Concrete Additional Stress near Intermediate Support for

Composite Girder Bridges with Corrugated Steel Webs

Yu Zhang1; Yuqing Liu2; Sihao Wang3; Yiyan Chen4; Xiaohui He5; and Yun Zhang6

Abstract: This paper proposes an innovative method to calculate the normal stress of concrete slabs near the intermediate support for com-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 09/21/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

posite girder bridges with corrugated steel webs (CSWs). The shear stiffness of CSWs is lower than that of concrete webs, which will lead to
significant shear deformation. For composite girders near intermediate supports, the shear deformation of CSWs will be constrained by the
crossbeam, resulting in additional stresses in the top and bottom concrete slabs. The constrained effect of the shear deformation is not con-
sidered in most design codes, which will lead to unsafe designs. Therefore, analytical solutions of the concrete normal stress under different
boundary and load conditions were derived based on the elastic bending theory considering the shear deformation of the CSWs. Experimental
analysis and finite-element analysis (FEA) were carried out to further validate the analytical solutions. The results show that the proposed
analytical equations can be used to accurately predict the normal stress of concrete slabs. The additional stress exists in the concrete slabs
near the intermediate supports, and the plane-section assumption is not applicable in this area. The value of the additional stress decreases
to zero with the increase of the distance from the fixed end. The additional stress is in the same direction as the general bending stress at the
upper edge of the top concrete slab and the lower edge of the bottom concrete slab, which will increase the peak tensile and compressive stress
of the whole section. Finally, a practical simplified calculation method of the concrete normal stress near the intermediate supports is pro-
posed, and the calculation procedure is plotted. All the findings can be used for the design of composite girder bridges with CSWs.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001817. © 2021 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Composite bridges; Corrugated steel webs; Shear deformation; Additional stress; Simplified calculation method.

Introduction behaviors. It is found that the bending strength of CGCSWs is

Composite bridges with corrugated steel webs (CSWs) have been
widely built around the world since the construction of the Cognac
Bridge in France. The replacement of concrete webs by CSWs re-
sults in reduced dead weight, improved prestressing, and material
efficiency (He et al. 2012). Mechanical properties, such as shear
(Sause and Braxtan 2011; Hassanein and Kharoob 2013; Zhou
et al. 2017; Wang et al. 2021) and flexural behaviors (Elgaaly
et al. 1997; El-Metwally and Loov 2003; Elamary et al. 2017;
He et al. 2019), of the composite girder with corrugated steel
webs (CGCSWs) have also been widely investigated.
Elgaaly et al. (1997) carried out the bending tests of steel
I-girders with CSWs. The results show that the CSWs bear almost
all shear forces, while the bending capacity of the girder was only
determined by the yield strength of the steel flanges. El-Metwally
and Loov (2003) tested five CGCSWs to investigate their bending
1 axis of the whole section.
Master Student, Dept. of Bridge Engineering, Tongji Univ., Shanghai
200092, China. Email: 2501324345@qq.com
2
Professor, Dept. of Bridge Engineering, Tongji Univ., Shanghai
200092, China. Email: yql@tongji.edu.cn
3 with large rigidity are usually arranged at intermediate supports of
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Bridge Engineering, Tongji Univ., Shanghai
200092, China (corresponding author). Email: wangsihao@tongji.edu.cn
4
Professor, College of Civil Engineering, Fuzhou Univ., Fuzhou
350108, China. E-mail: 2780198103@qq.com
5
Professorate Senior Engineer, Shenzhen Municipal Design & Research
Institute Co., Ltd., Shenzhen 518029, China. Email: hexh@szmedi.com.cn
6
Professorate Senior Engineer, Guangxi Beitou Highway Construction
& Investment Co., Ltd., Nanning 530029, China. Email: zy3315@163.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 19, 2021; approved on
October 14, 2021; published online on December 20, 2021. Discussion pe-
riod open until May 20, 2022; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineering,
© ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702.
controlled by the concrete slabs, while the contribution of the
CSWs can be neglected. In addition, almost all previous studies
indicate that the axial stiffness of the CSWs is negligible, which
will not bear bending moment due to the so-called accordion ef-
fect (Oh et al. 2012). Therefore, when predicting the concrete
bending stress, only the contribution of the top and bottom con-
crete slabs is considered, and the strain distribution of the top
and bottom concrete slabs is consistent with the plane–section as-
sumption. The traditional calculation formula of the concrete
bending stress (σc,tr) based on the Eule–Bernoulli Beam theory
is expressed as
Myc
σ c,tr = (1)
Ic
where Ic = moment of inertia of the top and bottom concrete slabs,
and yc = distance between the calculated position and the neutral
However, the plane–section assumption may not be applicable
to predict the bending stress of concrete slabs for CGCSWs near
the intermediate support. As shown in Fig. 1, concrete crossbeams
continuous or rigid frame CGCSWs, and large bending moment
and shear force are usually generated in this area simultaneously.
Interaction effect between concrete slabs, CSWs, and the cross-
beam will lead to complex stress fields in local areas of top and bot-
tom concrete slabs.
Fig. 2(a) shows a composite girder with a crossbeam at one
end and the vertical shear force V loaded on the other end.
The shear deformation of the CSW is more significant compared
with the concrete web because of the lower shear stiffness. If the
constraint of the crossbeam is removed, as shown in Fig. 2(b),
the shear deformation angle (γ) of the CSW will be released.

© ASCE 04021112-1 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(3): 04021112

 Fig. 1. Layout of the composite girder bridge with corrugated steel webs. (Image by Sihao Wang.)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 09/21/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Fig. 2. Mechanism of the additional stress: (a) deformation with a
crossbeam; (b) deformation with a crossbeam; (c) constrained deforma-
tion; and (d) additional stress.
In fact, the shear deformation angle γ is constricted by the cross-
beam, and vertical tensile force appears between the top concrete
slab and the steel web while compressive force occurs between
the bottom concrete slab and the steel web [Fig. 2(c)]. The ver-
tical force will lead to additional bending moments and stresses
in both of the concrete slabs, as shown in Fig. 2(d). The addi-
tional bending moment is in the same direction as the integral
bending moment caused by the shear force (V ), which will in-
crease the stress of the upper edge of the top concrete slab or
the lower edge of the bottom concrete slab. According to the an-
alytical results in this paper, the maximum value of the addi-
tional stress of the cantilever girder is even greater than the
integral bending stress at the support section. As a result, the
value of the concrete stress calculated by the traditional formula
[Eq. (1)] is significantly smaller than the real stress at the inter-
mediate support, which will result in unsafe designs. Similarly, if
the additional tensile stress is not considered, the prestressing in
the hogging moment area will be insufficient, which may lead to
cracks in the top concrete slab.
However, it is not only the area near intermediate support that
has such problem. The areas near point load and central dia-
phragm where the shear force changes suddenly also have the
problem of additional stress in concrete flanges due to the inter-
action of local bending of flanges and shear deformation of
CSWs (Yamazaki et al. 1998; Chen et al. 2015b). Some scholars
have investigated this phenomenon. Combault (1988) firstly re-
ported the existence of additional concrete stress near the inter-
mediate support of CGCSWs. Yamazaki et al. (1998) derived
calculation equations of the bending moment of concrete slabs
near the intermediate supports of continuous CGCSWs, and
bending tests were also carried out to verify the proposed equa-
tions. Mizoguchi et al. (1999) conducted finite-element analysis
(FEA) to investigate the stress distribution near the support area
© ASCE 04021112-2
J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(3): 04021112
of CGCSWs, and found that the normal stress of concrete slabs
can be divided into the stress generated by classical beam bend-
ing theory and the stress produced by local additional bending
moment. Shiratani et al. (2003) proposed that additional stress
exists in the top and bottom concrete slabs near intermediate sup-
ports, so the reinforcement arrangement in concrete slabs near in-
termediate supports should be enhanced. In addition, the bending
behaviors near intermediate supports after concrete cracking
were further studied by tests and FEA. Kato and Nishimura
(2003) investigated the concrete additional stress in cable-stayed
bridges; it is found that the stress due to the moment of the con-
crete slabs was increased at the anchorage area of the main girder
and the main tower. Machimdamrong et al. (2003, 2004) pro-
posed a shear deformable beam bending theory and its finite-
element (FE) implementation for the analysis of CGCSWs.
The theory can predict the vertical deflection and shear forces
as well as the normal stress of concrete flanges for simply sup-
ported or continuous CGCSWs. Nie and Li (2011) also proposed
a beam theory to account for the shear deformation of CSWs in
which the bending behaviors of CGCSWs were divided into truss
action and bending action the between top and bottom flanges.
They found that the end constraint affects the deformation of
the beam slightly but has an influence on the local stress distri-
bution of concrete flanges. Chen et al. (2015a, b, 2017) proposed
an extended sandwich beam theory to consider the interaction
between shear deformation and local bending of concrete slabs
near the diaphragms or point load. The diagrams are considered
by imposing additional constraints against relative longitudinal
movement of the flanges. By taking the additional stress caused
by the constraint effect into account, the flexural ductility, de-
formability, and long-term behaviors of CGCSWs were investi-
gated. Feng et al. (2020) investigated the influence of a
diaphragm on the bending performance of CGCSWs and found
that the constraint of the diaphragm will lead to stress concentra-
tion in the concrete slabs. As diaphragm rigidity increases, the
stress concentration phenomenon is more significant.
The existence of concrete additional stress caused by the con-
straint of the shear deformation of CSWs has been proved in
most of these studies, and some scholars also propose extended
beam bending theories to predict the bending normal stress consid-
ering the shear deformation of CSWs. However, the equations of
the proposed beam theories are complicated for engineers to
solve, which makes it difficult to apply the theories in the design
work of a practical bridge. Thus, it is necessary to propose a sim-
plified calculation method for practical engineering application.
In addition, the analytical solutions in most publications were
only given for girders with simply supported boundary conditions,
but the practical bridges with CSWs are usually continuous or rigid
frame structures with large spans, as shown in Fig. 1, featuring
crossbeams with large rigidity above the intermediate supports.
The girders between two intermediate supports could be taken as
two-side fixed. Therefore, it is necessary to further investigate the
bending behaviors of CGCSWs near intermediate supports of con-
tinuous and rigid frame bridges.
J. Bridge Eng.
 This paper proposes a practical simplified calculation method of
the concrete normal stress near intermediate supports considering
the additional stress. Based on the elastic bending theory consider-
ing the shear deformation of the CSWs, the concrete normal stress
under different boundary and load conditions was first derived.
Then, the analytical solutions were validated through comparisons
with experimental and FEA results, and the distribution of the ad-
ditional stress along the vertical and longitudinal directions was an-
alyzed. Finally, the practical simplified calculation method of
concrete stress was proposed, and a calculation procedure was plot-
ted to explain the calculation process, which will provide references
for the bending design of CGCSWs.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 09/21/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Theoretical Analysis
Basic Assumptions
The elastic bending theory considering the shear deformation of
CSW was adopted to derive the expressions of the additional stress
under different boundary and load conditions. During the analysis,
the following fundamental assumptions were given:
(1) The rotation angles of the top and bottom concrete slabs are the
same, and are independent from that of the whole section.
(2) The contribution of the CSWs to the bending moment is not
considered.
(3) In-plane distortion and shear-lag effect are not considered.
(4) The rotation angle of the fixed end is zero.
(5) The concrete slabs and CSWs behave in a linear-elastic behavior.
(6) The shear slips between the concrete slabs and CSWs are not
considered.
Derivation Process
Fig. 3 shows the internal force distribution of the concrete slabs and
corrugated steel web. The symbols V, M, and N represent shear
force, bending moment, and axial force, respectively. The sub-
scripts t, b, and w denote the top concrete slab, bottom concrete
slab, and corrugated steel web, respectively. The physical
Fig. 3. Diagram of internal force and deformation of the composite girder.
© ASCE 04021112-3
J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(3): 04021112
equations, deformation compatibility equations, and internal force
equilibrium equations can be established as follows.
The internal forces in each component of the composite girder
can be expressed as
Nt = Ec At ht ϕ′ Nb = −Ec Ab hb ϕ′ Nw = 0 (2)
Mt = −Ec It ω′′ Mb = −Ec Ib ω′′ Mw = 0 (3)
Vt = −Ec It ω′′′ Vb = −Ec Ib ω′′′ Vw = Gw Aw γ (4)
where ht and hb = distances between the neutral axis of the whole
section and the centroids of the top and bottom concrete slabs, re-
spectively; Ec = Young’s modulus of concrete; At, Ab, and Aw =
cross-sectional area of the top concrete slab, bottom concrete
slab, and corrugated steel web, respectively; It, Ib = moments of
inertia of the top and bottom concrete slab about their centroidal
axes, respectively; ω and ω′ = vertical deflection and the rotation
angle of the girder, respectively; γ and θ = shear deformation and
the rotation angle of the corrugated steel web, respectively; and ϕ
= rotation angle of centroid connection between the top and bot-
tom slab.
The equivalent shear modulus Gw (Johnson et al. 1997) of the
corrugated steel web can be expressed as
aw + bw
Gw = αw G = G (5)
aw + cw
where G = shear modulus of the plate steel web; αw = shape coef-
ficient of the corrugated steel web; aw and cw = width of horizontal
and inclined panel, respectively; and bw = projected width of the
inclined panel. The profile details of the corrugated steel are
shown in Fig. 4.
Fig. 4. Profile of the corrugated steel web.
J. Bridge Eng.
 The relationships between the vertical deflection ω, the rotation ωIV = 24A* + ξ4 A5 cosh (ξx) + ξ4 A6 sinh (ξx) (17)
angle of the girder ω′ , the shear deformation of corrugated steel web
γ, the rotation angle of corrugated steel web θ, and the rotation By substituting Eqs. (15)–(17) into Eqs. (3) and (4), the internal
angle of centroid connection between top and bottom slabs ϕ can force Mt, Nt of the concrete slabs can be given as
be expressed as Mt = −Ec It ω′′
γ + θ = ω′ (6)
= −Ec It (2A3 + 6A4 x + 12A* x2 + A5 ξ2 cosh (ξx) + A6 ξ2 sinh (ξx))
hc ϕ = (et + eb )ω′ + hw θ (7) (18)
 
ϕ + (hw /hc )γ = ω′ 24Ic A*
(8) Nt = Ec At ht ϕ′ = Ec At ht 2A3 − + 6A4 x + 12A* x2
Ic2 ξ2
where et, eb = distances from the centroid to the lower edge (upper   
hw V ′
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 09/21/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

edge) of the top (bottom) concrete slab, respectively; hw = height of + 1−

Ic 2
ξ (A5 cosh (ξx) + A6 sinh (ξx)) −
the steel web; and hc = distance between the centroid of the top and Ic2 Gw Aw hc
bottom concrete slabs. (19)
The internal force equilibrium equations can be expressed as
If the internal forces of the concrete slabs are given, the concrete
V = Vt + Vb + Vw normal stress caused by the axial force Nt and the bending moment
Mt can be obtained. Then the analytical solution of the concrete
′ ′
= −Ec It ω′′ − Ec Ib ω′′ + Gw Aw γ normal stress σc can be calculated by combining the stress due to
′
the axial force Nt and the bending moment Mt, which is expressed
= −Ec Ic1 ω′′ + Gw Aw γ (9) as
Mt (yt − ht )
M = Mt + Mb − N t ht + N b hb σ cM = −
It
= −Ec It ω′′ − Ec Ib ω′′ − Ec At h2t ϕ′ − Ec Ab h2b ϕ′
Nt
σ cN =
′′ ′ At
= −Ec Ic1 ω − Ec Ic2 ϕ (10)
where σ c = σ cM + σ cN (20)
Ic1 = It + Ib Ic2 = At h2t + Ab h2b (11) where σc = concrete normal stress; σcM and σcN = concrete normal
stress caused by the axial force Nt and the bending moment Mt, re-
According to Eqs. (8)–(10), the differential equation about the spectively; and yt = distance between the calculated position and
vertical displacement ω can be expressed as the neutral axis of the whole section.
ξ2 V ′ V ′′ ′ Therefore, if the dimensions of the CGCSWs were deter-
ωVI − ξ2 ωIV − − =0 (12) mined, the analytical solution of the concrete normal stress σc
Ec Ic Ec Ic1
can be calculated by substituting the values of coefficients A1–
where A6 into Eq. (20) under corresponding boundary and load











conditions.
Gw Aw Ic hc
Ic = Ic1 + Ic2 ξ = (13)
Ec Ic1 Ic2 hw
Solutions of Coefficients A1–A6
If the girder is subjected to a uniformly distributed load q, V′ = CGCSWs are generally continuous or rigid frame structures, and
−q, V′′′ = 0, the differential Eq. (12) can be expressed as concrete crossbeams with large rigidity are usually arranged at
ξ2 q the intermediate supports. Thus, the boundary conditions of the
ωVI − ξ2 ωIV + =0 (14) girder in a typical span can be taken as fixed at both ends. The
Ec Ic
construction of this type of bridge usually adopts the cantilever
The solution of ω can be given as casting method. During the construction process, the girder on
one side of the crossbeam can be taken as a cantilever beam.
ω = A* x4 + A1 + A2 x + A3 x2 + A4 x3 + A5 cosh (ξx) Therefore, four cases including the two kinds of boundary condi-
tions mentioned under concentrated and distributed load were
+ A6 sinh (ξx) (15)
taken as examples.
where A*x 4 = particular solution of ω. If the girder is subjected to a Case 1: The girder fixed at both ends under a vertical concentrated
concentrated load, then A * = 0. If the girder is subjected to a uni- load P at the midspan
formly distributed load q, then A* = q/(24Ec Ic ). Case 2: The girder fixed at both ends under uniformly distributed
By substituting Eq. (8) into Eq. (9), load q
Case 3: The cantilever girder under a vertical concentrated load P at
Ic hw V ′ the free end
ϕ′ = ω′′ − ω ′′′′
− (16) Case 4: The cantilever girder under uniformly distributed load q
ξ2 Ic2 Gw Aw hc
The coefficients A1–A6 in the formula of concrete normal stress
According to Eq. (15), ω II, ω IV can be expressed as for CGCSWs can be determined by the following steps: First, the
boundary and load conditions are properly selected. Then, the boun-
ω′′ = 2A3 + 6A4 x + 12A* x2 + ξ2 A5 cosh (ξx) + ξ2 A6 sinh (ξx) dary conditions are substituted into Eqs. (2)–(4) and (15)–(17).

© ASCE 04021112-4 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(3): 04021112

 Table 1. Boundary conditions and expressions of coefficients A1–A6 Validation of the Proposed Analytical Solution
Boundary
Cases conditions Coefficient Coefficient results Experimental Program
 
Case ω(0) = 0 P(Ic − Ic1 ) 1 − cosh ξL
2 To verify the accuracy and efficiency of the proposed calculation
1 ω′ (0) = 0 A1 2Ec Ic Ic1 ξ3 sinh ξL
γ(0) = 0
2 method, the in-plane loading test of an I-shaped cantilever beam
ω′ (L/2) = 0 (Ic − Ic1 )P with corrugated steel web was carried out. The stress distribution
A2
ϕ(L/2) = 0 2Ec Ic Ic1 ξ2 of the concrete slabs near the fixed end was investigated (Wang
V (0) = −P/2 PL et al. 2019).
V(L/2) = P/2 A3 Fig. 5 shows the specimen dimensions and the arrangement of
16Ec Ic
the strain gauges. The height of the specimen is 4,150 mm. The
P
A4 − CSW and reinforcements were inserted into a reinforced concrete
12Ec Ic
(RC) basement, which is used to simulate the crossbeam in a con-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 09/21/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

 
P(Ic1 − Ic ) 1 − cosh ξL
2 tinuous or rigid frame bridge. The cantilever length of the compos-
A5
2Ec Ic Ic1 ξ3 sinh ξL
2 ite beam is 3,200 mm, and the length from the loading point to the
(Ic1 − Ic )P fixed end is 3,000 mm. The depth of the composite beam is
A6
2Ec Ic Ic1 ξ3 1,810 mm, in which the thickness and width of the concrete slabs
ω(0) = 0
are 300 and 560 mm, respectively. Three strain gauges with an in-
Case (Ic1 − Ic )qL cosh ξL
2
ω′ (0) = 0 A1 terval of 400 mm are arranged along the longitudinal direction of
2 2Ec Ic Ic1 ξ3 sinh ξL
γ(0) = 0ω′ (L/2) = 0
2
the specimen, and the first measuring point is 100 mm away
ϕ(L/2) = 0 A2
(Ic − Ic1 )qL from the fixed end. The unit wavelength of the corrugated steel
V (0) = −qL/2 2Ec Ic Ic1 ξ2 web is 400 mm, with a thickness of 6 mm, in which the width of
V(L/2) = qL/2 qL2 q(Ic1 − Ic ) both horizontal and inclined panel is 110 mm. The projected
A3 +
24Ec Ic 2Ec Ic Ic1 ξ2 width of the inclined panel and the depth of the corrugation are
qL 90 and 55 mm, respectively.
A4 − The test specimens adopt C50 high performance concrete that
12Ec Ic
has a nominal cubic compressive strength of 50 MPa. Three con-
(Ic − Ic1 )qL cosh ξL
A5 2 crete cubes with dimensions of 150 × 150 × 150 mm and three
2Ec Ic Ic1 ξ3 sinh ξL
2 prisms with a size of 150 × 150 × 300 mm were cast at the same
(Ic1 − Ic )qL time the composite beam was constructed, and they were cured
A6
2Ec Ic Ic1 ξ3 for 28 days to test material properties. The material properties of
Case ω(0) = 0 sin ξL (Ic1 − Ic )P the steel plates and reinforcements in the concrete slabs were also
3 ω′ (0) = 0 A1 cos ξL Ec Ic Ic1 ξ3 tested. The average concrete cubic strength is 59.9 MPa. Young’s
γ(0) = 0 moduli of the concrete (Ec), corrugated steel web (Es), and steel re-
−(Ic1 − Ic )P
M (L) = 0 A2 bars (Eb) are 33.6, 193.9, and 202.4 GPa, respectively.
Ec Ic Ic1 ξ2
N(L) = 0 Fig. 6 illustrates the test setup of the specimen. The basement
V (0) = P PL
was anchored to the strong floor of the laboratory by high-strength
A3
V (L) = P 2Ec Ic
bolts and two steel beams. In addition, two steel blocks at both
−P sides of the specimen were installed to prevent uplift and lateral
A4
6Ec Ic movement of the basement. The free end of the specimen was
sin ξL (Ic1 − Ic )P clamped to a horizontal hydraulic actuator with a maximum loading
A5 −
cos ξL Ec Ic Ic1 ξ3 capacity of 5,000 kN, which was responsible for applying the lat-
(Ic1 − Ic )P eral load to the test specimen.
A6
Ec Ic Ic1 ξ3
 
Case ω(0) = 0 q 1 1 (Ic1 − Ic )qLsin ξL
− + FE Model
4 ω′ (0) = 0 A1 Ec ξ cosξL Ic Ic1
4
Ec Ic Ic1 ξ3 cos ξL
γ(0) = 0 The general FEA software ANSYS16.0 was adopted to build the
−(Ic1 − Ic )qL
M (L) = 0 A2 FE model of the specimen and conduct parameter analysis. As
Ec Ic Ic1 ξ2
N(L) = 0 shown in Fig. 7, the main components of the specimen, including
V (0) = qL qL2 q(Ic − Ic1 ) cosh ξL
A3 − the concrete slabs, CSW, RC basement, and reinforcements, were
V (L) = 0 4Ec Ic 2Ec Ic Ic1 ξ2 sinh ξL
all simulated. The eight-node three-dimensional (3D) solid element
−qL (SOLID45) was adopted to simulate the concrete slabs and base-
A4
6Ec Ic ment. The corrugated steel web was simulated using a four-node
 
q 1 1 (Ic1 − Ic )qL sin ξL two-dimensional (2D) quadrilateral layered shell element
A5 − − −
Ec ξ cos ξL Ic Ic1
4
Ec Ic Ic1 ξ3 cos ξL (SHELL63), and the reinforcements were simulated by a two-node
(Ic1 − Ic )qL 2D truss element (LINK8). Different mesh sizes were also analyzed
A6 to ensure a reliable model and the global mesh was taken as 20 mm.
Ec Ic Ic1 ξ3
Finally, the connection between CSW and concrete top and bottom
slabs is regarded as rigid by coupling translations in the nodal di-
Finally, the results of coefficients A1–A6 can be calculated by rections of x, y, and z. The perfect bond condition between rein-
solving the governing equations. Table 1 summarizes the ex- forcements and the surrounding concrete were adopted without
pressions of coefficients A1–A6 corresponding to each boundary considering the relative slip. The translational degrees of freedom
condition. of all nodes at the bottom of basement were constrained to simulate

© ASCE 04021112-5 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(3): 04021112

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 09/21/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b) (c)

(d)

Fig. 5. Specimen dimensions (mm): (a) front view; (b) side view; (c) top view; and (d) the corrugated steel web and connection.

the fixed condition. All materials were taken as ideal linear elastic.
The lateral load was imposed at the free end of the girder.
Test and FEA Validations
Fig. 8(a) shows the concrete normal stress distribution of the test
specimen from FEA results. Obvious additional stress can be
found near the fixed end of the girder, which is larger than the
maximum stress σc,tr,max calculated by the traditional formula
Eq. (1). As shown in Fig. 8(a), a path is defined on the top surface
of the concrete slab. Figs. 8(b and c) illustrates the comparison of
the concrete normal stress along the path obtained from the test,
FE model, proposed calculation method, and Eq. (1), respectively.
The maximum values of the deviation between the test and analyt-
ical solution under different loads are 5.66% and 4.97%, respec-
tively. In addition, the analytical results and FEA curves are in

© ASCE 04021112-6 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(3): 04021112

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 09/21/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Test setup.

Fig. 7. Finite-element model.

good agreements. Therefore, the proposed calculation method can
accurately predict the concrete bending stress in the support area.
As shown in Figs. 8(b and c), the results from the test, FEA, and
proposed calculation formula are all larger than those of Eq. (1)
near the fixed end, indicating the existence of the additional stress.
When the applied load is 45 kN, the maximum value of the con-
crete stress calculated by FEA is 0.97 MPa, while it is calculated
to be 0.59 MPa by Eq. (1). The maximum value of the concrete
stress is increased by 64% compared with that calculated by
Eq. (1) due to the additional stress. All the results obtained from
different methods gradually coincide with each other as the dis-
tance from the fixed end increases, which shows that the value of
additional stress decreases to zero with the increase of the distance
from the fixed end. When the distance from the fixed end increases
to 1.05 m (0.6h), the value of the additional stress decreased to ap-
proximately 0 and Eq. (1) can also accurately predict the concrete
bending stress. When the applied load is 55 kN, a similar conclu-
sion can be obtained.
Additional Stress Distribution along Longitudinal
Direction
A comparison of these test results shows that the FE model can ac-
curately simulate the concrete stress distribution of CGCSWs.
Therefore, numerical analysis was used to further investigate the
validity of the proposed calculation method for other cases with dif-
ferent boundary and load conditions. The height–span ratio h/L of
CGCSWs mostly ranges from 1/30 to 1/10 for practical bridges
(Sayed-Ahmed 2001), while that of cantilever girders is greater
than 1/15 during construction. In the FE models, the height–span
ratio h/L for Case 1 and Case 2 was taken as 1/20, while that of
Case 3 and Case 4 is 1/5. The span L of the FE models with differ-
ent height–span ratios or loading conditions were all 20 m, and the
girder heights h are 1 and 4 m, respectively.
Fig. 9 shows the FEA results of the concrete normal stress on the
surfaces of concrete slabs near the fixed ends, the curves obtained
from proposed formulas, and Eq. (1) were also plotted for compar-
ison. It can be seen that the proposed analytical solutions corre-
spond well with the FEA results for different cases, indicating
that the proposed method is applicable for different boundary and
load conditions. For Case 1, the value of the concrete normal stress
at the fixed section is 3.9 MPa, while the calculated result by Eq. (1)
is 3.2 MPa, which is increased by 21.9% due to the additional
stress. At the distance of 0.8 m (0.8h) from the fixed end, the addi-
tional stress decreased to 0. For Case 2, the concrete stress at the
fixed section is increased by 44% due to the additional stress,
which indicates that the uniformly distributed load will lead to
more additional stress compared with a concentrated load. The dis-
tribution of additional stress for Case 3 and Case 4 is similar to that
of Case 1 and Case 2.

© ASCE 04021112-7 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(3): 04021112

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 09/21/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(b)

(a) (c)

Fig. 8. Comparisons between test, FEA, proposed formula, and Eq. (1): (a) concrete normal stress, FEA; (b) stresses along the path, F = 45 kN; and
(c) stresses along the path, F = 55 kN.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 9. Numerical verification of the analytical solution: (a) Case 1; (b) Case 2; (c) Case 3; and (d) Case 4.

© ASCE 04021112-8 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(3): 04021112

 Additional Stress Distribution along the Height
of Cross Section
This section investigates the distribution of additional stress along
the girder cross section. The concrete additional stress (σc,ad) is de-
fined as
σ c,ad = σ c − σ c,tr (21)
Fig. 10 illustrates the distribution of σc,ad along the height of
the top concrete slab calculated by Eq. (21) at different sections.
It can be seen that the additional stress is linearly distributed
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 09/21/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
along the height of the concrete slabs. The additional stresses at
the upper and bottom edge of the top concrete slab are tensile
stress and compressive stress, respectively. At the neutral axis
of the slab, the stress equals zero. The distribution of the addi-
tional stress in the bottom concrete slab is similar to that of the
top concrete slab. As the distance from the fixed end increases,
the additional stress gradually decreases because the constraint ef-
fect of the crossbeam to the shear deformation of the steel web is
alleviated.
Fig. 11 shows the composition of σc near the intermediate
support. The concrete normal stress near the intermediate support
is the superposition of the general bending stress and additional
stress. The additional stress is generated from the additional
bending moment in concrete slabs, which is in the same direction
as the general bending moment. Thus, the additional stress in-
creases the maximum stress of the whole section in the upper
edge of the top concrete slab and the lower edge of the bottom
concrete slab, which results in a more unfavorable stress condi-
tion. It should be noted that the plane–section assumption is no
longer applicable to the concrete strain distribution near the in-
termediate supports.
Fig. 10. Vertical distribution of the additional stress.
Fig. 11. Composition of the concrete normal stress near intermediate supports.
© ASCE
J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(3): 04021112
Practical Simplified Calculation Method
Simplified Formula of σc
The accuracy and efficiency of the proposed calculation method
has been validated by the test and FEA. However, the proposed an-
alytical solutions of σc are complicated, which is difficult to apply
in the engineering practice. Therefore, it is necessary to simplify the
proposed formulas and establish a practical simplified calculation
method to provide references for the design of composite girder
bridges with CSWs.
To simplify the calculation formulas, the concrete normal stress
(σc) near the intermediate support is defined as
σ c = λa σ c,tr (22)
where λa = coefficient reflecting the increasement of the concrete
normal stress due to additional moment.
Fig. 12 shows the distribution of λa along the longitudinal direc-
tion of the girder. It can be seen that λa decreases gradually from
λa,max at the fixed end to 1 at a certain distance, which corresponds
to the distribution length of additional stress. The value of λa,max
and the length of the region where λa > 1 are varied under different
boundary and load conditions.
The distribution length of additional stress (La) can be defined as
L a = αa h (23)
where h = height of the CGCSWs; and αa = coefficient that reflects
the relationship between La and h.
Fig. 13 shows the distribution curves and simplified model of
λa. It can be seen that λa decreases gradually from λa,max at the
fixed end to 1 at the distance of La. The distribution curve of λa
is similar to a parabola from the fixed end to La, which can be
taken as a straight line for simplification, while the value of λa ex-
ceeding the length La is equal to 1. Therefore, the distribution
model of λa was simplified as a bilinear curve, which consists of
two key points A and B. Point A is the maximum value of λa,
and Point B reflects the position where the additional stress is re-
duced to zero. The formula of λa can be expressed as
⎧
⎨ 1 − λa,max
x + λa,max (0 ≤ x ≤ αa h)
λa = αa h (24)
⎩
1 (x ≥ αa h)
Once the coefficients λa,max and αa are determined, the coeffi-
cient λa can be predicted by Eq. (24).
04021112-9 J. Bridge Eng.
 Table 2. Geometric parameters of typical bridges
Bridge name Country bc/m tc/m h/m L/m tc/h h/L
Qianshanhe Bridge China 15.7 1.2 9.5 160 0.126 1/16.80
Juancheng Yellow China 13.5 0.80 7 120 0.114 1/17.14
River Bridge
Fenghuajiang Bridge China 23.55 1.1 9.5 160 0.116 1/16.80
Aigawa Bridge Japan 10.65 1.1 11.5 170 0.096 1/14.78
Bungotsukumi Japan 10.65 0.9 7.0 119.3 0.128 1/17.03
Bridge
Hondani Bridge Japan 11.04 0.55 6.4 97.2 0.086 1/15.19
Cognac Bridge France 12.1 — 2.6 43 — 1/16.54
Altwipfergrund Germany 14.25 1.1 6 115 0.18 1/19.17
Bridge
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 09/21/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 12. Distribution of λa. Myt

σ c,tr,max = (29)
Ic
According to Eq. (22), the coefficient λa,max can be expressed as
σ c,max
λa,max = (30)
σ c,tr,max
For Case 1, by substituting the values of coefficients A1–A6
given in Table 1 into Eq. (28), σc,max can be given as
 
PLyt Ec P(Ic1 − Ic )(1 − cosh (ξL/2)) h t Ic
σ c,max = + yt − (31)
8Ic 2Ec Ic Ic1 ξ sinh (ξL/2) Ic2
Considering sinh (ξL/2) ≈ cosh (ξL/2) ≫ 1, then Eq. (31)
becomes
 
PLyt Ec P(Ic − Ic1 ) ht I c
σ c,max = + yt − (32)
8Ic 2Ec Ic Ic1 ξ Ic2
Fig. 13. Simplified model of coefficient λa. By substituting the general bending moment at the fixed end
caused by the concentrated load into Eq. (29), σc,tr,max can be ex-
Calculation of λa,max pressed as
The coefficient λa,max is the ratio of the actual concrete stress to that PLyt
σ c,tr,max = (33)
calculated by Eq. (1) at the fixed end, which means that the coor- 8Ic
dinate x = 0 in Eqs. (18)–(20).
By substituting Eqs. (32) and (33) into Eq. (30), the coefficient
By substituting x = 0 into Eqs. (18)–(20), Eqs. (18)–(20)
λa,max can be expressed as
become
 
σ c,max 8(Ic − Ic1 ) h t Ic
σ c,max = σ cM ,max + σ cN ,max λa,max = =1+ yt −
(25) σ c,tr,max LhIc1 ξ Ic2
 
4 h t Ic
=1+ Ic2 − (34)
Mt (yt − ht ) LIc1 ξ yt
σ cM ,max = − = Ec (yt − ht )(2A3 + ξ2 A5 ) (26)
It Similarly, the coefficient λa,max of Cases 2 to 4 can be obtained as
follows.
    Case 2: The girder fixed at both ends under a uniformly distributed
Nt 24Ic A* Ic 2 hw V ′ load q
σ cN ,max = = Ec ht 2A3 − + 1 − ξ A −
At Ic2 ξ2 Ic2
5
Gw Aw hc  
6 ht Ic 2Ic2 2ht Ic1 I 2 hc
(27) λa,max = 1 + Ic2 − − − + c (35)
LIc1 ξ yt ξL ξyt L ξyt LIc2
Considering that the maximum normal stress (σc,max) occurs at Case 3: The cantilever girder under a vertical concentrated load P at
the upper edge of the top concrete slab or the lower edge of the bot- the free end
tom concrete slab, yt is the distance between the edge and the neu-  
1 h t Ic
tral axis of the whole section. Thus, Eq. (25) can be expressed as λa,max = 1 + Ic2 − (36)
LIc1 ξ yt
 
h t Ic 24Ic Ec ht A* Ec ht hw V ′ Case 4: The cantilever girder under a uniformly distributed load q
σ c,max = 2Ec yt A3 + Ec ξ2 A5 yt − − −
Ic2 Ic2 ξ2 Gw Aw hc  
2 Ic2 ht Ic hc Ic
(28) λa,max = 1 + Ic2 − − + (37)
LIc1 ξ ξL yt hξL
The maximum stress σc,tr,max calculated by Eq. (1) can be The formula of coefficient λa,max in each case consists of two
given as parts: The first part is constant 1, which reflects the contribution

© ASCE 04021112-10 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(3): 04021112

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 09/21/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 14. Variation of αa with geometric coefficients: (a) effect of tc/h; (b) effect of bc; (c) effect of h/L; and (d) effect of L.

Table 3. Coefficients in Eq. (38)

Load cases k1 b1 k2 b2 k3 b3
Case 1 7.550 0.590 14.010 −0.820 0.05 0.25
Case 2 −1.490 0.900 9.020 −0.170 0.023 0.655
Case 3 3.210 0.300 12.750 −0.660 0.04 0.325
Case 4 −0.570 0.840 11.030 −0.430 0.035 0.475
Note: unit: m.

of the general bending moment. The second part is caused by the

additional stress, which is determined by the cross-section param-
eters, such as Ic, ht, and so on. The traditional formula Eq. (1) ne-
glects the second part, leading to a smaller estimation of the
concrete normal stress near the fixed end. As the distance from
the fixed end increases, the second part gradually reduces to 0
Fig. 15. Verification of the proposed formula of coefficient αa.
and the effect of the additional stress can be ignored.

and load conditions. Under concentrated load, the coefficient αa in-

Calculation of αa
From the analytical formulas of the concrete normal stress, it can be
found that the analytical solution of the coefficient αa is difficult to
be obtained. Therefore, parameter analysis results from the FE
models were used to fit the formula of αa. The geometric parame-
ters that may influence the coefficient αa include the girder span
(L), height-to-span ratio (h/L), slab thickness-to-height ratio
(tc/h), and width of concrete slab (bc). Table 2 gives the geometric
parameters of typical composite bridges with CSWs built around
the world. It can be seen that the value of tc/h is mostly between
0.09 and 0.13 and the value of h/L ranges between 1/20 and 1/15.
Fig. 14 shows the effects of geometric parameters tc/h, bc, h/L,
and L on coefficient αa for all cases. The results indicate that αa
changes linearly with the geometric parameters, and αa increases
linearly with the increase of tc/h and bc for all kinds of boundary
creases linearly as the parameter h/L increases. However, αa de-
creases linearly with the increases of h/L when the girder is
under uniformly distributed load. In addition, the girder span L
has slight influence on coefficient αa.
This analysis indicates that coefficient αa is mainly affected by
parameters tc/h, bc, and h/L, and αa is in linear proportion to these
parameters. Therefore, the general formula of αa can be expressed
as Eq. (38). The constants and coefficient in Eq. (38) can be fitted
using parameter analysis results based on practical bridge
dimensions. The height–span ratio h/L ranges from 0.05 to 0.15
with an increment of 0.02; the width of concrete bc is set to be 6,
10, 14, 18, 22, and 26 m; and the concrete thickness-to-height ratio
tc/h includes 0.1, 0.11, 0.12, and 0.13. Consequently, there are
in total 6 × 6 × 4 = 144 geometric combinations in the FE analyses.
The fitted coefficients in Eq. (38) are summarized in Table 3.

© ASCE 04021112-11 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(3): 04021112

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 09/21/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f )

(g) (h)

Fig. 16. Design curves of λa,max and αa: (a) Case 1: λa,max; (b) Case 1: αa; (c) Case 2: λa,max; (d) Case 2: αa; (e) Case 3: λa,max; (f) Case 3: αa; (g) Case
4: λa,max; and (h) Case 4: αa.

  
h tc The values of coefficient αa obtained from Eq. (38) are com-
αa = k1 + b1 k2 + b2 (k3 bc + b3 ) (38) pared with those from FEA, which is shown in Fig. 15. The results
L h
of Case 1 are taken as an example, the average ratio of αa from an-
alytical results to FEA one is 0.984, and the standard deviation is
where k1, k2, k3, b1, b2, and b3 = constants. 0.108. Good agreements of αa can be observed between analytical

© ASCE 04021112-12 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(3): 04021112


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 09/21/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 17. Proposed calculation process of σc.
and FEA results, which indicates that Eq. (38) can be used to pre-
dict αa with adequate accuracy.
Design References
To further simplify the calculation of concrete normal stress near
intermediate support in the design work, the design reference
charts for obtaining coefficients λa,max and αa directly were plot-
ted. As can be seen from Fig. 14 and Table 2, the coefficient αa
increases linearly with the increase of tc/h, and the value of tc/h is
mostly between 0.1 and 0.13; thus, the value of tc/h is taken as
0.13 for simplification and safety consideration. In addition,
the influence of L can be ignored when tc/h, bc, and h/L are de-
termined. Therefore, the design reference curves of coefficients
λa,max and αa are only related to h/L and bc. The results show
that parameter αa mainly ranges between 0.6 and 0.8 for all
cases when parameters h/L and bc are in the range of commonly
used bridge dimensions, as summarized in Table 2. Therefore,
for the design of CGCSWs near intermediate supports, the con-
crete normal stress can be calculated by combining Fig. 16 and
Eqs. (22) and (24).
Design Procedure
The existence of the additional stress and proposed simplified
calculation method has been verified by theoretical derivation,
testing, and FEA results. Therefore, it is necessary to take the
additional stress into consideration during designing of the com-
posite continuous/rigid frame girder bridges with CSWs. As de-
picted in Fig. 17, a design procedure was plotted to explain the
calculation process of the simplified method for engineering
application.
A composite girder with a two-side fixed boundary condition
and vertical concentrated load P at the midspan was taken as an
example. First, the classic Eule–Bernoulli beam theory [Eq. (1)]
is used to obtain the general bending stress σc,tr, and the
coefficients λa,max and αa are calculated using Eqs. (34) and
(38) or the given reference charts, respectively. Then, the
coefficient λa is calculated by substituting λa,max and αa into
Eq. (24). Finally, the concrete normal stress (σc) can be predicted
based on Eq. (22).
© ASCE
J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(3): 04021112
Conclusion
For composite girder bridges with corrugated steel webs, the con-
straints effect of the crossbeam has a great influence on the stress
of concrete slabs. Based on the elastic bending theory, tests, and
FEA results, the simplified calculation method of concrete normal
stress near intermediate supports of CGCSWs was proposed. Some
conclusions can be made as follows:
1. The analytical solution of concrete normal stress considering the
additional stress was derived based on the elastic bending
theory. The accuracy of the proposed formulas was validated
through comparisons with test and FEA results.
2. The value of the additional stress decreases to zero as the dis-
tance from the fixed end increases. The additional stress in the
upper edge of the concrete top slab or the bottom edge of the
concrete bottom slab is in the same direction as the stress caused
by the general bending moment, which will increase the maxi-
mum stress of the whole section.
3. The longitudinal strain distribution of the cross section for com-
posite girder bridges with CSWs near the intermediate supports
is not consistent with the plane–section assumption, and the tra-
ditional calculation method based on the Eule–Bernoulli beam
theory will lead to unsafe design.
4. A practical simplified calculation method of concrete normal
stress considering the additional stress was proposed to provide
references for the designs of CGCSWs near intermediate sup-
ports, and the calculation procedure of the proposed method
was plotted to explain the design process.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or codes that support the findings of this
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable
request, including the data in Figs. 8–10, 12, and 14–16 and the
APDL command of the FE model in Fig. 7.
Acknowledgments
The financial support from the Science and Technology Depart-
ment of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous (Grant No. AB110008)
and Science and Technology Bureau of Nanning, Guangxi Zhuang
Autonomous (Grant No. 20193130) is gratefully acknowledged by
the authors.
References
Chen, X. C., F. T. K. Au, Z. Z. Bai, Z. H. Li, and R. J. Jiang. 2015a.
“Flexural ductility of reinforced and prestressed concrete sections
with corrugated steel webs.” Comput. Concr. 16 (4): 625–642. https://
doi.org/10.12989/cac.2015.16.4.625.
Chen, X. C., F. T. K. Au, Z. Z. Bai, and Y. Zeng. 2015b. “An extended
sandwich beam theory for prestressed concrete bridges with corrugated
steel webs.” Int. Assoc. Bridge Struct. Eng. Conf. Elegance Struct 104:
270–271.
Chen, X. C., M. Pandey, Z. Z. Bai, and F. T. K. Au. 2017. “Long-term be-
havior of prestressed concrete bridges with corrugated steel webs.”
J. Bridge Eng. 22 (8): 04017040. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE
.1943-5592.0001074.
Combault, J. 1988. “The Maupre Viaduct near Charolles, France.” Proc.
AISC Eng. Conf. 12: 1–22.
Elamary, A., M. M. Ahmed, and A. M. Mohmoud. 2017. “Flexural
behaviour and capacity of reinforced concrete-steel composite beams
04021112-13 J. Bridge Eng.
 with corrugated web and top steel flange.” Eng. Struct. 135: 136–148.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.01.002.
Elgaaly, M., A. Seshadri, and R. W. Hamilton. 1997. “Bending strength of
steel beams with corrugated webs.” J. Struct. Eng. 123 (6): 772–782.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)123:6(772).
El-Metwally, A., and R. E. Loov. 2003. “Corrugated steel webs for pre-
stressed concrete girders.” Mater. Struct. 36 (2): 127–134. https://doi
.org/10.1007/BF02479526.
Feng, J., S. Lv, and J. Du. 2020. “A theory model of corrugated steel web
girder considering shear deformation of web and shear slip.” [In
Chinese.] J. Build. Struct. 41 (Suppl. 1): 355–363.
Hassanein, M. F., and O. F. Kharoob. 2013. “Behavior of bridge girders
with corrugated webs: (I) real boundary condition at the juncture of
the web and flanges.” Eng. Struct. 57: 554–564. https://doi.org/10
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 09/21/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
.1016/j.engstruct.2013.03.004.
He, J., Y. Liu, A. Chen, and T. Yoda. 2012. “Mechanical behavior and
analysis of composite bridges with corrugated steel webs:
State-of-the-art.” Int. J. Steel Struct. 12 (3): 321–338. https://doi.org
/10.1007/s13296-012-3003-9.
He, J., Y. Liu, S. Wang, H. Xin, H. Chen, and C. Ma. 2019.
“Experimental study on structural performance of prefabricated com-
posite box girder with corrugated webs and steel tube slab.”
J. Bridge Eng. 24 (6): 04019047. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE
.1943-5592.0001405.
Johnson, R. P., J. Cafolla, and C. Bernard. 1997. “Corrugated webs in plate
girders for bridges.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. – Struct. Build 122 (2): 157–
164. https://doi.org/10.1680/istbu.1997.29305.
Kato, H., and N. Nishimura. 2003. “Practical analysis of continuous girders
and cable stayed bridges with corrugated steel web.” [In Japanese.]
J. Jpn. Soc. Civ. Eng. 731 (I–63): 231–245. https://doi.org/10.2208
/jscej.2003.731_231.
Machimdamrong, C., E. Watanabe, and T. Utsunomiya. 2003.
“An extended elastic shear deformable beam theory and its applica-
tion to corrugated steel web girder.” J. Struct. Eng. JSCE 49A (1):
29–38.
Machimdamrong, C., E. Watanabe, and T. Ustunomiya. 2004. “Analysis of
corrugated steel web girders by an efficient beam bending theory.”
© ASCE 04021112-14
J. Bridge Eng., 2022, 27(3): 04021112
J. Struct. Mech. Earthquake Eng. JSCE 21 (2): 131s–142s. https://doi
.org/131s-142s.10.2208/jsceseee.21.131s.
Mizoguchi, K., K. Mizuka, T. Tanaka, and S. Hidaka. 1999. “Shear force
sharing ratio of PC girder Bridge with corrugated steel web and addi-
tional bending of concrete slabs.” [In Japanese.] Vol. 1 of Proc., 9th
Symp. Development in Prestressed Concrete, 59–62. Tokyo, Japan:
Japan Prestressed Concrete Institution.
Nie, J. G., and F. Li. 2011. “Theory model of corrugated steel web girder
considering web shear behavior.” [In Chinese.] China J. Highway
Transp. 24 (6): 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2011.553739.
Oh, J.-Y., D. H. Lee, and K. S. Kim. 2012. “Accordion effect of prestressed
steel beams with corrugated webs.” Thin-Walled Struct. 57: 49–61.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2012.04.005.
Sause, R., and T. N. Braxtan. 2011. “Shear strength of trapezoidal corru-
gated steel webs.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 67 (2): 223–236. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2010.08.004.
Sayed-Ahmed, E. Y. 2001. “Behaviour of steel and (or) composite girders
with corrugated steel webs.” Can. J. Civ. Eng. 28 (4): 656–672. https://
doi.org/10.1139/l01-027.
Shiratani, H., H. Ikeda, Y. Imai, and K. Koichi. 2003. “Flexural and shear
behavior of composite bridge girder with corrugated steel webs around
middle support.” [In Japanese.] J. Jpn. Soc. Civ. Eng. 724 (I-62): 49–67.
https://doi.org/10.2208/jscej.2003.724_49.
Wang, S., Y. Liu, J. He, H. Xin, and H. Yao. 2019. “Experimental study on
cyclic behavior of composite beam with corrugated steel web consider-
ing different shear-span ratio.” Eng. Struct. 180: 669–684. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.11.044.
Wang, S., Y. Zhang, T. Luo, and Y. Liu. 2021. “Elastic critical shear buckling
stress of large-scale corrugated steel web used in bridge girders.” Eng.
Struct. 244: 112757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112757.
Yamazaki, M., M. Uchida, and M. Mitsunari. 1998. “A proposal of design
method of concrete slabs considering shear deformation of corrugated
steel web.” [In Japanese.] Proc., 8th Symp. Development in Prestressed
Concrete, 25–30. Tokyo, Japan: Japan Prestressed Concrete Institution.
Zhou, M., D. Yang, J. Zhang, and L. An. 2017. “Stress analysis of linear
elastic non-prismatic beams with corrugated steel webs.” Thin-Walled
Struct. 119: 653–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2017.07.027.
J. Bridge Eng.