## 6 Numerical Study and Comparison
### Parametric Analysis and Comparison
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline
**Bridge** & **R (m)** & **H (mm)** & **t (mm)** & **\(\boldsymbol{\tau_{cc,T}}\) (MPa)** & **\(\boldsymbol{\tau_{cc,f}}\) (MPa)** & **\(\boldsymbol{\tau_{cc,f}}\)/\(\boldsymbol{\tau_{cc,T}}\)** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Shinkai} & \(\infty\) & 2700 & 10 & 913.40 & 884.19 & 0.97 \\  & 110 & 2700 & 10 & 916.22 & 887.85 & 0.97 \\  & 80 & 2700 & 10 & 918.74 & 887.89 & 0.97 \\  & 50 & 2700 & 10 & 927.08 & 889.85 & 0.96 \\  & 40 & 2700 & 10 & 934.79 & 892.89 & 0.96 \\  & 30 & 2700 & 10 & 951.53 & 897.89 & 0.94 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Maupre} & \(\infty\) & 3150 & 10 & 657.65 & 673.24 & 1.02 \\  & 110 & 3150 & 10 & 661.52 & 674.19 & 1.02 \\  & 80 & 3150 & 10 & 664.97 & 675.21 & 1.02 \\  & 50 & 3150 & 10 & 667.43 & 677.08 & 1.00 \\  & 40 & 3150 & 10 & 687.06 & 678.70 & 0.99 \\  & 30 & 3150 & 10 & 710.19 & 681.11 & 0.96 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Matsnoki} & \(\infty\) & 3360 & 10 & 574.09 & 599.82 & 1.04 \\  & 110 & 3360 & 10 & 578.50 & 600.68 & 1.04 \\  & 80 & 3360 & 10 & 582.43 & 601.58 & 1.03 \\  & 50 & 3360 & 10 & 595.52 & 602.26 & 1.01 \\  & 40 & 3360 & 10 & 607.69 & 603.27 & 0.99 \\  & 30 & 3360 & 10 & 634.22 & 604.76 & 0.95 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Hondani} & \(\infty\) & 3600 & 14 & 935.58 & 937.84 & 1.00 \\  & 110 & 3600 & 14 & 940.72 & 939.17 & 1.00 \\  & 80 & 3600 & 14 & 945.31 & 939.76 & 0.99 \\  & 50 & 3600 & 14 & 960.54 & 940.54 & 0.98 \\  & 40 & 3600 & 14 & 974.66 & 941.63 & 0.97 \\  & 30 & 3600 & 14 & 1005.39 & 943.23 & 0.94 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Issun} & \(\infty\) & 3960 & 14 & 759.90 & 755.99 & 0.99 \\  & 110 & 3960 & 14 & 766.16 & 757.02 & 0.99 \\  & 80 & 3960 & 14 & 771.74 & 757.43 & 0.98 \\  & 50 & 3960 & 14 & 790.33 & 757.95 & 0.96 \\  & 40 & 3960 & 14 & 807.60 & 758.77 & 0.94 \\  & 30 & 3960 & 14 & 845.31 & 759.94 & 0.90 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Cognac} & \(\infty\) & 4032 & 10 & 392.50 & 427.38 & 1.09 \\  & 110 & 4032 & 10 & 398.89 & 428.00 & 1.07 \\  & 80 & 4032 & 10 & 404.61 & 428.27 & 1.06 \\  & 50 & 4032 & 10 & 423.72 & 428.65 & 1.01 \\  & 40 & 4032 & 10 & 441.60 & 429.14 & 0.97 \\  & 30 & 4032 & 10 & 481.01 & 429.86 & 0.89 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Dole} & \(\infty\) & 4800 & 14 & 592.65 & 593.24 & 1.00 \\  & 110 & 4800 & 14 & 601.45 & 594.08 & 0.99 \\  & 80 & 4800 & 14 & 609.31 & 594.46 & 0.98 \\  & 50 & 4800 & 14 & 635.58 & 594.97 & 0.94 \\  & 40 & 4800 & 14 & 660.12 & 595.67 & 0.90 \\  & 30 & 4800 & 14 & 714.13 & 599.96 & 0.84 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{AVE} & & & & & & 0.98 \\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{COV} & & & & & & 0.05 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Global elastic shear buckling strength of PCCSW with varying curvature radius. Figure 14: Comparison of global shear buckling strength of a corrugated web used in a straight bridge (\(R=\infty\)) and a curved bridge (\(R=110\) m). As shown in Figures 15 and 16 and Tables 7 and 8, as the radius of curvature \(R\) of PCCSW decreases, the outer corrugation angle increases, while the inner corrugation angle decreases. Also, for the same case, the intersection angle of the inclined panel in relation to the tangent line of the longitudinal axis \(\theta\) decreases slowly, and obviously the outer corrugation angle \(\theta_{1}\) increases faster than that of the inner corrugation angle \(\theta_{2}\). With regard to buckling stress, it can be concluded from Figure 16 that when the radius of curvature \(R\) is reduced, the global elastic shear buckling stress of PCCSW increases with the increase of the outer corrugation angle \(\theta_{1}\) and with the reduction of both the intersection angle \(\theta\) of the central axis and the inner corrugation angle \(\theta_{2}\), and the increasing speed is slower than that of \(\theta_{1}\).