Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 61–73

www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruc

Ultimate load carrying capacity of the Lu Pu steel

arch bridge under static wind loads
a,*
Jin Cheng , Jian-Jing Jiang b, Ru-Cheng Xiao a, Hai-Fan Xiang a

a
Department of Bridge Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
Received 29 November 2001; accepted 5 November 2002

Abstract
This paper investigates the ultimate load carrying capacity of the Lu Pu Bridge under static wind loads through the
spatial finite element model. Both geometric and material nonlinearities are involved in the analysis. The Lu Pu Bridge
is a long-span half-through-type steel arch bridge with a 550 m-long central span under construction in Shanghai,
China. This will be the longest central span of any arch bridge in the world. Three load combinations are used in the
ultimate load capacity analysis of the bridge. Combination I: combined dead and live loads over the entire bridge.
Combination II: combined dead and wind loads. Combination III: combined dead load, wind load and live load over
the entire bridge. Ultimate load capacity of the bridge is first investigated under load combinations I and II. Attention is
paid mainly to investigate the load capacity of the bridge under load combination III. In the case of load combination
III, the influences of several parameters (i.e., loading sequence, three components of wind loads and wind loads of
individual bridge element) on the ultimate load capacity of the bridge are discussed. It is concluded that wind loads
result in significant reduction in the ultimate load capacity when applied wind loads become large.

2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Lu Pu Bridge; Half-through-type steel arch bridge; Ultimate load carrying capacity; Geometric nonlinearity; Material
nonlinearity; Three components of wind loads

1. Introduction it becomes especially important to be able to accurately

Steel arch bridges have made rapid developments
since the erection of the first steel arch bridge (EadÕs St.
Louis Bridge, 157 m) [2]. Steel arch bridges are now
entering a new era, reaching central span lengths of 157–
518 m. A long-span steel arch bridge (Lu Pu Bridge),
with a 550 m central span length, which will be the
longest central span of arch bridges, is under construc-
tion in Shanghai, China. With the increasing central
span length of steel arch bridges and ever-increasing
application of the limit state design method in the steel
structural design instead of the allowable stress method,
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +86-21-6598-3442.
E-mail address: chengjin@tsinghua.org.cn (J. Cheng).
evaluate the ultimate load carrying capacity of arch
bridges under wind loads.
Because the arch is regarded as the major structural
element in arch bridges, a large amount of research has
been conducted on the stability of arches. Studies of the
in-plane buckling of arches have extensively been re-
ported (e.g., [3–7]). The earliest investigation on the out-
of-plane inelastic buckling of arches was carried out by
Kee [8]. Subsequently, Komatsu and Sakimoto [9] used
a numerical method to investigate the ultimate load
carrying capacity of single solid rib arches. They stud-
ied some parameters (e.g., slenderness ratios, residual
stresses, initial lateral deflections, loading directions, and
properties of the materials) on the ultimate strength
and spatial elastic–plastic behavior of two-hinged par-
abolic arches. More recently, Pi and Trahair [10] have

0045-7949/03/$ - see front matter
2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 4 5 - 7 9 4 9 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 4 3 3 - 9
62 J. Cheng et al. / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 61–73
investigated out-of-plane inelastic buckling and strength
of steel I-section arches.
However, an arch bridge has many elements with
very different stiffness characteristics such as bridge deck
and spandrel column. On the other hand, past work
shows that the buckling loads of arch bridges can be
influenced by the presence of the deck, the bracing sys-
tem between the ribs and deck, the type of column
connections and the stiffness of the deck [11,12].
Therefore, evaluations for both the stability and load
carrying capacity of an arch bridge must be based on the
entire bridge system rather than just the arch ribs [12].
The elastic and inelastic stability of an entire arch bridge
under vertical loads have been studied by several au-
thors [11–14]. However, studies of the load carrying
capacity of arch bridges under lateral loads, such as
wind loads, have rarely been reported. Yabuki et al. [15]
investigated the spatial behavior and load carrying ca-
pacity of two hinged steel arch bridge structures com-
posed of two parabolic arch ribs connected by lateral
bracing member under the vertical and lateral loads, and
discussed the effect of some parameters on the strength
of arch bridge structures. Unfortunately, there are two
disadvantages in their studies. First, their bridge models
are not the entire bridge system. Some important ele-
ments such as bridge deck, hanger and spandrel column
are not considered. Second, they only consider the in-
fluence of drag force of wind loads on load carry ca-
pacity of arch bridge structures. The effects of the other
two components of wind loads are not taken into ac-
count.
Arch bridges can be classified into three categories
according to the relative positions of the deck and the
arch: deck-arch bridge, half-through-arch bridge and
through-arch bridge. Most research works on load car-
rying capacity of arch bridges mainly focus on deck-arch
and through-arch bridges [11,13,14,16]. However, few
studies have been done on the ultimate load capacity of
half-through-type arch bridges. Nazmy [12] investigated
the effect of five design parameters on the buckling load
of long-span half-tied through-arch bridges. These pa-
rameters include: (1) support conditions of the arch ribs;
(2) rigidity of the arch rib-to-deck connection; (3) stiff-
ness of the arch bracing system; (4) inclination of the
arch ribs towards each other; and (5) arch rise-to-span
ratio. However, the effects of both the loading sequences
and wind loads are not considered. Furthermore, the
results reported in the literature are based on the linear
buckling method. To the writersÕ knowledge, no other
investigation on load carrying capacity of half-through-
arch bridges has been presented since NazmyÕ s work.
The aims of this paper are to study the ultimate load
carrying capacity of the Lu Pu steel arch bridge under
static wind loads, and to investigate the effects of various
parameters on the ultimate load carrying capacity of the
bridge.
2. Method of analysis
The geometrically and materially nonlinear buckling
method is used to analyze the ultimate capacity of arch
bridges. This is briefly described in the following section.
The nonlinear incremental equilibrium equations can
be written as
ðbKep c þ bKg cÞ  fDug ¼ fDF g ð1Þ
where bKep c and bKg c are the elastic–plastic stiffness
matrix and geometrical stiffness matrix, respectively.
fDF g and fDug are the incremental force and displace-
ment vectors, respectively. The detailed derivation of
bKg c can be found in Ref. [17]. bKep c, is formulated by
the von Mises yield criterion, the associated flow rule,
and the hardening rule. The algorithm for forming bKep c
has been described by Pi and Trahair [18], and is not
repeated here. In this paper, an incremental-iterative
method given by Teh and Clarke [19] is used to solve Eq.
(1). A local Newton–Raphson iteration procedure is
used if the stress exceeds the material yield. This pro-
cedure has been described by Sim and Taylor [20]. The
limit load of the structure is reached if one or more
negative terms in the diagonal of the structure stiffness
matrix are detected. To avoid too large or too small
incremental load size, a load–displacement-constraint
method is used. The basic idea of the method is to in-
troduce a load multiplier that increases or decreases the
intensity of the applied loads, so as to obtain fast con-
vergence in each load step [1]. A detailed description of
the method may be obtained from Bathe [1].
3. Modeling of the Lu Pu Bridge
3.1. Description of Lu Pu Bridge
The Lu Pu Bridge is the long-span welded steel half-
through-type arch bridge under construction spanning
the Huangpu River in Shanghai, China. It has a 550 m
central span length, which will be the longest central
span of any arch bridge in the world. The bridge span
arrangements are ð100 þ 550 þ 100Þ m. There are six
traffic lanes. Rise-to-span ratio of the bridge is 1=5:5.
Horizontal cables in the steel box girder are adopted to
balance the horizontal force of the main arch rib. The
tension of each horizontal cable is taken as 87 900 KN,
which is determined mainly by the horizontal force of
the main arch rib. The elevation view of the bridge is
shown in Fig. 1.
For the purpose of calculation, the cross-sectional
shape is assumed to be a rectangular box section having
the same cross-sectional properties as the actual cross-
sections of the bridge. The elevation view of the arch rib
of the bridge is shown in Fig. 2. The cross-sectional
 J. Cheng et al. / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 61–73
Fig. 1. Elevation of Lu Pu Bridge.
Fig. 2. Elevation of arch rib of Lu Pu Bridge.
properties of the arch rib are listed in Table 1. Table 2
shows the cross-sectional properties of the steel box
girder. The material data for the analysis are listed in
Table 3.
3.2. Assumptions
The following assumptions were made in this paper:
• Material behavior is idealized elastic–perfectly plastic
and strain hardening is neglected.
• No local buckling is considered.
• Yielding is governed by the normal stress and the
shearing stress due to St. Venant Õs torsion, and is de-
fined by the von-Mises-criterion.
• In the ultimate capacity analysis, only the elastic–
plastic behaviors of the steel girder, arch ribs, arch
bracing and spandrel column are considered. In other
words, hangers, and horizontal cable in the steel box
girder are assumed to remain elastic throughout.
• Additional effect of wind loads in a long-span arch
bridge is not considered. In other words, wind loads
distributed in the structure do not vary as the struc-
ture deforms.
• Only wind loads acting on both steel girder and arch
ribs are considered.
3.3. Finite-element model of Lu Pu Bridge
A detailed finite element model of the Lu Pu Bridge
was developed in the present study (Fig. 3.). Various
63
parts of the Lu Pu Bridge are illustrated in Fig. 3. For
FEM modeling, the bridge deck is represented by a
single beam and the cross-section properties of the
bridge deck are assigned to the beam as equivalent
properties. The bridge deck, arch ribs, arch bracing and
spandrel column are modeled by a 3D-beam element.
The hangers and horizontal cable in the steel box girder
are modeled by a 3D-truss element. The finite element
model contains 741 elements, 669 nodes.
The actual boundary conditions are as follows: the
joint between the side pier and side arch rib is a movable
hinge (roller) support. The main arch ribs and the side
piers are fixed at the abutments.
3.4. Design loads
• Dead loads:
All dead loads are applied statically in the negative z-
direction in Fig. 3.
• Live loads:
Live loads are assumed uniformly distributed in all
spans. The design live load is taken as 40 KN/m.
• Wind loads:
Wind loads for the arch bridge are determined from
the Chinese Wind-resistant Design Guideline for High-
way Bridges [21]. The girder and arch rib are subjected
to the following three components of wind load, such as
the drag force ðFy Þ, lift force ðFz Þ and pitch moment ðMÞ,
which are given by
Fy ¼ 12qVz2 Cy D ð2aÞ
64 J. Cheng et al. / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 61–73

Table 1
Cross-sectional properties data of arch rib
Section number Area (m2 ) In-plane moment Out-of-plane moment Torsional moment
of arch rib of inertia (mm4 ) of inertia (mm4 ) of inertia (mm4 )
A1 0.82005 5.6257 1.8978 4.4293
A2 0.82446 5.8448 1.9250 4.5250
A3 0.83571 6.1983 2.0064 4.7366
A4 0.83752 6.5855 2.0454 4.8909
A5 0.84752 7.0325 2.1035 5.0857
A6 0.85822 7.4877 2.1659 5.2869
A7 0.87441 7.9761 2.2450 5.5216
A8 0.86979 8.3088 2.2632 5.6171
A9 0.88291 8.7623 2.3343 5.8276
A10 0.88743 9.2121 2.3739 5.9809
A11 0.89287 9.5754 2.4174 6.1202
A12 0.89432 9.7044 2.4307 6.1623
A13 0.99933 10.964 2.6287 6.7516
A14 0.99866 10.860 2.6194 6.7186
A15 0.99437 10.562 2.5888 6.6133
A16 0.98886 10.205 2.5492 6.4805
A17 0.98241 9.8406 2.5073 6.3413
A18 0.97636 9.4935 2.4632 6.2003
A19 0.97048 9.1596 2.4237 6.0693
A20 1.5546 14.742 3.5462 9.0892
A21 1.5462 14.134 3.4992 8.8774
A22 1.5375 13.568 3.4165 8.6649
A23 0.86813 6.9717 2.2842 5.3692
A24 0.87177 6.6416 2.2160 5.1776
A25 0.86310 6.2758 2.1593 4.9961
A26 0.85048 5.9192 2.0913 4.7989
A27 0.84936 5.6341 2.0597 4.6712
A28 0.84187 5.3989 1.9964 4.5178
A29 0.83997 5.1521 1.9645 4.3985
A30 0.83330 4.9105 1.9201 4.2620
A31 0.82858 4.6980 1.8829 4.1430
A32 0.82114 4.5008 1.8423 4.0242
A33 0.81920 4.3413 1.8140 3.9317
A34 0.81265 4.1936 1.7779 3.8338
A35 0.80804 4.0811 1.7531 3.7626
A36 0.80520 4.0225 1.7471 3.7323
A37 0.80469 3.9565 1.7331 3.6826

Table 2
Cross-sectional properties data of steel girder
Section number Area (m2 ) In-plane moment Out-of-plane moment Torsional moment of
of steel girder of inertia (m4 ) of inertia (m4 ) inertia (m4 )
B1 1.7751 2.8349 290.62 10.05
B2 1.1422 1.3950 174.72 5.1374

Table 3
Material data of Lu Pu Bridge
Material E (GPa) a m ry (MPa) q (kg/m3 )
Steel 210.0 0.000012 0.30 345.0 7850.0
Hangers and cables 200.0 0.000012 0.30 – 8400.0
Note: E: elastic modulus; a: coefficients of thermal expansion; m: PoissonÕs ratio; ry : yield stress of material; q: weight per unit volume of
material.
 J. Cheng et al. / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 61–73 65

Fig. 3. 3D finite element model of Lu Pu Bridge.

Fz ¼ 12qVz2 Cz B ð2bÞ

M ¼ 12qVz2 CM B2 ð2cÞ

where Cy , Cz and CM are the coefficients of drag force,

lift force, and pitch moment, respectively; q is the air
density; B is the width of the deck or arch rib; D is the
vertical projected area of the deck or arch rib.
Vz is the wind velocity at the height of z, and is given Fig. 4. Elevation of Lu Pu Bridge.
by
 z 0:16
Vz ¼ V10 ð3Þ where the design wind velocity at the height of 10 m, V10 ,
10 is taken as 40 m/s.

800
Limit load qp=705.5
700

600
Live load(KN/m)

500

400
Arch rib
300 Main girder

200

100

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

Vertical Displacement(m) at the center of main bridge elements

Fig. 5. Load–displacement curves of main bridge elements (dead and wind loads).
66 J. Cheng et al. / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 61–73

Fig. 4 shows the three components of wind loads 1.0

Limit value:0.93
acting on the bridge deck. In the analysis, the static
Limit value:0.8269
aerodynamic coefficients of the girder are: Cy ¼ 1:347; 0.8

Dimensionless live load q/q

Cz ¼
0:215; CM ¼
0:0055. The static aerodynamic
coefficients of the arch rib are: Cy ¼ 1:255; Cz ¼
0:258; 0.6 Limit value:0.585
CM ¼
1:225. These static aerodynamic coefficients are
obtained from wind-tunnel experiments of the sectional 0.4
V=40m/s
model given in Ref. [22]. V=60m/s
0.2 V=80m/s

3.5. Load combinations 0.0

0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

The following load combinations are considered in (a) Vertical displacement(m) at the center of arch rib

the ultimate capacity analysis of the Lu Pu Bridge: 1.0

Combination I: Dead load þ Live load, V=40m/s

Combination II: Dead load þ Wind load, 0.8 V=60m/s

Dimensionless live load q/q

Combination III: Dead load þ Live load þ Wind V=80m/s
Load. 0.6

0.4

4. Ultimate load capacity under load combination I

0.2

The ultimate load capacity of the Lu Pu Bridge under

0.0
dead and live loads is first investigated. The live loads 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4
are applied starting from the deformed configuration of (b) Lateral displacement(m) at the center of arch rib

Fig. 7. Load–displacement curves of main arch rib for various

wind velocities (dead and constant wind plus variable live load).
7
Dimensionless wind load w/w40

6
1.0
Limit value:0.93
5
Limit value:0.8269
0.8
Dimensionless live load q/q

4
Arch rib
3 Main girder
0.6 Limit value:0.585
2

0.4
1 V=40m/s
V=60m/s
0 0.2 V=80m/s

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

(a) Vertical displacement(m) at the center of main bridge elements 0.0
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
(a) Vertical displacement(m) at the center of the girder
7
1.0
Dimensionless wind load w/w40

6
V=40m/s
5 0.8 V=60m/s
Dimensionless live load q/q

V=80m/s
4
0.6

3
Arch rib
0.4
2 Main girder

1
0.2

0
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
(b) Lateral displacement(m) at the center of main bridge elements (b) Lateral displacement(m) at the center of the girder

Fig. 6. Load–displacement curves of main bridge elements Fig. 8. Load–displacement curves of main girder for various
(dead and wind loads). wind velocities (dead and constant wind plus variable live load).
 J. Cheng et al. / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 61–73 67

the bridge due to dead loads. The load–displacement bridge elements is given in Fig. 6. From this figure, it can
curves of the main bridge element are shown in Fig. 5. be seen that the vertical displacements of both arch rib
As shown in the figure, the limit live load of the and main girder and the lateral displacement of the arch
bridge, qp , is 705.5 KN/m. Small differences between the rib exhibit strong nonlinearity as the wind loads in-
arch rib and main girder are obtained for vertical dis- crease. However, the load–lateral displacement curve of
placement. main girder is almost a straight line. This is due to the
small lateral displacement of the main girder when the
load reaches the limit point.
5. Ultimate load capacity under load combination II

The displacement response and ultimate load capac- 6. Ultimate load capacity under load combination III
ity of the Lu Pu Bridge under dead and wind loads are
studied. In the following figure, w is the wind load acting The main objective of this section is to investigate the
on the structure, w40 is the wind load at the wind velocity ultimate capacity of the Lu Pu Bridge under combined
of 40 m/s. The load–deformation response of the main dead load, live load and wind load. The effects of

q=20KN/m
q=40KN/m
q=50KN/m
1.0
q=60KN/m
Critical value:0.8824
Dimensionless wind velocity V/Vp

Critical value:0.7941
0.8

Critical value:0.6618
0.6 Critical value:0.5588

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.50
(a) Vertical displacement(m) at the center of arch rib

1.0
Dimensionless wind velocity V/Vp

0.8

0.6

q=20KN/m
0.4
q=40KN/m
q=50KN/m
0.2 q=60KN/m

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
(b) Lateral displacement(m) at the center of arch rib

Fig. 9. Wind velocity–displacement curves of main arch rib for various live loads (dead and constant live plus variable wind load).
68 J. Cheng et al. / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 61–73

q=20KN/m
q=40KN/m
q=50KN/m
1.0 q=60KN/m
Critical value:0.8824

Dimensionless wind velocity V/Vp

Critical value:0.7941
0.8

Critical value:0.6618
0.6 Critical value:0.5588

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
(a) Vertical displacement(m) at the center of main girder

1.0
Dimensionless wind velocity V/Vp

0.8

0.6

q=20KN/m
0.4
q=40KN/m
q=50KN/m
0.2 q=60KN/m

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
(b) Lateral displacement(m) at the center of arch rib

Fig. 10. Wind velocity–displacement curves of main girder for various live loads (dead and constant live plus variable wind load).

Dead and constant live plus variable wind load

1.0 Dead and constant wind plus variable live load
Dimensionless wind velocity V/Vp

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Dimensionless live load q/qp

Fig. 11. Effects of loading sequences on ultimate load capacity of arch bridges.
 J. Cheng et al. / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 61–73 69

loading sequence, three components of wind loads and
wind loads of individual bridge elements on the ultimate
capacity of the bridge are discussed.
6.1. Effect of loading sequence
Two loading sequences are used to determine the
load–deformation response and the ultimate load of the
bridge: Sequence I is the sequence in which the dead and
wind loads are applied first and then the live load is
increased proportionally to the collapsed load. Sequence
II is the sequence in which the dead and live loads are
applied first and then the wind load (wind velocity) is
increased proportionally to the collapsed load (critical
wind velocity).
For the sequence I, the load–displacement curves of
main arch rib and main girder under various wind ve-
locities are given in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively. The limit
load of the bridge without consideration of wind loads is
7% higher than that under consideration of the wind
loads with a wind velocity of V ¼ 40 m/s and 41.5%
higher than that under consideration of the wind loads
with a wind velocity of V ¼ 80 m/s. Therefore, wind
loads acting on the structure have a significant effect on
the ultimate capacity of the bridge. Therefore, the limit
load of the bridge decreases as the wind loads acting on
the structure increases. Under the wind loads with a wind

Limit value:0.99
1.0

Limit value:0.9507
Dimensionless live load q/qp

0.8 Limit value:0.93

0.6

0.4
Drag force only
Both drag force and lift force
0.2 Drag force,lift force and pitch moment

0.0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

(a) Vertical displacement(m) at the center of arch rib(V=40m/s)

1.0
Dimensionless live load q/qp

0.8

0.6 Drag force only

Both drag force and lift force
Drag force,lift force and pitch moment
0.4

0.2

0.0
0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80

(b) Lateral displacement(m) at the center of arch rib(V=40m/s)

Fig. 12. Load–displacement curves of main arch rib for various cases (V ¼ 40 m/s).
70 J. Cheng et al. / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 61–73

velocity of V ¼ 40 m/s, the out-of-plane displacements of live load leads to a significant reduction in critical wind
the arch ribs and main girder remain almost unchanged velocity of the bridge. For example, the critical wind
from the initial vertical loading state to the ultimate state. velocity of the bridge with applied live load q ¼ 20 KN/
On the other hand, the in-plane displacements become m is 0.88Vp , while the critical wind velocity with applied
large, showing nonlinear response as the vertical load live load q ¼ 60 KN/m decreases to 0.56Vp . (2) Under
increases. This type of collapse mode will be called ‘‘in- any live load, nonlinear behavior of the vertical and
plane collapse’’. However, under the wind loads with a lateral displacements of the arch ribs and girder becomes
wind velocity of V ¼ 80 m/s, both in-plane and out-of- prominent.
plane displacements of the arch ribs and main girder Fig. 11 shows the effect of loading sequences on the
become large, showing nonlinear response as the vertical ultimate load carrying capacity of the bridge. It can be
load increases. This type of collapse mode will be called seen from this figure that the difference between loading
‘‘spatial collapse’’. These results indicate that the collapse sequences I and II is small. Therefore, the effect of
mode of arch bridges mainly lies on the magnitude of loading sequences on the ultimate load carrying capacity
wind loads acting on the bridge. of the bridge can be ignored. The reasons for this con-
For the sequence II, the limit state is defined as the clusion are mainly: (1) Material behavior is idealized
case when the critical wind velocity of the structure is elastic–perfectly plastic in the analysis. (2) Geometric
reached. The wind velocity–displacement curves of main nonlinearity of the bridge has a major effect on the ul-
arch rib and main girder under various live loads are timate behavior. That is to say, there are not many
given in Figs. 9 and 10, respectively. From these figures, materially nonlinear effects in existence prior to the
the following characteristics are observed: (1) Increasing failure of the bridge.

Limit value:0.99
1.0

Limit value:0.9507
Dimensionless live load q/qp

0.8 Limit value:0.93

0.6

0.4 Drag force only

Both drag force and lift force
Drag force,lift force and pitch moment
0.2

0.0
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

(a) Vertical displacement(m) at the center of main girder(V=40m/s)

1.0
Dimensionless live load q/qp

0.8

0.6

0.4

Drag force only

0.2 Both drag force and lift force
Drag force,lift force and pitch moment

0.0
0.150 0.155 0.160 0.165 0.170 0.175 0.180 0.185

(b) Lateral displacement(m) at the center of main girder(V=40m/s)

Fig. 13. Load–displacement curves of main girder for various cases (V ¼ 40 m/s).
 J. Cheng et al. / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 61–73 71

Because the load capacity of the bridge is almost
independent of the loading sequence, only loading se-
quence I is used in the subsequent analyses.
6.2. Effect of three components of wind loads
Ultimate load carrying capacity of the bridge under
wind loads with wind velocity of V ¼ 40 and 80 m/s are
investigated, respectively. In each wind velocity, three
cases are considered. Case I: Only drag force of wind
loads is considered. Case II: Both drag force and lift
force of wind loads are considered. Case III: Three
components of wind loads (drag force, lift force and
pitch moment) are considered. Wind loads act on both
the arch ribs and girder. The load–deformation curves of
main arch rib and main girder (V ¼ 40 m/s) for various
cases are given in Figs. 12 and 13, respectively. The
maximum difference in the ultimate load among the
three cases is 6%. In addition, there are small differences
in the deformations of the arch rib and girder among
three cases. This is mainly due to the smaller wind loads
acting on the structure. Therefore, under smaller wind
load or lower wind velocity, three components of wind
loads may not be considered in the ultimate load car-
rying capacity analysis of the bridge. However, an op-
posite conclusion occurs under larger wind load or
higher wind velocity. Figs. 14 and 15 show the load–
deformation curves of the main arch rib and the main
girder (V ¼ 80 m/s) for various cases. In the case III, the
arch bridge collapses at a load ratio of 0.555, which
represents a 13.4% decrease of limit value compared
with that in the case I and a 44.5% decrease of limit
value compared with that in the case of no consideration
of wind loads. These results show that three components

Limit value:0.6885
0.7

Limit value:0.585
0.6
Dimensionless live load q/qp

Limit value:0.555
0.5

0.4

0.3
Drag force only
0.2 Both drag force and lift force
Drag force,lift force and pitch moment
0.1

0.0
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

(a) Vertical displacement(m) at the center of arch rib(V=80m/s)

0.7

0.6
Dimensionless live load q/qp

0.5

0.4

0.3 Drag force only

Both drag force and lift force
0.2 Drag force,lift force and pitch moment

0.1

0.0
2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.0

(b) Latercal displacement(m) at the center of arch rib(V=80m/s)

Fig. 14. Load–displacement curves of main arch rib for various cases (V ¼ 80 m/s).
72 J. Cheng et al. / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 61–73

Limit value:0.6885
0.7

0.6 Limit value:0.585

Dimensionless live load q/qp 0.5 Limit value:0.555

0.4

0.3

0.2 Drag force only

Both drag force and lift force
0.1 Drag force,lift force and pitch moment

0.0
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

(a) Vertical displacement(m) at the center of main girder(V=80m/s)

0.7

0.6
Dimensionless live load q/qp

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2
Drag force only
Both drag force and lift force
0.1 Drag force,lift force and pitch moment

0.0
0.60 0.62 0.64 0.66 0.68 0.70 0.72 0.74

(b) Lateral displacement(m) at the center of main girder(V=80m/s)

Fig. 15. Load–displacement curves of main girder for various cases (V ¼ 80 m/s).

of wind loads significantly affect the load carrying ca-
pacity of long span arch bridges under larger wind load
or higher wind velocity. Hence, in the ultimate load
carrying capacity analysis of the bridge, the effects of the
three components of wind loads can not be ignored
when the wind loads acting on the structure are larger. It
should be noticed that the limit load in the case II is
lower than that in the case III. The reasons for this
phenomenon are probably due to different actions of lift
force and pitch moment of wind loads on the structure.
In this study, because the direction of the lift force is
downward, the action of the lift force is to accelerate
instability of the arch bridge. However, the action of the
pitch moment is to discourage instability of the arch
bridge because the value of the pitch moment is nega-
tive. These two actions tend to compensate each other as
the wind loads increase. When wind loads with a wind
velocity of V ¼ 80 m/s are applied to the structure, the
action of the pitch moment may be larger than that of
the lift force. It should be noted that the difference in the
ultimate load between the two cases is less than 6%.
Therefore, the pitch moment effect of wind loads on the
ultimate load capacity of the bridge can be ignored.
7. Conclusions
Based on a comprehensive ultimate load carrying
capacity analysis of the Lu Pu steel arch bridge under
static wind loads, it can be concluded that:
(1) The case of increasingly applied wind loads results
in the minimum ultimate load when compared to un-
iquely applied in-plane loads. The difference in the ul-
timate load capacity between applied both in-plane and
 J. Cheng et al. / Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 61–73
wind loads and uniquely applied in-plane loads increases
as the applied wind loads increase.
(2) When applied wind loads are small, the structure
shows a tendency to have fairly large in-plane displace-
ment and small out-of-plane displacement as the in-
plane load increases, and the in-plane collapse occurs.
However, when applied wind loads are large, the struc-
ture shows a tendency to have fairly large in-plane and
out-of-plane displacements as the in-plane load in-
creases, and the spatial collapse occurs.
(3) The case of increasingly applied live loads results
in a significant reduction in the critical wind velocity
when compared to uniquely applied dead and wind
loads. Nonlinear behavior of the vertical and lateral
displacements becomes prominent as the wind velocity
increases.
(4) Loading sequences have minor effects on the
ultimate load capacity of the bridge.
(5) When applied wind loads are small, not all three
components of wind loads need to be considered in the
ultimate load capacity analysis of the bridge. However,
when applied wind loads are large, the three components
of wind loads have significant effects on the ultimate
load capacity. In addition, it should be noted that be-
cause of a minor effect, the pitch moment of wind loads
could be ignored in the ultimate load capacity analysis
of the bridge.
It should be noted that this study assumed statically
applied wind loads only. Actual wind loads are of a
dynamic nature, which has a considerable effect on the
actual load carrying capacity of a bridge. The question
of aerodynamic instability will be the subject of a sep-
arate study.
Acknowledgements
The writers would like to thank to the National
Nature Science Foundation of China under grant no.
59895410 for their financial support. The valuable
comments of the anonymous reviewers of the paper are
also acknowledged.
References
[1] Bathe KJ, Cliffs NJ. Finite element procedures. NJ:
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs; 1996.
73
[2] Yabuki T, Vinnakota S. Stability of steel arch-bridges a
state-of-the-art report. Solid Mech Arch 1984;9:115–58.
[3] Timoshenko SP, Gere JM. Theory of elastic stability.
second ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1961.
[4] Simitses GJ. An introduction to the elastic stability of
structures. NJ: Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs; 1976.
[5] Austin WJ, Ross TJ. Elastic buckling of arches under
symmetric loading. J Struct Div, ASCE 1976;102(5):1085–
95.
[6] Pi YL, Trahair NS. In-plane inelastic buckling and
strengths of steel arches. J Struct Engng, ASCE 1996;
122(7):734–47.
[7] Pi YL, Trahair NS. In-plane buckling and design of steel
arches. J Struct Engng, ASCE 1999;125(11):1291–8.
[8] Kee CF. Lateral inelastic buckling of tied arches. J Struct
Div, ASCE 1961;87(1):23–39.
[9] Komatsu S, Sakimoto T. Ultimate load carrying capacity
of steel arches. J Struct Div, ASCE 1977;103(12):2323–36.
[10] Pi YL, Trahair NS. Out-of-plane inelastic buckling and
strength of steel arches. J Struct Engng, ASCE
1998;124(2):174–83.
[11] Wen RK, Medallah K. Elastic stability of deck-type arch
bridges. J Struct Engng, ASCE 1987;113(4):757–68.
[12] Nazmy AS. Stability and load-carrying capacity of three-
dimensional long-span steel arch bridges. Comput Struct
1997;65(6):857–68.
[13] Vlahino AS, Ermpoulos JCh, Wang YC. Buckling analysis
of steel arch bridges. J Construct Steel Res 1993;26:59–71.
[14] Ronca P, Cohn MZ. Limit analysis of reinforced concrete
arch bridges. J Struct Div, ASCE 1979;105(2):313–26.
[15] Yabuki T, Vinnakota S, Kuranishi S. Lateral load effect on
load carrying capacity of steel arch bridge structures. J
Struct Engng, ASCE 1983;109(10):2434–49.
[16] Sakimoto T, Sakata T. The out-of-plane buckling strength
of through-type arch bridges. J Construct Steel Res
1990;16:307–18.
[17] Yang YB, Kuo SR. Theory and analysis of nonlinear
framed structures. Singapore: Prentice-Hall; 1994.
[18] Pi YL, Trahair NS. Nonlinear inelastic analysis of steel
beam-columns. I: Theory. J Struct Engng 1994;120(7):
2041–61.
[19] Teh LH, Murray JC. Plastic-zone analysis of 3D steel
frames using beam elements. J Struct Engng 1999;125(11):
1328–37.
[20] Simo JC, Tayor RL. Consistent tangent operators for rate
independent elasticoplasticity. Comp Meth Appl Mech
Engng 1985;48:101–8.
[21] Xiang HF. Wind resistance design guideline for highway
bridges, PeopleÕs communication Press House of China,
1996.
[22] Study on wind loads and wind-resistant stability of super-
long-span arch bridges, Research Report, Tongji Univer-
sity, 2001.