buildings

Article
A Study on the Ultimate Span of a Concrete-Filled Steel Tube
Arch Bridge
Yuexing Wu 1,2 , Xiangchuan Wang 3 , Yonghui Fan 2, * , Jun Shi 2 , Chao Luo 2 and Xinzhong Wang 1

1 School of Civil Engineering, Hunan City University, Yiyang 413000, China; wuyuexing@hncu.edu.cn (Y.W.);
622210970020@mails.cqjtu.edu.cn (X.W.)
2 State Key Laboratory of Mountain Bridge and Tunnel Engineering, Chongqing Jiaotong University,
Chongqing 400074, China; 611200080015@mails.cqjtu.edu.cn (J.S.); luochao@mails.cqjtu.edu.cn (C.L.)
3 Huasheng Testing Technology Co., Ltd., Chongqing 400039, China; 622220970001@mails.cqjtu.edu.cn
* Correspondence: fyh1995@mails.cqjtu.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-17132308545

Abstract: In order to study the ultimate span of a concrete-filled steel tube (CFST) arch bridge,
taking the structural strength, stiffness, and stability as the limiting conditions, the finite element
analysis method is adopted to carry out research on the influence law of a single parameter of the
pipe diameter, wall thickness, and cross-section height on the ultimate span of the arch axial shape.
The result is used as a sample point to determine the ultimate span of the CFST arch bridge under
multifactor coupling based on the response surface method. The finite element method is used to
check the strength, stiffness, stability, number of segments and maximum lifting weight, steel content
rate, and steel pipe concrete constraint effect coefficient of the CFST arch bridge under the ultimate
span diameter. The results show that, when analyzed using a single parameter, the ultimate span
diameter of the CFST arch bridge increases with the increase in the steel pipe diameter and the
cross-section height, and then decreases. Moreover, it increases with the increase in the wall thickness
of the steel pipe, and the CFST arch bridge reaches the ultimate span with the increase in the steel
pipe wall thickness. When the pipe diameter is 1.38 m, the CFST arch bridge reaches the ultimate
span; according to a multi-parameter coupling analysis, when the pipe diameter is 1.49 m, wall
thickness is 37 mm, and cross-section height is 17 m, the CFST arch bridge reaches the ultimate span
of 821 m, which meets all of the limiting conditions, and, at this point, the arch axial coefficient is 1.2.
The results of the finite element calculation show that the structural strength, prior to the stiffness,
Citation: Wu, Y.; Wang, X.; Fan, Y.; stability, and other limitations, just reaches the critical value of the limiting conditions.
Shi, J.; Luo, C.; Wang, X. A Study on
the Ultimate Span of a Concrete-Filled Keywords: concrete-filled steel tube arch bridge; ultimate span; strain energy minimization method;
Steel Tube Arch Bridge. Buildings 2024, finite element analysis; response surface method
14, 896. https://doi.org/10.3390/
buildings14040896

Academic Editor: Fabrizio Gara

1. Introduction
Received: 21 February 2024
With the increasing improvement of arch bridge design theory, the application of high-
Revised: 19 March 2024
strength materials, and the advancement of cable-stayed buckling construction technology,
Accepted: 23 March 2024
Published: 26 March 2024
large-span CFST arch bridges are becoming increasingly more prevalent [1]. At present, the
largest CFST arch bridge in the world is the Pingnan Three Bridge in Guangxi, with a main
span of 575 m. Zheng [2] pointed out that China has the ability to design and build 700 m
class CFST arch bridges. However, no matter how developed the theory and construction
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. technology of this type of bridge is, it is difficult to increase the span diameter endlessly.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. The limit to which the span diameter of CFST arch bridges can reach is no longer included
This article is an open access article in the program comparison, which is a matter of concern for bridge designers [3]. The study
distributed under the terms and of the ultimate span diameter of CFST5 G arch bridges is of great scientific significance and
conditions of the Creative Commons engineering application value for the deep understanding of the mechanical behavior of
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
the steel pipe and the concrete in the pipe, when they work in coordination, and for the
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
improvement of the design methods and specifications of this type of bridge.
4.0/).

Buildings 2024, 14, 896. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14040896 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2024, 14, 896 2 of 21

The current domestic and international research on the ultimate span diameter of arch
bridges can be mainly divided into three categories.
The first category focuses on improving the span diameter of arch bridges by optimiz-
ing the structural form [4–6]. For example, Xie et al. [7] proposed a new bridge structural
system known as the medium-bearing cable arch bridge; here, the main span and side spans
of suspension bridges are set up in the arch rib and the main cables are anchored to the arch
foot of the side arches, and the structural mechanical performance is improved by adjusting
the yaw-to-span ratio. A study was carried out with a 700 m span as an example, and
the results showed that this structural form improved the strength-bearing capacity and
stability-bearing capacity by about 25% and 70%, respectively, compared with a continuous
arch bridge under the same conditions, which lays a solid foundation for a breakthrough in
the improvement of the arch bridge span. To address the problem that the large self-weight
of arch bridges restricts the development of the spanning diameter, Huang et al. [8] put
forward a new type of arch structure consisting of top concrete, bottom concrete, and steel
web rods (Steel-Reinforced Concrete, SRC). The calculation results showed that the self-
weight of the new type of arch rib was reduced by about 31% compared with the original
bridge, and nearly one-third of the construction time of the arch rib pouring concrete could
be saved, which has certain feasibility in design and construction technology. This kind
of research improves the span diameter by optimizing the structural form but pays less
attention to the theoretical span limit of this structural form of arch bridge.
The second type of research focuses on improving the span diameter of arch bridges
by using high-strength materials [9,10]. Zhang et al. [11] used theoretical derivation to
analytically determine the ultimate span diameter of arch bridges and studied the ultimate
span diameter of the bridges when R200 activated fly ash concrete and Q690 high-strength
steel were used. The researchers found that the theoretical ultimate span diameter of
concrete arch bridges using R200 activated powder concrete can reach up to 2000 m, while
the main span of steel arch bridges using Q690 high-strength steel can be greater than
2500 m. Shao et al. [12] carried out the conceptual design of a 1000 m class arch bridge
based on steel–ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete (UHPFRC). The results
of a finite element analysis showed that the design solution meets the structural stability,
strength, and stiffness requirements of the code. This type of research increases the span
diameter of the arch bridge by improving the strength of the material but neglects the sharp
increase in the construction difficulty after this increase in span diameter [13].
The third category of research primarily investigates the mechanical performance
of concrete-filled steel tube (CFST) composite members from the component level. For
instance, Wei et al. [14] conducted dynamic performance tests on CFST composite columns,
indicating that a higher axial compression ratio leads to earlier yield initiation and more
severe final failure of the specimens. Additionally, Wang et al. [15] performed axial com-
pression bearing capacity tests on 18 short steel tube concrete columns, analyzing the
impact of basalt fiber length on their mechanical properties. Compared to conventional
short steel tube concrete columns, the addition of basalt fibers significantly enhanced the
axial compression-bearing capacity and ductility coefficient of the columns, with average
increases of approximately 8.1% and 31.6%, respectively. Zhang et al. [16] conducted dy-
namic performance tests and numerical simulation analyses on eight Recycled Aggregate
Concrete-Filled Circular Steel Tube (RACFCST) specimens, noting that the load-bearing
capacity of these specimens decreased with an increase in the axial compression ratio and
with a reduction in the beam–column linear stiffness ratio and yield bending moment ratio.
Additionally, Zhang et al. [17] explored the dynamic performance of S-RACFST specimens
and proposed a displacement-based seismic design method for S-RACFST frames, verifying
that this method meets the requirements for “temporary use”, “normal use”, and “collapse
prevention”. Such studies mainly focus on the performance optimization and pattern anal-
ysis of specimens, failing to deeply explore the potential and efficacy of CFST composite
members within the overall structure, particularly regarding their role and contribution to
the design of large-span arch bridges. Although CFST composite members exhibit excellent
Buildings 2024, 14, 896 3 of 21

performance in enhancing local mechanical properties, research on their application in

overall structural design, construction technology, and long-term performance remains
relatively scarce.
In summary, current research on the ultimate span of arch bridges primarily exhibits
three issues: a focus on structural optimization while neglecting theoretical limits, an
emphasis on the application of high-strength materials without considering construction
difficulties, and a concentration on the mechanical performance optimization of specimens
without a systematic study of structural aspects from design and construction to long-term
performance. In view of these shortcomings, this study selects several key factors affecting
the span diameter of large-span steel-tube concrete arch bridges, taking into account
the feasibility of the structural design, construction programs, and other constraints to
examine the influence of these factors on the ultimate span of the bridges. This approach
is combined with the response surface method to comprehensively consider the coupling
effect between a number of factors on the acquisition of the ultimate span of steel-tube
concrete arch bridges, and to provide a reference for the promotion of the arch bridges for
the development of a greater span diameter.

2. Study of Reasonable Parameters for the Limit Span

2.1. Parameter Selection
In conducting research on the ultimate span of CFST arch bridges, the rationality of
parameter selection is crucial to the reliability of the research results. Considering several
key factors, such as structural geometry, material mechanical properties, section-bearing
capacity, and structural stability, four types of parameters, namely, arch axial shape, material
strength, section height, and height-to-span ratio, are selected for this study [18–20].

2.1.1. Rationalization of the Arch Axis

The selection of the arch axis is the basis of arch bridge design. Under the action of
external load, the main arch rib only produces axial pressure. Without bending moment
and shear force, the arch axis and the pressure line completely coincide; such an arch axis
is known as a reasonable arch axis [21], and its determination must follow the principle of
the line shape being reasonable, aesthetically appealing, and convenient to construct.
According to statistics, large-span steel pipe concrete is mostly used in hollow-belly
arch bridges [22]. The constant load set of this type of structure is distributed discon-
tinuously along the arch ribs, and the suspension chain line is a curve that matches its
pressure line. The authors of [23] investigated the proportion of suspension chain lines,
parabolic lines, and spline curves as arch axes in CFST arch bridges in China, and pointed
out that 66.67% of CFST arch bridges used suspension chain lines as arch axes. Currently,
the Poseidon Yangtze River Bridge with a main span of 530 m, the Hejiang Yangtze River
Highway Bridge with a main span of 507 m, and the Pingnan Third Bridge with a main
span of 560 m [24] all use suspended chain lines as arch axes.
In summary, the suspension chain line is formulated as the arch axis line shape for the
limit span study in this paper. It can be seen through the equation of the hanging chain line
that the selection of the arch axis coefficient m of the hanging chain line is closely related
to the load set on the arch, and the load sets of arch bridges under different spans are
different, so the research process of the ultimate span should be carried out in accordance
with the existing optimization method of the arch axis coefficient under the optimal arch
axis coefficient.

2.1.2. Material Parameters

The steel pipe concrete structure is a combination of structures consisting of a steel
pipe filled with concrete, and this creates a concrete hoop effect so that the steel pipe is in
a three-direction compression state. This combined structure has the advantages of high
strength, light weight, good ductility, fatigue resistance, impact resistance, and other good
mechanical properties.
Buildings 2024, 14, 896 4 of 21

According to statistics [25], with the increase in the arch bridge span and the need
for structural strength, the proportion of Q345 steel used in CFST arch bridges increases
year by year, and C60 or even C70 concrete is also gradually being applied in large-span
CFST arch bridges. In the 507 m Hejiang Yangtze River Bridge, and in the world’s largest-
spanning steel arch bridge, the Pingnan Bridge, the upper and lower chords are made of
Q345 steel pipe and C70 concrete. Some builders of large-span arch bridges have begun to
use Q420 steel [26]; the concrete in the tube is self-compacting compensatory concrete, and
the strength grade is mostly C60~C80 [27]. Combined with the development trend of the
material and the current application prospects, this paper adopts the combination of Q420
steel and C80 concrete for the subsequent ultimate span study.

2.1.3. Cross-Sectional Construction Parameters

The arch rib section is one of the most important aspects of arch bridge design. Ac-
cording to statistics relating to the arch rib section forms of 327 CFST arch bridges [28],
the four-limbed truss section is used most often in large-span CFST arch bridges, so this
research adopts the four-limbed truss section for the study of ultimate span.
For the truss section, the steel pipe concrete diameter, wall thickness, cross-section
truss height, and variable cross-section mode are the key parameters of design, and the
reasonableness of their values directly affects the structural stress performance. The values
of some CFST arch bridge section parameters in China are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Values of cross-section parameters of some steel pipe arches in China.

Wall
Span Pipe Diameter Section Height Ratio
Serial Number Bridges Thickness
(m) (m) Foot/Top of Arch
(mm)
1 Guangxi Pingnan Third Bridge 560 1.4 34 2.0 (17 m/8.5 m)
2 Sichuan Hejiang Bridge 530 1.3 30 2.0 (16 m/8.0 m)
Sichuan Hejiang Yangtze River
3 507 1.32 32 2.0 (14 m/7.0 m)
Highway Bridge
4 Wushan Yangtze River Bridge 492 1.22 25 2.0 (14 m/7.0 m)
5 Guizhou Dazaijing Bridge 450 1.36 35 1.8 (14 m/8 m)
Yunnan Mengxin Highway
6 430 1.2 35 2.0 (13 m/6.5 m)
Liangshuigou Bridge
7 Hunan Xiangtan Liancheng Bridge 388 0.85 24 1.8 (9 m/5 m)
8 Hunan Yiyang Maocaojie Bridge 368 1 28 2.0 (8 m/4 m)
9 Guizhou Zongxi River Bridge 360 1.2 35 1.8 (11 m/6 m)

From referencing the aforementioned information and taking into account the man-
ufacturing capabilities of steel structure factories, the range for the pipe diameter in the
limit span analysis process of this study is 1260 mm~1500 mm, the wall-thickness range
is 32 mm~48 mm, the truss-height range is 13 m~24 m, and the ratio of the cross-section
height of the foot of the arch to the top of the arch takes a value of 2.

2.1.4. Height-to-Span Ratio

The height-to-span ratio refers to the ratio of the span to the height of the main arch rib,
the value of which affects the structural stress performance and the degree of coordination
between the structure and the external environment.
For CFST arch bridges, the arch rib height-to-span ratio should be suitable in the
range of 1/6~1/4, considering appearance, landscape, construction difficulty, etc. [29].
According to the statistical analysis of the height-to-span ratio of the constructed truss
CFST arch bridges in China [30], most of the height-to-span ratios are concentrated at
1/5 or 1/4, accounting for as much as 66%, and taking a larger height-to-span ratio value
within a reasonable range is conducive to the overall performance of the arch ribs; thus, a
height-to-span ratio of 1/4 is proposed in this study to carry out the subsequent ultimate
spanning diameter analysis.
Buildings 2024, 14, 896 5 of 21

2.2. Limit Indicators for Limit Span Analysis

In order to overcome the problem that the existing research cannot take into account
the inadequacy of structural design, material strength, construction methods, and other
factors, and the fact that the selected material strength, structural stiffness, stability, number
of main arch segments, maximum lifting weight of the segments, steel content of the steel
pipe concrete, steel pipe concrete constraint effect coefficients, and steel pipe diameter
and thickness ratios are research process limitations in combination with the current
specification requirements, the limitations of the indicators take the following values:
In terms of material strength, Q420 steel and C80 concrete are selected as the materials
for the upper and lower chords of the steel pipe concrete, and the design values of the axial
compressive strength and axial tensile strength of the C80 concrete are taken as 34.6 MPa
and 2.14 MPa, respectively. The design values of the strength of the Q420 steel are taken as
320 MPa (wall thickness of 16–40 mm) or 305 MPa (wall thickness of 40–63 mm).
In terms of structural rigidity, the maximum vertical deflection of the main arch under
lane loading should not be greater than L/1000 (L is the span diameter).
In terms of stability, the elastic overall stability coefficient of the main arch should not
be less than 4.0 in the construction and operation use stage, and the stability coefficient of
the local components should not be less than the elastic overall stability coefficient of the
main arch.
Regarding the number of main arch sections and the maximum lifting weight of
the sections, with reference to the equipment transfer capacity of the existing bridge
construction process, the proposed number of single-rib section divisions shall not exceed
32 sections, and the maximum lifting weight of the sections shall not exceed 200 tons.
The steel content of the steel pipe concrete (the ratio of the steel pipe area to the
concrete area in the cross-section) ranges from 0.04 to 0.20, the steel pipe concrete constraint
effect coefficient (the ratio of the product of the area of the steel pipe and the design value
of the steel strength to the product of the area of the concrete and the design value of the
concrete strength in the cross-section) should not be less than 0.6, and the ratio of the steel
pipe diameter to thickness should range from 40 to 90.

2.3. Parametric Coupling Analysis Methods

Finite element software is used to determine the influence of multiple parameters
on the ultimate span of CFST arch bridges, which has a huge computational workload
and can only obtain the analytical value rather than the functional relationship equation.
Meanwhile, in the process of studying the ultimate span diameter, parameters such as
material, construction parameters, arch axis coefficient, and height-to-span ratio are in
a mutually coupled relationship, for which the response surface method can be used to
analyze and solve. The response surface method [31] is a statistical method of experimental
design and optimization used to study the effects of multiple factors on one or more
response variables and to determine the optimal conditions, which has the advantages of
being able to analyze multiple variables, reduce the number of tests, and be visualized [32].
In this paper, the response surface model is used to replace the complex finite element
calculation model, and the combination of the design of experiments and the response
surface method establishes a mathematical model of the limit span diameter, which can
considerably improve the efficiency of the ultimate span determination process. The specific
steps are as follows: First, an analysis of the impact of various parameters on the ultimate
span of CFST (concrete-filled steel tube) arch bridges is conducted based on the finite
element model. Subsequently, using the analysis results as sample data, a response surface
function for the ultimate span of CFST arch bridges is obtained by fitting the sample data.
This function is then subjected to an F-test and R2 test. Following this, a mathematical
optimization model for the ultimate span of CFST arch bridges is established, yielding
the ultimate span under various constraints. Finally, the optimization results are verified
through the finite element model.
Buildings 2024, 14, 896 6 of 21

3. Reasonable Arch Axis Analysis

3.1. Arch Axis Line Analysis
The arch axis coefficient m, as the linear characteristic value of the suspension chain
line [33], depends on the arch axis coefficient to a large extent. In order to ensure that
the deviation between the suspension chain line and the load pressure line is small, it
is necessary to adopt a reasonable arch axis coefficient optimization method to solve
this coefficient, and, with the change in the cross-section parameters, spanning diameter,
and other parameters, the value of the reasonable arch axis coefficient is not certain;
thus, the study of the ultimate spanning diameter needs to be based on the optimal arch
axis coefficient.

3.2. Optimization Method for Reasonable Arch Axis Coefficients

The arch rib bending strain energy minimization method [34] is a commonly used
arch axis coefficient optimization method for large-span arch bridges which controls the
value of bending moments in each section of the arch rib by controlling the deviation of the
arch axis from the load pressure line. The principle is as follows:
In the elastic range of the structure, the elastic deformation energy U of an elastomer
due to deformation under external load is numerically equal to the work carried out W by
the external load on the corresponding displacement:

U=W (1)

where the elastic strain energy U can be expressed as

M ( x )2 Q ( x )2 N ( x )2
Z Z Z
U= dx + dx + dx (2)
2EI 2GA 2EA
l l l

R M ( x )2 R Q ( x )2
where l 2EI dx
denotes the bending energy caused by the bending moment M, l 2GA dx
R N ( x )2
denotes the shear energy caused by the shear force Q, and l 2EA dx denotes the axial
deformation energy caused by the axial force N; E and G denote the modulus of elasticity
and shear modulus of the material, respectively; and I and A denote the moment of inertia
and the area of the cross-section, respectively.
The magnitude of the strain energy can reflect the stress state of the structure. For
compression structures such as arch bridges, the ideal main arch rib force form should only
bear the axial force and not the bending moment and shear force. Therefore, for the design
of the arch bridge structure, the bending deformation energy and shear deformation energy
of the main arch rib need to be as small as possible so that the structure remains mostly
unaffected by the bending moment and shear force. The shear deformation energy is gener-
ally only about 5% of the bending deformation energy [35], which may not be considered.
Therefore, in the selection of arch-axis alignment for arch bridges, the bending strain energy
minimum method can be considered for the optimization of arch-axis alignment:

M ( x )2
Z
U= dx (3)
2EI
l

For discrete rod system units, Equation (3) can be modified to

m
li  2 
U= ∑ 4Ei Ii Li
M + M 2
Ri (4)
i =1

where m is the total number of structural units; Li , Ei , and Ii are the element length,
modulus of elasticity, and section bending moment of inertia of element i; and MLi and
MRi are the left- and right-end bending moments of element i.
 Buildings 2024, 14, 896 7 of 21

4. Analysis of the Effect of Different Parameters on the Ultimate Spanning Diameter

4.1. Methods for Analyzing the Effect of Different Parameters on the Ultimate Span Diameter
In this paper, the ultimate span study of the CFST arch bridge is based on the sus-
pension chain line. As the arch axis line shape and the suspension chain line shape are
controlled by the arch axis coefficient m as a single variable, the value of which is closely
related to the set of loads on the arch, the ultimate span study process needs to determine
the optimal arch axis coefficient under each parameter, such as the diameter of the steel
pipe and the wall thickness.
According to the parameter value range formulated in Section 2.1, a steel pipe concrete
arch bridge is taken as the engineering basis, and finite element analysis and calculations
are carried out according to the established step length. In the process of calculation, firstly,
according to the control variables to be studied, a set of initial state parameters for the
structure is selected, the corresponding finite element model is established, and the optimal
arch axis coefficient corresponding to the set of parameters is searched by minimizing the
eccentricity distance of the cross-section; then, strength, stiffness, and stability analyses are
carried out. If all of these factors are in the proposed limiting conditions, then the span
diameter is increased and analyzed again according to the above steps until any one of
the strength, stiffness, and stability analysis results exceeds the limiting value. In this case,
the calculation is stopped, and the current span is recognized as the limit span under the
group of parameters. Subsequently, according to the above steps, the values of the ultimate
span of the sample points increase according to the proposed step length until each group
of variables is obtained, and the trend of the changes in the ultimate span under different
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 22
variables is also obtained. A flowchart of the study on the ultimate span of the CFST arch
bridge is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Flowchart for the study of the trend of the influence of single-parameter variation on the
Figure 1. Flowchart for the study of the trend of the influence of single-parameter variation on the
ultimate
ultimate span
span diameter.
diameter.
4.2. Finite Element Calculation Models
4.2. Finite Element Calculation Models
4.2.1. Project Overview
4.2.1. Project Overview
The Hejiang Yangtze River Highway Bridge is located in Hejiang, Luzhou City, Sichuan
The Hejiang
Province. Yangtze
The main River
bridge Highway
structure is theBridge is located
swallow-type in pipe
steel Hejiang, Luzhou
concrete City,
tie arch Si-
bridge,
chuan Province.
and the The main
main arch bridge
ribs use structure
steel is the swallow-type
pipe concrete steel
truss sections. Thepipe
spanconcrete tie arch is
arrangement
bridge,
(80.5 +and
507the
+ main
80.5) arch ribsause
m with steel
total pipeof
length concrete
668 m,truss
and sections. The
the bridge is span arrangement
the world’s largest-
is (80.5 + 507 + 80.5) m with a total length of 668 m, and the bridge is the world’s largest-
spanning arch bridge. The net height-to-span ratio of the main span is 1/4, the arch axis
coefficient is 1.5, and the spacing between the arch ribs on both sides is 25.3 m. The radial
height of the arch top cross-section is 7.0 m, and that of the arch foot cross-section is 14 m.
The layout of the bridge is shown in Figure 2.
 4.2. Finite Element Calculation Models
4.2.1. Project Overview
The Hejiang Yangtze River Highway Bridge is located in Hejiang, Luzhou City, Si-
Buildings 2024, 14, 896 8 of 21
chuan Province. The main bridge structure is the swallow-type steel pipe concrete tie arch
bridge, and the main arch ribs use steel pipe concrete truss sections. The span arrangement
is (80.5 + 507 + 80.5) m with a total length of 668 m, and the bridge is the world’s largest-
spanning
spanning arch bridge. Thearch
netbridge. The net height-to-span
height-to-span ratio of the main ratio of the
span main
is 1/4, thespan
archisaxis
1/4, the arch axis
coefficient is 1.5, and the spacing between the arch ribs on both sides is 25.3 m. The radial m. The radial
coefficient is 1.5, and the spacing between the arch ribs on both sides is 25.3
height
height of the arch of the arch top
top cross-section is cross-section is 7.0
7.0 m, and that m, arch
of the and that
foot of the arch foot
cross-section is cross-section
14 m. is 14 m.
The layout of the bridge
The layout of the bridge is shown in Figure 2. is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Bridge layout (unit: meter).

Figure 2. Bridge layout (unit: meter).

4.2.2. Finite Element

4.2.2. Model
Finite Element Model
Combined withCombined
the structural
withcharacteristics
the structural of the Hejiang Yangtze
characteristics River Highway
of the Hejiang Yangtze River Highway
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 22
Bridge, this study adopts
Bridge, thisMidas
studyCivil V2.1
adopts finiteCivil
Midas element
V2.1analysis software
finite element to establish
analysis a to establish
software a
three-dimensional rod system calculation
three-dimensional model.
rod system The finite
calculation element
model. Themodel of the Hejiang
finite element model of the Hejiang
Yangtze River Highway Bridge
Yangtze River is shownBridge
Highway in Figure 3.
is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Finite element model of Hejiang Yangtze River Highway Bridge.

Figure 3. Finite element model of Hejiang Yangtze River Highway Bridge.
A total of 9607 nodes and 23,014 elements are established in the finite element sim-
ulation of the
A total Hejiang
of 9607 Yangtze
nodes Riverelements
and 23,014 Highwayare Bridge, and different
established element
in the finite types
element are
simu-
adopted according to different structural stress states and considerations.
lation of the Hejiang Yangtze River Highway Bridge, and different element types are Among them,
the suspension
adopted according rodstoare simulated
different by the tensile
structural truss and
stress states elements, the stiffened
considerations. plate them,
Among at the
footsuspension
the of the arch androdsthearesteel bridge by
simulated panels are simulated
the tensile by the shell
truss elements, the elements,
stiffened andplatethe
at rest
the
are simulated by the beam elements. The steel pipe is made of Q345 steel:
foot of the arch and the steel bridge panels are simulated by the shell elements, and the the modulus of
elasticity is taken as 2.06 × 10 5 MPa and the Poisson’s ratio is taken as 0.3. The concrete in
rest are simulated by the beam elements. The steel pipe is made of Q345 steel: the modulus
theelasticity
pipe is C70 concrete: the× modulus of elasticity is taken as is
3.7taken 4 MPa and the Pois-
× 10as
of is taken as 2.06 105 MPa and the Poisson’s ratio 0.3. The concrete
son’s
in theratio
pipeisistaken
C70 as 0.2. When
concrete: the analyzing
modulus the structure,isthe
of elasticity displacements
taken as 3.7 × 10and
4 MParotations
and the at
the base of the arch seat and both abutments are constrained. Elastic connections
Poisson’s ratio is taken as 0.2. When analyzing the structure, the displacements and rota- are used
between
tions thebase
at the mainofarch rib and
the arch seatthe
andcolumns on the arch,
both abutments areand between the
constrained. columns
Elastic and the
connections
main beams, with geometric nonlinearities taken into account in the calculations, which
are used between the main arch rib and the columns on the arch, and between the columns
only consider the structural deadweight loads.
and the main beams, with geometric nonlinearities taken into account in the calculations,
which only consider
4.2.3. Validation the structural
of Finite deadweight loads.
Element Models

4.2.3.In order to verify

Validation theElement
of Finite correctness of the finite element model, the theoretical elevation
Models
and the measured elevation of the arch rib were compared after the main arch ring was
mergedIn order to verify the
and loosened, andcorrectness
the resultsof
arethe finite in
shown element
Figuremodel,
4. the theoretical elevation
and the measured elevation of the arch rib were compared after the main arch ring was
merged and loosened, and the results are shown in Figure 4.

360
Elevation of arch rib (m)

340

320

300

280
Theoretical elevation
 which only consider the structural deadweight loads.

4.2.3. Validation of Finite Element Models

In order to verify the correctness of the finite element model, the theoretical elevation
Buildings 2024, 14, 896 and the measured elevation of the arch rib were compared after the main arch ring9 of was
21
merged and loosened, and the results are shown in Figure 4.

360

Elevation of arch rib (m)

340

320

300

280
Theoretical elevation
260 Measured elevation

240
Arch foot Arch crown Arch foot

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Comparison
Comparison between
between theoretical
theoretical and
and measured
measured elevation
elevation of
of arch
arch rib.
rib.

In
In Figure
Figure 4,
4, the
the measured
measured and
and theoretical
theoretical elevation
elevation curves
curves of
of the
the arch
arch rib
rib basically
basically
coincide
coincide with each other, and the maximum relative error is 34 mm, which occurs at
with each other, and the maximum relative error is 34 mm, which occurs at the
the
top
top of the arch, with a maximum relative error of 0.03%, verifying the correctness of the
of the arch, with a maximum relative error of 0.03%, verifying the correctness of the
finite
finite element
element model.
model.
4.3. Analysis of the Effect of Pipe Diameter on the Ultimate Span
4.3. Analysis of the Effect of Pipe Diameter on the Ultimate Span
In order to study the change trend of the pipe diameter and ultimate span of the
In order to study the change trend of the pipe diameter and ultimate span of the CFST
CFST arch bridge, the wall thickness of the steel pipe, height-to-span ratio, cross-section
arch bridge, the wall thickness of the steel pipe, height-to-span ratio, cross-section
parameter, and material type were formulated as constants, and the change trend of the
ultimate span of the CFST arch bridge under the corresponding parameter was studied by
changing the pipe diameter. The optimal arch axis coefficients of the suspension chain line
under the seven groups of different pipe diameter values for the main arch static analysis
calculations, in order to meet the strength, stiffness, and stability of the corresponding
parameter under the ultimate span value, are shown in Table 2, and an illustration of the
pipe diameter and the trend of the ultimate span diameter is shown in Figure 5.

Table 2. Ultimate spans of steel pipe concrete arch bridges corresponding to different pipe diameters.

Height of Arch Optimum Arch

Pipe Diameter Wall Thickness Height of Vault Height-to- Ultimate Span
Foot Section Axis
(m) (mm) Section (m) Span Ratio (m)
(m) Coefficient
1.26 1.35 737
1.30 1.35 768
1.34 1.30 776
1.38 32 14.24 7.12 1/4 1.30 784
1.42 1.30 780
1.46 1.35 758
1.50 1.35 751

According to Figure 5, it can be concluded that, with the increase in the cross-section
pipe diameter, the limit span value under the corresponding parameter shows a trend of
increasing and then decreasing. At the peak apex of the curve, i.e., when the diameter of
the steel–concrete pipe is taken as 1.38 m, the stress of the steel pipe of the lower chord
under the optimal arch axial shape of the hanging chain line reaches the limit value, and
the span cannot be further increased. On the left side of the peak point of the curve, the
compressive and flexural stiffness of the concrete section of the steel pipe increases with
the increase in the diameter of the steel pipe, which leads to the growth of the ultimate
span; however, on the right side of the peak point of the curve, in the case of the constant
wall thickness of the steel pipe, the proportion of the steel pipe that bears the constant load
stress increases with the increase in the diameter of the steel pipe, and the proportion of the
rate of increase is greater than that of the compressive stiffness of the concrete section of
the steel pipe. Therefore, the stress of the steel pipe increases gradually and exceeds the
 Pipe Diame- Wall Thickness Height of Arch Height of Vault Height-to-Span Optimum Arch Axis Co- Ultimate Span
ter (m) (mm) Foot Section (m) Section (m) Ratio efficient (m)
1.26 1.35 737
1.30 1.35 768
Buildings 2024, 14, 896
1.34 1.30 776 10 of 21
1.38 32 14.24 7.12 1/4 1.30 784
1.42 1.30 780
1.46 allowable strength of the material, which results in a gradual
1.35 decrease in the ultimate
758 span
1.50 under the corresponding parameter. 1.35 751

Figure 5.
Figure 5. Effect
Effect on ultimate span under
under pipe
pipe diameter
diameter change.
change.

4.4. Analysis
According of the
to Effect
Figure of 5,
Pipe Wall
it can beThickness
concluded on that,
Ultimate
withSpan
the increase in the cross-section
pipe In order tothe
diameter, study thespan
limit change trend
value of the wall
under thickness of
corresponding the steel shows
parameter pipe inathe main
trend of
arch sectionand
increasing andthenthe ultimate
decreasing. spanAtof the
the CFST
peak arch
apex ofbridge, the diameter
the curve, i.e., whenofthe thediameter
steel pipe,
of
concrete pipe, truss height, height-to-span ratio, cross-section parameters,
the steel–concrete pipe is taken as 1.38 m, the stress of the steel pipe of the lower chord and material
type
under were
the formulated
optimal archasaxial constants,
shape and thehanging
of the change chain
in theline
ultimate
reachesspan
theoflimit
the CFST
value,arch
and
bridge
the span cannot be further increased. On the left side of the peak point of the under
was studied by changing the wall thickness of the steel pipe concrete curve, the
the
corresponding
compressive and parameters. Based on
flexural stiffness ofthe
theoptimal
concretearch axis coefficient
section of the steelofpipe
the increases
hanging chain
with
line, the maininarch
the increase the static analysis
diameter was
of the calculated
steel for five
pipe, which groups
leads of different
to the growth of wall
thethickness
ultimate
values, and the ultimate span values were obtained under the corresponding
span; however, on the right side of the peak point of the curve, in the case of the constant parameters to
satisfy the strength, stiffness, and stability. The values are shown in Table
wall thickness of the steel pipe, the proportion of the steel pipe that bears the constant 3, and the trend
of thestress
load wall thickness
increases withand ultimate spaninisthe
the increase shown in Figure
diameter of the6.steel pipe, and the proportion
of the rate of increase is greater than that of the compressive stiffness of the concrete sec-
Table 3. Ultimate span corresponding to different tube wall thicknesses.
tion of the steel pipe. Therefore, the stress of the steel pipe increases gradually and exceeds
the allowable strength of the material, which results in a gradual decrease in the ultimate
Height of Arch Optimum Arch
Pipe Diameter Wall Thickness
span under Height ofparameter.
the corresponding Vault Height-to- Ultimate Span
Foot Section Axis
(m) (mm) Section (m) Span Ratio (m)
(m) Coefficient
0.032 1.40 710
0.036 1.30 780
1.5 0.040 20 10 1/4 1.25 850
0.044 1.20 900
0.048 1.20 960

As can be seen from Table 3 and Figure 6, the ultimate span of the CFST arch bridge
increases approximately linearly with the increase in the wall thickness of the steel pipe,
which is due to the fact that, with the increase in the steel content in the cross-section, the
stresses in the steel pipe and in the concrete are gradually reduced, which allows the value
of the ultimate span of the structure to be further increased. The steel content is 9.11% at a
wall thickness of 32 mm, and increases to 10.33%, 11.58%, 12.85%, and 14.14% according
to the proposed increase in step length, corresponding to an increase in the ultimate span
of 8.94%, 16.03%, 21.06%, and 25.62%, which shows that an increase in the wall thickness
increases the value of the ultimate span of the corresponding parameter.
 Height-to-Span Ratio
ter (m) (mm) Foot Section (m) Section (m) Coefficient (m)
0.032 1.40 710
0.036 1.30 780
1.5 0.040 20 10 1/4 1.25 850
Buildings 2024, 14, 8960.044 1.20 900 11 of 21
0.048 1.20 960

Ultimatespans
Figure6.6.Ultimate
Figure spansofofCFST
CFSTarch
archbridges
bridgeswith
withdifferent
differentsteel
steeltube
tubewall
wallthicknesses.
thicknesses.

4.5. Analysis of the Effect of Section Height on Ultimate Span Diameter

As can be seen from Table 3 and Figure 6, the ultimate span of the CFST arch bridge
In order
increases to study the
approximately trends
linearly forthe
with theincrease
main arch cross-section
in the truss
wall thickness of height and
the steel the
pipe,
ultimate span of the CFST arch bridge, the steel pipe concrete diameter, wall
which is due to the fact that, with the increase in the steel content in the cross-section, the thickness,
height-to-span
stresses ratio,
in the steel cross-section
pipe parameter,
and in the concrete areand material
gradually type were
reduced, whichset allows
as constants, and
the value
the
of trend
the of thespan
ultimate ultimate span
of the of the CFST
structure arch bridge
to be further under The
increased. the corresponding
steel content isparameter
9.11% at
was investigated by changing the cross-section height.
a wall thickness of 32 mm, and increases to 10.33%, 11.58%, 12.85%, and Based on the 14.14%
optimalaccording
arch axis
coefficient of the hanging chain line, 11 groups of different truss heights
to the proposed increase in step length, corresponding to an increase in the ultimate span were calculated
for
of the static
8.94%, analysis
16.03%, of and
21.06%, the main
25.62%,arch rib. shows
which The values
that anofincrease
the ultimate
in thespan under the
wall thickness
corresponding parameters of strength, stiffness, and stability are shown in Table 4, and the
increases the value of the ultimate span of the corresponding parameter.
trend of the truss height and the ultimate span is plotted in Figure 7.
4.5. Analysis of the Effect of Section Height on Ultimate Span Diameter
Table 4. Table of ultimate span parameters for main arch with different section heights.
In order to study the trends for the main arch cross-section truss height and the ulti-
mate span ofofthe
Height CFST arch bridge, the steel pipe concrete
Arch Optimumdiameter,
Arch wall thickness,
Pipe Diameter Wall Thickness Height of Vault Height-to- Ultimate Span
height-to-span ratio, cross-section parameter, and material typeAxis
Foot Section were set as constants, and
(m) (mm) Section (m) Span Ratio (m)
(m) Coefficient
14 7.0 1.30 800
15 7.5 1.25 850
16 8.0 1.20 885
17 8.5 1.25 875
18 9.0 1.25 865
1.5 40 19 9.5 1/4 1.25 858
20 10.0 1.25 850
21 10.5 1.30 836
22 11.0 1.30 820
23 11.5 1.30 805
24 12.0 1.30 810

According to Table 4 and Figure 7, with the increase in the cross-section truss height,
the limit span value under the corresponding parameter shows a trend of increasing and
then decreasing. At the peak of the curve, i.e., when the height of the foot of the arch
truss is taken as 16 m, the stress of the steel pipe of the lower chord under the optimal
arch axis shape of the suspension chain line reaches the limit value, and the span cannot
be further increased. The bending stiffness of the section of the arch foot increases with
the increase in the section height, but the stability coefficients of each order of the main
arch ring first decrease slowly and then increase rapidly with the increase in the section
height. This is due to the fact that the stability of the main arch ring is affected by both the
Pipe Diame- Wall Thickness Height of Arch Height of Vault Sec- Height-to-Span Optimum Arch Axis Co- Ultimate Span
ter (m) (mm) Foot Section (m) tion (m) Ratio efficient (m)
14 7.0 1.30 800
15 7.5 1.25 850
16 8.0 1.20 885
Buildings 2024, 14, 896
17 8.5 1.25 875 12 of 21
18 9.0 1.25 865
1.5 40 19 9.5 1/4 1.25 858
section
20 stiffness and the span diameter at the same time, and1.25
10.0 the favorable influence
850 of the
former
21 is greater than10.5
the unfavorable influence of the latter
1.30when the section height is
836
in the
22range of 14–16 m. 11.0The opposite is true when the section
1.30 height is more 820
than 16 m,
which23 ultimately results in the increase and then the decrease1.30
11.5 in the ultimate span diameter
805
24CFST arch bridge
of the 12.0 1.30
with the increase in the section height. 810

16

14

Stability coefficients
12

10

8
1st stability coefficient
6 2nd stability coefficient
3rd stability coefficient
4 4th stability coefficient

14 16 18 20 22 24
Section height (m)

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure7. 7.
Ultimate
Ultimatespan andand
span stability coefficients
stability of main
coefficients arch arch
of main ribs at different
ribs section
at different heights.
section (a)
heights.
Ultimate span span
(a) Ultimate at different section
at different heights
section of the
heights main
of the archarch
main rib;rib;
(b) (b)
stability coefficients
stability of of
coefficients thethe
first
first
four orders of the main arch rib under different cross-section heights.
four orders of the main arch rib under different cross-section heights.

5. Ultimate
According Spanning
to Table 4Analysis
and Figure Based on Response
7, with the increase Surface
in theMethodology
cross-section truss height,
the limitIn span value under
the previous the the
section, corresponding parameter shows
effect of single-parameter a trend
changes, of as
such increasing and
pipe diameter,
then
walldecreasing.
thickness,At andthesection
peak of the curve,
truss height,i.e.,
on when the height
the ultimate span ofof
thea foot
CFSTofarchthe arch truss
bridge was
is investigated,
taken as 16 m,and thethe
stress of the steel pipe of the lower chord under the optimal
analysis process only considered the three constraints of structural arch axis
shape of thestiffness,
strength, suspension andchain line reaches
stability. the limitthe
In this section, value,
numberand the span cannot
of section be further
divisions and the
increased.
maximum The bending
lifting weightstiffness
of the of the section
sections, steel of the arch
content foot
rate, increases
constraint withcoefficient,
effect the increase
and
indiameter/thickness
the section height, but the
ratio stability
are increasedcoefficients
in order to of study
each order of the main
the ultimate spanarchof a ring
CFSTfirst
arch
decrease slowly
bridge with fourand then increase
additional rapidly with the increase in the section height. This is
constraints.
due to However,
the fact that the stability
through the changeof theofmain archvariable
a single ring is and
affected by both
according to the section
proposedstiff-
step
ness
sizeand the span calculation,
exhaustive diameter at the the same time, is
workload and the favorable
huge, the iterative influence
process of is
the former is
complicated,
greater
and onlythanthe
the numerical
unfavorable influence
solutions of the
can latter when
be obtained the section
rather than the height is in theequation.
functional range
ofThis
14–16section
m. The describes
oppositethe is use
trueof the response
when the section surface
heightmethod
is morefor the16
than ultimate
m, whichspanning
ulti-
diameter;
mately thein
results solution processand
the increase uses thethe
then results from Section
decrease 4 as the sample
in the ultimate point data,
span diameter uses
of the
the response
CFST arch bridge surface
withmodel insteadinofthe
the increase thesection
complex finite element computation model, and
height.
establishes the ultimate spanning diameter mathematical model, which can significantly
improve the efficiency of the ultimate spanning diameter determination process.

5.1. Multiple Nonlinear Regression Analysis Based on Response Surface Methodology

The response surface method (RSM) analyzes the response surface and contour lines to
seek the optimal parameters. This approach uses multiple quadratic regression equations to
fit the response value and the factors of the functional relationship between the optimization
of statistical methods. The basic idea is to test the system of the target response value as
a function of a number of experimental factors, and such a functional relationship occurs
through the derivation of the means of the optimization of the experimental design of the
optimal parameters, i.e., the deterministic sample points are tested in order to achieve the
goal of fitting a response surface to approximate the distribution of response values.

5.2. Mathematical Modeling of Response Surfaces for Extreme Spans

5.2.1. Identification of Sample Points and Sample Data
The study variables of steel pipe concrete diameter, wall thickness, and cross-section
joist height are denoted as x1 , x2 , and x3 , with units of m, mm, and m, respectively, and
Buildings 2024, 14, 896 13 of 21

the study range of the variables is formulated as x1 ∈ (1.26, 150), x2 ∈ (32, 48), and
x3 ∈ (14, 24). The study range of the variables is defined as follows.
The finite element response value y is the limiting span under the corresponding
parameter, i.e., the sample point data, which are obtained using finite element analysis
software calculations. Considering the interval distribution of the sample points and the
fact that the appropriate increase in the number of sample points can improve the fitting
accuracy, and based on the center combination test design method, a total of 41 groups of
sample point data were extracted. The sample points and finite element response values
are shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Sample points and corresponding ultimate spans of steel tube concrete arch bridges.

Finite Element Response Finite Element Response

Random Variable Random Variable
Value y Value y
Ultimate Span (m) x1 x2 x3 Ultimate Span (m) x1 x2 x3
737 1.26 32 16.76 760 1.26 32 16.00
768 1.30 32 16.84 735 1.26 32 19.00
776 1.34 32 16.92 700 1.26 32 24.00
784 1.38 32 17.00 790 1.34 32 16.00
780 1.42 32 17.08 755 1.34 32 19.00
758 1.46 32 17.16 730 1.34 32 24.00
751 1.50 32 17.24 790 1.42 32 16.00
800 1.50 40 14.00 760 1.42 32 19.00
850 1.50 40 15.00 735 1.42 32 24.00
885 1.50 40 16.00 795 1.26 36 16.00
875 1.50 40 17.00 830 1.26 36 19.00
865 1.50 40 18.00 812 1.26 36 24.00
858 1.50 40 19.00 825 1.34 36 16.00
850 1.50 40 20.00 833 1.34 36 19.00
836 1.50 40 21.00 810 1.34 36 24.00
820 1.50 40 22.00 835 1.42 36 16.00
805 1.50 40 23.00 850 1.42 36 19.00
810 1.50 40 24.00 825 1.42 36 24.00
710 1.50 32 20.00 850 1.50 40 20.00
780 1.50 36 20.00

5.2.2. Limit Span Response Surface Fitting and Accuracy Tests

In this paper, the ultimate span study considers the parameter correlation and chooses
the second-order polynomials containing cross terms as the basic equations of the response
surface model:
n n n
y = a + ∑ bi x i + ∑ ∑ cij xi x j (5)
i =1 i =1 j =1

where a is a constant term, xi , xi x j is the basis function of the response surface model, n is
the number of random variables, and a, bi , cij are the coefficients of the basis function.
According to the 41 groups of sample points and sample data formulated in Section 5.2.1,
the model of the response surface containing only significant terms is fitted based on
stepwise regression to obtain the response surface function of the ultimate span of the steel
pipe concrete arch bridge. The coefficients of the response surface function and the results
of the accuracy test are shown in Tables 6 and 7 below.

Table 6. Response surface modeling function coefficients.

Basis Functions Constant x21 x1 x2 x3

Extreme Span Response Surface Modeling −3182.68 −1887.04 4973.20 −0.43 41.10
Basis Function x22 x32 x1 x2 x1 x3 x2 x3
Limit Span Response Surface Model −0.23 −0.89 15.59 −17.68 0.41
Buildings 2024, 14, 896 14 of 21

Table 7. Sample points and corresponding ultimate spans of steel tube concrete arch bridges.

Response Surface Modeling F-Test Radj 2 /%

Extreme span response surface 124.42 95.40

The F-test mentioned in Table 7 is a statistical method used to determine that at least
one of the coefficients in the model is significantly non-zero. In response to the surface
methodology, it is primarily used to test the significance of the entire regression model.
If the p-value of the F-test is less than a certain threshold, the entire model is considered
significant, i.e., at least one of the predictor variables in the model has a significant effect
on the response variable. The coefficient of determination R2 is a statistic that measures the
goodness of fit of a model, with a value between 0 and 1. R2 describes the degree to which
the independent variable in the model explains the variation in the response variable. An
R2 value close to 1 means that the model explains most of the variation in the response
variable, and in response surface methodology, higher R2 values usually indicate a better
model fit to the data.
In practice, the F-test and R2 are often used in conjunction to assess the statistical
significance and goodness-of-fit of a model. The F-test tells us whether the model is
significant overall, while the R2 provides a quantitative measure of the model’s ability to
account for variation. Considering both statistics together can be used to assess the validity
and fitness of a model.
The maximum value of the critical F value is 3.41 at a significance level of α = 0.05.
From Table 7, it can be seen that the F value of the extreme spanning response surface
model is 124.42, which is much larger than the critical F value, indicating that the response
surface model is significant. From Table 7, it can be seen that the R adj 2 value is 95.4%, which
indicates that 95.4% of the total deviation of the extreme spanning response surface model
under the corresponding parameter is caused by the change in the random variable, i.e., the
total response is not explained by the resulting response surface model, and, at most, 4.6%
of the deviation cannot be explained by the resulting response surface model. The fitting
accuracy of the response surface model is high, and the obtained response surface model is
reliable and can be used for the subsequent solving of the limiting spanning values that
satisfy each constraint.

5.3. 1:10 Optimization of the Response Surface Model for Extreme Spanning Solutions
5.3.1. Mathematical Model for Limit Span Optimization
The steel pipe concrete diameter, wall thickness, and section truss height are selected
as design variables, which are labeled as x1 , x2 , and x3 , and the ultimate span diameter is
selected as the objective function. Under the restriction indexes formulated in Section 2.2,
the maximum value of the ultimate span of the steel pipe concrete arch bridge can be
achieved, and then the ultimate span optimization problem can be expressed as follows:


 maxF
1.26 ≤ x1 ≤ 1.5




32 ≤ x2 ≤ 48






 14 ≤ x3 ≤ 24
As x12 (6)
 0.04 ≤ Ac = 2 − 1 ≤ 0.2


 ( x −
 1 2  2x )
x12

 420
 ξ = × ≥ 0.6
( x1 −2x2 )2


 50.2


 x1 /x2 ≥ 0.04

where As /Ac denotes the cross-section steel content of the steel pipe concrete member; As
and Ac denote the total area of steel reinforcement and the total area of concrete in the
cross-section, respectively; and ξ denotes the coefficient of the confinement effect of the
steel pipe concrete.
Buildings 2024, 14, 896 15 of 21

In order to more intuitively analyze the relationship between the study variables
and the objective function as the ultimate spanning diameter, the response surface model
for the ultimate spanning diameter was analyzed graphically and intuitively using the
computational analysis software MATLAB R2018a.
The trend of the ultimate spanning response surface with respect to the study variables
x2 and x3 when the study variable x1 = 1.4 is shown in Figure 8, the trend of the ultimate
spanning response surface with respect to the study variables x1 and x3 when the study
Buildings
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER variable
REVIEW x2 = 36 is shown in Figure 9, and the trend of the ultimate spanning response
16 of 22
22
Buildings 2024,
2024, 14,
14, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 16
16 of
of 22
surface with respect to the study variables x1 and x2 when the study variable x3 = 20 is
shown in Figure 10.

Figure 8.
Figure 8. Limit span
span response
response surface
surface x1 = 1.40.
Figure 8. Limit
Limit span response surface xx111 === 1.40.
1.40.
1.40.

Figure 9. Limit
Limit span response
response surface xx222 ==
= 36.
Figure
Figure 9. span response surface
9. Limit span surface x2 = 36. 36.
36.

Figure 10.
Figure 10. Limit span
span response
response surface
surface xx3 = 20.
Figure 10. Limit
Limit span response surface x33 == 20.
20.
The
The above
The above Figures
Figures 8–10
8–10 showing
showing the the variation
variation surface
surface of
of the
the limit
limit span
span with
with the study
study
The above
above Figures
Figures 8–10
8–10 showing
showing the the variation
variation surface
surface of
of the
the limit
limit span
span with
with the
the study
variables clearly
variables clearly
variables reflect
clearly reflect the response
reflect the response values
response values and
values and the the direction
the direction of
direction of finding
of finding thethe maximum
the maximum
variables
limit clearly reflect the
the response values and
and
Thethe direction of finding
finding the maximum
maximum
limit span
limit span at
span at different
at different values
different values of
values of the
of the variables.
the variables. The
variables. change
change in color
in color from
color from blue
from blue to
blue to yellow
to yellow in
yellow in
in
limit span
Figures 8–10at different
represents values
the of the
increase variables.
in ultimate The
spanchange
from in color
small to from
large. blue to yellow in
Figures
Figures 8–10 represents the increase in ultimate span from small to large.
Figures 8–10
8–10 represents
represents the the increase
increase in in ultimate
ultimate span
span from
from small
small toto large.
large.
According to
According to the
the ultimate
ultimate span span response
response surface
surface model
model and
and the
the optimization mathe-
mathe-
According to the ultimate span response surface model and the optimization optimization mathe-
matical
matical model, the optimization toolbox of MATLAB and the multivariate nonlinear opti-
matical model,
model, thethe optimization
optimization toolboxtoolbox ofof MATLAB
MATLAB and and the
the multivariate
multivariate nonlinear
nonlinear opti-
opti-
mization function were
mization were used to to optimize and and solve the the problem and and ultimately reached
reached
mization function
function were used used to optimize
optimize and solve solve the problem
problem and ultimately
ultimately reached
the optimum
the optimum at at xx1  1.49,
1.49, xx 2  37 and xx3 17
37 ,, and 17 ,, corresponding
corresponding to to the
the value
value of
of an
an ultimate
ultimate
the optimum at x11  1.49, x22  37 , and x33  17 , corresponding to the value of an ultimate
span of 821 m and an optimal arch axis coefficient of 1.2.
Buildings 2024, 14, 896 16 of 21

According to the ultimate span response surface model and the optimization math-
ematical model, the optimization toolbox of MATLAB and the multivariate nonlinear
optimization function were used to optimize and solve the problem and ultimately reached
the optimum at x1 = 1.49, x2 = 37, and x3 = 17, corresponding to the value of an ultimate
span of 821 m and an optimal arch axis coefficient of 1.2.
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 22
This ultimate span exceeds the span of the current largest CFST arch bridge in the
world, the Guangxi Pingnan Third Bridge, which has a main span of 575 m; this represents
a span increase of 246 m (42.78%), indicating that CFST arch bridges still have significant
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR
It PEER
potential forREVIEW
should be additionally
development noted that,
in large-span when an i5-11300H four-core CPU with 16G17 of 22
bridges.
RAMIt is used to
should be carry out thenoted
additionally optimization
that, whencalculations,
an i5-11300H thefour-core
optimization
CPUtimewith is
16Gno RAM
more
than
is used1 min,
to carrywhichoutisthe
much less than the
optimization time required
calculations, using finite element
the optimization analysis,
time is no more than veri-
1fying
min, thewhich highislevel
much Itofshould
less than
efficiencybe the
additionally
of time noted surface
required
the response that,
usingwhen anelement
finite
method i5-11300H four-core
analysis,
for determining CPU
verifying
the with 16G
ulti-
the high level ofRAM is used
efficiency
mate span of CFST arch bridges. to
of carry
the out the
response optimization
surface calculations,
method for the optimization
determining the time
ultimateis no more
than 1 min, which is much less than the time required using finite element analysis, veri-
span of CFST arch bridges.
fying the high level of efficiency of the response surface method for determining the ulti-
5.3.2. Finite Element Verification of Optimization Results
5.3.2. Finite Element span
mate of CFST of
Verification arch bridges.
Optimization Results
According to the above findings, in order to verify the correctness of the optimization
According
results based on tothe
theFinite
5.3.2. above findings,
Element
response inmodel,
orderofto
Verification
surface the verify the correctness
Optimization
maximum Results
ultimate spanof theand
optimization
the corre-
results based on the
sponding structuralAccording response
parameters surface model,
of above
to the the
the optimization maximum
solution
findings, in order ultimate
were
to verify span
thecalculated and ofthe
correctnessusing thecorre-
finite
optimization
sponding structural
element analysis. resultsparameters
Thebased of the
on the ultimate
maximum optimization
response surface solution
model,
span finite were
the maximum
element calculated
model ultimate
is shown using
span finite
in and the corre-
Figure
element
11. analysis. The maximum
sponding structuralultimate
parameters span
of finite element model
the optimization is shown
solution in Figureusing
were calculated 11. finite
element analysis. The maximum ultimate span finite element model is shown in Figure
11.

Figure11.
11. Finite
Finite element
element modeling of of maximum
maximumultimate
ultimatespan
spanofofCFST
CFSTarch
archbridge.
bridge.
Figure Figure 11.modeling
Finite element modeling of maximum ultimate span of CFST arch bridge.

The results
The results of
of the
the strength
strength calculations
calculations ofof the
the steel
steel pipe
pipe and
and the
the concrete
concrete in
in the
the pipe
pipe
The results of the strength calculations of the steel pipe and the concrete in the pipe
under the
under the combination
combination of
of the
the basic
basic effects
effects of
of the
the ultimate
ultimate load-carrying
load-carrying capacity
capacity state
state
under the combination of the basic effects of the ultimate load-carrying capacity are
arestate are
shown in Figure
shown in Figure 12. in Figure 12.
12.
shown

−160 −160 −6 −6
Stresses in steel pipe topStresses
chords in steel pipe top chords
Stresses in −180 Stresses
steel tube lower in steel tube lower chords
chords −8 −8
−180
Stresses of the concrete in the pipe (MPa)
Stresses of the concrete in the pipe (MPa)

−10 −10
−200 −200
−12
−220 −12
Tube stress (MPa)

−220
Tube stress (MPa)

−14
−240 −14
−240 −16
−260 −16
−260 −18
−280 −18
−20
−280
−300 −20
−22
−300 Concrete in the top chord tube
−320 −22 −24 Concrete in the lower chord tube
Concrete in the top chord tube
−320 Arch foot Arch crown Arch foot Arch crown
−24 Concrete in the lower
Arch chord tube
rib position
Arch rib position
Arch foot Arch crown Arch foot Arch crown
(a) Arch rib position (b)
Arch rib position

Figure(a) Figure
12. Main arch rib12. Mainsimulation
stress arch rib stress simulation
results. results.
(a) Stress (b) (a) Stress distribution
distribution alongof
along the span thesteel
spanpipe
of steel pipe
stringers; (b) stress distribution along the span of the concrete in the pipe.
stringers;
Figure 12.(b) stress
Main distribution
arch along the span
rib stress simulation of the
results. (a) concrete in the pipe.along the span of steel pipe
Stress distribution
stringers; (b) stress distribution
As can be along the span
seen from Figureof the concrete
12, the in thestresses
maximum pipe. of the steel pipe and concrete
As can be seen from Figure 12, the maximum stresses of the steel pipe and concrete
in the pipe appear at the foot of the arch, and the stresses of the steel pipe and concrete in
in theAspipe
canappear
be the
seenat from
the foot of the
Figure arch,
12,chord and the stresses
the maximum of of
stresses thethe
steel pipe
steel andand
pipe concrete
concretein
pipe in the upper are more uniformly distributed along the span, with a large
in the pipe appear increase in foot
at the the middle of the and
of the arch, span.the
The stressesof
stresses ofthe
the steel
steel pipe
pipe and
andconcrete
concreteininthe pipe
the pipe in the in the lower
upper chord chord
aregradually decrease distributed
more uniformly along the distribution
along the of span,
the span, anda the
with steel pipe
large
increase in the and the concrete
middle in theThe
of the span. pipe are in aofstate
stresses the of compression.
steel The maximum
pipe and concrete in thestress
pipe values
under load are as follows:
in the lower chord gradually decrease along the distribution of the span, and the steel pipe
and the concrete in the pipe are in a state of compression. The maximum stress values
 Buildings 2024, 14, 896 17 of 21

Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW

the pipe in the upper chord are more uniformly distributed along the span, with 18aoflarge
22

increase in the middle of the span. The stresses of the steel pipe and concrete in the pipe in
Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW
the lower chord gradually decrease along the distribution of the span, and the 18 steel
of 22 pipe
and the concrete in the pipe are in a state of compression. The maximum stress values
under load are as follows:  s max  317.81 MPa  320MPa
 (7)
  c   23.80 MPa  34.6MPa
(σs)max
s  max
max
= 
|− 317.81
317.81 MPa
| 
MPa 320MPa
≤ 320 MPa
σc ) (7) (7)
According to the maximum (  stress
  =value,
max |− 23.80
23.80 |can
itMPa ≤
MPabe 34.6that
34.6MPa
seen MPa

the concrete stress reserve
c max
in the pipe is large, and the maximum stress value of the steel pipe is approaching the
Accordingtoto
According the
the maximum
maximum stress
stress value,
value, it can
it can be seen
be seen that that the concrete
the concrete stressstress reserve
reserve
strength limitisvalue. At thisthe
time, the limit span continues to increase with the strength of
in the pipe is large, and the maximum stress value of the steel pipe is approaching the the
in the pipe large, and maximum stress value of the steel pipe is approaching
the steel pipe.
strengthlimit
limitvalue.
value.
strength AtAt
thisthis time,
time, thethe limit
limit spanspan continues
continues to increase
to increase with with the strength
the strength of of
The
thesteel maximum
steelpipe.
pipe. vertical deflection of the main arch of the CFST arch bridge under lane
the
loads (excluding
Themaximum
maximum impact forces)
vertical is shown
deflection ofin Figure
the main 13. of the CFST arch bridge under lane
The vertical deflection of the main archarch
of the CFST arch bridge under lane
loads(excluding
loads (excluding impact
impact forces)
forces) is shown
is shown in Figure
in Figure 13. 13.
300 300

Deflection of lower chord steel pipe (mm)

300
pipe (mm)

200 300
200

Deflection of lower chord steel pipe (mm)

steel(mm)

200 200
100 100
steel pipe

Positive deflection of the lower chord

100 100
top chord

Positive deflection of the top chord 0 Negative deflection of the lower chord
0
Negative deflection of the top chord Positive deflection of the lower chord
chord

Positive deflection of the top chord 0 Negative deflection of the lower chord
0
Negative deflection of the top chord
of topof

−100 −100
Deflection

−100 −100
Deflection

−200 −200

−200 −200
−300 −300

−300 −300
Arch crown Arch foot Arch crown
Arch foot Arch rib position
Arch rib position Arch foot Arch crown
Arch foot Arch crown Arch rib position
Arch rib position
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 13. Distribution of steel pipe deflection along the span diameter. (a) Distribution of deflection
Figure
ofFigure 13.
13.Distribution
top chord steel pipe of
Distribution steel
of
along pipe
steel
span deflection
pipe
diameter; along
deflection the span
(b)along diameter.
the span
distribution (a) Distribution
ofdiameter.
deflection (a) of deflection
ofDistribution
lower chord ofsteel
deflection
pipe
of top
along chord
span
of top chord steel pipe
diameter. along span diameter; (b) distribution of deflection of lower chord
steel pipe along span diameter; (b) distribution of deflection of lower chord steel pipe
steel pipe
along span diameter.
along span diameter.
From Figure 13, it can be seen that the deflection extremes of the upper and lower
From
FromFigure 13,13,
Figure it it
can bebe
can seen that
seen thethe
that deflection extremes
deflection of the upper
extremes and lower
chord bars under lane loading (not counting the impact force) both of the upper
appeared and lower
at 1/4L, and
chord bars under lane loading (not counting the impact force) both appeared at 1/4L, and
chord
the bars under
maximum lanedeflection
vertical loading (not valuecounting
was as the impact force) both appeared at 1/4L, and
follows:
the maximum vertical deflection value was as follows:
the maximum vertical deflection value was as follows:
L
593.21mm  L L 829.00mm
WWmaxmax593.21mm  829.00mm (8) (8)
Wmax = 593.21 mm ≤1000 1000 = 829.00 mm (8)
1000
An
An elastic bucklingstability
elastic buckling stabilityanalysis
analysiswas
was carried
carried out
out forfor
thethe overall
overall andand local
local stability
stability
An elastic buckling stability analysis was carried out for the overall and local stability
of
ofthe
the steel
steel pipe concrete
concretemain
mainarch
archonly.
only.The
Thebuckling
buckling analysis
analysis waswas carried
carried outout using
using the the
of the steel pipe concrete main arch only. The buckling analysis was carried out using the
Midas
Midas civil
civil space finite
finite element
elementmodel
modelwithwiththethemoving
moving load
load equivalent
equivalent concentrated
concentrated
Midas civil space finite element model with the moving load equivalent concentrated force
force
force as
as aa variable load and
variable load andother
otherloads
loadsasasa aconstant
constant load.
load. TheThe results
results of the
of the firstfirst
fourfour
as a variable load and other loads as a constant load. The results of the first four orders of
orders of instability modal calculations are shown in Figure
orders of instability modal calculations are shown in Figure 14. 14.
instability modal calculations are shown in Figure 14.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)

Figure 14. Cont.

Buildings 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 22
Buildings 2024, 14, 896 18 of 21

(c) (d)
Figure
Figure14.14.Modal
Modaldiagram of of
diagram thethe
first four
first orders
four of instability
orders of the
of instability main
of the archarch
main rib. rib.
(a) The 1st in-
(a) The 1st
stability modal diagram of the main arch rib; (b) 2nd instability modal diagram of the main arch rib;
instability modal diagram of the main arch rib; (b) 2nd instability modal diagram of the main arch
(c) 3rd instability modal diagram of the main arch rib; (d) 4th instability modal diagram of the main
rib; (c) 3rd instability modal diagram of the main arch rib; (d) 4th instability modal diagram of the
arch rib.
main arch rib.
The first four orders of instability forms and elastic buckling stability coefficients dur-
The first four orders of instability forms and elastic buckling stability coefficients
ing the operational phase of the completed bridge are shown in Table 8.
during the operational phase of the completed bridge are shown in Table 8.
Table 8. Sample points and corresponding ultimate spans of CFST arch bridges.
Table 8. Sample points and corresponding ultimate spans of CFST arch bridges.
Elastic Flexural Stability
Order Destabilized Mode Elastic Flexural Stability
Order Destabilized Mode Coefficient
Coefficient
1st destabilization In-plane antisymmetric instability 6.33
1st destabilization In-plane antisymmetric instability 6.33
2nd destabilization
2nd destabilization In-plane
In-planesymmetric instability
symmetric instability 9.07
9.07
3rd3rd
destabilization
destabilization In-plane
In-planeantisymmetric instability
antisymmetric instability 14.49
14.49
4th4th destabilization
destabilization In-planesymmetric
In-plane symmetric instability
instability 17.30
17.30

From
Fromthe theinstability
instabilitymodal
modaldiagrams
diagramspresented
presentedininFigure
Figure14 14and
andthe
theelastic
elasticbuckling
buckling
stability coefficients shown in Table 8, it can be seen that the elastic
stability coefficients shown in Table 8, it can be seen that the elastic buckling buckling stability co-
stability
efficients of all orders are greater than the allowable
coefficients of all orders are greater than the allowable values. values.
The
TheCFSTCFSTarch
archbridge
bridgesteel
steelstructure
structurearch archrib
rib(excluding
(excludingthethetransverse
transversebrace)
brace)weighs
weighs
aatotal
totalofof12,512
12,512t.t.Single
Singlerib
riblifting
liftingcan
canbe bedivided
dividedinto
into3232segments,
segments,with
withthe
themaximum
maximum
lifting
liftingweight
weightsegment
segmentcontrol
controlofof200200t,t,totomeet
meetthetheproposed
proposedrestrictions.
restrictions.
Steel pipe concrete contains steel at a rate
Steel pipe concrete contains steel at a rate αss of:  of:
2
As As x12x1
≤ αs=s  = 
0.04 0.04 1  0.108  0.2
2 − 1 = 0.108 ≤ 0.2 (9)
(9)
Ac Ac ( x1x−2x 2x22)2
1

Thesteel
The steelcontent
contentmeets
meetsthe
thelimits
limitsdrawn
drawnup upininaccordance
accordancewith
withthe
thespecifications.
specifications.
Thesteel
The steelpipe
pipeconcrete
concreteconstraint
constrainteffect coefficient ξ is:
effectcoefficient is:

420 420  
!
xx1212
ξ =   ×  22   0.89  0.6
= 0.89 ≥ 0.6 (10)
(10)
50.250.2 (x1x−2x
 1 2 x22) 
Theconstraint
The constrainteffect
effectcoefficients
coefficientssatisfy
satisfythe
theconstraints
constraintsdrawn
drawnup
upininaccordance
accordancewith
with
thespecification.
the specification.

6.6.Conclusions
Conclusions

InInorder
order to
to study
studythe
theultimate span
ultimate of aof
span CFST arch bridge,
a CFST taking taking
arch bridge, the structural strength,
the structural
stiffness, and stability as the limiting conditions, the finite element analysis method
strength, stiffness, and stability as the limiting conditions, the finite element analysis was
adopted to examine the trend of the influence of the change in a single parameter of the
method was adopted to examine the trend of the influence of the change in a single pa-
pipe diameter, wall thickness, and truss height on the ultimate span on the basis of the
rameter of the pipe diameter, wall thickness, and truss height on the ultimate span on the
optimal analysis of the arch axial shape. The response surface method was introduced
basis of the optimal analysis of the arch axial shape. The response surface method was
into the optimization of the ultimate span to solve the problem, and then the value of the
introduced into the optimization of the ultimate span to solve the problem, and then the
ultimate span of the CFST arch bridge was obtained. The main conclusions are as follows:
value of the ultimate span of the CFST arch bridge was obtained. The main conclusions
(1) The diameter of the steel pipe concrete and the corresponding parameters of the
are as follows:
ultimate span diameter showed a trend of increasing and then decreasing. When the
Buildings 2024, 14, 896 19 of 21

diameter of the steel pipe concrete was taken as 1.38 m, the stress of the lower chord steel
pipe reached the limiting value under the optimal arch axial shape of the suspension chain
line; the wall thickness of the steel pipe concrete and the corresponding parameters of the
ultimate span diameter showed a trend of continuous increase; and the truss height of the
main arch cross-section and the corresponding parameters of the ultimate span diameter
showed a trend of increasing and then decreasing.
(2) An optimization method based on the response surface method was proposed
to solve the ultimate spanning diameter, and the response surface model of the ultimate
spanning diameter was established by taking the pipe diameter, wall thickness, and truss
height as the research variables, and the response surface function of the ultimate spanning
diameter with high reliability was obtained. By establishing the ultimate spanning diameter
optimization mathematical model and adopting the multivariate nonlinear optimization
function for the optimization and solution, a maximum value of the ultimate spanning
diameter of 821 m was reached when the pipe diameter was 1.49 m, the wall thickness t
was 37 mm, and the truss height was 17 m, satisfying all the constraints. The optimal arch
axis coefficient was 1.2.
(3) The verification analysis was carried out using finite element software, and the
results showed that the structural strength just reached the limit value, and the remaining
variables, such as the stiffness, stability, and the maximum lifting weight of the section,
were all within the limit values.
Environmental factors, as important factors affecting the construction quality of large-
span CFST arch bridges, restrict the span development of these bridges to a certain extent.
Mountain canyon winds, ambient temperatures, construction schemes, etc., tend to directly
affect the structural stability, deformation, and stress during the construction of arch
bridges, and carrying out a study on the ultimate spans of CFST arch bridges that considers
environmental factors and the actual construction scheme used will be the next step in
our research.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Y.W. and X.W. (Xiangchuan Wang); methodology, Y.W.
and Y.F.; software, Y.W.; validation, C.L., J.S. and X.W. (Xiangchuan Wang); formal analysis, Y.W.;
investigation, X.W. (Xinzhong Wang); resources, Y.F.; data curation, C.L.; writing—original draft
preparation, J.S.; writing—review and editing, X.W. (Xinzhong Wang); visualization, Y.W.; supervi-
sion, J.S.; project administration, C.L.; funding acquisition, X.W. (Xiangchuan Wang). All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant
No. 51908094) and the Project of the Education Bureau of Hunan Province of China (Grant No. 23B0732,
No. 23A0559, and No. 22A0561).
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available from the first and
corresponding author upon request. The data are not publicly available due to the policy of the
data provider.
Conflicts of Interest: Author Xiangchuan Wang was employed by the company Huasheng Testing
Technology Co., Ltd. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence
of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References
1. Liu, J.; Li, X.; Liu, H.; Chen, B. Recent Application and Development of Concrete-Filled Steel Tube Arch Bridges in China. In
Advances in Civil Engineering Materials, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Architecture and Civil Engineering (ICACE
2022), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 18 August 2022; Nia, E.M., Ling, L., Awang, M., Emamian, S.S., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2023;
pp. 263–272.
2. Zheng, J.; Wang, J.; Mou, T.; Feng, Z.; Han, Y.; Qin, D. Feasibility Study on Design and Construction of Concrete Filled Steel
Tubular Arch Bridge with a Span of 700 m. Chin. Acad. Eng. 2014, 16, 33–37.
3. Tong, K.; Zhang, H.; Zhao, R.; Zhou, J.; Ying, H. Investigation of SMFL Monitoring Technique for Evaluating the Load-Bearing
Capacity of RC Bridges. Eng. Struct. 2023, 293, 116667. [CrossRef]
4. Yu, M.; Deng, N.; Chen, Q.; Hao, T. Refined Finite Element Analysis of Crack Causes in SRC Arch Rib Bridges Considering
Multiple Factors. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2018, 2018, 2690951. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2024, 14, 896 20 of 21

5. Yang, Y.; Luo, X.; Tang, Y.; Wwei, J.; Chen, B. Research on the Ultimate Bearing Capacity and Simplified Design Formulae of Steel
Truss Web-Steel Reinforced Concrete (SRC) Composite Arches. Eng. Mech. 2017, 34, 200–206.
6. Pouraminian, M.; Ghaemian, M. Shape Optimisation of Concrete Open Spandrel Arch Bridges. Gradjevinar 2015, 67, 1177–1185.
7. Xie, X.; Fu, Y.; Deng, N. Design of Half-Through Cable-Arch Bridge with 700 m Main Span. J. Southwest Jiaotong Univ. 2019, 54,
1162–1176. [CrossRef]
8. Huang, Q.; Wei, J.; Chen, B.; Wu, M. Trial-Design Research on 420m SRC-Steel Web Composite Box Arch Bridge. J. Fuzhou Univ.
Nat. Sci. Ed. 2011, 39, 936–940.
9. Huang, Q.; Fu, Y.; Xu, C.; Chen, B. Trial Design Research on Super Long Span Reactive Powder Concrete Arch Bridge. J. Nanchang
Univ. Eng. Technol. 2015, 37, 252–256+266. [CrossRef]
10. Shao, X.; He, G. Conceptual Design and Feasibility Study of an 800 m Scale Steel-UHPC Composite Truss Arch Bridge. China J.
Highw. Transp. 2020, 33, 73.
11. Zhang, X.; Deng, Z.; Fang, G.; Ge, Y. Theoretical Analysis of Ultimate Main Span Length for Arch Bridge. Sustainability 2022, 14,
17043. [CrossRef]
12. Shao, X.; He, G.; Shen, X.; Zhu, P.; Chen, Y. Conceptual Design of 1000 m Scale Steel-UHPFRC Composite Truss Arch Bridge. Eng.
Struct. 2021, 226, 111430. [CrossRef]
13. Zheng, J.; Du, H.; Mu, T.; Liu, J.; Qin, D.; Mei, G.; Tu, B. Innovations in Design, Construction, and Management of Pingnan Third
Bridge—The Largest-Span Arch Bridge in the World. Struct. Eng. Int. 2022, 32, 134–141. [CrossRef]
14. Wei, J.; Ying, H.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, W.; Yuan, H.; Zhou, J. Seismic Performance of Concrete-Filled Steel Tubular Composite Columns
with Ultra High Performance Concrete Plates. Eng. Struct. 2023, 278, 115500. [CrossRef]
15. Wang, X.; Li, L.; Xiang, Y.; Wu, Y.; Wei, M. The Influence of Basalt Fiber on the Mechanical Performance of Concrete-Filled Steel
Tube Short Columns under Axial Compression. Front. Mater. 2024, 10, 1332269. [CrossRef]
16. Zhang, X.; Zhou, G.; Liu, X.; Fan, Y.; Meng, E.; Yang, J.; Huang, Y. Experimental and Numerical Analysis of Seismic Behaviour for
Recycled Aggregate Concrete Filled Circular Steel Tube Frames. Comput. Concr. 2023, 31, 537.
17. Zhang, X.; Liu, X.; Zhang, S.; Wang, J.; Fu, L.; Yang, J.; Huang, Y. Analysis on Displacement-Based Seismic Design Method of
Recycled Aggregate Concrete-Filled Square Steel Tube Frame Structures. Struct. Concr. 2023, 24, 3461–3475. [CrossRef]
18. Huang, W.; Lai, Z.; Chen, B.; Xie, Z.; Varma, A.H. Concrete-Filled Steel Tube (CFT) Truss Girders: Experimental Tests, Analysis,
and Design. Eng. Struct. 2018, 156, 118–129. [CrossRef]
19. Lai, X.; Chen, B.; Zheng, J.; Huang, L. Experimental Study on Stability Capacity of CFT Columns Considering the Influence of
Long-Term Load. Build. Sci. 2023, 39, 65–73.
20. Xu, L.; Lu, Q.; Chi, Y.; Yang, Y.; Yu, M.; Yan, Y. Axial Compressive Performance of UHPC Filled Steel Tube Stub Columns
Containing Steel-Polypropylene Hybrid Fiber. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 204, 754–767. [CrossRef]
21. Shi, Z.; Hu, H.; Li, J. Axis Optimisation of Arch-Shaped Pylons for High-Speed Railway Cable-Stayed Bridges. Eng. Struct. 2021,
227, 111424. [CrossRef]
22. Zheng, J.; Wang, J. Concrete-Filled Steel Tube Arch Bridges in China. Engineering 2018, 4, 143–155. [CrossRef]
23. Lan, H. Investigation and Analysis of Development Situation of CFST Truss Arch Bridge in China. West. China Commun. Technol.
2018, 7, 134–138. (In Chinese) [CrossRef]
24. Chen, B.-W.; Han, L.-H.; Qin, D.-Y.; Li, W. Life-Cycle Based Structural Performance of Long-Span CFST Hybrid Arch Bridge: A
Study on Arch of Pingnan Third Bridge. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2023, 207, 107939. [CrossRef]
25. Chen, B.; Liu, J.; Habib, T. Recent Research and Application of Arch Bridges in China. In Proceedings of ARCH 2019, Proceedings of
the 9th International Conference on Arch Bridges, Porto, Portugal, 2–4 October 2019; Arêde, A., Costa, C., Eds.; Springer International
Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 536–544.
26. Fan, Y.; Xin, J.; Yang, L.; Zhou, J.; Luo, C.; Zhou, Y.; Zhang, H. Optimization Method for the Length of the Outsourcing Concrete
Working Plane on the Main Arch Rib of a Rigid-Frame Arch Bridge Based on the NSGA-II Algorithm. Structures 2024, 59, 105767.
[CrossRef]
27. Fan, Y.; Zhou, J.; Luo, C.; Yang, J.; Xin, J.; Wang, S. Research on Loading Scheme for Large-Scale Model Tests of Super-Long-Span
Arch Bridge. Buildings 2023, 13, 1639. [CrossRef]
28. Chen, B.; Liu, F.; Wei, J. Statistical Analysis of 327 Steel-Tube Concrete Arch Bridges. J. China Foreign Highw. 2011, 31, 96–103.
(In Chinese) [CrossRef]
29. Ye, W.; Wang, L.; Sun, X.; Xu, D.; Wang, T. Key Parameter Influence Analysis of Half-through Concrete-Filled Steel Tubular Arch
Bridge. Bridge Constr. 2023, 53, 79–86. (In Chinese) [CrossRef]
30. Chen, B.; Liu, J.; Wei, J. Concrete-Filled Steel Tubular Arch Bridges; Springer: Singapore, 2023.
31. Khuri, A.I.; Mukhopadhyay, S. Response Surface Methodology. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Stat. 2010, 2, 128–149. [CrossRef]
32. Ye, D.; Xu, Z.; Liu, Y. Solution to the Problem of Bridge Structure Damage Identification by a Response Surface Method and an
Imperialist Competitive Algorithm. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 16495. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
33. Tang, Q.; Xin, J.; Jiang, Y.; Zhang, H.; Zhou, J. Dynamic Response Recovery of Damaged Structures Using Residual Learning
Enhanced Fully Convolutional Network. Int. J. Struct. Stab. Dyn. 2024. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2024, 14, 896 21 of 21

34. Temür, R. Analyses of Plane Stress and Plane Strain through Energy Minimization. Structures 2021, 33, 728–736. [CrossRef]
35. Juvinall, R.C.; Marshek, K.M. Fundamentals of Machine Component Design; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2020.

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