CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE CONCEPT FOR LONGER SPANS

By Uwe Starossek, l Member, ASCE

ABSTRACT: Achieving larger maximum spans by inventing new bridge systems has always been a fascinating
intellectual challenge. Several concepts of modified cable-supported bridges have been proposed in the past that
promise to surpass the more traditional cable-supported bridges in terms of maximum span length. Some of
these concepts are recalled in this paper. An alternative concept derived from the classical cable-stayed bridge
system is presented. Instead of vertical pylons, pairs of inclined pylon legs, spreading out longitudinally and
connected at the top by horizontal ties, are used. The merits and shortcomings of such a system are discussed.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by British Columbia Institute of Technology on 01/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Based on a comparative analysis of forces, quantities, and costs, it is concluded that the alternative concept
presented in this paper not only allows the achievement of larger maximum spans, but also can lead to an
economically advantageous design-even within the span-length range of the classical cable-stayed bridge
system.

INTRODUCTION SUSPENSION BRIDGES

Bridging very long spans is the domain of cable-supported
structures. The superiority of their statical systems, as well as
the use of high-strength tensile elements, enables them to ad-
vance to the borderline of the technically feasible. For a given
system, this borderline of maximum span is determined by the
strength, stiffness, and density of the utilized materials. For a
given set of materials, the maximum possible or economically
feasible span depends on the chosen system. Several sugges-
tions have been made in the past to achieve longer spans by
using modified statical systems that have been derived from
the classical suspension or cable-stayed bridge systems. Some
From a statical standpoint, the maximum span length of a
classical earth-anchored suspension bridge is limited by the
main cable capacity to carry loads in addition to the cable
weight. One well-known approach to achieve a higher load-
carrying capacity is the hybrid cable-stayed suspension system
where only the center part of the main span is suspended, and
where the end parts are cable stayed, thus combining the ad-
vantages of both systems (Dischinger 1949; Schlaich 1988;
Gimsing 1988; Lin and Chow 1991) (Fig. 2). Another ap-
proach, recently proposed by Lin and Chow (1991), is a hybrid

:~,
of these suggestions are reviewed in the following two sec-
tions. Subsequently, a new modified cable-stayed bridge sys-
tem is presented. Advantages and disadvantages are discussed.
Based on a comparative analysis of forces, quantities, and
costs, indications of the system's applicability are given. U
(a)

~~'O
CABLE-STAYED BRIDGES

A critical factor that often determines the maximum span of

a conventional cable-stayed bridge is the magnitude of com-
pressive stresses in the deck due to the cumulation of the hor- (b)
izontal component of the stay loads (Muller 1992). New sys-

~$=~
tems for very long span cable-stayed bridges were proposed
by Gimsing (1988) and Muller (1992). In both papers, the
proposed means to overcome the span-length restriction in-

(C)~~o=~
herent to conventional cable-stayed bridge designs consist in
anchoring a part of the backstay cables in earth abutments
(anchor blocks), thus reducing the compressive forces in the
deck, and in reinforcing the tensile region in the girder mid-
span region with posttensioning tendons (Fig. 1). FIG. 1. Cable-Stayed SY8tem with (a) Self-Anchoring; (b) Par-
tial Earth Anchoring; (c) Partial Earth Anchoring PIU8 Horizontal
The limit span for a particular site can also be governed by Strand81nslde Girder In Midspan Region (Glmslng 1988)
wind-induced vibrations during and after construction. For the
most dangerous kinds of excitation-Le., self-induced vibra- A. A'

~!!~~::!!!~~:
tion, such as flutter-the critical wind speed for the onset of
divergent motions is directly related to the system stiffness
(Starossek 1991). Cable-stayed systems are relatively stiff
when compared to suspension systems. Thus, it is believed
that their limit span is less affected by wind-induced vibrations FIG. 2. Hybrid Cable-Stayed SU8pen81on Bridge (Lin and
than the limit span of suspension systems. Chow 1991)

'P.E., DSD Dillinger Stahlbau GmbH, Henry-Ford-Strasse, 66740 ~ lkm 3km lkm I

~~
Saarlouis, Germany.
Note. Discussion open until January 1, 1997. To extend the closing
date one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager
of Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on December 13, 1994. This paper is part of the
Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 1, No.3, August, 1996. ©ASCE.
ISSN 1084-0702196/0003-0099-0103/$4.00 + $.50 per page. Paper No. FIG. 3. Hybrid Double-Cantilever SU8pen81on Bridge (Lin and
9780. Chow 1991)

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / AUGUST 1996/99

J. Bridge Eng. 1996.1:99-103.

 double-cantilever suspension system (Fig. 3). Here, the main
cable is suspended from the tips of inclined struts that are back
stayed to the pylons. In comparison to a conventional suspen-
sion bridge, this system promises to be more economical for
extremely large spans (5,000 m).
Again, the limit span can also be governed by wind-induced
vibrations. Alternative suspension systems with increased over-
all stiffness, such as the hybrid cable-stayed suspension sys-
tem, are superior in regard to wind stability. They will lead to
larger possible spans when the design is driven by wind-sta-
bility considerations.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by British Columbia Institute of Technology on 01/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
horizontal ties. The stiffness of the backstay cables is larger
than in a classical cable-stayed bridge because both cable
length and cable sag are reduced.
STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOR AND COSTS
To quantify the advantages and disadvantages listed previ-
ously, comparative analyses of forces, quantities, and costs for
the spread-pylon cable-stayed bridge system have been per-
formed. A system according to Fig. 4 is considered. The main-
span and side-span lengths are Land L., respectively; the pylon
height above girder is h; and the pylon inclination is a.

SPREAD-PYLON CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE When the flexural rigidity of the girder is neglected, and the
cables are closely spaced in a fan-type pattern, the axial com-
To increase the maximum span of cable-stayed bridges, a pression force in the girder Cg due to a uniformly distributed
modified statical system has been developed. The basic idea girder load q varies according to a parabolic function with zero
of this new concept is the use of pairs of inclined pylon legs at midspan, and a maximum of
that spread out longitudinally from the foundation base or from 2
the girder level. The horizontal force in each pair of pylon qL2 h
maxC = - ( 1-2-tana) (1)
legs is balanced by horizontal ties (Fig. 4). The system ge- g 8h L
ometry entails steeper and shorter cables. The horizontal cable-
force component introduced into the deck is smaller, and it in the sections that coincide with the pylon head positions.
changes its direction not at the pylon but within each span. (The maximum force does not depend on the side-span
Additionally, cable sag is reduced. Advantages over the clas- length.) After establishing an upper limit for Cg , and choosing
sical cable-stayed bridge system can be summarized as fol- a relative pylon height h/L, the maximum possible span fol-
lows: lows from (1). For a = 0, the maximum span L o of a classical
cable-stayed bridge is obtained. When the pylon height is kept
1. The compressive stresses in the deck are reduced and
TABLE 1. Input Parameters for Quantity and Cost Analysis
more equally distributed. Thus, a larger maximum span
is possible. Stay Horizontal
2. The cable stiffnesses, as well as the overall system stiff- Parameter cables ties Pylons
ness, are larger-providing advantages such as a better (1) (2) (3) (4)
deformation behavior under live loads (particularly im- Density, p (kg/rn 3
) 8,000 8,000 2,500
portant for railroad bridges), and an improved aeroelastic Stress, CT (MPa) 840 240 12.0
stability during and after construction. Unit price ($/kg) 10.90 2.70 0.44
3. The pylon height can be reduced. This may be an im-
portant feature when pylon height is limited, e.g., by en- 4000
vironmental restrictions.
4. There are savings in cable steel.
Span Length - 500 m
Another benefit worth mentioning is the convincing visual im- Pylon Indll1llllon - 0 dog

pression conveyed by the clear and strong main lines of the

Min Cool- 15.202 Mio.•
system. 3000 forhll.- 0.1110
Disadvantages are the more difficult construction of the in- COIl- 15.235 Mlo••
clined pylons, possibly larger pylon quantities, and additional for hIl. - 0.200
quantities and construction difficulties related to the horizontal
ties. In comparison to the double cantilevers of the hybrid
suspension system proposed by Lin and Chow (1991) (Fig. 3),
however, the construction of the inclined pylons of the system
proposed here should be easier because they are much steeper.
Pylon erection by conventional, self-supported construction
methods, e.g., by means of climbing formwork, is possible.
To minimize pylon moments, and to enhance overall stiff-
ness, both the stiffness of the horizontal ties and the stiffness
of the backstay cables must be large. As an alternative to sag-
ging cables, steel shapes or prestressed steel or concrete beams 1000

should therefore be considered as structural elements for the

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40

hi\.

--S1IIyC._ ._---- PyIono - Coot of Cobleo, .nd

PyIono

FIG. 4. Spread-Pylon Cable-Stayed Bridge FIG. 5. Quantity and Cost Analysis

100/ JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / AUGUST 1996

J. Bridge Eng. 1996.1:99-103.

 unchanged, but a pylon inclination a :F- 0 is chosen, the new
maximum span is
L = Lo
For hlLo = 0.22 and a = 30°, a span ratio of LlLo = 1.25 is
obtained. This stands for an increase of the maximum possible
span of 25%. In this example, the relative pylon height hlL is
0.175.
The following calculations of quantities and costs focus on
a comparison between the spread-pylon concept and the clas-
sical cable-stayed system for span lengths that are in the fea-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by British Columbia Institute of Technology on 01/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
have been derived where Pc, Ph' and PP = mass densities; and
and lJ'p = axial working stresses of stay cables, hori-
lJ'e, lJ'h'
zontal ties, and pylons, respectively.
(1 + 2 :0 tan a) (2) Again, the derivation of (3)-(5) implies that the cables are
closely spaced. The force in each cable is a function of the
corresponding cable inclination. When dividing by the work-
ing stress and multiplying with the cable length and the spe-
cific mass, the quantity of one cable is obtained. Integration
over the entire bridge gives the total cable quantities. The
forces in the horizontal ties and in the pylons follow directly
from global equilibrium conditions. The total quantities of
these elements are found by taking into account their working

sible range of both alternatives. For sake of simplicity, the side
span length L. is chosen to be Ll2. Although this length is
typically smaller in real bridges, it can be assumed that the
side-span length is of little significance for the comparitive
analysis to be made here. The slight excess in computed stay
cable quantities is approximately compensated by the neglect
of backstay cable quantities.
For the total quantities of stay cables Qe, horizontal ties Qh'
and pylons above girder level Qp, the expressions
Qe = 2qJLe L 2 [h-L (1 + tan a) -
stresses, lengths, and specific masses.
The gravitational acceleration g appears in (4) and (5) be-
cause the influence of the pylon self weight on the forces and
quantities of pylons and horizontal ties is considered. The self-
weight influence of the stay cables and horizontal ties on
forces and quantities is neglected. For the sake of simplicity,
pylon moments are neglected as well. To compensate for this
inaccuracy, relatively low lJ'p are chosen in the numerical cal-
culations. Only the pylon parts above the ramification point at
girder level are included in the comparison.
2
-1 tan a
2
+ -1-]
12hIL
(3)
Based on these equations, quantities and costs were com-
puted for a bridge with a main span of L = 500 m; pylon
inclinations of a = 0°, 19°, or 30°; and varying relative pylon

Qh
I
=-2 qJLh L2 tan a
[
1 + 2 cos 2a
4~gtana] (4)
heights hlL. A total girder load of q = 0.35 MN/m has been
assumed. The remaining input parameters are summarized in
Table 1. The estimated unit prices include the construction
- - h - - g(l + cos2a) costs for a classical cable-stayed bridge.
JLp
In Figs. 5-7, quantities and costs for the three different
4qL pylon inclinations are shown as functions of the relative pylon
Qp = -2-c-o-s72a----~---- (5)
height hlL. It can be observed that-independently of h/L-
- - - - g(1 + cos2a) the stay-cable quantities decrease, and the quantities of hori-
JLph
zontal ties and pylons increase, with growing pylon inclination
with a. The total costs of cables, horizontal ties, and pylons for all
(6)
three inclinations can be compared in Fig. 8. For a :F- 0, lower

4000 4000

SpIn lMVlh - 500 m Span Lof18\h - 500 m

//
Pylon InclInotJon -18 deg Pylon Inellnellen • 30 doe

MIn CoIl - 14.348 Mlo•• Min COot· 14.705 MID.'

IorM.-0.175 for M. - 0.100
I
/
I

I
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .: : • • • • • _ • • ~_ • • , • • • • • • • • • oN" •••_ • • • • • • • • • • • N ••• • ••••••

~" .,
,,~ ........

o
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
hIL hIL
--StIIyC._ H_noo .-----Pylano -C_ofC.ta.. - - Silly Cobleo HDrizonllll TIoo • - - - - - Pylano - Coet orc.~n.
TIoo. Pylano TIoo. PylDno

FIG. 6. Quantity and Cost Analysis FIG. 7. Quantity and Cost Analysis

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / AUGUST 1996/101

J. Bridge Eng. 1996.1:99-103.

 25 ,, 300
,I \\
/ I

/
/ \\
,
I
I
I
I
2SO \,

/
/
I

" \
\
\
S~n Length - 500 m
"
,'/
\\\\ Pylon Indln8llona - 0/18130 dog

/
i/ " \
1\
,
/"
\\
\ ....
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by British Columbia Institute of Technology on 01/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

I
I \ '.
I
I
I \
I

~/,//
/ \\.
\,
,,
,,
S~n Lengt/I- 500 m "", .....
Pylon IncHndOllll - 0/18130 dog
50 "
'"
.........
"-
'"

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
hIL hIL

--Odeg ················-·18de8 ------3Odeg --Odeg 18deg ------ :lOdeg

FIG. 8. Cost Analysis-Comparison for Different Pylon Incli- FIG. 9. Maximum Axial Compre..lon Force In Girder-Com-
nations parison for Different Pylon Inclinations

minimum costs are obtained. They occur at smaller hiL. The TABLE 2. Comparison of Costs, Girder Forces, and Pylon
Heights for Different Pylon Inclinations
inclination a = 19° leads to the overall minimum of the costs
considered here. Lastly, Fig. 9 shows the maximum axial com- Pylon Inclination
pression force in the girder. It decreases with both increasing Parameter 19°
0° 30°
hlL and a, as expected. (1) (2) (3) (4)
For a = 0°, the minimum cost is obtained for a relative
pylon height of hlL = 0.190. The girder quantities-not in- 0.2ooL 0.175L 0.160L
Optimum pylon height
100% 88% 80%
cluded in the computed costs-tend to increase with decreas- Cost of stays, horizontal ties. and pylons 100% 94% 96%
ing hlL because of the larger axial force coming from the stay Maximum axial girder force 100% 88% 83%
cables. Hence the overall cost minimum will be at a slightly
higher hlL of, say, 0.200. The corresponding axial girder force
for a = 0 is still higher than the forces corresponding to the bridge system in terms of economy. Because of its larger stiff-
minimum-cost pylon heights for a #- O. It is therefore assumed ness and its reduced pylon height, however, it provides addi-
that the computed minimum-cost pylon heights for a#-O are tional advantages that may become decisive. When the design
close to the overall optimum heights for these a values. The is driven by deflection criteria-as it might be for large spans
costs, and the girder forces for the three pylon inclinations, and/or in the case of heavy live loads-the spread-pylon sys-
and the corresponding optimum pylon heights are summarized tem can convey substantial savings even within the span-
in Table 2. For better comparison, the results are given as length range of the classical cable-stayed bridge.
percentages taking the zero inclination values as a basis. A bridge system similar to that presented here has recently
The cost comparison based on the quantities of stay cables, been proposed by J. Schlaich and J. Carpenter as one of three
horizontal ties, and pylons shows a slight advantage of the design alternatives for the new Wabasha Bridge that will cross
spread-pylon system over the classical cable-stayed bridge sys- the Mississippi River in St. Paul, Minn. (Austin 1994). The
tem. It should be noted, however, that the unit prices used in span length is comparatively small so that the potential struc-
the preceding comparisons do not reflect the pylon inclination tural and economical advantages of the system cannot be ex-
and the resulting varying degree of construction difficulty. The plored. It is interesting to note, however, that -because of its
assumed working stress and unit price for the horizontal ties aesthetic merits-it was the design alternative favored and
are believed to be based on reasonable assumptions. However, recommended by the design team.
because this element has not been detailed and constructed to
date, the actual parameters might turn out to be different, and CONCLUSIONS
in particular, the cost might be higher. The lower axial girder
forces, on the other hand, can reduce the overall cost-an The concept of a new bridge system derived from the clas-
effect that also has been neglected. Thus, the results presented sical cable-stayed bridge has been presented. Instead of ver-
here can only indicate probable trends that eventually must be tical pylons, pairs of inclined pylon legs spreading out longi-
confirmed by more in-depth studies. tudinally are used. In comparison to the classical cable-stayed
Nonetheless, the conclusion at this point is that the spread- bridge, this system makes possible larger maximum spans.
pylon system is probably similar to the classical cable-stayed Other advantages are a reduced pylon height and a larger stiff-
102/ JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / AUGUST 1996

J. Bridge Eng. 1996.1:99-103.

 ness. Especially when stiffness or pylon height are important
design parameters, the spread-pylon concept becomes advan-
tageous even within the span-length range of the classical ca-
ble-stayed bridge. For further improvement, the described sys-
tem can be combined with the measures proposed by other
authors (Gimsing 1988; Muller 1992), as presented in this pa-
per.
APPENDIX. REFERENCES
Amsler, D. (1994). "Etude th60retique et exp6rimentale des ponts A cli-
bles de tr6s grande port6e: ponts suspendus et ponts hybrides," PhD
thesis, Ecole Polytechnique F6d6rale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzer-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by British Columbia Institute of Technology on 01/05/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
land.
Austin, T. (1994). "The art of the infrastructure." Civ. Engrg., 64(9),
40-43.
J. Bridge Eng. 1996.1:99-103.
Dischinger, F. (1949). "Suspension bridges for extremely heavy live
loads." Bauingenieur, Berlin, Germany, 24(3,4),65-75,107-113 (in
German).
Gimsing, N. J. (1988). "Cable-stayed bridges with ultra long spans."
Rep., Dept. of Struct. Engrg., Tech. Univ. of Denmark, Lyngby, Den-
mark.
Lin, T. Y., and Chow, P. (1991). "Gibraltar Strait Crossing-a challenge
to bridge and structural engineers." Struct. Engrg. Int., 1(2).
Muller, J. M. (1992). "Precast segmental construction." Proc., FIP
Symp., FlP, Paris, France.
Schlaich. (1988). "Design competition Williamsburg Bridge New York."
(Design by Schlaich, Bergermann und Partner, Stuttgart, and Walther
& Mori, Basel.) Stahlbau, Berlin, Germany, 57(12), 374-377 (in
German).
Starossek, U. (1991). "Brilckendynamik-Winderregte Schwingungen
von Seilbrilcken (Bridge dynamics-wind-induced vibration of cable-
supported bridges)," PhD thesis, Univ. of Stuttgart, Friedr. Vieweg &
Sohn, Braunschweig, Germany.
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / AUGUST 1996/103