www.seipub.org/scea
firasslmn@yahoo.com; 2abdmusawi@yahoo.com
*1
Abstract
This paper presents the effect of the bridges width on the
optimum design of steel bridges. I-section is considered for
main girders and diaphragms. The problem of optimum cost
of steel bridges is formulated as minimization of initial cost
(IC) which consists of substructure cost and superstructure
cost. The performance constraints in the forms of deflection,
stresses, local buckling etc, are based on the AASHTO
Specifications. The Sequential Unconstrained Minimization
Technique (SUMT) is used to make required optimizations
for costs. Orthotropic plate theory is introduced to analyse
the bridge system.
To demonstrate the effect of widths on the optimum design
of bridges, a steel I-girder bridge with various lengths and
widths were chosen. From the results of the numerical
investigation and figures, it may be positively stated that the
optimum design of steel I-girder bridges based on SUMT
technique in this study will lead to more reasonable,
economical design compared with conventional design.
The main results found from this study [For bridges less than
350 m length] are that (1) There is an insignificant effect of
the bridges width on the ratio of substructure cost/
superstructure cost. (2) The number of girders required for a
bridge to give optimum design ranges from two to four
girders.
Keywords
Optimum Design; Steel Bridges; I-girder
Introduction
Generally, the objective of structural design is to select
member sizes with the optimal proportioning of the
overall structural geometry so as to achieve minimum
initial cost design that meets the performance
objectives specified in the conventional design
specification. In the optimum design procedure, the
objective function of a number of variables, is to be
minimized, considering all the constraints. Samuel and
Muhammad, 1980; used four variables and found the
thicknesses of web and flange in the range of local
buckling constraints. Farkas, 1984; found that the
thickness of web and flange depended mainly on local
www.seipub.org/scea
Study of Civil Engineering and Architecture (SCEA) Volume 2 Issue 3, September 2013
1700 -2200
2800
3500
180
200
220
(2)
Width of bridge
(No.of girders 1)
(3)
78
(4)
Total Length
(No.of diaphragms No.of piers + 1)
(7)
(8)
Study of Civil Engineering and Architecture (SCEA) Volume 2 Issue 3, September 2013
[Clause1.7.22]
(9)
Deflection:
(ii) Stresses
span 1000
all (mm) =
800
(12)
www.seipub.org/scea
depth.
Diaphragm depth 1
>
Girder depth
3
t WG =
Fb >
Mx
Sx
where Fb = 0.60 Fy
(13)
(17)
23000
0.145* 0.6 * Fy
Depth of Girder
Coef 2
(19)
(20)
bf
tf
>
3250
for girders
fb
(14)
2) Side Constraints
(i)
(16)
79
www.seipub.org/scea
Study of Civil Engineering and Architecture (SCEA) Volume 2 Issue 3, September 2013
80
Bridge's Width ( m)
3000
W= 4
W= 7
W = 10
W = 13
2000
1000
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Bridge's Width ( m)
W= 4
W= 7
2000
W = 10
W = 13
1000
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Study of Civil Engineering and Architecture (SCEA) Volume 2 Issue 3, September 2013
6000
Bridge's Width ( m)
W= 4
W= 7
4000
10
W = 10
W = 13
3000
2000
1000
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
5000
W = 10
W= 4
W= 7
W = 10
W = 13
3
2
1
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
5
4
3
100
200
300
400
500
600
14
W= 4
12
W= 7
W = 10
10
W = 13
8
6
4
2
0
90
Bridge's Width ( m)
80
NUMBER OF DAIPHRAGMS
W = 13
Bridge's Width ( m)
W= 7
NUMBER OF PIERS
W= 4
Bridge's Width ( m)
www.seipub.org/scea
W= 4
70
W= 7
60
W = 10
200
300
400
500
600
W = 14
50
100
40
30
20
10
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
www.seipub.org/scea
Study of Civil Engineering and Architecture (SCEA) Volume 2 Issue 3, September 2013
(M)
Conclusion
Based on the formulations and discussions presented
in previous chapters, the following conclusions can be
drawn:
2
Bridge's Width ( m)
W= 4
W= 7
W = 10
W = 13
1
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
SPAN LENGTH
80
Bridge's Width ( m)
W= 4
W= 7
W = 10
W = 13
100
200
300
400
500
600
(M)
2
Bridge's Width ( m)
W= 4
W= 7
W = 13
30
40
50
60
70
7th edition, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, USA, 1997.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
W = 10
Officials,
1
80
82
60
40
AASHTO
Standard
Specifications,
14th
Study of Civil Engineering and Architecture (SCEA) Volume 2 Issue 3, September 2013
A.,
Ragsdell,
K.M.,
&
Reklaitis,
G.V.,
Department
of
Transportation,
Bridge
Design
www.seipub.org/scea
83