See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/289686979

New Bridge Forms Composed of Modular Bridge Panels

Article in Journal of Bridge Engineering · January 2016

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000871

CITATIONS READS
9 212

4 authors:

Evan Gerbo Casey Casias

University of Notre Dame University of Colorado Boulder
8 PUBLICATIONS 53 CITATIONS 3 PUBLICATIONS 23 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ashley Thrall Theodore Zoli

University of Notre Dame Columbia University
55 PUBLICATIONS 901 CITATIONS 31 PUBLICATIONS 190 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ashley Thrall on 17 May 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Final Draft
Manuscript available at: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000871
Full citation: Gerbo, EJ, Casias, CM, Thrall, AP, and Zoli, TP (2016) "New Bridge Forms
Composed of Modular Bridge Panels." Journal of Bridge Engineering, 21(4), 04015084

1 New Bridge Forms Composed of Modular Bridge Panels

2 Evan J. Gerbo, S.M.ASCE1 ; Casey M. Casias, S.M.ASCE2 ;

Ashley P. Thrall, A.M.ASCE 3 ; Theodore P. Zoli, P.E., M.ASCE 4

3 ABSTRACT
4 Panelized bridge systems (e.g., Bailey, Mabey-Johnson, Acrow) are intended for girder-type

5 bridges and have been implemented for military, civilian, and disaster relief applications. Design
6 challenges, however, include material efficiency (span squared per number of panels), lateral brac-
7 ing, and achieving longer spans. These challenges are addressed by investigating the promise of
8 implementing panels in new configurations with longer spans and evaluating bracing strategies.

9 Three new forms (Pratt truss, bowstring truss, and network tied arch) composed of standard length
10 panels, with shapes determined based on geometric considerations and structural performance (re-
11 sistance to buckling), are presented. A parametric study evaluates lateral bracing strategies for
12 girder- and column-like configurations. The promise of the new forms, also incorporating the

13 developed bracing strategy, is demonstrated through finite element analyses. Following this in-
14 vestigation using a standard length panel, an optimization procedure for minimum self-weight and
15 maximum structural performance is developed to determine an optimized panel length and form.
16 This paper addresses the design challenges of efficiency, bracing, and span length for panelized
17 bridge systems and indicates future areas for improvement through optimization.

18 CE Database subject headings: Bridges; Modular structures; Prefabrication; Bracing

19 INTRODUCTION

20 Modular panelized bridge systems are appealing since they are comprised of prefabricated
1
Graduate Student, Kinetic Structures Laboratory, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Earth
Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556. E-mail: [email protected]
2
Graduate Student, Kinetic Structures Laboratory, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Earth
Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556. E-mail: [email protected]
3
Myron and Rosemary Noble Assistant Professor of Structural Engineering, Kinetic Structures Laboratory, De-
partment of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN
46556. (corresponding author) E-mail: [email protected]
4
National Bridge Chief Engineer, HNTB Corporation, New York, NY 10001. E-mail: [email protected]

1
21 components, can be rapidly erected in the field, and offer significant versatility. Standard, commer-
22 cially available systems - including the Bailey, Mabey-Johnson, and Acrow systems (Figure 1) -
23 consist of 3.05 m (10 ft) long panels and are typically arranged longitudinally to form a girder-type
24 bridge. Additional panels can be combined transversely and/or vertically to increase the width,

25 span, or load carrying capacity of the bridge. They have been widely used for military, civilian,
26 and disaster relief applications since World War II (Joiner, 2001; Russell and Thrall, 2013).
27 Design challenges for these systems which this paper aims to address include (1) efficient use
28 of material (quantified as span squared per number of panels), (2) lateral bracing, and (3) achieving
29 longer spans. To reach long spans [on the order of 61.0 m to 91.4 m (200 to 300 ft)], these systems

30 must take a double-triple (i.e., two panels transversely and three panels vertically for each plane of
31 the bridge; shown for the Bailey system in Figure 2) or triple-triple configuration (i.e., three panels
32 transversely, three panels vertically). These stacked configurations, however, result in material
33 being placed where it is not needed. More specifically, bending is resisted primarily by the upper

34 chord of the highest panel and the bottom chord of the lowest panel, while the remaining chords
35 approach the neutral axis and contribute little to bending capacity. Furthermore, stacking does not
36 vary with the moment demand along the length of the span. Similarly, the same shear capacity is
37 provided throughout the span despite varying demand. This results in material inefficiency as a

38 large number of panels are required to achieve desired spans. Overall, the span of the girder-type
39 configurations is limited by buckling of the upper chord of the highest panel. Lateral bracing is
40 required to mitigate this behavior. However, lateral bracing is expensive and time-consuming to
41 install. Geometric challenges also result in a stacked through-type bridge. When stacked three
42 high vertically in a through-type bridge, lateral bracing can be implemented on top of the highest

43 panel as shown in Figure 2. If stacked only one or two panels high, this bracing is not practical
44 as it would interfere with traffic flow. As demonstrated by the implementation of triple-triple
45 configurations, longer spans are desired. Due to the flexural behavior of the conventional girder-
46 type configuration, barriers to achieving longer spans include 1) material inefficiency that results

47 from stacking and 2) lateral bracing strategies which mitigate buckling of the upper chord.

2
48 To achieve longer spans with enhanced material efficiency, this paper investigates truss and
49 arch forms which primarily carry load axially as opposed to the primarily flexural behavior of the
50 conventional girder-type configuration. More specifically, this paper investigates the potential for
51 implementing panels in 1) Pratt truss, 2) bowstring truss, and 3) network tied arch forms. These

52 new forms, comprised of standard 3.05 m (10 ft) long panels (i.e., the length of each of the panels
53 in the Bailey, Mabey Johnson and Acrow systems, Figure 1), are investigated for a span exceeding
54 91.4 m (300 ft). The geometry of the forms are determined based on geometric considerations
55 and structural performance (quantified by a metric related to buckling resistance). Integral to in-
56 vestigating these forms is an evaluation of lateral bracing. Toward this end, a parametric study is

57 performed on a girder-like and a column-like configuration of panels which investigates the effect
58 of spacing between planes of panels and bracing members on buckling behavior. With a bracing
59 scheme determined, three-dimensional finite element analyses are performed to show the promise
60 of these forms. The material efficiency of these forms are compared to a conventional girder-type

61 configuration. Following this analysis using the standard 3.05 m (10 ft) long panels, the solution
62 space is widened to investigate alternative panel lengths. A multi-objective optimization procedure
63 for minimum self-weight and maximum structural performance is developed to determine an opti-
64 mized panel length and form for panelized bridge systems. This procedure is demonstrated for the

65 bowstring truss form. This paper ultimately addresses the design challenges of material efficiency,
66 lateral bracing, and achieving longer spans for panelized bridge systems and indicates future areas
67 for improvement of panelized systems through structural optimization.

68 BACKGROUND
69 The Bailey Bridge, designed following World War I, was the first panelized system that fea-

70 tured rapid erection through the implementation of pin connections between standard, prefabri-
71 cated panels and versatility in its stackability both transversely and vertically (Joiner, 2001). The
72 Bailey panel is comprised of top and bottom chords, vertical, and diagonal components that are
73 welded together. Panels are joined together longitudinally by pins connecting male and female

74 lugs at the top and bottom chords of adjacent panels. Floor beams, called transoms, are clipped

3
 75 to the lower chord of panels and support stringers and ultimately the deck (Department of the
76 Army, 1986). It can serve as a simple-span, through, girder-type bridge (Figure 3A), with addi-
77 tional capacity by adding panels transversely and/or vertically (Figure 3B) as well as by adding a
78 cable reinforcement set (Figure 3C) (Thierry, 1946; Department of the Army, 1986). They can be

79 adapted to be a two-lane, through-type (i.e., combining multiple single-lane, through-type spans,

80 Figure 3D) or a two-lane deck type (i.e., applying a deck on top of panels to facilitate wider road-
81 ways and overhangs, Figure 3E) (Department of the Army, 1986). When supported by barges,
82 a Bailey Bridge can also serve as a floating bridge (Figure 3F). The utility and versatility of the
83 Bailey Bridge has been demonstrated since World War II, when it was the principal tactical fixed

84 bridge of the Allied Forces and the British Army’s standard floating bridge (Thierry, 1946). The
85 U.S. Army currently uses the Standard US Army M2 panels as its standard panelized system (Pi-
86 oneer Bridges, a Division of Bailey Bridges, Inc., 2015). Following the expiration of the patent
87 on the Bailey system, Mabey Johnson Ltd. and Thos Storey (Engineers) Ltd./Acrow Group com-

88 panies made further advances in panelized bridging systems (SDR Engineering Consultants, Inc.,
89 2005).
90 Mabey Johnson Ltd. began manufacturing Bailey panels in 1967 and made significant im-
91 provements upon panel design. Mabey Johnson Ltd. developed the Mabey Super Bailey which

92 featured higher grade steel, changes to web members and weldments to improve shear and fatigue
93 performance, new swaybraces and transom clamps, steel decking, and all components were galva-
94 nized. Mabey Johnson Ltd. replaced the Mabey Super Bailey in 1983 with the Mabey Compact
95 Bridge System (also known as Compact 100) that included improvements in steel grade, channel
96 sections for vertical and diagonal members, and high strength steel transoms. In 1986, Mabey

97 Johnson Ltd. developed the Compact 200 (Figure 1B) which improved upon the Compact 100 by
98 increasing the panel depth to 2.13 m (7 ft) and used thicker web channel sections. These changes
99 led to an increase in strength of 80% compared to the Compact 100 and 110% compared to the
100 Bailey panel. Mabey Johnson Ltd. also developed the Mabey Universal Bridge, featuring longer

101 and deeper panels [4.50 m (14.75 ft) long by 2.35 m (7.75 ft) high], additional chord reinforcement,

4
102 and shear panels (Joiner, 2001).
103 The Acrow Panel Bridge, produced by Thos Storey (Engineers) Ltd. in 1971, improved upon
104 the original Bailey panel by utilizing higher grade steel, rectangular hollow sections, and moving
105 the transom position, resulting in an increase in shear capacity by 25% and in bending capacity by

106 25%. The panels and their components were either painted or galvanized and various decking op-
107 tions (in both wood and steel) were developed. Further improvements were made in 1987 with the
108 Acrow Panel 500 Series which utilized a stronger and variable length transom, different placement
109 of the transom (the same as that used in the Mabey Compact Bridge System), as well as stiffer
110 deck components (Joiner, 2001). To compete with the Compact 200 panel, the Acrow Panel 700

111 Series Bridge was developed which features deeper panels [2.29 m (7.5 ft), Figure 1C] (Joiner,
112 2001; Acrow Corporation of America, 2009).
113 While each of these systems has made significant improvements from the first Bailey panel-
114 ized bridges, design challenges for all of these panelized systems in their conventional girder-type

115 configurations include material efficiency, lateral bracing, and achieving longer spans.

116 PRECEDENT
117 Precedent exists for adapting panelized bridge systems to be oriented in vertical and diagonal
118 configurations - carrying axial and flexural loads - for alternative applications such as bridges and
119 buildings (Figure 4). These examples are prior relevant work which demonstrates the feasibility

120 of orienting panelized systems to carry loads differently than originally designed. The Pratt truss,
121 bowstring truss, and network tied arch presented in this paper implement similar orientations of
122 panels to carry both axial and flexural loads. This prior precedent is reviewed here.

123 Bridge Piers

124 Bridge piers can be constructed from panelized systems. For example, during World War II,

125 piers were built of Bailey panels to support greater deck clearance for conventional Bailey systems
126 (Figure 4A). Only minimal additional parts were required. In the field, piers up to 21.3 m (70 ft)
127 high were successfully constructed (Thierry, 1946).

5
128 Suspension Bridges

129 In much the same fashion, towers fabricated from panels can be built for a suspension bridge
130 and the deck can also be comprised of panels (Figure 4B) (Thierry, 1946; Hempsall and Digby-
131 Smith, 1952). While this suspension bridge adaptation is not as quick to erect as a conventional

132 system, the Bailey suspension bridge can support 356 kN (80 k) loads over spans between 61.0 and
133 122 m (200 and 400 ft). This was the only suspension form capable of carrying vehicular loads
134 during the World War II and was a great asset, particularly in mountainous regions (Thierry, 1946).

135 Movable Bridges

136 Panelized systems can be implemented as retractable, vetical lift, or bascule bridges (Figure
137 4C) (Thierry, 1946; Joiner, 2001). For a vertical lift, the deck (comprised of girder configuration

138 panels) is lifted between two towers (also comprised of panels) (Hempsall and Digby-Smith, 1952).
139 Recently, Acrow panels have been implemented in this fashion for the Quincy-Weymouth bridge
140 over the Massachusetts Fore River. This bridge features two 64.0 m (210 ft) spans that provide
141 a clearance of 65.5 m (215 ft) when lifted (Acrow Corporation of America, 2014). For bascule

142 bridges, the deck is also comprised of girder configuration panels. Acrow panels have been utilized
143 for 30.5 m (100 ft) span bascule bridges (Joiner, 2001).

144 Construction

145 Panelized systems have been utilized for a variety of construction practices, including form-
146 work supports and concrete-placing runways (Figure 4D) (Hempsall and Digby-Smith, 1952). Bai-

147 ley panels have been widely implemented as falsework for the construction of long-term bridges
148 (Anon., 1958; Harris, 1952). They have also been utilized to support the shuttering of large rein-
149 forced concrete structures, such as dams (Anon., 1954; Hempsall and Digby-Smith, 1952). More
150 recently, an Acrow Bridge was installed at “Ground Zero,” following the events of September 11,

151 2001 as a ramp to aid in the removal of debris and eventual reconstruction (SDR Engineering Con-
152 sultants, Inc., 2005). They have also served as shoring systems for up to 2400 kN (540 k) (Acrow
153 Bridge, 2015).

6
154 Buildings

155 Bailey panels can and have been used to construct buildings with clear spans of up to 45.7
156 m (150 ft) (Anon., 1954; Hempsall and Digby-Smith, 1952). These buildings are constructed by
157 connecting Bailey panels to form both the vertical walls and roof of the structure (Figure 4D)

158 (Anon., 1954).

159 NEW FORMS USING STANDARD PANELS

160 Toward achieving higher material efficiency and longer spans [approximately 91.4 m (300 ft)],
161 three new configurations for panelized bridge systems have been developed: 1) Pratt truss, 2) bow-
162 string truss, and 3) network tied arch. Each form was assumed to be comprised of 3.05 m (10 ft)
163 long panels, i.e., the length of the commercially available Bailey, Mabey Johnson, and Acrow sys-
164 tems (Figure 1). Developing these forms is a challenging task since members need to be composed

165 of a discrete number of panels. First, simplified geometric and structural analyses were performed
166 to select forms. These simplified analyses do not require knowledge of section properties, and
167 therefore the results of this section are applicable to any 3.05 m (10 ft) long panelized system. For
168 the Pratt and bowstring trusses, the maximum number of panels per member was restrained to 10

169 [i.e., 30.5 m (100 ft) long]. This was selected to limit the length of vertical members and therefore
170 require that the span to depth ratio exceed 3. Typically span to depth ratios between 5 and 8 are
171 economic for simply supported trusses (Kulicki and Reiner, 2011). This requirement therefore sets
172 a lower bound on this ratio to limit the solution space toward more economic forms. An upper

173 bound on span to depth results from the constraint that members be comprised of a discrete num-
174 ber of panels (e.g., for the Pratt truss, the vertical member must have a minimum length to satisfy
175 the pythagorean triple). For the Pratt truss this is a span to depth ratio of 10 and for the bowstring
176 truss this is 20.

177 Pratt Truss Bridge

178 The Pratt truss form was developed by evaluating combinations of a discrete number of panels
179 for each global truss member (i.e., upper chord, lower chord, vertical, and diagonal members).
180 The upper and lower chords were constrained to be horizontal. The possible combinations for

7
181 each triangle of the truss are primitive pythagorean triples and multiplications thereof. Since the
182 maximum number of panels per member was limited to 10, four combinations result: 3-4-5, 4-3-5,
183 6-8-10, and 8-6-10 (where identifiers are the number of panels horizontally-vertically-diagonally,
184 Figure 5).

185 Each of these forms was then evaluated for structural performance. Structural performance can
186 be measured in many ways. For new panelized forms developed in this research, global buckling
187 is a design limitation that is mitigated by lateral bracing. Lateral bracing, however, is expensive
188 and time-consuming to install. With the aim of minimizing the amount of lateral bracing required,
189 a structural performance metric related to susceptibility of member buckling was selected. This

190 metric is quantified as the maximum magnitude of the force (F ) times the member length (L)
191 squared for all compressive members to relate to the critical Euler buckling load. This metric was
192 evaluated using a simplified approach: forces in each member were calculated under a uniform unit
193 load [14.6 kN/m (1 k/ft) discretized as point loads at each upper chord joint] across the full length

194 of the span and across just half of the span (i.e., to simulate uneven live loads) using the method
195 of joints. This analysis assumes that forms are comprised of one dimensional truss members
196 with identical section properties (i.e., the analysis does not include the detail of the individual
197 components of a panel). This simplified approach enabled a quick method for evaluation. In

198 Figure 6, the structural performance metric (F L2 ) for the four forms is compared to the total
199 length of members in the truss - an indication of its total weight or amount of material required in
200 a panelized context. The highlighted form features the lowest F L2 and the lowest total length of
201 members showing a good balance between performance and low weight. This form is selected for
202 further study in this paper.

203 Bowstring Truss Bridge

204 Forms for the bowstring truss (Figure 7) were developed where the diagonal (D), vertical (Y ),
205 and lower chord (N) members were restrained to be a discrete number of panels. The upper
206 chord was assumed to span between lower chord ends (N1 ). Every permutation of integer number
207 (ranging from 1 to 10) of panels for members D, Y , and N in each bay that results in a span

8
208 exceeding 91.4 m (300 ft) was determined to develop a solution set of forms (1,999 forms in total).
209 Similarly to the Pratt truss, each form was evaluated in terms of the structural performance
210 metric (F L2 ) and total length of members (Figure 8). To calculate the structural performance
211 metric related to buckling susceptibility, the forms were evaluated under a uniform unit load [14.6

212 kN/m (1 k/ft) discretized as point loads at each upper chord joint] across the full length of the
213 span and across just half of the span using the method of joints (the same approach as for the Pratt
214 truss). In Figure 8 there are many forms along the Pareto-optimal set (i.e., solutions that are not
215 overshadowed by other solutions). Again, the goal is to balance the need for lateral bracing (related
216 to the structural performance metric F L2 ) and the weight or amount of material. For very low F L2

217 values, there is a family of solutions with different varying total length of members. A solution
218 among this family with the lowest total length of members and the second lowest value for F L2 is
219 highlighted and investigated further.

220 Network Tied Arch Bridge

221 A network tied arch form was investigated since the arch can be very light as bending is dis-

222 tributed through the hanger system (Tveit, 1987) and the tie eliminates the need to resolve the
223 arch’s horizontal thrust in substructure. The arch (Figure 9) was designed to be polygonal, with
224 each segment equal to one panel length. It is semi-circular to enable the relative angle between
225 each panel to remain constant, thereby facilitating uniform connection design throughout the arch.

226 A span to depth ratio of 5 is typical for arches. To enable the arch and the deck to be comprised of
227 an even number of panels, the span to depth ratio is slightly lower: 4.39. Hanger cables should be
228 inclined and intersect to minimize bending in the arch. Steep angles of cable inclination are more
229 effective in carrying load, but can relax under asymmetric loads resulting in bending in the arch.

230 Flat angles can cause higher bending in the arch (Tveit, 1987). To balances these effects and also
231 facilitate hanger attachment to each panel (at panel middle) along the arch and the girder, hanger
232 angles vary from 45.5 to 67.2 degrees.

9
233 Discussion

234 Three new forms have been developed through these simplified analyses, each offering differ-
235 ent advantages and disadvantages. The Pratt truss form features repeated member joint angles,
236 meaning that only a few member-to-member connection types would be needed throughout the

237 form. This would result in savings in terms of design, manufacturing of the connection details, and
238 erection. In comparison, the bowstring truss forms may have varying member connection angles,
239 but less overall panels could be used. As shown in Figure 7, there are many bowstring solutions
240 with less than 300 m (984 ft) of member lengths with comparable value for F L2 . The network
241 tied arch offers an alternative option which features repeated connection angles and a means of

242 distributing bending through its hanger system. Overall, these studies demonstrated a technique
243 for rapidly evaluating panelized bridge forms and developed three forms for further study.

244 PARAMETRIC EVALUATION OF LATERAL BRACING STRATEGIES

245 For each of the forms considered in this paper, global buckling is a design limitation that must

246 be mitigated by lateral bracing. To determine an effective strategy for lateral bracing, parametric
247 studies were performed to evaluate the effect of (1) transverse spacing between panels and (2)
248 stiffness of lateral struts connecting panels through moment-resisting connections [quantified by
249 a multiplier of the moment of inertia of the panel chord which was taken as the base property for
250 this member (I factor, hereafter)] on the behavior of panels aligned in girder-like and column-like

251 configurations under horizontal and vertical loads (separately). These configurations were chosen
252 to explore the efficacy of the bracing strategies in a bending-governed (i.e., where the lower chords
253 are primarily in compression and the upper chords are primarily in tension for a cantilever scenario)
254 and an axial load-governed environment (i.e., where all chords are in compression), respectively.

255 Members in the new forms developed for this research would be subject to both bending and
256 axial load, making an investigation of both loading environments necessary. Note that the girder-
257 like configuration is oriented as a cantilever as opposed to a simply supported beam. If load
258 were applied to nodes (i.e., locations where vertical or diagonal components meet the chords)

259 in a simply supported beam environment with the same length, the dominant behavior would be

10
260 shifted towards local buckling of the vertical or diagonal members in the panel. To focus instead
261 on the global buckling behavior, a cantilever configuration was selected. These studies focused on
262 (1) intra-plane strategies to connect closely spaced panel planes and (2) inter-plane strategies to
263 connect planes of panels across the deck. A linear (eigenvalue) buckling analysis was performed

264 in the software package SAP 2000 to evaluate the bracing strategies by solving the following
265 problem:

[Ks − λg(p)]Ψ = 0 (1)

266 where Ks is the stiffness matrix, λ is the eigenvalue matrix, g is the geometric stiffness for loads p,
267 and Ψ is the eigenvector matrix (Computers and Structures, Inc., 2015). This analysis is performed
268 using the cross-sectional properties of the Bailey panel since it was the first panelized system
269 developed. However, this analysis is focused on global buckling behavior and therefore the findings

270 should be similar for any of the panelized systems. This selection does not indicate any preference
271 by the authors for one system over another.
272 Note that the strategies investigated here could also enhance the performance of conventional
273 configurations for panelized systems.

274 Intra-plane Bracing Strategies

275 To investigate intra-plane bracing strategies, three-dimensional finite element models of a 15.2
276 m (50 ft) long girder-like configuration (Figure 10A) and a 9.14 m (30 ft) tall column-like config-
277 uration (Figure 11A) featuring two planes of panels were built. The girder is a cantilever with pin-
278 restraints (i.e., translation restrained in all directions) at four nodes. The column is pin-restrained at

279 four nodes at the bottom. At the top four nodes, translation is restrained in the horizontal direction
280 only. Vertical (emulating gravity loads) and horizontal (emulating wind loads) loads were applied
281 separately to each, with a total magnitude of 4.45 kN (1 k). For the girder-like configuration, the
282 total vertical load was applied via point loads on nodes [every 0.762 m (2.5 ft)] along the upper

283 chord of each panel plane. For the column-like configuration, the total vertical load was applied

11
284 via four point loads at the top of the column. For both configurations, the total horizontal load was
285 applied via point loads on one plane of panels at nodes at each strut connection [every 3.05 m (10
286 ft)].
287 In a girder-like configuration (Figure 10) under vertical load, gains in the buckling factor (i.e.,

288 factor by which the load would need to be multiplied by to induce buckling) begin to asymptote as
289 the spacing and I factor are increased at approximately a spacing of 0.914 m (3 ft) and an I factor of
290 2. Under horizontal loads, these gains are closer to linear. In a column-like configuration (Figure
291 11) under vertical load, the gains in the buckling factor begin to asymptote while more linear gains
292 are observed under horizontal load. In both configurations, the panel spacing has a larger impact

293 on performance under horizontal loads than the I factor, as expected. Under vertical loading, both
294 the spacing and I factor are important parameters for design.
295 To achieve a strategy that is effective in girder-like and column-like configurations under hori-
296 zontal and vertical loads, a spacing of 0.914 m (3 ft) and an I factor of 2 (i.e., two times the moment

297 of inertia of the panel chord) was selected. This is approximately where the girder buckling factor
298 under vertical loads asymptotes and close to where the column buckling factor under vertical loads
299 also asymptotes. While higher spacing and higher I factors could further improve performance,
300 this combination was selected as a balance between performance and the additional cost of stiffer

301 and longer struts.

302 Inter-plane Bracing Strategies

303 To investigate inter-plane bracing strategies, three-dimensional finite element models in girder-
304 like and column-like configurations that feature two sets of the intra-plane bracing systems con-
305 nected by struts were built (Figure 12 and Figure 13). A spacing of 4.57 m (15 ft) for inter-plane

306 bracing is used (and not varied) as this would be needed for one lane of vehicular traffic. The
307 intra-plane bracing scheme selected from the previous section is used. This study varies the I fac-
308 tor for the inter-plane strut only. The boundary conditions for these studies are the same as that in
309 the intra-plane studies. To make these studies comparable to the intra-plane studies, vertical and
310 horizontal loads were applied separately, with a total magnitude of 8.90 kN (2 k), i.e., twice that

12
311 of the intra-plane systems. The vertical loads were applied along the top chords of each plane of
312 panels at the same nodes as the intra-plane study. The horizontal loads were applied along just one
313 plane of panels at each strut connection.
314 In both girder-like and column-like configurations under vertical loads, the inter-plane strut

315 I factor has limited effect on buckling behavior. The intra-plane configurations are effectively
316 acting independently under this loading as the buckling factors are approximately the same as that
317 from the intra-plane studies. The inter-plane bracing becomes activated under horizontal loads as
318 expected.
319 Ultimately, an I factor for the inter-plane strut was selected to be the same as that for the intra-

320 plane bracing: 2. This contributes to the overall focus on modular construction and minimizing the
321 number of different parts.

322 ANALYSIS OF NEW FORMS

323 The previous sections developed new forms for bridges comprised of 3.05 m (10 ft) long panels
324 and evaluated bracing strategies for panels. To show the promise of these forms, implementing
325 also the selected bracing strategy, three-dimensional finite element analyses of the forms were

326 performed. Like the parametric bracing study, these analyses use the Bailey panel. However, this
327 research is focused on global buckling behavior and therefore the findings should be similar for
328 any of the panelized systems.

329 Modeling Assumptions and Loading

330 These forms (Figure 14) are analyzed using three-dimensional finite element models in the

331 software package SAP 2000 (Computers and Structures, Inc., 2015) under dead, distributed live
332 load as per American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Load
333 and Resistance Factor Design Specification (AASHTO, 2012) [9.40 kN/m (0.64 k/ft), across the
334 entire span and half of the span], and wind load [2.39 kPa (50 psf)]. A linear (eigenvalue) buckling

335 analysis (as discussed in the previous section) was performed for each form.
336 Each form is comprised of four planes of panels. Individual panel components are welded to-
337 gether to form a complete, prefabricated panel. Therefore, moment-resisting connections between

13
338 panel components are modeled. Experimental and numerical studies by King et al. (2013) indicate
339 that this is a reasonable modeling assumption. Panel-to-panel connections are achieved by pins at
340 the upper and lower chords. This transfers moment between panels and therefore panel-to-panel
341 connections are modeled as moment-resisting. All components are A242 steel with a yield strength

342 of 345 MPa (50 ksi) (Pioneer Bridges, a Division of Bailey Bridges, Inc., 2015). Panel planes are
343 connected by the intra- and inter-plane bracing schemes determined in the previous section. Live
344 load is applied to a single longitudinal member which is supported by inter-plane struts that carry
345 the load to the panel planes.
346 Longitudinal and vertical boundary conditions (i.e., pin and roller restraints) are indicated in

347 Figure 14. For the Pratt and bowstring trusses, a longitudinal pin restraint is applied to just one
348 plane of panels on one end; the rest of the longitudinal restraints are rollers (i.e., translation re-
349 strained in the vertical direction). For the network tied arch, all planes are restrained by longitu-
350 dinal pins at both ends. In reality, the tie would carry the horizontal reaction from the arch. The

351 design of the tie would occur in a final detailed design stage and so it is not modeled here for sim-
352 plicity. For all forms, translation in the transverse direction is restrained at the end of each plane
353 of panels.

354 Pratt Truss Bridge

355 With a geometry of the Pratt truss determined (Figure 6), a three-dimensional finite element

356 model was built (Figure 14A) and analyzed as discussed above. Each truss plane is comprised
357 of 117 panels, meaning a total of 468 panels are needed to carry one lane of vehicular traffic.
358 The upper and lower chord are braced by the intra- and inter-plane bracing schemes selected.
359 Intra-plane bracing is implemented in the verticals and diagonals, but no inter-plane bracing is

360 required for these members. With these bracing strategies, the system buckles in the upper chord
361 in localized regions toward the center of span (Figure 15A) with a buckling factor of 4.09 under
362 dead, live (dominant buckling mode corresponds to case when live load applied across entire span),
363 and wind loads.

14
364 Bowstring Truss Bridge

365 Using the form of the bowstring truss highlighted in Figure 8, a finite element model of this
366 form was built (Figure 14B) and analyzed. Each truss plane is comprised of 124 panels (a total
367 of 496 for the span). Like the Pratt truss, the upper and lower chords are braced by the intra-

368 and inter-plane bracing, with the verticals and diagonals requiring only intra-plane bracing. Under
369 dead, live (dominant buckling mode corresponds to case when live load applied across entire span),
370 and wind loads, the dominant buckling mode of the system (Figure 15B) is global with a factor of
371 6.03.

372 Network Tied Arch Bridge

373 A finite element model of the network arch from (Figure 14C) was analyzed. The arch includes

374 four planes of panels (34 panels each) connected by the intra- and inter-plane bracing strategies.
375 The girder is just two planes connected by inter-plane bracing. A total of 196 panels would be
376 needed for the entire span (including the girder). The global buckling analysis showed the stability
377 of the form. The critical buckling factor under dead, live (dominant buckling mode corresponds

378 to case when live load applied across entire span), and wind loads is 2.48 with a global buckling
379 mode observed (Figure 15C).

380 Discussion

381 These preliminary finite element analyses have shown the promise of each form and the de-
382 veloped bracing strategy. These forms can be compared to the conventional girder configuration

383 which requires 378 panels to span 64.0 m (210 ft) using the Bailey panelized system. The Pratt
384 truss [468 panels for a 96.0 m (315 ft) span], the bowstring truss [496 panels for a 104 m (340 ft)
385 span], and the network tied arch [196 panels for 91.4 m (300 ft) span] can achieve longer spans.
386 To compare these forms, a material efficiency metric is defined as the span length squared divided

387 by the number of panels. The numerator of this metric is selected since the moment demand for
388 a simply supported beam in a uniformly loaded environment would be proportional to the span
389 squared. The efficiency metric for the conventional bailey system is 117, for the Pratt truss is 212,
390 for the bowstring truss is 233, and for the network tied arch is 459. In summary, all three new forms

15
391 show significantly higher efficiency than the conventional system, with the network tied arch far
392 exceeding the rest.
393 This study focused on analyzed forms with an approximately 91.4 m (300 ft) span carrying one
394 vehicular lane of traffic. Longer spans and/or higher loads could be achieved by further improving

395 the lateral bracing strategy or by increasing the strength of the panels. For example, if the I factor
396 for the intra- and inter-plane struts of the bowstring truss form is increased from 2 to 5, the buckling
397 factor increases by a factor of 1.47. If the intra-plane spacing is increased from 0.914 m (3 ft) to
398 1.52 (5 ft), the buckling factor increases by a factor of 1.39. Future areas for research include also
399 investigating the impact of stronger panels on system behavior.

400 This analysis has focused on global behavior of the system through a linear (eigenvalue) buck-
401 ling analysis. To further develop these forms and the bracing strategy for field implementation,
402 nonlinear buckling analyses (incorporating geometric nonlinearities) should be considered to ac-
403 count for manufacturing imperfections and deformations induced by lateral loads. The strength of

404 individual components would need to be evaluated under factored loads as per AASHTO specifi-
405 cations (including also the moving design vehicle point loads). Detailed connection design, both
406 panel-to-panel along a member and at member junctures, would be required. Substructure design
407 would also be necessary. Cyclical loading and fatigue life would also be a critical area for future

408 investigation.

409 OPTIMIZATION OF PANEL LENGTH

410 The first part of this paper has focused on new bridge forms comprised of standard, commer-
411 cially available 3.05 m (10 ft) long panels. However, more forms could be developed if the solution
412 space is widened beyond this standard length panel using structural optimization. An optimization
413 procedure is developed and demonstrated for the bowstring truss form.

414 Optimization Problem

415 To determine optimized panel lengths and forms, a multi-objective optimization procedure
416 has been implemented for minimum self-weight (W , quantified as the total length of panels and
417 calculated as the length of the panel, lpanel , times the total number of panels, N) and maximum

16
418 structural performance (A, i.e., minimizing the structural performance metric related to buckling
419 resistance, quantified as the maximum value of F L2 , where F is the force in the member and L
420 is the member length, for all Nc number of compression members in the form) as defined in the
421 following problem formulation:

minimize W (z) = lpanel (z)N(z)

z

A(z) = max({Fi (z)Li (z)2 : i = 1, ..., Nc (z)})

(2)
such that c(z) ≤ 0

422 where z is a design variable that defines the form, including the panel length, the total number of

423 panels, and the geometric coordinates of the form. This design variable is selected from a database
424 that includes every permutation of form for a bowstring truss with a span exceeding 91.4 m (300
425 ft) with panel lengths ranging from 1.52 m to 6.20 m (5 ft to 20ft) in increments of 0.305 m (1
426 ft). Constraints (c) have been implemented in the generation of this database so that only feasible

427 forms are considered. For the the bowstring truss form, this means that the diagonal, vertical, and
428 lower chord members were constrained to be a discrete number of panels. Each member is also
429 constrained to be less than 30.5 m (100 ft) as considered in the previous studies. Note that duplicate
430 forms result in which the same form can be comprised of different panel lengths [e.g., a form using

431 a 3.05 m (10 ft) panel length could also be comprised of 1.52 m (5 ft) panels using twice the number
432 of panels]. In these cases, the database entries using the shorter panel length were eliminated in
433 favor of the form with the longer panel length (as reducing number of panel-to-panel connections
434 would improve the design). These constraints resulted in a database of 523,136 possible forms.
435 The database was ordered by increasing span to depth ratio. The force in members is determined

436 using the method of joints as discussed earlier in the paper under a uniformly distributed unit load
437 across the full span and across half of the span.
438 It is important to note in the development of this optimization procedure that minimum self-
439 weight does not necessarily indicate lowest cost since this metric does not include fabrication or

17
440 field labor costs. In this context, fabrication costs will relate to the design of individual panels
441 which is not considered in this study. Field labor costs relates to the number of global joints of
442 the structure (i.e., number of member-to-member connections) which is evaluated in the results
443 sub-section. Minimum self-weight is simply used as one metric of efficiency.

444 Optimization Algorithm

445 The heuristic search algorithm Simulated Annealing (SA) was implemented for this optimiza-
446 tion problem since it is a fast and effective iterative improvement algorithm which has been imple-
447 mented for a broad range of structural optimization problems [e.g., Shea and Smith (2006); Paya
448 et al. (2008); Ohsaki et al. (2009)], including modular [e.g., Alegria Mira et al. (2015); Quaglia

449 et al. (2014); Martinez-Martin and Thrall (2014); Russell et al. (2014)] or deploying structures
450 [e.g., Thrall et al. (2014, 2012)].
451 The SA algorithm, based on the process of controlled cooling of metals, begins by selecting
452 an initial random solution (in this research, a form from the database discussed above). A new
453 solution is then found by randomly perturbing the initial selection [i.e., moving up or down the

454 database of forms by a random magnitude]. If the value of the objective function for this new
455 solution is less than that of the first solution, it becomes the current solution for further iteration.
456 If not, a probability of keeping this second solution as the current solution is calculated: P =
457 e−∆F/T , where F is the value of the objective function and T is the temperature [a parameter

458 that is initially chosen to select between 20 and 40 percent of higher value solutions (Medina,
459 2001)]. This probability of continuing to iterate upon higher value solutions enables the algorithm
460 to avoid local minima. This iteration continues for a user-defined number of iterations called a
461 cooling cycle. After each cooling cycle, the temperature is reduced by a user-defined number. The

462 algorithm continues until there has been a user-defined number of cooling cycles in which there
463 has been no improvement in the solution (Kirkpatrick et al., 1983).
464 A multi-objective version of this algorithm (MOSA) was used in this research. In this case,
465 the algorithm iterates as mentioned above. However, new solutions are compared against a Pareto-
466 optimal set of solutions. If the new solution is Pareto-optimal, it becomes the current solution. If

18
467 it is not, there is a probability that the algorithm will continue to iterate on this solution, calculated
468 by:

Q
Y
P = e−[Fi (z1 )−Fi (z2 )]/Ti , (3)
i=1

469 Here, Q is the total number of objective functions (in this case 2), Fi is the value of an objective
470 function, z1 is the current solution, and z2 is the new solution. To explore the solution space fully,
471 the algorithm uses an intelligent return-to-base strategy which selects a different Pareto-optimal

472 solution upon which to iterate at the end of each cooling cycle. This strategy initially selects from
473 any of the As number of Pareto-optimal solutions, but increasingly explores the more isolated (or
474 extreme edges) of the Pareto-optimal set. Isolation of a solution is calculated as follows:

Q 
As X 2
X F1 (zk ) − Fi (zj )
I(zj ) = , (4)
k=1 i=1
Fimax − Fimin
k6=j

475 where Fmax and Fmin are the maximum and minimum values of each objective function, respec-
476 tively, across the Pareto-optimal set. The solutions are ordered by amount of isolation and the
477 algorithms selects from a smaller number of the more isolated solutions as it progresses (the num-

478 ber of solutions selected from is reduced by a factor of 0.9 at each cooling cycle). The algorithm
479 continues to iterate until there have been the user-defined number of cooling cycles in which no
480 new Pareto-optimal solutions were found (Suppapitnarm et al., 2000). With a final set of Pareto-
481 optimal solutions at convergence, an engineer can choose an optimized solution.

482 Optimization Results and Discussion

483 Figure 16 shows the Pareto-optimal set developed through multi-objective optimization. The
484 entire database was exhaustively evaluated to determine the global minimum for each objective
485 function which are indicated by square markers. In addition to showing the values of each objective
486 function, the plot indicates the length of the panel by the marker size and the number of global

487 joints of the structure by the color.

488 As expected the global minimum for the sum of the member lengths objective function is a

19
489 very shallow truss, while the global minimum for the structural performance metric (F L2 ) is a
490 very deep truss. Both found the smallest panel length: 1.52 m (5 ft). This is also expected as the
491 smaller panel lengths provide more flexibility in the global form.
492 The Pareto-optimal set spans between these extremes. Several highlighted forms show that as

493 the sum of the member lengths increases and the susceptibility to buckling decreases (i.e., along
494 the curve from right to left), the truss form evolves from a shallow triangle to a deeper truss with a
495 curved lower chord. The number of global joints also increases as expected. Most forms have the
496 smallest panel length [1.52 m (5 ft)], while a few have longer (indicated by larger marker sizes).
497 There is a family of solutions at the knee of the Pareto-optimal curve which feature low values for

498 both objective functions with also a low number of global joints. This family would be particularly
499 appealing from a design and constructability perspective. More specifically, a low number of
500 global joints would reduce cost and construction complexity. As noted earlier, these factors were
501 not explicitly included in the optimization procedure. Examining this family of solutions, which

502 already achieves low values for the objective functions, facilitates incorporating these factors into
503 design.

504 CONCLUSION
505 This paper addressed three design challenges for panelized bridge systems: (1) efficient use of
506 material, (2) lateral bracing, and (3) achieving longer spans.

507 Toward achieving material efficiency and longer spans, this paper developed forms for a Pratt
508 truss, a bowstring truss, and a network tied arch (Figure 14) with spans exceeding 91.4 m (300
509 ft). Each is comprised of standard 3.05 m (10 ft) long panels (i.e., the length of each of the panels
510 in the Bailey, Mabey Johnson and Acrow systems, Figure 1). The promise of these forms was

511 demonstrated through linear (eigenvalue) buckling analyses of these forms under dead, live, and
512 wind loads. A material efficiency metric was used to compare each of these forms to one another
513 and to a conventional configuration. Each new form was shown to be more efficient, with the net-
514 work tied arch far out-performing the rest. The network tied arch also features some construction

515 advantages. This includes repeated connection angles, meaning that only one member-to-member

20
516 connection type is needed for the entire system. With these advantages and the enhanced material
517 efficiency, the network tied arch can be considered the most promising form.
518 To also develop an effective lateral bracing strategy, parametric studies were performed on
519 girder-like and a column-like configurations of panels which investigate the effect of spacing be-

520 tween planes of panels and bracing members on buckling behavior. An effective bracing strategy
521 was developed based on these parametric studies and implemented for the three-dimensional anal-
522 yses discussed above. With further research, the lateral bracing strategies developed in this paper
523 could also be implemented for conventional configurations of panelized bridge systems.
524 Toward the field implementation of these new bridge forms, future areas of research include de-

525 tailed final analysis and design. These analyses should include analysis and design under strength,
526 extreme event, service, and fatigue limit states as prescribed per AASHTO. As noted earlier, non-
527 linear buckling analyses (incorporating geometric nonlinearities) should be considered. Further
528 investigation of the modeling assumptions implemented here should be performed, including the

529 panel-to-panel connections. Substructure design would also need to be performed.

530 To open the solution space beyond standard panelized systems, an optimization procedure was
531 developed to determine an optimized panel length and form for panelized bridge systems. This
532 optimization procedure was demonstrated for the bowstring truss form showing that a lower self-

533 weight and a lower susceptibility to buckling can be achieved by moving away from the standard
534 length panel. This opens a new opportunity for research in developing new panelized systems
535 toward further improvements.

536 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
537 This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant

538 No. CMMI-1351272. No funding was provided by any panelized bridge manufacturers. There
539 is no conflict of interest in this research. The authors would like to thank Skip Wilson of Pioneer
540 Bridges, a Division of Bailey Bridges, Inc. for providing cross-sectional properties for Bailey
541 panels.

21
542 REFERENCES

543 AASHTO (2012). AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications, customary U.S. units. American
544 Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.

545 Acrow Bridge (2015). “Acrow bridge. <http://www.acrow.com/> (May 26, 2015).

546 Acrow Corporation of America (2009). “Acrow 700XS panel bridge technical handbook. Acrow
547 Corporation, Parsippany, NJ, 1-67.

548 Acrow Corporation of America (2014). “Quincy-Weymouth, Massachusetts Fore River

549 Bridge. <http://acrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Fore-River-Quincy-MA.pdf> (August
550 8, 2014).

551 Alegria Mira, L., Thrall, A. P., and De Temmerman, N. (2015). “The universal scissor component:
552 Optimization of a reconfigurable component for deployable scissor structures.” Engineering Op-
553 timization In press.

554 Anon. (1954). “Bailey bridging in peacetime.” Engineering, 178(4620), 218–220.

555 Anon. (1958). “Bailey bridge units are versatile tool.” Better Roads, 28(5), 27–28.

556 Computers and Structures, Inc. (2015). “Sap 2000: Integrated software for structural analysis and
557 design. <http://www.csiamerica.com/products/sap2000> (February 5, 2015).

558 Department of the Army (1986). “Bailey bridge.” Field Manual No. 5-277, Headquaters, Depart-

559 ment of the Army, Washington, DC.

560 Harris, R. C. (1952). “Bailey bridge used as falsework for erection of bridge in B.C..” Roads and
561 Engineering Construction, 90(10), 107, 148–150.

562 Hempsall, E. and Digby-Smith, R. (1952). “Bailey bridging of wartime fame has versatile civilian

563 uses.” Roads and Engineering Construction, 90(7), 85–89,100.

22
564 Joiner, J. H. (2001). One More River to Cross: The Story of British Military Bridging. Pen and
565 Sword Books Ltd, South Yorkshire, UK.

566 King, W. S., Wu, S. M., and Duan, L. (2013). “Laboratory load tests and analysis of bailey bridge
567 segments.” Journal of Bridge Engineering, 18(10), 957–968.

568 Kirkpatrick, S., Gelatt, C. D., and Vecchi, M. P. (1983). “Optimization by simulated annealing.”
569 Science, 220(4598), 671–680.

570 Kulicki, J. M. and Reiner, B. M. (2011). “Truss bridges.” Structural Steel Designer’s Handbook,
571 R. Brockenbrough and F. Merritt, eds., McGraw Hill, New York.

572 Mabey (2015). “Temporary and permanent bridges. <http://www.mabey.com/products-

573 services/permanent-temporary-bridge/> (May 26, 2015).

574 Martinez-Martin, F. J. and Thrall, A. P. (2014). “Honeycomb core sandwich panels for origami-
575 inspired deployable shelters: Multi-objective optimization for minimum weight and maximum

576 energy efficiency.” Engineering Structures, 69, 158 – 167.

577 Medina, J. R. (2001). “Estimation of incident and reflected waves using simulated annealing.”
578 Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering, 127(4), 213–221.

579 Ohsaki, M., Tagawa, H., and Pan, P. (2009). “Shape optimization of reduced beam section under
580 cyclic loads.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 65(7), 1511–1519.

581 Paya, I., Yepes, V., Gonzalez-Vidosa, F., and Hospitaler, A. (2008). “Multi-objective optimization
582 of concrete frames by simulated annealing.” Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineer-
583 ing, 23(8), 596–610.

584 Pioneer Bridges, a Division of Bailey Bridges, Inc. (2015). “Bailey bridges.

585 <http://www.baileybridge.com/> (February 6, 2015).

23
586 Quaglia, C. P., Yu, N., Thrall, A. P., and Paolucci, S. (2014). “Balancing energy efficiency and
587 structural performance through multi-objective shape optimization: Casey study of a rapidly
588 deployable origami-inspred shelter.” Energy and Buildings, 82, 733–745.

589 Russell, B. R. and Thrall, A. P. (2013). “Portable and rapidly deployable bridges: Historical
590 perspective and recent technology developments.” Journal of Bridge Engineering, 18(10), 1074–

591 1085.

592 Russell, B. R., Thrall, A. P., Padula, J. A., and Fowler, J. E. (2014). “Reconceptualization and
593 optimization of a rapidly deployable floating causeway.” Journal of Bridge Engineering, 19(4),
594 04013013.

595 SDR Engineering Consultants, Inc. (2005). “Prefabricated steel bridge systems: Federal High-
596 way Administration (FHWA) solicitation no. DTFH61-03-R-00113 (September). FHWA,

597 <www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/prefab/psbsreport.pdf> (April 6, 2012).

598 Shea, K. and Smith, I. F. C. (2006). “Improving full-scale transmission tower design through
599 topology and shape optimization.” Journal of Structural Engineering, 132(5), 781–790.

600 Suppapitnarm, A., Seffen, K. A., Parks, G. T., and Clarkson, P. J. (2000). “Simulated annealing
601 algorithm for multi-objective optimization.” Engineering Optimization, 33(1), 59–85.

602 Thierry, J. A. (1946). “The Bailey bridge.” The Military Engineer, 38(245), 96–102.

603 Thrall, A. P., Adriaenssens, S., Paya-Zaforteza, I., and Zoli, T. P. (2012). “Linkage-based movable

604 bridges: Design methodology and three novel forms.” Engineering Structures, 37, 214–223.

605 Thrall, A. P., Zhu, M., Guest, J. K., Paya-Zaforteza, I., and Adriaenssens, S. (2014). “Structural
606 optimization of deploying structures composed of linkages.” Journal of Computing in Civil En-
607 gineering, 28(3), 04014010.

608 Tveit, P. (1987). “Considerations for design of network arches.” Journal of Structural Engineering,
609 113(10), 2189–2207.

24
610 List of Figures
611 1 Elevation views of (A) Bailey [Standard US Army M2 (Pioneer Bridges, a Division
612 of Bailey Bridges, Inc., 2015)], (B) Mabey Johnson [Compact 200 (Mabey, 2015)],
613 and (C) Acrow [700XS, (Acrow Corporation of America, 2009)] panels. . . . . . . 28

614 2 Double-triple configuration of Bailey Bridge panels, including isometric and sec-
615 tion views. Images courtesy of US Army (Department of the Army, 1986). . . . . . 29
616 3 Conventional implementations of Bailey Bridge system, including (A) single-lane
617 through-type, (B) with additional panels for added capacity, (C) with a cable re-
618 inforcement set for added capacity, (D) two-lane through-type, (E) two-lane deck

619 type, and (F) floating. Images courtesy of the US Army (Department of the Army,
620 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
621 4 Precedent for alternative implementations of panelized bridge systems, including
622 (A) piers (Thierry, 1946), with permission from the Society of American Military

623 Engineers, (B) suspension bridges (Thierry, 1946), with permission from the Soci-
624 ety of American Military Engineers, (C) moveable bridges, image courtesy of US
625 Army (Department of the Army, 1986), (D) runways (Hempsall and Digby-Smith,
626 1952), with permission from Roads & Bridges, and (E) buildings (Hempsall and

627 Digby-Smith, 1952), with permission from Roads & Bridges. . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

628 5 Elevation views of the four combinations of Pratt trusses evaluated. . . . . . . . . . 32
629 6 Selection of Pratt truss form: Comparison of total length of panels to structural
630 performance metric (F L2 ). All feasible forms are sketched. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
631 7 Partial elevation view of bowstring truss form. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

632 8 Selection of bowstring truss form: Comparison of total length of panels to struc-
633 tural performance metric (F L2 ). The selected form is sketched. . . . . . . . . . . . 35
634 9 Elevation of network tied arch form. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

25
635 10 Parametric study of intra-plane bracing in a girder-like configuration, including (A)
636 isometric view indicating dimensions and boundary conditions, (B) buckled shape
637 under vertical load (for selected option), (C) buckling factor under vertical load
638 as a function of spacing and I factor (selected option is highlighted) (D) buckled

639 shape under horizontal load (for selected option), and (E) buckling factor under
640 horizontal load as a function of spacing and I factor (selected option is highlighted). 37
641 11 Parametric study of intra-plane bracing in a column-like configuration, including
642 (A) isometric view indicating dimensions and boundary conditions, (B) buckled
643 shape under vertical load (for selected option), (C) buckling factor under vertical

644 load as a function of spacing and I factor (selected option is highlighted) (D) buck-
645 led shape under horizontal load (for selected option), and (E) buckling factor under
646 horizontal load as a function of spacing and I factor (selected option is highlighted). 38
647 12 Parametric study of inter-plane bracing in a girder-like configuration, including (A)

648 isometric view indicating boundary conditions, (B) buckled shape under vertical
649 load (for selected option), (C) buckling factor under vertical load as a function of I
650 factor (selected option is highlighted) (D) buckled shape under horizontal load (for
651 selected option), and (E) buckling factor under horizontal load as a function of I

652 factor (selected option is highlighted). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

653 13 Parametric study of inter-plane bracing in a column-like configuration, including
654 (A) isometric view indicating boundary conditions, (B) buckled shape under verti-
655 cal load (for selected option), (C) buckling factor under vertical load as a function
656 of I factor (selected option is highlighted) (D) buckled shape under horizontal load

657 (for selected option), and (E) buckling factor under horizontal load as a function
658 of I factor (selected option is highlighted). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
659 14 New bridge forms in elevation view (left) and section view (right): (A) Pratt truss,
660 (B) bowstring truss, and (C) network tied arch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

26
661 15 Buckled shapes of the new bridge forms: (A) Pratt truss, (B) bowstring truss, and
662 (C) network tied arch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
663 16 Results of multi-objective optimization procedure for the bowstring truss form.
664 Marker size indicates the number of panels and grayscale coloring indicates the

665 number of global nodes. Global minima included for reference. . . . . . . . . . . . 43

27
 2.13 m 2.29 m
1.52 m (7 ft) (7.5 ft)
(5 ft)

3.05 m (10 ft) 3.05 m (10 ft) 3.05 m (10 ft)

(A) (B) (C)

FIG. 1. Elevation views of (A) Bailey [Standard US Army M2 (Pioneer Bridges, a

Division of Bailey Bridges, Inc., 2015)], (B) Mabey Johnson [Compact 200 (Mabey,
2015)], and (C) Acrow [700XS, (Acrow Corporation of America, 2009)] panels.

28
FIG. 2. Double-triple configuration of Bailey Bridge panels, including isometric and
section views. Images courtesy of US Army (Department of the Army, 1986).

29
 A. Single Lane
Through-Type

B. Added Capacity
via Additional
Modules

C. Added Capacity
via Cable
Reinforcement Set
Cable

D. Two-Lane
Through-Type

E. Deck Type

F. Floating

FIG. 3. Conventional implementations of Bailey Bridge system, including (A)

single-lane through-type, (B) with additional panels for added capacity, (C) with a
cable reinforcement set for added capacity, (D) two-lane through-type, (E) two-lane
deck type, and (F) floating. Images courtesy of the US Army (Department of the
Army, 1986)

30
 A. Piers

B. Suspension
Bridges

C. Moveable
Bridges

D. Runways

E. Buildings

FIG. 4. Precedent for alternative implementations of panelized bridge systems, in-

cluding (A) piers (Thierry, 1946), with permission from the Society of American Mil-
itary Engineers, (B) suspension bridges (Thierry, 1946), with permission from the
Society of American Military Engineers, (C) moveable bridges, image courtesy of
US Army (Department of the Army, 1986), (D) runways (Hempsall and Digby-Smith,
1952), with permission from Roads & Bridges, and (E) buildings (Hempsall and
Digby-Smith, 1952), with permission from Roads & Bridges.

31
 97.4 m (320 ft) [8 @ 12.2 m (40 ft)]
9.14 m (30 ft)

91.4 m (300 ft) [10 @ 9.14 m (30 ft)]

12.2 m (40 ft)

97.4 m (320 ft) [4 @ 24.4 m (80 ft)]

18.3 m (60 ft)

110 m (360 ft) [6 @ 18.3 m (60 ft)]

24.4 m (80 ft)

FIG. 5. Elevation views of the four combinations of Pratt trusses evaluated.

32
 600 Feasible Form
Selected Form
550
Sum of Member Lengths (m)

500

450

400

350

300

250

200
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
2 2 5
FL (kN*m ) x 10

FIG. 6. Selection of Pratt truss form: Comparison of total length of panels to struc-
tural performance metric (F L2 ). All feasible forms are sketched.

33
 N1 Y1
D2 Y2
D3 Y3

Restrained Length N2
Unrestrained Length N3

FIG. 7. Partial elevation view of bowstring truss form.

34
 600 Feasible Form
Selected Form
Sum of Member Lengths (m)

550

500

450

400

350

300

250

200
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 2 6
FL (kN*m ) x 10

FIG. 8. Selection of bowstring truss form: Comparison of total length of panels to

structural performance metric (F L2 ). The selected form is sketched.

35
20.8 m
(68.4 ft)

91.4 m (300 ft)

FIG. 9. Elevation of network tied arch form.

36
 1.52 m
Intra-Plane (5 ft)
400 600
Buckling Factor

Buckling Factor
Strut
300
400
200
15.24 m
200
(50 ft) 100
0 0
1.5 1.5
10 10
1
4 6 8 1 6 8
0.5 2 0.5 2 4
Spacing (m) 0 I factor Spacing (m) 0 I factor
Spacing

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

FIG. 10. Parametric study of intra-plane bracing in a girder-like configuration, in-

cluding (A) isometric view indicating dimensions and boundary conditions, (B)
buckled shape under vertical load (for selected option), (C) buckling factor under
vertical load as a function of spacing and I factor (selected option is highlighted)
(D) buckled shape under horizontal load (for selected option), and (E) buckling fac-
tor under horizontal load as a function of spacing and I factor (selected option is
highlighted).

37
 1500 3000
Buckling Factor

Buckling Factor
1000 2000
Intra-plane 9.14 m 500 1000
Strut (30 ft)
0 0
1.5 1.5
8 10 10
1
4 6 1
4 6 8
Spacing (m) 0.5 0 2 I factor Spacing (m) 0.5 0 2 I factor
1.52 m
(5 ft)
Spacing

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

FIG. 11. Parametric study of intra-plane bracing in a column-like configuration,

including (A) isometric view indicating dimensions and boundary conditions, (B)
buckled shape under vertical load (for selected option), (C) buckling factor under
vertical load as a function of spacing and I factor (selected option is highlighted)
(D) buckled shape under horizontal load (for selected option), and (E) buckling fac-
tor under horizontal load as a function of spacing and I factor (selected option is
highlighted).

38
 400 600
Inter-plane

Buckling Factor
Buckling Factor

Strut 500
300
400
200 300
200
100
100
0 0
4.57 m 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(15 ft) I factor I factor
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

FIG. 12. Parametric study of inter-plane bracing in a girder-like configuration, in-

cluding (A) isometric view indicating boundary conditions, (B) buckled shape un-
der vertical load (for selected option), (C) buckling factor under vertical load as a
function of I factor (selected option is highlighted) (D) buckled shape under hori-
zontal load (for selected option), and (E) buckling factor under horizontal load as a
function of I factor (selected option is highlighted).

39
 1400 2500
Buckling Factor

Buckling Factor
1200
1000 2000
800 1500
600
1000
400
200 500
0 0
4.57 m 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(15 ft) Inter-plane I factor
Strut I factor
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

FIG. 13. Parametric study of inter-plane bracing in a column-like configuration, in-

cluding (A) isometric view indicating boundary conditions, (B) buckled shape un-
der vertical load (for selected option), (C) buckling factor under vertical load as a
function of I factor (selected option is highlighted) (D) buckled shape under hori-
zontal load (for selected option), and (E) buckling factor under horizontal load as a
function of I factor (selected option is highlighted).

40
 4.57 m
96.0 m (315 ft) (15 ft) .914 m
(3 ft)
9.14 m
(30 ft)

(A)

4.57 m
104 m (340 ft) (15 ft) .914 m
(3 ft)

18.3 m
(60 ft)

(B)

4.57 m
91.4 m (300 ft) (15 ft) .914 m
(3 ft)

20.8 m
(68.4 ft)

(C)

Elevation Section

FIG. 14. New bridge forms in elevation view (left) and section view (right): (A) Pratt
truss, (B) bowstring truss, and (C) network tied arch.

41
 (A) (B) (C)

FIG. 15. Buckled shapes of the new bridge forms: (A) Pratt truss, (B) bowstring
truss, and (C) network tied arch.

42
 600 28
= 1.52 m (5 ft) Panel 26
Sum of Member Lengths (m)

550
= 6.10 m (20 ft) Panel
24

Number of Global Joints

500 = Global Minimum
22
450 20
400 18

350 16
14
300
12
250
10
200 8
0 2 4 6 8 10
2 2 6
FL (kN*m ) x 10

FIG. 16. Results of multi-objective optimization procedure for the bowstring truss
form. Marker size indicates the number of panels and grayscale coloring indicates
the number of global nodes. Global minima included for reference.

43

View publication stats