Design Optimization of Composite Steel Box

Girder in Flexure
Yasir I. Musa1 and Manuel A. Diaz, M.ASCE2

Abstract: Composite girders consisting of concrete deck on built-up girders are frequently used in bridge construction for their economic
advantages. The use of composite girders results in a very economical design. Additional savings can be obtained in design and material
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Riyan Febriyansyah on 02/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

costs for some members by automating design approaches based on optimization techniques. This paper describes the use of EXCEL
Solver to find the minimum weight for a composite trapezoidal box cross section for a two lane bridge. Design aid tables were generated
for structural steel Grades 250, 345, 485, and 690 MPa, and different spans varying from 3.0– 100 m. The search for the minimum cross
section used in this research satisfies the 17th Edition of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
Specifications—Load Factor Design method.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1084-0680共2007兲12:3共146兲
CE Database subject headings: Bridges, composite; Bridges, girder; Box girder; Composite materials; Optimization; Computer
software.

Introduction girder should nearly equal the distance center-to-center between

Box girders have several favorable characteristics that make their
use desirable for spans of about 35 m and up; some of these
characteristics are:
• Structural steel is employed at high efficiency, because a high
percentage can be placed in a wide flange where the material is
very effective in resisting bending;
• Corrosion resistance is higher than plate girders and rolled
beam bridges, because more than one-half of the steel surface
is inside the box and less steel, especially corners, is exposed
to corrosion;
• The box shape is more efficient in resisting torsion than I
shapes used for plate girders and rolled beams; and
• Box girders offer an attractive appearance.
Depending on its width, a bridge may be supported on one or
more box girders. Each girder may comprise one or more cells.
For economy in long span construction, the cells are made wide
and deep 共Heins 1978兲. For example, the width may be 12 times
or more the thickness of the concrete deck; however, a general
limit spacing of the girder webs is about 3.0 m with overhangs of
about 1.5 m. Consequently, thicker slabs are justified to take ad-
vantage of the economy accruing from wider girder cells. Spacing
between single cell box girders may be determined using the fol-
lowing rule: Width center-to-center of top steel flanges in each
1
Engineer in Training, Federal Highway Administration, Harrisburg,
PA 17101.
2
Associate Professor, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio,
TX 78249.
Note. Discussion open until January 1, 2008. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on September 12, 2005; approved on July 7, 2006. This
paper is part of the Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Con-
struction, Vol. 12, No. 3, August 1, 2007. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0680/
2007/3-146–152/$25.00.
adjacent top steel flanges of adjacent boxes.
Box girders may be simply supported or continuous. Since
they are primarily used on long spans, continuity is highly desir-
able for economy and increase stiffness. Using flanges with
higher yield strength than that of the web 共hybrid girders兲 is ad-
vantageous in the longer spans, because the web plates contribute
relatively little to the girder bending strength and the web shear
strength depends primarily on the depth/thickness ratio of the web
plates. A proper combination of all these options normally results
in an attractive economic design. To facilitate the decision of a
preliminary section, a spreadsheet has been developed to assist
the designer in selecting a beam size. The spreadsheet is based on
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials 共AASHTO兲 standard specifications and satisfies the de-
sign loads and design restrictions recommended.
Design Loads Considered in the Optimization
Dead Loads
Dead loads on bridges shall consist of the weight of the entire
structure, including the roadway, sidewalks, pipes, conduits, and
other public utility services. Special consideration shall be given
to the necessity for an additional wearing surface in those regions
where the use of chains on tires or studded snow tires can be
anticipated. Wearing surface could be integral with the slab or
separate 共Heins and Shyu 1981兲.
Live Loads
The live load used in the optimization process is the HS loading
consisting of a design truck, that resembles a tractor truck with
semitrailer, or the corresponding design lane load 共AASHTO
2002兲. It is important to understand that these loads are not de-
signed to model any one vehicle or combination of vehicles, but
rather the spectra of loads and their associated load effects.

146 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / AUGUST 2007

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2007, 12(3): 146-152

 Depending on the span length, the spreadsheet uses either the
design truck or the design lane. The HS-20 design truck consists
of a front axle that carries 35 kN, located 4.3 m behind the front
axle is a second axle carrying 145 kN, and positioned at a vari-
able distance ranging between 4.3 and 9.0 m is the rear trailer
axle carrying also 145 kN. The design truck is a model load that
resembles the typical semitrailer truck. The variable range means
that the spacing used should cause critical load effect. The long
spacing typically only controls where the front and the rear
portion of the truck may be positioned in adjacent structurally
continuous spans such as for continuous short span bridges
共Puckett 1997兲. For simple spans, one HS truck load governs the
design in spans less than 65 m. The design lane load consists of a
uniformly distributed load of 9.3 N / mm, applied in a 3,000 mm
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Riyan Febriyansyah on 02/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The web plate thickness of the plate girders with transverse
stiffeners, but without longitudinal stiffeners, shall meet the
requirement
D 3,030
艋 共6兲
tw 冑Fy
1. Flexural strength. In case of simply supported spans, the bot-
tom flange shall be considered fully effective in resisting
bending if its width does not exceed one-fifth the span
length. If the flange plate width exceeds one-fifth of the span,
only an amount equal to one-fifth of the span shall be con-
sidered effective. For braced noncompact sections, the maxi-
mum strength shall be computed as following:

design lane.
M u = FyS 共7兲
The traffic lanes shall be placed in such numbers and positions
on the roadway, and the loads shall be placed in such position 2. Shear capacity. The shear capacity for unstiffened webs is
within their individual traffic lanes, so as to produce the maxi- limited to the plastic or buckling shear force and is calculated
mum stress in the member under consideration 共AASHTO 2002兲. as follows:
The effects of the live load need to be amplified to consider the
dynamic nature of the loads. The impact 共dynamic兲 effect is Vu = CV p 共8兲
defined herein as an amplification factor applied to the static re-
The shear capacity for stiffened webs, and 共d0 / D兲 艋 3, shall be
sponse to achieve the dynamic load effect. This factor is defined
determined by including postbuckling resistance due to tension-
by
field action as follows:

I=
15,000
L + 38,000
艋 0.30 共1兲 再
Vu = V p C +
0.87共1 − C兲
冑1 + 共d0/D兲2 冎 共9兲

The load effects for most common bridges are approximated V p⫽plastic shear force and is determined as follows:
by using a “beam method” which is a simplification to the three-
V p = 0.58FyDtw 共10兲
dimensional 共3D兲 behavior of the bridge. To achieve this linear-
ization or a one-dimensional 共1D兲 design, the axle loads are The constant C is equal to the buckling shear stress divided by the
change to wheel loads by using distribution factors. The distribu- shear yield stress, and is determined as follows:
tion factor represents the percentage of the truck load that is
carried by a beam element. The fraction of wheel load for the box D 500冑k
For ⬍ 共11兲
girders is given by tw 冑Fy
0.85
WL = 0.1 + 1.7R + 共2兲 C = 1.0 共12兲
Nw

where 500冑k D 620冑k

For 艋 艋 共13兲
冑Fy tw 冑Fy
Nw
with 0.5 艋 R 艋 1.5 共3兲
500冑k
R=
N
C= 共14兲
共D/tw兲冑Fy
Nw = Wc/3,600 共reduced to nearest whole number兲 共4兲
D 620冑k
For ⬎ 共15兲
tw 冑Fy
Design Criteria Built-In in the Optimization
310,000k

冉冊
The optimization considers both material and instability failure C= 共16兲
D 2
共global and local兲. Local instability is usually dictated by either Fy
the buckling of compression flanges or the buckling of the web. tw
The recommended cross sections satisfy the limitation on unstiff- where k⫽buckling coefficient and is given by
ened compression flanges designed for a yield stress, Fy. This
limitation requires a width-to-thickness ratio equal to or less than k = 5 + 共5 ÷ 共d0/D兲2兲 共17兲
the value obtained from following the formula
The design shear Vw for a web shall be calculated using the fol-
lowing equation:
b 1,100
艋 共5兲
t 冑Fy Vw = V/cos ␪ 共18兲

PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / AUGUST 2007 / 147

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2007, 12(3): 146-152

 Fig. 2. Cross section properties
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Riyan Febriyansyah on 02/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2. Independent variables. The independent variables for this ex-

Fig. 1. Solver Parameters dialog box
ample are:
• Tributary width of deck slab per girder; bs = 3,980 mm;
where V⫽one-half of total vertical shear force on one box gir- • Compressive strength of concrete; f ⬘c = 30 MPa;
der; and ␪⫽angle of inclination of web plates to the vertical. • Specified steel minimum yield strength; Fy = 250, 345, 485,
The inclination of web plates to vertical shall not exceed 1 Hz to and 690 MPa;
4 V. • Girder span; L = 3 – 130 m;
• Ratio of modulus of elasticity; n = Es Ⲑ Ec , n = 10;
• Number of box girder; Nb = 2;
Optimization Using EXCEL Solver • Number of lanes; Nw = 24/ 12= 2→ use two lanes;
• Deck slab thickness; t = 205 mm;
The Solver option in EXCEL may be used to solve linear and • Wearing surface thickness; tc = 75 mm;
nonlinear optimization problems 共Larsen 2002兲. For nonlinear op- • Roadway width; Wc = 7,200 mm;
timization problems, EXCEL Solver uses the Newton and conju- • Railing weight 共T502兲; Wr = 15.5 N / mm;
gate methods to find the optimum solution for a given problem • Concrete unit weight; ␥c = 2.35⫻ 10−5 N / mm3;
共Vanderplaats 2001兲. Solver may be used to solve problems with • Wearing surface unit weight; ␥w = 2.21⫻ 10−5 N / mm3; and
up to 200 decision variables, 100 explicit constraints, and 400 • Steel unit weight; ␥s = 7.7⫻ 10−5 N / mm3.
simple constraints 共lower and upper bounds and/or integer restric- 3. Dependent variables. The dependent variables in this ex-
tions on the decision variables兲. To invoke Solver, select Tools ample are the variables that depend on the cross section of
from the main menu and then Solver. The Solver Parameters dia- the girder; this includes the section properties, moment, and
log box will appear as shown below in Fig. 1 shear from the girder self weight. A typical cross section is
1. Sample problem description. A simply supported trapezoidal shown in Fig. 2.
composite box girder bridge will be designed as an example 4. Section properties:
on the methodology employed. The deck carries two-traffic • Area of steel cross section
lanes. The slope of the web is 4 V on 1 H. The deck width A = 共b*t兲bf + 2共b*t兲tf + 2hwtw “objective function”
共out to out兲 is 7,960 mm and the roadway width is
共19兲
7,200 mm. The span length of the bridge varies from
3 – 100 m. The structural steel consists of 250, 345, 485, and • Distance from top of slab to center of gravity of steel
690 MPa. section

Ȳ s =
冉 冊
2共b*t兲tf ts +
ttf
2
冉
+ 2hwtw ts + ttf +
hw cos ␪
2
冊 冉
+ 共b*t兲bf + ts + ttf + hw cos ␪ +
tbf
2
冊 共20兲
2btftbf + 2hwtw + bbfttf

• Moment of inertia of steel section only: the moment of 1

inertia of each inclined web Ix may be computed from Is = 共bbftbf
2
+ 2␣twh3w + 2btfttf3兲 + 2twhw
12
s2
Ix = I = ␣I 共21兲 ⫻共Ȳ s − ts − ttf − hw cos ␪/2兲2 + 2btfttf共Ȳ s − ts − ttf/2兲2
2
s +1
+ bbfttf共Ȳ s − ts − ttf − hw cos ␪ − ttf/2兲2 共23兲
twh3w
I= 共22兲
12 • Section modulus at top steel 共steel only兲

148 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / AUGUST 2007

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2007, 12(3): 146-152

 Is Is
Sts = 共24兲 Sbs = 共25兲
Ȳ s − ts ts + ttf + hw cos ␪ + tbf − Ȳ s
• Section modulus at bottom steel 共steel only兲 • Distance from top of slab to composite section N.A using
n = 3n

tsbs共ts/2兲
+ 2btfttf共ts + ttf/2兲 + 2hwtw共ts + ttf + 共hw cos ␪兲/2兲 + bbfttf共ts + ttf + hw cos ␪ + tbf/2兲
3n
Ȳ c3n = 共26兲
共tsbs/3n兲 + 2ttfbtf + 2hwtw + b f t f
• Distance from top of slab to composite section N.A using n = n
tsbs共ts/2兲
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Riyan Febriyansyah on 02/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

+ 2btfttf共ts + ttf/2兲 + 2hwtw共ts + ttf + 共hw cos ␪兲/2兲 + bbfttf共ts + ttf + 共hw cos ␪兲 + tbf/2兲
n
Ȳ cn = 共27兲
共tsbs/n兲 + 2ttfbtf + 2hwtw + b f t f

• Moment of inertia of composite section 共n = 3n兲 Icn

Scts = 共33兲
1 Ȳ cn − ts
Ic3n = 共2btfttf3 + 2␣twh3w + bsts3/3n兲
12 • Section modulus at bottom steel for composite section
共n = n兲; and
+ 2btfttf共Ȳ c3n − ts − ttf/2兲 2

+ 2twhw共Ȳ c3n − ts − ttf − 共hw cos ␪兲/2兲2 Icn

Scbs = 共34兲
共ts + ttf + hw cos ␪ + tbf − Ȳ cn兲
+ bbftbf共Ȳ c3n − ts − ttf − hw cos ␪ − tbf/2兲 2

• Section modulus at top of concrete for composite section

t sb s
+ 共Ȳ c3n − ts/2兲2 共28兲 共n = n兲
3n
• Moment of inertia of composite section 共n = n兲 Icn
Sctc = 共35兲
Ȳ cn
1
Icn = 共2btfttf3 + 2␣twh3w + bsts3/n兲 + 2btfttf共Ȳ cn − ts − ttf/2兲2 5. Moments and shear forces. The following calculations illus-
12
trate the different steps to follow in order to calculate mo-
+ 2twhw共Ȳ cn − ts − ttf − 共hw cos ␪兲/2兲2 ments and shears for a span of 40 m.
6. Dead loads:
+ bbftbf共Ȳ cn − ts − ttf − hw cos ␪ − tbf/2兲2 • Slab weight: For a normal concrete and a 205 mm thick
t sb s slab, the weight is given by
+ 共Ȳ cn − ts/2兲2 共29兲

冉 冊
n
N
• Section modulus at top steel for composite section using wco = ␥co ⫻ thickness 共mm兲 ⫻ width 共mm兲
mm3
n = 3n
共36兲
Ic3n Concrete unit weight= ␥c = 2.35⫻ 10 N / mm ; thickness
−5 3
⬘ =
Scts 共30兲
Ȳ c3n − ts = 205 mm; width= 3,960 mm; and, thus
• Section modulus at bottom steel for composite section
wco = 2.35 ⫻ 10−5 ⫻ 205 ⫻ 3,960 = 20 N/mm 共37兲
共n = 3n兲
Moment due to slab weight
Ic3n
⬘ =
Scbs 共31兲
共ts + ttf + hw cos ␪ + tbf − Ȳ c3n兲 20 ⫻ 共40 ⫻ 1,000兲2
M1 = = 4 ⫻ 109 N/mm 共38兲
8
• Section modulus at top of concrete for composite section
共n = 3n兲 Shear due to slab weight

Ic3n 20 ⫻ 共40 ⫻ 1,000兲

S⬘ctc = 共32兲 V1 = = 4 ⫻ 105 N 共39兲
Ȳ c3n 2
• Section modulus at top steel for composite section using • Wearing surface weight: For a 75 mm thick bituminous
n=n wearing the weight is given by

PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / AUGUST 2007 / 149

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2007, 12(3): 146-152

 wc = ␥w 共N/mm3兲 ⫻ width 共mm兲 ⫻ thickness 共mm兲 325共40 − 4.3 + .73兲
VT = = 296 kN 共50兲
共40兲 40
Wearing surface unit weight= ␥w = 2.21⫻ 10−5 N / mm3; The maximum live load shear is
width= 3,600 mm; thickness= 75 mm; and thus
VLL = 1.113 ⫻ 296 = 329 kN 共51兲
wc = 2.21 ⫻ 10−5 ⫻ 3,600 ⫻ 75 = 6 N/mm 共41兲 Impact is taken as the following fraction of live load stress
Moment due to wearing surface weight 15,000 15,000
I= = = 0.19 ⬍ 0.30 共52兲
6 ⫻ 共40 ⫻ 1,000兲 2
L + 38,000 40,000 + 38,000
M2 = = 1.2 ⫻ 109 N/mm 共42兲
8 Hence, the maximum moment due to impact is
Shear due to wearing surface weight M I = 0.19 ⫻ 1.113 ⫻ 2,868 = 606.5 kN/m 共53兲
6 ⫻ 40 ⫻ 1,000 And the maximum shear due to impact is
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Riyan Febriyansyah on 02/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

V2 = = 1.2 ⫻ 105 N 共43兲

2
VI = 0.19 ⫻ 1.113 ⫻ 296 = 64.4 kN 共54兲
• Barrier weight: Using T502 type 关Texas Department of
8. Design loads
Transportation 共TXDOT兲兴
• Load on steel girder only 共noncomposite兲: Moment= 1.3
Wr = 15.5 N/mm 共moment from slab weight + moment from girder weight兲
Moment due to barrier weight
15.5 ⫻ 共40 ⫻ 1,000兲2
冉
Moment = 1.3 4 ⫻ 109 +
共␥sA兲L2
8
冊 共55兲
M3 = = 3.1 ⫻ 109 N/mm 共44兲
8 Shear= 1.3 共shear from slab weight + shear from girder
weight兲

冉 冊
Shear due to barrier weight
共␥sA兲L
15.5 ⫻ 共40 ⫻ 1,000兲 Shear = 1.3 4 ⫻ 105 + 共56兲
V3 = = 3.1 ⫻ 105 N 共45兲 2
2
• Load on long-term composite section 共n = 30兲
7. Live loads. The HS20-44 live load imposed may be a truck • Dead load rail and wearing surface
load or lane load. But for this span, truck loading governs.
The center of gravity of the three axles lies between the two Moment = 1.3共3.1 ⫻ 109 + 1.2 ⫻ 109兲 = 5.59 ⫻ 109 N/mm
heavier loads and is 1.46 m from the center load. Maximum 共57兲
moment occurs under the center axle load when its distance
from midspan is the same as the distance of the center of Shear = 1.3共3.1 ⫻ 105 + 1.2 ⫻ 105兲 = 5.59 ⫻ 105 N
gravity of the loads from midspan, or
共58兲
40
− 0.73 = 19.27 m • Load on composite section 共n = 10兲
2
Moment = 1.3关D + 1.67共L + I兲兴 共59兲
Then, the maximum moment is

MT =
325 冉 40
2
+ 0.73 冊 2

− 145 ⫻ 4.3 = 2,868 kN/m

Moment = 共5.2 + 5.59兲共109兲 + 1.3
共␥sA兲L2
8
40 + 1.3 ⫻ 1.67共3,192 + 606.5兲 ⫻ 106 共60兲
共46兲
Shear = 1.3关D + 1.67共L + I兲兴 共61兲
• The fraction of wheel load is given by
0.85 Nw 2 共␥sA兲L
WL = 0.1 + 1.7R + R= = =1 共47兲 Shear = 共5.2 + 5.59兲 ⫻ 105 + 1.3
Nw N 2 2
+ 1.3 ⫻ 1.67共329 + 64.4兲 ⫻ 106 共62兲

再 冎
Wl = 0.1 + 1.7 ⫻ 1 + 0.85/2 = 2.225 wheels = 1.113 axles
共48兲 Vu = V p C +
0.87共1 − C兲
共63兲
冑1 + 共d0/D兲2
M LL = 1.113 ⫻ 2,868 = 3,192 kN/m 共49兲
9. Solution using EXCEL Solver. The setup for the spreadsheet
Though this moment does not occur at midspan as do the is shown below:
maximum dead load moments, stresses due to M LL may be On the Solver Parameter window, the target cell is the area of
combined with those from M DL 共slab and girder兲 and M SDL the steel girder. As a first choice, guess cell contains: Top flange
共wearing surface and barriers兲 to produce the maximum thickness and width, bottom flange thickness and width, and web
stress. For the maximum shear with the truck load, the height and thickness. Constraints are shear stresses, top and bot-
outer 145 kN load should be placed at the support. Then the tom flange stresses, top flange buckling, and web height-to-
shear is given by thickness ratio.

150 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / AUGUST 2007

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2007, 12(3): 146-152

 Table 1. Sample Summary of Optimum Designs
Span hw tw bf tf bt tt Weight FY
共m兲 共mm兲 共mm兲 共mm兲 共mm兲 共mm兲 共mm兲 共N/mm兲 共MPa兲
3–10 300 10 300 12 100 6 0.83 250
15 435 10 560 12 100 6 1.28 690
20 680 10 865 12 100 6 1.93 690
25 975 10 985 12 100 6 2.64 690
30 1,150 10 1,260 12 325 6 3.24 690
35 1,150 10 1,825 12 280 8 3.78 690
40 1,380 12 1,875 6 355 8 4.44 690
45 1,380 12 1,850 8 385 10 5.35 690
50 1,610 14 1,825 8 400 8 6.14 690
55 1,610 14 1,825 8 330 12 7.14 690
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Riyan Febriyansyah on 02/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

60 1,845 16 2,000 9 400 10 8.01 690

65 2,075 18 1,910 12 460 10 9 690 Fig. 3. Variation of optimum area with span and steel grade
70 2,075 18 1,890 12 420 14 10 690
75 2,300 20 1,840 12 485 12 11.11 690
80 2,300 20 1,930 12 370 20 12.34 690
85 2,535 22 1,900 14 500 18 13.55 690
90 2,535 22 1,980 16 490 28 15 690 savings, however, are not in the same proportion, since high
95 2,880 25 1,950 18 485 18 16.2 690 strength steels are more expensive than normal strength steels.
100 2,880 25 1,980 18 500 25 17.58 690 The variation of the recommended optimum cross section area
with the span length is shown in Fig. 3. Notice that up to 10 m,
the weights are almost identical for all four steel strengths. After
After running EXCEL Solver for different spans 共from 10 m, the rate of increase of the required area is significantly
3 – 100 m兲, different web thickness 共10– 30 mm兲, and different higher for Fy = 250 MPa than for Fy = 690 MPa. Results for
steel grades 共250, 345, 485, 690 MPa兲, design tables were gener- Fy = 485 MPa and Fy = 690 MPa are almost the same up to 30 m.
ated for all these cases. Beyond 30 m sections with less weight are obtained using
Fy = 690 MPa.

Results
Conclusions
For each case, EXCEL Solver provides an answer report; for this
particular example, the total tensile stress is 250 MPa, which
EXCEL Solver was used for the optimum design of transversely
equals the yield stress of Grade 250 steel. The web and top flange
stiffened steel–concrete trapezoidal box girders. The design is
slenderness reached the maximum value of 191.6 and 32.4, re-
based on the standard specifications for highway bridges
spectively. EXCEL also provides a sensitivity report. This report
共AASHTO 2002兲 adopted by AASHTO. The load factor design
gives the final values for all the parameters’ cross section dimen-
sions and stresses. The bottom flange width is governed by the method was used for the design. Design tables have been gener-
minimum value specified by AASHTO Specifications Article ated for different steel grades 共250, 345, 485, and 690 MPa兲, and
10.51. span lengths varying from 3 – 100 m. The results can be summa-
Table 1 summarizes the recommended optimum cross section rized as follows:
dimensions. As expected, the efficiency of using high strength 1. Grade 250 steel can be used optimally for span lengths up to
steel is more significant for longer spans. Table 2 is a comparison 15 m;
of weights for Grade 250 and Grade 690 steels. For a span of 2. By using Grade 690 MPa steel for span lengths less than
40 m, the cross section area 共weight兲 needed for Fy = 250 MPa 20 m, we are not gaining any savings on the cross-sectional
can be reduced by more than 50% using Fy = 690 MPa. The cost area;
3. Web thickness of 10 mm can be used optimally for span
lengths up to 35 m; and
Table 2. Box Section Weight Comparison between Grade 250 and Grade 4. The savings on materials is significant when using Grade
690 Steel 690 MPa steel for spans longer than 30 m; however,
Weight for Weight for Saving in
since the cost of Grade 690 steel is higher than Grade 250
Span Grade 250 Grade 690 weight steel, the savings in materials are not the same as the cost
共m兲 共N / mm兲 共N / mm兲 共N/mm兲 savings.
The spreadsheet developed can be used to obtain design recom-
10 1.59 0.83 0.76
mendations for different deck widths, number of lanes, and
20 3.61 1.93 1.68
type of railings. However, the design results presented in this
30 5.79 3.24 2.55
paper are limited to the geometric configuration of the sample
40 8.26 4.44 3.82
problem described. The results should be treated as preliminary
50 11.38 6.14 5.24
design values, since fatigue and deflection checks have not been
60 19.25 8.01 11.24
included.

PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / AUGUST 2007 / 151

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2007, 12(3): 146-152

 Recommendations Nw ⫽ number of design lanes;
S ⫽ section modulus 共mm3兲;
These design tables are generated considering the moment, shear, Sh ⫽ slope of web with respect to horizontal axis;
and buckling criteria. Further study for fatigue and deflection t ⫽ flange plate thickness 共mm兲;
effects may be added. The load combination used in the design tw ⫽ web thickness 共mm兲;
was dead loads⫹HS20, another load combination for dead loads Vp ⫽ plastic shear strength;
⫹permit truck may be checked according to each state specifica- Vu ⫽ maximum shear strength;
tion for permit truck loads. Designers may need to consider the Wc ⫽ roadway width 共mm兲 between curbs; and
possibility of using hybrid girders with higher steel strength for WL ⫽ fraction of wheel load for box girders.
flanges and Grade 250 for the webs.
References

Notation American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Riyan Febriyansyah on 02/16/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

共AASHTO兲. 共2002兲. Standard specifications for highway bridges,

The following symbols are used in this paper: 17th Ed., Washington, D.C.
b ⫽ flange plate width between webs 共mm兲; Barker, R. M., and Puckett, J. A. 共1997兲. Design of highway bridges, 2nd
D ⫽ clear distance between flanges 共mm兲; Ed., John Wiley and Sons, New York.
d0 ⫽ distance between transverse stiffeners; Heins, C. P. 共1978兲. “Box girder bridge design.” AISC Eng. J., 15共4兲,
126–142.
Fy ⫽ yield strength of steel plate;
Heins, C. P., and Shyu, J. Y. 共1981兲. “Moment capacity of box girders.”
hw ⫽ depth of web in its plane; Institute for Physical Science and Technology Report, Univ. of Mary-
I ⫽ impact factor; land, College Park, Md.
Ix ⫽ moment of inertia of web with respect to normal Larsen, R. W. 共2002兲. Engineering with EXCEL, 2nd Ed., Prentice-Hall,
axis at middepth; Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
L ⫽ span of the bridge 共mm兲; Vanderplaats, G. N. 共2001兲. Numerical optimization techniques for engi-
M u ⫽ maximum bending strength; neering design, 3rd Ed., Vanderplaats Research and Development,
N ⫽ number of box girders; Inc., Colorado Springs, Colo.

152 / PRACTICE PERIODICAL ON STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION © ASCE / AUGUST 2007

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2007, 12(3): 146-152