus of elasticity
from 1.8 × 10 MPa to 2.3 × 10 MPa (with an increment of 0.1 × 10 MPa), the transverse
5 5 5 increases
1.8 × 10
from stress 5 MPa to 2.3 × 105 MPa (with an increment of 0.1 × 105 MPa), the transverse
peak of Point Bm decreases from 1.9978 to 1.9815 MPa, accompanied by a drop ratio
peak
of stress
0.82%, of peak
and Point deflection
Bm decreases from C
of Point 1.9978 to 1.9815 MPa, accompanied by a drop ratio
m decreases from 2.212 to 2.149 mm, with a drop
of 0.82%, and peak deflection of Point
ratio of 2.85%, as shown in Figure 12. m C decreases from 2.212 to 2.149 mm, with a drop
ratio of 2.85%, as shown in Figure 12.

(a) Transverse stress of Path B with variable elastic modulus.

(b) Transverse peak stress and deflection of cantilever with variable elastic modulus.

Figure 12. Cont.

Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 30
Buildings
Buildings 2024,
2024, 14,
14, x574
FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 30
17 of 28

(c) Deflection of Path C with variable elastic modulus.

(c) Deflection of Path C with variable elastic modulus.
Figure 12. The effect of elastic modulus on the transverse stress and deflection of Paths B and C.
Figure 12. The effect of elastic modulus on the transverse stress and deflection of Paths B and C.
Figure 12. The effect of elastic modulus on the transverse stress and deflection of Paths B and C.
As the stiffness of webs increases, the transverse stress of Path B and the deflection
As
AsCthe
the stiffness of webs
stiffnessWhen
of webs increases,
increases,the
thetransverse
transversestress
stressofofPath
PathB Band
and thethe deflection
deflection
of Path decrease. the transverse peak stress of Point Bm decreases, the peak de-of
of Path
Path C C decrease.
decrease. WhenWhenthe the transverse
transverse peakpeak stress
stress of of Point
Point B B m decreases,
decreases, the the
peak peak de-
deflection
flection of Point Cm decreases. It could also be observed thatm the rigidity of the panel seg-
flection of Point C
of Point Cm decreases. It could also be observed that the rigidity of the panel segmentseg-
m decreases. It could also be observed that the rigidity of the panel has
ment has little effect on the improvement of the overall stiffness, while it is more sensitive
ment has little
little effect on effect on the improvement
the improvement of the overall
of the overall stiffness,
stiffness, while itwhile it issensitive
is more more sensitive
to the
to the transverse stress and deflection, as shown in Figure 13.
to the transverse
transverse stress stress and deflection,
and deflection, as shown
as shown in Figure
in Figure 13. 13.

Figure13.
Figure Theeffect
13.The effectofofweb
webstiffness
stiffnesson
onthe
thetransverse
transversestress
stressand
anddeflection
deflectionofofPoints
PointsBBmmand
andCC
m.m
.
Figure 13. The effect of web stiffness on the transverse stress and deflection of Points Bm and Cm.
From the above parametric analysis, for cantilever concrete slabs of box girders with
From the above parametric analysis, for cantilever concrete slabs of box girders with
CSWs,From thebeabove
it can parametric
found that underanalysis,
the effectfor
ofcantilever concrete
self-weight, slabs
both the of box girders
corrugation heightwith
and
CSWs, it can be found that under the effect of self-weight, both the corrugation height and
CSWs, it can be found that under the effect of self-weight, both the corrugation height
the panel thickness have the greatest impact on transverse stress and deflection of bridge and
the panel thickness have the greatest impact on transverse stress and deflection of bridge
the panel
decks whichthickness
can behave the greatest
reduced greatlyimpact on transverse
by increasing stress and height
the corrugation deflection
andofutilising
bridge
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 30

Buildings 2024, 14, 574 18 of 28

decks which can be reduced greatly by increasing the corrugation height and utilising
thick
thickenough
enoughpanels
panelsofofCSWs.
CSWs. In In
addition,
addition, thethe
increase in panel
increase in panelwidth (inclined
width panel
(inclined or
panel
longitudinal panel) and elastic modulus (high-strength steel material) can
or longitudinal panel) and elastic modulus (high-strength steel material) can reduce the reduce the
transverse
transversedeflection
deflectionofofcantilever
cantileverslabs,
slabs,totoaacertain
certainextent.
extent.This
Thisisisbecause
becausethetheweight
weightofof
webs
webs has been reduced and the strength of webs has been improved. Moreover,utilising
has been reduced and the strength of webs has been improved. Moreover, utilising
webs
webswith
withlarger
largerdepths
depthscancanimprove
improvethethetransverse
transversestress
stressofofthe
thecantilever
cantileverroot
rootofofthe
thetop
top
concrete
concreteslabs
slabstotoaacertain
certainextent.
extent.

5.2.Transverse
5.2. TransverseStress
Stressand
andDeflection
Deflectionofofthe
theMid-Span
Mid-Span(Path
(PathA)
A)
Withthe
With theincrease
increaseinincorrugation
corrugationheight
heightofofthe
thebox
boxgirders
girderswith
withCSWs,
CSWs,thethetransverse
transverse
stressofofPath
stress PathAAincreases,
increases,while
while the
the corresponding
corresponding deflection
deflection decreases.
decreases. When
Whenthe thecorruga-
corru-
tion height
gation heightincreases
increasesfrom
from 130 mm
130 mm to to
230230
mm mm(with an an
(with increment of 20
increment of mm), the the
20 mm), transverse
trans-
peak stress of Point A
verse peak stress of Point increases from 0.04174 to 0.18728 MPa, accompanied
m Am increases from 0.04174 to 0.18728 MPa, accompanied by a by a growth
of 0.14554
growth Mpa, and
of 0.14554 the and
MPa, corresponding deflectiondeflection
the corresponding decreasesdecreases
from 0.327from
to 0.206 mm,
0.327 with a
to 0.206
dropwith
mm, of 0.121 mm,
a drop of as shown
0.121 mm,inasFigure
shown14. in Figure 14.

(a) Transverse stress of Path A with variable corrugation height.

(b) Transverse peak stress and deflection of mid-span with variable corrugation height.

Figure 14. Cont.

 Buildings 2024,
Buildings2024, 14,
14,xx574
2024,14, FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 30
Buildings FOR PEER REVIEW 20 19
ofof3028

(c)Deflection
(c) Deflectionof
ofPath
PathAAwith
withvariable
variablecorrugation
corrugationheight.
height.
Figure 14.
Figure14.
Figure The effect
Theeffect
14.The of
effectof corrugation
ofcorrugation height
corrugationheight on
heighton the
onthe transverse
thetransverse stress
transversestress and
stressand deflection
anddeflection of
deflectionof Path
ofPath A.
PathA.
A.

With
Withthe
With theincrease
increase inthe
increasein the web
theweb thickness,
webthickness,
thickness,thethe transverse
thetransverse stress
transversestress ofPath
stressof Path
PathAA increases,
Aincreases, while
increases,while
while
the
the corresponding
corresponding deflection
deflection decreases.
decreases. When
When the
the web
web thickness
thickness increases
increases
the corresponding deflection decreases. When the web thickness increases from 8 mm to from
from 8
8 mm
mm to
to
22
22 mm
mm (with
(with an
an increment
increment of 2 mm), the transverse peak stress of Point A
22 mm (with an increment of 2 mm), the transverse peak stress of Point Am increases from m
m increases
increases from
from
0.07806to
0.07806
0.07806 to0.21174
to 0.21174MPa,
0.21174 MPa,accompanied
MPa, accompaniedby
accompanied byaaagrowth
by growthof
growth of0.13368
of 0.13368MPa,
0.13368 Mpa,and
MPa, andthe
and thecorresponding
the corresponding
corresponding
deflection decreases
deflection decreases
deflection from
decreases from 0.299
from 0.299 to
0.299 to 0.1672
to 0.1672 mm,
0.1672 mm, with
mm, with a drop
with aa drop
drop ofof 0.1318
of 0.1318 mm,
0.1318 mm,
mm, as asshown
as shownin
shown in
in
Figure 15.
Figure
Figure 15.

(a)Transverse
(a) Transversestress
stressof
ofPath
PathAAwith
withvariable
variableweb
webthickness.
thickness.

Figure 15. Cont.

Buildings 2024,
Buildings 2024, 14,
14, 574
x FOR PEER REVIEW 21
20 of 30
of 28

(b) Transverse peak stress and deflection of mid-span with variable web thickness.

(c) Deflection of Path A with variable web thickness.

Figure 15. The effect of web thickness on the transverse stress and deflection of Path A.
Figure 15. The effect of web thickness on the transverse stress and deflection of Path A.

With the
With the increase
increase in
in the
the panel
panelsegment
segmentlength
lengthofofthetheCSWs,
CSWs,the transverse
the transverse stress of
stress
Path A increases, while the corresponding deflection decreases. When
of Path A increases, while the corresponding deflection decreases. When the length of the length of the
longitudinal
the panel
longitudinal and and
panel the projected length
the projected of theofinclined
length panelpanel
the inclined in relation to the to
in relation longi-
the
longitudinal axis (which are alike in this investigation) increase from 250 mm to 430(with
tudinal axis (which are alike in this investigation) increase from 250 mm to 430 mm mm
an increment
(with of 30 of
an increment mm), the transverse
30 mm), peak peak
the transverse stressstress
of Point Am tends
of Point to increase
Am tends from
to increase
0.08378
from to 0.11014
0.08378 MPa, MPa,
to 0.11014 accompanied by a growth
accompanied rate ofrate
by a growth 0.02636 MPa, and
of 0.02636 Mpa,the corre-
and the
sponding peak peak
corresponding deflection tendstends
deflection to decrease from from
to decrease the whole from from
the whole 0.291 0.291
to 0.269 mm, with
to 0.269 mm,
a drop
with of 0.022
a drop mm, mm,
of 0.022 as shown in Figure
as shown 16. 16.
in Figure
 Buildings2024,
Buildings 2024,14,
14,574
x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 30
21 of 28

(a) Transverse stress of Path A with variable panel length.

(b) Transverse peak stress and deflection of mid-span with variable panel length.

(c) Deflection of Path A with variable panel length.

Figure 16. The effect of panel length on the transverse stress and deflection of Path A.
Figure 16. The effect of panel length on the transverse stress and deflection of Path A.
Buildings
Buildings2024,
2024,14,
14,x574
FOR PEER REVIEW 2322ofof30
28

Asthe
As theheight
heightof
ofwebs
websincreases,
increases,the
thetransverse
transversestress
stressof
ofPath
PathAAdecreases,
decreases,while
whilethe
the
correspondingdeflection
corresponding deflectionincreases.
increases.When
Whenthe theweb
webheights
heightsincrease
increasefrom
from2.2
2.2mmto
to4.3
4.3mm
(withan
(with anincrement
incrementof of0.3
0.3m),
m),the
thetransverse
transversepeak
peakstress
stressof
ofPoint
PointAAmmdecreases
decreasesfrom
from0.11441
0.11441
to0.02035
to 0.02035MPa,
MPa,accompanied
accompaniedby byaadrop
dropofof0.09406
0.09406MPa,
Mpa,andandthe
thecorresponding
correspondingdeflection
deflection
increases from 0.28 to 0.3076 mm with a growth of 0.0276 mm, as shown in
increases from 0.28 to 0.3076 mm with a growth of 0.0276 mm, as shown in Figure 17. Figure 17.

(a) Transverse stress of Path A with variable web height.

(b) Transverse peak stress and deflection of mid-span with variable web height.

Figure 17. Cont.

 Buildings2024,
Buildings
Buildings 2024,14,
2024, 14,x574
14, xFOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 24 ofof30
24 30
23 of 28

(c)Deflection
(c) Deflectionof
ofPath
PathAAwith
withvariable
variableweb
webheight.
height.
Figure17.
Figure
Figure 17.The
17. Theeffect
The effectof
effect ofweb
of webheight
web heighton
height onthe
on thetransverse
the transversestress
transverse stressand
stress anddeflection
and deflectionof
deflection ofPath
of PathA.
Path A.
A.

Whenthe
When
When themodulus
the modulusof
modulus ofelasticity
of elasticityof
elasticity ofCSWs
of CSWsincreases,
CSWs increases,the
increases, thetransverse
the transversestress
transverse stressof
stress ofPath
of PathA
Path AA
increases, while the corresponding
increases, while the corresponding
increases, deflection
corresponding deflection decreases.
deflectiondecreases. When
decreases.When
Whenthe the modulus
themodulus
modulusofof of elasticity
elasticity of
elasticity
ofwebs
webs increases from 1.8 510
×10 5 MPa to 2.3 × 10 5 5 MPa(with
(withananincrement
incrementof of0.1
0.1× 10555MPa),
webs
of increases from
increases from × ×10
1.81.8 MPa
5 MPa 2.3×× 10
toto2.3 105 Mpa
MPa (with an increment of 0.1 ××10
10 MPa),
Mpa),
thetransverse
the
the transversepeak
transverse peakstress
peak stressof
stress ofPoint
of PointA
Point Ammmincreases
A increasesfromfrom0.0751
0.0751to 0.09864MPa,
to0.09864
0.09864 MPa,accompanied
Mpa, accompanied
accompanied
by
by a
a growth
growth of
of 0.02354
0.02354 MPa,
Mpa, and
and the
the corresponding
corresponding deflection
deflection
by a growth of 0.02354 MPa, and the corresponding deflection decreases from 0.303 decreases
decreases from
from 0.303to
0.303 to
to
0.275
0.275 mm,
mm, with
with a
a drop
drop of
of 0.028
0.028 mm,
mm, as
as shown
shown
0.275 mm, with a drop of 0.028 mm, as shown in Figure 18. in
in Figure
Figure 18.
18.

(a)Transverse
(a) Transversestress
stressof
ofPath
PathAAwith
withvariable
variableelastic
elasticmodulus.
modulus.

Figure 18. Cont.

Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 25 of 30
Buildings 2024, 14, 574 24 of 28

(b) Transverse peak stress and deflection of mid-span with variable elastic modulus.

(c) Deflection of Path A with variable elastic modulus.

Figure 18. The effect of elastic modulus on the transverse stress and deflection of Path A.
Figure 18. The effect of elastic modulus on the transverse stress and deflection of Path A.

As the
As the stiffness
stiffness of
of the
the webs
webs increases,
increases, the
the transverse
transverse stress
stress of
of Path
Path AA increases,
increases, while
while
the corresponding
the corresponding deflection
deflection decreases.
decreases.When
Whenthe thetransverse
transversepeak
peakstress of of
stress Point AmAin-
Point m
creases, the
increases, thecorresponding
correspondingpeak
peakdeflection
deflectiondecreases.
decreases.TheTherigidity
rigidity of
of the
the panel segment
panel segment
has little
has little effect
effect on
on the
the improvement
improvement of of the
the overall
overall stiffness,
stiffness, as
as shown
shown inin Figure
Figure 19.
19.
From the above parametric analysis, for mid-span concrete slabs of box girders with
CSWs, it can be found that under the effect of self-weight, the corrugation height and the
panel thickness have, to some extent, an impact on the transverse stress and deflection.
Additionally, webs with large depths have a certain effect on the transverse stress of top
concrete slabs.
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 26 of 30
Buildings 2024, 14, 574 25 of 28

Figure19.
Figure Theeffect
19.The effectofofweb
webstiffness
stiffnesson
onthe
thetransverse
transversestress
stressand
anddeflection
deflectionofofPoint
PointAA
mm. .
6. Stiffness Analysis of Box Girders with CSWs
From the above parametric analysis, for mid-span concrete slabs of box girders with
CSWs,The equivalent
it can be foundflexural stiffness
that under of the
the effect of CSWs in x-direction
self-weight, per unitheight
the corrugation lengthand
forthe
box
girder bridges, involving many corrugation waves with the dimensions shown in
panel thickness have, to some extent, an impact on the transverse stress and deflection. Figure 20,
can be calculated as:
Additionally, webs with large depths have a certain effect on the transverse stress of top
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW Ecsw hr 2 tcsw (3a + c) 27 of 30
concrete slabs. Dy = (1)
6l
6. Stiffness Analysis of Box Girders with CSWs
The equivalent flexural stiffness of the CSWs in x-direction per unit length for box
girder bridges, involving many corrugation waves with the dimensions shown in Figure
20, can be calculated as:

Figure20.
Figure 20.Equivalent
Equivalentflexural
flexuralstiffness
stiffnessof
ofCSWs
CSWsfor
forbox
boxgirders.
girders.

Ecsw hr 2 tcsw (3a + c)

Dy = (1)
6l
The above formula shows that the stiffness of the CSWs is closely related to Young’s
Buildings 2024, 14, 574 26 of 28

The above formula shows that the stiffness of the CSWs is closely related to Young’s
modulus Ecsw of steel material, corrugation height hr , web thickness tcsw and panel segments
lengths (longitudinal panel length a and inclined panel length c). Among them, l represents
the projected length of the total folded panel segments of single periodic corrugation in
relation to the longitudinal axis:
q
l = 2a + 2 c2 − hr 2 (2)

These factors are also fully reflected in the current analyses. However, it has been
found that the dimensions of the CSWs have a certain influence on the stiffness, and they
can be included in a new stiffness formula in the future to obtain better stiffness predictions
for the CSWs. Among them, the most influential parameters are the corrugation height
and the web thickness. Additionally, the tensile stress is particularly important for the
bridge deck due to the direct contact wheel load, almost included in the transverse stress
of box girders with CSWs. Thus, it affects the bearing capacity of concrete bridge deck
slabs. Although corrugation height and panel thickness have a great influence on both
the transverse stress and deflection of the top concrete flanges of box girders with CSWs
(including the cantilever and mid-span), the web height also has a certain effect on the
transverse stress. So, the effect of panel segments’ lengths and the modulus of elasticity on
the transverse deflection of cantilever slabs cannot be ignored.

7. Conclusions
In this paper, the characteristics and differences of box girders with CSWs were inter-
preted from the development history of the web forms of box girders, and the transverse
performance of box girders with three different webs (including box girders with ECWs,
box girders with FSWs and box girders with CSWs) were compared. Then the influence of
a series of web parameters on the transverse performance of box girders with CSWs was
analysed, and the factors that greatly influence the stiffness of box girders with CSWs (or
not be ignored) were obtained.
(1) Based on the gradual improvement and evolution of three typical box girders, the
equivalent analytical models between box girders with ECWs, box girders with FSWs
and box girders with CSWs were established using the principle of equivalent stiffness.
In this study, the effect of web stiffness on the transverse stress distribution and the
differences of web constraints on the bridge deck were given. The results of this work
can be used as a reference for analysing and designing similar projects.
(2) Because the web constraint degree and stiffness contribution to the top concrete flange
slabs of box girders with the three different typical webs are different, their effects
on the transverse stress distribution and deflection of the bridge deck under vehicle
load and dead weight were studied. Compared with FSWs and ECWs, CSWs can
greatly reduce the transverse deflection of the cantilever end of the bridge deck and
the transverse stress in the mid-span under the vehicle load. Under the action of
gravity, CSWs can effectively reduce transverse deflection and stress at the free ends
of cantilever slabs. Additionally, the transverse deflection and stress of the mid-span
of the bridge deck become relatively small using the CSWs.
(3) By considering the influence of the corrugation size, the transverse performance of
the cantilever and mid-span of the box girder bridge deck was analysed, which is
beneficial to the optimisation of the transverse design. By changing the corrugation
size, the transverse parametric analysis of box girders with CSWs was carried out.
Under the condition of gravity, it was found that the corrugation height and web
thickness can significantly reduce the transverse stress and deflection. Moreover,
increasing the panel width and elastic modulus can reduce the transverse deflection
of the cantilever end to a certain extent. Therefore, it is necessary to increase the panel
width if the corrugation height remains unchanged and to utilise high-strength steel
webs. The results also showed that using webs with larger depths can improve the
Buildings 2024, 14, 574 27 of 28

transverse stress of the cantilever root of the bridge deck to some extent, and has a
certain effect on the transverse stress of the mid-span of deck slabs.
(4) In the stiffness analysis of the box girders with CSWs, it was found that the web
height has some influence on stiffness, while the corrugation height and the web
thickness have a great influence on the stiffness. It was finally suggested that a new
stiffness formula should be developed for box girders with CSWs. At the same time,
the influence of panel segments and high-strength steel on the transverse deflection
of cantilevered plates should not be neglected.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.Z.; Methodology, F.X.; Software, F.X.; Validation, K.W.;
Formal analysis, Y.C.; Investigation, Y.C.; Resources, Y.C.; Data curation, F.X.; Writing—original draft,
F.X.; Writing—review & editing, M.Z.; Visualization, K.W.; Supervision, K.W.; Funding acquisition,
M.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This study is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant
number 52278209 and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities under Grant
number 2042023kf0171.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Nomenclature

ts the thickness of FSWs

tcsw the thickness of CSWs
tc the thickness of ECWs
Ecsw the Young’s elasticity moduli of CSWs
Ec the Young’s elasticity moduli of ECWs
Dy the equivalent flexural stiffness of CSWs in y-direction per unit length
hr corrugation height
a longitudinal panel length
c inclined panel length
l the projection length of total folded panel lengths of single periodic corrugation in relation
to the longitudinal axis

References
1. Deng, W.; Zhou, M.; Hassanein, M.F.; Zhang, J.; Liu, D.; An, L. Growth of prestressed concrete bridges with corrugated steel webs
in China. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Civ. Eng. 2018, 171, 77–84. [CrossRef]
2. Aggarwal, K.; Wu, S.; Papangelis, J. Finite element analysis of local shear buckling in corrugated web beams. Eng. Struct. 2018,
162, 37–50. [CrossRef]
3. Guo, T.; Sause, R. Analysis of local elastic shear buckling of trapezoidal corrugated steel webs. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2014, 102, 59–71.
[CrossRef]
4. Yi, J.; Gil, H.; Youm, K.; Lee, H. Interactive shear buckling behavior of trapezoidally corrugated steel webs. Eng. Struct. 2008, 30,
1659–1666. [CrossRef]
5. Easley, J.T. Buckling Formulas for Corrugated Metal Shear Diaphragms. J. Struct. Div. 1975, 101, 1403–1417. [CrossRef]
6. Hassanein, M.F.; Kharoob, O.F. Shear buckling behavior of tapered bridge girders with steel corrugated webs. Eng. Struct. 2014,
74, 157–169. [CrossRef]
7. Hassanein, M.F.; Elkawas, A.A.; El Hadidy, A.M.; Elchalakani, M. Shear analysis and design of high-strength steel corrugated
web girders for bridge design. Eng. Struct. 2017, 146, 18–33. [CrossRef]
8. Zhou, M.; Zhang, J.; Zhong, J.; Zhao, Y. Shear Stress Calculation and Distribution in Variable Cross Sections of Box Girders with
Corrugated Steel Webs. J. Struct. Eng. 2016, 142, 04016022. [CrossRef]
9. Elkawas, A.A.; Hassanein, M.F.; Elchalakani, M. Lateral-torsional buckling strength and behaviour of high-strength steel
corrugated web girders for bridge construction. Thin-Walled Struct. 2018, 122, 112–123. [CrossRef]
10. Guo, J.Q.; Zheng, Z. Analysis of transverse internal forces in box girder bridges with cantilevers. China Civ. Eng. J. 1986, 19, 59–72.
11. Zheng, H.; Liu, Z. Discussion on the reasonable structural forms of wide box girder. In Proceedings of the 15th National
Conference on Bridge Engineering, Dalian, China, 22 August 2013; Volume 25–29.
Buildings 2024, 14, 574 28 of 28

12. Zhou, M.; Zhang, J.; Yang, D.; Hassanein, M.F.; An, L. Transverse Analysis of a Prestressed Concrete Wide Box Girder with
Stiffened Ribs. J. Bridge Eng. 2017, 22, 04017046. [CrossRef]
13. Shushkewich, K. The Strutted Box Widening Method for Prestressed Concrete Segmental Bridges. PCI J. 2003, 48, 64–81. [CrossRef]
14. Shushkewich, K.W. Design of Prestressed Concrete Bridges to Accommodate Future Widening. PCI J. 2005, 50, 74–89. [CrossRef]
15. Shushkewich, K.W. Transverse Analysis of Strutted Box Girder Bridges. J. Bridge Eng. 2006, 11, 33–47. [CrossRef]
16. Collings, D.; Sagaseta, J. A review of arching and compressive membrane action in concrete bridges. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Bridge
Eng. 2016, 169, 271–284. [CrossRef]
17. Zaid, A.; Collings, D. Transverse assessment of a concrete box girder bridge. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Bridge Eng. 2017, 170, 14–27.
[CrossRef]
18. Choi, Y.C.; Oh, B.H. Transverse Modeling of Concrete Box-Girder Bridges for Prediction of Deck Slab Ultimate Load Capacity. J.
Bridge Eng. 2013, 18, 1373–1382. [CrossRef]
19. Kurian, B.; Menon, D. Correction of Errors in Simplified Transverse Bending Analysis of Concrete Box-Girder Bridges. J. Bridge
Eng. 2005, 10, 650–657. [CrossRef]
20. Kurian, B.; Menon, D. Transverse bending analysis of concrete box-girder bridges with flange overhangs. J. Struct. Eng. 2008, 35,
173–179.
21. Maguire, M.; Moen, C.D.; Roberts-Wollmann, C.; Cousins, T. Field Verification of Simplified Analysis Procedures for Segmental
Concrete Bridges. J. Struct. Eng. 2015, 141, D4014007. [CrossRef]
22. Recupero, A.; Granata, M.F.; Culotta, G.; Arici, M. Interaction between Longitudinal Shear and Transverse Bending in Prestressed
Concrete Box Girders. J. Bridge Eng. 2017, 22, 04016107. [CrossRef]
23. Peng, K.; Li, L.; Wang, W. Experimental study on effective distribution width of transverse load of composite box girder with
corrugated steel webs. J. China Foreign Highw. 2009, 29, 164–167.
24. Yuan, Z.; Li, L.; Liu, Q.; Hou, J. Analysis and experimental study of transverse internal force in composite box-girder with
corrugated steel webs. China J. Highw. Transp. 2015, 28, 73–81.
25. Zhao, P.; Ye, J. Analysis of transverse internal force in deck of box girder with corrugated steel webs under wheel load. J. Highw.
Transp. Res. Dev. 2013, 30, 44–48.
26. Zhao, P.; Rong, X.; Ye, J. Research on the lateral effective width of composite box-girders with corrugated steel webs. J. Highw.
Transp. Res. Dev. 2016, 43, 105–110.
27. Jia, H.; Dai, H.; Zhang, J. Research on transverse internal forces in box-girder bridges with corrugated steel webs. Eng. Mech.
2014, 31, 76–82.
28. Li, Y.; Yang, B.; Zhang, J. Transverse moment of PC single box-girder bridge with corrugated steel webs. J. Cent. South Univ. Sci.
Technol. 2016, 47, 2802–2809.
29. Sayed-Ahmed, E.Y. Behaviour of steel and (or) composite girders with corrugated steel webs. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2001, 28, 656–672.
[CrossRef]
30. MIDAS Civil. MIDAS Structural Analysis; MIDAS Information Technology Co., Ltd.: Seongnam, Republic of Korea, 2012.
31. ANSYS 12.1. User’s Manual Revision; ANSYS, Inc.: Canonsburg, PA, USA, 2012.
32. Zhou, M.; Liao, J.; An, L. Shear properties of tapered box girders with steel trapezoidally corrugated webs considering Resal
effect. ASCE J. Bridge Eng. 2020, 25, 04019126. [CrossRef]
33. Zhou, M.; An, L. Full-range shear behavior of a nonprismatic beam with trapezoidally corrugated steel webs: Experimental tests
and FE modeling. ASCE J. Struct. Eng. 2020, 146, 04020162. [CrossRef]
34. Zhou, M.; Fu, Y.; Su, L.; An, L. Shear performance analysis of a tapered beam with trapezoidally corrugated steel webs considering
the Resal effect. Eng. Struct. 2019, 196, 109295. [CrossRef]
35. Ministry of Communications of the People’s Republic of China. General Specifications for Design of Highway Bridges and Culverts;
JTG D60-2015; China Communication Press: Beijing, China, 2015.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.