Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Construction Stage Analysis of Cable-Stayed Bridges
Construction Stage Analysis of Cable-Stayed Bridges
by
Marko Justus Grabow
Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the
Technical University of Hamburg Harburg
in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Diplom - Ingenieur
in
Civil and Environmental Engineering
Picture on the front cover: Existing Jindo Bridge in the south of the Republic of Korea
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Acknowledgement........................................................................................ V
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. VI
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................XII
List of Symbols and Units........................................................................................................ XVI
General task............................................................................................ 1
1.1
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1
1.2
Overview ..................................................................................................................... 3
1.3
2.2
Stay-cables................................................................................................................. 13
2.3
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.3.4
3.2
3.3
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.3.4
3.3.5
3.3.6
3.4
3.4.1
3.4.2
Table of Contents
3.5
3.5.1
3.5.2
3.5.3
3.6
3.7
3.7.1
3.7.2
3.7.3
3.7.4
3.7.5
4.2
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.3
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.4
4.4.1
4.4.2
4.4.3
4.5
4.5.1
4.5.2
4.6
4.6.1
4.6.2
4.6.3
4.7
4.7.1
4.7.2
4.8
II
Table of Contents
5.2
Structure................................................................................................................... 152
5.3
5.3.1
5.3.2
5.4
5.4.1
5.4.2
5.4.3
5.4.4
5.4.5
5.4.6
5.5
5.5.1
5.5.2
5.5.3
5.6
5.6.1
5.6.2
5.6.3
5.6.4
5.6.5
5.7
5.8
5.8.1
5.8.2
5.8.3
5.9
5.10
5.11
Conclusion.......................................................................................... 221
6.1
Summary.................................................................................................................. 221
6.2
Contribution............................................................................................................. 228
6.3
6.4
III
Table of Contents
Literature ...................................................................................................231
References............................................................................................................................. 231
Bibliography ......................................................................................................................... 232
Internet ................................................................................................................................. 235
Appendix ...................................................................................................237
Appendix A: Creep calculation CEB-FIP 1990 .................................................................... 237
Appendix B: Extracts from the correspondence with MiDAS support................................. 238
Appendix C: Model of the Second Jindo Bridge .................................................................. 240
Appendix D: Allowable and existing stresses....................................................................... 243
Appendix E: Unstressed cable length L0 ............................................................................... 249
Appendix F: Cross sections and plans of the Second Jindo Bridge ...................................... 252
IV
List of Figures
Acknowledgement
I would like to express my gratitude to my teacher Prof. Starossek for his courses and his
interest and support of his students. As a main part of this thesis was developed in relation to an
internship at the Korea Highway Corporation, I thank him deeply for organizing the unique
opportunity to visit Korea and for giving me the time to find the confidence in my decision. I
also appreciate his providing advice and support throughout my work on this thesis.
Furthermore, I would like to express my sincere thanks to Dr. Park Chan-Min for inviting me to
Korea and for his guidance during my internship. I greatly appreciated that I could learn much
from his rich experience in the construction field. My life has been enriched by his delightful
storytelling. I truly enjoyed the various visits and the trips that we undertook.
I would also like to thank Mr. Choi Gyeong Hag and his family for their far-reaching help and
profound hospitality during my stay. The diverse activities gave me great pleasure and an
insight into the Korean tradition. I can only hope that they could learn a little about the German
culture as well.
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the whole structural research group and all
the people that I have come in contact with during my stay at the Korea Highway Corporation.
Thanks for the kindness and open-heartedness. I will keep them in good remembrance.
Finally, and most importantly, I am most grateful for the continuous love and support that my
family has always given me, during my work on this thesis and all the time prior.
List of Figures
List of Figures
List of Figures
Figure 3-13: Discontinuity between two segments ..................................................................... 45
Figure 3-14: Influence Matrix of displacement [mm]................................................................. 47
Figure 3-15: Time dependent concrete deformation ................................................................... 50
Figure 3-16: Creep isochrones .................................................................................................... 55
Figure 3-17: Definition of the Creep-Function J......................................................................... 55
Figure 3-18: Verification model for creep & shrinkage.............................................................. 59
Figure 3-19: a) Creep coefficient b) Shrinkage strain................................................................. 60
Figure 3-20 Force/deflection curve............................................................................................. 64
Figure 3-21 Horizontal and inclined stay cable .......................................................................... 64
Figure 3-22 Deformed and uniformed cable element ................................................................. 67
Figure 3-23 Newton-Raphson Method........................................................................................ 69
Figure 3-24 Verification example of non-linear analysis............................................................ 70
Figure 3-25: Uniform variation of temperature, a) without supports or with supports but no
friction on bearings, b) with supports and fixed bearings ........................................................... 74
Figure 3-26: Deflection produced by: a) temperature variation in the deck, b) temperature
variation only in the side span..................................................................................................... 74
Figure 3-27: Deflections produced by an increase of temperature a) in symmetrical cablestayed cantilevers b) with side span on supports......................................................................... 75
Figure 3-28: Stay adjustment definition...................................................................................... 77
Figure 3-29: Deflections produced by construction with final cable forces a) in case of
symmetrical cable-stayed cantilever b) in case of bridge with intermediate supports ................ 78
Figure 3-30 Theoretical and actual deck profile ......................................................................... 84
Figure 3-31: Example of camber error........................................................................................ 89
Figure 4-1: Structural system ...................................................................................................... 91
Figure 4-2: Moment Distribution under Self Weight [tonfm], Case I......................................... 93
Figure 4-3: Idealised moment distribution after restricted deformation [tonfm], Case I ............ 94
Figure 4-4: Deformation dz after restricted deformation [mm], Case I ...................................... 95
Figure 4-5: Moment distribution after restricted deformation [tonfm], Case II.......................... 96
Figure 4-6: Ideal moment distribution after moment restriction [tonfm], Case II ...................... 96
Figure 4-7: Displacement after moment restriction [mm], Case II ............................................. 97
VII
List of Figures
Figure 4-8: Moment distribution backward analysis [tonfm], Case I........................................ 103
Figure 4-9: Deformation dz backward analysis [mm], Case I................................................... 104
Figure 4-10: Before removing the cable and activating the support [mm]................................ 105
Figure 4-11: Addition of support to the deformed (a) and the original structure (b) [mm] ...... 106
Figure 4-12: Deformation when first part of the side span is erected [mm] ............................. 107
Figure 4-13: Moment distribution forward analysis [tonfm], Case I ........................................ 108
Figure 4-14: Deformation dz forward analysis [mm], Case I.................................................... 108
Figure 4-15: Different normal forces back- and forward analysis [tonf], Case II ..................... 108
Figure 4-16: Moment distribution due to considered gap in normal forces in the girder of
forward and backward analysis [tonfm]; Case II ...................................................................... 109
Figure 4-17: Moment distribution forward analysis with changed girder-pylon connection,
neglecting normal forces in the key segment [tonfm], Case II.................................................. 110
Figure 4-18: Changed backward analysis a) normal force, b) horizontal displacement, Case
II ................................................................................................................................................ 111
Figure 4-19: Changed forward analysis a) horizontal displacement, b) normal force, Case
II ................................................................................................................................................ 111
Figure 4-20: Moment distribution changed forward analysis, applying a horizontal
displacement [tonfm], Case II ................................................................................................... 112
Figure 4-21: Horizontal displacement changed forward analysis, applying a horizontal
displacement [mm], Case II....................................................................................................... 112
Figure 4-22: Horizontal displacement changed forward analysis, applying a horizontal
displacement, Case II ................................................................................................................ 113
Figure 4-23: Bending moment in the girder [tonfm] a) 1 day after applying additional load,
b) 10 days after applying additional load, c) after 5000 days.................................................... 118
Figure 4-24: Vertical displacement of the main girder [mm].................................................... 119
Figure 4-25: Camber and deformation ...................................................................................... 120
Figure 4-26: Cantilever ............................................................................................................. 121
Figure 4-27: a) Current displacement b) Construction camber ................................................. 121
Figure 4-28: Erection of a cantilever......................................................................................... 122
Figure 4-29: Erection of a cantilever, current displacement value............................................ 123
Figure 4-30: Fabrication camber, real displacement [mm] ....................................................... 124
Figure 4-31: Construction camber graph, negative net displacement [mm] (Case I model)..... 128
VIII
List of Figures
Figure 4-32: Fabrication camber [mm] (Case I model) ............................................................ 128
Figure 4-33: Fabrication camber [mm] (Case II model) ........................................................... 129
Figure 4-34: Construction camber [mm] (Case II model)......................................................... 130
Figure 4-35: Vertical displacement considering cable tension error......................................... 131
Figure 4-36: Final moment distribution due to changed pre-stressing in cable 4 [tonfm] ........ 132
Figure 4-37: Final moment distribution after restressing of cable 1 to 5 [tonfm]..................... 135
Figure 4-38: Final moment distribution after elevation adjustment [tonfm]............................. 138
Figure 4-39: Elastic link in order to model an error in the girder elevation.............................. 139
Figure 4-40: Vertical displacement original system and system including error in girder
elevation .................................................................................................................................... 140
Figure 4-41: Fabrication camber [mm] ..................................................................................... 141
Figure 4-42: Structural system of harp type cable stayed bridge (dimensions in [m]) ............. 142
Figure 4-43: Non-linear analysis of a single cable (cable 6 in the model Figure 4-42) [m]
and [kN] .................................................................................................................................... 144
Figure 4-44: Deflected shape of the girder due to non-linear analysis and different initial
tension [m] ................................................................................................................................ 145
Figure 4-45: Comparison of deflected shapes,.......................................................................... 146
Figure 4-46: Cable installation in the linear truss model [kN].................................................. 148
Figure 4-47: Cable installation in the Ernst truss model [kN] .................................................. 148
Figure 5-1 Location of Second Jindo Bridge ............................................................................ 151
Figure 5-2: Girder elevation in the side and main span [m]...................................................... 156
Figure 5-3: Working points at the pylon ................................................................................... 157
Figure 5-4: Working points at the girder................................................................................... 157
Figure 5-5: Cable-girder connection and tied down condition using elastic links .................... 157
Figure 5-6 Element numbers..................................................................................................... 158
Figure 5-7: Material numbers.................................................................................................... 160
Figure 5-8: Traffic load Korean Standard ................................................................................. 165
Figure 5-9: Moment distribution restricted displacement [tonfm]............................................ 166
Figure 5-10: Moment distribution restricted cable forces [tonfm]............................................ 168
IX
List of Figures
Figure 5-11: Displacement dz restricted cable forces [mm]...................................................... 169
Figure 5-12: Moment distribution restricted cable forces & bending moments in the girder
[tonfm]....................................................................................................................................... 172
Figure 5-13: Construction stages 1-39 ...................................................................................... 179
Figure 5-14: Bending moment before opening the bridge [tonfm] (Case A) ............................ 181
Figure 5-15: Moment forward and backward analysis Case A [tonfm] .................................... 184
Figure 5-16: Moment forward analysis, considering the tension forces due to the SelfWeight function Case A [tonfm] ............................................................................................... 186
Figure 5-17: CS 4-Installation of cable 6, considering an effective stiffness in forward and
backward analysis [tonf] ........................................................................................................... 190
Figure 5-18: CS 16 installation of cable 10, considering an effective stiffness in forward
and backward analysis [tonf]..................................................................................................... 190
Figure 5-19: Final moment distribution using cable elements, considering the effect of ......... 191
Figure 5-20: CS 16 installation of cable 10, cables stressed in 5 steps [tonf] ........................... 192
Figure 5-21: Pylon and side span before the installation of the first cable[tonfm] ................... 193
Figure 5-22: Moment distribution in the main girder using cable elements, considering and
neglecting the effect of the Self-Weight function [tonfm] ......................................................... 194
Figure 5-23: Vertical displacement neglecting the effect of the Self-Weight function [mm],
Case B ....................................................................................................................................... 197
Figure 5-24: Vertical displacement at the tip of the cantilever for each construction step
[mm] .......................................................................................................................................... 198
Figure 5-25: Maximum and minimum moments from forward analysis using cable
elements and Case B values given in Table 5-15 [tonfm]......................................................... 201
Figure 5-26: Final moment [tonfm], Hyundai initial tension, same loading and construction
sequence .................................................................................................................................... 203
Figure 5-27: Final moment [tonfm], RM initial tension, changed self weight, same
construction sequence................................................................................................................ 203
Figure 5-28: Vertical displacement dz due to changed initial cable forces [mm] ..................... 204
Figure 5-29: Moment envelope due to traffic load [tonfm] (no dead weight considered) ........ 209
Figure 5-30: Load distribution for the maximum bending moment in the centre of the main
span............................................................................................................................................ 210
Figure 5-31: Maximum moment at the top of the pylon during the erection of cable 1
[tonfm]....................................................................................................................................... 211
Figure 5-32: General manufacture camber [mm]...................................................................... 212
X
List of Figures
Figure 5-33: Cable .................................................................................................................... 216
Figure A-1: Cable element with the length ds........................................................................... 249
XI
List of Tables
List of Tables
List of Tables
Table 4-14: Calculation table of the current displacement (Case I model)............................... 126
Table 4-15: Calculation table for real and net displacement (Case I model) ............................ 126
Table 4-16: Calculation table for construction camber (Case I model) .................................... 127
Table 4-17: Construction camber table (Case I model) ............................................................ 127
Table 4-18: Fabrication camber table (Case I model)............................................................... 128
Table 4-19: Cable forces due to changed pre-stressing in cable 4 ............................................ 131
Table 4-20: Cable forces due to elevation adjustment .............................................................. 138
Table 4-21: Required rotational stiffness obtained from MiDAS............................................. 140
Table 4-22: Fabrication camber data [mm]............................................................................... 141
Table 4-23: Property table for harp system............................................................................... 142
Table 4-24: Initial pretension according to the sag to span ratio [kN]...................................... 145
Table 4-25: Tension forces in cable 3 & 4 due to adapted stiffness ......................................... 149
Table 5-1: Main Geometric Data Second Jindo Bridge ............................................................ 152
Table 5-2: Material property table ............................................................................................ 159
Table 5-3: Cross section table ................................................................................................... 160
Table 5-4: Boundary table......................................................................................................... 161
Table 5-5: Segment load table................................................................................................... 163
Table 5-6: Calculated distributed load ...................................................................................... 163
Table 5-7: Unknown Load Factor restrictions .......................................................................... 166
Table 5-8: Theoretical ideal cable forces .................................................................................. 167
Table 5-9: Allowable tension forces in [tonf] ........................................................................... 167
Table 5-10: Additional Unknown Load Factor restrictions ...................................................... 168
Table 5-11: Summary table of ideal cable forces...................................................................... 169
Table 5-12: Unknown Load Factor restrictions including limited moments in the main
girder ......................................................................................................................................... 171
Table 5-13: Summary table of ideal cable forces including moment restriction ...................... 173
Table 5-14: Sequence of cable erection .................................................................................... 180
Table 5-15: Initial cable forces from backward analysis .......................................................... 182
XIII
List of Tables
Table 5-16: Difference in cable tensions between forward - and backward analysis ............... 183
Table 5-17: Changed initial cable forces considering the tension due to the self-weight of
the cables ................................................................................................................................... 185
Table 5-18: Results of forward - and backward analysis .......................................................... 188
Table 5-19: Initial cable forces from backward analysis [tonf]................................................. 189
Table 5-20: Difference in cable tension forward - and backward analysis considering an
effective stiffness [tonf]............................................................................................................. 191
Table 5-21: Comparison of cable forces obtained from different calculations ......................... 195
Table 5-22: Final cable forces truss and cable elements (forward analysis) ............................. 196
Table 5-23: Vertical displacement at the tip of the cantilever [mm]......................................... 197
Table 5-24: Cable forces back- and forward analysis using truss elements and Case B
values given in Table 5-15 ........................................................................................................ 199
Table 5-25: Comparison of cable forces using truss and cable elements in forward analysis
for Case B values given in Table 5-15 ...................................................................................... 200
Table 5-26: Comparison of cable forces obtained from different calculations ......................... 202
Table 5-27: Control maximum cable forces during construction.............................................. 206
Table 5-28: Calculation of angle and cable force due to concentrated load.............................. 207
Table 5-29: Control maximum cable due to live load ............................................................... 207
Table 5-30: Allowable stresses for SM400-steel....................................................................... 208
Table 5-31: Load cases to consider the maximum load cases for traffic load........................... 210
Table 5-32: Camber data [mm] ................................................................................................. 212
Table 5-33: Control calculation for construction camber data .................................................. 213
Table 5-34: Real horizontal displacement final state [mm] ...................................................... 213
Table 5-35: Longitudinal deformation of each segment [mm].................................................. 213
Table 5-36: Construction camber data ...................................................................................... 214
Table A-1: Node coordinates .................................................................................................... 240
Table A-2: Element table .......................................................................................................... 241
Table A-3: Elastic link table...................................................................................................... 242
Table A-4: Control of allowable stresses of the girder segments during construction.............. 244
Table A-5: Control of allowable stresses of the girder segments under live load condition..... 246
XIV
List of Tables
Table A-6: Control of allowable stresses of the pylon due to construction loads..................... 247
Table A-7: Control of allowable stresses of the pylon under live load condition..................... 248
XV
List of Symbols
cable force
modulus of elasticity
distributed load
Er
time
general force
displacement
cable
strain
cable length
stress
bending moment
normal force
adjustment vector
Rf
stiffness matrix
displacement
weighting matrix
influence
displacement
representing
cable
matrix
or
elastic
the
forces
of
generalized forces
matrix
T
relationship
and displacements
XVI
List of Symbols
Indices
A
target value
Mi
MiDAS result
concrete
net
cable
permanent load
Co
construction
Py
pylon
cr
creep
real
eff
effective
sag
sag
el
elastic
sec
secant
er
error
sh
shrinkage
fac
factor
temperature
fi
final state
tan
tangential (or T)
girder
tot
total
large displacement
initial condition
()
partial differentiation
Mathematic operations
d( )
simple differentiation
Units
1 N/mm
kN/mm
kN/m
MN/m
tonf/mm
tonf/m
N/mm
1
103
10-3
1
9.807*103
9.807*10-3
kN/mm
10-3
1
10-6
10-3
9.807
9.807*10-6
kN/m
103
106
1
103
9.807*106
9.807
XVII
MN/m
1
103
10-3
1
9.907*103
9.807*10-3
tonf/mm
1.02*10-4
1.02*10-1
1.02*10-7
1.02*10-4
1
10-6
tonf/m
1.02*102
1.02*105
1.02*10-1
1.02*102
10-6
1
XVIII
1 General task
This first chapter gives the necessary information on the topics of the study to enable the reader
to place these into the right context. On the other hand, the main subjects relating to the
investigations performed in this study are describes. An overview of the general considerations
in the analyses of construction stages will be given in this part as well. A brief summary of each
chapter of this thesis is then provided as a reference for the reader.
1.1 Introduction
The construction of bridge superstructures is a highly complex process due to the
interrelationships between the applied erection methods and the manifold internal and external
effects concerning loads and material behaviour, and also to the environmental influences.
When planning to build a bridge, engineers are required to come up with the most feasible way
of erecting the structure in a safe and economic manner. Finding the optimum solution is based
on comparing alternative techniques of erecting the bridge, along with the consideration of the
different means and methods that can be employed and the implications on schedule and budget.
An analysis of these methods always has to consider the bridge itself, as well as the
characteristics of the site at which it is to be erected.
This study deals with the constructability and the modelling of the construction stages of cablestayed brides erected with the cantilevering method.
Cable-stayed bridges are structural systems which are effectively composed of cables, the main
girder and towers. This bridge form has a fine-looking appearance and fits in with most
surrounding environments. The structural systems can be varied by changing the tower shapes
and the cable arrangements. Up to a span length of 1000 metres, the cable stayed system is
considered as an economical solution.
In addition to the static analysis of dead and live load, the dynamic analysis and that of wind
loads, a detailed investigation of the construction sequence is essential. The interrelationship
between the growing, yet unfinished structure, and the various kinds of loads that affect the
construction is a major issue in the actual field operation.
The main objective of this study is to compile and review related topics that are of concern in
the analysis and the modelling of the construction process. The focus of interest is on the
Cantilever Construction Method and the accompanying issues. This thesis is supposed to serve
as an understandable introduction to the broad topic of how to analyse, plan and deal with the
complex construction process.
While the Cantilevering Construction is with certainty the main erection method preferred in the
construction of cable-stayed bridges, other methods exist as well and may be in some cases,
depending on the characteristics of the actual bridge project, even more feasible. However, this
study only mentions certain constructability aspects of other erection methods in brief.
Two major sources of information are used in the first part of this thesis. Literature on the
history of bridge construction is utilised to outline the development and the different types of
construction methods. Following sections on the construction stage analysis and the related
concerns are based on professional literature on the state-of-the-art of cable-stayed bridge
engineering.
In the second part of this thesis, the concept and the problems relating to a construction stage
analysis are illustrated by simple structural systems. Besides the complex erection process, the
difficulties which occur when modelling these step-by-step conditions are also explained. The
case study of the Second Jindo Bridge, that is located at the south coast of South Korea, is
provided as a real-life construction example in order to complement the theoretical part of this
study. This concrete example helps to gain a better understanding of the construction stage
analysis of cable-stayed bridges.
The computer programme MiDAS is used to model and analyse the examples. In order to give
other users a guideline on the application, the programme and its features are described.
Conclusions are drawn in the final part of this study.
1.2 Overview
Due to the high degree of indeterminacy of cable-stayed structures, an extensive degree of
understanding for both design and construction is required. In comparison to other types of
conventional bridges, cable-stayed bridges demand sophisticated structural analyses and design
techniques.
With an optimized adjustment of the cable forces, it is possible to achieve an ideal state, at
which the girder and the pylon are compressed with little bending only. The ideal state of a
cable-stayed bridge is associated with the minimized total bending energy accumulated along
the girder. This results in a possible design of slender decks. The materials for the deck and the
pylons can be efficiently utilized. Moreover, in case of concrete decks, it has dominant
influence on the creeping behaviour.
At the time of construction, the deck segments are connected with cables so that each cable (or a
pair of cables in the case of two cable planes) approximately takes the weight of one segment,
with the length corresponding with the longitudinal distance between two cables. In the final
state, the effect of other dead loads, such as pavement, curbs, fence, etc., as well as the traffic
loads must be taken into account.
There are different methods of determining the cable forces. Two simple ones can be assumed:
Furthermore, simple formulas which consider the self-weight of the cable and the stiffness of
the girder and the pylon are developed. Analytic programmes often use an optimisation method.
In this method, to minimize the material used in the girder and the pylon, bending moments and
the deflection of the deck and the pylon are limited to prescribed tolerances with the purpose of
determining the required tension forces in the stay cables.
For the determination of the cable prestress forces that are induced at the time of the cable
installation, the initial equilibrium state for dead load at the final stage must be determined first.
Then, using backward and forward analyses, the construction stage analysis can be performed
according to the construction sequence.
During the construction of cable-stayed bridges, there are mainly two kinds of errors that
frequently occur:
Discrepancies of parameter values between design and reality, such as the modules of elasticity,
the mass density of the concrete or the weight of the girder segments, are unavoidable, but
possible irregularities may influence the structural performance. Accumulations of these errors
must be avoided to ensure a safe design. Therefore, during the construction period, the structure
must be continuously monitored so that the most suitable adjustment can be obtained whenever
corrections become necessary.
In general, there are two possible adjustment procedures:
The first case may change both, the internal forces and the configuration of the structure. The
latter adjustment only changes the length of the cable and does not induce any change in the
internal forces of the structure.
In the service stage of concrete bridges, the cable force may need to be adjusted to recover an
optimal structural state because of concrete creep effects.
This short introduction demonstrated the complexity of the erection of cable-stayed bridges. In
the following chapters, the mentioned topics will be described and discussed in detail.
Chapter 3 deals with the general description of construction stage analyses using the
cantilevering method for the erection of cable-stayed bridges. By analysing a simple structural
system, the procedure using the analysis programme MiDAS is illustrated. The general purpose
of using influence matrices is presented. The special functions offered by MiDAS are described
and the matrix is evaluated for the given example. Specific considerations and uncertainties,
which should be taken into account in the construction process, are clarified to contribute to the
readers overall understanding. The modelling approaches to cable-stays and the philosophy of
tuning sequences during the erection and in the final state of the bridge are also described.
Finally, the construction control and the monitoring systems are mentioned.
Chapter 4 concerns itself with the construction stage analysis of a more complex example
including temporary supports. The important issues and the considerations necessary for a
reliable construction stage analysis are presented in more detail. The optimisation method is
used to determine the cable forces to achieve an ideal state. Using back- and forward analyses,
the initial cable forces are evaluated for the time of erecting the stay-cables. As creep and
shrinkage are important factors to be included in the analysis, the method of considering these
effects is illustrated. To ensure a successful erection process, the camber control is a main issue
in the construction stage analysis. Moreover, the camber calculation is demonstrated in this
chapter and the functions offered by MiDAS are introduced and controlled. Various
construction errors are assumed to be incorporated in the already built structure. The errors are
modelled and possible solutions are given to adjust the discrepancies. Finally, the influence of
non-linearity due to cable elements is investigated. The accuracy of the cable elements is then
proved.
Chapter 5 encompasses the case study, the Second Jindo Bridge in the south of the Republic of
Korea. Different erection methods are discussed. The generation of the model for the
construction stage analysis is illustrated in detail, including the change of boundary conditions
and variations in loading. The ideal cable forces are established and a construction stage
analysis is performed. In order to rate the modelled system and the obtained initial cable forces,
the results are compared with other calculations. The minimum and maximum stresses are
proved to be in the allowable limits.
Chapter 6 recapitulates the contributions made in this thesis and calls attention to further related
areas of research that may be worth exploring.
2 Cable-Stayed Bridges
In this chapter, a general overview of cable-stayed bridges and their different erection options
are given. The development in the field of cable-stayed bridges is shown by means of a
historical outline first. Then, after introducing the importance of static arrangements, the
erection methods are explained with the focus on the cantilevering method.
Figure 2-1: The Albert Bridge across the Thames in London [70]
The first modern cables-stayed bridge was the Strmsund Bridge in Sweden, designed by
Dischinger. The bridge is of a three span range and has a main span of 182.6 m with two side
spans of 74.7 m. The stays are arranged according to a pure fan system with two pairs of stays
radiating from each pylon top. The steel pylons are of the portal type, supporting the two
vertical cable systems arranged on either side of the bridge deck.
In the following years, numerous innovative cable-stayed bridges were constructed in Germany.
The Theodor Heuss Bridge across the Rhine was opened to traffic in 1957. With a main span of
260 m, the bridge introduced the harp-shaped cable system with parallel stays and a freestanding pylon. The Severins Bridge, erected in 1959, was the first application of an A-Shaped
pylon combined with transversally inclined cable planes. It was also the first to be constructed
as an asymmetrical two span bridge with a single pylon positioned at one side of the river banks.
The first cable-stayed bridge with a central cable plane, with the pylon and the stay cables
positioned in the centre of the motorway, was the Norderelbe Bridge in Hamburg. In the
following years, this system became the preferred solution for the majority of cable-stayed
bridges constructed in Germany, e.g. the Leverkusen Bridge and the Maxau Bridge across the
Rhine. These bridges have the same centrally arranged cable plane but the cable system is of a
harp configuration.
The development of cable-stayed bridges also required improvements in the techniques of
structural analysis, allowing the calculation of cable forces throughout the erection period. The
efficient use of all cables in the final state, as well as a favourable distribution of dead load
moments had to be ensured.
The first cable-stayed bridges only had a limited number of cables, which were generally
composed of several prefabricated strands. The first multi-cable bridges were designed by
Homberg. The Friedrich Ebert Bridge contains a central cable plane with two pylons, each
supporting 2x20 stays.
In multi-cable systems, the girder is supported more continuously. The cable forces, that are to
be transmitted at each anchor point, are reduced so that a local strengthening of the girder is not
necessary. It also has important advantages during the erection. Shorter deck cantilevers are
required to reach from one anchor point to the next. This leads to simpler construction processes
and, as it should be realized later, to slender decks.
In 1972, the first parallel-wire strands were used in the Mannheim-Ludwigshafen Bridge across
the Rhine. Additionally, the bridge introduced a new design concept. In the main span, the deck
girder is entirely made out of steel, while the side span is made out of concrete. With a
maximum free side span of 65 m and a main span of 287 m, the higher dead load of the side
span reduces the requirements for a vertical anchoring of the girder.
The Khlbrand Bridge (1974) in the port of Hamburg was the first application of the multi-cable
system with double cable planes supported by A-shaped pylons. With a modified fan-system
during the construction, no temporary supports or temporary stays were required.
The first twenty years in the evolution of cable-stayed bridges took place, to a large extent, in
Germany. Under the large influence of German developments, cable-stayed bridges become
more popular in other countries, too. In the UK, the Wye Bridge was completed in 1965. This
bridge is quite unique by having only one set of stays leading from the pylons to the deck.
Based on a similar design, the Erskine Bridge in Scotland was constructed in 1971 with a main
span of 305 m. Because this bridge also has only one stay leading from each of the two pylons
to the deck despite its length, the girder has to span more than 100 m without a support from the
cable system. During the erection, it was necessary to use temporary stays to reduce the moment
in the deck girder when cantilevering in the main span. In France, the Saint Nazaire Bridge
(1975) across the Loire River was the first cable-stayed bridge to span more than 400 m.
The beginning of modern cable-stayed bridges was to a large extent dominated by steel bridges
with orthotropic decks together with plate or box girders and cellular pylons. In the Maracaibo
Bridge (1962) in Venezuela, which was designed by Morandi, the pylon and the deck girder are
made of concrete. However, because of the unusual design and abnormal proportions, this stays
an exception and hardly a typical example of the bridge type described above. Nevertheless, it
was the first multi-span cable-stayed bridge.
Another early example for the use of multi-cable systems in a concrete cable-stayed bridge is
the Pasco-Kennewick Bridge. The deck is supported by a double cable system in the fan
configuration. The stays, which are made of a single parallel-wire strand, are inside a grouted
polyethylene tube. The deck girder was erected by the segmental method using heavy
prefabricated elements.
After ship collisions with pylons, original bridges were replaced by cable-stayed bridges to
increase the open width. This was a further proof of the superiority of cables-stayed systems. To
replace the original arch bridge, the Tjrn Bridge was built with a span of 366 m, 86 m longer
than the original one, which allowed both pylons to be located on land. The Tjrn Bridge
belongs to the group of cable-stayed bridges with different structural materials in the side and
the main spans. The side spans are designed as continuous concrete girders with intermediate
supports at each cable anchor point, whereas the main span is made of a steel box with an
orthotropic steel deck.
Also after a ship collision accident, the new Sunshine Skyway Bridge, a single bridge having a
360 m long cable-stayed main span, was decided to replace the existing two parallel bridges. At
its completion in 1986, the Sunshine Skyway Bridge was the longest cable-stayed bridge in the
USA. Prior to its construction, two designs were considered, one based on a composite deck and
two cable planes, and the other on a concrete box girder and a single central cable plane. In this
10
case, the second option was chosen. However, the alternative of the composite girder was
subsequently applied in the Alex Fraser Bridge at Vancouver, which became the longest cablestayed bridge in the time between 1986 and 1991.
Figure 2-5: The Alex Fraser Bridge during its construction [67]
The advantages of composite girders were used during the construction of the Alex Fraser
Bridge. The cantilevering from one cable anchor point to the next was easily achieved by the
relatively light steel girder. The stay cables had been added before the heavy concrete deck was
erected by precast slabs. The concrete slab could be efficiently utilized to transfer the axial
compression through the deck, which is induced into the girder by the horizontal components of
the stay cable forces. In the following years, after the completion of the Alex Fraser Bridge, the
system of composite girders was generally preferred for the majority of cable-stayed bridges in
North America.
Major developments of cable-stayed bridges can also be found in the Far East. In 1977, the first
double deck cable-stayed bridge the Rokko Bridge- was completed in Japan. In a much larger
scale, the double deck concept was later used for the twin cable-stayed bridges, the
Hitsuishijima and Iwagurojima Bridge. Each of the two neighbouring bridges has a span of 185
m 420 m 185 m. The traffic runs on a two level truss with a four-lane expressway on the
upper deck and a double track railway on the lower deck. The cable systems are of the modified
fan configuration with two vertical cable planes positioned directly above the deck trusses. As
extensively used in Japan, parallel-wire strands are applied for the stays.
11
At present, the Tatara Bridge (1999, Japan) is the worlds longest cable-stayed bridge,
measuring 1480 m in total length. With an 890 m centre span, it is 34 m longer than the one in
the Normandy Bridge in France. The main tower of this bridge is 220 m high and designed in an
inverted Y shape. It has a cross section with corners cut for a higher wind resistance stability.
The bridge is very flexible due to not only its length but also to the low girder-depth. The
girder-depth to span-length ratio is about 1/300. One side span is 270 m, while the other side
span is 320 m. To prevent this large difference in the lengths of the centre and the side spans
from causing dead load unbalance problems, PC girders are installed at each end of both side
span sections. These function as counterweight girders to resist negative reactions. Steel girders
are used in the remaining part of the side span and in the main span. The girder is designed as a
slender box girder and contains three cells, each 2.7 m high. The box girders are attached to
fairings in order to ensure wind stability. The cables are installed in two-plane multi-fan systems
with a maximum cable length of about 460 m. The cables of the bridge have dimpled surfaces,
similar to that of a golf ball, to resist vibration caused by both wind and rain.
However, the evolution of cable-stayed bridges continues and in the near future, they will
exceed the magical 1000 m length. At 1596 m in length, the Stonecutters Bridge is a part of
Hong Kong's plan to develop its infrastructure. The main span will be 1018 m and the side span
2x289 m. The pylons are designed with a height of 289 m. The Sutong Bridge over the Yangtze
River will span 1,088 metres making it 70 metres longer than the Stonecutter Bridge. The full
length of this bridge is 7600 meters. The height of the central span of 62 meters will enable
fourth and fifth generation container ships to pass through in virtually any weather. The bridge
is designed on six-lane expressway standards with a maximum vehicle speed of 100 km. The
construction has already commenced and is expected to be continued until 2008.
12
Table 2-1 shows the 18 longest cable-stayed spans. It is remarkable that twelve of the longest
cable-stayed bridges already built are located in the Far East.
No.
Name
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Sutong Bridge
Stonecutters Bridge
Tatara Bridge
Normandie Bridge
Nanjing Bridge
Wuhan Baishazhou
Qingzhou Minjiang Br.
Yangpu Bridge
Meiko Chuo Bridge
Xupu Bridge
Rion-Antirion Bridge
Skarnsund Bridge
Queshi Bridge
Tsurumi Tsubasa Bridge
Jingzhou Bridge
resund Bridge
Ikuchi Bridge
Higashi-Kobe
Span
[m]
1088
1018
890
856
628
618
605
602
590
590
560
530
518
510
500
490
490
485
Girder material
main span
Steel
Steel
Steel
Steel/Conc
Steel
Steel
Composite
Composite
Steel
Composite
Composite
Concrete
Composite
Steel
Steel
Steel
-
Traffic
Country
Year
Road
Road
Road
Road
Road
Road
Road
Road
Road
Road
Road
Road
Road
Road
Road
Road & rail
Road
Road
China
China
Japan
France
China
China
China
China
Japan
China
Greece
Norway
China
Japan
China
Denmark/Sweden
Japan
Japan
ca. 2008
ca. 2008
1999
1995
2001
2000
1998
1993
1997
1996
2004
1991
1999
1994
2002
2000
1991
1992
In the last twenty years, cable-stayed bridges have developed to become dominating in bridge
constructions with the span range from 200 m to 500 m. Under specific conditions, the cablestayed bridges may even be a competition to suspension bridges up to spans more than 1000 m.
Table 2-1 also shows that the girder in the main span is dominantly fabricated by steel and, up
to a span of 600 m, also by composite sections.
13
2.2 Stay-cables
The cable-stay is a basic element in all cable-stayed bridges and therefore a short introduction to
the different existing cable types will be given. More details on the cable-stay technology with
an emphasis on the corrosion protection are given by Ito [31]. Gimsing also describes the basic
types and mechanical properties of structural cables in his text book [8], and the
recommendations made by Setra [13] provide a fine guideline to all topics relating to cablestays, too.
The cables require excellent mechanical properties, such as a high tensile strength, a high elastic
modulus, a sectional compactness and also ease of handling during the installation. Furthermore,
it is important that the cables have a high corrosion resistance and a satisfactory fatigue strength.
The first cable-stayed bridges in Germany employed locked-coil cables. The locked coil rope
(LCR) is composed of two types of twisted wires, normally of round wires in the core layers
and of T- and Z-shaped wires in the outer layers. The LCR has a smooth surface and compact
cross sections. Compared to other cable types, these are stiffer to handle. These cables are
hardly used nowadays, mainly due to the rather complicated anchorage details and the difficulty
of their replacement.
From 1970 to 1985, most cable-stayed bridges applied parallel-wire cables. Some bridges were
also built with parallel bars. Then, the Brotonne Bridge in France and later the Sunshine
Skyway Bridge in the United States, were the first to use cable-stays made of 7-wire prestressing strands.
Bar stay cables consist of round steel bars with a diameter of 26-36 mm and are covered by a
steel pipe. To provide protection against corrosion, the inside is filled with cement grout. Since
the lengths of the bars cannot be too long, coupling is normally necessary. However, this type of
stay member has been scarcely used, particularly not for long cable-stayed bridges.
Parallel wire stay cables (PWS) are composed of a bundle of pre-stressing wires with a diameter
of 6-7 mm in a polyethylene or stainless steel pipe filled with cement grout as a corrosion
protection. The parallel wires are kept in place by twisting a steel rope around the bundle. A
bundle of wires forms a hexagonal cross section, and in some cases, numerous PWSs are
formed into one large round cable on site. These parallel wire cables were widely used on both
prestressed concrete (PC) and steel cable-stayed bridges. Later on, it became more common to
utilize galvanized wires and wax as fillings in the pipes, as this is a non-cracking and ductile
14
material. The shop-prefabricated parallel wire strands could be extensively found in Japanese
bridges. In the 1980s, these cables were improved to the New PWS system.
In the New PWS cable, the wire bundle is slightly twisted up to 3-4 so that the wire bundle is
enabled to reel easily and the strands made self-compacting under axial tension without spoiling
the mechanical properties. It is also characteristic of the New PWS cables to have the protecting
polyethylene cover extruded directly onto the wire bundle so that no void volume exists
between the wires and the surrounding pipe (Figure 2-8). Through the elimination of the spiral
rope and the voids for cement grouting, the New PWS cables become more compact than
traditional PWS cables.
New PWS cables are fabricated in sizes ranging from 7 No. 7 mm to 421 No. 7 mm wires. The
longest stay cable of this type is 460 m long with the outer diameter of 165 mm and is used on
the Tatara Bridge.
In the 1980s, the technology of the parallel-strand cables (PSC) evolved towards higher
protection of cables and improved fatigue performance of the anchorages by using wedges.
However, a method was developed in the 1990s to protect the parallel strands individually by an
extruded high density polyethylene sheath.
Parallel-strand and parallel wire cables are similarly composed, with the sole exception of the
individual 7 mm wires substituted by seven-wire strands. A parallel-strand cable can be
fabricated as a complete unit, such as the parallel-wire cables. Yet, it has become more common
to insert and stress the seven-wire strands one by one; a procedure called Isotension Method.
Each strand is tensioned with a mono-strand jack and the application of appropriate devices
finally ensures that all installed strands have the same tension. This reduces the size of the
stressing equipment but increases somewhat the amount of work to be carried out on site.
15
16
17
The side-to-main span ratio has a very strong influence on the stress ratio of the anchor cable
and the deformation of the system. Gimsing [8] shows the effects of different ratios in a
parametric study and suggests short side spans to increase the structural stiffness using ratio
values from 0.25 to 0.5. The anchor cable is often composed of a number of individual strands,
as in the Khlbrand Bridge where the anchor cable is formed by three individual cables. In this
case the chosen side-to-main span ratio is 0.3.
A solution to the application of a symmetrical fan structure in a multi cable-system is the
displacement of the end pier from the side span towards the pylon. By this arrangement, it is
possible to reduce the side span length to less than half of the main span length. In this case, the
side span cables near the support are activated to form the anchor cable. It should be noticed that
this can induce a local bending in the stiffening girder near the intermediate pier, which does not
appear in systems with a concentrated anchor cable connected to the girder above the end pier.
As for the fan system, the first cable-stayed bridges built with a harp system only had few
symmetrically arranged stays and a very stiffening girder. Here, the pylon was usually slender.
As mentioned before, with intermediate supports in the side span, the global stability of the
structural system can be achieved without a bending stiffness of the girder or the pylon. Thus,
the girder and the pylon can be designed to be more slender. But in case of few concentrated
stays, the local bending in the stiffening girder must be considered.
In modern multi-cable harp bridges the local bending of the girder can be reduced and a very
slender girder can therefore be applied if the global stiffness is achieved without the bending
stiffness of the girder. A heavy pylon with a considerable stiffness may be advantageous in this
case. The harp system may be chosen for aesthetic reasons, but in general, they are less
economical.
Figure 2-10: Multi-cable harp systems with intermediate supports in the side span
In contrast to harp systems with all cable stays parallel, the inner stay cables in a modified harp
system do not have the same angle at the girder and the pylon. In the Rhine Bridge at Flehe, a
bridge with intermediate supports in the side span, the stay cables are arranged in a true harp
shape with parallel cables in the sides, whereas the main span cables form a modified harp.
18
The anchor cables are distributed over the side spans and not concentrated on the
abutments
The deformation and deflection of the pylons are reduced when the main span is loaded.
The bending moment in the pylons is reduced when the main span is loaded
Bending moments and deflections are small in case of loaded side spans
The existence of intermediate supports has a dominant influence on the chosen erection method.
For example, intermediate piers allow the use of the incremental lunching method whenever this
is reasonable. When the main span is built by the cantilever method and connected with the side
span, the temporary stability of the cantilever increases during the construction.
Construction by rotation
2.3.2.1
19
A straightforward solution is to erect the entire girder on temporary supports before adding the
cables. In the four stages illustrated in Figure 2-11, the following main operations are
performed:
Stage 1:
Stage 2:
Stage 3:
Installation of the stay cables. In this stage the cables only need to be tensioned
moderately as the final tensioning takes place in the following stage.
Stage 4:
After the installation of all cables the temporary supports can be removed.
During this process, the load is transferred to the cable system. Since the girder
deflects downwards, it is necessary to erect the girder in an elevated position to
reach the desired final position.
This erection procedure offers the advantage that the girder can be erected continuously from
one end to the other. The procedure leads to an efficient control of the geometry and the cable
tension.
The disadvantage is related to the temporary supports that are applied. In many cases, the
erection of temporary supports, - often over a large water depth in the main span - , is not
economical so that the procedure itself is not feasible.
20
2.3.2.2
Construction by rotation
If the construction of temporary supports, for example in a river, is undesirable from the
financial viewpoint or for any other reason, it is possible to build one or two cable-stayed
cantilevers on the shore parallel to the bank and to rotate it around its pylon. In this case, the
conditions are similar to the erection on temporary supports as described in the chapter before,
with a final closure after the rotation. The cables are tensioned in a single operation which
disengages the cantilever from the temporary supports. This technique was applied for several
bridges, such as the Illhof pedestrian bridge and the Ben Ahin cable-stayed bridge.
The design of the foundation and the pylon depends enormously on the erection technique. Due
to the rotation process, excessive outcentered forces producing high bending moments in the
footing must be avoided. Placidi proposed a construction by rotation for the Gilly bridge, where
the deck rotates around one of the two pylon legs and the other pylon leg turns on a temporary
concrete support.
2.3.2.3
The incremental launching technique has been used on many bridges since its introduction in
1961 by Leonardt. In this method, the superstructure or a part of it is cast-in-situ at a stationary
location behind one of the abutments. The completed or partially completed structure is then
jacked horizontally into place. Subsequent segments can then be cast onto the already completed
section and, in turn, pushed onto the piers. The procedure has the advantage that it, like the
balanced cantilever technique, does not require falsework to cast the girder. Moreover, heavy
erection equipment is not necessary. The only required special equipment is a light steel truss,
which works for a launching nose to reduce the cantilever moment during the launching. The
launching method can also be applied for steel or composite decks as these are often used in the
main span of a cable-stayed bridge. The method is applied for the construction of small and
medium sized cable-stayed bridges. It is favourable for intermediate piers in the side span, but
requires temporary supports in the main span. After the structure is built, all stays can be
tensioned in a single operation. Launching the structure through an already built pylon can
become a problem when the deck is suspended with cables anchored laterally to the deck,
because the anchor blocks on both sides widen the deck. If the pylon is made of two vertical
columns outside the width, generated by the anchor blocks, the cables will induce transversal
forces in the columns. In this case, a bracing between the columns is necessary. There is also a
21
possibility to build the higher part of the pylon after the launching. Since this is not a
practical concept for the construction, Kretz [54] proposed to launch the steel structure with the
already built steel pylons, which are rigidly connected to the deck, for the erection of the
Chateauneuf Bridge. The matter is simpler with pylons which have the shape of an inverted V
or Y, as these can be designed to leave out the necessary place for the deck.
There are alternative erection techniques for the main span, such as the cantilever method,
which is described in the next chapter.
2.3.2.4
Stage 1:
The pylon and the girder units above the main piers are erected.
Stage 2:
Stage 3:
As the cantilevers grow, the stay cables are installed and tensioned to their
initial forces to carry the weight of the newly erected segment.
Stage 4:
22
The cable anchor points should be chosen so that a free cantilevering of the stiffening girder
from one cable anchor point to the next is allowed without a temporary support being required.
Temporary stability can become a problem during the erection. The structure must be able to
withstand unsymmetrical construction forces. These loads occur already in the simple case of
installing a new segment that extends one of the two cantilever arms. Dynamic forces may be
produced by accidental situations, such as the fall of a mobile carriage. Wind effects can also
become very important due to the static temporary configuration. Furthermore, in some cases,
seismic effects are considered for the construction period. The nature of the problems varies
with the conditions of the connection between the deck and the pylon.
If there is a ridged connection between the deck and the pylon, construction problems can be
limited. But because of thermal effects, only few cable-stayed bridges are built with a fixed
connection in the final state. It is more frequent that the deck is simply supported by the pylon
or not supported at all. In this case, it is necessary to install a temporary connection between the
girder and a support. This can be the pylon, or if the deck is very low over the ground, it can be
supported by a temporary structure independent from the pylon. Producing an elastic connection
by using, for example, neoprene bearings, the deck can be supported by the pier to transverse
bending moments and still allow longitudinal deformations of the deck. The temporary stability
becomes a greater problem with the increase of the span length.
In a number of erections, the procedures in Figure 2-11 and Figure 2-12 were combined so that
the side spans were erected on temporary supports and the main span by free cantilevering. By
this erection procedure, the application of temporary supports is limited to the side spans, where
water depths or other reasons seldom exclude such supports. To take advantage of the
intermediate supports in the side spans for the erection of the bridge, the side spans are built in
the first step and after that, the long cantilever in the main span, which is then stabilised by the
already existing side spans. In general, three methods are adopted for constructing the main
girder in the side spans: the construction of balanced cantilevers on each of the intermediate
supports, the construction by incremental launching or the construction of the access spans on
scaffoldings. The principals of one-side cantilevering into the main span will be especially
advantageous if the side spans can be erected without requiring temporary supports in the side
spans.
For the Normandie Bridge [53] over the river Seine, the concrete access spans were built on
multiple intermediate supports by incremental launching up to the last pier. Balanced cantilevers
were then built in concrete from each of the two pylons to close the side spans and to create
long concrete cantilevers in the main bay. The remaining part of the central span was then built
23
by the cantilever method with a steel box girder. The free cantilever length was 428 m (half
main span), which corresponds to a cantilever-to-width ratio of approximately 20. In order to
avoid uplift reactions on the intermediate supports, a difference in weight between the access
spans and the main span was created by the use of prestressed concrete on one side and steel on
the other side. All the erection stages were investigated both analytically and experimentally by
full model tests of the erection phase, in which the cantilever had reached its midspan. The
erection equipment, such as the purposed crane, was carefully modelled as well. The
investigations revealed that the girder could oscillate laterally. A large tuned-mass damper was
therefore installed on the bridge deck to suppress such an oscillation.
24
In cable-stayed bridges with A- or diamond-shaped pylons, the legs are more leaning and
produce considerable bending moments. For this reason, it is necessary to install additional
temporary struts between the two legs during the construction.
Traditionally, the pylons are flexible in the longitudinal direction to follow the displacement of
the cable system. During the construction of the pylon, the cable-stays are not in place and the
pylon must have the necessary resistance against horizontal wind loads by itself. The most
critical phase for the pylon during the construction occurs when the pylon is at its full height
with no cables installed. In this construction stage, wind induced oscillations of the pylon in the
longitudinal direction may be experienced. Owing to the steel structures smaller mass, larger
flexibility and lower dumping, the problems of the wind-induced oscillation are more significant
for steel than for concrete pylons. For large bridges, it has become universal to perform wind
tunnel tests to check the stability of the free-standing pylon and to determine whether it is
necessary to take special measures.
In concrete pylons, a relatively modest amount of vertical reinforcement is required in the
completed structure due to the effective pre-stressing by the vertical compressive force from the
cable system. Thus, when only designed for the final stage, the pylon can have an insufficient
bending strength during the construction. The construction stage control is therefore a matter
including all structural parts.
2.3.4.1
25
During the erection of cast-in-place decks, a mobile carriage supports the weight of the fresh
concrete of the new segment by means of longitudinal beams or frames extending out into the
cantilever from the last segment. The use of a classical mobile carriage in the erection can
produce high unfavourable temporary bending moments in the deck. For the construction of one
of the first concrete cable-stayed bridges, the Coatzacoalos Bridge in Mexico [54] for example,
long prestressed tendons had to be placed in the box girder, which were of no use for the
complete structure. The cables were anchored in the deck axes every second segment. Before
tensioning the cable of the last two finished segments, it was necessary to concrete a new one
and to move the mobile derrick further. High negative bending moments were produced in this
situation and had to be consequently balanced.
The situation can become critical if the deck has limited inertia, as it has become more and more
frequent with the development in the design of cable-stayed bridges. The deck bending capacity
becomes very limited. The situation of this case can be improved by reducing the distance
between the cables. Furthermore, referring to the example given before, it is an advantage to
improve the mobile carriage so that the cables can be tensioned before moving the carriage.
Another option for the erection of the main concrete girder is the use of cable-stayed mobile
carriage. There are two possible techniques: The first is to use temporary cables to stabilize the
mobile carriage in each of its successive positions. The second is to employ final cables to stay
the mobile carriage in the erection position; these are later anchored to the concreted segment.
The advantage is that rather long segments can be concreted corresponding to the distance
between two successive cables. The construction of flexible decks is possible without creating
high bending moments. It is then possible to build the successive segments with no pre-stressing
tendon during the construction. Tendons, which may be required for the final condition, for
example, to reduce cracks in the concrete due to life load, can be installed when it is practicable
and easy. The horizontal component of the stay force is carried either by a mobile carriage or by
a precast member which becomes part of the future segment. The permanent stay can also be
anchored in the final deck if the stay anchor structure is extended ahead of the whole section. In
the case of the Isere Bridge, the center section part, where the stays are anchored, was cast in the
first phase and the remaining structure in the second. The sequence of the construction and the
applied tension force to the stay cables during the installation have dominant influence on the
creep effect, which is explained in detail in Chapter 3.5.1.1.
26
2.3.4.2
Precaste segments
Precast segmental bridges become economical for relatively large bridges where the associated
cost for setting up a casting yard can be compensated by the speed of casting segments and the
speed of the erection process. The pre-fabrication may be more interesting if the method is used
for both, the main and the side spans. For the Sunshine Skyway Bridge in Florida, a similar
cross section was used throughout the bridge. The 120-ton segments were precast in a yard
close to the site and delivered by barges. The segments were lifted into place and mounted on
the previously completed portion of the deck. For the James River Bride in Virginia, twin
parallel precast box girders were employed. A single plan of stays was designed for the main
span and the two boxes were connected by a transverse frame at each stay anchor point.
According to Virlogeux [54], cast-in-situ constructions have advantages for cable-stayed
bridges because it allows some limited tensile stresses during the erection. With an ideal state
for the final construction, the bridge is then in good conditions to experience limited live load
which produce no tensile stress in the concrete elements at all. Extreme live loads can then be
balanced by partially prestressed concrete members. Partial pre-stressing is not possible with
precast segments and they may be preferred in bridges which have a relatively important inertia.
2.3.4.3
Derrick cranes or floating cranes are usually used for the construction of steel and composite
decks. Generally, the lifting capacity of standard derrick cranes is smaller than the capacity of
lifting struts or floating cranes. Thus, the maximum lifting capacity of derrick cranes used for
the erection hardly exceeds 200 tons [8]. It is therefore necessary to use smaller erection units
and accept a larger number of erection joints. To keep the weight of each segment below the
lifting capacity of the derrick cranes, the girder has to be sometimes split not only transversally
but also longitudinally. As an example, the girder of the Parana Bridges is split transversally
into three parts, with two outer parts (the edge girders) and the remaining inner part. As
described before, high bending moments are produced in the structure during the lifting
operation and must be considered in the choice of the segment size.
The classical method of constructing steel decks consists in the lifting of the successive steel
segments with a derrick, which is installed on the already built part of the bridge. After lifting a
new segment with the derrick, it is welded to the previous one, while still suspended to the
27
derrick. After this, the cables are installed and tensioned to allow the derrick to move forward
on the newly placed segment, ready to lift another one.
Composite cable-stayed bridges have a steel girder and a concrete deck which participate
together in providing stiffness and resistance to the applied bending and the axial forces on the
bridge. The usage of steel permits the structure to be lighter than concrete decks. As for a pure
steel deck, the steel elements are prefabricated with a high quality control and a dimensional
accuracy. The concrete deck forms the roadway, usually with traffic wearing surface made from
asphalt or a concrete overlay, and also carries most of the axial load of the cables.
The construction of a composite deck is a little bit more complicated. The steel structure is first
built by the cantilever method, segment after segment, and suspended to the successive cables.
The concrete slab is then cast or installed in case of precaste elements, segment after segment
again. It is also possible to cast the slab just after placing the steel structure that it covers. The
disadvantage is that such a solution may create a congestion in the construction operation and
slows down the erection process. It can be better to have a distance of two or three segments
that allow an independent progression of the two cycles. A greater distance is unfavourable
because the steel has to suffer greater forces during the construction and can become
unnecessarily critical. Attention to the details of the connections of the concrete deck has to be
paid if the strength, the durability and the constructability are to be maintained.
An example for the erection process is given by the Uddevalla Bridge [23]: The cross section in
the main span of 414 m is a composite structure of an open steel grid and prefabricated concrete
slab elements. The steel girder consists of two longitudinal edge-beams, three cross beams and
two cable anchorages, which have a weight of approximately 70 tonnes. It is lifted by a derrick
and temporary fixed to the previous steel section. After controlling the local geometry in the
elevation and in the plan, the welding of the main beam is completed. Since the steel girder is
very flexible, supporting bracings are used to ensure correct geometry during the lifting and the
installation operation. The bracings also provide a lateral support of the slender cross beams
when loaded with the concrete elements. Then, the cables are installed and stressed to a first
stressing stage. Afterwards, the derrick lifts the concrete elements in place. The geometry and
the cable forces are checked and possible adjustments performed. The joints between the
concrete elements and the edge beams are cast. As the last step, the cables are stressed to their
final length and the derrick is moved in position for lifting the next segment. The cable forces,
which are applied in the first stressing operation, have to be carefully determined so that no
deflections or stresses are built into the deck section when the composite structure is established.
Thus, it is an important control stage which regards the geometry and the cable forces.
28
Additionally, a final tuning of the back stay is performed parallel to the application of the
secondary dead loads as the pavement of asphalt layer. This example illustrates the complexity
of erection procedures and the importance of construction stage analyses.
In some cable-stayed bridges, temporary erection stays are used because of the considerable
distance between the cable supported points of the stiffening girder. The distance is adapted to
the final situation of the deck and the bridge size, but may not be consider the construction
condition. Temporary cables can then be progressively installed, tensioned and removed during
the construction between two successive final cables. In these bridges an overstressing may
occur either in the girder section or in the last erected stay cable during the free-cantilevering
from one cable anchor point to the next. A temporary erection stay reduces both the bending
moment in the stiffening girder and the tension in the permanent stay cable.
Alternatively, the cantilevered part of the stiffening girder may be supported by a secondary
cable system which comprises a temporary pylon with a set of temporary erection stays. In this
case, the tension in the permanent stay cables remains practically unchanged. Thus, this
arrangement is only practicable if the problem of overstressing is confined to the stiffening
girder. However, it must be mentioned that temporary measures in form of temporary supports,
stays or pylons, which are employed only during the erection, are costly as they have to be
fabricated, erected and removed before completing the structure. Therefore, in very early design
steps, the structural system should be chosen to fulfil the requirements in both the final
operational phase and in the construction phase.
29
This chapter gives the reader a general overview of a construction stage analysis of cable-stayed
bridges and the important issues to be taken into consideration to allow the development of a
save construction sequence.
In the following, the role of designed cable forces is illustrated and the process of a construction
stage analysis outlined by a simple model. The computer programme MiDAS is then introduced
and the main features for the analysis are explained. Time dependent effects of the material will
be clarified, as these effects must be considered in the analysis of concrete or composite section
bridges in order to develop a construction process which finally fits the defined structural shape.
Structural non-linearities are further an important issue. An explanation of the significance of
these effects, that must be properly included in the analysis, is given. Additionally, the tuning
sequence is a main part to be defined by the engineers for the erection of the bridge. Depending
on the structural system, it might be more or less reasonable to choose retension steps directly
from the design. The influence of the stressing sequence will be clarified. Finally, various
monitoring and control procedures as well as computational systems are explained.
30
To estimate the cable forces, the simplest method is to assume a bridge segment to be a
simple beam supported by cables. The method of the simple supported beam can be used in the
preliminary design stage to estimate the cable area. Another method is to assume that, under the
dead load, the main girder behaves like a continuous beam and the inclined stay cables provide
rigid supports for the girder. The vertical component of the forces in stay cables are equal to the
support reactions calculated on this basis. Virlogeux [56] describes the first procedure by the
pendulum method: The cable tensions are evaluated from the key section to the pylon by
balancing the load to produce no bending moment, e.g. at the cable anchorage. Distributing the
weight of each segment at the two corresponding anchorages, it follows that the cable force Si is
(Figure 3-1):
S i * sin i = 12 * ( Pi + Pi +1 )
(3-1)
and from the equilibrium of horizontal forces, the normal force Ni:
(3-2)
Si =
1
2*sin i
Ni =
1
cos i
* ( Pi + Pi +1 )
(3-3)
Gi + Gi +1
N i +1 * cos i +1 +
2 * tan i
(3-4)
In order to achieve minimum bending in the pylon, the horizontal projection of cable tension
must be balanced:
(3-5)
31
Herzog [9]and Gimsing [8] developed easy hand-formulae to predict the cable forces by
taking the stiffness of the girder and pylon into consideration.
Since the cable stayed structure is a highly undetermined system, there is no unique solution for
calculating the initial cable forces directly. Usually it is an iterative process to find an
economical solution.
As mentioned before, the moment and displacement distribution along the girder and the pylon
can reach the ideal state by adjusting the cable stresses. Using vector and matrix calculations,
the moment or the displacement of an ideal state I can be written as:
I = [i1
... in ]
i2
(3-6)
n is the total number of the targets that need to be satisfied and T stands for the transformation
of a matrix or a vector. The approach to the ideal state is to make Equation 3-6 as close to a
designated value as possible. The result cable stresses S can be written as
S = [s1
s2
... s m ] ,
T
(3-7)
t11
t
T = 21
...
t n1
t12
...
...
t n2
... t1m
... ...
,
... ...
... t nm
(3-8)
where tnm is the response at the target n by pre-stressing the unit stress at cable m. Thus, their
relation can be set down as
T *S = I
(3-9)
If the number of cables that are to be tuned is the same as the number of targets, the setting I to
the designated target values, the cable stresses S can be obtained accordingly by solving the
linear Equation 3-9. In this case, engineering experience is required to select the proper target
values. In this method, m cannot be greater than n. If, as in most cases, m is less than n, the
32
cable stresses can be optimized so that the error of the target value and the designated state is
kept to a minimum. The method of square error minimization is an effective way to obtain the
optimal I. A is the adjustment value which has the same form as I. E describes the error between
A and I, and can be written as:
E = A I
(3-10)
The optimization of the cable stress is to minimize , the square of E. As a definition, can be
written as:
= (A I ) * (A I )
T
(3-11)
= 0 , i = 1,2,3..., m
S i
(3-12)
Using the matrix differential and considering Equation 3-9 and 3-11, the following equation can
be obtained:
T TT * S = T T A
(3-13)
After calculating S from the linear equation group in Equation 3-13, the optimized target value
can be calculated by Equation 3-9. An example is presented in a later chapter. A very similar
method can be applied for adjustments of errors during the erection process and is explained in
detail in Chapter 3.7.
Many analysis programmes use an optimization method for determining the cables forces.
Under permanent loads, a criterion (objective function) is chosen in a way that the internal
forces, mainly the bending moments, are evenly distributed and small. The deflection of the
structure can be limited to prescribed tolerances, too.
33
Bruer and Pircher [17] favour a numerical approach to reduce the calculation effort, the Unit
Load Method. For the final stage structure including its total dead load, unit load cases as well
as the ideal moment diagram must be defined. Commonly, the selected unit forces are:
A unit shortening of the cable or a unit tensioning causing an axial cable shortening
The same number of unit loading cases must be defined as the number of Fixed Moment
points, chosen on the structural model to represent the ideal moment diagram. Figure 3-2
illustrates this procedure.
Figure 3-2: Unit Load Case Method for determining the ideal state 0
The ideal dead load bending moment diagram is defined for the deck girder. As shown in the
figure, the bending moments for nine points along the girder are described from position A to I.
Nine unit load cases are selected for setting up the simultaneous equations eight unknown stay
cable forces and one unit translation at the end support.
In this case, the linear equation system follows to be:
(3-14)
34
tensioning and support movement, MT1=1 to MT 8 =1 the bending moments due to each unit
tensioning at position A to I, and MJ the bending moment due to unit jacking of the end support.
The solution of the equations, the unknown xi, is the factor by which the unit loads must be
multiplied to achieve the defined moment distribution. This basic solution defines the cable
forces and the jacking force for the final stage, but does not include the effect of any chosen
construction sequence, creep, the 2nd Order Theory and the non linearity of the cables due to the
sagging effects.
However, in the analysis programme RM2000, developed by Pircher, a method which allows
the consideration of non-linear problems in the optimisation process is introduced. This
approach is called the AddCon Method [43] [45] (Additional Constrain Method) and is an
extension of the Unit Load Method. It is possible to include time effects (creep and shrinkage)
and non-linear structural behaviours (non-linearity of cable elements and P-delta effects) in the
calculation. An iterative process is used to appropriately factorise the user-defined unit loading
cases so that the defined constrains are achieved. User-defined constrains can be a set of
forces/moments, stresses or displacements or a combination of both, which must be fulfilled
under the applied loading.
The analysis programme MiDAS also provides the Unknown Load Factor function, which is
based on an optimization technique. Similar to the described method above, this can be used to
calculate the load factors that satisfy specific boundary conditions (constrains) defined for a
system. An example of this procedure is given in Chapter 3.3.3. There, it is explained in detail
how to apply this method in the analysis of a structural system.
35
Furthermore, the geometric profile of the girder is also very important during the
construction. To avoid serious problems, it must be ensured that both cantilever ends meet
smoothly together in the final construction stages. It should be noted that the internal forces of
the structure and the elevation of the girder vary in the construction process. This usually
happens because of the bridge segments that are built by a few components, the heavy lifting
operations during the erection in case of prefabricated segments and the erection equipment,
which is often placed at different positions during the construction. Additionally, because errors
such as the weight of the segment and tension forces in the cables, wrong values for material
properties, etc. may occur, monitoring and adjustment during erection are absolutely needed.
The simulation of the construction process must be adjusted to the field measurements during
the construction. In a later chapter, these procedures are illustrated in detail.
The general objectives of the simulation are:
Determination of the required tension forces in the cable stays at each construction
stage
Construction state analyses for a cable-stayed bridge can be classified into the forward and the
backward analysis. The forward analysis reflects the real construction sequence, whereas the
backward analysis is performed by regarding the state of the final structure. The elements and
loads are eliminated in the reverse sequence to the real construction sequence. It is assumed that
all of the creep and shrinkage deformations of concrete are completed, i.e., a state 5 years or
1500 days after the completion of the bridge construction [5].The cable prestresses, which are
induced during the construction, can be calculated by using the backward analysis. These results
are the guidance for the forward erection and stressing. Using the forward analysis, time
dependent effects can be considered and implied in the design.
To perform a construction stage analysis, construction stages must be defined. Main girders,
cables, boundary conditions, loads, etc. are activated or deactivated to consider the effect and
the change on the structure.
The changing of the structural system by modifying the boundary condition or removing certain
elements might cause gaps between the forward and backward analysis. Activation errors can
36
occur and remain in the system or even increase as the construction stage analysis continues.
In the simple case of a steel structure, where no time-dependent effect must be considered, the
last stage in the forward analysis should theoretically correspond to the first stage in the
backward analysis. This will hardly be the case in an analysis considering time dependent
effects, as the difference between the forward and backward analysis increases. However, these
two methods may be alternatively applied until a convergence is reached within a tolerable
range.
For the construction stage analysis, Bruer [17] proposes an extended method of the before
explained Unit Load Method. The unit load cases are applied to the different structural systems,
which exist at different construction stages, as illustrated in the figure below.
Figure 3-3: Unit Load Case Method for construction stage analysis [17]
The loading cases for each construction stage are combined to form the set of simultaneous
equations, which are solved to find the required multiplication factors for the unit loading. In
this procedure, the influence of the different stages is considered and by applying an iterative
process, the calculation results in the defined ideal system in the final construction stage. In the
analysis programme RM2000, time dependent effects, as well as non linearity can be included
in this procedure using the AddCon function as it was briefly explained before. However, this
programme has not been used in the construction stage analysis presented in this thesis and
therefore it is difficult to comment this procedure or to judge about the reliability of this
function.
The method of modelling a construction stage analysis by the computer programme MiDAS is
explained in more detail in the following chapter. To give the reader an overview of the
methods and the different phases of the calculation, a simple cable-stayed bridge is being
analysed.
37
38
For static systems, linear and non-linear analyses can be performed by using truss and cable
elements. Geometric non-linearities can be considered by including P-delta effects in the
calculation or by performing a large displacement analysis.
The programme also offers to consider structural non-linear behaviour in the construction stage
analysis. In the Construction Stage Analysis Data, it can be defined to perform a large
displacement analysis. It was tried to use these functions and to perform a non-linear
construction stage analysis. However, when contacting the MiDAS support-team, it turned out
that these functions were not available at the time of working out this thesis. The main e-mail
contact with Mr. Lee from MiDAS is listed in the appendix. These details are reported in more
detail in later chapters.
Furthermore, material behaviors as creep and shrinkage can be modelled. These features are
generally explained and also tested in the construction stage analysis for a simple cable-stayed
system in Chapter 4.5.
More information on this programme is given in the following chapters and can also be found in
detail in the analysis reference [60] or in the on-line manuals [61].
3
2
Value
4.38 m2
0.92 m4
0.3
5.25
Data
Area A Cable 1
Area A Cable 2
Area A Cable 3
39
Value
0.0115 m2
0.0062 m2
0.0208 m2
Assign the dead loads and the unit loads to the elements
Define the load combination for the dead loads and the unit loads
after the performance of a linear analysis
Define boundary conditions which have to be fulfilled
In this example, constraints are specified to restrict the displacement of the main girder and the
pylon. The displacements of Node 2, 3 and 7 are limited. In the same way, it is also possible to
40
define constraints, for example, for moment values or tension forces in the cables. Since the
unknown load factors are calculated on the basis of the superposition of different load cases,
truss elements must be defined for the cables; it is not possible to use cable elements.
Figure 3-6 shows the moment distribution under the structural self-weight and a unit pretension
load in each of the cables. The figure clearly demonstrates that the structural performance can
be improved by a higher pretension in the first cable.
In order to fulfil the defined restrictions, the load factors are calculated. Figure 3-7 illustrates the
result table given by MiDAS.
For this example, the factors for Cable 1, 2 and 3 are 5.829, 3.105 and 10.724 respectively. The
values can be found in Figure 3-7 in the first column. Figure 3-8 shows the resulting moment
distribution including the factors for the tension forces in the cable stays 1 to 3.
Figure 3-8: Moment self -weight & initial pretension load [tonf]
41
The distribution of the bending moments is changed into the direction of a continuous beam
condition. Thus, the moment distribution is more equal and the maximum moment is reduced.
For the application of the Unknown Load function, the displacement has been restricted,
whereas the main target in the structural design is an equal distribution of the bending moments.
However, the example shows the correlation of both parameters.
As the bridge turns into a more complex structure containing a higher number of cables, it
becomes more difficult to define the essential restrictions, which are needed in order to calculate
the most efficient ideal cable forces. Experience is helpful in this case. Care must be taken in the
selection of sensible and unrelated restrictions. If a specified condition is in conflict with
another defined requirement, a singularity will result and there will be no solution.
Define the elements, the boundary and the loading belonging to each stage
Table 3-2 Flowchart for backward analysis
The construction stages which are defined for this simple example are shown in Figure 3-9. The
numbering for the cables and the girder elements starts from the left to the right. In the
backward analysis the complete structure is dismantled step by step. The initial cable forces,
42
which must be applied at the time of installing the cables in the forward analysis, can be
obtained from the backward analysis before removing the corresponding cable.
Construction stage 0
Construction stage 1
-/-
- remove support
Construction stage 2
Construction stage 3
- remove girder 1
- remove cable 1
Construction stage 4
Construction stage 5
- remove girder 2
- remove cable 2
Construction stage 6
Construction stage 7
- remove cable 3
- remove girder 3
Figure 3-9: Sequence for backward analysis
43
The calculated cable forces for each construction stage are used as external prestress loads for
the forward analysis. The cable forces are shown in Table 3-3.
CS 0
[tonf]
562.19
288.94
1000.06
CS 1
[tonf]
835.04
292.20
1348.44
CS 2
[tonf]
302.82
243.06
625.97
CS 3
[tonf]
-/577.98
577.38
CS 4
[tonf]
-/217.57
217.57
CS 5
[tonf]
-/-/118.78
CS 6
[tonf]
-/-/-/-
CS 7
[tonf]
-/-/-/-
A simple way to check whether or not the loads are correctly considered in the analysis is to
control the reaction forces in the final state.
The applied loads are:
ton
Ftot := 11
80m
m
Ftot = 880ton
F2 := 1414.28ton
F3 := 620.71ton
Control:
Ftot_Mi := F1 + F2 + F3
Ftot_Mi = 880ton
The calculation is correct as far as the reaction forces are identical. The correct consideration of
the influence of the construction sequence is not proved here, but will be shown later on.
44
The construction sequence in the forward analysis is the same as in the backward analysis. The
next figure shows the moment distribution before adding the support on the left side of the
bridge.
Figure 3-11: Moment distribution; forward analysis before adding the support [tonfm]
Even if the support is being added in the next step, there still is a vertical deformation in the
system. It is possible to add a boundary condition to the deformed or the undeformed structure.
In both cases, the results are different from the target values as shown in Construction Stage 0 in
the backward analysis. The problem can be solved by applying the reaction force F1 instead of
the support. The resulting moment distribution for adding the support and using a force are
illustrated in the figure below.
a) Construction stage 0
b) Construction stage 0
Figure 3-12: Moment distribution in the last step of the forward analysis [tonfm]
In addition to the moment distribution, the reaction forces and deformations of both analytical
methods (backward and forward analyses using the reaction force F1) are compared. The values
are identical within a very limited range.
45
This simple example explains the purpose of performing a backward and a forward analysis
to control the construction stages. It also demonstrates the importance of taking remaining
deformations into consideration when structural groups are activated or deactivated and the
boundary conditions are changed. Otherwise, it is not possible to perform a back- and forward
analysis with satisfying results.
A more complex example is given in Chapter 4, illustrating the analysis of a cable-stayed bridge
in detail.
46
Forward and backward analyses give different results in case both are applied straight
forward. The forward method automatically applies some discontinuities at every joint between
two segments as it can be seen in Figure 3-13.
The backward method assumes that the new segments are added to the previous stage in the
tangential direction. Therefore, when comparing both results, there are differences in the
deformed shape. The moment distribution stays the same as before, since the internal forces are
not influenced by this circumstance. Using the Initial Tangent Displacement for Erected
Structures option in MiDAS, the real displacement as well as the rotational angle is calculated
for the elements installed in the following stage. This option allows to install new segments
tangentially and to avoid any discontinuities.
In programmes which do not offer this function, it may be a solution to install all segments of
the main girder in the fist stage and to apply only the self-weight in the corresponding
construction stages. In this way, the segments are always considered tangentially to the already
existing structure.
47
the tension force in each cable due to a unit load is evaluated by a computer analysis. The
values can be stored in a vector of stay forces, which represents a single column in the influence
matrix. The same procedure can be used to calculate the influence matrix for displacements.
The initial vertical displacement at Node 2 and 3, and the horizontal movement of the top at the
pylon (Node 7), including the distributed load and the unit pretension in all cables, are (in
[mm]):
160.165
0 := 116.484
52.005
The deformation caused by the distributed load is:
191.257
P := 143.006
52.477
Because there should be no deformation at the defined nodes
0.000
fi := 0.000
0.000 ,
48
191.257
A = 143.006
52.477
and solving the equation DT*x = A, the load factor x (Sfac) is (in [tonf]):
5.829
Sfac = 3.105
10.724 .
The calculation is controlled by
191.257
D Sfac = 143.006
52.477 ,
T
which is exactly the value A. The values of Sfac are identical to the load factor which has been
calculated before.
A similar calculation is performed using the cable force influence matrix. Compared to the
previously described procedure, the calculation seems to be unstable and very sensitive to small
deviations.
49
3.5.1.1
In concrete or composite cable-stayed bridges, time dependent effects of creep and shrinkage
have a significant effect on the geometry so that the final stress state in the completed bridge
must be included in the analysis. In order to perform a reliable construction stage analysis, the
load history and the casting sequence must be considered. Each individual construction stage
must be modelled in the erection analysis to obtain accurate predictions of the final stress and
the final profile. The weight of the deck segments and the equipment must be modelled
correctly. The weight of a deck segment should be devided into components and the weight
incrementally added according to the intended erection cycle. Figure 3-15 shows the total
deformation in a structure. The true elastic strain in the figure represents the reduction of elastic
strain as a result of concrete strength gaining in relative to time.
50
Creep decreases with increasing age and strength of the concrete when it is stressed
Creep deformations increase with the increase in ambient temperature and the decrease
in humidity
It also depends on many other factors relating to the quality of concrete and the
conditions of exposure, such as the type, the amount and the maximum size of the
aggregate, the type of cement, etc.
The total deck creep is made of the creep due to post-tensioning loads, axial compression in the
deck from the cables and the bending moments in the deck. Post-tensioning is often provided in
those sections of the bridge deck which have low axial compression (e.g. the segments near the
centre of the bridge) in order to prevent cracking that can be caused by high bending moments
due to live load conditions.
In case of a prestressed girder segments, the pre-stressing is generally applied in one of the two
ways: pre-tensioning or post-tensioning.
When pre-tensioning is applied, a tendon is stretched into the form in which the concrete
member is cast. After the concrete has attained sufficient strength, the tendon is cut. Because of
the bond with the concrete, the tendon cannot regain its original length and thus a compressive
51
force is transferred to the concrete. This causes a shortening of the concrete member and is
accompanied by an instantaneous loss of a part of the prestress in the tendon. A slip usually
occurs at the extremities of the member.
When post-tensioning is employed, the tendon passes through a duct which is placed in the
concrete before casting. After attaining a specified strength, tension is applied on the tendon,
which is anchored to the concrete at the two ends. Later, the duct is grouted with cement mortar.
During tensioning the tendon, before its anchorage, the strain in steel and concrete are not
compatible. The concrete shortens without causing instantaneous loss of the prestress forces.
After the transfer, a perfect bond is assumed between the tendon, the grout, the duct and the
concrete. This assumption is not justified when the tendon is left unbonded, but, in most
practical calculations, the incompatibility in strain between the strain in an unbonded tendon
and the concrete may be ignored [7].
At each cable anchorage, axial load is induced to the girder and spreads laterally into the deck.
Over the time, the deck creeps under this axial loads. Because of the creep effects, it is
important to select convenient cable tensions which produce no bending moments during the
construction. If the designer wants to reduce creep effects due to bending of the deck, it is
efficient to erect the bridge with cable tensions adjusted to the construction loads and not to the
final ones.
The strain that occurs during the application of the stress is referred to as the instantaneous
strain and is expressed as follows:
el (t , t 0 ) =
c (t 0 )
E c (t 0 )
(3-15)
where c (t 0 ) is the concrete stress and E c (t 0 ) the modulus of elasticity of the concrete at the
age t0, the time of application of the stress.
Under sustained stress, the strain increases with time due to creep and the total strain is:
(t , t 0 ) =
c (t 0 )
E c (t 0 )
* [1 + (t , t 0 )] , (shrinkage is neglected)
(3-16)
where (t ,t 0 ) is a dimensionless coefficient, which is a function of the age at loading t0 and the
age t for which the strain is calculated. The coefficient represents the ratio of creep to the
52
instantaneous strain. The value increases over the length of the period (t-t0) during which the
stress is sustained.
For codes used in practice, different formulas are developed for the prediction of creep, based
on a product or summation approach. For example, in the ACI 1982 code, the product function
considers the age of concrete at loading and the loading time:
cr (t ) f 1 (t 0 ) * f 2 (t t 0 )
(3-17)
In the summation approach of the CEB-FIP 1978 and DIN 4227 1979, the creep is divided into
a delayed elastic part (f3) and a yield part (f4 and f5).
cr (t ) f 3 (t t 0 ) + f 4 (t ) f 5 (t 0 ) .
(3-18)
Newer models, such as the CEB-FIP 1990 and the EC2 respectively, are based on a product
approach, which considers latest researches, and include a certain non-linearity of creep in case
of high stresses.
Drying of concrete in air results in shrinkage. If the change in volume by shrinkage is restrained,
stresses develop. In reinforced concrete structures, the restraint may be caused by the reinforced
steel, by the supports or by the differences in the change of volume. Stresses caused by
shrinkage are generally reduced by the effect of creep of the concrete.
To minimize shrinkage, precast concrete forms are usually aged for 6 months or more before
utilized in the construction of the bridge [5]. However, the infill concrete, which is caste-in
place, exhibits a normal shrinkage. The axial shortening and the bending deformation of the
girder must be taken into account in order to predict the correct deck geometry. In case of a
composite section, the change in axial and bending stiffness, which occurs when the girder is
made composite with the deck, must be considered. In the subsequent analysis, the girder resists
additional loading or unloading as a composite member. Felber [25] reveals the importance to
ensure that the cast-in axial and bending deformations and stresses are properly modelled in
order to obtain accurate predictions of the deformations and stresses for all subsequent
construction stages. For axial stresses and deformations, this can be achieved by tracking the
forces and deformations to which the section is subjected at the time it is made composite. This
information is then used to determine additional strains which are applied in the subsequent
stages to achieve the correct length of the composite member and thus, the correct overall
deformation and stresses.
53
Shrinkage is a function of time, which is independent from stress in the concrete member.
Therefore, the shrinkage can be generally expressed as:
sh (t , t 0 ) = sh 0 * f (t , t 0 ) ,
(3-19)
where sh0 represents the shrinkage coefficient at the final time, f(t,t0) is a function of time and t
stands for the time of observation and t0 for the initial time of the shrinkage.
Concrete towers are currently a preferred solution for long cable-stayed bridges. Steel tower
segments are considerably simpler to construct because only elastic shortenings needs to be
considered. A concrete tower is usually built too tall by a calculated amount to account for creep
and shrinkage, as well as the elastic shortening due to the applied dead load. This height
adjustment should be included in an analysis model because it effects the predicted deck profile
for the initial stages of construction. The calculated height for the compensation is usually
applied just below the cable connections. The self-weight of the tower makes up a considerable
portion of the total dead load at the base of the tower. In large structures the tower self-weight is
applied to a young concrete, while the tower concrete might be already a year old before
much of the load from the self-weight of the deck is applied. Therefore, a large portion of the
total tower creep originates from its self-weight. As it is also the case for shrinkage, all the
shortenings of the tower due to creep, that occurs prior to the completion of the tower, is
compensated by setting the formwork to the desired elevation during the construction.
3.5.1.2
As already mentioned, steel is also subject to creep. A short introduction is given in the
following.
The effect of creep on prestressed steel is commonly evaluated by a relaxation test, in which a
tendon is stretched and maintained at a constant length and temperature. The loss in the tension
is measured over a long period. The relaxation under constant strain, as in a constant length test,
is referred to as intrinsic relaxation, pr . The equation widely used for the intrinsic relaxation
at any time t of stress-relieved wires or strands is:
pr
p0
log(t t 0 ) p 0
0.55 ,
f
10
py
(3-20)
54
where fpy is the yielded stress and defined as the stress at a stain of 0.01. The ratio fpy to the
characteristic tensile stress fptk varies between 0.8 and 0.9, with the lower value for pre-stressing
bars and the higher value for low-relaxation strands ((t-t0) is the period in hours for which the
tendon is stretched).
In the absence of a reliable relaxation test, MC-90 code suggests the intrinsic relaxation values.
The Eurocode 2 allows the use of relaxation slightly different values from MC-90. Details can
be found in the CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 [4].
3.5.1.3
Modelling of creep
In order to obtain the strain due to creep cr, different methods can be applied. A range of
various options can be found in the literature. Baant [2] gives a detailed overview.
As it has already mentioned before, creep is a phenomenon in which deformations occur under
sustained loads with time and without necessarily additional loads. As such, a time history of
stresses and the time itself become important for determining the creep. Creep does not only
increase deformations, it also affects the pre-stressing in tendons and thereby the structural
behaviour. In order to accurately account for time dependent variables, a time history of stresses
in a member and creep coefficients for numerous loading ages are required. For this reason,
controlling construction stages only by a backward analysis is not sufficient in concrete or
composite bridges. Creep is a non-mechanical deformation, which means that only deformation
can occur without accompanying stresses unless constrains are imposed.
The material behaviour of concrete is usually represented by a viscous-elastic-plastic model,
because of its properties with time. For the service ability loading, a linear viscoelasticity is an
acceptable assumption for most cases. Besides a significantly simpler formulation of the model,
superposition can be used for different stress and strain histories. Assuming a small strain
behaviour, the total strain (t) of a uniaxially loaded concrete specimen at a time t after the
casting of the concrete can be separated as [2]:
(t ) = el (t ) + cr (t ) + sh (t ) + T (t ) = (t ) + 0 (t ) ,
(3-21)
el is the elastic strain, cr the creep strain, sh the shrinkage strain and T the thermal dilatation.
The elastic and the creep strains are stress produced strains , whereas 0 is the stressindependent inelastic strain consisting of sh and T. The dependence of creep on stress can be
55
shown graphically by so-called creep isochrones. These are lines that connect the values of
strain produced by various constant stresses during the same time.
(t)
C(t,t0)
J(t,t0) curve
1/E(t0)
time
Figure 3-16 indicates that the creep is approximately linear for stress below a certain range.
Within this limits, which are within the usual service range, the creep curves can be described
as:
(t ) = el (t ) + cr (t ) = * J (t , t 0 )
(3-22)
where J(t,t0) represents the total strain under a unit stress and is defined as Creep-Function (also
called Compliance Function). For different time steps with t 0, Equation 3-22 follows to
t
(t ) = J (t , t 0 ) * d (t 0 )
(3-23)
t0
A typical shape of the function is sketched in Figure 3-17, which can also be expressed as:
J (t , t 0 ) =
1
+ C (t , t 0 ) ,
E (t 0 )
(3-24)
where E(t0) represents the modulus of elasticity at the time of the load application, and C(t,t0)
the resulting creep deformation at the age t, which is referred to as the specific creep (or the
creep compliance).
The creep function can be also expressed in terms of a ratio relative to the elastic deformation.
J (t , t 0 ) =
1 + (t , t 0 )
,
E (t 0 )
(3-25)
56
where (t , t 0 ) is defined as the creep coefficient, representing the ratio of creep to the elastic
deformation.
Analytical solutions for Equation 3-23 may be found by using Laplace-Transformation. In this
case, the initial value problem is transformed into a usual linear elastic problem. However, this
method requires the storing of the complete history of stresses and strains for each time step at
all integration points.
For a more efficient numerical expression, the total creep, starting from a particular time t0 and
lasting till a final time t, can be expressed as an integration of creep due to the stress resulting
from each stage by transforming cr (t ) to Equation 3-26:
t
cr (t ) = C (t 0 , t t 0 )
t0
(t 0 )
dt 0
t 0
(3-26)
Assuming that the stress at each stage is constant, the total creep strain can be simplified as a
function of the sum of the strain at each stage as the following:
n 1
cr ,n = j C (t j , t n j )
(3-27)
j =1
Using the above expression, the incremental creep strain cr,n between the stages tn and tn-1 can
be expressed as
n 1
n2
j =1
j =1
cr , n = cr , n cr , n 1 = j C (t j , t n j ) j C (t j , t n j )
(3-28)
If the specific creep C in Equation 3-28 is expressed in degenerate kernel, the incremental creep
strain can be calculated without saving the entire stress time history [2]. By this method, the
integral-type creep law is converted to a rate-type creep law. Among others, Carol substitutes
the specific creep by a sum of negative exponential functions (Dirichlet functional summation)
as:
m
C (t 0 , t t 0 ) = a i (t 0 ) * 1 e ( t t0 ) / i ,
i =1
(3-29)
where ai is the coefficient related to the initial shape of the specific creep curve at the loading
application time t0. i represents values related to the shapes of the creep curves over a period of
57
time. With this method, the incremental strain for each element at each stage can be obtained
from the resulting stress from the immediately preceding stage and the modified stress
accumulated to the previous stage. The employed programme MiDAS uses a similar approach
in order to compute the creep strain, which is explained in detail in the analysis references [60].
The method is greatly affected by the analysed time interval. In the general cases, time intervals
of construction stages are relatively short and thus, do not present any problems. However, if a
long construction stage interval is specified in MiDAS, it may be necessary to define internal
sub-times.
It has already been mentioned that the relationship between the current elastic strain and the
plastic strain due to creep is basically linear. Nevertheless, considering creep and shrinkage
makes the calculation non-linear since the change of the internal loads changes the creep and
shrinkage effects as well.
To complete the list of possible methods for finding a solution for Equation 3-23, it should be
mentioned that the integral-creep low can also be converted into a system of differential
equations. It is then possible to transform the system into a linear form. The differential
equations may be interpreted in terms of rheologic models consistent of springs and dampers,
for example the Kelvin- and Maxwell-Model. However, not every J(t,t0)-function can be
represented. According to Baant [2], in case of aging, the equivalence of various spring and
damper rheologic models and their equivalence to a general linear integral-type creep law is not
true
Pircher [42] presents a finite-difference-scheme in the time domain to predict time dependent
internal forces and displacement due to creep and shrinkage. The derivation of the creep effects
is founded on el * = cr , which has already been given in Equation 3-16.
It is shown through a series of mathematical equations, that the effect of creep can be treated in
a linear manner. The essence of the method is that all the creep influences on the final
distribution of internal forces and displacements are related in a linear way to the elastic strain.
The latter itself initially causes the creep. Therefore the creep effects can be considered by
multiplying the elasticity matrix [Kel] by a factor
1
to get the solution for a single
1 + * 0.5
time step by using exactly the same finite element formulation as used for usual static analysis.
The factor 0.5 corresponds to a time stepping strategy (0.5 for Crank-Nicolson 0).
58
The principals of the linear superposition can be applied and the total creep which occurs
during a single time step can be formulated as below, considering for example one of the
prescribed ideal moment positions as shown in Figure 3-2 given in Equation 3-14.
M cr = M P + M ct =1 * x1 + M ct = 2 * x 2 + M ct =3 * x3 + ...
(3-30)
Mcr therefore consists of one part, which is related to the permanent load, and the other parts are
related to the unit loads as described above, which are linearly coupled. In Chapter 3.1 the Unit
Load concept has been introduced. The same basic concept can be applied here. The effect of
creep for the permanent loads and for unit loads are decomposed into separate contributions
from each time interval and then summed up. Based on the example given in Chapter 3.1, the
system of equations for defining x1 to x9 remains linear.
3.5.1.4
As already mentioned, MiDAS offers the option to consider creep and shrinkage in construction
stage analyses. This chapter gives a short introduction into the application of these functions in
the calculation and a simple verification analysis is also presented.
The creep and shrinkage parameters must be defined by using the Time Dependent Material
Function or one of the already prepared creep & shrinkage models. In the first case, the user
directly defines the time dependent material properties of concrete. In the second case, an
implemented design code can be chosen. MiDAS provides the following codes:
PCA
Creep can also be considered by modifying the modulus of elasticity. But this only provides
rather approximate calculations.
Different parameters must be specified for the models, describing environmental data, material
properties and/or cross section properties. The CEB-FIP model is widely used. Many new
design codes are based on these rules. For example, the Eurocode specification and the DIN
code follow the same concept and only a few details are different. The CEB-FIP document gives
a detailed description of the formulas used [4].
59
When the time dependent material properties are defined, they must be related to the material
data by using Time Dependent Material Link.
In the construction stage analysis, a specific duration for each construction stage can be defined,
representing the actual time of the erection of the current stage. Within a construction stage, in
which the model and boundary condition remain unchanged, alterations in load application
timing or in additional loads can be included through additional steps.
Considering the behaviour of creep, additional steps within one construction stage may be
created in a logarithmic scale by defining the step number and using the Auto Generation
option. Then the extra steps are automatically generated. The user can also assign the number of
days for each additional step so that the load changes can be revealed within a defined period.
To reflect the effects of creep and shrinkage on the elements, the age of activation must be
defined in the Construction Stage Analysis Data. The age of an element group represents the
time that elapses between the concrete casting prior the start of the current construction stage
being defined. The age of an element characterises the time span between the concrete casting
and the removal of falsework/formwork (the elements are loaded) for horizontal members such
as segments.
The following figure presents the structural system, which is analysed in the static verification
example.
P = 100tonf
L = 10m
Figure 3-18: Verification model for creep & shrinkage
Data
Area A
Stiffens I
Poisson Ratio
Modulus of Elasticity E
Value
1.00 m2
0.08333 m4
0.18
3.63*106 tonf/m
60
Creep and shrinkage are modelled with the following input data:
Creep and shrinkage data
Code
Compressive strength of concrete at the age of 28 days
Relative Humidity
Notational size of member
Age of concrete at the beginning of shrinkage
Age of concrete at the beginning of loading
CEB-FIP
4000 tonf/m
80%
0.4
3 days
7 days
Figure 3-19 shows the time dependent material function for creep (a) and shrinkage (b)
calculated by MiDAS in accordance with the defined input data.
The cantilever is modelled with one element which is activated in the first construction stage.
The first loading P1 is applied at an age of 7 days. After 60 days, a second load P2 is activated in
the second construction stage and in the Construction Stage 3, a third load P3 is applied after 180
days. The total calculation simulates 460 days. Each load Pi is 100 tonf. The elastic shortening
of the cantilever due to one load is Le = 0.2755 mm.
In order to control the creep calculation, a simplified hand calculation is performed. The strain
is calculated as = el + cr = (1 + (t , t 0 )) * el , - the shrinkage is neglected. The creep
coefficients are obtained by using the time function graphs determined by Ghali [7].
In a second calculation, the formulas from the CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 are used to calculate
the total creep. The formulas and the performed calculation are given in the appendix.
The calculated axial creep deformation for each construction stage can be found in Table 3-6.
The last two columns show the total deformation by elastic and creep effects.
CS
Day
1
2
3
4
7
60
180
460
0.75
0.90
1.20
Simplified calculation
2 3 LcrP1 LcrP2
[mm]
[mm]
0.2066
0.75
0.2480 0.2066
0.85 0.70 0.3306 0.2342
61
Results Lges [mm]
LcrP3
[mm]
0.1929
Simplified
Theoretical
Midas
0.276
0.758
1.281
1.584
0.276
0.764
1.301
1.620
0.276
0.768
1.301
1.603
Considering that for the simplified calculation the creep coefficients have been taken from a
graph without detailed values, the discrepancies between the values are acceptable. The
theoretical values obtained from the code formulas show more exact result. For the creep value
after 460 day, the difference between the theoretical and the MiDAS value is 1.05%, which is
tolerable.
Since the cable tensions are determined to minimize the bending moments in the deck and to set
off only centred forces, the permanent loads produce almost only normal forces. In modern
cable-stayed bridges with a limited bending moment in the deck, the deflections are extremely
small, and therefore, second-order effects are limited. Even if the deck has a desired camber, the
cable tensions are adjusted so that normal forces follow the deck line and second order forces
are not produced [56]. Thus, Virlogeux states that the distribution of permanent loads can be
evaluated by a first order computation because of the desired geometry and the distribution of
forces, and the structure must only be checked by a final control with a second order
computation for live loads.
However, this is not the case for all construction situations. With a mobile derrick lifting a new
segment, the erection loads may produce important negative bending moments.
62
If the last erected cables then suffer high tensile stresses, the cables behind support low
tensile stresses owing to the bending forces and the possible upward movement of the deck. The
apparent modulus of elasticity of cables can change considerably in such situations and it is
necessary to consider the non-linearity of cables. In general, for longer cables, the sag effect
increases and in analysis models, it is practice to use the effective Youngs modulus [22] or to
compute the cable stiffness by an iteration process according to the cable stress in any particular
stage.
As the main span length increases, the geometric non-linear effects can no longer be ignored.
The initial stress effects (2nd Order or P-Delta effects) should be taken into consideration, not
only for the construction stage analysis, but also for the final stage, which might influence the
ideal state. According to Roik [12], the deformations in cable-stayed bridges are usually small
compared to the overall structural dimension. Therefore, the 2nd Order Theory may be sufficient
to analyse the main structural system. For the analysis of spans over 600 meters, large
deformations should be taken into account [65]. Based on the large deformation but small strain
assumption, the global equilibrium equation can be established together with the consideration
of the initial stress effects. In addition to the linear stiffness, the tangential stiffness of a
geometric non-linear structure includes the geometric stiffness and the large deformation
stiffness. This is explained in more detail in Chapter 3.5.2.2.
In general, there is no rule or specific suggestion when or under which circumstances a nonlinear calculation should be made. The ratio of the cable element length and the girder stiffness
often indicates a tendency. As mentioned before, smaller structures can be understood to be
structures with relatively high girder stiffness, where effects such as P-Delta, the cable sagging
etc. do not have a significant effect on the structural behaviour. The following table is suggested
by TDV. The influence of each function on a large cable-stayed structure is shown as a
percentage of the results derived without consideration of the function.
Classification
Small structure
Final system
Small structure
Construction Stage
Large structure
Final system
Large structure
Construction Stage
P-Delta
Non-linear cable
Large displacement
X
X
X
10-20%
X
10-20%
X
10%
63
Each cable-stayed bridge is unique and it is possible to consider all or none of the special
effects for each structure. The decision on whether or not to consider non-linear effects and that
on the appropriate choice of the various combinations for the needs will remain the engineers
responsibility. Therefore, at least the final results should be checked by a non-linear analysis.
In MiDAS, a large displacement analysis can be applied to both the general static and the
construction stage analysis. The consideration of P-Delta effects alone, which may be sufficient,
is not possible for construction stage calculations. This function is only available for general
static and dynamic analyses.
Finally, stability becomes a critical factor for building a long-span cable-stayed bridge. Both the
lateral and vertical stability analyses in the maximum cantilever stage should be conducted. As
for the deck, a stability analysis should also be performed for the pylon. After the determination
of the initial stresses, the critical load can be obtained from solving the eigenvalue problem.
However, the value only gives the upper limit of the stability since a perfect stability problem
rarely occurs in actual engineering situations.
3.5.2.1
Cable elements
The axial stiffness of cables depends on two factors, namely the sag of the cable and the
deformation of the cable steel. The sag has a softening effect on the cable stiffness so that this
results in a non-linear force-displacement relationship. For large values of sag, the cable has a
relatively low stiffness. As the sag decreases, the cable stiffness increases and the behaviour of
the cable comes close to a truss bar tension element.
The basic formulation of the static behaviour of cables is formulated by Peterson [11]. An
extensive study on cables and cable systems is also provided by Gimsing [8]. Further details of
the behaviour of cable elements in cable-stay bridges may be also found in the
recommendations on cable stays [13]. Here, a detailed overview of static and dynamic analysis
is given.
In structural application it is convenient to link the cable force to the elongation from a given
condition, e.g. its dead load condition, rather than to the total cable length. Figure 3-20
illustrates the force deflection curve of a straight cable with its origin at its dead load condition.
64
For stay-cables, it is usually assumed that the cable has a parabolic profile. The parable-based
solution is easier to use than the more exact catenary-based solution. This assumption is valid if
the sag to span ratio of the cable is of the order of about 1:12 or less. It is further assumed that
the sag and the mechanical strain effect can be uncoupled.
Considering a straight cable of a uniform cross section A, which is subject to an end
displacement in the direction of its chord, the new end force 2*A is then given by an
implicit equation,
( 1 2 ) 2 c 2
+
E
24
1
2 12
1 2
(3-31)
where c is the chord length, E the modulus of elasticity, the weight per unit volume and
The deformational characteristics of the inclined cable are the same as those of a horizontal
cable with the same chord length c, but subjected to a vertical dead load g*cos . By
substituting by *cos and c by l/ cos , Equation 3-31 becomes:
( 1 2 ) 2 l 2
+
E
24
1
2 12
2
1
(3-32)
65
In this equation, the first term expresses the elastic elongation of the cable and the second the
effect of the sag variations. The secant modulus of the cable can be given by the following
equations:
1
1 2 l 2 1 + 2
= +
24 1 2 * 2 2
Esec E
(3-33)
1
1 2l 2
= +
E tan E 12 13
(3-34)
The non-linear behaviour of the sagging cable will complicate the structural calculation if the
used analysis programme is based on an elastic behaviour on each member. In such a case, the
non-linear behaviour of the cable should be considered by specifying the tangent or secant
modulus as given in the formulas above.
The secant modulus, based on the parabolic instead of the correct catenary solution, gives a
good approximation as the error remains below 1% for cables up to 300 m and below 2% for
cable lengths up to 750 m. For the tangent modulus, only the cable stress in the initial condition
has to be known, which makes it easier to use. On the other hand, the use of the tangent
modulus may give rather erroneous results for large cable lengths and large traffic-to-dead load
ratios [8].
In the analysis of the construction process of a cable-stay bridge, the high stress variations in the
cables due to the derrick movements and the lifting operations of new segments will make it
difficult to calculate a proper E-modulus. However, in modern analysis computer programmes,
cable elements can be specified, and the cable stiffness can be calculated by an iterative process.
Care must be taken not to get the false impression that a cable stay becomes stiffer as its stress
ratio increases. In fact, the axial stiffness of a stay cable is governed by the product of Eeq*A
rather than by the tangent modulus alone. As the cable area A increases with decreasing stress
level, the product Eeq*A may very well increase despite the decrease of Eeq.
In case of applying non-linear cable elements in a linear analysis MiDAS calculates an effective
stiffness. In this programme, cable elements must be defined as Tension only/Hook/Cable
elements. To consider the sag effect of cable elements in a linear analysis in this system, an
equivalent truss element is used for the cable element. The stiffness of the equivalent truss
element is composed of the elastic stiffness and the stiffness resulting from the sag.
66
In the MiADS analysis reference [60], the following formula is given for the calculation of
the effective stiffness of a cable:
K eff =
1
EA
=
1 / K sag + 1 / K el
w 2 L2 EA
L1 +
12 S 3
K sag =
12 S 3
EA
, K el =
2 3
L
w L
(3-35)
(3-36), (3-37)
where w is the weight density per unit length ( w = * A ) of the cable and T= *A represents
the tension force in the cable. The parameter L is not defined. However, to be consistent with
the formulas given before, L should be substituted by the length of the horizontally projection l
in the term Ksag, and, respectively, by the chord length c in the term Kel. The analysis procedure
for using the non-linear element is explained in the following five steps:
1) The stiffness of non-linear elements at the linear state are used to formulate the global
stiffness matrix and the load vector.
2) The global stiffness matrix and the load vectors are used to perform a static analysis to
obtain displacement and member forces.
3) The global stiffness matrix and the load vector is reformulated.
4) If the Method 1 is used, in which the analysis is performed without changing the
stiffness term while varying the loading term, the non-linear stiffness is computed by
using the displacements and member forces obtained in Step 2, which is then used to
reformulate the loading term. If the Method 2 is used, where the analysis is performed
with changing the stiffness term, the stiffness of non-linear elements is computed first
by using the resulting displacement and member forces, which is then used to determine
the global stiffness matrix.
5) Step 2 and 3 are repeated until the convergence requirements are satisfied.
In this procedure the element stiffness changes with changing displacements and member forces
due to applied loadings. Therefore, a linear superposition of the results from individual loading
cases is prohibited.
In case of a geometric non-linear analysis in MiDAS, a cable element is automatically
transformed into an elastic catenary cable element. This considers the tangential stiffness which
67
is briefly explained below. The figure shows a two dimensional cable element in its initial
and deformed state.
S01
S02
1, 2
S2
S03
i
S1
S04
x
3, 4
S4
j
S3
y
Figure 3-22 Deformed and uniformed cable element
The equilibriums of the nodal forces and the displacement can be expressed as:
S1 = -S3
S2 = - S4 -S
The differential equation for each directional length is given below. By rearranging the loaddisplacement relation, a flexibility matrix F can be obtained. The tangential stiffness K is then
obtained by inverting the flexibility matrix.
dl x =
f
f
dS1 +
dS 2
S1
S 2
(3-38)
dl y =
g
g
dS1 +
dS 2
S1
S 2
(3-39)
dl x
dS1
dl = [F ]*
,
dS
y
2
(3-40)
dl x
dS1
dS = [K ]* dl
2
y
(3-41)
Since the stiffness of the cable cannot be obtained immediately, an iterative analysis is carried
out until it reaches an equilibrium state.
68
3.5.2.2
For long cable-stayed bridges, it may be required to consider large deformations in the analysis
of construction stages as well as in that for the final state [65]. In order to perform a
construction stage analysis with MiDAS, it is not possible to consider only 2nd Order effects. To
include geometrical non-linearities, a large deformation analysis must be performed. For that
reason, the theory of the method is explained in more detail.
The equilibrium condition between internal and external forces has to be satisfied as:
R(u ) = B T * dV f = 0
(3-42)
where R is the sum of internal and external generalized forces, u the displacement, f the external
forces acting on the structure, the stress. B defines the relationship between the strain and the
nodal displacements as:
= Bu
(3-43)
The bar suffix represents the relationship that is no longer linear since the large displacement is
considered. The strain is now depending on the displacement as:
B = B0 + BL (u )
(3-44)
The assumption that the strains are reasonable small follows to the general elastic relation:
= D( 0 ) + 0 ,
(3-45)
where D is the elastic matrix representing the relationship between the stress and the strain, 0
the initial strain and 0 the initial stress.
The Newton-Raphson method is a widely used method to calculate the displacement u in
equilibrium with the given external load f, as shown in Figure 3-23. The relation between du
and dR is:
dR = ( K 0 + K + K L )du = K T du
(3-46)
in which KT is the tangential stiffness matrix. K0 represents the usual small displacement
stiffness matrix K 0 = B0T DB0 dV , K the initial stress stiffness or geometric matrix, which
V
69
(3-47)
The procedure of the Newton-Raphson iteration method to solve this non-linear problem
comprises the following steps:
1)
Obtain the first approximation of the displacement as u0, based on the elastic
linear solution.
2)
R0, the unbalance force, is found using Equation 3-42 with appropriate
definition of B and stress as given by Equation 3-45.
3)
K T 0 is established
4)
K T 0 u 0 = R0
Step 2 to 4 is repeated until Rm becomes sufficiently small.
70
3.5.2.3
In order to consider non-linear behaviour in the construction stage analysis, a general static
example is first analysed using MiDAS. Figure 3-24 shows a fixed beam, which is loaded with a
horizontal and a vertical force. MiDAS provides the function to consider the P-Delta effect or to
perform a non-linear analysis.
V = 50kN
H = 100kN
h = 10m
Analysis
Method
Elastic
P-Delta
Non-linear
analysis
Load Definition
Two load cases:
1) H
2) V
One load case:
1) H
Two load cases:
1) H
2) V
One load case:
1) H; V
Load sequence not
defined
Load sequence:
1) V
2) H
Load sequence:
1) H
2) V
M1
[kNm]
M2
[kNm]
LC
[kNm]
Displacement x
[cm]
-1000
-1000
49.42
-1000
-/-
-1000
49.42
-1025.46
-1025.46
50.93
-1025.46
-/-
-1025.46
50.93
-998.56
-998.56
49.32
-1023.86
-1023.86
50.80
-998.56
-1023.86
-2022.42
50.80
Different calculations are preformed, as it can be seen in the table above. In the first calculation,
only elastic behaviour is considered. The moment at the support is equal to the horizontal force
times the length.
71
Considering the P-Delta effect, the increase of the moment is about 25kN, which is
approximately the vertical force times the deflection of 0.50m. Compared to the elastic
calculation, not only the moment, but also the value of displacement is higher as a result of the
2nd Order deformation. The load cases, which should be considered in the analysis, must be
defined in the P-Delta Analysis Control. The vertical and horizontal loads are stored in one and
in another analysis, in two different load cases to control the calculation. Both results are the
same, which means that the programme automatically considers the effect of the previous load
cases.
Performing a non-linear analysis, it is important to define the load sequence at the Non-linear
Analysis Data. The order of the load cases is not important; it only influences the output data.
As it can be seen in the table, applying first the vertical load and afterward the horizontal load,
the moment M1 is zero, but the additional stresses from the vertical load are considered in the
moment M2. If the horizontal load is defined first and then the vertical load, M1 is the moment
value due to the first load. M2 gives the total moment value including the increase because of
the additional normal stresses in the beam. The values obtained from the non-linear analysis are
slightly smaller than the P-Delta values, which may be related to the iteration process. The load
case LC is always the sum of both.
3.5.2.4
In Chapter 3.5.2.2 it has already been mentioned that, in the analysis of construction stages in
MiDAS, it is not possible to include P-delta effects alone, even if this may be sufficient for the
analysis. To consider geometrical non-linear effect in the analysis, in the Construction Stage
Analysis Data the function Include Non-linear Analysis must be activated. With the definition
of the construction stages, the load sequence is defined as well and it is not required to define it
in the Non-linear Analysis Data, as it is the case for usual static analysis. The number of load
steps, the maximum numbers of iteration per step and the convergence criteria are also defined
in the Construction Stage Analysis Data.
In a non-linear analysis, the cable effects can be considered as well and it is possible to define a
pretension value or a length to unstrained length ratio. In a linear analysis these data is not
considered. For the cable elements the tangential stiffness is calculated as it was explained
before.
72
When performing a non-linear analysis, it is not possible to include any time dependent
effects. Creep and shrinkage must be analysis in a separate calculation.
As there are a number of possible combinations for considering non-linear effects, the user must
beware of randomly applying all combinations together. It can be easier to first study the effect
of the cables individually and combine it later with other geometric non-linearity. The
calculation time increases analogue to each additional non-linear effect considered.
However, at the time of working out this document and performing a construction stage analysis
for the Second Jindo Bridge, the offered MiDAS functions did not work. The options were
tested by a simple model, but the calculated results were not reasonable and therefore, it was not
possible to illustrate these functions in more detail and to study the effect on the different
structural systems during the construction process.
Unfortunately the MiDAS support could not help in these problems immediately. The
construction stage analysis functions are new features in the MiDAS programme and not all
functions are working properly until now. The support stated that they are trying to solve the
related problems and they might be able to present a version providing these functions in a
couple of month. Some parts of the correspondence with Mr. Lee from MiDAS are given in the
appendix.
3.5.2.5
The buckling failure of a cable-stayed bridge girder is the result of the interaction between axial
and bending forces. In the final state of construction, it typically occurs either at the point of
maximum bending moment, i.e. the third point of the side span, or close to the point of
maximum axial load, i.e. the tower.
In the first cable-stayed bridges, the cables were widely spaced along the girder and a stiff
girder used to span in between. Due to small spans and relatively large girders, buckling was
rarely a governing design criterion.
When later cable-stayed bridges with continuously spaced cables were introduced, the
approximate buckling analysis was based on a beam on an elastic foundation. At that time,
cable-stayed spans were in the 300 m range. Tang presents a paper containing analyses of a
number of realistic cable-stayed bridge configurations. For buckling, all of these bridges
73
showed load factors between 4.4 and 6 times the dead load. The accuracy of this method
depends upon the proximity of the assumed buckled shape to the actual buckling mode.
Due to the reduced bending demands in the cable-stayed bridge with closely spaced cables, the
size of the deck girder was reduced. Walter [14] introduced cable-stayed bridges with simple
concrete slabs. For a bridge with a main span length of 200 m and thickness of the deck of 50
cm, a model test was carried out to confirm the calculated buckling strength. It could be
experimentally proved that, for cable-stayed bridges with thin concrete decks and continuously
spaced cables, no particular buckling instability exists. The main dimensions of the girder
depend on the longitudinal and transversal bending moments as well as on normal forces
induced at the cable anchorage points. Usually, the maximum normal force is close to the pylon,
and it can be necessary to increase the girder thickness in this area.
In the design of long cable-stays bridges nowadays, there are a number of trends which are
tending to reduce the load factor against the girder buckling. Longer spans cause an increase in
both, the girder axial load and the girder lateral bending moments under wind loads. As
mentioned before, reduced girder depths and the use of slab decks reduce the buckling stiffness
of the system. Due to the difficulty of anchoring steep cables in the tower, sometimes cable
supports in the region of the tower are omitted, which has a negative effect on the buckling
stiffnes. Furthermore, the buckling load of the system is reduced because of design criteria
specifying a hypothetical one or two cable out situation.
During the construction, the cable-stayed bridge may experience a lack of buckling stiffness due
to some missing boundary restrains afforded to the permanent bridge. Geometrical construction
errors in the deck and a large variation of cable tension during the cable tuning can also produce
critical conditions.
Taylor [51] examined the effects of some of these factors by a series of parameter studies. It is
concluded that, at the current upper limit of cable-stayed bridge, design buckling failures of the
girder must be a significant design consideration.
The cable distribution on the Tatara Bridge is interrupted over a region on each side of the tower.
It was calculated that, with the first two cables in the main span removed, the buckling load of
the Tatara Bridge drops from 3.9 times the dead load to 1.9. For the Evripos Bridge in Greece
with a main span of 215m and a slab thickness of 0.45m, an elastic buckling load of 2.4 times
the dead load was calculated. When inelastic behaviour in the slab is taken into account, the
buckling factor is only about 1.5. Therefore, it is not sufficient to analyse the elastic buckling
capacity; material non-linearity should be considered. The calculation of the buckling load
74
during the construction was not performed. But it can be concluded that the mentioned effects
influence the structural performance and should be examined for the construction stages, too.
3.5.3 Temperature
Thermal effects are important for the geometrical control of all types of bridges. When the sun
heats the deck, thermal gradients produce a downward camber of the cantilever. However, there
are also other thermal effects producing deflections during the construction in a cable-stayed
bridge, and not only thermal gradient. In case of a uniform variation of the structure temperature,
the displacement is limited to small deflections and bending moments when the fixed point of
the cantilever is at the pylon. Even with intermediate supports in the side spans, this is also be
the case if there is no friction on bearings, Figure 3-25 a).
The situation is different when bearings are fixed on intermediate supports. Then, the deck
moves towards the main span when temperature increases, which is illustrated in Figure 3-25 b).
Figure 3-25: Uniform variation of temperature, a) without supports or with supports but no
friction on bearings, b) with supports and fixed bearings [56]
Due to the different thermal inertia, steel members in the deck heat quicker than concrete ones.
The average temperature in a steel member can be 5 C higher as a in concrete member. The
difference in temperature between concrete and steel members produces deflections and forces
which must be considered during the construction. Figure 3-26 shows the deformations
produced by temperature variation in the deck.
Figure 3-26: Deflection produced by: a) temperature variation in the deck, b) temperature
variation only in the side span [56]
75
Furthermore, the difference in temperature between cables and structure can be responsible
for important deflections and bending moments, illustrated in Figure 3-27.
Even if measurements are made early in the morning, geometry control cannot be conducted
from the absolute geometry of the cantilever. Each new segment must be geometrically
characterized by reference to the previous one, in relative geometry, to ensure a correct
installation.
In the case of the Pont de Normandie [16], 8 thermocouples were installed in different parts of
the segments and 4 thermocouples were inserted in the strands of a reference cable for the
monitoring during the construction process. Furthermore, 8 thermocouples are distributed over
the surface of the full height of the pylons. Regular measurements were taken early in the
morning to determine the average temperature and the temperature gradient of the deck and the
pylon. In practice, it was found that the appearance of temperature gradients in the pylon is a too
complex phenomenon and appraising these gradients could not be envisaged. Due to an
excessive scatter of the measurements only a vague correlation with the pylon movements could
be established posterior. From the structural point of view, these effects have no significant
influence during the construction period when the structure is still a cantilever, but should be
considered before the joints are closed to avoid that the temperature gradient is locked into the
pylon.On the other hand, the average temperature measurements in the deck and in the cables
were far more interpretable and were used in the monitoring and adjustment procedures.
76
Practicability of stay installation and construction simplicity. From this point of view,
the ideal solution would be to stress each cable in a single step, at the time when it is
installed. Stressing of the stay cables is an expensive procedure and could be minimized.
Structural design objectives. Acceptable stresses in the structure and the stay cables
during the erection phases and after the completion must be maintained. Ideally, readjusting stays at different stages would make it possible to reduce bending stresses in
the structure almost to zero as erection proceeds.
In many cases, the stays are tensioned in two steps: Firstly at installation, then just prior to
finishing. In some projects, a global re-tensioning operation is required after a few years of
bridge operation in order to compensate for creep effects, as in case of the Brotonne Bridge in
France. Seven years after the completion of the bridge, the cable-stays had to be re-adjusted to
compensate the effect of creep [20].
As described in detail in Chapter 3.1, the search for an adjustment solution usually starts from
the final erection stage. Once the set of tensions at bridge completion has been selected, the
tensioning sequence must be defined. Using stage by stage structural software as described
before, the bridge construction is simulated. The installation of a cable-stay is idealised by
activating a new bar or cable finite element. For adjusting the stay at this stage (initial tension at
the time of erection), there are different options for imposing an appropriate initial condition to
the related element. The initial condition may be expressed by using the value S of the tension
(external or internal loading), that must exist in the element after assembly. However, the use of
the stressing force S as a parameter suffers a severe drawback: The stressing force is not an
intrinsic characterization of the cable-stay pre-loading. Stressing a stay with the same force S in
presence or in absence of temporary loads, such as a mobile crane, does not yield the same
tension in the stay at the bridge completion. For example, any modification in carriage weight
during the design requires resuming the computation of all the stressing forces to reach the same
state at the end of construction. This is a very time consuming and exhausting process.
As another option, stay adjustment can be achieved by assembling a cable element with a proper
initial length L0. In the literature, L0 is referred as the cable unstressed length (or cable neutral
length). The unstressed length of a cable stay, which can be seen as the length of the cable when
it is laid on a flat support, is an intrinsic parameter. Because the cable length L0 has a valuable
meaning only when it is compared with the distance between the anchorage nodes in the model
theoretical geometry, the dimensionless parameter is often preferred: =
L L L0
=
. In
L
L
77
most cable-stayed bridges, the value of this parameter relating to a completed bridge under
permanent loading ranges between 2.5*10-3 and 3.5*10-3[13].
If the mobile carriage weight changes during the design, these values, that describe the adopted
stay adjustment, are not impacted. Of course, it must be checked if the new weight values still
produce allowable stresses.
If the bridge is directly built with the final length of the cables, their tensions will not balance
the structural self-weight during construction. The lack of balance will be much greater for a
steel bridge than for a concrete one. This is illustrated in Table 3-9, which compares the selfweight of different bridge types with the construction loads.
Bridge Type
Concrete
Composite
Steel
Steel
Concrete
Self-weight
[t/m]
24
4
12
8
Equipment
[t/m]
4
Total
[t/m]
28
%
of equipment
14 %
20
20 %
12
33 %
Table 3-9: Compared permanent loads for different bridge types, the bridges are about 20 metre
wide
In case of a composite bridge, in which the concrete slab is built some segments behind the steel
structure, it is impossible to place the cable on the steel structure with its final length because it
is extremely light in this stage. In this situation, a first tension is given to the cables which are
later adjusted with the increased load.
Despite the specific problems already mentioned, it is possible to erect bridges by giving
directly the cables their final length (or final tension). In this case, the cantilever is cambered
upward, so that a corresponding moment is produced. In modern cable-stayed bridges with
flexible decks, the girder can generally suffer the camber much better than bridges with stiffer
decks. However, in addition to some operations which are needed for the closure to produce the
78
necessary angular continuity, such a procedure will produce more creep effects than with
cable forces adopted to the construction loads and a later adjustment.
In case of erecting the cables according to their final loading, if intermediate supports in the
side-span exist, it may turn out that the pylon bents backward because of a lack of load in the
main span. Therefore, such a tensioning procedure cannot be adopted if the pylon is not able to
resist these deformations. To avoid cable adjustments as much as possible, a practicable solution
can be to adapt the cable lengths of the side span to the construction loads so that the pylon is
left free of bending moments, and to install the cables in the main span with their final lengths.
The resulting upward camber in the main span can be tempered by the weight of the mobile
derrick used for the lifting operations. By reducing the length of the backstays, it is possible to
produce a limited backward camber in the pylon in order to minimize deflections and bending
moments while lifting a new segment.
Figure 3-29: Deflections produced by construction with final cable forces a) in case of symmetrical
cable-stayed cantilever b) in case of bridge with intermediate supports [56]
A similar tensioning concept was used in the construction of the Normandy Bridge. Two
analyses were carried out corresponding to the final situation of the long cantilever in the main
span, just before the closure [55]. One of the analyses considered the final cable lengths which
are selected to balance all permanent loads. The other one considers the cable lengths adapted to
self-weight only. The calculation revealed that the pylon could not resist the bending moment in
case of the first situation. Finally, the cable lengths of the backstays were adapted to the
construction loads and the main span was built with the final cable length.
In some bridge constructions, it is preferred to build the whole structure with cable lengths or
pre deformations adapted to the construction loads (self-weight, erection equipment, mobile
carriages or derrick). This may lead to better designs with limited creep effects and simpler
closure procedures. However, the disadvantage is that all cable lengths have to be adjusted after
the completion of the bridge after the final equipments are installed.
79
Construction Errors:
-
Fabrication Errors:
-
On the other hand, a system error may occur in the measuring of the deflection in the girder or
the pylon, because of defect load cells, etc. Since it is impossible to eliminate all errors, there
are two basic requirements for the completed structure:
The geometric profile must match the designed shape within a limited range
The internal forces, especially the bending moments in the girder and the pylon, must be
within the designed envelope values
If the error of the girder elevation deviating from the design value is small, the error can be
reduced by adjusting the elevation of the segment by inducing an extra angle between two
adjacent deck segments. In this case, only the geometrical position of the girder is changed,
producing a modification in the length of the cable without a change in the internal forces. If the
error is not small, it is necessary to adjust the cable forces. In this case, the geometric position
changes and changes occur in the internal forces in the structure. Both methods are illustrated in
Chapter 4.7 by the example calculations.
80
The limits of errors in the cable tension and the bridge configuration should be carefully
determined. Too small limits can possibly result in a failure in satisfying the requirements,
although smaller those are wanted for an accurate construction. Depending on the various
conditions, the requirements for the cable adjustment change. In case that little margin rests in
the cable tension, an adjustment to reduce the tension error is required. On the other hand, in the
cantilever erection before the closure of the girder, the correction of girder configuration is the
dominant target.
Whatsoever, cable force adjustments are not preferable because it takes time and increases the
construction cost. The general procedure at each stage is to find out the correct length of the
cables and to appropriately set the elevation of the segment. In the ideal case, cable tensioning is
performed for the new stay only, but as explained in the previous chapter, this is not always
possible. A comprehensive adjustment is often applied before connecting the two cantilever
ends.
For example, during the construction of the SeoHae Bridge [40] in Korea with the main span of
470 m, several adjustments have been performed. In the early stage of the construction, the error
in deck level has been adjusted because a small error in the beginning generates a larger error
later on. In such a situation the superstructure is short and stiff, and a great change in cable
forces is required to adjust the geometry. Because the level of the girder becomes very
important in constructing the main span closure, another adjustment has been performed just
before constructing the main span closure. In this stage, the error in the global geometry is
easier to correct due to the flexible deck. However, the error in the local geometry could not be
fully corrected.
Measuring system: The following data are measured at each erection cycle.
-
cable forces
81
Error and sensitivity analysis system: The temperature effects are first determined and
removed. Then the sensitivity of structural parameters, such as the self-weight, stiffness
of the girder segments, etc., is analysed. Through the analysis, the causes of errors
should be detected and explained. It is very important to understand the reasons for
geometrical differences in order to select the adapted amendments.
Control/prediction system: The measurement values are compared to those of the design
expectation. If the differences are lower than the prescribed limits, then the construction
can be continued with the next stage. Otherwise the calculations mentioned above are
used to eliminate or reduce those errors through proper methods.
New design system: Since the structural parameters for the already completed part have
deviated from the designed values, the design expectations must be updated with the
changes made to adjust the structure. The sequential construction now follows new
design values to achieve the final state as intended.
82
displacement w of the deck. In such a situation stays are adjusted by controlling the altitude
of the deck, rather than the stressing forces. An alternative to monitor stressing forces or vertical
displacements is to use the initial length L0 as introduced in Chapter 3.6. In this case, the cable
stays must be prepared with their exact unstressed length L0. For the installation of the cables,
they must be extended to attach their two ends to the structure. To base the initial stay
adjustment operations on the unstressed length has the following advantages:
This method is often used for prefabricated stays, which are in one stage only. The same
procedure can also be applied to stays erected by threading strands one by one, where each
strand is cut at the precise length. Besides the accurate cable length, the anchorage location must
be controlled with a precision of some millimetres. Otherwise, the unstressed cable length does
not constitute a suitable adjustment parameter for practical purpose. For concrete decks cast-insitu, the anchorage position is generally set by the mobile carriage. Thus, the anchorages are
located with a tolerance reaching several centimetres, so that this results in a poor quality using
cable length L0. However, the unstressed length L0 provides a valuable parameter to crosscheck
the adjustment data supplied by other methods.
Displacement of the anchorage relative to the structure: The cable length is adjusted by
inserting some plates (shim plates) in front of the cable anchor sockets. This is usually
called shim adjustment. Another technical option is to hold the anchorage head in
position by screwing a concentric nut in or out, or relocate nuts on threaded transfer
rods securing the anchorage to the structure. For the adjustment, the tension of the cable
stay must be temporarily removed from the bearing using a high-capacity jack, which
takes the full force of the cable.
83
84
w = z ref z c ,
(3-48)
where is the vertical offset between the theoretical profile line attached to the deck and a given
benchmark, zc the divergence to the reference line and zref is the elevation of the reference line.
When a new segment is welded to a previous one, in steel constructions shrinkage develops in
the welds. This can induce deflection by producing a downward or an upward angle in the
joints. These weld-shortenings should be measured to control the erection precisely.
85
Trial and error method: When cable tensions are chosen as a control item, the
influence matrix T, which describes the influence value of the cable tension due to each
unit shim thickness, is given as follows:
t11
t
T = 21
...
t n1
t12
...
...
t n2
... t1m
... ...
,
... ...
... t nm
(3-49)
where tnm is the tension increment at cable n when a unit shim thickness is insert to the
mth cable, n the total number of cables. If M is the shim thickness of each cable and S
is the effect on each cable, the following relation results:
T * M = S
(3-50)
If the cable tension is different from the required value by S, the required shim
thickness H gives S,
T * M = S .
(3-51)
When the camber is selected as a control item, the relations are the same as above. The
influence matrix D, which expresses the influence value of displacement due to each
unit shim thickness, is given as:
d11
d
D = 21
...
d n1
d12
...
...
d n2
... d1m
... ...
,
... ...
... d nm
(3-52)
where dnm is the displacement increment at section n when a unit shim thickness is
inserted to the mth cable and n the total number of cables. As before, the following
equation can be obtained:
D * M = ,
(3-53)
where is the effect on the deflection. If the deflection of the girder is different from
the required value by , the required shim thickness M gives ,
D * M = .
(3-54)
86
If there is a tension error S or a deflection error , the trial shim thickness can be
calculated. In case of cable-stayed bridges with many stays, this method takes many
trials and sometimes it is difficult to obtain the suitable shim thickness.
Optimization method: To improve the trail and error method, it was proposed to
determine the required shim thickness, which eliminates the tension error S or camber
error , using Equation 3-55 or 3-56 [39].
M = T 1 * S
(3-55)
M = D 1 *
(3-56)
The shim thickness, which is required from this calculation, becomes too large and
impractical because errors are eliminated which should not or cannot be eliminated.
Therefore, shim thicknesses are calculated by the optimisation method taking an
allowable error range ErS and Er for S and into consideration,
M = T 1 * (S ErS )
(3-57)
M = D 1 * ( Er )
(3-58)
In order to reduce the error uniformly, Fujisawa [27] proposes the so-called least square method
(LSM) to find an optimum adjustment.
T * S = S ,
(3-59)
where T is the influence matrix of cable forces, S the cable adjustment vector in terms of
cable forces, and S the change in the cable forces. Since the target adjustment A, which
is required to bring the existing cable forces S0 to a theoretical value SA, is not always
obtainable in the actual project, there is always some difference between SA and S0. The
remaining adjustment E can be treated as the error in the optimisation process, which is
to be minimised. The target adjustment can be calculated from
A = S A S0
(3-60)
87
E = A S = A T * S
(3-61)
= e n 2
= (a n t nm s m )2
= a n 2 2a n t nm s m + (t nm s m )2
(3-62)
When taking the partial differential of the object function with respect to the change
in the cable force and let it be zero, it becomes
/ s k = ( 2a n t nk + 2t nk t nm s m )
/ s k = 2t nk t nm s m 2t nk a n = 0
(3-63)
T TT * S T T A = 0
(3-64)
S = (T T T ) 1 T T * A
(3-65)
This is the change in cable force to minimise the remaining adjustment E. If a weighting
function W, which is an n by n diagonal matrix, is introduced, cables which may have
more adjustment than others can be controlled [28].
S = (T T W T WT ) 1 T T W T W * A
(3-66)
This procedure is especially useful in the case when multiple cables are adjusted, e.g.
major cable adjustment during the construction and the final cable adjustment.
The method is an unconstrained optimisation. The object function does not have any
restrain on the stresses. It just minimises the variation in the structural geometry without
any constrains. The theoretical optimum cable forces may not be used because these
forces can cause excessive stresses. Therefore, a limited adjustment error should still be
allowed.
88
The same procedure, as just described can be applied when the girder elevation is selected as
a control item. In this case, the influence matrix must be adapted to the changed method.
Example calculations are presented in Chapter 4.7.
It should be mentioned again, that, when the error factors are due to cable length only, the error
for both the tension and the camber can be eliminated simultaneously by the same shim
thickness. However, when the errors for control items are caused by the various kinds of factors,
for example a higher flexibility or a different weight of the girder, they cannot be eliminated at
the same time.
Tanaka presents a method of estimating cable tension adjustments through the application of
system identification (SI) [49]. In this method, error factors are estimated quantitatively. This
permits the prediction of the final construction state for the bridge, which is used for the cable
tension adjustment, reducing the camber error or member force error.
The procedure of cable adjustment using the SI method can be briefly outlined as:
(1) Calculate deviations between the field measured values and the design aim
(2) Apply SI method to quantify the error factors (see error factor analysis below)
(3) Predict the final stage by performing a forward analysis using revised input data (a
model with errors)
(4) If the deviation of the configuration or the member force is larger than the allowable
tolerance, a cable tension adjustment is necessary.
Error factor analysis: The error vector Z consists of camber errors and member errors,
the deviations between filed measured values and the design values of member forces
and displacements. Z is assumed to be a superposition of error modes, given in Equation
3-67.
For example, the measured camber error mode may be caused by the sum of the
increase in dead load of span (2) and the decrease in stiffness of span (1).
89
The error factor analysis determines what kind of error factors contribute quantitatively
towards member forces or configuration errors.
N
Z = i * Fi ,
(3-67)
i =1
f 11
f
F = 21
...
f n1
f 12
...
...
...
...
...
f n2
...
f 1m
1
...
2
and =
:
...
f nm
n
(3-68), (3-69)
where Z is the error vector, F the error influence matrix, n the number of field
measurement items, m the number of error factors and the error contribution rate
vector. Assuming Rf to be field measurements of member forces and displacements, and
Rf0 to be corresponding calculated values obtained without an error model, R can then
be defined as:
Rf Rf 0 + Z .
(3-70)
In reality, Equation 3-70 is an approximation and can be transformed into the following
optimization problem:
= ( Rf 0 + Z Rf ) 2 Minimize .
(3-71)
= [F t * F ] * F t * rf .
1
(3-72)
90
= [F t * * F ] * F t * * rf
1
(3-73)
91
The structural system introduced in Chapter 4.1 is now analysed in order to perform a
construction stage analysis of a more complex symmetrical cable-stayed bridge including
temporary supports in the side span. The tension forces are adjusted to achieve an idealised
moment distribution. Different methods of using the Unknown Load Factor function are
demonstrated in Chapters 4.2.1 and 4.2.2. Furthermore, the influence matrix is used to
recalculate the ideal cable forces and to explain how cable adjustments may be calculated.
Moreover, the construction stage analysis is presented and the basic camber calculations are
described. During the construction, various errors may occur so that these must be included in
the model to obtain reliable adjustment options. Different errors are assumed and it is
demonstrated how these errors can be handled in modelling the structural system. Finally, the
influence of cable elements is investigated in detail and the MiDAS` problems relating to a nonlinear analysis in combination with a construction stage analysis are commented.
5
1
2
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
Key-G
92
The total height of the pylon is 30m; the distance from the girder to the top 20m. The
distances between the cables are 12m, 9*16m and 12m. Because of the symmetry of the bridge,
it suffices to model only one side. The cable numbering starts from the right to the left, as
indicated in the figure. The girder Segments are defined as G1 to G5, plus the segment in the
centre Key-G. For the modelled construction stages, Segment G2 is defined from Node 4 to 9,
Segment G3 from 9 to 12. The other segments have the length in-between two cables. Similar to
the previous example, the following input data is used for the Case I model:
Data
Stiffness I Deck
Stiffness I Pylon =3*I Deck
Modulus of Elasticity Ecable /Edeck
Modulus of Elasticity EPylon/EDeck
Poisson Ratio Deck
Value
0.92 m4
2.76 m4
5.25
1.00
0.3
Data
Area A Deck
Area A Pylon
Area A Cable 1
Area A Cable 2,3
Area A Cable4,5
Weight Cable Cable
Value
4.38 m2
1.00 m2
0.0208 m2
0.0062 m2
2 * 0.0062 m2
(7.85 tonf/m)
93
94
To calculate the initial cable forces, Nodes 4, 12, 16 and 20 are constrained within a vertical
movement of 0.001m. The horizontal movement of Node 106 is restricted to the same value.
The determined load factors for the applied unit pretension load are:
Elastic Link
GEN
Elastic Link
RIGID
Ridged Link
Cable 1
[tonf]
Cable 2
[tonf]
Cable 3
[tonf]
Cable 4
[tonf]
Cable 5
[tonf]
1888.307
624.076
580.407
688.431
925.523
1944.022
603.92
602.94
681.92
928.20
1888.318
624.049
580.381
688.446
925.519
Table 4-2: Ideal cable forces for different elastic link types
The calculated results are slightly different. Because of the possibility to define the elastic link
type Gen for different conditions, the function seems to be the most suitable for modelling the
interaction between the girder and the pylon during and after the construction process. The
elastic link type Ridget is fixed in all directions. It is only possible to model limited conditions
between the girder and the pylon. The Ridget Link shows very similar results as the elastic link
type Gen and would be an alternative solution to model the connection. However, in the
following calculation, the connection is modelled by using the elastic link type Gen as specific
values can be defined for all directions. Applying the tension loads obtained with the elastic link
Gen, the final moment distribution and the vertical displacement are given in Figure 4-3 and
Figure 4-4.
Figure 4-3: Idealised moment distribution after restricted deformation [tonfm], Case I
95
The moment in the main girder shows a distribution similar to a continuously supported beam.
There is nearly no bending moment in the pylon. The deformed shape shows very limited
deflection at the restricted nodes. Whatsoever, there are some possible improvements as it will
be explained in the next chapter.
96
The moment restriction is chosen to balance the moments between the anchorage point and the
field values. Therefore, the anchorage moments in the main span are restricted to a value of -350
tonfm. The value in the side span is restricted to -400 tonfm. Additionally, it is important to
restrict the displacement at the top of the pylon; otherwise, there will be a high moment at the
bearing point and the pylon will lean inward the main span.
Figure 4-6: Ideal moment distribution after moment restriction [tonfm], Case II
To illustrate the smooth balanced moment distribution in the girder, the whole system is shown
in Figure 4-6. The figure also indicates a higher moment in the girder at the pylon. Usually, a
stiffer cross section is used in this area.
97
The deformed structure (Figure 4-7) shows a higher deformation than in the previous method.
However, these deformations are of minor importance as the deformation is neutralised by the
camber control. The basic camber calculation will be presented in Chapter 4.6.
98
0.092215
0.044746
DGP := 0.006457
0.006512
0.020938
The first to the fifth column describe the horizontal displacement at Node 104 and the vertical
displacement at Node 12, 16, 20 and 4 due to a unit internal pretension load in Cable 1 to 5. To
facilitate the useage of the influence matrices as offered by MiDAS, the transposed matrix must
be formed, which is:
0.0922
0.0683
T
DGP = 0.1377
0.1803
0.0258
0.0447 0.0065
0.0065
0.0036
0.1342
0.101
0.0451
0.1438
0.2777
0.0732
0.1121
0.3438
0.0477
0.2282
0.4472
0.0002
0.0209
In order to calculate the initial cable forces, an objective function must be defined; this can be
given for example as:
f( x) := 0.092215x 0.044746x
+ 0.006457x
+ 0.006512x
+ 0.020938x
0
1
2
3
4
The restricted boundaries for the Case I model have been previously explained and are also used
for this calculation. Under the self-weight and the additional load, the horizontal deformation at
node number 106 and the vertical displacement at Nodes 12, 16, 20 and 4 can be derived from
the MiDAS calculation. In order to fit the specified restrictions in full, the vector
175.4449
323.7417
P := 773.0095
1102.7613
36.1424
describes the displacements (in [mm]) that should be adjusted by the initial cable forces.
99
The upper and lower limit and the calculation are defined as:
1 175.4449
1 323.7417
fi_up := 1 + 773.0095
1 1102.7613
1 36.1424
1 175.4449
1 323.7417
fi_low := 1 + 773.0095
1 1102.7613
1 36.1424
The limit is the same as the ones used in the Unknown Load Factor calculation. In Mathcad, an
optimisation problem can be programmed as:
x := 0
4
Given
T
DGP x fi_up
T
DGP x fi_low
x 0
The calculated internal stressing value Sfac in comparison to the MiDAS result Sfac_Mi is:
( )
Sfac := Maximize f , x
1888.298
624.078
Sfac = 580.412
688.428
925.527
1888.307
624.076
Sfac_Mi := 580.407
688.431
925.523
It should be noted that the result has already been given in Table 4-2 which has been obtained
from the MiDAS calculation.
The adjusted displacement is:
T
fi := DGP Sfac
174.445
322.742
fi = 774.009
1101.761
35.142
174.446
322.742
fi_Mi = 774.01
1101.762
35.143
100
The calculated adjusted displacement is close to the required value P and identical to the
MiDAS results. Furthermore, the increase of the tension in Cable 1 to 5 can be calculated with
the influence matrix for the cable forces, which is (in [tonf]):
0.274701
0.365979
T := 0.037337
0.047120
0.147971
In this matrix the columns represent the change in Cable 1 to 5 respectively, due to a unit
internal pretension load in Cable 1 to 5.
With the transposed matrix
0.2747
0.1466
T
T = 0.015
0.0128
0.0292
0.0477
0.5762 0.317
0.0457
0.1909
0.358
0.6403
0.148
S := T Sfac
481.379
289.978
S = 22.049
3.796
428.328 .
The next vector gives the tension forces before tensioning the cables.
1209.23
240.48
S0 := 488.72
647.97
477.58
Adding the additional forces, the final cable forces are:
Sfi := S0 + S
1690.61
530.46
Sfi = 510.77
651.77
905.91
101
1690.61
530.45
Sfi_Mi := 510.77
651.77
905.91
This result is identical to the calculated one, which proves the exactness of the presented method.
481.379
289.978
SA := 22.049
3.796
428.328
An objective function can be defined from the influence matrix for the cable forces for example.
to:
fT( x) := 0.274701x 0.365979x
+ 0.037337x
+ 0.04712x
+ 0.147971x
0
1
2
3
4
In order to achieve results close to the target value, the upper and lower limit is set to:
0.1 481.379
0.1 289.978
0.1 428.328
0.1 481.379
0.1 289.978
0.1 428.328
The results from this calculation Sfac and from MiDAS Sfac-Mi are:
Sfac := Maximize fT , x
1890.576
624.752
Sfac = 578.953
687.025
924.46
1888.307
624.076
Sfac_Mi := 580.407
688.431
925.523
102
In order to control the results, the vectors are multiplied with the matrix TT, which yields
slightly different results.
T
Sfi := T Sfac
Sfi_Mi := T Sfac_Mi
481.479
289.878
Sfi = 21.949
3.696
428.228
481.381
289.975
Sfi_Mi = 22.045
3.801
428.325
Nevertheless, comparing these, it is justified to state that both values are close to the target
value SA.
103
If there are errors in the cable forces or in the geometry, and some adjustments become
necessary, the theoretical unstressed length L0, which can be compared with the actual
unstressed length, and the theoretical and the actual cable forces, provide guidance for an
appropriate adjustment.
It should be mentioned that the internal cable forces are calculated in this example. They can be
used in the theoretical way of modelling. In contrast to this, the tension force on the site acts as
an external load. As there is no separate function to model cable shortening, the process of
pulling out the cable by a hydraulic jack may be modelled by applying a temperature load.
104
The difference should be mentioned, but since they are so minimal, they can be neglected.
The table below describes the construction sequence as it is defined for the backward analysis.
For the forward analysis, the same sequence is used in reverse order. In this case, the cables are
stressed to a defined pretension load at the time of their activation. When the key segment is
installed in the forward analysis, the moment at the tip of the key-segment will be zero. To
consider this situation, a detension load is used in the backward analysis to bring the moment to
zero. For the forward analysis, this means that a retension of the cable is needed.
Const.
Stage
Structure
Activation
Deactivation
-All
Elements
CS0
Boundary *)
Activation
Deactivation
-dz side span
-Pylon bottom
-dx & ry centre of
main span
-Elastic link dz
Girder/Pylon
Load
Activation
-Self-Weight
-Pretension Load
-Additional Load
CS1
-Additional Load
-Elastic link dx
Girder/Pylon
CS2
CS3
-De-Tension
CS4
-Key Segment
CS5
CS6
CS7
CS8
CS9
CS10
-Cable 5
-Segment 5
-Cable 4
-Cable 1
-Segment 4
-Cable 3
CS11
-Cable 2
CS12
-Segment 3
*)
Deactivation
-Temp. Support dz
(Node 4)
The value for the detension load is determined by employing a few calculations and iterate until
the target value of zero moment has been reached. The next table shows the trial and error
method which is used.
105
Moment at tip
[tonfm]
-37.018
8.206
2.176
-0.839
0.066
For the construction stage analysis, MiDAS offers the option of activating supports to the
original or deformed structure. This is very important because the displacement and the
moments in the system should be the same in both back- and forward analyses and changing
boundary conditions can influence the condition severely. The addition of supports to the
deformed structure in the backward analysis fixes the deformations induced on the system
according to the construction stage. This results in wrong reaction forces and, as the calculation
proceeds, the moment distribution and the displacements become different from the according
stage in the forward analysis. The backward- and forward analyses then give different results.
Applying supports to the original structure sets the deformation to zero. In the analysis of this
example, in construction stage CS11, a temporary vertical fixation is activated to support the
girder in the side span. The influence of the activation on the deformed and the original system
is shown in Figure 4-11.
Figure 4-10: Before removing the cable and activating the support [mm]
106
a)
b)
Figure 4-11: Addition of support to the deformed (a) and the original structure (b) [mm]
The reaction force at Node 4 is 177.66tonf in case a) and 55.76tonf in case b). In the forward
analysis the reaction force in this state is 55.76tonf and therefore the same as for the case when
the support is being activated to the original structure in the backward analysis.
If there is a gap between the reaction forces, it is also possible to use the reaction force value
from the forward analysis and apply it as a nodal load in the backward analysis. This is similar
to the procedure shown in the general description of a construction stage analysis in Chapter
3.3.4. Likewise, this procedure may be utilized if the employed programme lacks the above
function. Then, in the next construction step the nodal load can be removed and the support can
be activated. Because the nodal load has been used before, allowing some small deformations of
the system, there will be no deformation left at the concerning node when the boundary
condition is changed.
From the backward analysis, the following cable forces are calculated for the installation steps
of the stay-cables in the forward analysis:
Cable Number
(in order of construction)
Cable 2
Cable 3
Cable 1
Cable 4
Cable 5
Re tension Cable 5
Table 4-5: Initial cable forces obtained from backward analysis (Case I model)
107
Figure 4-12: Deformation when first part of the side span is erected [mm]
Figure 4-13 shows the moment distribution and Figure 4-14 the deformed shape after the final
construction stage. The results are very similar to that of the construction stage CS0 in the
backward analysis, which are presented in Figure 4-8 and Figure 4-9. Thus, the calculation can
be regarded as a basically successfully performed back- and forward analysis.
108
The back- and forward analyses are also performed for the Case II model so that some further
important facts about the procedure can be clarified.
Comparing the results of the backward and forward methods, the moment distribution and the
cable forces are exactly the same up to the construction stage 4 (in the backward and the
corresponding stage in the forward analysis). In the following stages, there are slight differences
in both models. It has been explained before that the moment in the centre of the main span is
reduced to a zero value before removing the support in the centre of the main span, which
represents the centreline of the model. In this case, the moment is removed, but there is still a
normal force in the system as it can be seen in Figure 4-15 a. In the forward analysis, the middle
segment is activated in a zero force condition with no normal forces (Figure 4-15 b). For that
reason, there are small differences in the subsequent stages.
a) Backward analysis
b) Forward analysis
Figure 4-15: Different normal forces back- and forward analysis [tonf], Case II
109
By applying a nodal load in the analysis, the same moment distribution can be achieved for
the final construction stage in the forward as calculated in the backward analysis. The gap in the
normal forces must be applied before the centre fixation is activated, which is for this example 47.67 tonf on the Node 20. There are still some differences in mm range in the deformed shape,
which may be related to the numerical calculation and is negligible.
a) Forward analysis
Figure 4-16: Moment distribution due to considered gap in normal forces in the girder of forward
and backward analysis [tonfm]; Case II
In the unknown load factor calculation for the Case II model, the restrictions have been chosen
to obtain an equal moment distribution in the girder (Figure 4-6). This condition can also be
found in Figure 4-16 b). The differences to Figure a) are minor, however, the influence of
neglecting the normal force increases if the construction sequence is changed, as it can be found
in the next chapter.
110
Const.
Stage
CS2
Structure
Activation
Deactivation
CS3
Activation
Boundary
Deactivation
Activation
-De-Tension
Load
Deactivation
-Key Segment
-Elastic link dx
Girder/Pylon
CS4
Table 4-7 compares the initial cable forces for the case that the construction sequence is
changed with the original sequence, which has been given in Table 4-3.
Cable force at stage of installation [tonf]
Girder/Pylon fixed until retensioning
Girder/Pylon fixation removed before
(sequence as seen in Table 4-3)
activating the key-seg. elements
177.836
86.831
226.958
246.882
519.801
416.619
297.589
298.989
129.794
129.898
406.114
405.930
Cable Number*)
Cable 2
Cable 3
Cable 1
Cable 4
Cable 5
Re tension cable 5
*)
in order of construction
Table 4-7: Cable forces obtained from backward analysis (Case II model), changed construction
sequence
It can be concluded that the correct modelling is very important as the initial cable forces
change significantly. Especially Cable 2 varies extremely in both calculations.
If the normal force in the girder is being neglected, as explained in the previous chapter, the
discrepancy will influence the final moment distribution enormously in case of a changed
construction sequence, as it can be seen in Figure 4-17. There is a high moment value at the
bottom of the pylon.
Figure 4-17: Moment distribution forward analysis with changed girder-pylon connection,
neglecting normal forces in the key segment [tonfm], Case II
111
In this case, the neglected normal force value in the key-segment is -89.549 tonf (Figure 418 a). After the deactivation of the centre support in the backward analysis, the horizontal
displacement is 112.45 mm. To consider the normal force in the key-segment before removing
the support in the forward analysis, a displacement can also be used instead of a nodal force.
Backward analysis
b) Horizontal displacement [mm]
Figure 4-18: Changed backward analysis a) normal force, b) horizontal displacement, Case II
A nodal displacement is applied to node number 22, which produces a normal force shown in
Figure 4-19 b).
Forward analysis
a) Horizontal displacement [mm]
Figure 4-19: Changed forward analysis a) horizontal displacement, b) normal force, Case II
The final moment distribution (Figure 4-20) represents an idealised moment distribution with no
bending in the pylon.
This example illustrates the importance of the correct consideration of the activation time
because it influences the required initial cable forces and the final state of the structure.
Furthermore, taking the remaining forces in the system into account is supremely important as it
is not possible to control forward- and backward analyses with close results.
112
Figure 4-20: Moment distribution changed forward analysis, applying a horizontal displacement
[tonfm], Case II
In the deformed shape, there are still discrepancies between both analysis methods. The final
state in the forward analysis shows a horizontal displacement in the main girder, as it can be
seen in Figure 4-21. The centre of the span shows a displacement of -111mm. This horizontal
movement must be considered in the construction. Otherwise, the two cantilevers may not meet
in the middle of the main span and cannot be easily connected.
In the final state in the backward analysis, there is no horizontal displacement. The last stage in
the backward analysis after the removal of last cable can be seen in Figure 4-22 a. In this case,
there is a horizontal displacement, whereas the corresponding stage in the forward analysis
starts from a zero condition until the first cable has been installed.
113
b) Forward analysis
It would be easy to assume that the problem can be solved by applying an appropriate
displacement in the forward analysis in order to start with the same condition. But this would
only be a theoretical solution for the analysis, since the structure on the real construction site
will not be erected including a horizontal movement before the key-segment is installed to close
the bridge.
However, in case of applying a horizontal displacement of 114.37 mm (value from the
backward analysis) in the forward analysis, the condition is equal for the horizontal deformation
in the current construction stage. At the time of activating the nodal displacement and moving
the whole girder, the temporary connection between the pylon and the girder is released to avoid
a displacement of the pylon. Afterward the connection is again installed. In the vertical
displacement, a small variation in the order of 2mm remains in the structure.
Nevertheless, in the next stage when the first cable is installed, there is again a gap between the
forward and the backward analysis, as it is given in Table 4-8. The horizontal displacement at
the top of the pylon and at the girder-pylon connection is different. The cable forces are
identical.
114
Table 4-8: Horizontal displacement after installing the first cable (Case II b model)
Because there is already a little difference, the gap in the subsequent stages increases more and
more. Especially the cable force of the anchor cable (Cable 1) changes. This results in a high
bending moment in the pylon in the final state. In this case, the horizontal displacement at the
top of the pylon is 112mm. Even if the horizontal displacement in the girder is reduced from 111mm (Figure 4-21) to -1mm, with the high bending moment in the pylon, this condition is
definitely not the same as the backward condition.
Horizontal displacement [mm] after applying the additional load (final stage)
Location
Backward analysis
Forward analysis
Top of pylon
-1*)
112*)
Node 4
4
114
Connection girder-pylon
Node 22
0
-1
Centre of the main span
*)
Table 4-9: Horizontal displacement after applying the additional load (Case II b model)
Theoretically, the back- and forward analyses should be identical. However, there are some
differences in the numerical process and it seems to be difficult to equalise both methods in full.
Besides the distribution of the internal forces, the deformations in vertical and horizontal
direction must be properly evaluated, too, to consider these in the fabrication of the individual
segments. Bearing this in mind, it may be more reliable to follow the result from the forward
analysis, as it represents the real construction sequence. The backward analysis can be used to
determine the initial cable forces and as a control option for the forward analysis.
Furthermore, for concrete and composite cable-stayed bridges, time dependent effects can only
be taken into account in the forward analysis. The influence of creep and shrinkage is
demonstrated in the next chapter.
115
116
made continuous with other members by casting joints and pre-stressing, so that the
boundary condition for the members changes during the construction. In these cases creep
influences the reactions and the internal forces, too. Over its time, creep will have the tendency
to change the internal forces into the direction of the continuous beam condition. Additionally,
internal forces are also produced when changes in the length of members due to shrinkage are
restricted. Because shrinkage is always accompanied by creep, the internal values due to
shrinkage are well below the values that would develop if shrinkage were to occur alone. An
analysis of the time-dependent stresses and the deformations in uncracked and cracked concrete
structures is thoroughly done by Ghali [7].
In the construction stage analysis data, the construction periods must be defined in order to
consider load histories in the creep and shrinkage calculation.
117
Construction
Pylon
Girder at Pylon (G2)
Girder left side span (G1)
1st Girder main span (G3)
Cable 2
Cable 3
2nd Girder main span (G4)
Cable 1
Cable 4
3rd Girder main span (G5)
Cable 5
Girder middle segment (CG)
Connection of middle segments
Retension cable 5
Remove elastic link dx Pylon/Girder
Applying the additional load
-/-
Day(s)
34
12
12
12
1
1
12
1
1
12
1
12
1
1
1+9
5000
In each of the steps, the corresponding segment loading is also activated. The boundary
conditions are identical as already described in Table 4-3. For the girder elements an age of 2
days is defined, which considers the time of loading or rather the time of removing the
formwork after casting the concrete.
Figure 4-23 shows the moment distribution in the girder after 1, 10 and 5000 days after applying
the additional load. The upper curve in Figure 4-23 shows the moment distribution including
creep, the lower curve only considers the construction sequence without any creep or shrinkage.
The shrinkage values are low and therefore the curve considering creep and shrinkage is nearly
identical with the upper one (only creep, no shrinkage). Because of the assumption that the
formwork is being removed after 2 days, the creep curve and the moment curve as constructed
(no creep or shrinkage) are close in the centre of the main girder. At the pylon, a high increase
in the moment value is visible. 10 days after applying the additional loading (Figure 4-23b), it
can be seen that the high moment value at the pylon is reduced and near the key-segment, the
influence of creep is increased. Shrinkage still has a minor effect, which changes in the course
of a longer period. After 5000 days (Figure 4-23c) the values of creep and shrinkage are of the
same magnitude. The upper curve in Figure 4-23c indicates the moment distribution including
the creep. In this example calculation, due to shrinkage, the creep effect is balanced and thus,
the moment curve including creep and shrinkage becomes close to the moment curve which
considers only the construction sequence.
118
-1200
Case II model 1 day after applying additional load
-1000
-800
-600
-400
20
40
60
80
-200
0
200
400
-1200
-1000
-800
-600
-400
20
40
60
80
-200
0
200
400
-1200
-1000
-800
-600
-400
20
40
60
80
-200
0
200
Pylon
400
Figure 4-23: Bending moment in the girder [tonfm] a) 1 day after applying additional load, b) 10
days after applying additional load, c) after 5000 days
The calculated results are greatly influenced by the defined material properties, the loading time
and the erection sequence. However, the main behaviour can be clarified.
Besides the changes on the moment distribution in indeterminate structures, time dependent
effects have a significant influence on the overall deformation. As already mentioned before, the
vertical deflection of the main girder due to dead load, post-tensioning (if applied) as well as
long term effects of creep and shrinkage should be predicted during the design process. In
Chapter 3 it has been clarified that the deflection depends on a large extent on the method of
construction of the structure. The age of a newly installed segment has a dominant role when it
is post-tensioned and/or when the formwork is removed in order to construct the next segment.
119
Therefore it can be expected, that the actual deflections of the structure will be different
from that of the predicted during the design due to changed assumptions. As a result, the
deflections should be recalculated on the basis of the actual construction sequence by the
contractors engineer.
The permanent deflection of the structure after all creep deflections have occurred, normally 10
to 15 years [5], may be objectionable from the perspective of the riding comfort for the users or
for the confidence of the general public. Although there is no structural problem with a span
with noticeable sag, it will not inspire public confidence. For these reasons, a camber is
normally cast into the structure so that the permanent deflection of the bridge is nearly zero.
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Figure 4-24 illustrates the vertical deflection in the main girder, which has been obtained from
0
the example calculation.
-50
0
20
40
60
80
0
-50
-100
-150
-100
-150
-200
-200
-250
-250
-300
-300
-350
-350
Based on the input data for the CEB-FIP code given before, the graphic clearly shows that most
of the time, dependent deformation occurs in a period after loading. The difference between 10
days and 5000 days of applying the additional load is only a minor part, compared to the
deflection that has already proceeded. With the defined input parameters, the calculated ratio of
total to elastic deformation is nearly 5, which is too high for a real construction, but this is of no
importance here.
A second analysis is performed, assuming the bridge is erected on scaffoldings in the same
period as used before. The deformation after 5000 days is plotted in Figure 4-24. The result
indicates a much lower vertical displacement, which is caused by the different construction
method producing lower stresses in the sections during the construction.
120
The general procedure of calculating the camber data is demonstrated in the following. The
figure below shows the cantilever, which is assumed to be installed in three steps. In this case,
not only the actual deformation under its direct loading, but also the additional deflection due to
the weight of following segments must be considered in the camber calculation. Usually, the
subsequent segments are connected with a prefabricated angle to balance the deformations.
121
Figure 4-27 a) describes the current deflection of installing a new segment and Figure 4-27 b)
the fabrication camber to realize a zero displacement condition in the last stage of the
construction.
2
3
31
11
21
32
31
11
12
13
12
13
22
21
22
23
33
32
23
33
31
32
33
The current displacement is only that of the new installed segment without considering any
other existing displacements of previous installations. The real displacement of each segment
can be calculated on the basis of the current displacement.
122
After all segments are put in place, the real displacement can be calculated for each node as:
Node 1 = 11 + 12 + 13
Node 2 = 21 + 22 + 23
Node 3 = 31 + 32 + 33
where expresses the deflection, the first indices describes the location of the deformation
(node number) and the second indices describes due to which segment the deformation occurs.
The real displacement has the meaning of the general fabrication camber.
The total net displacement, which is the meaning of the construction camber, can be determined
as:
Node 1 = 11 + 12 + 13
Node 2 = 22 + 23
Node 3 = 33
In case of the given example, the first segment must be installed with a specific angle, which
produces an upward deformation of 11 + 12 + 13 at the tip of the segment. Due to its selfweight, the segment will be subject to the downward movement of 11 . The next segment must
be installed with an angle again, producing a deformation at the tip of 22 + 23 , which will be
pulled downward by - 22 because of its self-weight. The remaining value of 23 will be
eliminated with the installation of the last segment, which has to be fixed to the previous
segment with an angle generating a deformation of 33 . The total structural upward
displacement produced by the angle-connections, will be balanced by the structural self-weight.
The described method is illustrated in Figure 4-27 b).
A simple example is calculated to illustrate the procedure as explained before. Figure 4-28
shows a cantilever which is erected in three stages. A distributed load of 25 tonf/m, a stiffness I
of 0.92 m4, an elasticity E = 2.1*105 N/mm and cross section area A = 4.38 m2 is assumed in the
calculation.
CS 1
CS 2
10 tonf/m
10 tonf/m
10 tonf/m
CS 3
Figure 4-28: Erection of a cantilever
123
The figure below shows the current displacement for each erection step. All elements are
activated in the first step in order to prove the tangential activation of the elements in the
MiDAS programme. The loads are applied sequentially.
Current step displacement [mm]
CS 1
CS 2
CS 3
Figure 4-29: Erection of a cantilever, current displacement value
The current displacement for construction stage CS 1 is controlled by a simple calculation. With
the displacement u1 (11) at Node 1
q := 25
tonf
m
E := 2.1 10
I := 0.92 m
L := 10 m
mm
u 1 :=
q L
8 E I
u 1 = 1.586mm
and the angle , the displacement for Node 2 (12) and 3 (13) can be calculated as:
3
:=
q L
= 2.115 10
6E I
u 2 := L
u 2 := u 2 + u 1
u 3 := 2L
u 3 := u 3 + u 1
u 2 = 2.115mm
u 2 = 3.701mm
u 3 = 4.23mm
u 3 = 5.816mm
From the current displacement, the real and the net displacement can be calculated as already
explained. The real displacement values are calculated in Table 4-12. The real displacements are
also calculated with MiDAS by using a tangential erection for the new activated elements. The
computed results, given in the table, are identical with the calculated values.
Real displacement [mm]
CS 1
uR1 = 11 = 1.586
CS 2
CS 3
124
Table 4-15 illustrates the calculation of the net displacement and the construction camber
data. The results obtained form the MiDAS calculation is given as well. Both results are
identical.
Total net displacement
[mm]
CS 1
uN1 = 11 = 1.586
CS 2
CS 3
Construction camber
[mm]
uCo1 = 11+12+13 = 22.735
uCo1 = 12+13 = 21.149
uCo2 = 22+23 = 68.207
uCo1 = 13 = 13.747
uCo2 = 23 = 46.529
uCo3 = 33 = 86.185
uCo1 = 0
uCo2 = 0
uCo3 = 0
The required angle, which must be considered between two segments to achieve a final structure
with no deformation, can be evaluated from the real displacement data. Figure 4-30 indicates the
angles which have to be calculated for the fabrication of the individual segments.
u R2 := 71.908mm
12 := 3.701 mm
13 := 5.816 mm
u R3 := 128.484mm
23 := 36.483mm
uR1
lSeg
1 := atan
1 = 0.13deg
( )
u Seg1 = 22.735mm
125
u Seg2 = 26.438mm
u Seg2
lSeg
2 := atan
2 = 0.151deg
u Seg3 := u R3 3 u R1 2 u Seg2
u Seg3 = 7.403mm
u Seg3
lSeg
3 := atan
3 = 0.042deg
To prove that the required girder elevation at the time of installing the segment is achieved by
the calculated angles, the flowing calculation shall control the condition:
( )
u CS1 = 22.735mm
( )
( )
( ))
u CS2 = 68.207mm
( )
u CS3 = 86.185mm
The girder elevation is the same as given in the construction camber data in Table 4-13.
126
Constr.
Stage
CS0
CS1
CS2
CS3
CS4
CS5
CS6
CS7
CS8
CS9
CS10
CS11
CS12
1)
Node 16
-389.51
232.6
352.67
-291.88
82.26
-115.78
0
140.43
-385.99
Node 20
-608.12
212.73
-270.47
0
276.55
-551.04
As described briefly above, by using the current displacement, the real and the net displacement
can be calculated; for Node 12, 16 and 20, these values are given in the next table.
Constr. Stage
CS0
CS1
CS2
CS3
CS4
CS5
CS6
CS7
CS8
CS9
CS10
CS11
CS12
1)
obtained from MiDAS, 2) e.g. = -68.97 + (- 33,32) Table 4-14; 3) e.g. = -71.78 + (-33.32) Table 4-14
Table 4-15: Calculation table for real and net displacement (Case I model)
The actual real displacement is the current displacement plus the accumulated real displacement
from the previous steps. The change in each construction stage can be predicted from the net
displacement and the current displacement. The target displacements for Node 12, 16 and 20 are
presented in Table 4-16. At each node, the negative upper value represents the camber to be
incorporated at the time of installing the segment. The lower values represent the change of
displacement at the subsequent construction stages and can be calculated from the actual
displacement minus the current displacement. Due to the construction sequence and the
structural dead load, the total amount of displacement at the end of the construction should be
compensated as the final structure is assumed to be with no deformation.
127
For a construction stage analysis, MiDAS offers the option to calculate a construction camber
table with the General Camber function. If the initial tangent displacement for the erected
structure in the analysis option is switched on, new segments are added tangentially and the real
displacement for each construction step is calculated. In order to produce the camber output, a
structural group must be specified to which the main girder, the key segment and the supports
are assigned. In the General Camber Control option, the structural group and the constructed
direction must be defined. The results for the general construction camber obtained by the
MiDAS function are given in the next table.
The values found in Table 4-17 are very close to the ones calculated in Table 4-16 for Node 12,
16 and 20, which proves the calculation performed by the programme. MiDAS also offers to
plot the results on a diagram; this is given in Figure 4-31.
128
Figure 4-31: Construction camber graph, negative net displacement [mm] (Case I model)
The X-axis of the graph represents the length (or nodes) of the girder and the Y-axis the
corresponding camber. Two values are produced for each node. The upper value represents
again the camber to be incorporated at the time of installing the segment, and the lower values
represent the displacements at the subsequent construction stages.
Furthermore, the general fabrication camber is given in a table and as a graph below. The values
in the table represent the real displacement as it is also found in the deformed plot of the
structure after finishing the erection, given in Figure 4-14.
The values found in the graph are the same deformation values with opposite sign as illustrated
in the deformed shape plot and are also given in the table above. In case of a steel deck, the
angles between the different segments, which are required for an erection of the structure with
no deformation, can be calculated from this data, as it has been illustrated in the previous
chapter. The angle is then considered in the fabrication of the individual segments.
129
The initial cable forces for the Case I model have been found by restricting the vertical
displacement. For that reason, the fabrication camber has this up- and downward shape, which
may not be understandable right away. In the next chapter, the fabrication camber is also
illustrated for the Case II model, which shows more reasonable deformations.
Camber [mm]
Fabrication Camber
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
1
12
16
20
22
Node Number
Including creep & shrinkage
The construction camber (Figure 4-34) also shows an upper and a lower graph. The upper graph
represents again the creep and shrinkage effects. Two values are given for each node. The first
value is the camber required at the time of installing the formwork. The second includes the
current step displacement due to its self-weight and the time dependent effects of the actual step.
130
Camber [mm]
Construction Camber
1000
800
600
400
200
0
-200
1
22
Node Number
Including creep & shrinkage
In order to calculate the values of creep and shrinkage effects properly, the actual duration of
each construction stage must be considered. In the construction stage analysis with MiDAS, the
number of days must be defined for each step. To calculate the values for the camber data of the
girder, the creep and shrinkage deformations within each step must be considered. These data
are not accessible if no additional step results are saved. The summation of the different
loadings as results from dead load, creep, shrinkage and possible erection loads will only show
the summation of the actual additional step, but not the result from the total current construction
stage. Therefore, in case of applying additional steps within a construction step, it is important
to save the results for the additional steps as well.
131
%
-0.2
-1.0
+7.8
-4.6
0.0
Because Cable 4 is installed with a lower pre-stressing load, the tension in the neighbouring
cables is influenced as well. The tension in Cable 3 increases about 16% at the time of installing
Cable 4.
The change in elevation of the already constructed girder is illustrated in Figure 4-35.
Vertical displacement [mm]
Original
Error calculation
The upward movement of the deck at the time of installing Cable 4 is lower than in the original
system. As a consequence, the tension forces in the cables change in the subsequent stages.
Table 4-19 also illustrates the cable forces in the final state in comparison to the original system.
The vertical displacement in the centre of the bridges increases from -70 mm to -148 mm.
132
Figure 4-36: Final moment distribution due to changed pre-stressing in cable 4 [tonfm]
The simplest condition to adjust the cable force is when the error is already detected at the time
the cable is being installed. In this situation, the cable can be retensioned without having further
influence on the following stages. If the adjustment procedure is applied in a later stage, the
restressing will have considerable influence on the overall structure. It is not possible to just
retension Cable 4 to the designed value. It also changes the cable forces in the neighbouring
cables but it is unlikely that they will have the target values.
It is assumed that the cable forces are adjusted in the final state after the additional loading is
applied. In Chapter 4.3, the influence matrix for internal forces has been introduced for the Case
I model. For the Case II model (different girder properties and changed loading compared to
Case I model), the influence matrix for internal forces is calculated using the Unknown Load
Factor function. This matrix can then be used to calculate the influence matrix for external
loads, which follows to (in [tonf]):
1
0.514263
T := 0.080443
0.098118
0.242717
0.52461 0.06762
0.057567 0.110399
0.143179
1
0.35814 0.166614
0.085797 0.513188
1
0.41332
This matrix is derived from a factor multiplication of the influence vectors of each cable force.
Assuming a linear condition, the retension values can be obtained with the influence matrix for
the external forces. It must be noted that the influence matrix obtained from MiDAS is actually
the transposed matrix compared to the general definitions used in Chapter 3.7. This must be
considered for the application of the given formulas.
133
The required additional tension Sfi can be evaluated from the final existing cable forces
Sfi_0 and the design forces Sfi_A. The rows of the vector represent Cable 1 to 5 from up to down.
1695.55
394.45
Sfi_0 := 439.29
619.71
895.09
1698.55
398.61
Sfi_A := 407.56
649.47
895.09
3.00
4.16
Sfi = 31.73
29.76
0.00
The optimisation method has been explained in Chapter 4.3. The same method is used to
calculate the retension values for two different conditions.
In the first one, it is assumed that there is no possibility to detension the cables. In this case, a
solution can only be found with an increase of the upper restrain value Sfi_up to (in [tonf])
4.15 3
4.15 4.16
4.15 0
0.1 3
0.1 4.16
0.1 0 .
The determined values for Cable 2, 4 and 5 and the final cable forces are given as
x := 0
4
Given
T
T x Sfi_up
T
T x Sfi_low
x 0
Sfi_star := Minimize fT , x
0.00
3.12
Sfi_star = 0.00
43.50
18.27
1702.65
402.76
Sfi = 411.71
653.62
895.49
Comparing the design forces Sfi_A and the final cable force after the adjustment Sfi, there are
obviously some differences.
134
Better results can be achieved if it is assumed that the cable system allows changes in the
effective length of the cable, for example by inserting shim plates at the anchorage points. In
this case the new calculated values are
0.09
2.46
Sfi_star = 13.12
30.39
10.40
1698.65
398.51
Sfi = 407.66
649.37
895.19 ,
with a restriction of the upper and lower values to 0.10. When the last square method is
directly applied as given in Equation 3-65, which does not include an upper or lower tolerance,
the calculated adjustment vector Sfi_star_LSM is:
Sfi_star_LSM := T T
) 1 T Sfi
0.006
2.669
Sfi_star_LSM = 13.375
30.269
10.187
1698.55
398.61
Sfi_LSM = 407.56
649.47
895.09
By setting the upper and the lower limits to 0.00, the identical value is calculated with the
previously applied procedure.
To model the retensioning with MiDAS, the calculated values as given in the vector Sfi_star are
applied in the construction stage analysis after the final load step. It should be noted, that the
adjustment procedure on site is usually performed by restressing one cabal after another. This is
considered by the definition of five additional construction steps for each stressing process
(definition in the construction stage analysis control: add external forces). It is also important
that the stressing sequence effects the influence matrix and the tension forces. In case of
stressing two or more cables simultaneously, the condition must be regarded when the influence
matrix is formed. Therefore, it causes wrong results if the stressing is applied in only one step.
Considering this situation, the final cable forces determined with MiDAS after the last
tensioning are close to the calculated value
1698.67
398.51
Sfi_Mi := 407.69
649.39
895.16
The moment distribution after the cable adjustment is distributed more equally as it can be seen
in Figure 4-37. However, as the construction sequence is different from the original purposed
135
sequence with a limited retensioning in the stages after the closure of the bridge, the overall
distribution is different. Here, the negative moments increase and the positive moments
decrease. In the girder, the total moment distribution moves upward. The moment distribution
for the girder in the original system has been given in Figure 4-16 a.
Due to the restressing of the cables, the girder elevation changes. After the last step, the vertical
displacement in the centre of the girder is reduced to -126 mm. Assuming the initially calculated
displacement of -70 mm is incorporated in the prefabricated camber deformation, there sill is a
gap of 56 mm which must be adjusted. The example shows that, in this case, the designed cable
forces may be achieved by the adjustment, but the girder elevation remains with errors.
Therefore, in most of the cases the error of cable forces and girder elevation must be balanced in
order for both of them to be within an allowable range.
136
4.7.2.1
If the error in the girder elevation is large, it is necessary to retension the cables, which will
change both the internal forces of the structure and the girder level. As in the example given
before, it is assumed that Cable 4 is erected with wrong initial stressing. Due to wrong
tensioning of the cable, the girder elevation must be adjusted. As it is the same case for the
tension forces, if a large error occurs during the construction, the adjustment of the girder
elevation must proceed immediately before continuing the erection. An overall adjustment may
be performed before connecting both cantilevers to close the bridge. However, to exemplify the
general influence and to show how to calculate the additional tension forces, the girder elevation
shall be also corrected in the last stage as it was assumed in the chapter before.
Figure 4-35 showed the difference in the girder level after Cable 4 has been installed. The final
displacement in the last stage of the forward analysis is given in the vector fi_0. The
displacement, as it has been obtained from the original system without changing the initial
tension in Cable 4, is given in fi_A. In these vectors the vertical displacements at Node 4, 12, 16,
20 and 22 and the horizontal displacement at the top of the pylon at Node 106 are represented
by the 1st to 6th value respectively. The location of the nodes is given in Figure 4-1. It is
assumed that the vertical displacement fi_A is considered in the camber construction of the
girder. Therefore, the additional displacement fi_A must be adjusted by retensioning
operations.
The values below are given in [mm].
2
43
89
fi_0 :=
129
148
1
32
53
fi_A :=
65
70
1
11
36
fi_A =
64
78
0
The influence matrix for the displacement can be found by using the Unknown Load Function
offered by MiDAS again. The displacement of the according nodes is restricted and the
influence matrix is calculated. As it has also been the case in the previous chapter, this influence
matrix is based on internal forces and must be factorized and rearranged for the purposed
operations. The calculation can be done in a spreadsheet to find the required matrix from.
137
The influence matrix for the external forces follows to (in [mm])
0.083147
0.070955
DGP := 0.041707
0.018946
0.001992
It should be noted that the given influence matrix is not exactly the matrix for the system to be
adjusted. Because the influence matrix is evaluated with the Unknown Load Function, the
system which is employed has a different deformation and therefore a different angle between
the girder and the cables. The change in the angle influences the calculated vertical girder
elevation. However, this difference is small enough to be neglected.
The upper and lower restriction values must be increased again, otherwise it is not possible to
find a solution. The following vectors state the lowest possible limits.
1 1
1 11
1 36
fi_up :=
4 64
1 78
1 0
1 1
1 11
1 36
fi_low :=
1 64
4.9 78
1 0
The utilisation of the optimisation method gives the required additional cable forces Sfi_star and
the new calculated displacement fi.
10.273
12.424
Sfi_star = 4.788
7.497
103.721
0
33
52
fi =
61
75
Applying the calculated values in separate stressing steps, the displacement values fi_Mi,
calculated by MiDAS are the same as determined before. However, there is still a discrepancy
between the target value fi_A and the final calculation of er. The highest divergence is in the
centre of the girder at node number 22 of -5 mm. But as mentioned earlier, with the specified
adjustment requirements for the girder nodes and the top of the pylon, it has not been possible to
fine-tune the girder elevation closer to the target values.
138
0
33
52
fi_Mi :=
61
75
1
32
53
fi_A =
65
70
1
1
1
er =
4
5
1
Because of the focus on the girder elevation in this calculation, the change in cable forces has
been neglected. Table 4-20 gives the cable forces after the girder elevation has been adjusted in
comparison to the tension forces with originally designed cable tuning.
Cable Nr.
1
2
3
4
5
%
2.2
-3.4
2.0
-14.6
11.9
Not only are the cables forces influenced by the restressing operations, the overall internal
forces are redistributed in fact, too. Figure 4-38 describes the final moment distribution after the
adjustments.
The moment distribution indicates a high moment at the anchorage point of Cable 5. In the
centre of the bridge, a high discrepancy between the actual vertical displacement and the target
displacement has been assumed, which must to be adjusted. Due to this large difference, the
restressing operation causes this high moment at the anchorage point of Cable 5.
139
Nevertheless, this and the previous example show that, if the correction procedure mainly
focuses on the cable forces, there will be a gap in the girder elevation and vice versa, so that
correcting the girder elevation results in a wrong cable force. It is the designers purpose to find
an appropriate balance between both. Cable forces and girder elevations must be within the
allowable range in the final state to ensure reliability and serviceability of the structure.
4.7.2.2
Adjustment by camber
In this chapter, it is assumed that an error in the girder elevation has occurred due to a wrong
installed segment. This may happen in case of a prefabrication inaccuracy of the individual
segment. It can also be the case that at site operation, for example during the welding, an
additional angle is induced to the newly installed segment. For the example it is assumed that
girder G4 is erected with an error producing an extra vertical displacement of -50 mm after the
installation.
In order to model this condition, the model must be slightly modified. At the start of the 4th
segment (at Node 12, see Figure 4-1) a further node is created very close to the existing one.
Then segment 4 is defined to start with Node 200 and both girder parts are connected by an
elastic link, as it can be seen in the figure below.
Figure 4-39: Elastic link in order to model an error in the girder elevation
For the elastic link, the type Gen is chosen, which allows to define six stiffness values, - three
directions and three rotations. High values for all degrees of freedom are defined to generate a
rigid connection. In the construction stage analysis, the elastic link and Node 200 is activated at
the same time of installing the previous segment (Segment 3). This is important because
otherwise the tangential activation of the segments and the recalculation of the following
cambers will result in errors. At the tip of the girder, the real vertical displacement is -110.57
mm after activating Segment 4. In the corresponding step of the original analysis without errors,
the value is -110.76 mm. The small discrepancy is neglected so that it proves the reliability of
the proposed method. In the next construction step, the elastic link can be replaced by another
elastic link with a changed rotational stiffness, allowing a further displacement in order to
140
achieve the error value as it has been measured on the construction site. The additional
displacement for this example is -50.19 mm, which includes the small discrepancy as mentioned.
The rotational stiffness value is found as given in the table below.
Stiffness
[tonf*m/rad] *104
50
41.653
42.815
Vertical Displacement
[mm]
-43.01
-51.63
-50.23
Target
[mm]
-50.19
Stiffness
[tonf*m/rad] *104
-8.347
+1.162
-/-
New Stiffness
[tonf*m/rad] *104
41.653
42.815
-/-
In the stage of activating the elastic link with the calculated rotational stiffness, the vertical real
displacement is -160.79 mm. In the next construction stage, the active elastic link must be
replaced again by a rigid connection. There is also the possibility to model the error
displacement with only one additional step. However, it is easier to control the different changes
by using different construction stages.
In this example, it has been assumed that the segment is installed with an error in the girder
elevation which goes downward. Due to the temporary installation of an elastic link and the
self-weight of the girder, the required error can be modelled. This procedure is not possible in
case of an upward error. In this case, an elastic link can be used but additionally an external
force, which produces the required deformation, must be applied. The load must be removed in
the next step and at the same time, a fixed connection between both girder parts must be
activated.
Since the internal forces do not change, the moment distribution and the cable forces of both
systems are identical. At the final state, the vertical deformation for the original system (as
already given in Figure 4-34) and the system including the erection error are given below.
Vertical displacement [mm] of the girder (Case II model)
Original system
Figure 4-40: Vertical displacement original system and system including error in girder elevation
141
Due to the error in connecting girder G4 with the already installed girder G3 and because of
the tangential erection of the following segments, the girder elevation changes in the subsequent
construction stages and results in the final condition as seen in the deformed plot. The error can
be compensated by changing the camber of the following segments, compared to the initial
design with no additional errors. By modelling the error as described before, the General
Camber function can be used to calculate the changes in the remaining segments. For the node
at the tip of the segments, Table 4-22 gives the initially designed camber data and the required
changes due to the error.
Orig. system
Error system
N1
0.00
0.00
N4
-1.00
-0.98
N7
6.03
6.04
N9
14.52
14.51
N 12
32.38
32.35
N 16
52.85
103.02
N 20
64.98
165.39
N 22
69.56
195.08
Node 16 defines the end of Girder 4, which has been assumed to be installed inaccurately and
therefore the camber of this segment is neglected or already included in the structure. Only the
two remaining segments, which are not installed at this time of construction, can be changed
and can adjust the error so the final structure has no deformation.
The fabrication camber data given in Table 4-20 is transformed into a graphical form including
the error for the system.
142
Figure 4-42: Structural system of harp type cable stayed bridge (dimensions in [m])
Table 4-23 gives the properties of the structural elements used for the model.
Element
Girder
Tower
Cables
Girder
Top
Middle
Bottom
Top
Middle
Bottom
Area
(cm2)
3200
2140
2360
2580
677
271
239
Moment of Inertia
(m4)
1.130
0.248
0.321
0.395
Unit Weight
(kN/m3)
24
Modulus of Elasticity
(Mpa)
200000
24
200000
-/-
78
165500
The cables shall be installed with an initial sag to span ration of 1/60, 1/80, 1/100 and 1/120
respectively. This can be achieved by applying a pretension force on the cable elements. The
required pre-stressing values are given in Table 4-24. The calculation for the top cable with a
sag to span ratio of 1/120 is given in the following. The value is controlled by a single cable
model.
143
A Ctop := 677cm
:= 78
kN
3
kN
wtop = 5.281
m
wtop := A Ctop
ltop = 137.1m
With the angle cos t.m.b. between cable and girder, the weight qtop is determined (load per metre
based on the projected length).
3 45.7
cos t.m.b. :=
61 + ( 3 45.7)
q top :=
wtop
q top = 5.78
cos t.m.b.
kN
m
ftop120 = 1.143m
The required initial pre-stressing value Ttop120 is calculated from the horizontal component
Htop120 of the cable force S(x).
R=1/120:
q top ltop
Htop120 :=
8 ftop120
Ttop120 :=
Htop120
cos t.m.b.
Htop120 = 11885.9kN
Ttop120 = 13009.3kN
144
Figure 4-43: Non-linear analysis of a single cable (cable 6 in the model Figure 4-42) [m] and [kN]
The maximal sag, which is calculated as follows, shows only a small divergence to the intended
value ftop120.
fMiDAS := 1.0467m
fmax :=
fMiDAS
cos t.m.b.
fmax = 1.146m
Furthermore the cable force at the lower end shall be compared. With the vertical distance of the
two anchorage points htop, the cable force is calculated as
h top := 61m
ltop
2 Htop120
S0 = 12866.45kN
145
The formulas used for the calculation assume a parable shape of the deformed cable and a
maximal sag at the mid span, whereas the computer calculates on the basis of a more exact
catenary model. The small discrepancies in the results obtained from the formulas and the
computation may be influenced by these differences.
After the calculation is controlled with satisfying results, the pretension values given in Table
4-24 are applied for the different cases of sag to span ratio.
R=1/60
6504.7
1735.9
765.4
Top Cable
Middle Cable
Bottom Cable
1/80
8672.9
2314.5
1020.6
1/100
10841.1
2893.1
1275.7
1/120
13009.3
3471.7
1530.9
Table 4-24: Initial pretension according to the sag to span ratio [kN]
For a non-linear analysis, the effect of the initial cable sag, which is a function of the initial
pretension of the cable, is shown in Figure 4-44. The differences between the deflection values
for R=1/60 and R=1/80 are higher than those for R=1/100 and R=1/120. On the other hand, the
differences between the initial cable forces are the same. For example, for the top cable, the
increase in the initial tension is constantly 2168 kN. This behaviour shows the non-linearity of
cables.
0,4
Tower
0,3
CL
Deflection [m]
0,2
0,1
0
-0,1
-0,2
-0,3
-0,4
-0,5
R=1/60
R=1/80
R=1/100
R=1/120
Figure 4-44: Deflected shape of the girder due to non-linear analysis and different initial tension
[m]
146
Figure 4-45 shows the results from a linear analysis (truss elements), a linear cable analysis
(Ernst truss) and those from a non-linear cable analysis (elastic catenary cable analysis). In the
case of a linear analysis, especially the displacement values obtained for high and low sag to
span ratio show a large discrepancy to the values determined by the elastic catenary cable
analysis.
0,4
Tower
0,3
CL
Deflection [m]
0,2
0,1
0
-0,1
-0,2
-0,3
-0,4
-0,5
R=1/60
R=1/80
R=1/100
R=1/120
In practice, an initial sag ratio R less than 1/100 is usually used [13]. For these ratios, the results
illustrated for the equivalent cable stiffness proposed by Ernst show close results to the catenary
cable elements. For this reason, the method has been adopted by many investigators.
Nevertheless, judging from the assumptions used in the theory, the method holds in limited
cases for cables with low sag to span ratio. Therefore, particularly in order to perform more
reliable and reasonable analyses for each stage of the construction, a more exact method should
be used instead of using the Ernst truss elements.
However, at the time of working out this document and performing a construction stage analysis
for the Second Jindo Bridge, MiDAS did not offer the option of using catenary cable elements,
which would imply the performance of non-linear analyses included in the construction stage
analysis. A non-linear analysis is not possible in combination with a construction stage analysis.
The MiDAS support stated that they are trying to solve the related problems and they may be
able to present a version providing these functions in a couple of month (see appendix).
For that reason, for a final structural analysis, the decision is whether to choose a linear analysis
with truss elements or cable elements in a linear analysis which considers an equivalent stiffness.
From the results given above, it seems to be reasonable to use the Ernst truss formulation.
However, it must be mentioned that, in order to obtain the above given reasonable results, all
loads have to be stored in one load case. In the construction stage analysis various loads are
147
removed and activated during the different construction stages. It must be proved wheter the
loads, which are activated and deactivated in one construction step, are treated separately or if
they are automatically stored in one load case. The last condition is a requirement in order to use
the Ernst truss elements in a construction stage analysis; otherwise, the results will not be
reliable.
In order to prove the approach used by MiDAS to consider loads in a construction stage analysis,
the cable system of the harp type is investigated in more detail. A simplified construction stage
analysis is modelled, consisting of 11 steps. The cable stays are modelled by TensTruss Cable
elements (Ernst truss). In the first stage, the pylon, the elements of the left side of the bridge and
the first segment of the main span are activated. In the following stages, the remaining segments
and cables are added separately step by step. For each construction stage, the self-weight of the
structural member plus a construction load of 40 kN/m is applied. The following three different
calculations are performed:
1. The self-weight and the construction load are stored in one load case
2. The self-weight is stored in one load case. The construction load is splitted in two extra load
cases, all loads are activated the same day
3. The different loads are modelled as given in 2. Additional time steps are generated in the
construction stages and for each stage, the loads are activated on different days for the same
structural system.
The examined results show the same values for the first two cases. It signifies that the load
activation for each construction stage is treated as one load case. Consequently, the equivalent
stiffness is calculated on the basis of the load changes in the system, which means that Ernst
truss elements can also be used in a construction stage analysis. However, the results produced
by the analysis of the third case are highly different. Therefore, in order to use the Ernst
formulation, the loads must be activated on the same day. Load activations on different days are
treated as different load cases and the results are superposed, which causes wrong results.
During the step by step construction process, the stresses in the already erected cable stay
change due to the different loading conditions. Thus, it must be finally proved if the effective
stiffness of the cables is adapted to the various tension forces throughout the analysis. To
investigate this condition, the generated construction stage model of the harp type is used for
further calculations.
148
Cable 4 is erected with a pretension load of 800 kN before Cable 3 is activated in the next
stage with an pretension force of 1500 kN (bottom cables). The tension forces in these tow
cables are compared using truss and cable elements (Ernst truss) for the stay cables.
In the linear truss model, the maximal tension load in Cable 4 is 818.95 kN after installing the
cable. Due to its self-weight, the load is higher than the initially applied 800 kN. However, the
load increases to 1488.49 kN after the erection of Cable 3.
Erection of cable 4
Erection of cable 3
In the Ernst truss model the same initial pretension loads are used, but the tension value in
Cable 4 is only 1390.16 kN after the activation of Cable 3. Because of a low initial pretension,
this great difference is caused by the reduction of the cable stiffness due to the sag effect.
Erection of cable 4
Erection of cable 3
With the tension force obtained from the Ernst truss model, the effective stiffness Keff can be
recalculated. In order to achieve the same stiffness in the elastic truss model as in the Ernst
model, the modulus of elasticity can be changed in the input data.
In the first analysis (Truss E1), the new modulus of elasticity Enew, which is applied in the truss
model, is recalculated form the initial cable force of 818.95 kN.
149
With the tension force Sb (b stands for bottom cable) and the cable area ACb, the modulus of
elasticity Eb, the weight per metre cable length wb and the projected length of the cable lb,
Sb := 818.95kN
kN
wb = 1.86
m
A Cb = 239cm
Eb := 165500
lb := 45.70 m
mm
lb
1
Etanb :=
+
Eb
3
121
1
4 N
Etanb = 3.0902 10
mm
The value Enew is entered in the truss model. Because of the changed elasticity, the cable force is
reduced from 1488.49 kN to 1184.36 kN. Compared with the tension forces in the Ernst model,
the cable force is too low, which means that the stiffness is too low.
For the second analysis (Truss E2), a new equivalent E-modulus is calculated with the tension
force of Cable 4 after the erection of Cable 3. The new calculated modulus of elasticity is given
in the result table below. Because of the higher tension force, the value Enew increases as well.
Table 4-25 gives tension forces obtained from the different calculations and the applied
modulus of elasticity.
Ernst model
Erection
Cable 3 Cable 4
stage
[kN]
[kN]
Cable 3
[kN]
Cable 4
[kN]
Modulus of
Elasticity
[N/mm]
Cable 3
[kN]
Cable 4
[kN]
Modulus of
Elasticity
[N/mm]
Cable 4
Cable 3
-/1518.95
818.95
1184.36
3.0902*104
-/1518.95
818.95
1391.13
8.7543*104
-/1518.95
818.95
1390.16
Truss E1
Truss E2
For the truss and the Ernst model, the result of the second analysis shows very similar tension
forces for both construction steps. Since the effective stiffness and the tension load in the cable
affect each other, the erection of Cable 3 will influence both of it in the already erected Cable 4.
Application of the same effective stiffness for Cable 4 in the linear truss model, as calculated
from the tension force in the Ernst model after the installation of the second cable, results in the
same tension. Therefore, it can be concluded that the effective stiffness of the Ernst truss
elements is recalculated for each new construction stage considering the load changes in the stay
cable. As a result, it seems to be possible to use the Ernst truss formulation as implemented in
MiDAS in construction stage analysis.
150
The following chapter describes the modelling and the construction stage analysis of the Second
Jindo Bridge. After the description of the considerations made in order to generate an
appropriate model for the analysis, the boundary conditions and the assumed loading during the
construction and for the final state are given in detail. The unknown load function, as described
above, is applied for attaining the ideal cable forces. Using various structural restrictions,
different solutions of possible cable forces are determined. A backward and a forward analysis
is performed and the results are compared. The influence and problems of the double activation
of elements and the boundary activation is discussed. Furthermore, for the final analysis, the
effect of the non-linearity of the stay cables is considered. The obtained results are compared
with other independent construction stage analyses. The camber data is provided to achieve a
construction with no deformation under permanent loads after the completion of the erection.
Additionally, in order to ensure a safe erection process, the occurring maximum and minimum
stresses are controlled. The calculation of the unstressed cable length is exemplified. Finally, a
closing conclusion on modelling the erection process of the Second Jindo Bridge is drawn.
151
At the beginning of the project, site surveys were carried out to determine possible route
alignments for the bridge. Eight alternative crossing locations had been investigated. The
associated risks and the work-scope for each option were discussed. After considering the
bridge length, the distance from the existing bridge, the aerodynamic complicity and several
additional location factors, it was concluded that the most economical solution is to duplicate
the existing bridge.
The new bridge is being constructed as closely as possible to the existing one to enable the same
short span. In the area of the existing north tower foundation, a major rock fault dips steeply
toward the east. If the new structure were to be constructed to the east of the existing bridge, a
very deep and expensive excavation would have been required for the construction of the
foundation of the north tower. Out of this cognition, it was decided to locate the new bridge to
the west side of the existing structure.
The dimensions of the main tower legs determine the minimum distance of the existing and the
new structure. The new tower leg has a similar width as the existing one and is positioned
adjacently. The centre line separating the existing from the new superstructure is around 20
metres, which can be seen on the provided plans.
152
5.2 Structure
The Second Jindo Bridge is a cable-stay structure with the total length of 484 m. The main span
is 344 m long and both side spans consists of 70 m. As already mentioned, the new bridge has a
similar main span as the existing one. For aesthetic reasons, the same side span arrangement is
retained. To realise a cable stay spacing of 17 meters, as already used for the first bridge, the
main girder is of a steel box girder structure, which is based on the deck structure of the same
external dimensions as the existing structure. The bridge will accommodate two lanes of traffic
on the 12.55 m wide deck. The superstructure is made out of hollow steel sections, whereas the
tower substructure is made of reinforced concrete.
The side to main span ratio ls/lm has a low value of 70.00/344.00 = 0.20. Therefore, the box
girder in the side span is filled with concrete to act as a counterweight. Detailed plans on the
girder sections and the cable diameter employed in the bridge are given in the appendix. The
arrangements and dimensions of the cross sections of the main tower can be found in the plans
in the appendix as well.
The main dimensions of the bridge are shown in the plan provided in the appendix. A summary
of the geometric data can be seen in the table below.
Geometric Data Second Jindo Bridge
Length main span
344.00 m
Length side span
70.00 m
Height pylon above girder
65.40 m
Total height pylon
88.90 m
Number of cables main span
9
Number of cables side span
6
Cable spacing main span
17.00 m
Segment length
17.00 m
Length key-seg
12.00 m
Table 5-1: Main Geometric Data Second Jindo Bridge
153
number of options have been considered. These options are briefly described and the merits
of the finally chosen one are explained.
154
positioned on the end of the previously erected deck will then lift up the segment to connect
it to its final position.
Option3: Another option is to divide the box segments along their longitudinal centre line into
two parts. The half boxes are delivered to the side by a barge, lifted up to the deck level, moved
through the gap between the first cable stay and the tower, and placed on a trailer. Each half
box will then be brought out on this trailer to the end of the cantilever from where it will be
lifted into its final position using a derrick crane.
In option 1, it is most difficult to maintain the delivery barge in its position with sufficient
accuracy over the period of time required to lift the deck segment clear. As an advantage, it can
be mentioned that the number of lift and transfer operations is reduced to a minimum. The only
lifting operation is that from the delivery barge to the final segment position. Consequently,
taking these aspects into account, this is the most favourable option.
In option 2, the complexity of segment movements and lifting operations is of considerable
increase and is thus not suitable for the construction process in comparison with the other
options.
In option 3, the problem is that the half box segments must be produced to a high level of
accuracy to ensure a trouble-free fit on the site. The production of half box segments with
consistently accurate cross sectional geometry is more difficult and expensive than that of
complete boxes. Furthermore, the additional site splicing work would demand more time for
each erection cycle in the main span and might be unacceptable for the overall programme.
155
5.4.1 Nodes
The drawings of the bridge outline the final geometry of the bridge. In geometric modelling, the
nodal location, or rather the way of applying the section properties to the generated elements
must be considered. If no other eccentric connection is defined, the nodes lay in the centreline of
the sections. In this model, the nodal coordinates of the girder define the upper part of the deck.
In MiDAS, an eccentric connection is considered using the Offset function for the cross section
properties.
In the girder, a linear gradient of 5% can be found in the side span up to Segment 7, which is the
first segment in the main span. With the girder elevation given as 20.00 metres at the abutment
and 23.50 metres at the pylon, the girder elevation is defined by the function
y1 ( x) = 0.05 x + 20 .
(5-1)
The girder shape in the main span can be expressed as a following type:
g g1 2
y ( x) = 2
x + g 1 * x + G.EL ,
2L
(5-2)
where g2 and g1 describe the girder gradient at the start and end point of the function and G.EL
the girder elevation at the point x = 0, located at the start point of the function. With Equation 51, the last value becomes to y1 (86.30) = 0.05 * 86.30 + 20 = 24.315 . The remaining girder
length L between the first segments in the main span is 311.4 meter. In order to achieve a girder
elevation of 28.35 metres in the centre of the bridge, as this value is given in the plans, the
girder gradient is increased to 5.183%. With the calculated values, Equation 5-2 can be given as:
0.05183 (0.05183) 2
y 2 (x) =
x + 0.05183 * x + 24.315
2 * 311.4
(5-3)
For the final modelling, the x-coordinates are located in the centre of the main span. Figure 5-2
illustrates the determined girder shape. The detailed node coordinates are given in the appendix.
156
30
28
26
24
22
20
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
side span
50
main span
100
150
200
Figure 5-2: Girder elevation in the side and main span [m]
The pylon nodes are generated in the centreline of the pylon. Figure 5-3 illustrates the location
of the cable-pylon connection as constructed on the site and the distance to the centreline as
modelled for the analysis. Because of the dependence of the forces in the cables on the angle
between the pylon and the cable, attention should be paid for modelling these details accurately.
There are two possible ways of taking this situation into consideration: One is to use an
eccentric connection between elements representing the cables and the pylon nodes, or to define
extra nodes located in the working point (W.P.C) and to use ridged links to fix them with the
pylon. The other option is to extend the cable elements and model the working point B (W.P.B.)
to properly generate the angle of the cables. This second option is used for modelling the bridge
in MiDAS. The calculation sheet for the working point B, as well as a list of the coordinates of
nodal location, is presented in the appendix.
The same situation is found in the girdercable connections, but in this case, additional nodes
are generated. For Cable 1 to 4, the extra nodes are located 1.71 metres in dz and -1.84 metres
in dx direction; for Cable 5 to 15, the nodes are generated -0.54 metres in dz direction relative to
the girder nodes. Figure 5-5 shows the nodes and ridged links used to connect the nodes with
the girder nodes.
By this method, the angle between the pylon-cable and the girder-cable can be modelled
properly, so that the determined cable forces will consider the real existing angle.
250
157
Figure 5-5: Cable-girder connection and tied down condition using elastic links
5.4.2 Elements
Beam elements are used to model the girder and the pylon. Generally, the element has 6 degrees
of freedom per node, reflecting axial, shear, bending and torsional stiffness. Since a twodimensional analysis is performed, in the Structural Type option the model is defined to be in
the x-z plane, so that the degrees of freedom in dy-direction are ignored. The beam element is
formulated on the basis of the Timoshenko Beam Theory reflecting shear deformations.
Concentrated loads, distributed loads, temperature gradient loads and prestress loads can be
applied to beam elements.
The cables are modelled with a truss element, which means that sagging effects are neglected.
Firstly, it is assumed that these are negligible, but they are included in the final construction
stage analysis.
The set back is a common procedure in the construction of cable-stayed bridges. This is usually
done before the closure and the addition of the key segment. This is a highly non-linear process,
and using truss elements in a finite element analysis may cause significant errors. The set back
158
is not modelled in this analysis but it should be mentioned to consider this problem in case
of any other analyses in which it is included.
In a final analysis, the sagging effects of the cables are considered and the truss elements are
changed to Tension-Truss Cable elements, which consider the effective stiffness in a linear
analysis by applying the Ernst-formula.
Figure 5-6 shows the element location and its numbering. An element table is also given in the
appendix.
Name
Typ
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Steel_g=10.60;0
Concrete
Cable
Steel_g=14.52;0
Steel_g=10.99
Steel_g=9.42
Cb(1-6)*1.0437
Cb(7-9)*1.0472
Cb(10-13)*1.0537
Cb(14-15)*1.0453
User Defined
User Defined
User Defined
User Defined
User Defined
User Defined
User Defined
User Defined
User Defined
User Defined
159
Elsaticity
[tonf/m^2]
2.10e+007
2.50e+006
2.00e+007
2.10e+007
2.10e+007
2.10e+007
2.00e+007
2.00e+007
2.00e+007
2.00e+007
Poisson
0.296
0.167
0.235
0.296
0.296
0.296
0.235
0.235
0.235
0.235
Density
[tonf/m^3]
0.0000
2.5000
7.8500
0.0000
10.9900
9.4200
8.1930
8.2205
8.2715
8.2056
160
For all cross sections, the values are entered as listed in the table below. The values for the cross
sections have been provided by the bridge engineering company COWI KOREA and can be
found in the appendix. It should be noted that the local axes of the given sheets and the MiDAS
input data are inverted.
ID
Name
1
Section1
2
Section2
3
Section3
4
Section4
5
SectionV
6
Pylon1
7
Pylon2
8
Pylon3
9
Section5
10
Section5-7
11
Section7
12
Section9
13
Section11
14
Section12
15 Cable(2*151)
16 Cable(2*139)
17 Cable(2*109)
18 Cabel(2*73)
Area
[m^2]
Asy
[m^2]
Asz
[m^2]
Ixx
[m^4]
Iyy
[m^4]
Izz
[m^4]
Cyp
[m]
Cym
[m]
Czp
[m]
Czm
[m]
0.4624
0.4859
0.7593
0.9360
0.7109
59.1200
33.6200
98.1437
0.7872
0.6812
0.5751
0.6675
1.0159
0.6070
0.0116
0.0107
0.0084
0.0056
0.2627
0.3285
0.4869
0.5031
0.4158
100
100
100
0.2105
0.181
0.1515
0.1786
0.3403
0.1795
0.0105
0.0096
0.0076
0.0051
0.0225
0.0217
0.047
0.0662
0.044
100
100
100
0.2887
0.2465
0.2044
0.2549
0.3621
0.3351
0.0105
0.0096
0.0076
0.0051
1.314
1.284
2.390
3.589
2.437
923
289
100
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0
0
0
0
0.565
0.5696
0.9738
1.421
0.9952
116
102
100
0.7642
0.6629
0.5616
0.645
1.080
0.5074
0
0
0
0
6.283
6.777
10.376
16.888
11.328
697
492
100
0.510
0.441
0.372
0.442
3.583
0.680
0
0
0
0
6.095
6.093
6.090
6.090
6.090
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6.095
6.093
6.090
6.090
6.090
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.005
1.003
1.407
1.622
1.622
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.745
1.747
1.354
1.164
1.164
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
161
dx
dz
ry
Group
8
10
12
13
17
36
101
1001
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
Bent8
Bent10
Bent12
Bent13
Bent17
Middle
Pylon
Left Sup
5.4.6 Loading
For the construction stage analysis, the dead load and the construction load are considered.
Additional dead loads representing the pavement, the installations on the bridge, etc. are applied
after the completion of the bridge. To calculate the maximum tension forces in the cables and
the maximum bending moments in the girder, the traffic load is applied on the structure to
simulate the open condition of the bridge. The different loads are explained below.
The sensitivity of cable-stayed bridges to wind loads is often greater during their critical
construction phases, which are before the closure of the bridge, than at other times during the
service of the structure. High bending moments may occur from buffeting forces of the wind
and an increased probability of vortex-shedding induced oscillation due to the lower weight of
162
the deck and less structural damping. In cases of long span cable-stayed bridges, wind
tunnel tests are often performed to study the behaviour of the aeroelastic model during the
erection. However, this is a completely different field of analysis and should only be briefly
mentioned. The possibility of static wind loads is neglected in the performed analysis of the
Second Jindo Bridge.
5.4.6.1
Permanent Load
Table 5-5 below shows the given values of the dead load for the segments. Unfortunately, there
were uncertainties because the calculated distributed loads (Line 5) do not match the given
values of total segment loads (Line 3) and segment length (Line4) when divided by one another.
For the MiDAS model, the values are recalculated as shown in Table 5-6. Line 7 is the dead
load for the concrete weight, filled in the segments in the side span. The filling is done in two
steps. Half of the concrete is filled after the erection of the side span. The rest is placed in the
boxes in the final state after removing the derrick crane. Line 8 gives the load for the additional
dead load applied after the last construction step.
163
Seg 1
Seg 2
Seg 3
Seg 4
Seg 5
Seg 6
Seg 7
Seg 8
Seg 9
Seg 10
Seg 11
Seg 12
Seg 13
Seg 14
Seg 15
Key Seg
19.345
4.019
4.539
4.641
11.879
4.99
4.825
4.755
4.761
4.768
4.777
4.786
4.796
4.814
4.826
4.604
164
5.4.6.2
Construction Load
A heavy lifting device is required for installing new segments. The self-weight of the crane will
have severe influence on the maximum bending moments in the previously erected segments. In
order to perform a reliable construction stage analysis, it is important to have exact information
on the self-weight of the crane and also to assume reasonable values for the additional
construction load. In some bridge constructions, the influence of these loadings was
underestimated. A self-weight of 50% less than the actual weight of the crane resulted in serious
errors in the calculations.
For this calculation, a total derrick weight of 85tonf is assumed according to the data provided
by COWI KOREA.
Furthermore, a distributed construction load of 1.00 tonf/m is applied on the segments. In the
given construction process, it is assumed that this load is being removed after closing the bridge.
The derrick crane is removed in the same step. Compared to the self-weight of the segments, the
1.00 tonf/m value seems to be very high. It may be reasonable to consider removing this load in
parts as the construction of the new segments continues.
In a later discussion, the hired construction company stated that they actually presumed this
change in their construction analysis. After installing a new segment the construction load of
1.00 tonf/m on the segment before the last one is removed.
During the time of cable installation, a working platform is moved to the tip of the last segment.
After positioning the cable, the working platform is moved back until it is needed for the next
cable setting. A weight of 10 tonf is estimated for the working platform.
An additional positive effect of this platform is that, during the stressing operation of the new
installed cable, the upward movement and the high bending moments can be reduced by the
weight of the platform at the tip of the cantilever.
5.4.6.3
165
Live Load
Figure 5-8 shows an abstract from the Korean Standard for traffic loads on bridges.
Since the Second Jindo Bridge has two lanes, a distributed loading of 2,54tonf/m is assigned.
After the last construction step, the load is applied in order to calculate the approximate
maximum cable forces and the bending moments. Additionally, two lorries (Pm for max.
moment) of a weight of 10.8 tonf are considered. Service pipes will be installed under the main
girder. A load of 0.283 tonf/m is assumed for the pipes. A detailed analysis is usually performed
in the design process and therefore, for the construction stage analysis, no exact study is carried
out. To consider the traffic load in the minimal and maximal stresses in the structure, a moving
load analysis is performed.
166
Node/Element
2, 4,5, 6, 9 and 11
18, 20, 22, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32 and 34
153
101
12
504
Upper Bound
0.01
0.005
0.005
300
800
750
Lower Bound
-0.01
-0.005
-0.005
-300
0
0
The moment in Element 12 is restricted so as to balance the moments in the girder on the left
and right hand side of Cable 6. To reduce the moment in the pylon, Element 101 (at the bottom
of the pylon) is limited to 300 tonfm. Figure 5-9 shows the resulting moment distribution in the
bridge. The maximum moment at the top of the pylon is -179 tonfm and at the bottom 300
tonfm. The maximum moment at the anchorage of the backstays is -2008 tonfm. At the pylon,
the moment in the girder is -1425tonfm.
Table 5-8 shows the cable forces. Even if the moment distribution above has a minimal range, it
is remarkable that the forces in cable 1 to 4, which have the same diameter and their distance is
only 1.60m, lay in a range of 260 tonf and 750 tonf. However, this solution may not be practical
if the cable forces exceed the allowable values when live load is applied on the structure. If this
should be the case, theoretically, the cable diameters must be changed to tension the cable to the
calculated forces. Nevertheless, this is not an optimal solution due to the unbalanced cable
forces in the backstay and the induced high bending moment at their fixed point. Furthermore,
167
in the case of the Second Jindo Bridge, the cables are already fabricated and diameters can
no longer be changed. Because of these reasons, the allowable tension forces are considered in
the determination of the ideal state.
Cable
Element Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
350.43
580.56
802.64
852.06
493.04
607.54
130.34
156.17
176.60
213.47
248.57
290.31
322.65
360.43
489.12
Cable
1-6
7-9
10-13
14-15
Section Area
fpu
ID
[cm^2] [kgf/cm^2]
Cable
(2*151)
Cable
(2*73)
Cable
(2*109)
Cable
2*139)
Allow. Tension
Construction (0.56*)
double
per Cable
Cable
Allow. Tension
Structure in service (0.45*)
double
per Cable
Cable
Restricted
Value
per
double
Cable
Cable
116.2
18000
585.75
1171.50
470.69
941.38
300
600
56.2
18000
283.15
566.29
227.53
455.06
145
290
83.9
18000
422.86
845.71
339.80
679.59
215
430
107.0
18000
539.18
1078.36
433.27
866.54
275
550
During the construction phase, cable stays are subject to erection loads, which can be greater
than those expected in the service lifetime of the structure. Since the duration of these
168
construction-phase situations is short, the acceptable stress ratio can be increased in cables
stays for this period. The tension of a cable stay should prove:
FSLS < 0.56 Fck during construction and
FSLS < 0.45 Fck for the serviceability limit state.
These values FSLS, as well as the allowable tensile stress fpu, were given according to the Korean
Standard and the cables applied in the structure.
Since the bridge is not analysed in full detail in this report and the analysis is focused on the
construction stage analysis, there has been no live load applied until now. Nevertheless, these
loads must be considered and therefore the cable forces are limited to the Restricted Values as
it can be seen in Table 5-9. Later, the cable forces and the limited values must be checked
against each other.
In addition to the restrictions of the cable forces, the following conditions were defined for the
analysis of the ideal state. In order to find an equilibrium state, the limit range of the
deformation must be set higher in comparison to the previous calculation. Using the same
restrictions for the deformation as applied before, it is not possible to fulfil the specified
conditions. Using the newly calculated cable forces, Figure 5-10 and Figure 5-11 respectively
show the moment distribution and the deformed shape.
Node/Element
2, 4,5, 6, 9 and 11
18, 20, 22, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32 and 34
136 and 153
Upper Bound
0.03
0.008
0.008
Lower Bound
-0.03
-0.008
-0.008
169
The maximum moment at the top of the pylon is now -388 tonfm and 590 tonfm at the bottom.
The maximum moment in the girder is -1481 tonfm at the anchorage of the backstays and -1436
tonfm at the pylon. The horizontal movement at the top of the pylon is -8mm, which is still
within an acceptable range.
Table 5-11 presents the newly calculated cable forces as compared to the results calculated in
Chapter 5.5.1.
Cable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Element
Number
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
Restricted Cable
Force External [tonf]
452.74
512.69
568.20
600.00
493.04
511.79
129.03
157.19
184.33
220.76
257.03
283.47
328.60
397.95
460.74
Restricted Cable
Force Internal [tonf]
547.61
610.16
669.07
702.48
589.13
577.88
131.12
152.85
178.12
211.86
249.52
277.30
323.89
392.87
454.90
In the optimised moment analysis (third column), the sum of cable 1 to 4 is 2200.20tonf. A
change of 3.12% resulting in 2133.63tonf can be found in the second analysis. The difference in
the forces is taken by a higher moment in the pylon.
170
Due to the moment in the top of the pylon a simple stress check can be made as follows:
M Py := 388.13tonf
m
4
NPy := 3629tonf
2
Iy := 1.0803m
A Py := 1.0159m
z := 1.430 m
KSCE - ASD96
fy := 2400
kgf
2
cm
fd := 2000
kgf
2
cm
Py :=
NPy
A Py
M Py
Iy
Py = 408.60
kgf
2
< fd
cm
EC 2:
fyk := 2400
kgf
m := 1.1
cm
f := 1.35
fyd :=
fyk
fyd = 2181.82
A Py
M d = 523.98tonf m
Nd := f NPy
Nd
kgf
cm
M d := f M Py
d :=
self-weight
Nd = 4899.15tonf
Md
Iy
d = 551.60
kgf
2
< fyd
cm
The allowable stress is below the actual stress at the top of the pylon.
In summary, it can be stated that, for a complex structure, the unknown load function is a very
useful tool. However, on the other hand, it is also a highly sensitive approach to calculate the
initial cable forces. In order to build a stable system, there are many possible solutions. The
results previously explained exemplify only two reasonable ones after all. The results greatly
depend on the restrictions imposed. For example, without the restriction for Node 136, the upper
part of the pylon shows a double curved deformation, which may not be a satisfying outcome.
When the internal cable forces are applied, the structural performance must be analysed
carefully and changes for the restricted conditions will be often necessary. The calculated values
act as a guideline, but must be still analysed and interpreted. As the applied method is a
171
constrained optimisation, a limited range of the defined restrictions increase the internal
stresses, which must be considered when choosing an upper and lower value for the restriction.
J-nodes at element
Side Span My
[tonfm]
Main Span My
[tonfm]
Top of Pylon
dx [m]
Case B
8
10
17
19
21, 23, 25, 27
29
31
33
Upper
Bound
-640
-730
-150
-170
-170
-170
-190
-225
Lower
Bound
-/-/-160
-180
-180
-180
-200
-235
Upper
Bound
-640
-730
-175
-190
-195
-215
-215
-225
Lower
Bound
-/-/-185
-200
-205
-225
-225
-235
0.008
-0.008
0.008
-0.008
Table 5-12: Unknown Load Factor restrictions including limited moments in the main girder
The value for the moments restrictions are obtained using the result from the previous
calculation. The moment distribution obtained from the previous calculation, which is given in
Figure 5-10, shows much higher moment values at the anchorage point of the cable than found
in the girder between two cables. Therefore, in order to increase the field moments and to
reduce the moment at the anchorage point, in Case I, a value of -150 to -225 tonfm is chosen. In
Case II, the negative moments at the anchorage points are increased from -175 to -225 tonfm to
consider some effects of the cables. Furthermore, the moments in the side span are restricted.
The final moment distribution is given in the figures below.
172
a) Case A
b) Case B
Figure 5-12: Moment distribution restricted cable forces & bending moments in the girder [tonfm]
In the Case A model, the maximum moment at the top of the pylon is now -404 tonfm and 572
tonfm at the bottom. The maximum moment in the girder is -1445 tonfm at the anchorage of the
backstays and -1464 tonfm at the pylon. In the Case B model, the maximum moment at the top
of the pylon is now -401 tonfm and at the bottom 588 tonfm. The maximum moment in the
girder is -1458 tonfm at the anchorage of the backstays and -1276 tonfm at the pylon. The
differences of both cases are small, but Case B has higher moments at the anchorage points in
the main girder.
The horizontal movement at the top of the pylon is in both cases -8mm (tower leans into the
side span). Table 5-13 shows the calculated internal and external ideal cable forces in case of
including the moment restriction for both analyses. The results show some differences when
compared to the results obtained from the previous analysis (also given in the table); but in
general, the values are not far apart.
Cable
Element
number
Restricted cable
force external [tonf]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
452.74
512.69
568.20
600.00
493.04
511.79
129.03
157.19
184.33
220.76
257.03
283.47
328.60
397.95
460.74
173
Restricted cable force
& bending moments
external forces [tonf]
Case A
Case B
469.11
465.35
513.50
512.46
552.75
554.34
595.70
599.92
481.74
480.90
532.31
540.50
126.60
135.87
157.90
157.19
184.24
184.65
220.30
220.31
254.37
254.38
291.39
288.97
329.00
334.44
377.01
377.82
476.51
472.40
Table 5-13: Summary table of ideal cable forces including moment restriction
As already described in Chapter 4.2.2, in case of restricting the bending moments without any
limitation on the vertical displacement, the deformation of the structure will increase. In this
calculation, the vertical displacement extends to -40 mm in Case A and to -12 mm in Case B in
the centre of the bridge. However, at this stage of the analysis, the deformed structure has no
important meaning. Since the structural deformation changes due to some smaller variations in
the cable forces and the following proceedings (back- and forward analyses), the camber
calculation should not base on the data of the ideal state calculation.
174
175
Stage 0
Stage 2 L-seg7
Stage 3 Seg7
Stage 4 Cable6
Stage 5 Cable7
Stage 6 L-seg8
Stage 7- seg8
176
Stage 8 Cable5
Stage 9- Cable8
Stage 10 L-seg9
Stage 12 Cable9
Stage 14 L-seg10
177
Stage 17 L-seg11
Stage 29 Cable2
Stage 21 L-seg12
Stage 23 Cable 1
178
Stage 25 L-seg14
Stage 27 Cable14
Stage 29 seg15
Stage 31 Cable15
179
Stage 33 key-seg
180
A) Original data
B) Order as seen above
C) Possible change
6&7
6
6
-/7
7
5
5
5
8
8
8
9
9
9
1
1
2
13
13
13
14
14
14
4
4
1
Retension of Cable 15: In the performed construction stage analysis, in the backward analysis,
Cable 15 is detensioned before removing the symmetrical boundary condition in the centre of
the bridge in order to ensure a zero moment condition. This procedure is solely used for
modelling this condition. As it can be seen by the example of the Case A calculation in Figure
5-15, the moment has a small value of -25tonfm before opening the bridge.
15
15
15
181
Figure 5-14: Bending moment before opening the bridge [tonfm] (Case A)
It is possible to move the derrick crane a little closer to the middle of the bridge to achieve the
same situation of a zero moment in the key segment. This can be realised in the model by
refining the mesh and the creation of nodes at the intended positions. Another method is to
apply the derrick loads, as concentrated forces, directly on the beam elements instead of using
nodal loads.
In this way, it is theoretically possible to construct the cable-stayed bridge without the need to
retension any cables. However, on the site, as there are discrepancies between the target and real
geometry, it may be unavoidable to use retension to adjust some construction errors.
In the forward analysis, Cable 15 is retensioned after the closure of the key segment.
Closing the key segment: Shortly before finishing the construction, the closing of the cablestayed bridge is a difficult phase as it will influence its overall structural behaviour. The
following list shall explain the procedure in more detail:
1. Release the temporary longitudinal fixation of the main girder at the pylon
2. Survey the actual formation of the bridge
3. Determine the amount of set-back
4. Perform the set back
5. Lift the key segment with the crane on the Mokpo side and welding it with the Jido side
(construction stage 32-33). For this period, the crane on the Jido side is moved back
6. Move the derrick crane on the Jindo side closer to the middle of the bridge to balance its
the level.
7. Adjust displacements and connect the two sides
8. Cast the concrete in the side span, remove the derrick crane and the erection equipment,
add the additional load
Connecting the key segment in this order, it is assumed that it will be fabricated in one segment
with a length of 12metres. Following this sequence, it is very complicated to connect the key
182
segment with the Jindo side as it is lifted from the Mokpo side. In order to balance the level
after the connection, it is not possible to use the crane on the Jindo side for this lifting operation.
To avoid problems related to this construction process, there is a possibility to fabricate the key
segment in two 6 metre parts. Thus, each segment can be lifted and connected with the derrick
on the same side, which is far easier to control. For the final closure, the two segments must be
closed in the centreline of the bridge.
El Nr.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15 (retension)
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
515
MiDAS calculates two values for the cable forces in the truss elements, one at the top and one at
the bottom of the cable. The weight of the cable reduces the pre-stressing from the top of the
pylon to the anchorage point at the girder. Table 5-15 shows the lower stressing values. The
183
cable forces are applied as external loads, using the Replace function as described
previously. The results of the back- and forward analyses are discussed in the following
chapters.
5.6.3.1
After completing the construction and adding the additional self-weight in the final stage, the
difference in the maximal cable forces between the performed back- and forward analyses is
shown in Table 5-16.
Cable Nr.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
S final [tonf]
S final [%]
Case A Case B Case A Case B
3.13
3.15
-0.67
-0.68
1.83
1.85
-0.36
-0.36
-0.25
-0.23
0.04
0.04
4.00
4.01
-0.68
-0.67
-1.57
-1.56
0.33
0.32
-0.47
-0.43
0.09
0.08
-0.04
0.00
0.03
0.00
-0.25
-0.24
0.16
0.15
-0.43
-0.42
0.23
0.23
-0.28
-0.27
0.13
0.12
-0.50
-0.49
0.19
0.19
-0.68
-0.67
0.23
0.23
-0.62
-0.61
0.19
0.18
0.66
0.68
-0.18
-0.18
4.29
4.29
-0.91
-0.92
Table 5-16: Difference in cable tensions between forward - and backward analysis
As evident in the table, the differences between the back- and forward analyses are less than 1%
in the final state, - which is a quite satisfactory result. Nevertheless, when investigating the
moment distribution in detail, larger discrepancies can be evaluated.
For Case A, Figure 5-15 shows the final moment distribution obtained from the forward and the
backward analysis. Comparing the final moment distribution from the backward analysis (first
step) with the one from the Unknown Load Factor calculation given in Figure 5-12 a), the
backward method shows a slightly smaller moment in the main girder.
However, comparing the backward and forward analyses, the moment distribution in the main
girder shows much higher differences as it can be seen in the figures below.
184
Even if the cable forces have only small changes, following the real construction process, the
negative bending moments at the anchorage points have up to -60 tonfm higher magnitudes in
the forward analysis. In order to ensure that there are no differences in the models, which might
be responsible for these gaps, both models have been controlled however, both models are
identical. Similar differences can be found for the Case B cable forces.
Therefore, the differences can only be related to small variations in the initial tension forces at
the time of activating the elements. In each step of the forward analysis, the values are below
the ones in the backward analysis. Exactly the same stressing values as obtained from the
backward analysis are applied at the time of installing the cable, but it is not possible to achieve
the same tension force in the actual forward calculation. As it has been mentioned earlier,
MiDAS calculates the cable forces for the end and the start node of the truss or cable element.
In this analysis, the lower values at the girder anchorage point are always used in the forward
analysis. In case of applying the higher values from the backward analysis in the forward
method, the tension forces in the forward analysis are always higher than the ones in the
backward analysis, - which is the opposite case as it is given here. It is assumed that, in the
185
numerical method, the influence of the self-weight of the cable is always added to the
defined stressing value. This explains that the values are never exactly the same as the input
values. It should be mentioned again that this is also the case when the Replace function is
activated in the Cable-Pretension Force Control function. In case of modelling a structure
without the cable self-weight, the tension values are exactly the same as defined in the input
data.
In order to prove whether or not these small variations in the initial tension forces are
responsible for the large discrepancies in the final moment distribution, the tension values due
to the self-weight are considered in the pre-stressing loads defined in the input data. The
following table gives the tension loads due to the self-weight of the cables and the new initial
tension loads, which are defined in the forward analysis for Case A and B.
Cable Nr.
El Nr.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15 (retension)
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
515
-3.36
-3.31
-3.26
-3.21
-3.01
-2.89
-1.34
-1.33
-1.33
-2.01
-2.02
-2.03
-2.05
-2.63
-2.66
-2.66
Change in %
Case A
1.33
1.86
4.15
0.67
3.77
2.18
0.79
0.88
0.83
1.12
0.96
0.84
0.74
0.85
0.61
0.72
Case B
1.34
1.87
4.12
0.67
3.69
2.17
0.75
0.88
0.83
1.12
0.97
0.84
0.74
0.86
0.62
0.72
Table 5-17: Changed initial cable forces considering the tension due to the self-weight of the cables
The values of the initial cable tension due to the self-weight of the stay cables given in Table
5-17 are calculated using MiDAS (NB: truss elements are still applied in the model). The value
is controlled for cable 6. With the cable area A=116.2 cm, a self-weight of = 8.193 tonf/m
and the total length of the element L = 65.81 m, the tension force can be calculated. Considering
an angle = 67.20 between the truss element and the girder, a tension value of 2.89 tonf is
calculated, the same as given in the table obtained from MiDAS.
Figure 5-16 shows the final moment distribution for Case A, which considers the new calculated
initial tension forces. Compared to the moment distribution in the backward analysis (Figure
5-15), both results are very close now. Analysing the stage by stage construction sequence, the
186
cable forces and the moment distributions are similar until the closure of the bridge. In the
following stages, there are some differences because of the existence of a normal force in the
key segment in the backward analysis which does not occur in the forward analysis. In Chapter
4.4, the influence of the normal forces has already been illustrated. In this analysis, a gap of -81
tonf exists, which is responsible for the small variation in the moment distribution close to the
centre of the bridge.
In the centreline of the bridge, the vertical displacement is -44 mm in the first step in the
backward analysis. In the forward analysis, which uses the initial tension forces as they are
directly obtained from the backward analysis, the vertical displacement is-141 mm. The vertical
displacement is only -41 mm in the last calculation, which is very close to the backward result.
Comparing the other stages, the differences are within 1 or 2 mm.
These calculations demonstrate the importance of accurate modelling, the exact load
information and the high influence of the initial cable forces. Minor differences in the initial
tension load influence the internal forces, as well as the overall deformations and can easily
produce problems during the construction process.
Figure 5-16: Moment forward analysis, considering the tension forces due to the Self-Weight
function Case A [tonfm]
The horizontal displacement at the top of the pylon is -3 mm. The moment at the bottom of the
pylon is reduced to 199 tonfm. The maximum moment at the top of the pylon remains at -405
tonfm. The maximum moment in the girder is -1440 tonfm at the anchorage of the backstays
and -1478 tonfm at the pylon.
5.6.3.2
187
Some differences still exist in the first stages until the temporary supports are being removed
between the forward and backward analyses. These variations are small, but they should be
mentioned here. The following figures show the moment distribution considering the corrected
Case A tension values as the initial pre-stressing in the input data. The values for the vertical
reaction forces are also given for each support. The bold numbers indicate the differences in the
calculated results. As the construction continues, the gaps become smaller. The initial
discrepancy may be relating to activation errors and deformations that remain in the system in
the backward analysis.
Results from Forward Analysis:
Stage 0
Stage 0
Stage 4 Cable6
Stage 4 Cable6
188
Stage 5 Cable7
Stage 5 Cable7
Stage 7- seg8
Stage 7- seg8
Table 5-18: Results of forward - and backward analysis (moment values in [tonfm])
It can be seen that the conditions during the forward and backward analyses are not identical.
The moment distribution has some small differences. There are also variations in the reaction
force of the temporary bents. In the forward analysis, the moments in the pylon are slightly
larger. In construction stage 8, in which all temporary supports are removed, the reaction forces
become close to each other. Since the discrepancies are reduced until the bents are finally
removed, the gaps are not investigated in more detail. However, both analysis methods should
be compared carefully to control each other. Attention is required especially when boundary
conditions are changed. In this analysis, the differences are small, but this must not always be
the case in other calculations. The situation is similar if the analysis is performed using the Case
B values.
189
Cable Nr.
El Nr.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15 (retension)
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
515
Applied tension
forces in forward
analysis [tonf]
259.00
189.83
111.52
482.61
104.57
147.59
177.58
153.82
162.64
187.79
216.06
246.55
283.12
316.62
370.20
431.43
There are obviously differences in the cable forces when the different element types are applied.
These are related to the effective stiffness which is now considered. The last column in the table
shows the corrected tension values which consider the changes in the tension forces due to the
self-weight of the elements (see Table 5-17).
By neglecting an effective stiffness, the backward and forward analyses can be performed with
identical results. However, when the cable forces given in the table above in the forward
analysis are applied, the results are not identical with the results from the backward analysis any
more. Theoretically, this should be the case, but as it can be seen in the following, there are
considerable gaps.
190
Figure 5-17 shows the installation of the first cable (Cable 6). At the time of installing the
cables, the forces in the back- and forward analyses are identical.
Forward analysis
Backward analysis
Nevertheless, as the construction continues, the tension forces in the already installed cables
change and a gap between both methods develop.
Forward analysis
Backward analysis
Figure 5-18: CS 16 installation of cable 10, considering an effective stiffness in forward and
backward analysis [tonf]
Table 5-20 presents the final cable forces for the back-and forward analyses. The differences
between both values are given as well. The greatest gap between both calculations can be found
in the tension value of Cable 9, which is 5.3%. Furthermore, Cable 5, 6, 13 and 14 show
variations of more than 2%. These values seem to be small but as it has been proved before,
minor variation in the tension forces already have an influence on the final moment distribution.
The moment distribution of the finished structure is illustrated in Figure 5-19.
Backward analysis
[tonf]
458.98
506.25
548.54
593.84
476.68
529.50
131.42
154.19
182.03
216.39
250.57
285.16
330.57
372.66
467.14
191
Forward
analysis [tonf]
456.88
503.05
555.04
589.80
462.75
518.22
132.29
151.16
172.45
214.59
246.92
281.19
323.36
385.97
461.84
S final
[tonf]
2.10
3.21
-6.50
4.04
13.93
11.27
-0.86
3.04
9.59
1.81
3.65
3.96
7.21
-13.31
5.29
[%]
-0.46
-0.63
1.18
-0.68
-2.92
-2.13
0.66
-1.97
-5.27
-0.83
-1.46
-1.39
-2.18
3.57
-1.13
Table 5-20: Difference in cable tension forward - and backward analysis considering an effective
stiffness
Figure 5-19: Final moment distribution using cable elements, considering the effect of
the self-weight of the cables in the initial tension values[tonfm]
To find a reason for the discrepancies in both methods, in the forward analysis, the tension
forces are applied in five separate construction stages. Errors can occur due to a linearization of
non-linear effects. In case of changing the structural system in large steps, a linearization, which
may be sufficient in smaller calculation steps, can result in errors. Considering an effective
stiffness of the cables, the introduced forces at the time of installing the cable will also influence
the stiffness of the neighbouring cables. By splitting the tension procedure of the new cable into
five steps, it should be investigated if the error reduces because of a stepwise adaptation of the
cable stiffness due to smaller changes of the internal forces in the structural system. However,
the result of the changed system shows nearly the same tension values in the cables as the
calculation before. This becomes apparent when Figure 5-20 is compared with Figure 5-18; the
maximal variation (in Cable 5) is below 0.5%. Therefore, the calculation process of the effective
192
stiffness appears not to be the reason for the gap in the tension values. The method of
dividing the cable stressing is applied in the backward analysis, too. In this case, the cables are
gradually detensioned before the elements are removed. However, this procedure does not
influence the tension values which have to be applied to the stay cables as initial forces, either.
Forward analysis cable stressing in 5 steps
In Figure 5-17, the installation of the first cable (Cable 6) has been illustrated. It is proved that
in the forward and backward analysis, the initial applied tension forces are identical. However,
at the time of installing the first cable, the tension forces are identical but there already exists a
gap in the deformed shape. The horizontal deformation in the top of the pylon is -320 mm in the
forward analysis and -245 mm in the backward analysis (pylon leans into the side span)
Usually, the final state of the backward analysis is the first state in the forward analysis. For the
linear backward analysis, which does not consider an effective stiffness in the cable elements,
Table 5-18 shows that there is no deformation at the top of the pylon before the installation of
the first cable. With the installation of the first cable, forces which bend the pylon and introduce
deformations are applied. This condition is the same in the forward analysis.
For the backward analysis, which considers the effective stiffness of the cable elements, the
calculation still shows bending moments and deformations in the pylon after removing the last
cable as it is illustrated in the next figure.
193
Backward analysis
Figure 5-21: Pylon and side span before the installation of the first cable [tonfm]
The maximum moment in the pylon is 376 tonfm and the horizontal displacement is 38 mm into
the main span. There is no vertical deformation in the corresponding step in the forward
analysis. In the next step, when Cable 6 is removed or installed in the forward analysis, the
moment at the bottom of the pylon is -3192 tonfm in the backward- and -3560 tonfm in the
forward analysis. If the already existing moment in the backward analysis is considered, the gap
in the moment value is only -7 tonfm.
It seems to be possible that the difference in the cable forces in both methods is related to a
different initial condition in the forward analysis and, respectively, the remaining forces in the
backward analysis. The figures of the modelled construction stages show a construction load of
25 tonf at the top of the pylon. By a sideward leaning of the pylon, the existing moment may be
produced by this construction load and the self-weight of the pylon. The construction load is
compared to the pylon weight light and therefore, it can only have a minor influence. This is
proved by an analysis without the construction load at the top of the pylon. In this case, the
moments and the deformations remain identical. However, if the same model is analysed with
truss elements, which do not calculate an effective stiffness, the moment in the pylon and its
vertical displacement vanishes. Since there should be no influence of the different calculation
procedures at the time when all cables are removed and also other non-linearity are not
considered, it is not possible to explain the existing moment in the backward analysis.
Nevertheless, this gap may be responsible for the variations in the forward analysis when
compared to the backward method.
194
195
To compare the differences between truss and cable elements for Case A, Figure 5-22 c) can
be compared with the bending moments given in Figure 5-15 b), and for the corrected initial
tension forces, Figure 5-22 a) with Figure 5-16. Due to the influence of the cable elements, the
effective stiffness decreases so that it leads to changes in the moment distribution. The diagrams
show that the negative moment at the anchorage point is reduced and the moments between the
cables increased. The main girder is less supported by the cables.
Not only should the moment distribution of the main girder be considered to choose the most
proper initial cable forces, the overall structural behaviour should be taken into account in this
decision, too. For the final sate, the table below gives further key values, which should be
focused on.
Comparing the corrected and not corrected initial cable forces, the final moment distributions
show some minor differences. The results from Case A and B, which consider the effect of the
Self-Weight function (Figure a and b), show higher maximal values between the anchorage
points of two cables and lower minimum moments at the connection cable-girder. The
minimum girder moments in the side span are equal for all cases. Case A may show a preferred
moment distribution in the side span because the maximum moment in the girder between cable
six and the pylon decreases about 80 tonfm, but on the other hand, the minimum moment at the
pylon increases. An advantage of the corrected values is a minor horizontal displacement at the
top of the pylon.
However, in the Case B, which neglects the correction due to the changes in the initial cable
tensioning as obtained from the backward analysis (Figure d), the moment in the main span is
distributed more equally. The negative values at the anchorage point of the cables are higher and
therefore the moments between two cables reduced. For this reason, the pretension values
obtained from this case appear to give the most reasonable results. The displacement of 13 mm
at the top of the pylon is still tolerable. Therefore, in the following steps of the construction
stage analysis, the stressing values are used as proposed for Case B in Table 5-15.
196
The following table summarises the final tension load due to the permanent loads, including
the additional load.
Cable Nr.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
*)
Truss elements
[tonf]
455.23
504.04
548.55
589.72
478.20
530.09
131.35
154.36
182.37
216.72
251.05
285.78
331.09
371.98
462.77
Cable elements
[tonf]
449.26
494.59
533.72
587.17
474.04
535.43
130.32
152.27
177.35
214.90
247.45
282.35
325.87
377.11
461.30
%*)
-1.31
-1.87
-2.70
-0.43
-0.87
1.01
-0.79
-1.35
-2.76
-0.84
-1.43
-1.20
-1.58
1.38
-0.32
Table 5-22: Final cable forces truss and cable elements (forward analysis)
The differences in the cable forces are small, as it can also be seen at the %-value of the stress
changes. However, for the moment distribution in the main girder, it has already been shown
that these variations influence the structure. Furthermore, it will also affect the displacement,
which is important for the camber calculation.
Figure 5-23 shows the vertical displacement using truss and cable elements. The vertical
displacement of the girder in the main span is apparently different.
a) Truss elements
197
b) Cable elements
Figure 5-23: Vertical displacement neglecting the effect of the Self-Weight function [mm], Case B
Using cable elements, Figure b) indicates smaller displacements in the main girder with an
upward movement to the centre of the bridge. In this case, the centre is 110 mm higher in the
final state of the construction than in the model with truss elements.
Table 5-23 describes the vertical displacement at the tip of the segment for each construction
stage. The table also shows the discrepancy between the two models ( truss/cable-values).
Const.
stage
Real displ.
truss
Real displ.
cable
truss/cable
Seg
7
Cb
6
Cb
7
L-seg
8
Seg
8
Cb
5
Cb
8
L-seg
9
Seg
9
Cb
9
Cb
3
L-seg
10
Seg
10
Cb
10
-9
-9
101
-20
-106
86
302
98
17
249
335
134
39
323
-9
-9
101
-20
-104
84
298
95
14
247
334
127
29
314
-2
10
Const.
stage
Real displ.
truss
Real displ.
cable
truss/cable
L-seg
11
Seg
11
Cb
2
Cb
11
L-seg
12
Seg
12
Cb
12
L-seg
13
Seg
13
Cb
1
Cb
13
L-seg
14
Seg
14
78
-58
52
359
86
-78
300
-58
-287
-155
331
-87
-351
69
-69
45
360
84
-79
310
-48
-273
-141
358
-60
-316
11
-1
-10
-10
-14
-14
-27
-27
-35
Const.
stage
Real displ.
truss
Real displ.
cable
truss/cable
Cb
14
L-seg
15
Seg
15
Cb
4
Cb
15
L-keyseg
keyseg
D-mid
Fix
Pylon
closing
reten
remD
Add
Load
219
-263
-574
-386
296
-113
244
80
80
80
83
334
-113
267
-213
-515
-330
386
-24
346
180
182
182
183
443
-3
-48
-50
-59
-56
-90
-89
-102
-100
-100
-100
-100
-109
-110
As the cable length increases and thus the sagging effects do, too, the gap between both
analyses extends. At the time of installing Cable 15, the difference between the two models has
increased from 56 mm to 90 mm. It has been explained before that the installation of a cable
198
influences the tension force in the neighbouring cables. When Cable 15 is erected, the
tension force in Cable 14 is reduced from 505 tonf to 287 tonf using truss elements, and from
502 tonf to 293 tonf using cable elements, and is therefore 2.09 % higher in the case of cable
elements (Table 5-25). This circumstance can be responsible for the change in the discrepancy
between the two models at the time of installing Cable 15 and the upward movement of the
main girder close to the centre in the final state.
Table 5-23 is given in a graphic form in the figure below. It shows the increase of the cable
effect as the discrepancy between the linear analyses and the analyses which considers the
cables by an effective stiffness increase with the activation of longer cables.
400
200
0
-200
-400
-600
0
10
15
20
Truss element
25
30
35
40
Ernst truss
Figure 5-24: Vertical displacement at the tip of the cantilever for each construction step [mm]
In Chapter 4.8, the reliability of using cable elements has been proved. It has been demonstrated
that, during the construction, differences in the girder elevation can occur due to some variations
in the cable forces and the sagging effects of the stays. Each new installed segment is activated
tangentially, which increases the difference in the elevation level at the tip of the cantilever
between cable and truss elements. According to the results obtained from the comparison of
both element types in different analyses performed in Chapter 4.8, it seems to be reasonable to
trust the determined results of the moment distribution and the deformations calculated by the
application of the cable elements.
Using the cable element calculation, the values of the girder elevation are controlled in more
detail for the camber calculation in Chapter 5.9.
Table 5-24 gives a detailed overview of the cable forces obtained from the back- and forward
analyses at the time of installing the cables using truss elements. The values are given for the
anchorage point cable-girder. The values at the pylon are, due to the weight of the cable, higher.
Table 5-25 shows the difference in the cable forces using truss and cable elements.
199
Cable Forces Forward Analysis Case B [tonf] (values for J-Node), the discrepance between forward- and backward analysis is related to the influence of the self-weight of the elements representing the cables
Cable add derick
L-seg7
seg7
Cb6
Cb7
L-seg8
seg8
Cb5
Cb8
L-seg9
seg9
Cb9
Cb3
L-seg10
seg10
Cb10
L-seg11
seg11
1
2
3
75.93
205.39
4
5
78.52
105.91
246.45
174.89
233.99
6
130.19
278.86
328.92
371.54
392.41
380.55
388.91
7
176.23
294.46
158.40
156.53
156.97
148.26
8
149.31
157.96
158.23
157.18
9
158.54
158.94
172.10
10
176.84
11
12
13
14
15
Cable Forces Backward Analysis Case B [tonf] (values for J-Node)
1
2
3
4
5
6
133.08
282.77
7
177.57
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Cable Forces Forward Analysis Case B [tonf] (values for J-Node)
Cable
L-seg14
seg14
Cb14
L-seg15
seg15
1
361.28
2
412.02
3
459.19
4
5
348.77
6
400.87
7
123.40
8
124.49
9
142.72
10
157.05
11
196.08
12
235.72
13
281.87
14
302.98
15
Cb4
347.43
394.61
437.45
476.34
314.74
382.78
114.79
108.05
122.30
133.43
195.58
276.12
378.47
505.32
Cb15
357.66
403.73
445.40
483.26
316.13
379.66
123.34
123.30
139.21
147.67
182.77
220.09
267.09
287.43
364.62
350.00
395.81
436.49
479.55
312.94
383.12
115.24
107.79
121.65
132.83
195.02
275.84
378.85
508.06
360.25
404.93
444.45
486.47
314.32
379.97
123.86
123.17
138.71
147.20
182.13
219.38
266.59
288.41
367.27
81.53
329.71
296.33
109.10
372.73
158.95
150.64
L-key-seg
key-seg
D-mid
fixPyl.
Cb2
Cb11
173.43
229.63
180.53
236.17
L-seg12
seg12
292.58
343.87
Cb12
L-seg13
seg13
Cb1
246.93
302.30
354.54
Cb13
254.40
309.09
360.61
246.55
394.37
131.82
159.50
223.25
348.44
247.62
390.84
139.00
147.00
168.84
188.19
207.01
295.11
395.68
131.98
137.18
159.43
183.10
214.57
238.79
305.26
402.62
112.64
113.06
145.75
206.13
306.65
410.90
305.42
397.58
127.10
129.89
150.20
169.79
207.21
240.10
276.94
79.19
208.70
176.74
230.74
183.85
237.28
295.98
345.05
250.29
282.17
507.24
257.77
311.09
360.47
249.68
393.71
156.62
158.08
159.88
175.18
381.36
157.08
158.37
160.29
234.30
389.74
148.24
156.61
171.90
178.85
245.86
395.07
131.81
158.94
223.07
350.53
246.91
391.49
139.08
146.33
168.11
188.57
209.03
294.41
396.29
132.19
136.61
158.59
182.77
215.18
240.83
231.25
408.59
101.41
104.76
127.83
178.65
271.62
374.67
304.16
398.12
127.42
129.45
149.40
169.21
207.11
240.85
279.00
closing
re-ten
remD
Add Load/Final
J-Node
I-Node
455.23
461.90
504.04
510.65
548.55
555.10
589.72
596.22
478.20
484.29
530.09
535.91
131.35
134.01
154.36
157.01
182.37
185.02
216.72
220.71
251.05
255.07
285.78
289.82
331.09
335.17
371.98
377.22
462.77
468.10
458.37
505.88
548.32
593.74
476.64
529.66
131.35
154.12
181.95
216.45
250.56
285.10
330.47
372.66
467.06
465.10
512.50
554.84
600.15
482.66
535.44
134.02
156.78
184.61
220.46
254.60
289.17
334.58
377.91
472.38
Table 5-24: Cable forces back- and forward analysis using truss elements and Case B values given in Table 5-15
200
Cable Forces Forward Analysis Case B Truss Elements [tonf] (values for J-Node)
Cable add derick
L-seg7
seg7
Cb6
Cb7
L-seg8
Seg8
1
2
3
4
5
6
130.19
278.86
7
176.23
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Cable Forces Forward Analysis Case B Cable Elements [tonf] (values for J-Node)
1
2
3
4
5
6
130.19
278.21
7
176.23
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Cable Forces Forward Analysis Case B Truss Elements [tonf] (values for J-Node)
Cable
L-seg14
seg14
Cb14
L-seg15
seg15
Cb4
Cb15
1
361.28
347.43
357.66
2
412.02
394.61
403.73
3
459.19
437.45
445.40
4
476.34
483.26
5
348.77
314.74
316.13
6
400.87
382.78
379.66
7
123.40
114.79
123.34
8
124.49
108.05
123.30
9
142.72
122.30
139.21
10
157.05
133.43
147.67
11
196.08
195.58
182.77
12
235.72
276.12
220.09
13
281.87
378.47
267.09
14
302.98
505.32
287.43
15
364.62
Cable Forces Forward Analysis Case B Cable Elements [tonf] (values for J-Node)
1
358.86
344.11
355.19
2
406.64
387.86
397.84
3
448.57
425.26
434.06
4
476.34
484.06
5
346.37
311.82
313.45
6
406.42
388.22
384.86
7
121.89
112.94
122.17
8
122.18
105.44
121.39
9
138.16
117.68
134.73
10
155.73
134.37
146.38
11
195.47
195.00
180.23
12
236.71
276.33
218.46
13
282.11
377.99
264.32
14
302.98
502.32
293.43
15
364.62
Cb5
78.52
328.92
294.46
Cb8
L-seg9
seg9
105.91
371.54
158.40
149.31
78.52
329.77
294.27
103.32
374.82
157.92
149.31
L-key-seg
key-seg
Cb9
75.93
205.39
173.43
229.63
180.53
236.17
292.58
343.87
Cb1
246.93
302.30
354.54
174.89
380.55
156.97
158.23
158.94
233.99
388.91
148.26
157.18
172.10
176.84
246.55
394.37
131.82
159.50
223.25
348.44
247.62
390.84
139.00
147.00
168.84
188.19
207.01
295.11
395.68
131.98
137.18
159.43
183.10
214.57
238.79
305.26
402.62
112.64
113.06
145.75
206.13
306.65
410.90
305.42
397.58
127.10
129.89
150.20
169.79
207.21
240.10
276.94
75.93
197.36
173.43
222.08
180.35
228.94
289.17
335.39
246.93
282.17
507.24
254.69
305.49
351.26
238.66
397.25
155.34
157.69
158.54
170.44
384.01
156.02
158.20
159.15
233.65
394.11
146.83
156.54
172.31
176.84
244.40
399.19
130.53
159.06
223.57
347.45
245.82
395.78
137.36
145.39
167.29
190.22
207.01
293.71
401.12
130.27
134.94
156.27
184.19
215.76
238.79
231.25
408.59
101.41
104.76
127.83
178.65
271.62
374.67
303.30
402.91
125.51
127.55
146.11
169.54
207.99
241.66
276.94
closing
re-ten.
246.45
392.41
156.53
157.96
158.54
D-mid
fixPyl.
Cb3
L-seg10
remD
seg10
Cb10
Add Load/Final
J-Node
I-Node
455.23
461.90
504.04
510.65
548.55
555.10
589.72
596.22
478.20
484.29
530.09
535.91
131.35
134.01
154.36
157.01
182.37
185.02
216.72
220.71
251.05
255.07
285.78
289.82
331.09
335.17
371.98
377.22
462.77
468.10
449.26
494.59
533.72
587.17
474.04
535.43
130.32
152.27
177.35
214.90
247.45
282.35
325.87
377.11
461.30
455.97
501.20
540.25
593.62
480.10
541.23
132.99
154.92
179.99
218.88
251.47
286.41
329.95
382.39
466.62
L-seg11
seg11
Cb2
Cb11
L-seg12
seg12
Cb12
Table 5-25: Comparison of cable forces using truss and cable elements in forward analysis for Case B values given in Table 5-15
L-seg13
seg13
Cb13
254.40
309.09
360.61
201
Figure 5-25 a) and b) show the maximum and minimum moments during the construction of the
bridge. These values must be checked to see if there are any unallowable stresses on structural
parts during the erection.
a) Maximum moment
b) Minimum moment
Figure 5-25: Maximum and minimum moments from forward analysis using cable elements and
Case B values given in Table 5-15 [tonfm]
202
*)
Construction State
Cable
Forward *)
MiDAS Final
per Cable
MiDAS
Final *)
Hyundai
per Cable
Hyundai
Initial Cable *)
Forces MiDAS
Initial Cable *)
Forces Hyundai
Initial Cable *)
Forces RM
1
2
3
4
5
6
461.90
510.65
555.10
596.22
484.29
535.91
230.95
255.32
277.55
298.11
242.15
267.96
532.70
535.52
539.24
542.64
582.8
520.74
266.35
267.76
269.62
271.32
291.4
260.37
250.29
176.74
79.19
479.55
81.53
133.08
306.88
197.89
83.23
439.61
124.85
139.18
276.12
177.04
65.98
376.22
122.42
140.20
134.01
67.01
125.46
62.73
177.57
192.16
108.60
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
157.01
185.02
220.71
255.07
289.82
335.17
377.22
468.10
Sum Cable
Forces 1-4
78.50
92.51
110.36
127.53
144.91
167.59
188.61
234.05
152.64
195.16
237.18
268.78
314.62
360.12
399.80
448.12
76.32
97.58
118.59
134.39
157.31
180.06
199.90
224.06
150.64
159.88
178.85
209.03
240.83
279.00
305.61
367.27
156.56
173.58
193.10
219.75
255.55
289.08
309.19
348.43
164.68
173.42
191.30
214.06
246.98
279.96
149.30
348.00
2123.86
2150.10
Table 5-26: Comparison of cable forces obtained from different calculations [tonf]
The summations of the first four cables, which are very close to each other and can be seen as
one thick cable, are calculated for the MiDAS and Hyundai results. The total value is similar but
the distribution of the cable forces in the side and main span is different. In the table, the initial
cable forces are compared with each other in the last three columns. A large gap in the initial
tension can be found for the force of Cable 7 compared to the other values of the other
calculations. This can be relating to the difference in the performed construction stage analysis,
in which e.g. in the RM-model two cables are installed at the same time. Another reason for the
variations in the initial forces is the uncertainties in the loading condition as there were different
values found for the self-weight and the construction loading. More important to remember is
203
that the system is highly indeterminate and that many possible solutions can be found
representing a reasonable structural performance.
In order to get an idea of the quality of the generated MiDAS model and the results from the
other calculations, the values are used as input data in the construction stage analysis of the truss
model. Applying the initial cable forces from the Hyundai calculation in the generated MiDAS
model, Figure 5-26 shows the final moment distribution. In this calculation, the same loading
and the construction stages as in the previous chapters are used. The girder and the pylon show
higher moments for this calculation compared to Figure 5-22d) and Table 5-26.
Figure 5-26: Final moment [tonfm], Hyundai initial tension, same loading and construction
sequence
The RM-model uses the same self-weight as calculated in the original self-weight table found in
Table 5-5. Therefore, the model is simply changed to these loadings. Figure 5-27 illustrates a
very reasonable moment distribution of the girder and the pylon. In this calculation, the loading
is changed, but the construction stages are still the same as assumed for the MiDAS model.
Figure 5-27: Final moment [tonfm], RM initial tension, changed self weight, same construction
sequence
204
Figure 5-28 a) and b) show the vertical displacement using the Hyundai and, respectively,
the RM data. The Hyundai results show a high upward movement, whereas the results from the
RM data identify a deflection of -322mm. For the construction, these deformations must be
balanced with the camber geometry of each segment and a more accurate analysis should be
performed as the cable effects are neglected in this calculation. However, both deformed shapes
can be compared with Figure 5-23 a, which clarifies the vertical displacement when using the
initial cable forces of the Case B values in a truss model.
205
206
Cable
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
max
max
max
max
max
max
max
max
max
max
max
max
max
max
max
Truss Element
477.11
523.82
566.60
596.14
484.22
535.87
297.14
292.50
303.71
352.46
379.34
414.97
456.60
510.70
491.59
Cable Element
470.89
515.06
552.91
593.58
480.06
541.20
296.95
291.85
303.29
351.46
377.97
413.76
454.52
507.57
489.47
1171.50
566.29
845.71
1078.36
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
As already mentioned, the maximum cable forces for the live load condition are determined by
adding the values from the final construction stage and the result obtained from the moving load
analysis. The maximum tension forces are given in Table 5-29.
The moving load analysis is roughly controlled by the following calculation. In the first load
case, the distributed traffic load and service load is equally applied on the side span; in the
second case, there is no traffic load on the side span and only the main span is loaded and
finally, the traffic load is applied on the whole deck. The concentrated load of 21.6tonf is
directly applied to the cables, taking the angle between the cable and the girder into account.
This method is very conservative as the case of full load on the side or the main span, with no
load on the other side, rarely occurs. If it is assumed that the whole concentrated load is taken
by one pair of cable, the girder stiffness is entirely neglected. In reality, the girder distributes the
load to more than one cable and the actual tension force is lower. However, this calculation is
only for a rough control of the cables and it can give at least some magnitude for the loading.
Truss elements are used in the model for this simplified calculation.
In Table 5-28, the angle for each cable is calculated. In the last column, the estimated cable load
due to the concentrated load is given. The x1-value indicates the location of the cable node in
horizontal direction, x2 value represents the second node of the cable, which is at the pylon, and
x is the absolute horizontal distance between both nodes. The z-values represent the same for
the vertical direction.
x1 [m]
-244.61
-243.02
-241.25
-239.84
-218.75
-197.50
-146.50
-129.50
-112.50
-95.50
-78.50
-61.50
-44.50
-27.50
-10.50
x2 [m]
-172.00
-172.00
-172.00
-172.00
-172.00
-172.00
-172.00
-172.00
-172.00
-172.00
-172.00
-172.00
-172.00
-172.00
-172.00
x [m]
72.61
71.02
69.25
67.84
46.75
25.50
25.50
42.50
59.50
76.50
93.50
110.50
127.50
144.50
161.50
z1 [m]
18.25
18.33
18.41
18.49
20.62
21.68
24.23
25.01
25.70
26.28
26.78
27.17
27.47
27.68
27.79
207
z2 [m]
88.86
87.86
86.87
85.87
83.86
82.35
82.17
82.65
83.33
84.12
84.94
85.78
86.63
87.49
88.36
z [m]
70.61
69.53
68.46
67.38
63.24
60.67
57.94
57.64
57.64
57.84
58.16
58.61
59.16
59.81
60.57
[rad]
0.77
0.77
0.78
0.78
0.93
1.17
1.16
0.94
0.77
0.65
0.56
0.49
0.43
0.39
0.36
S [tonf]
30.98
30.88
30.72
30.65
26.86
23.43
23.60
26.84
31.05
35.82
40.89
46.10
51.32
56.48
61.51
Table 5-28: Calculation of angle and cable force due to concentrated load
Table 5-29 shows a summary of the maximum cable forces for the live load conditions. The
approximate calculation values are above the summation of the moving load analysis and the
final cable forces which consider the cable effects. The magnitudes of the tension forces
determined by both calculations are of the same dimension and it can be assumed that the
moving load analysis is correctly applied.
Cable
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
max
max
max
max
max
max
max
max
max
max
max
max
max
max
max
Allowable
Cable
Forces
941.4
455.1
679.6
866.5
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
As demonstrated, the forces are within an allowable range. Therefore, it can be concluded that
the chosen initial cable forces and the resulting final tension loads in the final construction stage
do not lead to unallowable condition in the service ability state.
208
Beside the maximum cable forces, the minimum cable forces must be controlled, too. For
the construction process, the minimum cable forces have been given in Table 5-25 for the case
of the application of cable and truss elements. Furthermore, the minimum values are controlled
for the live load condition. At no time is there compression in the tension force.
fd
[kgf/cm]
2000
Since the girder is mainly loaded by its normal force, an allowable stress fcal of 1290 kgf/cm is
applied. The maximum and minimum stresses in the main girder are calculated by
N M
+
*z.
A
I
The maximum and minimum stresses are proved for each segment for the construction process.
The detailed values are given in the Table A-4 in the appendix. The stresses are within the limits.
As for the cables, but also for the girder segments, the traffic load should be considered in an
approximate calculation. In order to consider the final state of the internal forces as they occur
after the final construction stage, the relevant load cases are generated in the construction stage
analysis in additional steps. The non-linearity of the cables is taken into account for the traffic
loads with this method. Figure 5-29 shows the maximal and minimal moment envelope
calculated by the moving load analysis. The figures do not include any self-weight as they only
include the traffic load.
209
a) Minimal moment
b) Maximal moment
Figure 5-29: Moment envelope due to traffic load [tonfm] (no dead weight considered)
From the distribution of the bending moments, the elements of maximum and minimum values
due to traffic load can be located for the side and the main span. Because the dead load moment
distribution is equally distributed in the main span, it does not affect the location of the
maximum and minimum values. Therefore, the loading condition which causes a maximum
moment in the centre and a minimum value at two-thirds of the girder is modelled for the main
span. The load distribution can easily be found by the Moving Load Tracer function offered by
MiDAS, which locates the position satisfying the maximum or minimum condition of internal
forces for a defined element. As an example, the load distribution for the maximum bending
moment in the centre of the bridge is given in the following figure.
210
Figure 5-30: Load distribution for the maximum bending moment in the centre of the main span
Under the traffic load, the maximum in the side span occurs between Cable 5 and 6 (Element
10). Since the moment due to dead load (Figure 5-22) reveals a higher moment in the segment
between Cable 6 and 7, and as it can be possible that this condition is the relevant one for the
case of traffic load, too, the load distribution for both cases are modelled.
Min N element 9
Min N element 16
Min M element 9
Min M element 15
Min M element 24
Max M element 10
Max M element 13
Max M element 36
Side span
1-2
-/3-9
-/1-2
-/-/-/1-2
-/3-14
P: Node 10
1-2, 11-14
P: Node 13
1-2
-/-
Main span
15-36
P: Node 36
15-36
P: Node 36
15-35
P: Node 36
3-27
P: Node 18
15-20, 27-35
P: Node 36
-/-/-/-/15-20, 29-35
P: Node 36
Table 5-31: Load cases to consider the maximum load cases for traffic load
The table above gives the extra load cases modelled additionally after the final erection step in
the construction stage analysis. The complete data proving the allowable stresses is given in the
appendix. The stresses are within the limits.
211
Figure 5-31: Maximum moment at the top of the pylon during the erection of cable 1 [tonfm]
The table given in the appendix shows a detailed list of maximum and minimum moments.
Again, the values are proved for the construction loads and for the live load condition. As it has
been obtained from the moving load analysis, the minimum moment at the top of the pylon
occurs with the live load at the beginning of the side span (Element 1-2) and a loading of 2/3 of
the main span (Element 15-31), the concentrated load P is located at Node 23 in the main span.
This condition is considered in the analysis. The actual stresses during the construction and
under service conditions are within the allowable range.
212
1
1.05
10
0.00 5.45
13
15
17
12.70
2.76
19
Node Number
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
36
8.15
4.78
3.04
3.20
The general construction camber data is given in Table 5-36. For Node 36, the values listed in
the data generated by the MiDAS General Camber function are controlled.
213
The following table lists the current displacements for each step after the activation of Node
36.
Current vertical displacement
at Node 36 [mm]
Stage
key-seg
D-Mid2/3
D-Mid
Remove Fix-Pylon
Closing
ReTension
RemDerick
AddLoad
Sum:
MiDAS Value
(Table 5-36)
136.61
259.23
-166.54
0.06
0
3.37
259.49
-445.89
46.33
46.33
Calculation value
for stage D-Mid:
MiDAS Value
(Table 5-36)
-182.97
-182.97
With the current displacement values, the construction camber data can be calculated. To check
the camber data from MiDAS, two values are calculated as it can be seen in the table above. The
values are equal to the ones determined by MiDAS, which can be found in Table 5-36.
The same data presented for the vertical direction must be calculated for the longitudinal one in
order to consider the horizontal deformation in the fabrication of the segments. MiDAS offers a
feature to calculate these data, but there is a programme error in the Camber Control function.
For the longitudinal displacement, the programme calculates the same values as given for the
vertical direction, which is definitely not the case. Nevertheless, the data can be evaluated by
using the graphical deformation plots. Table 5-34 gives the longitudinal displacement of the
segments.
1
10
12
13
16
17
Node Number
19 21
23
25
-2
-5
-7
-9
-13
-15
-19
27
29
31
33
35
36
-21
-24
-25
-27
-27
-27
1
18
0
2
810
3
3
1012
3
4
1213
2
5
1316
3
6
1617
2
7
1719
2
8
1921
4
9
2123
2
10
2325
4
11
2527
2
12
2729
3
13
2931
1
14
3133
2
15
3335
0
key
3536
0
214
Node number
Stage
10
13
15
17
19
-1.05
0.01
-5.45
-12.70
-2.76
-10.37
CS0
-0.77
0.01
-5.45
-12.70
-2.11
-10.37
addcrane
-0.90
0.01
-5.45
-12.70
-2.09
-10.37
L-seg7
-0.90
0.01
-5.45
-12.70
-2.07
-10.37
-16.19
seg7
-0.90
0.01
-5.45
-12.70
-2.09
-10.37
-5.11
Cable6
-0.90
0.01
-5.45
-12.70
-2.07
-10.37
-5.12
21
Cable7
-0.90
0.01
-5.45
7.48
-1.98
-55.41
-114.64
L-seg8
-0.91
0.01
-5.45
-9.79
-1.94
2.38
5.82
11.26
seg8
-0.91
0.01
-5.45
-12.46
-1.93
8.82
34.17
86.97
Cable5
-20.90
0.01
106.59
32.70
-1.90
-56.56
-85.77
-101.17
Cable8
-21.22
0.01
110.01
41.96
-1.90
-93.73
-187.20
-315.21
L-seg9
-12.18
0.01
53.91
16.51
-1.87
-49.69
-84.41
-112.49
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
36
-140.73
seg9
-10.21
0.01
41.66
11.00
-1.86
-40.43
-63.35
-59.84
-33.01
Cable9
-9.78
0.01
39.55
12.88
-1.86
-50.50
-103.47
-179.51
-266.21
Cb3
-15.04
0.01
73.36
27.21
-1.86
-71.95
-143.26
-242.46
-352.39
L-seg10
-10.26
0.01
45.75
16.17
-1.82
-56.82
-102.67
-135.61
-145.55
-155.92
Seg10
-9.24
0.01
39.85
13.84
-1.81
-53.74
-94.23
-113.77
-92.09
-47.44
Cable10
-8.84
0.01
37.67
13.35
-1.81
-53.13
-106.35
-174.70
-249.04
-332.43
L-seg11
-3.57
0.01
7.63
2.24
-1.77
-39.99
-77.88
-109.41
-109.91
-87.20
Seg11
-2.42
0.01
1.14
-0.13
-1.76
-37.28
-71.99
-95.65
-81.04
-25.30
52.85
Cb2
-7.62
0.01
32.05
12.44
-1.76
-55.78
-106.12
-149.55
-154.84
-119.07
-60.87
Cable11
-7.20
0.01
29.51
10.72
-1.75
-50.44
-101.92
-166.14
-228.63
-296.77
-375.38
-65.53
L-seg12
-3.39
0.01
8.35
3.34
-1.71
-42.80
-87.23
-134.49
-156.33
-141.06
-100.05
-60.99
Seg12
-2.57
0.01
3.82
1.79
-1.70
-41.26
-84.31
-128.08
-141.23
-108.70
-31.65
66.84
Cable12
-2.06
0.01
0.76
-0.44
-1.69
-34.47
-73.46
-122.81
-168.03
-210.76
-260.81
-322.33
L-seg13
2.26
0.01
-23.22
-9.08
-1.64
-24.29
-55.74
-92.96
-112.65
-99.54
-45.23
35.96
114.18
Seg13
3.18
0.01
-28.35
-10.91
-1.63
-22.17
-52.11
-86.90
-101.27
-76.12
0.05
122.39
265.11
Cable1
-2.42
0.01
0.13
0.11
-1.63
-38.02
-81.18
-132.67
-164.00
-156.05
-97.21
7.76
133.12
Cable13
-2.04
0.01
-2.37
-1.89
-1.62
-31.79
-69.17
-118.15
-164.26
-206.14
-248.52
-300.70
-366.18
L-seg14
1.14
0.00
-20.89
-8.67
-1.57
-23.41
-55.33
-97.85
-131.13
-140.96
-114.76
-45.03
51.49
143.76
Seg14
1.81
0.00
-24.82
-10.10
-1.55
-21.66
-52.50
-93.81
-124.54
-127.65
-86.66
8.74
150.65
311.68
Cable14
2.26
0.00
-27.63
-12.00
-1.55
-16.36
-41.20
-75.74
-108.75
-137.60
-163.27
-189.07
-224.04
-272.17
L-seg15
5.77
0.00
-48.13
-19.82
-1.49
-5.54
-22.83
-49.82
-73.92
-84.33
-69.11
-15.01
83.65
208.48
328.03
Seg15
6.51
0.00
-52.47
-21.48
-1.47
-3.26
-19.00
-44.51
-66.93
-73.64
-49.84
21.47
148.30
320.86
511.57
Cable4
5.38
0.00
-32.48
-10.94
-1.47
-20.22
-51.21
-96.13
-137.98
-163.96
-159.22
-106.79
1.29
155.13
327.13
Cable15
5.84
0.00
-35.09
-12.51
-1.46
-16.15
-41.78
-78.38
-115.24
-150.56
-185.47
-220.95
-261.42
-316.66
-389.26
L-key-seg
8.45
-0.00
-49.04
-17.67
-1.41
-8.76
-29.33
-61.61
-95.41
-125.30
-145.19
-144.95
-115.61
-55.31
20.71
46.33
Key-seg
7.53
0.00
-44.09
-15.84
-1.43
-11.39
-33.88
-68.16
-103.97
-137.08
-163.47
-175.81
-167.98
-140.68
-103.78
-90.28
D-Mid 2/3
6.83
0.00
-40.39
-14.52
-1.44
-13.22
-36.06
-68.12
-98.38
-124.49
-148.32
-174.63
-214.08
-270.77
-329.36
-349.51
D-Mid
7.32
0.00
-42.99
-15.44
-1.43
-11.97
-34.63
-68.39
-102.71
-133.75
-159.04
-174.52
-178.86
-178.06
-182.40
-182.97
Remove
FixPylon
7.32
0.00
-42.93
-14.99
-0.89
-11.50
-34.32
-68.22
-102.61
-133.70
-159.01
-174.51
-178.87
-178.09
-182.45
-183.03
Closing
7.32
0.00
-42.93
-14.99
-0.89
-11.50
-34.32
-68.22
-102.61
-133.70
-159.01
-174.51
-178.87
-178.09
-182.45
-183.03
ReTension
7.32
0.00
-42.96
-15.01
-0.89
-11.46
-34.24
-68.10
-102.51
-133.74
-159.39
-175.49
-180.68
-180.80
-185.77
-186.40
RemDerrick
4.02
0.00
-25.27
-8.36
-0.92
-20.88
-51.64
-96.75
-146.57
-201.08
-261.02
-322.47
-378.51
-421.34
-443.91
-445.89
AddLoad
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
215
xb := 172.000 m
y a := 18.252m
y b := 88.860m
The coordinate system is located in the axis of WPB and therefore the new coordinates follow
to
xA := xa xb
xA = 72.61m
xB := xb xb
xB = 0 m
y A := y a
y A = 18.252m
y B := y b
y B = 88.86m
The final cable forces, as they are obtained from the MiDAS calculation, are for two cables.,
They must be now calculated for one cable. Furthermore, the cross section of only one cable
must be considered in the determination of the unstressed cable length. The cable force SA is the
tension force at the working point A.
S2A := 449.26tonf
SA :=
2
A 2C := 0.011622m
A C :=
S2A
2
A 2C
2
SA = 224.63tonf
2
A C = 0.005811m
216
tonf
wC :=
A 2C C
2
tonf
wC = 0.0476
m
7 tonf
EC := 2 10
yB yA
xB xA
:= atan
= 0.771
= 44.199deg
With the angle and the weight of the cable wC, the distributed load q can be determined. The
horizontal part of the cable force H can be calculated as H=S(x)*cos. However, at this stage of
the analysis, the angle is unknown and therefore, the angle is used for the determination.
q :=
wC
cos ( )
q = 0.0664
tonf
m
HC := SA cos ( )
HC = 161.04tonf
The developed equation for the cable geometry can be used to calculate the actual angle at the
point WPA and to determine a new horizontal force H. The cable-equation can be defined by
the parameters K1, K2 and K3. The values given below show the results after 3 iteration steps
(=>indices 3).
4 1
q
K23 :=
2 HC3
K23 = 2.0465 10
K13 = 0.9873
K03 = 88.8600m
217
Assuming a parable shaped cable, the function f(x) defines the cable geometry. To control
the analysis, the function is used to recalculate the values yA and yB. The results are exactly the
same as the coordinates of the WPA and WPB.
2
( )
f3( xB) = 88.86m
f3 xA = 18.252m
y A = 18.252m
y B = 88.860m
The gradient of the cables is given by the first derivative of f(x), leading to g(x).
g 3( x) :=
d
f ( x)
dx
g ( x) := 2K23 x + K13
( )
A3 := atan g xA
( )
B3 := atan g xB
g 3 xA = 0.9575
g 3 xB = 0.9874
( ( ))
A3 = 0.7637
A3 = 43.758deg
( ( ))
B3 = 0.7790
B3 = 44.633deg
Since the horizontal force H is constant, the values at point A and B must be identical. The
cable force per cable at the pylon top is given as SB. It is shown below that the horizontal forces
HC4 (at WPA) and HC4B (at WPB), calculated with the local angle , are equal.
HC4 := SA cos A3
HC4 = 162.24tonf
SB = 227.99tonf
( )
HC4B := SB cos B3
HC4B = 162.24tonf
After the determination of the equation for the cable geometry, the actual required cable length
must be calculated. It must be considered that, in the real structure, the cables are not spanned
from working point A to B as the true cable length is from working point C to E. In the total
cable length, the length of the guide tube of the anchor system must be included. As this length
is not exactly known, an approximate location of the working point C and E is obtained from
the given data. The given initial calculation sheet of the working points shows a displacement of
0.75 cm for all cables in the dx direction (horizontal) to the working point C. For the working
point E of cable 1, a displacement of -1.247 m in the dx direction is calculated from the given
values.
218
( )
y C := f3 xC
y C = 88.120m
xE := xA 1.247m
xE = 73.857m
( )
y E = 17.058m
y E := f3 xE
y := y E y A
y = 1.194m
For the point WPC, the given data shows an yC value of 88.112 m and a distance y between
the points WPA and WPE of 1.200 m. The values only have minor differences which are related
to a different cable force and the unknown data of the anchorage system.
In order to determine the cable length L, the parameters a, b and c, which describe the function
B(x) are calculated.
2
a := 1 + K13
b := 4 K23 K13
a = 1.975
b = 8.082 10
c := 4 K23
4 1
7 1
c = 1.675 10
B(x) describes the integral function of the cable length as it is explained in more detail in the
appendix. With the values of a, b, and c, B(x) and follow to:
( )
B( xE) = 1.916
B( x) := a + b x + c x
B xC = 1.974
:= 4 a c b
7 1
= 6.701 10
The parameters I1(x), I2(x) and I3(x), which represent the solution for the integration of the cable
length, are calculated as:
I1( x) :=
I2( x) :=
b + 2 c x
4 c
B( x)
I1 xE = 1618.330m
( )
I2 xE = 1221.618m
I2 xC = 1221.618m
8 c
( )
I1 xC = 1694.073m
( )
( )
I3( x) := ln( b + 2 c x + 2 c B( x) ) m
( )
I3 xC = 6.236
( )
( )
LCable1 := LC xE LC xC
( )
LC xC = 5923.688m
( )
LC xE = 6025.642m
LCable1 = 101.954m
( )
I3 xE = 6.257
219
The elongation of the cable must be considered in the determination of the unstressed
length. With the parameters S1, S2 and S3
S1 := 1 + K1
( xC xA )
S2 := 2 K2 K1 xC xA
S1 = 141.920m
S2 = 2.146m
4
2
3
3
S3 := K2 xC xA
S3 = 0.022m
HC3
A C EC
S1 + S2 + S3
S = 0.195m
L0Cable1 = 101.759m
Furthermore, the thickness of the bearing plates, the shim plates and some extra length must be
considered for the top and the bottom anchorages. The value given above does not include this
additional length.
220
When applying cable elements in the construction stage analysis, some changes in the
internal forces and the structural deformation take place which are related to the sagging effect
of the cables. In the performed analysis, different initial cable forces are investigated. The
results show only smaller variations, but after a subtle comparison of the results, one option is
finally chosen.
In the performed calculation, the construction sequence mainly follows the initially scheduled
construction sequence. There is also the possibility to investigate another erection sequence of
the stay cables which leads to different initial cable forces and changed maximal stresses during
the erection. However, with the assumed construction process and the determined initial cable
forces, the Second Jindo Bridge can be erected as it has been proved that the stresses are within
the allowable range at any time.
Chapter 6: Conclusion
221
6 Conclusion
The following chapter summarizes the most important issues raised in this study and points out
related areas for further research that may be of value for construction engineers. Final
comments are given on the analysis programme MiDAS.
6.1 Summary
After introductory remarks on the background, the intention and the organization of this study in
Chapter 1, the history of cable-stayed bridges is illustrated in Chapter 2. This later section is
supposed to elucidate the remarkable achievements that have been made from the time of the
first cable-stayed bridges to the current days.
Within the last 60 years, cable-stayed bridges have undergone major innovations both in their
design and their construction. A high tensile strength of the stay cables allowed cable-stayed
bridges to become an interesting option. With improved techniques of structural analyses, the
design and the calculation of the cable forces during the construction has become more reliable.
The cable-stayed bridge has established itself as a very economic and aesthetically satisfying
bridge type in the last decades. The introduction of multi-cable systems made the construction
of more slender decks possible. Analogue to the growing span lengths, the weight of concrete
superstructures of the main span increased extensively and steel or composite girders became
more economical. At present, parallel wires or parallel-strand cables are employed. A high
protection against environmental influences allows a long lifetime.
It can be asserted with certainty that technological advantages will continue to influence the
ways in which cable-stayed bridges are designed and constructed. There is no denying that new
structural concepts in connection with improved or newly engineered materials offer a wide
range of possibilities for the future.
The second chapter also provides an overview of different modern erection methods. By
utilizing temporary supports the advantage of a continuous erection of the girder from one end
to the other can be obtained, but, on the other hand, its limits emerge as valleys or rivers become
deeper and non-accessible. In some of these cases, a construction by rotation will be more
222
Chapter 6: Conclusion
feasible for smaller bridges, where the main structure is erected on temporary supports and
then rotated around its pylon.
Incremental launching was developed in the early 1960s. It is characterized by the stationary
construction of all superstructure segments. The segments are launched over the valley in small
increments with hydraulic jacks. The method is commonly used for caste in situ segments, but
can also be applied for steel or composite decks.
Cantilevering can be carried out in two different manners. In case the cantilever system consists
of two arms on both sides of the pier, it is called Balanced Cantilever Construction. The
cantilever arms balance each other with their respective weight. In the second type, only one
cantilever arm grows from its pier or abutment. The superstructure is usually supported by the
connection with the side spans. Cantilevering has the important advantage of being an erection
method with which the valley to be crossed is widely left unobstructed by the erection process;
temporary supports are not required. The repetitive nature of the segmental construction, either
with cast-in place or prefabricated steel or concrete segments, can be used very advantageously
in the cantilevering. Once the cantilevering has been finished, the closure segment is placed
between the cantilever arms to form a continuous superstructure.
The erection of a cable-stayed bridge is based on the construction stage analysis, which is
introduced in Chapter 3. The discussed analysis takes the complex behaviour of the material,
the structural elements and a step by step changing system into consideration.
Before analysing the actual erection process, the ideal state of the cable-stayed bridge, subject
to its permanent loads, must be determined. The bending moments in the main girder and the
pylon are minimized by the chosen cable forces. For a preliminary design, various hand
formulas can be used. Structural analysis programmes apply optimisation methods to minimize
the internal forces in the calculation of the ideal cable forces. The calculation considers user
defined restrictions for forces or moments, stresses and displacements; the proper usage requires
some experience to obtain reasonable results.
In the analysis of the erection process, the construction stages are modelled to control the
stability of each step separately, considering the permanent loads and the exact construction
loads. The construction stage analysis can be classified into the forward and the backward
analysis, whereas the first method follows the real erection sequence in contrast to the second
method which starts from the final state and dismantles the structure step-by-step. Without any
time effects, both methods are theoretically identical and may be used to control each other.
However, there are some differences the user must be aware of. Activating elements
Chapter 6: Conclusion
223
straightforward expose differences in the deformed shape; activation errors can require
additional corrections between both methods. The principal procedure of the construction stage
analysis is outlined by a simple model. Influence matrices for cable forces or deformations,
which are used for the determination of the ideal cable forces or for adjustment operations, can
be evaluated by the analysis of unit load cases and by combining the influences separately in a
matrix form.
In concrete or composite cable-stayed bridges, time dependent effects have a significant effect
on the geometry and the final stress state in the complete bridge must be included in the
analyses. Major points in the time of structural analyses are the end of the construction and the
state of infinity. Cantilevering the bridge superstructure subsequently with cast-in-place
segments requires consideration of different segment ages and time dependent material
properties. Usually, newly added segments are loaded when they have reached only a specific
portion of the 28-day compressive strength of concrete. Young loaded concrete is susceptible to
increased time dependent effects that depend on ambient conditions, i.e. a concrete shrinkage.
The interaction between these issues makes cast-in-place constructions a challenging task. In
order to minimise creep effects, it is important to select a convenient cable tension sequence,
which produces only limited bending moments during the construction. Precast segments may
be aged for 6 months or longer to reduce time dependent effects.
The sag effects of the cables, the P-delta effects and the large-deformations are geometric nonlinear problems. In general, there is no rule when to consider these effects. In small structures, it
can be sufficient to control the design process with a second order computation for the live
loads, but this may not be sufficient in the analysis of the construction stages. The cable length
and the stiffness of the girder indicate a tendency towards which effects to include. In a large
cable-stayed structure, each of these effects can have an influence of 10-20 % of the results
derived without the consideration of non-linearity. In the construction stage analysis with the
analysis programme MiDAS, taking the P-delta effects alone into account is not possible, even
if this may be sufficient. In this case, a large displacement analysis must be performed (3rd
Order). Further uncertainties in the erection process are the thermal effects which must be
considered in the control of the geometry.
A main issue of the construction stage analysis is to evaluate the best possible sequence of the
stressing operations of the stay cables under the consideration of the structural design
objectivities, the simplicity in the construction and the cost effectiveness. The most simple and
economic solution would be a single stressing step at the time of the installation of the cable.
However, this solution may cause problems in the acceptability of the maximal stresses induced
224
Chapter 6: Conclusion
into the structure and the cables. Potential high bending moments increase the time
dependent effects, which must be further considered in case of concrete structures.
During the construction process, discrepancies between the actual state and the design values
may occur. These are caused by a large scale of possible errors in the analysis, the construction
or the prefabrication process of the structure or the structural elements. Therefore, continuous
measurements and control systems at the construction site are essential. Describing the initial
condition of the cable at its erection by the tension force suffers severely as the stressing force is
not an intrinsic characterization of the pre-loading. Another option of initial stay adjustment can
be achieved by fabricating the cables with their unstressed length. This procedure is also
applicable to stays erected by the isotension method, where each strand is cut at its precise
length. Readjustments can be performed either by shim adjustment or by rejacking operations.
In the latter case, the process can be expressed in term of a force S or a cable elongation L.
In order to determine the required adjustment values, different methods are employed. Similar
to the calculation of the ideal cable forces, applying an optimisation method can evaluate proper
adjustments. Calculating the error factors and predicting the final construction state including
the errors can be more efficient than calculating an optimum adjustment for each construction
stage.
Chapter 4 provides an extensive study of the main issues which are considered in the modelling
of a construction stage analysis of cable-stayed bridges. In most of the performed calculations, a
symmetric fan type system including temporary supports in the side span is examined using the
structural analysis programme MiDAS. To develop the ideal state system by an appropriate
cable pre-stressing, different restrictions are applied in the analysis. With the restriction of the
vertical displacement and at the top of the pylon, a continuous beam condition for the main
girder can be achieved, including its possible disadvantage that the distribution of the internal
loads show very high bending moments at the anchorage points and only limited values inbetween. As the actual target is a limited value of the bending moments in the girder and the
pylon, a more reasonable method is the direct restriction of this parameter. If the designer aims
at a more equal distribution of the bending moments, the first method can be a good guideline
for the restriction values of the moments in the second method. A recalculation of the
determined initial cable forces by matrix-operations clarifies the procedure. As an important
fact, it is to be mentioned that the programme operates with internal forces in this part of the
construction stage analysis.
The examination of the more complex model shows the importance of the correct activation of
changing boundary conditions. Not only does the activation to a deformed or unreformed
Chapter 6: Conclusion
225
structure influence the deformation shape, it also has influence on the distribution of the
internal forces. In this context, it must be furthermore stated that the cable activation sequences
is highly important. This is actually investigated in relation to the analysis of the Second Jindo
Bridge in Chapter 5. There is a great difference in the initial cable forces in case of a double
activation including stressing (two cables are activated and stressed in one construction stage),
double activation and then stressing one cable after the other in different stages, or as a third
method, activating the cables separately in different stages. The last case appears to be the most
reliable as it is assumed that the actual installation process at the erection site is to erect and
stress one cable after the other.
From the theoretical point of view, backward and forward analyses only have equal results if the
modelled conditions are the same as well. The backward analysis starts from an ideal system
with some moments in the centre of the bridge, whereas in the forward analysis, there is a zero
moment condition when the key segment is activated and the bridge is closed. The condition
can be equalised by modelling de- and restressing operations in the back- and, respectively, the
forward analysis (or in a more complex analysis, by moving the derrick crane into a proper
position). However, there will be some normal forces in the key segment in the backward
analysis, which have a small influence on the results. This influence also depends on the
construction sequence, such as on the time of activating a temporary pylon-girder connection.
The time of activating this temporary support at the pylon also influences the determined initial
cable forces and therefore, a correct modelling of the construction sequence is very important.
Finally, there are always some variations in the deformations, at least in the horizontal direction.
The forward analysis starts with no horizontal movement of the deck before installing the first
cable, whereas in the backward analysis, a horizontal movement remains in the structure after
removing the last cable.
Creep and shrinkage influence the internal forces as well as the final displacement. Over its
time, creep has the tendency to change the internal moments in the direction of the continuous
beam condition reduced by the effect of shrinkage. The cantilever construction method is
compared with the erection on scaffoldings. Due to lower stresses in the section during the
construction, the second erection method shows a much lower displacement. The structural
deformation can be balanced by a prefabrication camber. The programme offers a function to
determine this data which is checked by a control calculation. The construction camber
represents the girder elevation to be incorporated at the time of installing a new segment. Under
the permanent loads the structure finally ends in a condition with no deformation. Because of
time dependent effect, an additional deformation must be considered in the erection of concrete
226
Chapter 6: Conclusion
segments when positioning the form traveller. This can also be calculated with the
programme by including material non-linearity in the analysis.
Two typical errors which occur during the erection of a cable-stayed bridge are wrong cable
forces and errors in the girder elevation. To simulate tension errors, a cable is installed with
only 90% of its initially designed value and a restressing is preformed in the final state. The
required adjustment value is calculated by the influence matrix. Compared to the original
system, an adjustment in the final state changes both, the internal forces and the girder
elevation. An error in the girder elevation can be corrected by either retension operations or by
changing the angle of the remaining segments. By retensioning all cables, a higher accuracy can
be achieved. However, this method is not very economical. An adjustment by angles does not
influence the internal forces. The calculations demonstrate that the focus on only one parameter
may increases the error in the other. In practical condition, both deviations must be adjusted and
limited within a specified tolerance.
The effect of cables can be treated in three different ways: the effect can be neglected by using
truss elements, considered by an effective stiffness or included in a non-linear analysis. The
latter case cannot be applied in a construction stage analysis with the actual programme version.
In a static analysis, the three options are compared under the effect of various initial stresses,
and it is proved that, for sag to span ratios less then 1/80, the effective stiffness is very close to
the results obtained from the non-linear analysis; the linear calculation, which neglects the
sagging effects, shows large discrepancies. It is proved in a construction stage analysis that the
effective stiffness considers the various load conditions and is therefore applicable in the
analysis.
Chapter 5 comprises the case study of this work, which is the Second Jindo Bridge in the south
of the Republic of Korea. Background information on the location and objective of the project is
provided first. The bridge is a cable-stay structure with a total length of 484 m, built with the
cantilever method. The main span is 344 m long and both side spans consists of 70 m. The
superstructure of the bridge consists of a single box girder which will accommodate two lanes
of traffic on the 12.55 m wide deck. In order to balance the weight of the long main span, the
box girder is partially filled with concrete in the side span. The pylons are of hollow steel
sections and will be composed at the construction site. For the erection of the main span, the
prefabricated steel segments are lifted from a delivery barge into position.
A detailed construction stage analysis is performed using the analysis programme MiDAS. The
main issues relating to the modelling of the structure are outlined. Specific attention is given on
the location of the nods representing the anchorage points of the cables because a wrong angle
Chapter 6: Conclusion
227
between the deck and the cables will lead to a wrong estimation of the cable forces. The
structural self-weight, as well as the constructions loads are precisely modelled.
The ideal cable forces are determined to achieve an optimal structural performance due to its
permanent loads. For the construction stage analysis, 40 different stages are modelled so that
they allow to include each erection step. Following the erection sequence by the backward and
forward methods, the different stages are analysed. The backward analysis reveals the initial
tension forces to be applied at the time of installing the cable. These data is applied in the
forward analysis which considers the real erection process.
In the final analysis, the influence of the sagging effect of the cables is taken into account. The
application of cable elements in the calculation does not only influence the distribution of the
internal forces, but also the structural displacement during the erection process and in the final
state. The deformations are balanced by the camber deformation and the reliability of this data is
therefore of major importance.
A comparison of the determined cable forces with the results from independent construction
stage analyses shows some differences in the chosen cable forces. For the final state, a
summation of the first four cables in the side span, which can be assumed to form the backstay
cable, shows only a difference of 1.24%, whereas the cables in the main span reveals a gap in
the cable forces of up to 7.44%. Most of the calculated tension forces are below the final forces
of the compared data. However, there have been uncertainties about the structural self-weight
which must be considered when comparing these results. No detailed information on the applied
weight exists for the other analyses. In the performed analysis, the initial stressing in the cables
is applied in terms of pretension load which is not an intrinsic parameter. Therefore, the
construction loads must be precisely known to obtain the accurate initial cable forces.
For all construction stages, the minimal and the maximal stresses are controlled to be within an
allowable range. Under service loads, the stresses in the structural members increase and in
order to consider this condition, a simplified moving load analysis is carried out. The results
show that the occurring stresses are in the allowable scale. The construction stage analysis
feature is a new function in the MiDAS programme. The temporary version does not allow to
include any other geometric non-linearity in the construction stage analysis. A final calculation
should be done to take these effects into account as they may increase the internal forces.
Using the general camber function, the camber data is calculated and presented. The reliability
of this function has been previously proved. A discussion of constructability issues concludes
the chapter.
228
Chapter 6: Conclusion
6.2 Contribution
The main objective of this study is to provide a comprehensible discussion on the concept of
construction stage analyses of cable-stayed bridges.
The main issues that are of concern in the analysis and the modelling of the construction process
have been compiled and reviewed on the basis of literature. A clear scheme has been developed
and presented to explain the interrelationships of the material, the structural elements, the loads
and the step by step growing structure. The main problems and salient issues, for which the
construction engineer has to sine special attention to while modelling the construction process,
have been studied in-depth and clarified. It has been demonstrated that a precise analysis of all
construction stages including the exact permanent and construction loads is the main key to
develop a safe and economical construction process. The provision of the analysis of the real
construction example has enhanced the concept outlined in previous parts of this study.
This study is intended to serve as an understandable introduction into the topic of how to
analyse the complex construction process of cable-stayed bridges constructed by the cantilever
method. Furthermore, it is meant to give a guideline to other potential MiDAS users.
6.3 Recommendation
In this study, the focus of attention lies on the cantilever construction which is the major method
for erecting the superstructure of long cable-stayed bridges. Besides the permanent and live load
conditions, the major topic that needs to be considered in the design of cable-stayed bridges is
the effect of dynamic loads. Seismics and aerodynamics are the two major dynamic loads that
have to be taken account of in the design of cable-stayed bridges. Both are very interesting
themes which still offer a wide field of further research. In the concept and design of future
cable-stayed bridges with an increasing span length, their influence on the overall structural
layout becomes increasingly important and will with a great probability be the dominant factor
in the design process.
Further research provides the introduction of improved or new materials offering a range of
possibilities for future bridges. According to the longer span, the self-weight of the structure is a
main issue in the overall design process, which makes the utilisation of lighter material more
interesting but may also increase the structural costs.
Chapter 6: Conclusion
229
In the field of different bridge types, the construction stage analysis and the different
erection options with respect to constructability issues could also be a focus of a further
research.
230
Chapter 6: Conclusion
reveals a gap between both methods when using the programme version 6.1. The reason for
the differences in the back- and forward analyses could not be identified in detail.
Owing to the changes in the coding data, it was not possible to open and run the previous input
file with the newer version. A further difficulty appeared when it came to light that the help
menu was very basic and the theoretical background for elements or calculation functions was
only explained in brief. At the beginning of using the MiDAS programme, a help menu for the
new features did not exist at all and some data were only available in Korean language.
Therefore, it often required to contact the MiDAS support team, which again was not always
easy because of lingual problems. It should be noted that for working out this thesis and thus,
for overcoming the difficulties mentioned above, a considerable amount of energy and time had
been investigated.
However, most of the MiDAS problems could be solved by now and I hope that his thesis has
contributed at least a little to the facilitation of the calculation and analysis of the complex
construction process of cable-stayed bridges with MiDAS/Civil for future users.
Literature
231
Literature
References
[1]
[2]
Baant, Z. P., F. H. Wittmann, Creep and Shrinkage in Concrete Structures, John Wiley & Sons,
New York 1982
[3]
[4]
CEB-FIP, CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, Comit Euro-International du Bton, Lausanne, 1993
[5]
Chen, W., L. Duan, Bridge Engineering Handbook, CRC Press LLC, London, 1999
[6]
Fu, C.C., M.D. Daye, Computer analysis of the effects of creep, shrinkage and temperature
changes on concrete structures, SP-129 American Concrete Institute; Michigan, 1996
[7]
Ghali, A, R.Favre, Concrete Structures - Stress and Deformation, 2nd edition, E & FN Spon, New
York 1998
[8]
Gimsing, N.J., Cable Supported Bridges - Concept and Design, 2nd edition, John Wiley & Sons,
London, 1994
[9]
Herzog, M., Elementare Berechnung von Schrgseilbrcken, Werner, Dsseldorf 1999 (in
German)
[10]
[11]
Petersen, C., Stahlbau Grundlagen der Berechnung und Baulichen Ausbildung von Stahlbauten,
3rd edition, Vieweg , Wiesbaden 1993 (in German)
[12]
Roik, K., G. Albrecht and U. Weyer, Schrgseilbrcken, Ernst &Sohn, Berlin 1986 (in German)
[13]
Setra (Publisher), Cable stays - Recommendations of French interministerial commission on prestressing, Bagneux Cedex 2002
[14]
Walther, R., Cable-stayed bridges, 2nd edition, Thomas Telford, London 1990
232
Literature
[15]
Zienkiewicz, O.C., R.L. Taylor, The finite Element Method, 4th edition, McGraw Hill, London
1989
Bibliography
[16]
Adeline, R., monitoring and adjustment of the geometry and cable tension of cable-stayed bridges
built using the balanced cantilever method The case of Pont de Normandy, International
Conference A.I.P.C. F.I.P. Cable-stayed and suspension bridges, 379-386, Volume 2,
Deauville, 1994
[17]
Bruer, A., H. Pircher, H. and H. Bokan, Computer based optimising of cable-stayed bridges,
IABSE Conference on cable-stayed bridges Past, present and future, Malm, Sweden, 1999
[18]
Chauvin, A., H. Alvarez Solis, The El Canon & El Zapote Bridge Mexico, Control of geometry
during construction, International Conference A.I.P.C. F.I.P. Cable-stayed and suspension
bridges, 405-412, Volume 2, Deauville, 1994
[19]
Chen, D., A new method to assign initial cable forces for prestressed cable-stayed bridges, IABSE
Conference on cable-stayed bridges Past, present and future, Malm, Sweden, 1999
[20]
Combault, J., Retensioning the cable-stays of the Brotonne Bridge, Proceedings of the
international conference Cable-stayed bridges, Volume 2, Bangkok, 1987
[21]
Cruz, J., J. Almeida, A new model for cable-stayed bridges control and adjustment, IABSE
Conference on cable-stayed bridges Past, present and future, Malm, Sweden, 1999
[22]
Ernst, J.H., Der E-Modul von Seilen unter Bercksichtigung des Durchhanges, Der Bauingenieur,
40(2), 52-55, 1965 (in German)
[23]
Faller, P., C. Hansvold, H. Nilsson and P.-O. Svahn, Erection of the Uddevalla Bridge, IABSE
Conference on cable-stayed bridges Past, present and future, Malm, Sweden, 1999
[24]
Fanourakis, G., Y. Ballim, Predicting creep deformation of concrete: A comparison of results from
different investigations, 11th FIG symposium on deformation measurements, Santorini, Greece,
2003
[25]
Felber, A., P. Taylor, A. Griezic, D. Bergman and J. Torrejon, Erection geometry and Stress
control of composite decked cables-stayed bridges, IABSE Conference on cable-supported Bridges,
Seoul, Korea, 2001
Literature
[26]
233
Fujino, Y., M. Nagai, Steel cable-stayed bridges with emphasis on Japanese bridges,
International Conference A.I.P.C. F.I.P. Cable-stayed and suspension bridges, 173-184,
Volume 1, Deauville, 1994
[27]
[28]
Fujisawa, N., N. Nakamura, Computer system for cable adjustment of cable-stayed bridges during
erection, International Conference A.I.P.C. F.I.P. Cable-stayed and suspension bridges, 387394, Volume 2, Deauville, 1994
[29]
Furuta, H., M. Kaneyoshi, H. Tanaka, and E. Watanabe, Cable tension control of cable-stayed
bridges using fuzzy satisfaction method and genetic algorithm, IABSE Conference on cablesupported Bridges, Seoul, Korea, 2001
[30]
Gimsing, N., History of cable-stayed bridges, IABSE Conference on cable-stayed bridges Past,
present and future, Malm, Sweden, 1999
[31]
Ito, M., Stay cable technology: Overview, IABSE Conference on cable-stayed bridges Past,
present and future, Malm, Sweden, 1999
[32]
Kaneyoshi, M., H. Tanaka, M. Kamei, and H. Furuta, Optimum cable tension adjustment using
fuzzy regression analysis, Proceeding of the 3ed IFIP WG 7.5 Conference, 197-209, Berkley,
California, USA, 1990
[33]
Kaneyoshi, M., H. Tanaka, M. Kamei, and H. Furuta, New system identification technique using
fuzzy regression analysis, Proceeding of ISUMA 90 The first international symposium on
uncertainty modelling and analysis, 528-533, Maryland, USA, 1990
[34]
Larson, M., J.-E. Jonasson, Linear logarithmic model for concrete creep, Journal of advanced
concrete technology, Volume 1, No. 2, 172-187, 2003
[35]
Manabe, Y., N. Hirahara, N. Mukasa and M. Yabuno, Accuracy control on the construction of
Tatara Bridge, IABSE Conference on cable-supported Bridges, Seoul, Korea, 2001
[36]
Manterola Armisn, J., Cable-stayed concrete bridges, International Conference A.I.P.C. F.I.P.
Cable-stayed and suspension bridges, 199-212, Volume 1, Deauville, 1994
[37]
Marchetti, M., C. Bertocchi, D. Regallet and G. Hochet, Elorn Bridge - stay and geometry
adjustment, International Conference A.I.P.C. F.I.P. Cable-stayed and suspension bridges,
363-370, Volume 2, Deauville, 1994
234
Literature
[38]
Marchetti, M., B. Lecnq, Stay adjustment: From design perspective to on site practice, IABSE
Conference on cable-stayed bridges Past, present and future, Malm, Sweden, 1999
[39]
Osuo, Y., N. Toshimori and Y. Suzuki, A calculation method of shim thickness to adjust cable
lengths at erection of cable-stayed bridges, Proceedings of the international conference Cablestayed bridges, 891-901, Volume 2, Bangkok, 1987
[40]
Paik, J., Y. Song, S. Cho and H. Kang, Geometry control of cable-stayed bridge in SeoHae Bridge,
IABSE Conference on cable-supported Bridges, Seoul, Korea, 2001
[41]
Paulik, L., Construction and geometry control of the Mezcala Cable-Stayed Bridge Mexico,
International Conference A.I.P.C. F.I.P. Cable-stayed and suspension bridges, 395-404,
Volume 2, Deauville, 1994
[42]
Pircher, H., Finite differences to simulate creep and shrinkage in prestressed concrete and
composite structures, 579-588, Proceedings of EURO-C 1994 International Conference
Computer modelling of concrete structures, Innsbruck, Austria, 1994
[43]
Pircher, H., Optimisation of design Parameters The AddCon Method, TDV Seminar 2003
Cable-stayed bridges, TDV-Technische Datenverarbeitung, Graz, Austria, 2003
[44]
Pircher, H., Recommended Analysis/Design Example, TDV Seminar 2003 Cable-stayed bridges,
TDV-Technische Datenverarbeitung Graz, Austria, 2003
[45]
Pircher, H., User Guide, RM2000 Static and dynamic analysis of spaceframes, TDV-Technische
Datenverarbeitung, Graz, Austria, 2003
[46]
[47]
Starossek, U., Cable-stayed bridge concept for longer spans, ASCE, Jounal of Bridge Engineering,
Volume 1, No. 3, 99-103; 1996
[48]
Starossek, U., Weight versus cost: light-weight materials in cable-stayed bridges, ASCE, Journal of
Structural Engineering, Volume 124, No. 11, 1359-1362; 1998
[49]
Tanaka, H., M. Kamei and M. Kaneyoshi, Cable tension adjustment by structural system
identification, Proceedings of the international conference Cable-stayed bridges, 856-866,
Volume 2, Bangkok, 1987
[50]
Taylor, P., Composite cable-stayed bridges, International Conference A.I.P.C. F.I.P. Cablestayed and suspension bridges, 185-198, Volume 1, Deauville, 1994
Literature
[51]
235
Taylor, P., S. Kaneko and D. Bergman, Buckling stability and secondary stress effects in the
deck girders of cable-stayed bridges, International Conference A.I.P.C. F.I.P. Cable-stayed
and suspension bridges, 387-394, Volume 2, Deauville, 1994
[52]
[53]
Virlogeux, M., J. C. Foucriat and B. Deroubaix, Design of the Normandie cable-stayed bridge,
near Honfleur, Proceedings of the international conference Cable-stayed bridges, 1111-1122,
Volume 2, Bangkok, 1987
[54]
[55]
Virlogeux, M., J.-C. Foucriat, J. lawnicki, Y. Maury and L. Paulkin, Design of the Normandie
Bridge, International Conference A.I.P.C. F.I.P. Cable-stayed and suspension bridges, 605628, Volume 1, Deauville, 1994
[56]
Virlogeux, M., Erection of cable-stayed bridges The control of the designed geometry,
International Conference A.I.P.C. F.I.P. Cable-stayed and suspension bridges, 321-350,
Volume 2, Deauville, 1994
[57]
[58]
Xiao, R., H. Xiang, L. Jia and X Song, Influence Matrix Method of cable tension optimization for
long-span cable-stayed bridges, IABSE Conference on cable-supported Bridges, Seoul, Korea,
2001
Internet
[59]
Lucko, G., Means and methods analysis of a cast-in-place balance cantilever segmental bridge: The
Wilson Creek Bridge case study, Virginia, 1999
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-120199-224950/
[60]
[61]
Literature
236
[62]
[63]
Satou,
Y.,
N.
Hirahara,
T.
Murata
and
M.
Asano,
Erection
of
Tatara
Bridge,
http://www.ihi.co.jp/ihi/technology/gihou/image/36-2-4.pdf
[64]
[65]
Wang, S. and C. Fu, Static and stability analysis of long-span cable stayed steel bridges,
http://www.cee.umd.edu/best/Publications/Revised%202003%20TRBSTATIC%20AND%20STABILITY %20ANALYSIS%20OF%20A%20LONG.pdf
[66]
Figure 2-7:
http://www.cowi.dk/news/UK/2003/August2003/COWI_awarded_largest_contract_for_transport_
China.asp?COWIframe=OK
[67]
[68]
[69]
[70]
Appendix
237
Appendix
RH := 80%
d eff := 400
t := 460
Cement konstant:
:= 0
RH
100%
3
0.46
t0 := t0T
[mm]
t0T := 7
Age of concrete:
RH := 1 +
fcm := fck + 8
RH = 1.274
fcm :=
5.3
d eff
fcm
100
10
2 + t0T
1.2
+ 1
0 := RH fcm t0
t0 = 7
t0 :=
fcm = 2.439
1
0.20
0.1 + t0
t0 = 0.635
0 = 1.972
18
RH d eff
H := 150 1 + 1.2
+ 250
100% 100
H = 1137.762
< 1500
( t t0)
c :=
H + ( t t0)
:= 0 c
= 1.353
0.3
c = 0.686
Appendix
238
6 tonf
E := 3.63 10
A Q := 1m
l := 10m
Pi := 100tonf
m
:=
Pi
= 100
AQ
tonf
2
l0 := l el
el :=
el = 2.755 10
l0 = 0.275mm
11 := 0
21 := 0.0
31 := 0.0
l1 := 1 l0
l1 = 0.275mm
12 := 0.775
22 := 0.0
32 := 0.0
l2 := 2 l0 + 12 el l
l2 = 0.764mm
13 := 1.074
23 := 0.648
33 := 0.0
14 := 1.353
24 := 0.876
34 := 0.653
(
)
l4 := 3 l0 + ( 14 + 24 + 34) el l
l3 := 3 l0 + 13 + 23 el l
l3 = 1.301mm
l4 = 1.620mm
Appendix
239
Appendix
240
x [m]
z[m]
N. N.
x [m]
z[m]
N. N.
x [m]
z[m]
N. N.
x [m]
z[m]
-245.787
19.811
21
-125.100
25.742
105
-172.000
13.370
152
-172.000
88.860
-242.770
19.962
22
-112.500
26.241
106
-172.000
20.090
153
-172.000
88.920
-242.000
20.000
23
-108.100
26.402
132
-172.000
29.920
1001
-242.000
18.290
-241.179
20.041
24
-95.500
26.830
134
-172.000
46.920
3002
-244.610
18.252
-239.589
20.121
25
-91.100
26.967
136
-172.000
66.920
3004
-243.019
18.331
-237.999
20.200
26
-78.500
27.323
137
-172.000
76.420
3005
-241.429
18.411
-235.750
20.313
27
-74.100
27.435
138
-172.000
82.170
3006
-239.839
18.490
-234.750
20.363
28
-61.500
27.720
139
-172.000
82.350
3009
-218.750
20.617
-218.750
21.163
29
-57.100
27.807
140
-172.000
82.650
3011
-197.500
21.679
10
-214.350
21.383
30
-44.500
28.020
141
-172.000
83.330
3018
-146.500
24.227
11
-197.500
22.225
31
-40.100
28.082
142
-172.000
83.860
3020
-129.500
25.009
12
-193.100
22.445
32
-27.500
28.224
143
-172.000
84.120
3022
-112.500
25.695
13
-182.900
22.955
33
-23.100
28.261
144
-172.000
84.940
3024
-95.500
26.284
14
-173.400
23.430
34
-10.500
28.332
145
-172.000
85.780
3026
-78.500
26.777
15
-172.000
23.500
35
-6.100
28.344
146
-172.000
85.870
3028
-61.500
27.174
16
-168.450
23.678
36
0.000
28.350
147
-172.000
86.630
3030
-44.500
27.474
17
-155.700
24.315
101
-172.000
-4.500
148
-172.000
86.870
3032
-27.500
27.678
18
-146.500
24.773
102
-172.000
-2.500
149
-172.000
87.490
3034
-10.500
27.786
19
-142.100
24.985
103
-172.000
0.000
150
-172.000
87.860
20
-129.500
25.555
104
-172.000
12.370
151
-172.000
88.360
Element Table:
Element Typ
Material
Property
Node 1
Node 2
Element Typ
Material
Property
Node 1
Node 2
BEAM
BEAM
104
105
BEAM
BEAM
105
106
BEAM
BEAM
106
132
BEAM
BEAM
10
132
134
BEAM
BEAM
11
134
136
BEAM
BEAM
12
136
137
BEAM
BEAM
13
137
138
BEAM
BEAM
13
138
139
BEAM
10
BEAM
13
139
140
BEAM
10
11
BEAM
13
140
141
BEAM
11
12
BEAM
13
141
142
BEAM
12
13
BEAM
13
142
143
BEAM
13
14
BEAM
13
143
144
BEAM
14
15
BEAM
13
144
145
Appendix
241
Element Typ
Material
Property
Node 1
Node 2
Element Typ
Material
Property
Node 1
Node 2
BEAM
15
16
BEAM
13
145
146
BEAM
16
17
BEAM
14
146
147
BEAM
17
18
BEAM
14
147
148
BEAM
18
19
BEAM
14
148
149
BEAM
19
20
BEAM
14
149
150
BEAM
20
21
BEAM
14
150
151
BEAM
21
22
BEAM
14
151
152
BEAM
22
23
BEAM
14
152
153
BEAM
23
24
TRUSS
15
152
3002
BEAM
24
25
TRUSS
15
150
3004
BEAM
25
26
TRUSS
15
148
3005
BEAM
26
27
TRUSS
15
146
3006
BEAM
27
28
TRUSS
15
142
3009
BEAM
28
29
TRUSS
15
139
3011
BEAM
29
30
TRUSS
18
138
3018
BEAM
30
31
TRUSS
18
140
3020
BEAM
31
32
TRUSS
18
141
3022
BEAM
32
33
TRUSS
17
143
3024
BEAM
33
34
TRUSS
17
144
3026
BEAM
34
35
TRUSS
17
145
3028
BEAM
35
36
TRUSS
17
147
3030
BEAM
101
102
TRUSS
10
16
149
3032
BEAM
102
103
TRUSS
10
16
151
3034
BEAM
103
104
Appendix
242
Elastic Link Table:
No
Node1
Node2
Typ
Sdx
Sdz
Sry
Group
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
3002
3004
106
3
3005
3006
3009
3011
3018
3020
3022
3024
3026
3028
3030
3032
3034
106
2
4
15
1001
5
6
9
11
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
15
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
GEN
100.000.000
100.000.000
418.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
721
0.0000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
0.00
0.00
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
100.000.000
0.00
Cable1
Cable2
ElaPylon
Left
Cable3
Cable4
Cable5
Cable6
Cable7
Cable8
Cable9
Cable10
Cable11
Cable12
Cable13
Cable14
Cable15
TempPylon
Appendix
243
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
Mmax
N
[tonf]
-1497.85
-1497.85
-9.44
-9.44
-1360.04
-1360.04
-1780.84
-1780.84
-47.95
-47.95
-1337.03
-1337.03
-1993.89
-1993.89
-47.95
-47.95
-1506.03
-1506.03
-1989.36
-1989.36
-207.74
-207.74
-1503.41
-1503.41
-1993.22
-1993.22
-207.74
-207.74
-1993.22
-1993.22
-1990.49
-1990.49
-71.67
-71.67
-122.08
-122.08
-1985.18
-1985.18
-153.48
-153.48
-5.95
-5.95
-1932.82
-1932.82
-88.78
-88.78
My
[tonf*m]
-1418.30
-1418.30
1427.78
1427.78
-1633.85
-1633.85
-622.18
-622.18
2786.29
2786.29
-1639.23
-1639.23
-770.36
-770.36
2786.29
2786.29
-1510.33
-1510.33
155.91
155.91
1885.26
1885.26
-523.90
-523.90
-1391.92
-1391.92
1885.26
1885.26
-1391.92
-1391.92
-859.85
-859.85
1356.06
1356.06
-910.83
-910.83
32.64
32.64
1007.89
1007.89
-1319.76
-1319.76
59.44
59.44
599.39
599.39
Property
No.
fc
fcz
fcal
-160.03
-160.03
-1.01
-1.01
-145.30
-145.30
-366.50
-366.50
-9.87
-9.87
-275.17
-275.17
-431.20
-431.20
-10.37
-10.37
-325.70
-325.70
-430.22
-430.22
-44.93
-44.93
-325.13
-325.13
-262.51
-262.51
-27.36
-27.36
-262.51
-262.51
-430.47
-430.47
-15.50
-15.50
-26.40
-26.40
-429.32
-429.32
-33.19
-33.19
-1.29
-1.29
-418.00
-418.00
-19.20
-19.20
161.89
-116.18
-162.97
116.96
186.50
-133.84
109.56
-190.83
-490.63
854.57
288.65
-502.76
137.03
-237.93
-495.61
860.54
268.65
-466.46
-27.73
48.15
-335.34
582.26
93.19
-161.81
201.11
-193.54
-272.39
262.13
201.11
-193.54
152.95
-265.56
-241.21
418.82
162.01
-281.31
-5.81
10.08
-179.28
311.29
234.75
-407.61
-10.57
18.36
-106.62
185.12
1.87
-276.21
-163.98
115.95
41.19
-279.14
-256.94
-557.33
-500.50
844.70
13.48
-777.93
-294.18
-669.13
-505.98
850.17
-57.05
-792.16
-457.96
-382.07
-380.27
537.34
-231.94
-486.94
-61.40
-456.04
-299.75
234.77
-61.40
-456.04
-277.52
-696.03
-256.71
403.32
135.61
-307.71
-435.13
-419.24
-212.47
278.09
233.47
-408.89
-428.57
-399.64
-125.82
165.92
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
0.00
0.21
0.13
0.09
0.03
0.22
0.20
0.43
0.39
0.65
0.01
0.60
0.23
0.52
0.39
0.66
0.04
0.61
0.36
0.30
0.29
0.42
0.18
0.38
0.05
0.35
0.23
0.18
0.05
0.35
0.22
0.54
0.20
0.31
0.11
0.24
0.34
0.32
0.16
0.22
0.18
0.32
0.33
0.31
0.10
0.13
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
Appendix
244
Segment
No.
Mmin
Nmax
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
10
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
11
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
12
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
13
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
14
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
15
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
key
Mmax
Mmin
N
[tonf]
-219.80
-219.80
-1842.04
-1842.04
-115.27
-115.27
-537.27
-537.27
-1713.67
-1713.67
-177.46
-177.46
-625.19
-625.19
-1540.76
-1540.76
-212.68
-212.68
-715.20
-715.20
-1329.17
-1329.17
-890.15
-890.15
-811.74
-811.74
-1078.12
-1078.12
-638.04
-638.04
-467.60
-467.60
-795.41
-795.41
-343.77
-343.77
-467.04
-467.04
-455.95
-455.95
3.67
3.67
-2.57
-2.57
-2.44
-2.44
3.81
3.81
-2.44
-2.44
My
[tonf*m]
-1716.10
-1716.10
89.71
89.71
479.37
479.37
-1780.46
-1780.46
113.07
113.07
445.16
445.16
-2056.48
-2056.48
95.22
95.22
465.46
465.46
-2238.86
-2238.86
77.10
77.10
528.83
528.83
-2342.86
-2342.86
47.72
47.72
626.48
626.48
-2171.55
-2171.55
-1189.80
-1189.80
586.31
586.31
-1798.00
-1798.00
-696.90
-696.90
56.69
56.69
-1201.17
-1201.17
-994.39
-994.39
210.06
210.06
-994.39
-994.39
Property
No.
fc
fcz
fcal
-47.53
-47.53
-398.37
-398.37
-24.93
-24.93
-116.19
-116.19
-370.60
-370.60
-38.38
-38.38
-135.21
-135.21
-333.21
-333.21
-45.99
-45.99
-154.67
-154.67
-287.45
-287.45
-192.51
-192.51
-175.55
-175.55
-233.16
-233.16
-137.98
-137.98
-101.12
-101.12
-172.02
-172.02
-74.34
-74.34
-101.00
-101.00
-98.61
-98.61
0.79
0.79
-0.56
-0.56
-0.53
-0.53
0.82
0.82
-0.53
-0.53
305.25
-530.02
-15.96
27.71
-85.27
148.05
316.70
-549.89
-20.11
34.92
-79.18
137.49
365.80
-635.14
-16.94
29.41
-82.79
143.76
398.24
-691.47
-13.71
23.81
-94.07
163.33
416.74
-723.59
-8.49
14.74
-111.44
193.49
386.27
-670.68
211.64
-367.47
-104.29
181.08
319.82
-555.31
123.96
-215.24
-10.08
17.51
213.66
-370.98
176.88
-307.12
-37.36
64.88
176.88
-307.12
257.72
-577.55
-414.32
-370.66
-110.20
123.12
200.51
-666.09
-390.72
-335.68
-117.56
99.11
230.59
-770.35
-350.15
-303.80
-128.79
97.76
243.57
-846.14
-301.16
-263.64
-286.57
-29.18
241.19
-899.14
-241.65
-218.42
-249.42
55.50
285.14
-771.81
39.62
-539.49
-178.64
106.74
218.82
-656.31
25.36
-313.84
-9.29
18.30
213.10
-371.54
176.35
-307.64
-36.54
65.70
176.35
-307.64
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
Table A-4: Control of allowable stresses of the girder segments during construction
0.20
0.45
0.32
0.29
0.09
0.10
0.16
0.52
0.30
0.26
0.09
0.08
0.18
0.60
0.27
0.24
0.10
0.08
0.19
0.66
0.23
0.20
0.22
0.02
0.19
0.70
0.19
0.17
0.19
0.04
0.22
0.60
0.03
0.42
0.14
0.08
0.17
0.51
0.02
0.24
0.01
0.01
0.17
0.29
0.14
0.24
0.03
0.05
0.14
0.24
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
Appendix
245
Maximum and minimum stresses in the girder segments due to construction and traffic
loads:
Segment
No.
Nmax
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
Mmax
Mmin
N
[tonf]
-2083.78
-2083.78
-9.44
-9.44
-2083.78
-2083.78
-2415.04
-2415.04
-47.95
-47.95
-2415.04
-2415.04
-2623.11
-2623.11
-47.95
-47.95
-2622.18
-2622.18
-2618.57
-2618.57
-207.74
-207.74
-2618.57
-2618.57
-2633.97
-2633.97
-207.74
-207.74
-2246.77
-2246.77
-2630.73
-2630.73
-71.67
-71.67
-2243.52
-2243.52
-2623.62
-2623.62
-153.48
-153.48
-5.95
-5.95
-2558.17
-2558.17
-88.78
-88.78
-219.80
-219.80
My
[tonf*m]
-2397.29
-2397.29
1427.78
1427.78
-2397.29
-2397.29
-2192.06
-2192.06
2786.29
2786.29
-2192.06
-2192.06
-1761.36
-1761.36
2786.29
2786.29
-1773.43
-1773.43
-802.26
-802.26
1885.26
1885.26
-802.26
-802.26
-2192.67
-2192.67
1885.26
1885.26
-2676.85
-2676.85
-1462.51
-1462.51
1356.06
1356.06
-1861.61
-1861.61
-150.51
-150.51
1007.89
1007.89
-1319.76
-1319.76
-43.31
-43.31
599.39
599.39
-1716.10
-1716.10
Property
No.
fc
fcz
fcal
-222.63
-222.63
-1.01
-1.01
-222.63
-222.63
-497.02
-497.02
-9.87
-9.87
-497.02
-497.02
-567.28
-567.28
-10.37
-10.37
-567.08
-567.08
-566.30
-566.30
-44.93
-44.93
-566.30
-566.30
-346.89
-346.89
-27.36
-27.36
-295.90
-295.90
-568.93
-568.93
-15.50
-15.50
-485.19
-485.19
-567.39
-567.39
-33.19
-33.19
-1.29
-1.29
-553.24
-553.24
-19.20
-19.20
-47.53
-47.53
273.64
-196.37
-162.97
116.96
273.64
-196.37
386.00
-672.32
-490.63
854.57
386.00
-672.32
313.30
-544.00
-495.61
860.54
315.45
-547.72
142.70
-247.78
-335.34
582.26
142.70
-247.78
316.81
-304.88
-272.39
262.13
386.77
-372.20
260.15
-451.70
-241.21
418.82
331.14
-574.96
26.77
-46.48
-179.28
311.29
234.75
-407.61
7.70
-13.38
-106.62
185.12
305.25
-530.02
51.01
-419.00
-163.98
115.95
51.01
-419.00
-111.03
-1169.34
-500.50
844.70
-111.03
-1169.34
-253.98
-1111.28
-505.98
850.17
-251.63
-1114.80
-423.60
-814.08
-380.27
537.34
-423.60
-814.08
-30.09
-651.77
-299.75
234.77
90.87
-668.10
-308.78
-1020.63
-256.71
403.32
-154.05
-1060.15
-540.62
-613.88
-212.47
278.09
233.47
-408.89
-545.53
-566.61
-125.82
165.92
257.72
-577.55
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
0.04
0.32
0.13
0.09
0.04
0.32
0.09
0.91
0.39
0.65
0.09
0.91
0.20
0.86
0.39
0.66
0.20
0.86
0.33
0.63
0.29
0.42
0.33
0.63
0.02
0.51
0.23
0.18
0.07
0.52
0.24
0.79
0.20
0.31
0.12
0.82
0.42
0.48
0.16
0.22
0.18
0.32
0.42
0.44
0.10
0.13
0.20
0.45
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
Appendix
246
Segment
No.
Nmax
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
10
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
11
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
12
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
13
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
14
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
15
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
key
Mmax
Mmin
N
[tonf]
-2438.24
-2438.24
-115.27
-115.27
-537.27
-537.27
-2268.45
-2268.45
-1637.27
-1637.27
-625.19
-625.19
-2022.21
-2022.21
-1377.23
-1377.23
-715.20
-715.20
-1725.84
-1725.84
-1194.92
-1194.92
-811.74
-811.74
-1380.99
-1380.99
-638.04
-638.04
-467.60
-467.60
-987.18
-987.18
-521.98
-521.98
-467.04
-467.04
-521.76
-521.76
13.90
13.90
-2.57
-2.57
-2.61
-2.61
14.12
14.12
-2.44
-2.44
My
[tonf*m]
-68.42
-68.42
479.37
479.37
-1780.46
-1780.46
-153.88
-153.88
527.16
527.16
-2056.48
-2056.48
-223.37
-223.37
534.31
534.31
-2238.86
-2238.86
-91.86
-91.86
587.19
587.19
-2342.86
-2342.86
201.13
201.13
626.48
626.48
-2171.55
-2171.55
689.26
689.26
1197.37
1197.37
-1798.00
-1798.00
1197.37
1197.37
1846.41
1846.41
-1201.17
-1201.17
-24.35
-24.35
2184.07
2184.07
-994.39
-994.39
Property
No.
fc
fcz
fcal
-527.30
-527.30
-24.93
-24.93
-116.19
-116.19
-490.58
-490.58
-354.08
-354.08
-135.21
-135.21
-437.33
-437.33
-297.84
-297.84
-154.67
-154.67
-373.24
-373.24
-258.42
-258.42
-175.55
-175.55
-298.66
-298.66
-137.98
-137.98
-101.12
-101.12
-213.49
-213.49
-112.88
-112.88
-101.00
-101.00
-112.84
-112.84
3.01
3.01
-0.56
-0.56
-0.56
-0.56
3.05
3.05
-0.53
-0.53
12.17
-21.13
-85.27
148.05
316.70
-549.89
27.37
-47.53
-93.77
162.81
365.80
-635.14
39.73
-68.99
-95.04
165.02
398.24
-691.47
16.34
-28.37
-104.45
181.35
416.74
-723.59
-35.78
62.12
-111.44
193.49
386.27
-670.68
-122.60
212.88
-212.98
369.81
319.82
-555.31
-212.98
369.81
-328.43
570.26
213.66
-370.98
4.33
-7.52
-388.49
674.55
176.88
-307.12
-515.13
-548.43
-110.20
123.12
200.51
-666.09
-463.21
-538.11
-447.85
-191.27
230.59
-770.35
-397.60
-506.32
-392.88
-132.82
243.57
-846.14
-356.90
-401.61
-362.86
-77.06
241.19
-899.14
-334.43
-236.54
-249.42
55.50
285.14
-771.81
-336.09
-0.61
-325.87
256.92
218.82
-656.31
-325.82
256.97
-325.43
573.27
213.10
-371.54
3.77
-8.08
-385.44
677.60
176.35
-307.64
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
0.40
0.43
0.09
0.10
0.16
0.52
0.36
0.42
0.35
0.15
0.18
0.60
0.31
0.39
0.30
0.10
0.19
0.66
0.28
0.31
0.28
0.06
0.19
0.70
0.26
0.18
0.19
0.04
0.22
0.60
0.26
0.00
0.25
0.20
0.17
0.51
0.25
0.20
0.25
0.44
0.17
0.29
0.00
0.01
0.30
0.53
0.14
0.24
Table A-5: Control of allowable stresses of the girder segments under live load condition
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
Appendix
247
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
5-7
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
11
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
12
Mmax
Mmin
N
[tonf]
-4089.5
-4089.5
-3261.6
-3261.6
-1152
-1152
-4016.6
-4016.6
-3188.7
-3188.7
-1079.1
-1079.1
-3907.6
-3907.6
-3907.6
-3907.6
-970.03
-970.03
-3799.2
-3799.2
-210.59
-210.59
-2280.1
-2280.1
-3739.5
-3739.5
-150.85
-150.85
-1074
-1074
-1543
-1543
-45.35
-45.35
-1091
-1091
My
[tonf*m]
257.61
257.61
751.33
751.33
-3665.77
-3665.77
188.42
188.42
488.47
488.47
-3101.95
-3101.95
68.77
68.77
68.77
68.77
-2126.88
-2126.88
-71.99
-71.99
0
0
-1117.71
-1117.71
-138.85
-138.85
0
0
-1521.23
-1521.23
-189.38
-189.38
0
0
-1327.27
-1327.27
Property
No.
10
11
12
13
14
fc
fcz
fcal
-519.50
-519.50
-414.32
-414.32
-146.34
-146.34
-589.64
-589.64
-468.10
-468.10
-158.41
-158.41
-679.46
-679.46
-679.46
-679.46
-168.67
-168.67
-569.17
-569.17
-31.55
-31.55
-341.59
-341.59
-368.09
-368.09
-14.85
-14.85
-105.72
-105.72
-254.20
-254.20
-7.47
-7.47
-179.73
-179.73
-47.53
47.53
-138.63
138.63
676.36
-676.36
-40.08
40.08
-103.90
103.90
659.79
-659.79
-17.30
17.30
-17.30
17.30
535.13
-535.13
15.79
-15.79
0.00
0.00
245.20
-245.20
18.38
-18.38
0.00
0.00
201.37
-201.37
51.51
-51.51
0.00
0.00
360.98
-360.98
-567.04
-471.97
-552.95
-275.70
530.02
-822.70
-629.72
-549.56
-571.99
-364.20
501.38
-818.20
-696.76
-662.15
-696.76
-662.15
366.46
-703.80
-553.38
-584.96
-31.55
-31.55
-96.38
-586.79
-349.71
-386.47
-14.85
-14.85
95.65
-307.08
-202.69
-305.71
-7.47
-7.47
181.26
-540.71
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
Table A-6: Control of allowable stresses of the pylon due to construction loads
0.44
0.37
0.43
0.21
0.41
0.64
0.49
0.43
0.44
0.28
0.39
0.63
0.54
0.51
0.54
0.51
0.28
0.55
0.43
0.45
0.02
0.02
0.07
0.45
0.27
0.30
0.01
0.01
0.07
0.24
0.16
0.24
0.01
0.01
0.14
0.42
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
Appendix
248
Maximum and minimum stresses in the pylon due to construction and traffic loads:
Segment
No.
Nmax
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
5-7
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
11
Mmax
Mmin
Nmax
12
Mmax
Mmin
N
[tonf]
-5142.3
-5142.3
-5123.1
-5123.1
-1152
-1152
-5069.4
-5069.4
-5050.2
-5050.2
-1079.1
-1079.1
-4960.3
-4960.3
-4941.1
-4941.1
-970.03
-970.03
-4851.9
-4851.9
-3822.2
-3822.2
-2280.1
-2280.1
-4792.2
-4792.2
-3762.4
-3762.4
-1074
-1074
-2120.1
-2120.1
-45.35
-45.35
-1091
-1091
My
[tonf*m]
1532.3
1532.3
1742.4
1742.4
-3665.77
-3665.77
1189.9
1189.9
1335.02
1335.02
-3101.95
-3101.95
597.76
597.76
630.5
630.5
-2126.88
-2126.88
-98.88
-98.88
44.15
44.15
-1117.71
-1117.71
-429.78
-429.78
50.43
50.43
-1521.23
-1521.23
-572.23
-572.23
0
0
-1327.27
-1327.27
Property
No.
10
11
12
13
14
fc
fcz
fcal
-653.24
-653.24
-650.80
-650.80
-146.34
-146.34
-744.18
-744.18
-741.37
-741.37
-158.41
-158.41
-862.51
-862.51
-859.17
-859.17
-168.67
-168.67
-726.88
-726.88
-572.61
-572.61
-341.59
-341.59
-471.72
-471.72
-370.35
-370.35
-105.72
-105.72
-349.28
-349.28
-7.47
-7.47
-179.73
-179.73
-282.72
282.72
-321.48
321.48
676.36
-676.36
-253.09
253.09
-283.96
283.96
659.79
-659.79
-150.40
150.40
-158.64
158.64
535.13
-535.13
21.69
-21.69
-9.69
9.69
245.20
-245.20
56.89
-56.89
-6.68
6.68
201.37
-201.37
155.63
-155.63
0.00
0.00
360.98
-360.98
-935.96
-370.52
-972.28
-329.31
530.02
-822.70
-997.28
-491.09
-1025.33
-457.40
501.38
-818.20
-1012.91
-712.11
-1017.81
-700.54
366.46
-703.80
-705.19
-748.57
-582.30
-562.92
-96.38
-586.79
-414.83
-528.61
-377.03
-363.68
95.65
-307.08
-193.65
-504.91
-7.47
-7.47
181.26
-540.71
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
1290
Table A-7: Control of allowable stresses of the pylon under live load condition
0.73
0.29
0.75
0.26
0.41
0.64
0.77
0.38
0.79
0.35
0.39
0.63
0.79
0.55
0.79
0.54
0.28
0.55
0.55
0.58
0.45
0.44
0.07
0.45
0.32
0.41
0.29
0.28
0.07
0.24
0.15
0.39
0.01
0.01
0.14
0.42
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
Appendix
249
Forming the equilibrium condition for the cable element shown in Figure A-1. a general
differential equation can be derived as
d2y
= q ( x) .
dx 2
(A-1)
Assuming the constancy of q and a parable cable-equation. Peterson [11] developed the
following function for a cable with two suspension-points of different height:
y ( x) = x 2 ( x A x B )x + x A x B *
y yA
y x yB xA
q
+ B
x+ A B
.
2H x B x A
xB x A
(A-2)
K2 =
q
.
2H
K 1 = tan
(A-3)
q
(x A + x B ) and
2H
(A-4)
q
x A xB
2H
(A-5)
K 0 = y A x A tan +
y ( x) = K 2 x 2 + K 1 x + K 0 .
(A-6)
The first derivative of y(x) is the gradient of the cable written as:
y ( x) =
dy
= 2K 2 x + K1
dx
(A-7)
Appendix
250
In accordance to Figure A-1 and Equation A-7. the cable length ds can be formulated as
dy
ds = dx 2 + dy 2 = dx 1 +
dx
(A-8)
ds = 1 + (2 K 2 x + K 1 ) 2 dx
(A-9)
L = 1 + K 12 + 4 K 2 K 1 x + 4 K 22 x 2 dx .
(A-10)
In order to solve the integral of the cable length L. the parameters a. b. and c are introduced as
a = 1 + K 12
(A-11)
b = 4K 2 K1
(A-12)
c = 4K 22
(A-13)
B = a + bx + cx 2 .
(A-14)
This integral is of a standard type now and the solution can be given as (e.g. Bartsch [1])
B dx =
b + 2cx
dx
B+
4c
8c
B
(A-15)
with
= 4ac b 2
(A-16)
and
dx
B
1
c
ln b + 2cx + 2 cB .
(A-17)
L = B dx =
b + 2cx
1
B+
ln b + 2cx + 2 cB .
4c
8c c
(A-18)
I1 =
I2 =
b + 2cx
B
4c
8c 3 2
(A-19)
(A-20)
Appendix
251
I 3 = ln b + 2cx + 2 cB
(A-21)
(A-22)
The elongation of the cable due to its tension force S must be considered in the determination of
the initial cable length. Under the consideration of
S ( x) =
H
.
cos
(A-23)
d (L ) =
Sds H
ds
.
=
*
AE AE cos
(A-24)
H
ds
H ds
H ds
d (L ) =
*
=
* ds =
* dx .
AE dx AE dx
AE dx
ds
(A-25)
H B ds
L =
dx .
AE xA dx
(A-26)
Using Equation A-8 and A-9 respectively. formula A-26 can be written as
H
L =
AE
(1 + K
xB
2
1
+ 4 K 2 K 1 x + 4 K 22 x 2 * dx .
(A-27)
xA
L1 = 1 + K 12 * ( x A x B )
L2 = 2 K 2 K 1 * x A x B
L3 =
(A-28)
4 2
3
3
K 2 * x A xB .
3
(A-29)
(A-30)
L =
H
(L1 + L2 + L3 ) .
AE
(A-31)
Finally. the unstressed cable length can be calculated from Equation A-32 as
L0 = L L
(A-32)
252
Appendix
Appendix
253
254
Appendix
Appendix
255
256
Appendix
Appendix
257
258
Appendix
Appendix
259
260
Appendix
Appendix
261
262
Appendix
Appendix
263
264
Appendix
Appendix
265
266
Appendix
Appendix
267