## 6 Numerical Study and Comparison
### Parametric Analysis and Comparison
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Bridge Name** & \(a\) **(mm)** & \(b\) **(mm)** & \(c\) **(mm)** & \(h_{r}\) **(mm)** \\ \hline Shinkai & 250 & 200 & 250 & 150 \\ Maupre & 284 & 241 & 284 & 150 \\ Matsnoki & 300 & 260 & 300 & 150 \\ Hondani & 330 & 270 & 336 & 200 \\ Iisun & 330 & 330 & 386 & 200 \\ Cognac & 353 & 319 & 353 & 150 \\ Dole & 430 & 370 & 430 & 220 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Corrugation dimension of CSWs for existing bridges. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Bridge** & **H (mm)** & **t (mm)** & **H/t** & **h\({}_{r}\)/t** & **\(\boldsymbol{\tau_{cr,T}}\) (MPa)** & **\(\boldsymbol{\tau_{cr,F}}\) (MPa)** & **\(\boldsymbol{\tau_{cr,F}}\)**(MPa)** & **\(\boldsymbol{\tau_{cr,F}}\)**(\(\boldsymbol{\tau_{cr,T}}\)**)** \\ \hline \multirow{9}{*}{Matsnoki} & 3000 & 10 & 300 & 15 & 723.65 & 626.20 & 0.87 \\  & 3000 & 12 & 250 & 13 & 793.87 & 793.56 & 1.00 \\  & 3000 & 14 & 214 & 11 & 858.94 & 971.79 & 1.13 \\  & 3360 & 8 & 420 & 19 & 516.81 & 450.93 & 0.87 \\  & 3360 & 10 & 336 & 15 & 578.50 & 600.68 & 1.04 \\  & 3500 & 8 & 438 & 19 & 476.94 & 442.29 & 0.93 \\  & 3500 & 10 & 350 & 15 & 533.86 & 592.26 & 1.11 \\  & 4000 & 6 & 667 & 25 & 317.95 & 288.56 & 0.91 \\  & 4000 & 8 & 500 & 19 & 367.48 & 421.28 & 1.15 \\ \hline \multirow{9}{*}{Hondani} & 3000 & 18 & 167 & 11 & 1535.32 & 1389.96 & 0.91 \\  & 3000 & 20 & 150 & 10 & 1620.65 & 1594.30 & 0.98 \\  & 3000 & 22 & 136 & 9 & 1702.39 & 1806.67 & 1.06 \\  & 3600 & 12 & 300 & 17 & 870.10 & 769.07 & 0.88 \\  & 3600 & 14 & 257 & 14 & 940.72 & 939.17 & 1.00 \\  & 3600 & 16 & 225 & 13 & 1006.79 & 1118.26 & 1.11 \\  & 4000 & 10 & 400 & 20 & 644.70 & 582.85 & 0.90 \\  & 4000 & 12 & 333 & 17 & 706.81 & 739.00 & 1.05 \\  & 4500 & 8 & 563 & 25 & 457.60 & 415.81 & 0.91 \\  & 4500 & 10 & 450 & 20 & 511.95 & 557.44 & 1.09 \\  & 5000 & 8 & 625 & 25 & 373.25 & 399.60 & 1.07 \\ \hline \multirow{9}{*}{Iisun} & 3500 & 16 & 219 & 13 & 1046.32 & 940.38 & 0.90 \\  & 3500 & 18 & 194 & 11 & 1111.19 & 1099.46 & 0.99 \\  & 3500 & 20 & 175 & 10 & 1172.94 & 1266.57 & 1.08 \\  & 3960 & 12 & 330 & 17 & 708.64 & 617.80 & 0.87 \\  & 3960 & 14 & 283 & 14 & 766.16 & 757.02 & 0.99 \\  & 3960 & 16 & 248 & 13 & 819.96 & 904.97 & 1.10 \\  & 4500 & 10 & 450 & 20 & 503.29 & 464.78 & 0.92 \\  & 4500 & 12 & 375 & 17 & 551.78 & 591.94 & 1.07 \\  & 5000 & 8 & 625 & 25 & 366.99 & 333.50 & 0.91 \\  & 5000 & 10 & 500 & 20 & 410.58 & 448.70 & 1.09 \\  & 5500 & 8 & 688 & 25 & 306.21 & 322.80 & 1.05 \\ \hline \multirow{9}{*}{Cognac} & 3500 & 10 & 350 & 15 & 525.70 & 449.89 & 0.86 \\  & 3500 & 12 & 292 & 13 & 576.71 & 570.55 & 0.99 \\  & 3500 & 14 & 250 & 11 & 623.98 & 699.18 & 1.12 \\  & 4032 & 8 & 504 & 19 & 356.36 & 319.54 & 0.90 \\  & 4032 & 10 & 403 & 15 & 398.89 & 428.00 & 1.07 \\  & 4500 & 6 & 750 & 25 & 249.74 & 210.50 & 0.84 \\  & 4500 & 8 & 563 & 19 & 288.64 & 307.08 & 1.06 \\ \hline \multirow{9}{*}{Cognac} & 4500 & 14 & 321 & 16 & 682.03 & 608.44 & 0.89 \\  & 4500 & 16 & 281 & 14 & 729.79 & 723.76 & 0.99 \\  & 4500 & 18 & 250 & 12 & 774.85 & 844.56 & 1.09 \\  & 4800 & 12 & 400 & 18 & 556.39 & 486.28 & 0.87 \\  & 4800 & 14 & 343 & 16 & 601.45 & 594.08 & 0.99 \\  & 4800 & 16 & 300 & 14 & 643.56 & 707.62 & 1.10 \\  & 5500 & 10 & 550 & 22 & 390.71 & 364.18 & 0.93 \\  & 5500 & 12 & 458 & 18 & 428.28 & 462.27 & 1.08 \\  & 6000 & 8 & 750 & 28 & 29 As seen from Figure 9, considering Cognac Bridge as an example, when the radius of curvature and the height of the PCCSW are constant at \(R\) = 110 m and \(H\) = 4032 mm, the global shear buckling stress of the PCCSW increases with the decrease of aspect ratios \(a/H\) and \(c/H\) of a single panel (longitudinal panel or inclined panel). It is also clear from the figure that the global shear buckling strength of the PCCSW is more sensitive to \(c/H\) than to \(a/H\). This is reasonable as the global buckling involves out of plane deformation for the corrugated web which is resisted by the inclined folds.