Ultimate Load Capacity of Cable-Stayed Bridges

with Different Deck and Pylon Connections

Zhuo Xi, Ph.D.1; Ying Xi, Ph.D.2; and Huiting Xiong3

Abstract: There are different connection patterns between the bridge decks and pylons of cable-stayed bridges. This paper presents an energy
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

method of analysis for the in-plane ultimate load capacity of cable-stayed bridges with different deck and pylon connection patterns. The po-
tential energy of the whole bridge, including the bridge deck, stay cables, pylons, and work done by external loads, is considered in the devel-
opment of the bridge energy equation. The energy of the plastic zone is introduced into the bridge energy equation. Both geometric and material
nonlinearities are taken into account in the analysis. The predictions of the proposed method show good agreement with experimental and
ANSYS results. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000501. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Cable-stayed bridges; Constraint conditions; Energy method; Ultimate load; Geometric and material nonlinearities.

Introduction analysis. At the same time, the energy of the plastic zone is in-
troduced into the bridge energy equation.
In recent decades, cable-stayed bridges have found wide application A cable-stayed bridge consists of three principal components,
in China. The top 10 longest cable-stayed bridges in the world today, namely, deck, pylons, and inclined cable stays. Based on the con-
including the Su Tong Bridge, Stonecutters Bridge, Shanghai nection method employed between the decks and the pylons, the
Yangtze River Bridge, MinPu Bridge, 2nd Nanjing Yangtze River bridge structural system can be a float system, a semifloat system, or
Bridge, 3rd Nanjing Yangtze River Bridge, Baishazhou Yangtze a fixed system (Shao 2002), as indicated in Fig. 1.
River Bridge, and Qingzhou Min River Bridge, have been con-
structed in China during the past decade. The Su Tong Bridge is the
world’s second longest cable-stayed bridge, with a center span of Energy Equation
1,088 m. Because of their increasing spans, the stability of cable-
stayed bridges has been a concern of bridge engineers.
Assumptions
Studies on the stability of cable-stayed bridges have been carried
out by a number of researchers and engineers (Tang 1976; Nakai Consider a cable-stayed bridge with one pylon and two cable pla-
et al. 1985; Seif and Dilger 1990; Ermopoulos et al. 1992; Yan 1994; nes (shown in Fig. 2) that is subjected to concentrated loads
Montens 1995; Choi et al. 2007; Yoo and Choi 2009; Yoo et al. P1 , P2 , . . . , Pm and distributed load qd . The following basic as-
2010, 2012; Xi and Kuang 1999, 2000). Most of them employed the sumptions are made in the analysis:
FEM to conduct the analysis. Based on the energy method, some 1. All cables are fixed to the deck and pylon at their points of
reported research is limited to buckling-load analysis, and some is attachment;
limited to a float system. This paper presents the energy method for 2. The pylon is fixed to the pier; and
ultimate load analysis of all kinds of cable-stayed bridges. The 3. The rigid supports of the two ends of the deck are rollers.
results described in this paper may meet the actual demand for It is convenient to employ two coordinate systems, x-y and z-x1 ,
a preliminary design and may be used to check the correctness of the for the deck and pylon systems, respectively, as shown in Fig. 2.
calculation results of a model based on the FEM. In this study, the Because the bridge deck, pylon, and cables are all interconnected,
potential energy of all components of the bridge, the work done by the whole structure can be treated as one entity in the analysis. The
external loads, and the constraint conditions for the different con- potential energy of the bridge thus can be expressed as
nection patterns were included in the bridge energy equation. Both
geometric and material nonlinearities are taken into account in the ðl ðh
1 2 1  2
U¼ Ed Ide ðxÞ½ y99ðxÞ dx þ Ep Ip ðzÞ x99ðzÞ
1 dz
2 2
1 0 0
Associate Professor, Key Laboratory of Concrete and Prestressed
Concrete Structures of Ministry of Education, Southeast Univ., Nanjing ðl
Pn E A
210096, China. þ1 ci c
ðyi sin ui 6 x1i cos ui Þ2 2 1 N ðxÞ½ y9ðxÞ2 dx
d
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Nanjing Univ. of Science and 2 i¼1 lci 2
0
Technology, Nanjing 210094, China (corresponding author). E-mail:
xyxian@mail.njust.edu.cn ðh xðe
3
Engineer, Jiangsu Transportation Research Institute Co., Ltd., 223 2 1 N ðzÞx9ðzÞ2 dz 2 num
P
P k yk 2 qd ðxÞyðxÞdx
p 1
Shuiximen Ave., Nanjing 210017, China. 2 k¼1
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 2, 2012; approved on 0 xb
April 30, 2013; published online on May 2, 2013. Discussion period open ðl
until June 1, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for individual P
papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 19, 2 Mp ðxÞy99ðxÞdx 2 x li fi (1)
No. 1, January 1, 2014. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702/2014/1-15–33/$25.00. 0

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014 / 15

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 15-33


Fig. 1. Structural systems of cable-stayed bridges: (a) float system;
(b) semifloat system; (c) fixed system; (d) fixed system
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
5 constraint coefficient (when the deck does not connect with the
pylon, x 5 0; when the deck connects with the pylon, x 5 1); li
5 Lagrange multiplier for constraint i; fi 5 deformation com-
patibility condition of the bridge deck and pylon for constraint i; and
the distributed load qd acts on the deck from xb to xe .
The plus sign in Eq. (1) is used when the pylon moves hori-
zontally away from cable i, whereas the minus sign is used when the
pylon moves toward cable i (Hegab 1986).
To consider the geometric nonlinearity resulting from cable sag,
the equivalent modulus of elasticity of a stay cable is given by Ernst
(1965) as
E
Eci ¼ (2)

Eg2 ðlci cos ui Þ2

1þ
12s3
where E 5 modulus of elasticity of the cable material; g 5 density
of the cable material; and s 5 cable stress.

Float System
Deflections of Bridge Deck and Pylon
For a float-system cable-stayed bridge (shown in Fig. 2), the deck
does not connect with the pylon. Because there are no constraints
between the deck and pylon, the constraint coefficient x 5 0 in
Eq. (1).
The deck deflection y at any point distance x from the left end
Fig. 2. Cable-stayed bridge abutment can be expressed as

P
‘
ipx
where Ed Ide ðxÞ 5 bending stiffness of the deck in the elastic zone; y¼ ai sin (3)
l
Ep Ip ðzÞ 5 bending stiffness of the pylon; Eci Ac 5 axial stiffness of i¼1

cable i; Nd ðxÞ 5 axial force in the deck; Np ðzÞ 5 axial force in the
pylon; yðxÞ 5 vertical deflection of the deck; x1 ðzÞ 5 horizontal And the deflection of the pylon is expressed as
deflection of the pylon; n 5 total number of stay cables; yi 5 deck  
deflection at a point where cable i is connected with the deck; x1i pz
x1 ¼ b 1 2 cos (4)
5 pylon deflection at a point where cable i is connected with the 2h
pylon; ui 5 slope of cable i to horizontal; lci 5 length of cable i; Pk
5 concentrated load; yk 5 deck deflection at a point where the where ai and b are coefficients. Eq. (3) satisfies the boundary
concentrated load Pk acts on the deck; num 5 number of concen- conditions of the deck at two ends, and Eq. (4) satisfies the boundary
trated loads; l 5 deck span (between two end abutments); h 5 height conditions of the pylon at z 5 0.
of the pylon; Mp ðxÞ 5 bending moment of the plastic zone; x Substituting Eqs. (3) and (4) into Eq. (1) gives

ðl " #2 ðl !2 ðh  2 2
 2 P
1 p ‘
ipx 1 p P‘
ipx 1 p pz
U¼ Ed Ide ðxÞ 2 2
ai i sin dx 2 Nd ðxÞ ai i cos dx þ Ep Ip ðzÞ b cos dz
2 l i¼1 l 2 l i¼1 l 2 2h 2h
0 0 0

ðh  2 "   #2
1 p pz 1 P ci c P
n E A ‘ kpxi pzi
2 Np ðzÞ b sin dz þ ak sin sin ui 6 b 1 2 cos cos ui
2 2h 2h 2 i¼1 lci k¼1 l 2h
0

xðe ðl
P P
‘ P
‘  2 P
num ipxk ipx p ‘ ipx
2 Pk ai sin 2 qd ai sin dx 2 Mp ðxÞ ai i2 sin dx (5)
k¼1 i¼1 l i¼1 l l i¼1 l
xb 0

or larger than ɛ y . That is, they are in the plastic zone. The strain at
M-N-f Relationship any point in the cross section is expressed as
The cross section of the bridge deck can be divided into many ele-
ments, as shown in Fig. 3. The strain of the hatched areas is equal to ɛ i ¼ ɛ 0 þ whi (6)

16 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 15-33

 Fig. 3. Cross section of deck
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

where ɛ 0 5 axial strain of the deck; f 5 curvature of the cross

section; and hi 5 distance between the center of Ai and j-axis. Fig. 4. Stress-strain relationship of steel
As shown in Fig. 4, the stress-strain relationships are defined
as

zone; Ayi 5 area of element i in the plastic zone; and hyi 5 distance
si ¼ ɛ i E for jɛ i j # ɛ y (7)
between the center of Ayi and j axis. The number of elements on
a cross section will affect the precision of the calculation results and
s i ¼ sy for ɛ i . ɛ y (8) workload.

si ¼ 2sy for ɛ i , 2 ɛ y (9)

Method of Solutions
For the requirement of stable equilibrium, the total potential en-
where sy 5 yield stress; and ɛ y 5 yield strain.
ergy must be minimal. Then the following conditions should be
The stresses and strains on any element Ai are approximated
satisfied:
by the stress and strain of the center of the element. On a
cross section, the following equilibrium conditions should be
satisfied: ∂U
¼ 0 ð j ¼ 1, 2, 3, . . .Þ (12)
∂aj
P
N¼ s i Ai (10)
A ∂U ¼ 0 (13)
∂b
P P
M¼ si Ai hi ¼ Ms þ Mp ¼ EIde f þ sy Ayi hyi (11)
A Ay The bridge deck is divided into a number of elements along the
x-direction, as shown in Fig. 5. The number of elements will affect
where N 5 axial force; M 5 bending moment; Ms 5 bending the precision and speed of the calculation.
moment of the elastic zone; Mp 5 bending moment of the plastic For ∂U=∂aj 5 0, the following equation can be obtained:

" #
 4  2 n21
p 2 P l
p P Pn E A jpxk 2 pxk
j Ed Idk A1jk 2 j Ndk B1jk þ ck c
sin sin uk sin a1 þ ⋯
l k¼1 l k¼1 k¼1 lck l l
" #
 4  2 n21
p 22 P l
p P Pn E A jpxk 2 ipxk
þ i j Ed Idk Aijk 2 ij Ndk Bijk þ ck c
sin sin uk sin ai
l k¼1 l k¼1 k¼1 lck l l
" #
P  
n Eck Ac pzk jpxk
þ 6 1 2 cos cos uk sin uk sin b
k¼1 lck 2h l

P   P l  2
Mpk p j2 sin
num jpxk qd l jpxb jpxe jpxk0
¼ Pk sin þ cos 2 cos þ ð j ¼ 1, 2, 3, . . .Þ (14)
k¼1 l jp l l k¼1 l l

P
where Idk 5 Ai h2i is the moment of inertia of the center cross and the j-axis (Fig. 3); l 5 number of deck elements (Fig. 5);
section of deck element k in the elastic zone; Ai 5 area of an xk0 5 x-coordinate of the center cross section of deck element k;
element in the elastic zone; hi 5 distance between the center of Ai and

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014 / 17

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 15-33

 ð
xkþ1
jpx
Aijk ¼ sin ipx sin dx
l l
8
x k

 
>
< 12 ðxkþ1 2 xk Þ 2 4ipl sin 2ipxl kþ1 2 sin 2ipx k
when i ¼ j
l
¼
  
>
: 12 l sin
ði 2 jÞpxkþ1
2 sin
ði 2 jÞpxk
2 l sin
ði þ jÞpxkþ1
2 sin
ði þ jÞpxk
when i  j (15)
ði 2 jÞp l l ði þ jÞp l l

ð2
V
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

jpx
Bijk ¼ cos ipx cos dx
l l
V1
8  
>
< 12 ðV2 2 V1 Þ þ 4ip
l sin 2ipV2 2 sin 2ipV1 when i ¼ j
l l
¼ n o
>
:1 l

ði þ jÞpV2 ði þ jÞpV1

l

ði 2 jÞpV2 ði 2 jÞpV1
sin 2 sin þ sin 2 sin when i  j (16)
2 ði þ jÞp l l ði 2 jÞp l l

" #
P P
‘  
k E A mpxi pzi
Ndk ¼ ci c
am sin sin ui 6 b 1 2 cos cos ui cos ui (17)
i¼1 lci m¼1 l 2h

where xk 5 x-coordinate of the left end of deck element k; xk11 5 x-coordinate of the right end of deck element k; V1 5 x-coordinate of cable k;
V2 5 x-coordinate of cable k 1 1.
When ∂U=∂b 5 0, one can obtain the following:
P   P  
n E A pz px n E A pz ipxk
6 ck c 1 2 cos k sin uk cos uk sin k a1 þ ⋯ þ 6 ck c 1 2 cos k sin uk cos uk sin ai
k¼1 lck 2h l k¼1 lck 2h l

      
php php
þ 1 p
4
Ep Ip1 hp þ h sin þ Ep Ip2 h 2 hp 2 h sin
2 2h p h p h
"   # )
  P  pzkþ1  n E A 
P 
1 p 2 h pznc nc21
h pzk h pz 2
2 Npnc znc 2 sin þ Npk zk 2 sin 2 zkþ1 þ sin þ ck c
1 2 cos k cos2 uk b ¼ 0
2 2h p h k¼1 p h p h k¼1 lck 2h
(18)

where hp 5 height of the lower part of the pylon; Ep Ip1 5 bending stiffness of the lower part of the pylon; Ep Ip2 5 bending stiffness of the upper
part of the pylon; nc 5 half-number of the cables; zk 5 coordinate of the end of cable k connected with the pylon; zk11 5 coordinate of the end of
cable k 1 1 connected with the pylon; Npnc 5 axial force in the pylon when k 5 nc; and

" # " #
P P   P  
k E A ‘ mpxi pzi n Eci Ac P ‘ mpxi pzi
Npk ¼ ci c
am sin sin ui 6 b 1 2 cos cos ui sin ui þ am sin sin ui 6 b 1 2 cos cos ui sin ui
i¼1 lci m¼1 l 2h i¼n2kþ1 lci m¼1 l 2h
(19)

The calculation procedure can be summarized as follows:
1. Let P 5 DP.
2. Let Eck 5 0, Ndk 5 0, Npk 5 0, and Idk 5 I, where I 5 moment
of inertia of the cross section of the bridge deck.
3. Find coefficients a1 , a2 , . . . , ai and b by solving Eqs. (14) and
(18).
4. Determine the deflection of deck y and the deflection of pylon
x1 using Eqs. (3) and (4).
5. Calculate the cable force by Fi 5 ðEci Ac =lci Þðyi sin ui
6 x1i cos ui Þ and the equivalent modulus of elasticity of each
cable Eci using Eq. (2).
6. Calculate the axial force in the deck Ndk and that in the pylon
Npk from Eqs. (17) and (19), respectively.
7. If the maximum difference in the cable forces exceeds a given
small percentage, repeat Steps 3–6 until convergence is
obtained.

18 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 15-33

 8. Calculate maximum positive and negative strains ɛ k1 and ɛ k2
and maximum positive and negative stresses sk1 and sk2 for
each deck element.
9. Check whether sk1 and sk2 of deck element k are equal to or
larger than the yield stress sy .
10. If sk1 and sk2 of all deck elements are smaller than the yield
stress sy , go to Step 17.
11. When sk1 or sk2 is equal to or larger than sy , assume that
ɛ 0 5 Ndk =AE.
12. Calculate the strain ɛ i of each area element (Fig. 3) for the
center cross section of deck element k using Eq. (6), and
calculate the corresponding stress using Eqs. (7)–(9).
13. Determine the axial force N of the center cross section of deck
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
element k using Eq. (10).
14. If the difference in the axial forces exceeds a given small
percentage, ɛ 0 5 ɛ 0 1 ðNdk 2 NÞ=AE, and then go to Step 12.
15. If the difference in the axial forces is less than the given small
percentage, calculate the value of Idk .
16. If the maximum difference in the deflections of the bridge deck
exceeds a given small percentage, repeat Steps 3–15 until
convergence is obtained.
17. Increase the load (i.e., P 5 P 1 DP), and then go to Step 3.
If convergence cannot be obtained in Step 7 or Step 14, the cable-
stayed bridge becomes unstable. This means that the load reaches
the ultimate load of the cable-stayed bridge. In the analysis, only a
few iterations are needed for convergence, and a small number of
series terms is sufficient.
Finite-Element Model
To illustrate the validity of the proposed method, the finite-element
analysis program ANSYS 10.0 was used to carry out ultimate load
analysis of cable-stayed bridges. Beam188 and link10 elements were
Fig. 5. Deck divided into many elements
Fig. 6. Example cable-stayed bridge
J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 15-33
used in the analysis. Beam188 elements were used to simulate the
behavior of the deck and pylon. The beam188 element is a three-
dimensional (3D) linear beam element. This element has six degrees
of freedom at each node. The element size for the finite-element mesh
used in the deck model was 10 cm, and in the pylon model it was 20 cm
maximum and 10 cm minimum. The link10 elements were used to
simulate the behavior of the cable. The link10 element has three degrees
of freedom per node, i.e., translation in three coordinate directions. It is
a 3D spar element with a bilinear stiffness matrix. When the tension-
only option is chosen, the element stiffness is removed if the element is
in compression. The fixed-end boundary condition was modeled by
restraining all the degrees of freedom of the nodes at the base of the
pylon. The roller boundary condition was modeled by restraining
the y-direction degrees of freedom of the nodes at the two ends of the
deck. The cables were fixed to the deck and pylon.
Numerical Investigation
An example cable-stayed bridge with two cable planes (shown in
Fig. 6) was analyzed using the proposed method and ANSYS. The
deck is supported at the ends by rollers but does not connect with the
pylon. The pylon is fixed at its base. The deck and cables have
constant cross sections throughout their entire length, and the pylon
has two different cross sections. The stiffness values of the com-
ponents and geometric data of the bridge are listed in Table 1. Two
load cases were considered in the analysis, as shown in Fig. 7.
1. Four equally concentrated loads at a distance of 0.8 and 1.2 m
from the left and right abutments, respectively [Fig. 7(a)]; and
2. Uniformly distributed load throughout the left span [Fig. 7(b)].
Load Case 1
Fig. 8 shows the vertical-deflection curves of the bridge deck under
different load levels. The solid line indicates that the deck works at
the elastic stage, and the dashed line indicates that the deck works at
the elastoplastic stage. Fig. 9 is the vertical-deflection comparison of
the proposed energy method, ANSYS, and Experiment 1 (Yan 1994)
under the load P 5 12 kN. It can be seen that the predictions of the
proposed energy method show good agreement with the calculation
results of ANSYS. The ultimate load of the cable-stayed bridge by
the energy method is about 16.4 kN. The ANSYS ultimate load is
19.57 kN. The Experiment 1 ultimate load (Yan 1994) is 15.9 kN.
However, Yan (1994) said that because a cable sliding wire dis-
jointed under the 15.9-kN load, the real ultimate load could not be
measured. Based on the large strain increment under the final small
load increment, the load was determined to be the ultimate load.
Fig. 10 shows the theoretical, experimental, and ANSYS load-
deflection relationships for Sections H and G of the bridge deck
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014 / 19
 [see Fig. 7(a)]. The theoretical results show good agreement with
those of the two experiments. However, the results of ANSYS are
higher than those of the two experiments during the last stage.
Figs. 11 and 12 show the curves of load versus strains of Cables
1–4 (Fig. 6) and a comparison with Experiments 1 and 2 (Yan 1994),
of the deck and pylon, the deflection of the deck should be in accord
with the axial deformation of the pylon. If the intersection of the bridge
deck and pylon is assumed at x 5 al, z 5 bh, the deformation com-
patibility condition of the deck and pylon is then
bh
ð
respectively. Fig. 13 shows the curves of load versus cable forces of 
2
Cables 1–4 and a comparison with ANSYS. Table 2 shows the the- f1 ¼ yðalÞ 2 1 x91 dz ¼ 0 (20)
2
oretical and experimental values of cable forces under ultimate load. 0

Load Case 2 Eq. (3) is adopted as the deck deflection y as with a float system,
Fig. 14 shows the vertical-deflection curves of the bridge deck under and the deflection of the pylon may be expressed by a trigonometric
different load levels. The displacement of the left span has the same series
direction as that of the distributed load, whereas that of the right span is
P
‘  
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

mpz
opposite the direction of the load. The theoretical ultimate load of the x1 ¼ bm 1 2 cos (21)
cable-stayed bridge is about 7:5 kN=m. The ANSYS ultimate load is m¼1 2h
9:5 kN=m. Fig. 15 shows the theoretical and ANSYS load-deflection
relationships for Section C9 of the bridge deck [Fig. 7(a)]. Fig. 16 shows The deck deflection [Eq. (3)] and pylon deflection [Eq. (21)] could
the curves of load versus cable forces of Cables 3–6 and 12 (Fig. 6) and not satisfy the constraint conditions at the intersection of the bridge
a comparison with ANSYS. As in Load Case 1, the calculation results of deck and pylon. Thus the potential-energy equation of a semifloat
the proposed method and the ANSYS model are shown to be consistent. system should be
ðl ðl
Semifloat System 1 1
U¼ Ed Ide ðxÞ½y99ðxÞ2 dx 2 Nd ðxÞ½y9ðxÞ2 dx
2 2
Analysis 0 0
For a semifloat-system cable-stayed bridge, the bridge deck con-
ðh
nects with the pylon by a roller support, as shown in Fig. 1(b), and Pn E A  2
the constraint coefficient x 5 1 in Eq. (1). Therefore, at the intersection þ1 ci c
ðyi sin ui 6 x1i cos ui Þ2 þ 1 Ep Ip ðzÞ x199ðzÞ dz
2 i¼1 lci 2
0

ðh xðe
Table 1. Data for Example Bridge 1  2 P
num
2 Np ðzÞ x9ðzÞ
1 dz 2 P k yk 2 qd yðxÞdx
Bridge Elastic modulus Moment of 2 k¼1
2 0 xb
element (MPa) Area (m ) inertia (m4 )
1:967 3 10 3:926 3 1025 — ðh  bh
ð
Cable 5
 2
Deck 2:074 3 105 1:02 3 1023 1:66 3 1027 2 Mp ðxÞy99ðxÞdx 2 l1 yðalÞ 2 1 x91 dz
2
Pylon 2:074 3 105 2:04 3 1023 2:012 3 1026 0 0
3:7 3 1023 7:253 3 1026 (22)

Fig. 7. Different load cases: (a) Load Case 1: symmetrical concentrated load; (b) Load Case 2: asymmetrical distributed load

20 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 15-33

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Load Case 1 of float system: vertical deflection of bridge deck

Fig. 9. Vertical deflection under the load P 5 12 kN

Substituting Eqs. (3) and (21) into Eq. (22) gives

ðl " #2 ðl !2
 2 P
1 p ‘
ipx 1 p P‘
ipx
U¼ Ed Ide ðxÞ 2 2
ai i sin dx 2 Nd ðxÞ ai i cos dx
2 l i¼1 l 2 l i¼1 l
0 0
" #2 ðh " #2
   2 P
1P ci c P
n E A ‘ kpxi P‘ mpzi 1 p ‘
mpz
þ ak sin sin ui 6 bm 1 2 cos cos ui þ Ep Ip ðzÞ 2
bm m cos dz
2 i¼1 lci k¼1 l m¼1 2h 2 2h m¼1 2h
0
ðh !2 xðe ðl
P‘ P P‘ P‘  2 P‘
2 1 Np ðzÞ p bm m sin mpz dz 2
num
Pk ai sin
ipxk
2 qd ai sin ipx dx 2 Mp ðxÞ p ai i2 sin ipx dx
2 2h m¼1 2h k¼1 i¼1 l i¼1 l l i¼1 l
0 xb 0
" bh !2 #
ð
P
‘
p P‘
2l1 ai sinðipaÞ 2 1 bm m sin mpz dz (23)
i¼1 2 2h m¼1 2h
0

Eci still adopts Eq. (2) as a float system. And the same M-N-f relationship as a float system is employed. For the equilibrium requirement, the
total potential energy must be minimal; then the following conditions should be satisfied:

∂U ¼ 0 ð j ¼ 1, 2, 3, . . .Þ (24)
∂aj

∂U ¼ 0 ð j ¼ 1, 2, 3, . . .Þ (25)
∂bj

∂U
¼0 (26)
∂l1
For ∂U=∂aj 5 0, one obtains the following:
" #
 4  2 n21
p 2 P l
p P P n E A jpxk 2 pxk
j Ed Idk A1jk 2 j Ndk B1jk þ ck c
sin sin uk sin a1 þ ⋯
l k¼1 l k¼1 k¼1 lck l l
" #
 4 Pl  2 n21 P P
þ p 2 2
i j Ed Idk Aijk 2 p ij Ndk Bijk þ
n E A
ck c
sin
jpxk 2
sin uk sin
ipxk
ai
l k¼1 l k¼1 k¼1 lck l l
" # " #
P   P  
n Eck Ac pzk jpxk n Eck Ac mpzk jpxk
þ 6 1 2 cos cos uk sin uk sin b1 þ ⋯ þ 6 1 2 cos cos uk sin uk sin bm 2½sinð jpaÞl1
k¼1 lck 2h l k¼1 lck 2h l
P   P l  2
Mpk p j2 sin
num jpxk qd l jpxb jpxe jpxk0
¼ Pk sin þ cos 2 cos þ ð j ¼ 1, 2, 3, . . .Þ
k¼1 l jp l l k¼1 l l
(27)

where " #
Pk E A P
‘ P‘  
mpxi kpzi
Ndk ¼ ci c
am sin sin ui 6 bk 1 2 cos cos ui cos ui (28)
i¼1 lci m¼1 l k¼1 2h

and Aijk and Bijk are the same as those for a float system.

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014 / 21

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 15-33

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Load Case 1 of float system: load-deflection relation of (a) Section H; (b) Section G

For ∂U=∂bj 5 0, one obtains the following:

P   P  
n Eck Ac jpzk px n E A jpzk ipxk
6 1 2 cos sin uk cos uk sin k a1 þ ⋯ þ 6 ck c 1 2 cos sin uk cos uk sin ai
l 2h l l 2h l
k¼1
n ck  k¼1
n E A 
ck
 
þ p 4 j2 E I B 1, j, 0, h þ E I B 1, j, h , h  þ P ck c pz
1 2 cos k 1 2 cos
jpzk
cos2 uk
p p1 c p p p2 c p
2h k¼1 lck 2h 2h
 2   2 o
p P
nc21
p
2 j Npnc Cs ð1, j, 0, znc Þ þ Npk Cs ð1, j, zkþ1 , zk Þ þ l1 jCs ð1, j, 0, bhÞ b1 þ ⋯
2h 2h
n  k¼1
n E A   
p 4 2 2    P mpzk jpzk
þ j m Ep Ip1 Bc m, j, 0, hp þ Ep Ip2 Bc m, j, hp , h þ ck c
1 2 cos 1 2 cos cos2 uk
2h l 2h 2h
 2 
k¼1
 2
ck
o
p P
nc21
p
2 jm Npnc Cs ðm, j, 0, znc Þ þ Npk Cs ðm, j, zkþ1 , zk Þ þ l1 jmCs ðm, j, 0, bhÞ bm ¼ 0 (29)
2h k¼1 2h

where
ðb
jpz
Bc ðm, j, a, bÞ ¼ cos mpz cos dz
2h 2h
8
a
 
< 1 ðb 2 aÞ þ h
sin
jpb
2 sin
jpa
when m ¼ j
2 2pj h h
¼   (30)
: h
sin
ðm þ jÞpb
2 sin
ðm þ jÞpa
þ
h
sin
ðm 2 jÞpb
2 sin
ðm 2 jÞpa
when m  j
ðm þ jÞp 2h 2h ðm 2 jÞp 2h 2h

ðb
jpz
Cs ðm, j, a, bÞ ¼ sin mpz sin dz
2h 2h
8
a
 
< 1 ðb 2 aÞ 2 h sin jpb 2 sin jpa when m ¼ j
2 2jp h h
¼   (31)
: h sin
ðm 2 jÞpb
2 sin
ðm 2 jÞpa
2 h sin
ðm þ jÞpb
2 sin
ðm þ jÞpa
when m  j
ðm 2 jÞp 2h 2h ðm þ jÞp 2h 2h

and

22 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 15-33

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Load Case 1 of float system: load-strain relation of cables compared with Experiment 1

Fig. 12. Load Case 1 of float system: load-strain relation of cables compared with Experiment 2

Fig. 13. Load Case 1 of float system: load-cable force relationship

Table 2. Cable Force under Ultimate Load (kN)

Cable
Method for
solution 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Theoretical 10.054 23.118 25.907 4.824 0 0 0 0 4.824 25.907 23.118 10.054
Experimental 9.281 23.271 25.506 4.749 0 0 0 0 4.88 25.391 23.101 9.017

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014 / 23

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 15-33

 Fig. 14. Load Case 2 of float system: vertical deflection of bridge deck
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 16. Load Case 2 of float system: load-cable force relationship

Fig. 17. Load Case 1 of semifloat system: vertical deflection of bridge

deck

Fig. 15. Load Case 2 of float system: load-deflection relation of Section

C9

" #
Pk E A P
‘ P
‘  
mpxi mpzi
Npk ¼ ci c
am sin sin ui 6 bm 1 2 cos cos ui sin ui
i¼1 lci m¼1 l m¼1 2h
" #
P  
n Eci Ac P ‘ mpxi P‘ mpzi
þ am sin sin ui 6 bm 1 2 cos cos ui sin ui (32)
i¼n2kþ1 lci m¼1 l m¼1 2h

For ∂U=∂l1 5 0, one obtains the following: Finite-Element Model

Except that the element mesh used in the pylon was 10 cm and the
bh !2
P
‘   ð P
‘
bridge deck connects with the pylon by a roller support, the models
1 p 2 mpz are the same as those of a float system.
2 ½sinðipaÞai þ mbm sin dz ¼ 0
m¼1 2 2h m¼1 2h
0
(33) Numerical Investigation
A semifloat-system cable-stayed bridge with two cable planes
The procedure for solving the problem is as follows: (shown in Fig. 6) was analyzed using the proposed energy method
1. Let P 5 DP. and ANSYS. In addition to the fact that the bridge deck connects with
2. Let Eck 5 0, Ndk 5 0, Npk 5 0, l1 5 0, and Idk 5 I. the pylon via a roller support, all other conditions are the same as
3. Determine the coefficients aj ð j 5 1, 2, 3, . . . , iÞ, bj ð j 5 1, 2, those of a float system. Two load cases (shown in Fig. 7) were
3, . . . , mÞ and l1 by solving Eqs. (27), (29), and (33). considered in the analysis.
4. Steps 4–17 are the same as those of a float system except that
x1 , Ndk , and Npk , are determined from Eqs. (21), (28), and (32), Load Case 1
respectively. Fig. 17 shows the vertical-deflection curves of the bridge deck under
The ultimate load of the cable-stayed bridge thus can be different load levels. The solid line indicates that the deck works at
obtained. the elastic stage, and the dashed line indicates that the deck works at

24 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 15-33

 the elastoplastic stage. The theoretical ultimate load of the cable-
stayed bridge is about 27 kN. The ANSYS ultimate load is 30.5 kN.
Fig. 18 shows the theoretical and ANSYS load-deflection relation-
ships for Section C [Fig. 7(a)] of the bridge deck. Fig. 19 shows
the curve of load versus cable forces of Cables 1–4 (Fig. 6) and
a comparison with ANSYS. The theoretical results are lower than
those of ANSYS.
Load Case 2
Fig. 20 shows the vertical-deflection curves of the bridge deck under
transmitting a normal force, a transverse force, and a bending
moment. The constraint coefficient x 5 1 in Eq. (1). Therefore, at the
intersection of the bridge deck and pylon, the deformation com-
patibility conditions are (1) the deflection of the deck should cor-
respond to the axial deformation of the pylon, (2) the horizontal
displacement of the deck should be consistent with the deflection of
the pylon, and (3) the rotation of the deck should be equal to that of
the pylon. The authors assume that the intersection of the bridge deck
and pylon is at x 5 al, z 5 bh. Then
bh
ð
different load levels. The displacement of the left span has the same 
2
direction as that of the distributed load, whereas that of the right span f1 ¼ yðalÞ 2 1 x91 dz ¼ 0 (34)
2
is opposite the direction of the load. The ultimate load of the cable-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0
stayed bridge is about 7:25 kN=m. The ANSYS ultimate load is
7:88 kN=m. Fig. 21 shows the theoretical and ANSYS load-deflection f2 ¼ c 2 x1 ðbhÞ ¼ 0 (35)
relationships for Section C9 of the bridge deck [Fig. 7(a)]. Fig. 22
shows the curves of load versus cable forces of Cables 3–6 and 12  
(Fig. 6) and a comparison with ANSYS. f3 ¼ y9 al 2 x91 bh ¼ 0 (36)

Fixed System where c 5 horizontal displacement of the bridge deck at the in-
tersection of the deck and pylon.
Analysis Eq. (3) is adopted as the deck deflection y as in a float system and
For a fixed-system cable-stayed bridge [shown in Fig. 1(d)], the Eq. (21) as the pylon deflection x1 as in a semifloat system. The deck
connection between the bridge deck and the pylon is capable of deflection [Eq. (3)] and the pylon deflection [Eq. (21)] could not
satisfy the constraint conditions at the intersection of the bridge deck
and the pylon. Then the potential-energy equation of a fixed system
should be

Fig. 20. Load Case 2 of semifloat system: vertical deflection of bridge

Fig. 18. Load Case 1 of semifloat system: load-deflection relation of deck
Section C

Fig. 21. Load Case 2 of semifloat system: load-deflection relation of

Fig. 19. Load Case 1 of semifloat system: load-cable force relationship Section C9

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014 / 25

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 15-33

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 22. Load Case 2 of semifloat system: load-cable force relationship

ðl ðl ðh
1 1 1P n E A
1  2
U¼ Ed Ide ðxÞ½y99ðxÞ2 dx 2 Nd ðxÞ½y9ðxÞ2 dx þ ci c
ðyi sin ui 6 x1i cos ui Hc cos ui Þ2 þ Ep Ip ðzÞ x199ðzÞ dz
2 2 2 i¼1 lci 2
0 0 0
ðh xðe ðl  bh
ð
1  2 P
num
1  2
2 Np ðzÞ x9ðzÞ
1 dz 2 P k yk 2 qd yðxÞ dx 2 Mp ðxÞy99ðxÞ dx2l1 yðalÞ 2 x91 dz 2 l2 ½c 2 x1 ðbhÞ
2 k¼1 2
0 xb 0 0
h i
2 l3 y9ðalÞ 2 x9ðbhÞ
1 (37)

Substituting Eqs. (3) and (21) into Eq. (37) gives

ðl " #2 ðl !2
  ‘
U¼ 1 E I ðxÞ 2 p 2 P 2
ai i sin ipx dx 2 1 Nd ðxÞ p P‘
ai i cos ipx dx
d de
2 l i¼1 l 2 l i¼1 l
0 0
" #2 ðh " #2
P     ‘
ci c P P p 2 P
n E A ‘ kpxi ‘ mpzi
þ1 ak sin sin ui 6 bm 1 2 cos cos ui Hc cos ui þ 1 Ep Ip ðzÞ 2
bm m cos mpz dz
2 i¼1 lci k¼1 l m¼1 2h 2 2h m¼1 2h
0
ðh !2 xðe ðl
P‘ P P‘ P
‘  2 P
‘
2 1 Np ðzÞ p Mp p
num ipxk
bm m sin mpz dz2 Pk ai sin 2 qd ai sin ipx dx 2 ai i2 sin ipx dx
2 2h m¼1 2h k¼1 i¼1 l i¼1 l l i¼1 l
0 xb 0
" bh
ð !2 # " #
P  
‘
1 p P ‘
mpz P‘ mpb
2 l1 ai sinðipaÞ 2 bm m sin dz 2 l2 c 2 bm 1 2 cos
i¼1 2 2h m¼1 2h m¼1 2
0
" #
P‘  P
‘
2 l3 p iai cos ipa 2 p
mpb
mbm sin (38)
l i¼1 2h m¼1 2

where Eci adopts Eq. (2) as in a float system. And the same M-N-f ∂U ¼ 0
relationship as in a float system is employed. For the equilibrium (41)
∂c
requirement, the total potential energy must be minimal. Then the
following conditions should be satisfied: ∂U
¼0 (42)
∂l1
∂U ¼ 0 ð j ¼ 1, 2, 3, . . .Þ (39)
∂aj ∂U
¼0 (43)
∂l2
∂U ∂U
¼0 ð j ¼ 1, 2, 3, . . .Þ (40) ¼0 (44)
∂bj ∂l3

26 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 15-33

 For ∂U=∂aj 5 0, one obtains the following:
" #
 4  2 n21
p 2 P l
p P P n E A jpxk 2 pxk
j Ed Idk A1jk 2 j Ndk B1jk þ ck c
sin sin uk sin a1 þ ⋯
l k¼1 l k¼1 k¼1 lck l l
" #
 4  2 n21
p 22 P l
p P Pn E A jpxk 2 ipxk
þ i j Ed Idk Aijk 2 ij Ndk Bijk þ ck c
sin sin uk sin ai
l k¼1 l k¼1 k¼1 lck l l
" # " #
P   P  
n Eck Ac pzk jpxk n Eck Ac mpzk jpxk
þ 6 1 2 cos cos uk sin uk sin b1 þ ⋯ þ 6 1 2 cos cos uk sin uk sin bm
k¼1 lck 2h l k¼1 lck 2h l
!
P h i
n Eck Ac jpxk p
þ H sin sin uk cos uk c 2 ½sinð jpaÞl1 2 j cosð jpaÞ l3
k¼1 lck l l
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

P   P l  2
num jpxk qd l jpxb jpxe p 2 jpxk0
¼ Pk sin þ cos 2 cos þ Mpk j sin ð j ¼ 1, 2, 3, . . .Þ (45)
k¼1 l jp l l k¼1 l l

where Aijk , Bijk , and Ndk are the same as those of a semifloat system, i.e., Eqs. (15), (16), and (28).
For ∂U=∂bj 5 0, one obtains the following:

P   P  
n Eck Ac jpzk px n E A jpzk ipxk
6 1 2 cos sin uk cos uk sin k a1 þ ⋯ þ 6 ck c 1 2 cos sin uk cos uk sin ai
lck 2h l lck 2h l
k¼1
n  k¼1
n E A     2 
þ p 4 j2 E I B 1, j, 0, h þ E I B 1, j, h , h  þ P ck c
1 2 cos
pzk
1 2 cos
jpzk
cos 2
u 2 p j N C ð1, j, 0, z Þ
p p1 c p p p2 c p k pnc s nc
2h l 2h 2h 2h
 2 o k¼1 ck
n  4
P
nc21
p p 2 2   
þ Npk Cs ð1, j, zkþ1 , zk Þ þ l1 jCs ð1, j, 0, bhÞ b1 þ ⋯ þ j m Ep Ip1 Bc m, j, 0, hp þ Ep Ip2 Bc m, j, hp , h
k¼1 2h 2h
" #
P n E A     2 P
mpzk jpzk p nc21
þ ck c
1 2 cos 1 2 cos cos uk 2
2
jm Npnc Cs ðm, j, 0, znc Þ þ Npk Cs ðm, j, zkþ1 , zk Þ
k¼1 lck 2h 2h 2h k¼1
 2 o "
n E A  
#    
p P jpzk jpb p jpb
þ l1 jmCs ðm, j, 0, bhÞ bm þ 2 ck c
1 2 cos cos uk c þ l2 1 2 cos
2
þ l3 j sin ¼0
2h k¼1 lck 2h 2 2h 2
(46)

where Bc ðm, j, a, bÞ, Cðm, j, a, bÞ, and Npk are the same as those of For ∂U=∂l2 5 0, one obtains the following:
a semifloat system, i.e., Eqs. (30)–(32).
P
‘  
For ∂U=∂c 5 0, one obtains the following: mpb
bm 1 2 cos 2c ¼ 0 (49)
! m¼1 2
Pn Eck Ac pxk
H sin sin uk cos uk a1 þ ⋯
k¼1 lck l For ∂U=∂l3 5 0, one obtains the following:
!
P n
þ H
Eck Ac
sin
ipxk
sin uk cos uk ai p P ‘
p P ‘ mpb
lck l 2 iai cosðipaÞ þ mbm sin ¼0 (50)
k¼1 l i¼1 2h m¼1 2
" #
P  
n Eck Ac pzk
þ 2 1 2 cos cos uk b1 þ ⋯
2 The procedure for solving the problem is as follows:
k¼1 lck 2h 1. Let P 5 DP.
" # 2. Let Eci 5 0, Ndk 5 0, Npk 5 0, l1 5 0, l2 5 0, l3 5 0 and,
P n  
Eck Ac mpzk Idk 5 I.
þ 2 1 2 cos cos uk bm
2
k¼1 lck 2h 3. Determine the coefficients aj ð j 5 1, 2, 3, . . . , iÞ, bj ð j 5 1, 2,
! 3, . . . , mÞ, c, l1 , l2 , and l3 by solving Eqs. (45)–(50).
P n E A
4. Steps 4–17 are the same as those for a float system except
þ ck c
cos uk c ¼ 0
2
(47)
k¼1 lck that x1 , Ndk , and Npk are determined from Eqs. (21) and (32),
respectively.
For ∂U=∂l1 5 0, one obtains the following: The ultimate load of the cable-stayed bridge thus can be
obtained.
bh !2
P
‘  2 ð P
‘
2 ½sinðipaÞai þ p
1 mbm sin mpz dz ¼ 0
i¼1 2 2h m¼1 2h Finite-Element Model
0 Except that the bridge deck is fixed with the pylon, the models are the
(48) same as those of a semifloat system.

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014 / 27

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 15-33

 Numerical Investigation
A fixed-system cable-stayed bridge with two cable planes (shown in
Fig. 6) was analyzed using the proposed energy method and ANSYS.
In addition to the fact that the connection between the bridge deck
and the pylon is capable of transmitting a normal force, a transverse
force, and a bending moment, all other conditions are the same as
those of a float system. Two load cases (shown in Fig. 7) were
considered in the analysis.
12 and a comparison with ANSYS (Fig. 6). As in Load Case 1, the
theoretical results are acceptable.
Comparison of Different Systems
Table 3 is the comparison of the ultimate loads of the three systems of
cable-stayed bridges. It indicates that in Load Case 1 (symmetrical
load case), the ultimate load capacities of semifloat and fixed systems

Load Case 1
Fig. 23 shows the vertical-deflection curves of the bridge deck under
different load levels. The solid line indicates that the deck works at
the elastic stage, and the dashed line indicates that the deck works at
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the elastoplastic stage. The theoretical ultimate load of the cable-

stayed bridge is about 27 kN. The ANSYS ultimate load is 30.5 kN.
Fig. 24 shows the theoretical and ANSYS load-deflection relation-
ships for Section C [Fig. 7(a)] of the bridge deck. Fig. 25 shows
the curves of load versus cable forces of Cables 1–4 (Fig. 6) and a
comparison with ANSYS.

Load Case 2
Fig. 26 shows the vertical-deflection curves of the bridge deck under
different load levels. The displacement of the left span has the same
direction as that of the distributed load, whereas that of the right
span is opposite the direction of the load. The ultimate load of the Fig. 25. Load Case 1 of fixed system: load-cable force relationship
cable-stayed bridge is about 15 kN=m. The ANSYS ultimate load is
15.7 kN/m. Fig. 27 shows the theoretical and ANSYS load-deflection
relationships for Section C of the bridge deck [Fig. 7(a)]. Fig. 28
shows the curves of load versus cable forces of Cables 2–5 and

Fig. 26. Load Case 2 of fixed system: vertical deflection of bridge deck

Fig. 23. Load Case 1 of fixed system: vertical deflection of bridge deck

Fig. 24. Load Case 1 of fixed system: load-deflection relation of Fig. 27. Load Case 2 of fixed system: load-deflection relation of
Section C Section C

28 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 15-33

 are identical and are more than 30% higher than that of a float system. bh
ð
In Load Case 2 (unsymmetrical load case), the ultimate load capacity 1  2
f1 ¼ yðalÞ 2 x91 dz ¼ 0
of a float system is close to that of a semifloat system and is about 2
50% lower than that of a fixed system. Taking all factors into 0

consideration, the fixed system is the best one for a single-pylon

cable-stayed bridge.
Deformation Compatibility Conditions
When the functions describing deck or pylon deflection cannot
satisfy some of the constrain conditions, the unsatisfied constrain
conditions of the bridge deck or pylon or the deformation compat-
ibility conditions of the deck and pylon (when the deck and pylon are
connected to each other) should be introduced in the bridge energy
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
2. When the bridge deck connects with the pylon by a horizontal
support, the horizontal displacement of the deck at x 5 al
should be consistent with the deflection of the pylon
f2 ¼ c 2 x1 ðbhÞ ¼ 0
where c 5 horizontal displacement of the bridge deck at the
intersection of the deck and the pylon.
3. When the bridge deck connects with the pylon by a rotation

equation. As shown in Fig. 2, two coordinate systems, x-y and z-x1 , constrain, the rotation of the deck at x 5 al should be equal to
are chosen and are employed for the deck and pylon systems, that of the pylon
respectively. If the intersection of the bridge deck and pylon is
assumed to be at x 5 al, z 5 bh, the deformation compatibility f3 ¼ y9ðalÞ 2 x9ðbhÞ
1 ¼0
conditions of the deck and pylon under different connection con-
4. When the bridge deck connects with the pylon by a spring
ditions are as follows:
support, the deflection of the deck at x 5 al should be in accord
1. When the bridge deck connects with the pylon via a roller
with the axial deformation of the pylon
support, the deflection of the deck at x 5 al should be in accord
with the axial deformation of the pylon bh
ð
 2
f4 ¼ yðx ¼ alÞ 2 1 x91 dz ¼ 0
2
0

The energy equation of this kind of bridge should include the

energy of the spring support
1 kyðx ¼ alÞ2
2

where k 5 rigidity of the spring support.

5. When the bridge deck connects with some auxiliary piers at
x 5 gi l ði 5 1, 2, . . .Þ, the deflection of the bridge deck should
be zero at the places connected with the auxiliary piers

f5 ¼ yðx ¼ gi lÞ ¼ 0 ði ¼ 1, 2, . . . Þ

Based on the different constraint conditions, the corresponding

deformation compatibility conditions should be introduced in the
bridge
P energy equation [Eq. (1)]. That is, the last term of Eq. (1),
Fig. 28. Load Case 2 of fixed system: load-cable force relationship
x li fi , should be x 5 1 multiplied by corresponding li fi . The
procedure for calculating the ultimate loads of cable-stayed bridges
Table 3. Comparison of Ultimate Load with different constraint conditions is similiar to that of a semifloat or
a fixed system.
Float system Semifloat system Fixed system
Load Load Load Load Load Load Two-Pylon Cable-Stayed Bridge
Method for Case 1 Case 2 Case 1 Case 2 Case 1 Case 2 When a bridge has two pylons, as shown in Fig. 29, the analysis can
solution (kN) (kN=m) (kN) (kN=m) (kN) (kN=m) follow the same procedure given in previous sections. Three coordi-
nate systems, x-y, z1 -x1 , and z2 -x2 , are chosen, as shown in Fig. 29,
Theoretical 16.4 7.5 27 7.25 27 15 and are employed for the deck and two-pylon systems, respectively.
ANSYS 19.5 9.5 30.5 7.88 30.5 15.7 The potential energy of the whole bridge can be expressed as

Fig. 29. Two-pylon cable-stayed bridge

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014 / 29

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 15-33

 ðl ðl where n1 5 cable number of the left pylon; n2 5 cable number of the
U¼ 1 E I ðxÞ½y99ðxÞ2 dx 2
d de
1 N ðxÞ½y9ðxÞ2 dx
d
right pylon; hl 5 height of the left pylon; hr 5 height of the right pylon;
2 2 x1 5 horizontal deflection of the left pylon; x2 5 horizontal deflection
0 0
of the right pylon. Np1 ðz1 Þ 5 axial force of the left pylon; Np2 ðz2 Þ
1P n1 E A
5 axial force of the right pylon; xi 5 constraint coefficient between
þ ci c
ðyi sin ui 6 x1i cos ui Þ2
2 i¼1 lci the deck and the left pylon; x r 5 constraint coefficient between the
Pn2 E A deck and the right pylon; lit 5 Lagrange multiplier for constraint i of
þ1 ci c
ðyi sin ui 6 x2i cos ui Þ2 the left pylon; lri 5 Lagrange multiplier for constraint i of the right
2 i¼1 lci pylon; fit 5 deformation compatibility condition of the bridge deck
ðhl h i2 ðhl h i2 and left pylon for constraint i; and fri 5 deformation compatibility
1 1 condition of the bridge deck and right pylon for constraint i.
þ Ep Ip ðz1 Þ x199ðz1 Þ dz1 2 Np1 ðz1 Þ x9ðz
1 1 Þ dz1
2 2 The deflection of the left pylon x1 and of the right pylon x2 may be
0 0
expressed, respectively, by
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

hðr ð
hr
h i h i  
þ 1 E I ðz Þ x 99ðz Þ 2 dz 2 1 N ðz Þ x9ðz Þ 2 dz P‘ mpz1
2
p p 2 2 2 2
2
p2 2 2 2 2 x1 ¼ bm 1 2 cos (52)
0 0 m¼1 2hl
xðe ðl  
P
num
P
‘ npz2
2 P k yk 2 qd ðxÞyðxÞ dx 2 Mp ðxÞy99ðxÞ dx x2 ¼ dn 1 2 cos (53)
k¼1 n¼1 2hr
xb 0
P P
2 xl lli fli 2 xr lri fri (51) where bm and dn are coefficients.

Fig. 30. Cable-stayed bridge with two pylons: (a) Load Case 1: symmetrical concentrated load; (b) Load Case 2: asymmetrical distributed load

Fig. 31. Load Case 1 of two-pylon cable-stayed bridge: vertical deflection of bridge deck

30 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 15-33

 For the requirement of equilibrium, the following conditions Numerical Investigation
should be satisfied:
An example cable-stayed bridge with two pylons and two cable
planes (shown in Fig. 30) was analyzed using the proposed method
∂U ¼ 0 ð j ¼ 1, 2, 3, . . .Þ (54) and ANSYS. The deck is supported at two ends by rollers but does not
∂aj connect with two pylons. Two pylons are fixed at their base. The
deck and cables have constant cross sections throughout their entire
∂U ¼ 0 ð j ¼ 1, 2, 3, . . . Þ (55)
length, and the two pylons have two different cross sections. The
∂bj stiffness values of the components and geometric data of the bridge
are listed in Table 1. Two load cases were considered in the analysis,
∂U ¼ 0 ð j ¼ 1, 2, 3, . . . Þ as shown in Figs. 30(a and b).
(56)
∂dj
Load Case 1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

∂U ¼ 0 ði ¼ 1, 2, 3, . . . Þ Fig. 31 shows the vertical-deflection curves of the bridge deck under

(57) different load levels. The solid line indicates that the deck works at
∂lli
elastic stage, and the dashed line indicates that the deck works at
elastoplastic stage. The theoretical ultimate load of the cable-stayed
∂U
¼ 0 ði ¼ 1, 2, 3, . . . Þ (58) bridge is about 17 kN. The ANSYS ultimate load is 19.5 kN. Fig. 32
∂lri
shows the theoretical and ANSYS load-deflection relationships for
Section A [Fig. 30(a)] of the bridge deck.
Following the same procedure presented in previous sections, coef-
ficients aj ð j 5 1, 2, 3, . . . , iÞ, bj ð j 5 1, 2, 3, . . . , mÞ, and dj ð j 5 1,
2, 3, . . . , nÞ can be determined from Eqs. (54)–(58). And y, x1 , x2 , Load Case 2
and N can be calculated from corresponding equations. Fig. 33 shows the vertical-deflection curves of bridge deck under
different load levels. The solid line indicates that the deck works at
elastic stage, and the dashed line indicates that the deck works at
elastoplastic stage. The theoretical ultimate load of the cable-stayed
bridge is about 18:2 kN=m. The ANSYS ultimate load is 19:5 kN=m.
Fig. 34 shows the theoretical and ANSYS load-deflection relation-
ships for Section A [Fig. 30(b)] of the bridge deck. The calculation
results of the proposed method and the ANSYS model are proved to
be consistent.

Conclusion

An energy method is presented for analysis of the ultimate load of

Fig. 32. Load Case 1 of two-pylon cable-stayed bridge: load-deflection
relation of Section A
cable-stayed bridges with different deck and pylon connections. The
solution procedures are given for float-system, semifloat-system,
and fixed-system cable-stayed bridges. The deformation compati-
bility conditions of the deck and pylon under the different connec-
tion conditions are provided. In the development of the bridge
energy equation, the potential energy of the whole bridge and the
work done by external loading have been considered. The energy of
the plastic zone is introduced into the bridge energy equation. Both
geometric and material nonlinearities have been taken into account
in the analysis. Two load cases were analyzed using the proposed
method and ANSYS for the three systems of cable-stayed bridges.

Fig. 33. Load Case 2 of two-pylon cable-stayed bridge: vertical deflection of bridge deck

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014 / 31

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 15-33

 k 5 rigidity of the spring support;
l 5 deck span (between two end abutments);
lci 5 length of cable i;
M 5 bending moment of bridge deck;
Mp 5 bending moment of the plastic zone of a bridge
deck;
Ms 5 bending moment of the elastic zone of a bridge
deck;
N 5 axial force of a bridge deck;
Ndk 5 axial force of the deck between cables k and k 1 1;
Nd ðxÞ 5 axial force in the deck;
Npk 5 axial force of the pylon between cables k and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

k 1 1;
Npnc 5 axial force in the pylon when k 5 nc;
Np ðzÞ 5 axial force in the pylon;
Np1 ðz1 Þ 5 axial force of the left pylon;
Fig. 34. Load Case 2 of two-pylon cable-stayed bridge: load-deflection Np2 ðz2 Þ 5 axial force of the right pylon;
relation of Section A n 5 total number of stay cables;
nc 5 half-number of cables;
num 5 number of concentrated loads;
n1 5 cable number of the left pylon;
The proposed method is a relatively safe method for ultimate load n2 5 cable number of the right pylon;
analysis of cable-stayed bridges. Pk 5 concentrated load;
qd 5 distributed load;
xb 5 distributed load qd acts on the deck from this point;
Acknowledgments xe 5 distributed load qd acts on the deck end from this
point;
The authors acknowledge the financial support of the National
xk 5 x-coordinate of the left end of deck element k;
Natural Science Foundation of China (project No. 51378108).
xk0 5 x-coordinate of the center cross section of deck
element k;
Notation xk11 5 x-coordinate of the right end of deck
element k;
The following symbols are used in this paper: x1 5 horizontal deflection of the left pylon;
Aijk 5 integral constant; x1i 5 pylon deflection at a point where cable i is
Ay 5 area of the plastic zone of a bridge deck; connected with the pylon;
Ayi 5 area of element i in the plastic zone of a bridge x1 ðzÞ 5 horizontal deflection of the pylon;
deck; x2 5 horizontal deflection of the right pylon;
a 5 x-coordinate of cable k; yi 5 deck deflection at a point where cable i is
ai 5 coefficient; connected with the deck;
Bc 5 integral constant; yk 5 deck deflection at a point where the concentrated
Bijk 5 integral constant; load Pk acts on the deck;
b 5 coefficient; yðxÞ 5 vertical deflection of the deck;
b 5 x-coordinate of cable k 1 1; zk 5 coordinate of the end of cable k connected with the
bm 5 coefficient; pylon;
Cs 5 integral constant; zk11 5 coordinate of the end of cable k 1 1 connected
c 5 horizontal displacement of the bridge deck at the with the pylon;
intersection of the deck and pylon; a 5 intersection of the bridge deck and pylon at x 5 al;
dn 5 coefficient; b 5 intersection of the bridge deck and pylon at
E 5 modulus of elasticity of the cable material; z 5 bh;
Eci Ac 5 axial stiffness of cable i; g 5 density of the cable material;
Ed Ide ðxÞ 5 bending stiffness of the deck in the elastic zone; gi 5 bridge deck connects with auxiliary piers at
Ep Ip1 5 bending stiffness of the lower part of the pylon; x 5 gi l;
Ep Ip2 5 bending stiffness of the upper part of the pylon; ɛ y 5 yield strain;
Ep Ip ðzÞ 5 bending stiffness of the pylon; ɛ 0 5 axial strain of the deck;
Fi 5 cable force of cable i; hi 5 distance between the center of Ai and j axis;
h 5 height of the pylon; hyi 5 distance between the center of Ayi and j axis;
hl 5 height of the left pylon; ui 5 slope of cable i to horizontal;
hp 5 height of the lower part of the pylon; l 5 number of deck elements;
hr 5 height of the right pylon; li 5 Lagrange multiplier for constraint i;
Idk 5 moment of inertia of the center cross section of lli 5 Lagrange multiplier for constraint i of the left
deck element k in the elastic zone; pylon;

32 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014

J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 15-33

 lri 5 Lagrange multiplier for constraint i of the right
pylon;
s 5 cable stress;
sy 5 yield stress;
f 5 curvature of the cross section;
fi 5 deformation compatibility condition of bridge
deck and pylon for constraint i;
fli 5 deformation compatibility condition of bridge
deck and left pylon for constraint i;
fri 5 deformation compatibility condition of bridge
deck and right pylon for constraint i;
x 5 constraint coefficient (when the deck does not
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/25/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
connect with the pylon, x 5 0; when the deck
connects with the pylon, x 5 1);
xl 5 constraint coefficient between deck and left pylon;
xr 5 constraint coefficient between deck and right
pylon;
V1 5 x-coordinate of cable k; and
V2 5 x-coordinate of cable k11.
References
ANSYS 10.0 [Computer software]. Canonsburg, PA, ANSYS.
Choi, D. H., et al. (2007). “Ultimate behavior and ultimate load capacity of
steel cable-stayed bridges.” Struct. Eng. Mech., 27(4), 477–499.
Ermopoulos, J. C., Vlahinos, A. S., and Wang, Y. C. (1992). “Stability
analysis of cable-stayed bridges.” Comp. Struct., 44(5), 1083–1089.
J. Bridge Eng., 2014, 19(1): 15-33
Ernst, J. H. (1965). “Der E-Modul von Seilen unter Berucksichtigung des
Durchanges.” Per Bauingenieur, 40(2), 52–55 (in German).
Hegab, H. I. A. (1986). “Energy analysis of cable-stayed bridges.” J. Struct.
Eng., 112(5), 1182–1195.
Montens, S. (1995). “Buckling of cable-stayed decks.” Proc., Int. Bridge
Conf.: Bridges into the 21st Century, Hong Kong Institution of Engi-
neers, Hong Kong, 923–931.
Nakai, H., et al. (1985). “Elasto-plastic and finite displacement analysis of
cable-stayed bridges.” Memoirs of the Faculty of Engineering, Vol. 26,
Osaka City Univ., Osaka, Japan, 251–271.
Seif, S. P., and Dilger, W. H. (1990). “Nonlinear analysis and collapse load
of P/C cable-stayed bridges.” J. Struct. Eng., 116(3), 829–849.
Shao, X. D. (2002). Bridge engineering, Wuhan Univ. of Science and
Technology, Wuhan, China (in Chinese).
Tang, M. C. (1976). “Buckling of cable-stayed girder bridges.” J. Struct.
Div., 102(9), 1675–1684.
Xi, Y., and Kuang, J. S. (1999). “Ultimate load capacity of cable-stayed
bridges.” J. Bridge Eng., 4(1), 14–22.
Xi, Y., and Kuang, J. S. (2000). “An energy approach for geometrically
non-linear analysis of cable-stayed bridges.” Proc. of the ICE: Struct.
Build., 140(3), 227–237.
Yan, Q. S. (1994). “Ultimate load capacity analysis of long span steel cable-
stayed bridges.” Ph.D. thesis, Changsha Railway Univ., Changsha,
China (in Chinese).
Yoo, H., et al. (2010). “Stability evaluation of steel girder members in
long-span cable-stayed bridges by member-based stability concept.”
Int. J. Steel Struct., 10(4), 395–410.
Yoo, H., and Choi, D. (2009). “Improved system buckling analysis of ef-
fective lengths of girder and tower members in steel cable-stayed
bridges.” Comput. Struct., 87(13–14), 847–860.
Yoo, H., Na, H., and Choi, D. (2012). “Approximate method for esti-
mation of collapse loads of steel cable-stayed bridges.” J. Construct.
Steel Res., 72(5), 143–154.
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2014 / 33