(CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE CONCEPT FOR LONGER SPANS" Discussion by Raju Tuladhar* and Walter H. Dilger,’ Member, ASCE ‘The authors deserves praise for developing a new system for cable-stayed bridge design. The author contends in the pa- per that there are savings in the cable steel. The present dis teussion deals with the issue of savings of cable steel in this interesting new concept. In the paper the savings inthe cable steel are compared for the vertical pylon and the inclined py- Ton systems, assuming that the longitudinal configuration of cables will be of a fan type in the vertical pylon system. How- fever, the fan-type configuration is not the most economical ‘configuration of eables. Inthe following discussion (Tuladhar 1995), itis shown that the cables need to be inclined at 45° to the deck horizontal axis to be most economical Consider a soction of a cable-stayed bridge with the deck, tower, and cables as shown in Fig. 10. The symbols used are defined 1. A= cable area 2 L = chord length of cables 3. L, = horizontal distance from tower to cable support point of the deck 4. 0 = inclination of cable 5. T= tension force in cable 66. V= vertical component of tension force in cable ‘The optimum angle is determined on the basis of minimum cable stee! volume required to support the deck. The two pa- rameters L, and V are controlled by the design of the deck, land they can therefore be taken as constant. Also, the cable tensile stress @ can be assumed to be constant for a given type ‘of cable material. Thus, the only variables are the cable steel ‘volume v’ aad the cable inclination 8. From the geometry and the equilibrium, the following relationships are established: vate Ae b= Leos & T= 0A; Tio. Asin 8s A ‘Combining (6) and (7), the following relationship between v' and 0 is obtained: Ab, Ve (2) 1 Vcd amndcme ho, ® iat In (8), the term (2VL,/o) is constant; therefore, the steel volume v is minimum when sin28 is maximum. It is obvious {hat sin28 is maximum when 28 = 90°. Therefore, at © = 45°, ‘the cable steel volume required to support the deck is mini: “This discussion essentially shows that itis not efficient 10 connect the inner cables to the top of the tower making the cable inclination larger than 45°. Therefore the semifan con- figuration ofthe cables will be the most economic choice com- pared with the fan or harp type, as the inner cables do not have to be steeper than 45°. In the fan system the inner cables gaat 1986, Vol, No.3 by Une Starossk (Paper 780), ‘Depe of Civ: Bogrg., The Univ. of Calgary, AB, Canada, T2N INS, "Dept of iv: Eogrg. The Univ of Calgary, AB, Canad, T2N INA. 190/ JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 1997 L aes Le FIG. 10. Section of Cable-Stayed Bridge. Ibe steeper than 45°, and for the harp type, the slopes of inner cables will be less than 45% In the proposed inclined pylon system, the semifan config uration ofthe cables isnot feasible, since they will cause huge bending moment in the inclined legs of the pylon and there fare no-cables going in the opposite direction to balance the Iwansverse component of the cable tension. For a more prac- tical comparison regarding the economy or the savings in the ‘cable stel, the semifan configuration of the cables should be ‘considered for the vertical pylon (a= 0). APPENDIX. REFERENCE ‘Tuladhs, R (1998). "Selamlc studies of conventional and mul-span ‘iblesayed edges” PRD thal, The Un of Calguy, Calgary. Ale ‘er, Canada, Closure by Uwe Starossek,* Member, ASCE ‘The writer would like to thank the discusters for thei kind interest in the paper. While the paper describes a new system for cable-stayed bridges and attempts to analyze some of its merits and de merits, the discussion focuses on a slightly different, albeit interesting, issue. The new system, as proposed, has been de~ rived from the classical fan-lype cable-stayed bridge system ‘where all the cables are anchored in the pylon heads at about the same height. The statement, made in the paper, regarding savings of cable steel refers to the proposed new system as ‘compared to classical cable-stayed bridge system, both hav- ing a fanlike cable arrangement. As such, the writer believes that his statement remains unquestioned and valid “The discussers give emphasis to an issue that has not ac- tually been addressed in the paper, i. the influence of cable ‘configuration (fan, semifan, harp) on costs. Inthe first para- ‘raph of the discussion, i is asserted that the fantype config- ‘ration is not the most economical configuration of cables and thatthe cables need to be inclined at 48° to the deck axis to ‘be most economical. This statement, at frst glance, seems to suggest that the harp arrangement is superior t0 the fan at- rangement in regard to costs “The influence of cable configuration on cable-stel quanti- ties was investigated by Leonhardt and Zellner (1972); some of their results are cited in Task Committee (1977). In these publications, quantities for three-span cable-stayed bridges With fantype or harp-type eable configurations are presented 1s functions of the ratio of pylon height to main span length TKturns out that for a ratio smaller than about 0.29 the fan- type arrangement requires less total cable steel than the harp solution, The heightto-span ratio is usually chosen to be in "PE, Ober Barger 18 FSG Bremerhaven, Gormany.the order of 0.20, which is much smaller than 0:29. Thus, the discussers statement cited in the preceding seems at variance ‘with the findings of Leonhardt and Zellner (1972) ‘The discussers start their line of argumentation with dem- constrating quite elegantly thatthe steel volume ofa single stay ‘cable is minimized when the cable inclination is 45°. While this is correct, it does not allow direct conclusions about su- periorty, regarding total steel volume, of cable arrangements. Such a direct conclusion would be limited to a harp-type ar- rangement with all the cables being inclined at 45° and, thus, ‘ cable-stayed bridge with a height-o-span ratio of about 0.50. Such a large ratio, however, will usually be impractical for several reatons: the pylons are rather high and the implied larger pylon costs are likely to outweigh, by far, any savings in cable costs (see Fig, 5). Furthermore, pyion height is often restricted by environmental restrictions and aesthetic consi erations "Toward the end of the discussion, it is stated that the semifan cable arrangement is more economical than the fan ‘arrangement because the inner cables do not have to be steeper than 45°, This is an interesting reasoning that the waiter be- lieves to be correct as far as it refers 10 cable quantities. An- other advantage of the semifan system over the fan system, however, is that the cable anchorages at the pylon head are ‘easier to accommodate —a property that can be more cost rel- ‘evant than cable quantities. ‘Subsequently, the discussers assert that the semifan cable ‘configuration is not feasible for the spread-pylon system. They argue that cables anchored at the inclined pylon legs at loca- tions other than the top will cause large bending moments in the pylon legs because there are no horizontal ties to balance ‘the horizontal force component of these cables. It seems to the writer that the addition of exacly these ties, at elevations ‘where stay cables are attached to the pylon legs, would address the problem pointed out by the discussers and that such an ‘adapted spread-pylon system, having a semifan cable arrange- ‘ment, would indeed be feasible. ‘The writer would like to close this exchange of ideas with ‘some more general reflections. When attempting to find the ‘most economical system, all structural elements and their in- teraction should be considered. The choice ofa specific cable arrangement, for instance, can largely influence the magnitude ‘of bending moments in pylons and girder, and, consequently, ‘Quantities and costs of these elements. However, one should also be aware that quantities do not directly tanslate into ‘costs—a reservation duely made in the paper. A system that calls for larger quantities can be more economical when de- tailing problems are alleviated or when the erection process is accelerated. This can be particularly the ease, of course, when {quantity differences are small ‘Finally, we should bear in mind that economy is not the only determining design parameter. Issues such as function- ality, public acceptance, quality, and speed of construction can be as important as costs, The writer is optimistic that bridge ‘design will not be reduced to a computing exereise but will, remain a challenge to technical and aesthetic creativity APPENDIX. REFERENCES Leoshart, and Zener, W. (1972) “Verpeche zwischen Hage: ‘racken und Schrighabebricken fr Spannweten dbee 60D rm (Com parse investigations of suspension badges and cable stayed beidges For spans exceeding 600m). Int Asm. for Bridge and Sit. Engr, ‘isi, Switzedand, 32-1 in German). ‘Task Commitee on Cao-Suspended Sites of the Commitee on ‘Special Stactres ofthe Commitee on Metals ofthe Srctral DI son, (97D. “Tentative recommendadons for cablestayed badge Strucures" 4 Simct Di, ASCE, 103(5), 929-959 STRETCHING SPAN CAPABILITY OF PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BRIDGES UNDER AASHTO LRFD* Discussion by Toorak Zokale’ and Tim Osterkamp*‘ ‘The discussers found the authors’ paper interesting and in- formative. Research into wheel load distribution factors should ot be considered a closed subject with the American Asso- Ciation of State Highway. and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) adoption of the LRFD Bridge Design Specifica- fions (AASHTO 1994) as an alternate to the Standard Speci- fications (AASHTO 1992, 1994). Continued testing and veri- fication of the design ‘equations are needed as. bridge technology and building practices evolve. However, the dis- ‘cussers want to address several statements regarding the Toad land resistance factor design (LRFD) approximate methods and references to the NCHRP Project Report 12-26, “Distribution ‘of wheel loads on highway bridges"” (Zokaie et al. 1991). Three “shortcomings” to the simplified wheel load distri- bution equations listed atthe beginning of the paper contain inacouracies. The fist one states that accurate analyses were run on so-called “average bridges" in each class and noted ‘that the statistical average I-beam bridge length chosen was 14.63 m (48 f). The LRFD wheel load distribution equation was developed for concrete deck bridges set on concrete ot steel Igirders or concrete T-beams. Therefore, all three bridge types contibuted to determining an average bridge. Span length variation was accounted for by performing sensitivity studies on the approximate equation with span lengths from 8.90 to 45.72 m (29.2 to 150 ft). In addition, verification stud- ies were performed using 304 actual bridges, including 92 prestressed girder bridges, gathered from numerous Depart- ‘ments of Transportation across the United Staes. The average span length of these bridges was 19.96 m (65.5 1). The second listed shortcoming on the origin of the database ‘of “accurate” solutions forthe simplified oa ‘Accurate solutions did not consist of past solutions from sev- ral states with different design criteria. Instead, accurate so- lutions were found from direct finite-element analysis or from ‘what the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) report authors termed the multidimensional space interpolation (MSI) model, MST consisted of hundreds of ‘wheel load distribution factor results from finite-element anal- yses of slab on girder-type bridges. The MSI method is used to interpolate on bridge span length, spacing, girder stifness parameter, and slab thickness to find the wheel load distribu- {on factor. The MSI results were verified against detailed finite element of a number of actual bridges. It should be noted that the LRFD simplified formulas were intentionally developed to be approximately 5% conservative on average. ‘The third listed shortcoming is also in error. Multilane re- duction factors were always considered when developing the simplified equations. NCHRP Project Report 12-26 was pet- formed for AASHTO LFD Specifications, and the proposed ‘simplified equations in the study did use a multlane reduction factor of 0.90 for thre-lane loading. However, a subsequent “August 1996, Vo 1, No.3, by Vobeia Chan ad Alok Aswad Paper 13239) “Edge Res. Engr, mbien and Ast. Ine, 9912 Busines Park Dr, Ste, 130, Soeramento, CA 95827 “ridge Des. Engr-Imbsen and Assoc, Tne, 9912 Busnes Park De, Ste 130, Sacramento, CA JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / NOVEMBER 1957/ 161