You are on page 1of 495

UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

Structural Behaviour of Spatial Arch Bridges

by

Martin Hudecek

A THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

GRADUATE PROGRAM IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

CALGARY, ALBERTA

MAY, 2017

© Martin Hudecek 2017


Abstract

This thesis investigates particular aspects of the structural behaviour of a new form of
bridge structure called spatial arch bridge (SAB). SABs are designed to be outstanding
pieces of architecture. Due to the enhancement in graphical and structural analysis
software, the number of SABs is increasing. However, the complexity of SABs results in
certain challenges in structural analysis and design. The unique combination of the arch,
hangers, and deck result in the development of out-of-plane loads that significantly
influence the structural response. This work focuses on SABs with an inferior deck
suspended on flexible hangers (cables) below the arch. Three different spatial arrangements
of the arch and deck are developed and analyzed to fill particular gaps in the current state
of knowledge. Finite element analysis (FEA) is employed as the main analysis tool. Both
linear and nonlinear parametric models are developed to address the objectives of the
research. Ratios of primary and secondary geometric variables including arch rise, span,
deck reach, and inclination or rotation of the parabolic arch are established to identify the
trends in the structural response and to consider the effects of various types of loads. The
significance of variability in the bending stiffness of the arch and the deck is studied to
determine the optimal combination of these parameters that results in spatial configurations
with minimal susceptibility to buckling as a function of particular types of end conditions
of the deck. The work describes aspects of advanced composite materials (ACM), such as a
low modulus of elasticity and time-dependent material properties in all-composite
assemblies, and determines the applicability of commonly used durable structural profiles
in SABs taking into account the nonlinear character of the cables and the effect of
additional tensioning of the cables. The results of the large number of analyses conducted
are summarized in tables accompanied with charts and schematic sketches that are intended
to serve as guidelines when analyzing or designing structures similar in nature to the ones
described in this work. Design criteria are proposed.

Key words: Spatial arch bridges, parametric models, FEA, geometric ratios, stiffness ratios,
end conditions of the deck, flexible hangers, susceptibility to buckling, additional
tensioning of cables, advanced composite materials, design guidelines

ii
Preface

The work described in this thesis assesses the structural behaviour of spatial arch
bridges (SABs). These structures can be very complex and many aspects can influence
their response to applied loads. The thesis is organized into eight chapters to clarify the
structural behaviour of SABs in order of increasing complexity. The structural behaviour of
SABs is investigated using finite element analysis (FEA), and the significance of certain
variables, including geometric and stiffness ratios and material properties, is studied.
Each chapter contains an introduction and sections on methodology, results, and
discussion. The influence of a change in the geometric variables on structural response in
the arch, deck, and cables under several loading conditions is investigated first. The
revealed issues are studied in the chapters that follow. The significance of arch and deck
stiffness under live loads is investigated, which provides grounds to define the
susceptibility to buckling as a function of the end conditions of the deck. The application of
advanced composite materials (ACMs) in SABs is examined. Additional tensioning of
flexible hangers, transferring the loads from the deck to the arch, is considered in certain
configuration. The arrangement of the hangers in the assumed spatial configurations and
the response to dynamic loading are discussed as possible directions for future work. The
appendix of the thesis provides details, such as large tables or charts, to the analyses
presented in the body of text. A complete parametric input file that gathers all necessary
parameters and commands is included in the appendix as well.
The understanding of the structural behaviour of SABs obtained from the research
described in each chapter is summarized at the end of each chapter and can be used by
designers of SABs as a guideline. Design criteria are proposed for the spatial
configurations studied in this thesis. The proposed guidelines and criteria are not intended
to specify exact design procedures. Rather, the intention is to provide credible information
that can be used while designing and analyzing these structures.

iii
Acknowledgements

I would like to express my greatest appreciation to Dr. Nigel Graham Shrive, who
guided me and offered invaluable advice throughout my doctoral studies.

I would like to acknowledge and thank the following for their support: Stantec
consulting Ltd. and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
(NSERC), who have supported my research financially via the Industrial Postgraduate
Scholarship (IPS) program. I would also like to thank Compute Canada and the University
of Calgary for providing the finite element software, Abaqus.

My countless thanks belong to all my colleagues, coworkers, friends, and family


members who helped me throughout my studies and with revising this thesis in particular.

iv
Dedication

With love and great memory to my parents Jarmila and Karel†, my brother Tomáš
and to my wife Elissa who always supported me throughout my academic pursuit. I would
like to dedicate this thesis to my daughter Sophia who is the bright light in our lives.

v
Table of Contents

Abstract ................................................................................................................................ii
Preface ............................................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgements.............................................................................................................iv
Dedication ............................................................................................................................ v
Table of Contents................................................................................................................vi
List of Tables .....................................................................................................................xii
List of Figures and Illustrations ........................................................................................xxi
List of Symbols, Abbreviations and Nomenclature ....................................................... xxxv
Epigraph .............................................................................................................................xli
Chapter One: Introduction and Motivation............................................................... - 1 -
1.1 Spatial Arch Bridges ................................................................................................. - 1 -
1.2 Problem Definition ................................................................................................... - 2 -
1.3 Objectives ................................................................................................................. - 4 -
1.4 Scope of Work .......................................................................................................... - 5 -
1.5 Thesis Layout............................................................................................................ - 6 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review ................................................................................ - 9 -
2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................... - 9 -
2.2 Definition of Spatial Arch Bridges ........................................................................... - 9 -
2.3 History and Development of Spatial Structures ..................................................... - 10 -
2.4 Geometry of Spatial Arch Bridges.......................................................................... - 17 -
2.4.1 General............................................................................................................. - 17 -
2.4.2 Classification of Spatial Arch Bridges ............................................................ - 18 -
2.4.2.1 Spatial Arch Ribs and Spatial Shells ....................................................... - 18 -
2.4.2.2 Symmetry in Plan-view ........................................................................... - 19 -
2.4.2.3 Mutual Position of Arch and Deck .......................................................... - 20 -
2.4.2.4 Arch Bridges with Imposed Curvature.................................................... - 21 -
2.4.2.5 Multiple, Diagonally Rotated, and Elevated Bridges.............................. - 21 -
2.4.3 Geometrical Ratios .......................................................................................... - 22 -
2.4.4 Form Finding Approaches ............................................................................... - 24 -
2.4.4.1 Antifunicular Arches ............................................................................... - 24 -
2.4.4.2 Interactive Parametric Tools ................................................................... - 25 -
2.4.4.3 Form Finding Methods ............................................................................ - 27 -
2.5 Structural Behaviour of Spatial Arch Bridges ........................................................ - 28 -
2.5.1 General............................................................................................................. - 28 -

vi
2.5.2 Structural Response of Different Configuration of SABs ............................... - 29 -
2.5.2.1 Linear Analysis ....................................................................................... - 29 -
2.5.2.2 Nonlinear Analysis .................................................................................. - 30 -
2.5.2.3 Arch Bridges with Imposed Curvature.................................................... - 30 -
2.5.2.4 Laterally Loaded Spatial Arches ............................................................. - 31 -
2.5.2.5 SABs with Superior Deck and Dynamic analysis ................................... - 33 -
2.5.3 Elastic Instability of Arches ............................................................................ - 33 -
2.5.3.1 Development of Elastic Instability Theory ............................................. - 34 -
2.5.3.2 Elastic Instability in Planar Arches ......................................................... - 35 -
2.5.3.3 Elastic Instability in SABs ...................................................................... - 36 -
2.5.4 Effects of Thermal Loads ................................................................................ - 38 -
2.6 Materials in Spatial Arch Bridges........................................................................... - 41 -
2.6.1 General............................................................................................................. - 41 -
2.6.2 Material Complexity ........................................................................................ - 41 -
2.6.3 Composite Systems.......................................................................................... - 41 -
2.6.4 Conventional Composite Systems ................................................................... - 42 -
2.6.5 Advanced Composites Systems ....................................................................... - 43 -
2.6.5.1 Application of Structural Profiles made of ACM in SABs ..................... - 44 -
2.6.5.2 Technology of Suitable Structural Profiles for SABs made of ACMs ... - 46 -
2.6.5.2.1 Pultrusion ....................................................................................... - 46 -
2.6.5.2.2 Filament Winding .......................................................................... - 47 -
2.6.5.2.3 Automated fibre placement ........................................................... - 48 -
2.6.5.3 Examples and Applications of Suitable ACM Structural Profiles .......... - 48 -
2.6.5.4 Connections of Structural Profiles .......................................................... - 50 -
2.6.5.4.1 Material Connections..................................................................... - 50 -
2.6.5.4.2 Structural Connections .................................................................. - 52 -
2.6.5.5 ACM Cables ............................................................................................ - 53 -
2.6.5.6 Analysis and Theories Describing the Behaviour of ACMs ................... - 55 -
2.6.5.7 Challenges in Structural Profiles made of ACMs ................................... - 56 -
2.6.5.8 FE Modeling of ACMs ............................................................................ - 59 -
2.7 Conclusion to Chapter Two .................................................................................... - 60 -
Chapter Three: Development of Models .................................................................. - 62 -
3.1 Introduction............................................................................................................. - 62 -
3.2 Software .................................................................................................................. - 62 -
3.3 Structural Configuration of Developed FE Models ................................................ - 63 -
3.3.1 Character of Models ........................................................................................ - 63 -
3.3.1.1 Geometric nonlinearity ............................................................................ - 63 -
3.3.1.2 Linear Finite Element Model .................................................................. - 65 -
3.3.1.3 Nonlinear Finite Element Model ............................................................. - 65 -
3.3.1.4 Comparison of Linear and Nonlinear Models ......................................... - 66 -
3.3.2 Structural Components .................................................................................... - 68 -
3.3.3 Structural Connections and Boundary Conditions .......................................... - 69 -
3.3.4 Discretization ................................................................................................... - 72 -

vii
3.3.5 Applied Loads.................................................................................................. - 73 -
3.4 Methodology of FE Modeling and Evaluating of Results ...................................... - 74 -
3.4.1 Pre-processing and Development of Universal Parametric Model.................. - 74 -
3.4.1.1 Superstructure Geometry......................................................................... - 75 -
3.4.1.2 Definition of Cross-sectional Parameters and Material Properties ......... - 78 -
3.4.1.3 Definition of Loads ................................................................................. - 79 -
3.4.1.3.1 Definition of Static Load ............................................................... - 79 -
3.4.1.3.2 Definition Global Thermal Load ................................................... - 80 -
3.4.1.4 Additional Tensioning of the Cables....................................................... - 80 -
3.4.1.5 Definition of Boundary Conditions ......................................................... - 83 -
3.5 Material Properties used in FE Models................................................................... - 86 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry ................................................................. - 87 -
4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................. - 87 -
4.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................... - 88 -
4.3 Model Specifications .............................................................................................. - 88 -
4.3.1 Characteristics of the Models and Applied Materials ..................................... - 88 -
4.3.2 Reference Configuration.................................................................................. - 88 -
4.3.3 Boundary Conditions ....................................................................................... - 89 -
4.3.4 Geometry of Spatial Configurations ................................................................ - 90 -
4.3.5 Cross-sectional Properties ............................................................................... - 95 -
4.3.6 Applied Loads.................................................................................................. - 95 -
4.3.7 Structural Response ......................................................................................... - 96 -
4.4 Results and Discussion ........................................................................................... - 98 -
4.4.1 Critical Live Load Distribution ....................................................................... - 98 -
4.4.2 Comparison of Global Thermal Load with Critical Case of Live Load ........ - 102 -
4.4.2.1 Configuration C01 ................................................................................. - 103 -
4.4.2.1.1 Expected Behaviour..................................................................... - 103 -
4.4.2.1.2 Axial Force in the Arch ............................................................... - 103 -
4.4.2.1.3 Combined Bending Moment in the Arch .................................... - 105 -
4.4.2.1.4 Torsional Moment in the Arch .................................................... - 107 -
4.4.2.1.5 Combined Bending Moment in the Deck .................................... - 108 -
4.4.2.1.6 Tensile Force in the Cables ......................................................... - 110 -
4.4.2.2 Configuration C02 ................................................................................. - 113 -
4.4.2.2.1 Expected Behaviour..................................................................... - 113 -
4.4.2.2.2 Axial Force in the Arch ............................................................... - 114 -
4.4.2.2.3 Combined Bending Moment in the Arch .................................... - 116 -
4.4.2.2.4 Torsional Moment in the Arch .................................................... - 118 -
4.4.2.2.5 Combined Bending Moment in the Deck .................................... - 120 -
4.4.2.2.6 Tensile Force in the Cables ......................................................... - 124 -
4.4.2.3 Configuration C03 ................................................................................. - 126 -
4.4.2.3.1 Expected Behaviour..................................................................... - 126 -
4.4.2.3.2 Axial Force in the Arch ............................................................... - 127 -

viii
4.4.2.3.3 Combined Bending Moment in the Arch .................................... - 130 -
4.4.2.3.4 Torsional Moment in the Arch .................................................... - 132 -
4.4.2.3.5 Combined Bending Moment in the Deck .................................... - 134 -
4.4.2.3.6 Tensile Force in the Cables ......................................................... - 136 -
4.4.3 Principles of the Structural Behaviour in the Assumed Configurations ........ - 138 -
4.5 Conclusion to Chapter Four .................................................................................. - 144 -
4.5.1 Configuration C01 ......................................................................................... - 144 -
4.5.2 Configuration C02 ......................................................................................... - 145 -
4.5.3 Configuration C03 ......................................................................................... - 147 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness- 150 -
5.1 Introduction........................................................................................................... - 150 -
5.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................. - 152 -
5.3 Model Specification .............................................................................................. - 152 -
5.3.1 The Geometry of Models ............................................................................... - 152 -
5.3.2 Bending Stiffness of the Arch and Deck ....................................................... - 153 -
5.3.3 Boundary Conditions ..................................................................................... - 154 -
5.3.4 Loads and Materials....................................................................................... - 157 -
5.3.5 Achieving the Objectives of Chapter Five .................................................... - 158 -
5.4 Results and Discussion ......................................................................................... - 159 -
5.4.1 Determining of a Critical Live Load Distribution ......................................... - 160 -
5.4.2 Structural Behaviour under changing Stiffness ............................................. - 163 -
5.4.2.1 Configuration C01 ................................................................................. - 163 -
5.4.2.1.1 Configuration C01 — Deck Boundary Conditions: BC#01 ........ - 163 -
5.4.2.1.2 Configuration C01 — Deck Boundary Conditions: BC#02 ........ - 166 -
5.4.2.1.3 Configuration C01 — Deck Boundary Conditions: BC#03 ........ - 169 -
5.4.2.2 Configuration C02 ................................................................................. - 172 -
5.4.2.2.1 Configuration C02 — Deck Boundary Conditions: BC#01 ........ - 173 -
5.4.2.2.2 Configuration C02 — Deck Boundary Conditions: BC#04 ........ - 175 -
5.4.2.3 Configuration C03 ................................................................................. - 178 -
5.4.2.3.1 Configuration C03 — Deck Boundary Conditions: BC#01 ........ - 179 -
5.4.2.3.2 Configuration C03 — Deck Boundary Conditions: BC#04 ........ - 181 -
5.4.3 Susceptibility to Buckling ............................................................................. - 185 -
5.4.3.1 Configuration C01 ................................................................................. - 186 -
5.4.3.2 Configuration C02 ................................................................................. - 189 -
5.4.3.3 Configuration C03 ................................................................................. - 192 -
5.5 Conclusion to Chapter Five .................................................................................. - 195 -
5.5.1 Configuration C01 ......................................................................................... - 195 -
5.5.2 Configuration C02 ......................................................................................... - 195 -
5.5.3 Configuration C03 ......................................................................................... - 196 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs................ - 198 -
6.1 Introduction........................................................................................................... - 198 -

ix
6.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................. - 199 -
6.3 Model Specifications ............................................................................................ - 200 -
6.3.1 Nonlinear Model ............................................................................................ - 201 -
6.3.2 Selection of a Critical Configuration ............................................................. - 201 -
6.3.3 Boundary Conditions ..................................................................................... - 202 -
6.3.4 Cross-sections ................................................................................................ - 203 -
6.3.4.1 Principle of a Variation in the Bending and Axial Stiffness ................. - 204 -
6.3.4.2 Section Points ........................................................................................ - 205 -
6.3.5 Loads ............................................................................................................. - 205 -
6.3.6 Materials ........................................................................................................ - 206 -
6.4 Results and Discussion ......................................................................................... - 207 -
6.4.1 Creep Analysis ............................................................................................... - 207 -
6.4.1.1 Susceptibility to Creep-rupture ............................................................. - 207 -
6.4.1.2 Significance of Weight per Unit Length and Modulus of Elasticity ..... - 208 -
6.4.1.3 Significance of Creep on the Stress Distribution .................................. - 215 -
6.4.1.4 Effect of Additional Tensioning of Cables ........................................... - 220 -
6.4.2 The Significance of Variability in the Coefficient of Thermal Expansion.... - 225 -
6.4.3 The Significance of Variability in Deck Stiffness ......................................... - 231 -
6.4.3.1 Effect of Variability in Deck Stiffness and Deck Reach....................... - 232 -
6.4.3.1.1 Displacement of the Deck............................................................ - 232 -
6.4.3.1.2 Internal Forces in the Deck and Arch .......................................... - 238 -
6.4.3.2 Effect of Material Properties and Level of Applied GTL ..................... - 240 -
6.5 Conclusion to Chapter Six .................................................................................... - 242 -
Chapter Seven: Design Criteria and Directions of Future Work ........................ - 243 -
7.1 Design Criteria ...................................................................................................... - 243 -
7.1.1 Configuration C01 ......................................................................................... - 243 -
7.1.2 Configuration C02 ......................................................................................... - 244 -
7.1.3 Configuration C03 ......................................................................................... - 245 -
7.2 Directions of Future Work .................................................................................... - 247 -
7.2.1 Arrangement of the Cables ............................................................................ - 247 -
7.2.2 Additional Tensioning of the Cables ............................................................. - 247 -
7.2.3 Response to Dynamic Loading ...................................................................... - 248 -
Chapter Eight: Summary and Final Remarks ....................................................... - 249 -
Reference ................................................................................................................... - 255 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three ................................................................... - 269 -
A.1. Selection of Finite Elements ............................................................................... - 270 -
A.2. Verification and Calibration ............................................................................... - 278 -
A.3. Parametric Input File........................................................................................... - 302 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four ..................................................................... - 322 -

x
B.1. Determination of Critical LL Distribution .......................................................... - 323 -
B.2. Comparison of Global Thermal Load with Critical Case of Live Load ............. - 325 -
B.3. Summary Tables of the Structural Response ...................................................... - 379 -
Appendix C: Details to Chapter Five ...................................................................... - 397 -
C.1. Determining Critical Live Load Distribution...................................................... - 398 -
C.2. Structural Behaviour under changing Stiffness................................................... - 400 -
C.3. Susceptibility to Buckling ................................................................................... - 417 -
Appendix D: Details to Chapter Six ........................................................................ - 421 -
D.1. Selection of a Critical Configuration .................................................................. - 422 -
D.2. Analysis AN#01A: Assumed Cross-sectional Properties ................................... - 423 -
D.3. Analysis AN#01B-I: Effect of Creep.................................................................. - 424 -
D.4. Analysis AN#01C: Effect of Additional Tensioning of Cables.......................... - 427 -
D.5. Analysis AN#02: Effect of the Coefficient of Thermal Expansion .................... - 430 -
D.6. Analysis AN#03A: Effect of the Variability in Deck Stiffness .......................... - 439 -
D.7. Analysis AN#03B: Effect of the Material Properties on Stress Distribution ..... - 447 -

xi
List of Tables

Table 3-1: Material properties of assumed materials....................................................... - 86 -

Table 4-1: Primary and secondary variables of the assumed spatial configurations ....... - 90 -

Table 4-2: Range of primary and secondary variables .................................................... - 90 -

Table 4-3: Cross-sectional properties of the arch, deck, and cables................................ - 95 -

Table 4-4: List of structural responses evaluated in Chapter Four .................................. - 97 -

Table 4-5: Critical patterns of LL distribution in the three spatial configurations .......... - 99 -

Table 5-1: Combinations of primary and secondary variables in individual spatial


configurations ................................................................................................................ - 153 -

Table 5-2: Geometric properties of the assumed structural sections for the arch and deck .....
....................................................................................................................................... - 154 -

Table 5-3: Assumed types of deck boundary conditions ............................................... - 155 -

Table 5-4: Proposed optimal mechanical ratios of deck and arch stiffness resulting in a
combination, which is the least susceptible to buckling ................................................ - 185 -

Table 6-1: Range of primary and secondary variables assumed in Chapter Six ........... - 202 -

Table 6-2: Definition of deck boundary condition BC#02B ......................................... - 203 -

Table 6-3: E(EFF) for the GFRP profiles and cables........................................................ - 206 -

Table 6-4: Results of analysis AN#01A ........................................................................ - 208 -

Table 6-5: EI of the arch resulting in satisfactory deck deflections .............................. - 208 -

Table 6-6: EI(V) and U2 of the deck ............................................................................... - 210 -

Table 6-7: EI(H) and U3 of the deck ............................................................................... - 210 -

Table 6-8: Parameters of models in analysis AN#01B-II .............................................. - 215 -

Table 6-9: Deck vertical displacement as a function of changing parameters of cables ..........
....................................................................................................................................... - 217 -

Table 6-10: The significance of changes of the cable properties on deck vertical
displacement .................................................................................................................. - 217 -

Table 6-11: Resulting parameters of Equation 3-10 providing an optimal distribution of


additional tensile forces in the cables ............................................................................ - 221 -

xii
Table 6-12: The EI of the arch and U2 in the deck achieved from models M(REF), M001, and
M001B ........................................................................................................................... - 221 -

Table 6-13: Stress change and ratio of stress change due to +ve and –ve GTL in the
individual structural components for GFRP, CFRP, and steel ...................................... - 227 -

Table 6-14: Stress reduction in individual structural components when GFRP and CFRP is
employed instead of steel in in C01B ............................................................................ - 229 -

Table 6-15: Vertical deck displacement at the midspan for GFRP, CFRP, and steel at three
levels of applied GTL .................................................................................................... - 229 -

Table 6-16: Critical DSRs that result in the maximum and minimum vertical displacement
of the deck at the midspan at three levels of deck reach................................................ - 234 -

Table 6-17: Changes in deflections and stresses at critical DSRs ................................. - 234 -

Table 6-18: The magnitude and differences in change of SM(COMB) in the arch and deck for
M001 and M006............................................................................................................. - 239 -

Table 6-19: Stress fluctuations in the decks assuming deck profiles of M001 and M006 for
all three materials and three levels of applied GTL ....................................................... - 240 -

Table A-1: A comparison of the analytical and FE models for nonlinear cable behaviour .....
....................................................................................................................................... - 287 -

Table A-2: A comparison of the AM and FE models for suspended cables under thermal
loads ............................................................................................................................... - 293 -

Table A-3: Parameters of the assumed configuration used to verify the entire structure.........
....................................................................................................................................... - 297 -

Table A-4: Cross-sectional properties of the main structural components.................... - 298 -

Table A-5: Summary of verification of entire structure ................................................ - 301 -

Table B-1: Configuration C01 — A comparison of SM(COMB) in the arch due to two
different patterns of distribution of LL over the deck ................................................... - 323 -

Table B-2: Configuration C02 — A comparison of SM(COMB) in arch due to two different
patterns of distribution of LL over the deck .................................................................. - 323 -

Table B-3: Configuration C03 — A comparison of SM(COMB) in arch due to two different
patterns of distribution of LL over the deck .................................................................. - 324 -

Table B-4: Configuration C01 — A comparison of SF1 in the arch ............................. - 325 -

Table B-5: Configuration — A comparison of the differences between SF1 in the arch........
....................................................................................................................................... - 325 -

xiii
Table B-6: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the of SF(COMB) in the arch ........... - 326 -

Table B-7: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the differences between SF(COMB) in the
arch................................................................................................................................. - 326 -

Table B-8: Configuration C01 — A comparison of SM(COMB) in the arch .................... - 329 -

Table B-9: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the differences in SM(COMB) in the arch -
329 -

Table B-10: Configuration C01 — A comparison of SM3 in the arch.......................... - 330 -

Table B-11: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the differences between SM3 in the
arch................................................................................................................................. - 330 -

Table B-12: Configuration C01 — A comparison of U(COMB) in the arch ..................... - 331 -

Table B-13: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the differences between U(COMB) in the
arch................................................................................................................................. - 331 -

Table B-14: Configuration C01 — A comparison of SF1 in the deck .......................... - 334 -

Table B-15: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the differences between SF1 in the
deck ................................................................................................................................ - 334 -

Table B-16: Configuration C01 — A comparison of SF(COMB) in the deck ................... - 337 -

Table B-17: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the differences between SF(COMB) in


the deck .......................................................................................................................... - 337 -

Table B-18: Configuration C01 — A comparison of SM(COMB) in the deck ................. - 340 -

Table B-19: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the differences in SM(COMB) in the


deck ................................................................................................................................ - 340 -

Table B-20: Configuration C01 — A comparison of U(COMB) in the deck .................... - 341 -

Table B-21: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the differences between U(COMB) in the
deck ................................................................................................................................ - 341 -

Table B-22: Configuration C01 — A comparison of CF in cables ............................... - 344 -

Table B-23: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the differences between CF in cables . -


344 -

Table B-24: Configuration C02 — A comparison of SF1 in the arch ........................... - 345 -

Table B-25: Configuration C02 — A comparison of the differences between SF1 in the
arch................................................................................................................................. - 345 -

xiv
Table B-26: Configuration C02 — A comparison of SF(COMB) in the arch ................... - 346 -

Table B-27: Configuration C02 — A comparison of the differences between SF(COMB) in


the arch........................................................................................................................... - 346 -

Table B-28: Configuration C02 — A comparison of SM(COMB) in the arch .................. - 349 -

Table B-29: Configuration C02 — A comparison of the differences in SM(COMB) in the arch
....................................................................................................................................... - 349 -

Table B-30: Configuration C02 — A comparison of SM3 in the arch.......................... - 350 -

Table B-31: Configuration C02 — A comparison of the differences between SM3 in the
arch................................................................................................................................. - 350 -

Table B-32: Configuration C02 — A comparison of U(COMB) in the arch ..................... - 351 -

Table B-33: Configuration C02 — A comparison of the differences between U(COMB) in the
arch................................................................................................................................. - 351 -

Table B-34: Configuration C02 — A comparison of SF(COMB) in the deck................... - 353 -

Table B-35: Configuration C02 — A comparison of the differences between SF(COMB) in


the deck .......................................................................................................................... - 353 -

Table B-36: Configuration C02 — A comparison of SM(COMB) in the deck ................. - 355 -

Table B-37: Configuration C02 — A comparison of the differences in SM(COMB) in the


deck ................................................................................................................................ - 355 -

Table B-38: Configuration C02 — A comparison of U(COMB) in the deck .................... - 356 -

Table B-39: Configuration C02 — A comparison of the differences between U(COMB) in the
deck ................................................................................................................................ - 356 -

Table B-40: Configuration C02 — A comparison of CF in cables ............................... - 359 -

Table B-41: Configuration C02 — A comparison of the differences between CF in cables ...
....................................................................................................................................... - 359 -

Table B-42: Configuration C03 — A comparison of SF1 in the arch ........................... - 360 -

Table B-43: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the differences between SF1 in the
arch................................................................................................................................. - 360 -

Table B-44: Configuration C03 — A comparison of SF(COMB) in the arch ................... - 361 -

Table B-45: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the differences between SF(COMB) in


the arch........................................................................................................................... - 361 -

xv
Table B-46: Configuration C03 — A comparison of SM(COMB) in the arch .................. - 364 -

Table B-47: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the differences between SM(COMB) in


the arch........................................................................................................................... - 364 -

Table B-48: Configuration C03 — A comparison of SM3 in the arch.......................... - 365 -

Table B-49: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the differences between SM3 in the
arch................................................................................................................................. - 365 -

Table B-50: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the U(COMB) in the arch ............... - 366 -

Table B-51: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the differences between U(COMB) in the
arch................................................................................................................................. - 366 -

Table B-52: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the SF(COMB) in the deck ............. - 371 -

Table B-53: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the differences between SF(COMB) in


the deck .......................................................................................................................... - 371 -

Table B-54: Configuration C03 — A comparison of SM(COMB) in the deck.................. - 373 -

Table B-55: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the differences in SM(COMB) in the


deck ................................................................................................................................ - 373 -

Table B-56: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the U(COMB) in the deck............... - 374 -

Table B-57: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the differences between U(COMB) in the
deck ................................................................................................................................ - 374 -

Table B-58: Configuration C03 — A comparison of CF in cables ............................... - 378 -

Table B-59: Configuration C03 — Comparison of differences in CF in cables ........... - 378 -

Table B-60: Configuration C01 — The significance of GTL and LL identifying the
importance of primary and secondary variable.............................................................. - 380 -

Table B-61: Configuration C01 — The trend of sensitivity of the structure to GTL and LL -
381 -

Table B-62: Configuration C01 — The trend of structural response showing the maximum
magnitude under GTL and LL ....................................................................................... - 383 -

Table B-63: Configuration C02 — The significance of GTL and LL identifying the
importance of primary and secondary variable.............................................................. - 386 -

Table B-64: Configuration C02 — The trend of sensitivity of the structure to GTL and LL ..
....................................................................................................................................... - 387 -

xvi
Table B-65: Configuration C02 — The trend of structural response showing the maximum
magnitude under GTL and LL ....................................................................................... - 389 -

Table B-66: Configuration C03 — The significance of GTL and LL identifying the
importance of primary and secondary variable.............................................................. - 392 -

Table B-67: Configuration C03 — The trend of sensitivity of the structure to GTL and LL ..
....................................................................................................................................... - 393 -

Table B-68: Configuration C03 — The trend of structural response showing the maximum
magnitude under GTL and LL ....................................................................................... - 395 -

Table C-1: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the effects of two types of LL


distribution (LL50 and LL100) affecting the magnitude of SF1 in the arch ................. - 398 -

Table C-2: Configuration C02 — A comparison of the effects of two types of LL


distribution (LL50 and LL100) affecting the magnitude of SF1 in the arch ................. - 398 -

Table C-3: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the effects of two types of LL


distribution (LL50 and LL100) affecting the magnitude of SF1 in the arch ................. - 399 -

Table C-4: Configuration C01 — BC#01: Combinations of arch and deck stiffness
organized in ascending order for SF1 in the arch .......................................................... - 400 -

Table C-5: Configuration C01 — BC#01: Combinations of arch and deck stiffness
organized in ascending order for SM(COMB) in the arch ................................................. - 400 -

Table C-6: Configuration C01 — BC#02: Combinations of arch and deck stiffness
organized in ascending order for SF1 in the arch .......................................................... - 400 -

Table C-7: Configuration C01 — BC#02: Combinations of arch and deck stiffness
organized in ascending order for SM(COMB) in the arch ................................................. - 401 -

Table C-8: Configuration C01 — BC#03: Combinations of arch and deck stiffness
organized in ascending order for SF1 in the arch .......................................................... - 401 -

Table C-9: Configuration C01 — BC#03: Combinations of arch and deck stiffness
organized in ascending order for SM(COMB) in the arch ................................................. - 401 -

Table C-10: Configuration C01 — Arrangements of arch and deck cross-sections for three
types of deck BCs that result in the maximum and minimum axial force ..................... - 402 -

Table C-11: Configuration C01 — Arrangements of arch and deck cross-sections for three
types of deck BCs that result in the maximum and minimum bending moment ........... - 403 -

Table C-12: Configuration C01 — SF1 in the arch: BC#01 ......................................... - 404 -

Table C-13: Configuration C01 — SM(COMB) in the arch: BC#01 ................................ - 404 -

xvii
Table C-14: Configuration C01 — SF1 in the arch: BC#02 ......................................... - 405 -

Table C-15: Configuration C01 — SM(COMB) in the arch: BC#02 ................................ - 405 -

Table C-16: Configuration C01 — SF1 in the arch: BC#03 ......................................... - 406 -

Table C-17: Configuration C01 — SM(COMB) in the arch: BC#03 ................................ - 406 -

Table C-18: Configuration C02 — BC#01: Combinations of arch and deck stiffness
organized in ascending order for SF1 in the arch .......................................................... - 407 -

Table C-19: Configuration C02 — BC#01: Combinations of arch and deck stiffness
organized in ascending order for SM(COMB) in the arch ................................................. - 407 -

Table C-20: Configuration C02 — BC#04: Combinations of arch and deck stiffness
organized in ascending order for SF1 in the arch .......................................................... - 407 -

Table C-21: Configuration C02 — BC#04: Combinations of arch and deck stiffness
organized in ascending order for SM(COMB) in the arch ................................................. - 408 -

Table C-22: Configuration C02 — Arrangements of arch and deck cross-sections for three
types of deck BCs that result in the maximum and minimum axial force ..................... - 408 -

Table C-23: Configuration C02 — Arrangements of arch and deck cross-sections for three
types of deck BCs that result in the maximum and minimum bending moment ........... - 409 -

Table C-24: Configuration C02 — SF1 in the arch: BC#01 ......................................... - 410 -

Table C-25: Configuration C02 — SM(COMB) in the arch: BC#01 ................................. - 410 -

Table C-26: Configuration C02 — SF1 in the arch: BC#04 ......................................... - 411 -

Table C-27: Configuration C02 — SM(COMB) in the arch: BC#04 ................................ - 411 -

Table C-28: Configuration C03 — BC#01: Combinations of arch and deck stiffness
organized in ascending order for SF1 in the arch .......................................................... - 412 -

Table C-29: Configuration C03 — BC#01: Combinations of arch and deck stiffness
organized in ascending order for SM(COMB) in the arch ................................................. - 412 -

Table C-30: Configuration C03 — BC#04: Combinations of arch and deck stiffness
organized in ascending order for SF1 in the arch .......................................................... - 412 -

Table C-31: Configuration C03 — BC#04: Combinations of arch and deck stiffness
organized in ascending order for SM(COMB) in the arch ................................................. - 413 -

Table C-32: Configuration C03 — Arrangements of arch and deck cross-sections for three
types of deck BCs that result in the maximum and minimum axial force ..................... - 413 -

xviii
Table C-33: Configuration C03 — Arrangements of arch and deck cross-sections for three
types of deck BCs that result in the maximum and minimum bending moment ........... - 414 -

Table C-34: Configuration C03 — SF1 in the arch: BC#01 ......................................... - 415 -

Table C-35: Configuration C03 — SM(COMB) in the arch: BC#01 ................................ - 415 -

Table C-36: Configuration C03 — SF1 in the arch: BC#04 ......................................... - 416 -

Table C-37: Configuration C03 — SM(COMB) in the arch: BC#04 ................................ - 416 -

Table C-38: Ranking of SF1 and SM(COMB) in C01 for BC#01 ..................................... - 417 -

Table C-39: Ranking of SF1 and SM(COMB) in C01 for BC#02 ..................................... - 417 -

Table C-40: Ranking of SF1 and SM(COMB) in C01 for BC#03 ..................................... - 418 -

Table C-41: Ranking of SF1 and SM(COMB) in C02 for BC#01 ..................................... - 418 -

Table C-42: Ranking of SF1 and SM(COMB) in C02 for BC#04 ..................................... - 419 -

Table C-43: Ranking of SF1 and SM(COMB) in C03 for BC#01 ..................................... - 419 -

Table C-44: Ranking of SF1 and SM(COMB) in C03 for BC#04 ..................................... - 420 -

Table D-1: A comparison of stresses in all structural components of three spatial


configurations; C01, C02, and C03 considering the three types of material ................. - 422 -

Table D-2: Occurrence of stress level status in three different spatial configurations .. - 423 -

Table D-3: Cross-sectional properties assumed in AN#01A ......................................... - 423 -

Table D-4: Fluctuation of stresses in the arch ............................................................... - 424 -

Table D-5: Fluctuation of stresses in the deck............................................................... - 424 -

Table D-6: Fluctuation of stresses in the cables ............................................................ - 424 -

Table D-7: Maximum stresses in the deck obtained from four section points in models
M(REF), M001, and M001B............................................................................................ - 427 -

Table D-8: Stress change in the deck at four designated section points in model M001 and
M001B compared to reference model M(REF) ................................................................ - 427 -

Table D-9: Maximum stresses in the arch obtained from four section points in models
M(REF), M001, and M001B............................................................................................ - 427 -

Table D-10: Stress change in the arch at four designated section points in model M001 and
M001B compared to reference model M(REF) ................................................................ - 427 -

xix
Table D-11: Cross-sectional properties of the arch assumed in analysis AN#02 .......... - 430 -

Table D-12: Cross-sectional properties of the deck assumed in analysis AN#02 ......... - 430 -

Table D-13: Cross-sectional properties of the cables assumed in analysis AN#02....... - 431 -

Table D-14: Stress fluctuation at designated section points in the deck at 0°C ............ - 431 -

Table D-15: Stress fluctuation at designated section points in the deck at +50°C ........ - 431 -

Table D-16: Stress fluctuation at designated section points in the deck at -50°C ......... - 432 -

Table D-17: Stress fluctuation at designated section points in the arch at 0°C ............. - 435 -

Table D-18: Stress fluctuation at designated section points in the arch at +50°C......... - 435 -

Table D-19: Stress fluctuation at designated section points in the arch at -50°C.......... - 435 -

Table D-20: Deck stiffness ratios, shape, and dimensions of developed deck cross-sections
for GFRP profiles........................................................................................................... - 439 -

Table D-21: A comparison of the magnitude and differences in change of SM(COMB) in the
arch and the deck taking into account models M001 and M006 ................................... - 443 -

Table D-22: A comparison of the magnitude and differences in change of SF1 in the deck
and the arch taking into account models M001 and M006 ............................................ - 445 -

Table D-23: Cross-sectional properties of the deck profile with DSR 15:1 assumed in
analysis AN#03B taking into account GFRP, CFRP, and Steel profiles....................... - 447 -

Table D-24: Cross-sectional properties of the deck profile with DSR 1:3 assumed in
analysis AN#03 taking into account GFRP, CFRP, and Steel profiles ......................... - 447 -

Table D-25: Comparison of maximum SM(COMB) in the deck of configuration C01B .. - 448 -

Table D-26: A comparison of the maximum stresses in cables taking into account the effect
of two deck profiles, three materials, and three levels of applied GTL ......................... - 450 -

Table D-27: A comparison of the maximum stresses in deck profiles of models M001 and
M006 and taking into account three different materials at 0°C ..................................... - 452 -

Table D-28: A comparison of the maximum stresses in deck profiles of models M001 and
M006 and taking into account three different materials at +50°C................................. - 452 -

Table D-29: A comparison of the maximum stresses in deck profiles of models M001 and
M006 and taking into account three different materials at –50°C ................................. - 452 -

xx
List of Figures and Illustrations

Figure 1-1: A schematic flow-chart showing the mutual relation of individual chapters ........
........................................................................................................................................... - 8 -

Figure 2-1: The Arch in the Necropolis of Abydos (Perrot, 1883).................................. - 11 -

Figure 2-2: Examples of Roman arches: a) the Arch of Titus in Rome, a triumph arch
(Anthony, 2005) and b) the Pont du Gard Roman aqueduct near Nimes in France, a
utilitarian structure (Beard, 2015).................................................................................... - 12 -

Figure 2-3: Schwandbach Bridge, Switzerland 1933 (Chriusha, H., 2011) .................... - 15 -

Figure 2-4: Examples of work of Santiago Calatrava: a) Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge, Dallas
USA (Karchmer, 2012) and b) La Devesa Bridge, Ripoll, Spain (Plasencia, 2012) ....... - 16 -

Figure 2-5: The Gateshead Millennium Bridge, Newcastle, UK, opened in 2001 (Perez,
2014) ................................................................................................................................ - 17 -

Figure 2-6: Examples of shell spatial bridges: a) Matadero footbridge in Madrid, Spain
(Tamorlan, 2011); and b) Bridge of piece in Tbilisi, Georgia (Kavtaradze, 2009) ......... - 19 -

Figure 2-7: Example of a true SAB: Campo de Volantin footbridge, Bilbao, Spain (Garcia,
2014) ................................................................................................................................ - 20 -

Figure 2-8: Example of a non-true SAB: Bac de Roda bridge, Barcelona, Spain
(Roletschek, 2015) ........................................................................................................... - 20 -

Figure 2-9: a) a ridge with a superior deck: Endarlatsa bridge, Guipúzcoa, Spain
(Urruzmendi, 2014) and b) a bridge with an inferior deck: Mayfly Bridge, Szolnok,
Hungary (Akela, 2012) .................................................................................................... - 21 -

Figure 2-10: Example of a diagonal arch bridge: Hulme Arch, Manchester, UK (Peel,
2004) ................................................................................................................................ - 22 -

Figure 2-11: Example of a true antifunicular SAB with a superior deck: Ripshorst
Pedestrian Bridge, Oberhausen, Germany (SBP, 1997) .................................................. - 25 -

Figure 3-1: Principle of geometric nonlinearity taking into account large displacements and
small strains ..................................................................................................................... - 64 -

Figure 3-2: A comparison of forces in cables in the linear and nonlinear models, assuming
material with high E......................................................................................................... - 67 -

Figure 3-3: A comparison of forces in cables in the linear and nonlinear models, assuming
material with low E .......................................................................................................... - 67 -

xxi
Figure 3-4: Example of a structural configuration representing a concept of SAB with an
inferior deck assumed in the thesis .................................................................................. - 68 -

Figure 3-5: Example of cable end to connection to arch or deck .................................... - 70 -

Figure 3-6: Detail of cable-to-arch and cable-to-deck connection at centroid axis of


structural elements ........................................................................................................... - 71 -

Figure 3-7: Example of fixed connection of arch to the substructure ............................. - 72 -

Figure 3-8: Example of a parametric definition of cross-sectional parameters and material


properties of a steel arch .................................................................................................. - 79 -

Figure 3-9: Example of parametric definition of gravity and live loads ......................... - 80 -

Figure 3-10: Example of parametric definition of a global thermal load ........................ - 80 -

Figure 3-11: Example of parametric definition of LTL utilized for additional cable
tensioning ......................................................................................................................... - 82 -

Figure 3-12: Example of parametric definition of local direction for deck boundary
condition .......................................................................................................................... - 84 -

Figure 3-13: A schematic representation of general directions of DOFs shown on a curved


deck .................................................................................................................................. - 85 -

Figure 4-1: A schematic sketch depicting the boundary conditions of the arch and deck .......
......................................................................................................................................... - 89 -

Figure 4-2: Configuration C01: a graphical representation of the relevant geometric


variables and a 3D perspective view................................................................................ - 92 -

Figure 4-3: Configuration C02: a graphical representation of the relevant geometric


variables and a 3D perspective view................................................................................ - 93 -

Figure 4-4: Configuration C03: a graphical representation of the relevant geometric


variables and a 3D perspective view................................................................................ - 94 -

Figure 4-5: A comparison of the bending moment distributions in the reference vertical
planar arch f(A)/s = 0.25.................................................................................................... - 99 -

Figure 4-6: A comparison of the bending moment distributions in the arch of C01 with
f(A)/s = 0.15 and f(D)/s = 0.25 .......................................................................................... - 100 -

Figure 4-7: A comparison of the bending moment distributions in the arch of C02 with
f(A)/s = 0.15 and ω = 15° ................................................................................................ - 101 -

Figure 4-8: A comparison of the bending moment distributions in the arch of C03 with
f(A)/s = 0.15 and θ = 30° ................................................................................................. - 101 -

xxii
Figure 4-9: Configuration C01 — Distribution of axial forces in the arch comparing the
critical cases of LL100, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state for three levels of f(A)/s
and the most sensitive ratio, f(D)/s = 0.25 ....................................................................... - 104 -

Figure 4-10: Configuration C01 — Distribution of axial forces in the arch considering the
effect of LL100 for three levels of f(A)/s (0.15, 0.20, and 0.25) and four levels of f(D)/s
(0.00, 0.15, 0.20, and 0.25) ............................................................................................ - 105 -

Figure 4-11: Configuration C01 — Distribution of combined moments in the arch


comparing the critical cases of LL100, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state for three
levels of f(A)/s and the most sensitive ratio, f(D)/s = 0.15 ............................................... - 106 -

Figure 4-12: Configuration C01 — Distribution of combined bending moments in the arch
considering the effect of LL100 for three levels of f(A)/s (0.15, .020, 0.25) and four levels of
f(D)/s (0.00, 0.15, 0.20, and 0.25) ................................................................................... - 106 -

Figure 4-13: Configuration C01 — Distribution of torsional moments in the arch


comparing the critical cases of LL100, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state for three
levels of f(A)/s and the most sensitive ratio, f(D)/s = 0.25 ............................................... - 107 -

Figure 4-14: Configuration C01 — Distribution of torsional moments in the arch under
LL100 three levels of f(A)/s (0.15, 0.20, 0.25) and for four levels of f(D)/s (0.00, 0.15, 0.20,
and 0.25) ........................................................................................................................ - 108 -

Figure 4-15: Configuration C01 — Distribution of combined moments in the deck


comparing the critical cases of LL100, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state for three
levels of f(A)/s and the most sensitive ratio, f(D)/s = 0.15 ............................................... - 109 -

Figure 4-16: Configuration C01 — Distribution of combined moments in the deck


considering the effect of LL100 for three levels of f(A)/s (0.15, .020, 0.25) and four levels of
f(D)/s (0.00, 0.15, 0.20, and 0.25) ................................................................................... - 110 -

Figure 4-17: Configuration C01 — Distribution of axial forces in the cables comparing the
critical cases of LL100, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state for three levels of f(A)/s
and the most sensitive ratio, f(D)/s = 0.15 ....................................................................... - 111 -

Figure 4-18: Configuration C01 — Distribution of axial forces in the cables under LL100
for three levels of f(A)/s (0.15, 0.20, and 0.25) and four levels of f(D)/s (0.00, 0.15, 0.20, and
0.25) ............................................................................................................................... - 112 -

Figure 4-19: Configuration C02 — Distribution of axial forces in the arch comparing the
critical cases of LL50, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state in the arch under three
levels of f(A)/s and the most sensitive angle of arch inclination, ω = 45° ...................... - 115 -

Figure 4-20: Configuration C02 — Distribution of axial forces in the arch under LL50 for
three levels of (A)/s (0.15, 0.20, and 0.25) and four levels of arch inclination ω (0°, 15°, 30°,
and 45°) .......................................................................................................................... - 116 -

xxiii
Figure 4-21: Configuration C02 — Distribution of combined moments in the arch
comparing the critical cases of LL50, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state under three
levels of f(A)/s and the most sensitive angle or arch inclination, ω = 30° ...................... - 117 -

Figure 4-22: Configuration C02 — Distribution of combined bending moments in the arch
under LL50 for three levels of f(A)/s (0.15, 0.20, and 0.25) and four levels of arch
inclination ω (0°, 15°, 30°, and 45°) .............................................................................. - 117 -

Figure 4-23: Configuration C02 — Distribution of torsional moments in the arch


comparing the critical cases of LL50, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state for three
levels of f(A)/s and the most sensitive inclination of the arch, ω = 45° .......................... - 119 -

Figure 4-24: Configuration C02 — Distribution of torsional moments in the arch under
LL50 for three levels of f(A)/s (0.15, .020, 0.25) and four levels of arch inclination (0°, 15°,
30°, 45°) ......................................................................................................................... - 119 -

Figure 4-25: Configuration C02 — Distribution of combined moments in the deck


comparing the critical cases of LL50, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state for f(A)/s =
0.15, ω = 45° .................................................................................................................. - 120 -

Figure 4-26: Configuration C02 — Distribution of the moments vertical plane in the deck
comparing the critical cases of LL50, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state for f(A)/s =
0.15, ω = 45° .................................................................................................................. - 121 -

Figure 4-27: Configuration C02 (f(A)/s = 0.15, ω = 45°) — Distribution of moments vertical
plane in the deck comparing critical case of LL100, +ve and –ve GTL and unloaded state....
....................................................................................................................................... - 122 -

Figure 4-28: Configuration C02 — Distribution of vertical moments in the deck comparing
LL100, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state in the arch for four levels of ω (0°, 15°,
30°, and 45°) and the most sensitive ratio, f(A)/s = 0.15 ................................................ - 122 -

Figure 4-29: Configuration C02 — Distribution of vertical moments in the deck comparing
LL50, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state in the arch for four levels of ω (0°, 15°,
30°, and 45°) and the most sensitive ratio, f(A)/s = 0.15 ................................................ - 123 -

Figure 4-30: Configuration C02 — Distribution of moments in the horizontal plane of the
deck comparing the critical cases of LL50, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state for
f(A)/s = 0.15, ω = 45° ...................................................................................................... - 124 -

Figure 4-31: Configuration C02 — Distribution of axial forces in the cables comparing the
critical cases of LL50, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state for three levels of f (A)/s
(0.15, 0.20, 0.25) and the most sensitive arch inclination, ω = 15° ............................... - 125 -

Figure 4-32: Configuration C02 — Distribution of axial forces in the cables under LL50 for
three levels of f(A)/s (0.15, 0.20, and 0.25) and four levels of ω (0°, 15°, 30°, and 45°) ..........
....................................................................................................................................... - 126 -

xxiv
Figure 4-33: Configuration C03 — Distribution of axial forces in the arch comparing the
critical cases of LL100, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state for three levels of f(A)/s
and the most sensitive angle of arch rotation, θ = 15°................................................... - 127 -

Figure 4-34: Configuration C03 — Distribution of axial forces in the arch under LL100 for
three levels of f(A)/s (0.15, 0.20, and 0.25) and four levels of arch rotation θ (0°, 15°, 30°,
and 45°) .......................................................................................................................... - 128 -

Figure 4-35: Configuration C03 — Distribution of axial forces in the arch comparing the
critical cases of LL100, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state in the arch for three
levels of f(A)/s and the most sensitive angle of arch rotation, θ = 45°............................ - 130 -

Figure 4-36: Configuration C02 — Distribution of the combined moments in the arch
comparing the critical cases of LL100, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state for three
levels of f(A)/s and the most sensitive angle or arch inclination, θ = 45° ....................... - 131 -

Figure 4-37: Configuration C03 — Distribution of the combined bending moments in the
arch under LL100 for three levels of f(A)/s (0.15, 0.20, and 0.25) and four levels of arch
rotation θ (0°, 15°, 30°, and 45°) ................................................................................... - 132 -

Figure 4-38: Configuration C03 — Distribution of torsional moments in the arch


comparing the critical cases of LL100, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state for three
levels of f(A)/s and the most sensitive angle of arch rotation, θ = 45°............................ - 133 -

Figure 4-39: Configuration C03 — Distribution of torsional moments in the arch under
LL100 for three levels of f(A)/s (0.15, 0.20, 0.25) and four levels of arch rotation (θ = 0°,
15°, 30°, 45°) ................................................................................................................. - 134 -

Figure 4-40: Configuration C03 — Distribution of the combined moments in the deck
comparing the critical cases of LL100, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state for three
levels of f(A)/s and the most sensitive angle of arch rotation, θ = 15°............................ - 135 -

Figure 4-41: Configuration C03 — Distribution of the combined bending moments in the
deck under LL100 for three levels of f(A)/s (0.15, 0.20, and 0.25) and four levels of arch
rotation θ (0°, 15°, 30°, and 45°) ................................................................................... - 136 -

Figure 4-42: Configuration C03 — Distribution of tensile forces in the cables considering
the effect of LL100 and taking into account three levels of (A)/s ratio (0.15, 0.20, and 0.25)
and four levels of arch rotation θ (0°, 15°, 30°, and 45°) .............................................. - 137 -

Figure 4-43: Schematic sketch showing the change in cable forces as α changes ........ - 139 -

Figure 4-44: Distribution of the uneven changes in magnitude of α along the span, shown
on section cuts made at the midspan of the bridge structure in a deformed state for a) C01,
b) C02, and c) C03 ......................................................................................................... - 140 -

Figure 4-45: Transformation of angle α and γ resulting in larger cable forces in the
configuration with a larger arch rise f(A) as a function of arch and deck stiffness......... - 141 -

xxv
Figure 4-46: Comparison of spatial out-of-plane displacement of the arch two cases with
different f(A)/s ratios in configuration C02 resulting transformation of angle α and γ. Scale
factor = 5.0 ..................................................................................................................... - 143 -

Figure 5-1: The types of BCs of the deck that apply to C01: a) BC#01: Roller and one pin,
b) BC#02: Two pins, c) BC#03: Fixed both ends.......................................................... - 156 -

Figure 5-2: The types of BCs of the deck that apply to C02 and C03: a) BC#01: Roller and
one pin, b) BC#04: Roller and two pins. ....................................................................... - 157 -

Figure 5-3: A comparison of a distribution of SF1 in the arch in C01, C02, and C03 for
LL100 and LL50 ............................................................................................................ - 161 -

Figure 5-4: A comparison of a distribution of SM(COMB) in the arch in C01, C02, and C03
for LL100 and LL50 ...................................................................................................... - 161 -

Figure 5-5: A comparison of a distribution of U2 in the arch in C01, C02, and C03 for
LL100 and LL50 ............................................................................................................ - 162 -

Figure 5-6: A comparison of a distribution of U3 in the arch in C01, C02, and C03 for
LL100 and LL50 ............................................................................................................ - 162 -

Figure 5-7: Configuration C01: A comparison of the distributions of SF1 in the arch for
LL100 and the 16 combinations of arch and deck stiffness. Deck BC type: BC#01 .... - 165 -

Figure 5-8: Configuration C01: A comparison of the distributions of SM(COMB) in the arch
for LL100 and the 16 combinations of arch and deck stiffness. Deck BC type: BC#01..........
....................................................................................................................................... - 166 -

Figure 5-9: Configuration C01: A comparison of the distributions of SF1 in the arch for
LL100 and the 16 combinations of arch and deck stiffness. Deck BC type: BC#02 .... - 168 -

Figure 5-10: Configuration C01: A comparison of the distributions of SM(COMB) in the arch
for LL100 and the 16 combinations of arch and deck stiffness. Deck BC type: BC#02..........
....................................................................................................................................... - 169 -

Figure 5-11: Configuration C01: A comparison of the distributions of SF1 in the arch for
LL100 and the 16 combinations of arch and deck stiffness. Deck BC type: BC#03 .... - 171 -

Figure 5-12: Configuration C01: A comparison of the distributions of SM(COMB) in the arch
for LL100 and the 16 combinations of arch and deck stiffness. Deck BC type: BC#03..........
....................................................................................................................................... - 172 -

Figure 5-13: Configuration C02: A comparison of the distributions of SF1 in the arch for
LL100 and the 16 combinations of arch and deck stiffness. Deck BC type: BC#01 .... - 174 -

xxvi
Figure 5-14: Configuration C02: A comparison of the distributions of SM(COMB) in the arch
for LL100 and the 16 combinations of arch and deck stiffness. Deck BC type: BC#01..........
....................................................................................................................................... - 175 -

Figure 5-15: Configuration C02: A comparison of the distributions of SF1 in the arch for
LL100 and the 16 combinations of arch and deck stiffness. Deck BC type: BC#04 .... - 177 -

Figure 5-16: Configuration C02: A comparison of the distributions of SM(COMB) in the arch
for LL100 and the 16 combinations of arch and deck stiffness. Deck BC type: BC#04..........
....................................................................................................................................... - 178 -

Figure 5-17: Configuration C03: A comparison of the distributions of SF1 in the arch for
LL100 and the 16 combinations of arch and deck stiffness. Deck BC type: BC#01 .... - 180 -

Figure 5-18: Configuration C03: A comparison of the distributions of SM(COMB) in the arch
for LL100 and the 16 combinations of arch and deck stiffness. Deck BC type: BC#01..........
....................................................................................................................................... - 181 -

Figure 5-19: Configuration C03: A comparison of the distributions of SF1 in the arch for
LL100 and the 16 combinations of arch and deck stiffness. Deck BC type: BC#04 .... - 183 -

Figure 5-20: Configuration C03: A comparison of the distributions of SM(COMB) in the arch
for LL100 and the 16 combinations of arch and deck stiffness. Deck BC type: BC#04..........
....................................................................................................................................... - 184 -

Figure 5-21: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the effects of different deck BCs on
the distribution of SF1 in the arch for the combination of arch and deck stiffness that results
in the smallest SF1 and SM(COMB) .................................................................................. - 187 -

Figure 5-22: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the effects of different deck BCs on
the distribution of SM(COMB) in the arch for the combination of arch and deck stiffness that
results in the smallest SF1 and SM(COMB) ...................................................................... - 187 -

Figure 5-23: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the effects of different deck BCs on
the distribution of U2 in the arch for the combination of arch and deck stiffness that results
in the smallest SF1 and SM(COMB) .................................................................................. - 188 -

Figure 5-24: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the effects of different deck BCs on
the distribution of U3 in the arch for the combination of arch and deck stiffness that results
in the smallest SF1 and SM(COMB) .................................................................................. - 188 -

Figure 5-25: Configuration C02 — A comparison of the effects of different deck BCs on
the distribution of SF1 in the arch for the combination of arch and deck stiffness that results
in the smallest SF1 and SM(COMB) .................................................................................. - 190 -

Figure 5-26: Configuration C02 — A comparison of the effects of different deck BCs on
the distribution of SM(COMB) in the arch for the combination of arch and deck stiffness that
results in the smallest SF1 and SM(COMB) ...................................................................... - 190 -

xxvii
Figure 5-27: Configuration C02 — A comparison of the effects of different deck BCs on
the distribution of U2 in the arch for the combination of arch and deck stiffness that results
in the smallest SF1 and SM(COMB) .................................................................................. - 191 -

Figure 5-28: Configuration C02 — A comparison of the effects of different deck BCs on
the distribution of U3 in the arch for the combination of arch and deck stiffness that results
in the smallest SF1 and SM(COMB) .................................................................................. - 191 -

Figure 5-29: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the effects of different deck BCs on
the distribution of SF1 in the arch for the combination of arch and deck stiffness that results
in the smallest SF1 and SM(COMB) .................................................................................. - 193 -

Figure 5-30: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the effects of different deck BCs on
the distribution of SM(COMB) in the arch for the combination of arch and deck stiffness that
results in the smallest SF1 and SM(COMB) ...................................................................... - 193 -

Figure 5-31: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the effects of different deck BCs on
the distribution of U2 in the arch for the combination of arch and deck stiffness that results
in the smallest SF1 and SM(COMB) .................................................................................. - 194 -

Figure 5-32: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the effects of different deck BCs on
the distribution of U3 in the arch for the combination of arch and deck stiffness that results
in the smallest SF1 and SM(COMB) .................................................................................. - 194 -

Figure 6-1: Spatial Configuration C01B........................................................................ - 202 -

Figure 6-2: Schematic representation of deck boundary conditions BC#02B (Restricted


Pin-connection) in C01B ............................................................................................... - 203 -

Figure 6-3: Principle of constant-bending-stiffness (CBS) ........................................... - 204 -

Figure 6-4: Locations of section points in the cross-section of arch and deck .............. - 205 -

Figure 6-5: U2 of the deck, considering deck: W = 2.0m, H = 0.4m in all materials ... - 209 -

Figure 6-6: U3 of the deck, considering deck: W = 2.0m, H = 0.4m in all materials ... - 209 -

Figure 6-7: U2 of the arch, considering deck: W = 2.0m, H = 0.4m in all materials .... - 211 -

Figure 6-8: U3 of the arch, considering deck: W = 2.0m, H = 0.4m in all materials .... - 211 -

Figure 6-9: Stresses in cables (Cable Ø = 50mm in all materials) ................................ - 212 -

Figure 6-10: Distribution of stresses in the arch comparing the effect of GFRP, CFRP, and
steel at four section points ............................................................................................. - 213 -

Figure 6-11 Distribution of stresses in the deck comparing the effect of GFRP, CFRP, and
steel at four section points ............................................................................................. - 214 -

xxviii
Figure 6-12: U2 of the deck taking into account creep in the arch and deck and five levels
of axial stiffness of the cables........................................................................................ - 216 -

Figure 6-13: U3 of the deck taking into account creep in the arch and deck and five levels
of axial stiffness of the cables........................................................................................ - 216 -

Figure 6-14: U2 of the arch taking into account creep in the arch and deck and five levels
of axial stiffness of the cables........................................................................................ - 218 -

Figure 6-15: U3 of the arch taking into account creep in the arch and deck and five levels
of axial stiffness of the cables........................................................................................ - 219 -

Figure 6-16: Stress in the cables taking into account creep in the arch and the deck and five
arrangements of cables axial stiffness and susceptibility to creep................................. - 220 -

Figure 6-17: U2 of the deck taking into account creep in the structural components and
additional tensioning of cables ...................................................................................... - 222 -

Figure 6-18: U3 of the deck taking into account creep in the structural components and
additional tensioning of cables ...................................................................................... - 222 -

Figure 6-19: U2 of the arch taking into account creep in the structural components and
additional tensioning of cables ...................................................................................... - 223 -

Figure 6-20: U3 of the arch taking into account creep in the structural components and
additional tensioning of cables ...................................................................................... - 223 -

Figure 6-21: Stress distribution in the cables, taking into account additional tensioning of
the cables and creep in the arch, deck, and cables ......................................................... - 224 -

Figure 6-22: Stress change in all three materials due to the application of a +ve thermal
load in the arch, deck, and cables .................................................................................. - 226 -

Figure 6-23: Stress change in all three materials due to the application of a –ve thermal
load in the arch, deck, and cables .................................................................................. - 227 -

Figure 6-24: Distribution U2 of the arch for GFRP, CFRP, and Steel at three levels of GTL
....................................................................................................................................... - 228 -

Figure 6-25: Distribution U3 of the arch for GFRP, CFRP, and Steel at three levels of GTL
....................................................................................................................................... - 228 -

Figure 6-26: Distribution U2 of the deck for GFRP, CFRP, and Steel at three levels of GTL
....................................................................................................................................... - 229 -

Figure 6-27: Distribution U3 of the deck for GFRP, CFRP, and Steel at three levels of GTL
....................................................................................................................................... - 230 -

xxix
Figure 6-28: C01B assuming only GFRP; a comparison of the deck displacement in the
vertical direction at three levels of deck reach to span ratio.......................................... - 233 -

Figure 6-29: Schematic sketch capturing the mechanism of deck displacement in C01B
assuming the deck profile with DSR = 15:1 (vertically flexible and horizontally stiff deck) ..
....................................................................................................................................... - 235 -

Figure 6-30: Schematic sketch capturing the mechanism of deck displacement in C01B
assuming the deck profile with DSR = 1:3 (vertically stiff and horizontally flexible deck) ....
....................................................................................................................................... - 236 -

Figure 6-31: Distribution of SM(COMB) in the deck for M001 and M006 at three levels of
ratio: f(D)/s = 0.25, 0.20, and 0.15 .................................................................................. - 239 -

Figure A-1: Selection of the “tension-only” material behaviour assigned to the truss
elements utilized for modeling of hangers in the linear models. ................................... - 274 -

Figure A-2: Definition of geometric quantities in a generalized profile of a beam element


cross-section................................................................................................................... - 276 -

Figure A-3: A graphical interpretation of a connector section “U-joint” used to model the
connection of the cables to the arch and deck ............................................................... - 278 -

Figure A-4: A spatial configuration assumed to verify beam elements that resist the
combined shear forces and bending and torsional moments ......................................... - 280 -

Figure A-5: A comparison of the displacements of a free end cantilever beam............ - 281 -

Figure A-6: A comparison of number of elements required to achieve a consistent level of


displacement .................................................................................................................. - 282 -

Figure A-7: A configuration assumed to verify beam elements that resist thermal loads ........
....................................................................................................................................... - 283 -

Figure A-8: Mesh sensitivity analysis of B32 indicating the suitable number of elements for
flexible cables ................................................................................................................ - 284 -

Figure A-9: An example of a setting of the incremental steps for the nonlinear analysis ........
....................................................................................................................................... - 285 -

Figure A-10: Configuration of a weightless cable loaded by a concentrated force at its


midspan assumed to verify the cable modeled with beam elements with reduced bending
stiffness .......................................................................................................................... - 286 -

Figure A-11: A comparison of the deformed shapes of the cables using the parabola and
catenary equations.......................................................................................................... - 289 -

xxx
Figure A-12: A comparison of the deformed shape of a cable modeled using B32 elements
with reduced bending stiffness and AM using a parabolic curve .................................. - 290 -

Figure A-13: Cable deformed under self-weight: related symbols................................ - 290 -

Figure A-14: A comparison of the displacements of a cable, modeled using B32 elements,
exposed to three levels of thermal load ......................................................................... - 293 -

Figure A-15: A comparison of the distributions of the tensile force in a cable, modeled
using B32, exposed to three levels of thermal load ....................................................... - 294 -

Figure A-16: A configuration used to verify the entire structure .................................. - 296 -

Figure B-1: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the distributions of SF(COMB) in the arch
comparing critical case of LL, +ve and –ve GTL and unloaded state for three levels of f(A)/s
and most sensitive ratio, f(D)/s = 0.15............................................................................. - 327 -

Figure B-2: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the distributions of SF(COMB) in the arch
considering the effect of LL100..................................................................................... - 328 -

Figure B-3: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the distributions of U(COMB) in the arch
comparing critical case of LL, +ve and –ve GTL and unloaded state in the arch for three
levels of f(A)/s and the most sensitive ratio, f(D)/s = 0.15 ............................................... - 332 -

Figure B-4: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the distributions of U(COMB) in the arch
considering the effect of LL........................................................................................... - 333 -

Figure B-5: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the distributions of SF1 in the deck
comparing critical case of LL, +ve and –ve GTL and unloaded state for three levels of f(A)/s
and most sensitive ratio, f(D)/s = 0.15............................................................................. - 335 -

Figure B-6: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the distributions of SF1 in the deck
considering the effect of LL100..................................................................................... - 336 -

Figure B-7: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the distributions of SF(COMB) in the


deck comparing critical case of LL, +ve and –ve GTL and unloaded state for three levels of
f(A)/s and most sensitive ratio, f(D)/s = 0.15 .................................................................... - 338 -

Figure B-8: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the distributions of SF(COMB) in the


deck considering the effect of LL100 ............................................................................ - 339 -

Figure B-9: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the distributions of U(COMB) in the deck
comparing critical case of LL, +ve and –ve GTL and unloaded state for three levels of f(A)/s
and most sensitive ratio, f(D)/s = 0.15............................................................................. - 342 -

Figure B-10: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the distributions of U(COMB) in the


deck considering the effect of LL100 ............................................................................ - 343 -

xxxi
Figure B-11: Configuration C02 — A comparison of the distributions of SF(COMB) in the
arch comparing critical case of LL, +ve and –ve GTL and unloaded state for three levels of
f(A)/s and most sensitive angle of arch inclination, ω = 15° ........................................... - 347 -

Figure B-12: Configuration C02 — Distribution of SF(COMB) in the arch considering the
effect of LL50 ................................................................................................................ - 348 -

Figure B-13: Configuration C02 — A comparison of the distributions of U(COMB) in the


arch considering the effect of LL50............................................................................... - 352 -

Figure B-14: Configuration C02 — A comparison of the distributions of SF(COMB) in the


deck considering the effect of LL50 .............................................................................. - 354 -

Figure B-15: Configuration C02 — A comparison of the distributions of U(COMB) in the


deck comparing critical case of LL, +ve and –ve GTL and unloaded state for three levels of
f(A)/s and most sensitive arch inclination, ω = 15° ......................................................... - 357 -

Figure B-16: Configuration C02 — A comparison of the distribution of U(COMB) in the deck
considering the effect of LL50....................................................................................... - 358 -

Figure B-17: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the distributions of SF(COMB) in the


arch comparing critical case of LL, +ve and –ve GTL and unloaded state for three levels of
f(A)/s and most sensitive angle of arch inclination, θ = 15° ........................................... - 362 -

Figure B-18: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the distributions of SF(COMB) in the


arch considering the effect of LL100............................................................................. - 363 -

Figure B-19: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the distributions of U2 in the arch


comparing critical case of LL, +ve and –ve GTL and unloaded state for three levels of f(A)/s
and most sensitive angle of arch rotation, θ = 45°......................................................... - 367 -

Figure B-20: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the distributions of U3 in the arch


comparing critical case of LL, +ve and –ve GTL and unloaded state for three levels of f(A)/s
and most sensitive angle of arch rotation, θ = 45°......................................................... - 368 -

Figure B-21: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the distributions of U2 in the arch


considering the effect of LL100..................................................................................... - 369 -

Figure B-22: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the distributions of U3 in the arch


considering the effect of LL100..................................................................................... - 370 -

Figure B-23: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the distributions of SF(COMB) in the


deck considering the effect of LL100 ............................................................................ - 372 -

Figure B-24: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the distributions of U(COMB) in the


deck comparing critical case of LL, +ve and –ve GTL and unloaded state for three levels of
f(A)/s and most sensitive angle of arch rotation, θ = 15° ................................................ - 375 -

xxxii
Figure B-25: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the distributions of U2 of the deck
comparing critical case of LL, +ve and –ve GTL and unloaded state taking into account the
most sensitive configuration: f(A)/s = 0.15 and θ = 15° ................................................. - 376 -

Figure B-26: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the distributions of U2 in the deck


considering the effect of LL100..................................................................................... - 377 -

Figure B-27: Configuration C01— A graphical representation of the spatial out-of-plane


displacement of the arch and deck considering the most sensitive configuration (f(A)/s =
0.15, f(D)/s = 0.25). Scale factor 1.0 ............................................................................... - 379 -

Figure B-28: Configuration C02— A graphical representation of the spatial out-of-plane


displacement of the arch and deck considering the most sensitive configuration (f(A)/s =
0.25, ω = 45°). Scale factor = 5 ..................................................................................... - 385 -

Figure B-29: Configuration C03 — A graphical representation of the spatial out-of-plane


displacement of the arch and deck considering deformed shape of the most sensitive
configuration (f (A)/s = 0.15, θ = 45°). Scale factor = 10.0 ............................................. - 391 -

Figure D-1: Distribution of stresses in the deck comparing the effect of GFRP, CFRP, and
steel at four section points a) SP01: Top, b) SP02: Bottom, c) SP03: RHS, and d) SP04:
LHS ................................................................................................................................ - 425 -

Figure D-2: Distribution of stresses in the arch comparing the effect of GFRP, CFRP, and
steel at four section points a) SP01: Top, b) SP02: Bottom, c) SP03: RHS, and d) SP04:
LHS ................................................................................................................................ - 426 -

Figure D-3: A comparison of distribution of stresses in the deck at four designated section
points, taking into account creep in the arch, deck, and cables and additional tensioning of
cables ............................................................................................................................. - 428 -

Figure D-4: Comparison of distribution of stresses in the arch at four designated section
points, taking into account creep in the arch, deck, and cables and additional tensioning of
cables ............................................................................................................................. - 429 -

Figure D-5: Fluctuation of stresses in the deck at three levels of thermal load (0°C, +50°C ,
and -50°C), taking into account effect of GFRP, CFRP, and steel at section points: a)
SP#01 — Top, b) SP#02 — Bottom .............................................................................. - 433 -

Figure D-6: Fluctuation of stresses in the deck at three levels of thermal load (0°C, +50°C ,
and -50°C), taking into account effect of GFRP, CFRP, and steel at section points: a)
SP#03 — RHS, b) SP#03 — LHS ................................................................................. - 434 -

Figure D-7: Fluctuation of stresses in the arch at three levels of thermal load (0°C, +50°C ,
and -50°C) taking into account effect of GFRP, CFRP, and steel at section points: a) SP#01
— Top, b) SP#02 — Bottom ......................................................................................... - 436 -

xxxiii
Figure D-8: Fluctuation of stresses in the arch at three levels of thermal load (0°C, +50°C ,
and -50°C) taking into account effect of GFRP, CFRP, and steel at section points: a) SP#03
— RHS, b) SP#03 — LHS ............................................................................................ - 437 -

Figure D-9: Distribution of stress in cables at three levels of GTL (0°C, +50°C, and -50°C)
taking into account GFRP, CFRP, and steel.................................................................. - 438 -

Figure D-10: A comparison of the distributions U2 of the deck taking into account there
levels of f(D)/s ratio ......................................................................................................... - 440 -

Figure D-11: A comparison of the distributions U3 of the deck taking into account there
levels of f(D)/s ratio ......................................................................................................... - 441 -

Figure D-12: A comparison of the distributions of stress in the cables along the span, taking
into account there levels of f(D)/s ratio ........................................................................... - 442 -

Figure D-13: A comparison of the distributions of SM(COMB) in the deck, taking into
account models M001 and M006 at three level of ratio f(D)/s: 0.25, 0.20, and 0.15...... - 443 -

Figure D-14: A comparison of the distributions of SM(COMB) in the arch, taking into account
models M001 and M006 at three level of ratio f(D)/s: 0.25, 0.20, and 0.15 ................... - 444 -

Figure D-15: A comparison of the distributions of SF1 in the deck, taking into account
models M001 and M006 at three level of ratio f(D)/s: 0.25, 0.20, and 0.15 ................... - 445 -

Figure D-16: A comparison of the distributions of SF1 in the arch, taking into account
models M001 and M006 at three level of ratio f(D)/s: 0.25, 0.20, and 0.15 ................. - 446 -

Figure D-17: Distribution of SM(COMB) in the deck taking into account ratio f(D)/s = 0.25,
three materials and three levels of GTL: a) 0°C, +50°C, and c) -50°C ......................... - 449 -

Figure D-18: Distribution of stresses cables in configuration C01B taking into account ratio
f(D)/s = 0.25, three materials and three levels of GTL: a) 0°C, +50°C, and c) -50°C .... - 451 -

Figure D-19: A comparison of stress distribution in the deck at section point located at left-
hand-side (LHS) of the deck cross-section taking into account the effect of GFRP, CFRP,
and steel at 0°C .............................................................................................................. - 453 -

Figure D-20: A comparison of stress distribution in the deck at section point located at left-
hand-side (LHS) of the deck cross-section taking into account the effect of GFRP, CFRP,
and steel at +50 .............................................................................................................. - 453 -

Figure D-21: A comparison of stress distribution in the deck at section point located at left-
hand-side (LHS) of the deck cross-section taking into account the effect of GFRP, CFRP,
and steel at –50°C .......................................................................................................... - 454 -

xxxiv
List of Symbols, Abbreviations and Nomenclature

Symbol Definition
1 Global longitudinal direction
2 Global vertical direction
3 Global transversal direction
A Cross-sectional area
a Ratio of 𝑇𝑇0 /𝑊𝑊0
AA Cross-sectional area of the arch
ACM Advanced Composite Materials
AM Analytical model
BC Boundary Conditions
BFRP Basalt-Fibre-Reinforced-Polymer
C(i) Coordinate of individual cables along the span
CAS Constant-axil-stiffness
CBS Constant-bending-stiffness
CF Axial force in the cable
CF(H) Horizontal component of the cable force
CF(V) Vertical component of the cable force
CFRP Carbon-Fibre-Reinforced-Polymer
C-S Cross-sectional
CTE Coefficient of Thermal Expansion
DL Dead Load (permanent load)
DOF Degree of Freedom
ds Differential increment in the tangential direction
DSR Deck Stiffness Ratio
dx Differential increment in the horizontal direction
dy Differential increment in the vertical direction
E Modulus of elasticity
E(EFF) Effective modulus of elasticity
EA Axial stiffness

xxxv
Symbol Definition
EA(EFF) Effective axial stiffness
EAA Axial stiffness of the arch
EI Bending stiffness
EI(EFF) Effective bending stiffness
EI(H) Bending stiffness in the horizontal direction
EI(V) Bending stiffness in the vertical direction
F Point load
f Cable sag
f (A) Arch rise
f (A)/s Arch rise to span ratio; primary geometric variable
f (AZ) Arch reach in the transversal direction
f (D) Deck reach
f (D)/s Deck reach to span ratio; secondary geometric variable
f (VC) Rise of the camber of the deck in the vertical direction
f/s(VC) Deck camber in the vertical direction to span ratio
FEA Finite Element Analysis
G Shear modulus
g(H) Horizontal offset between the arch and deck abutments
g(V) Vertical offset between the arch and deck abutments
GFRP Glass-Fibre-Reinforced-Polymer
GJ Torsional stiffness
GTL Global Thermal Load
HSS Hollow Structural Section
I Second moment of area
I11 Second moment of area about the vertical axis of the cross-section
I22 Second moment of area about the horizontal axis of the cross-section
J Torsional constant
k(w) Number of sinusoidal half-waves
L Length
L(i) Projected length of the arch segments between individual nodes

xxxvi
Symbol Definition
LA Length of the parabolic arch
LC Length of the parabolic curve
LHS Left-hand-side
LL Live Load
LL100 Live Load distributed equally over the entire length of the span
LL50 Live Load distributed over half of the deck starting deck abutments and ending
at midspan
LTL Local Thermal Load
M Moment
m The peak value added to the 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 at midspan (representing the “rise” of the
parabolic curve)
MA Moment at the abutment of the arch
MP Moment effect at a general point P
n Parameter determining an increase in the curvature of the parabolic distribution
NA Axial thrust in the arch
Ni(ID) Total number of nodes in one cable
Ni(No) Node order in the cable
No(Nodes) Number of nodes in the arch
qc Weight of cable per unit length
RH Reaction force in horizontal direction
RHA Horizontal reaction force at the arch abutment
RHS Right-hand-side
RV Reaction force in the vertical direction
RVA Vertical reaction force at the arch abutment
s Span of the bridge between abutments of the arch
s(VC) Span of the deck assuming deck camber in vertical direction
S01A First configuration of the arch bending stiffness: the arch is flexible in the
vertical direction and flexible in the horizontal direction
S01D First configuration of the deck bending stiffness: the deck is flexible in the
vertical direction and flexible in the horizontal direction

xxxvii
Symbol Definition
S02A Second configuration of the arch bending stiffness: the arch is stiff in the
vertical direction and flexible in the horizontal direction
S02D Second configuration of the deck bending stiffness: the deck is stiff in the
vertical direction and flexible in the horizontal direction
S03A Third configuration of the arch bending stiffness: the arch is flexible in the
vertical direction and stiff in the horizontal direction
S03D Third configuration of the deck bending stiffness: the deck is flexible in the
vertical direction and stiff in the horizontal direction
S04A Fourth configuration of the arch bending stiffness: the arch is stiff in the
vertical direction and stiff in the horizontal direction
S04D Fourth configuration of the deck bending stiffness: the deck is stiff in the
vertical direction and stiff in the horizontal direction
SAB Spatial Arch Bridge
SF(COMB) Combined shear force taking into account the effect of both the SF2 and SF3
SF1 Axial force in the direction of the longitudinal axis of the structural component
SF2 Shear force in the vertical direction
SF3 Shear force in the horizontal transversal direction
SM(COMB) Combined bending moment taking into account the effect of both the SM1 and
SM2
SM1 Section bending moment about local axis in the horizontal transversal direction
(vertical bending moment)
SM2 Section bending moment about local axis in the vertical direction
(transversal bending moment)
SM3 Section torsional moment about the longitudinal axis of a member
SP Section point
T Torsional moment
T0 Horizontal component of a tensile force in the cable
Tb Base temperature; regarding the additional tensioning of cables
TC Tensile force at arbitrary point in the cable
TR Magnitude of the reaction force in the tangential direction at the cable anchor

xxxviii
Symbol Definition
U(COMB) Combined displacement taking into account the effect of both the U2 and U3
U1 Displacement in the longitudinal global direction
U2 Displacement in the vertical global direction
U2A.CR Vertical displacement at the arch crown
U2D.MS. Vertical displacement of the deck at midspan
U3 Displacement in the transversal global direction
UR1 Rotation about axis in the longitudinal global direction
UR2 Rotation about axis in the vertical global direction
UR3 Rotation about axis in the transversal global direction
+ve Positive
–ve Negative
W0 Weight of the cable per unit length
WPUL Weight per unit length
x Distance along the span
X Global longitudinal direction
Xi(0) Reference coordinate linearly increasing from zero to total span 𝑠𝑠 in
longitudinal direction in between abutments of the arch
Xi(0) Horizontal coordinate along the span
Xi(A) A node coordinate of the arch in the longitudinal direction
Xi(C) A node coordinate of the cables in the longitudinal direction
Xi(C-0) Location of the cable along the span
Xi(D) A node coordinate of the deck in the longitudinal direction
Y Global vertical direction
Yi(A) A node coordinate of the arch in the vertical direction
Yi(C) A node coordinate of the cables in the vertical direction
Yi(D) A node coordinate of the deck in the vertical direction
Z Global transversal direction
Zi(A) A node coordinate of the arch in the transversal direction
Zi(C) A node coordinate of the cables in the transversal direction
Zi(D) A node coordinate of the deck in the transversal direction

xxxix
Symbol Definition
α Angle between horizontal plane of the deck and the plane of the cables
α(TRAN) Transformed angle α
γ The difference in the cable inclination between the deformed and undeformed
state
δA Displacement due to axial load
ΔT Difference in the applied temperature
δTL Displacement due to thermal load
θ Angle of arch rotation about the vertical axis at located at midspan; secondary
geometric variable
ω Angle of arch inclination from the vertical plane; secondary geometric variable

xl
Epigraph

Learning never exhausts the mind.


Leonardo da Vinci

xli
Chapter One: Introduction and Motivation

Chapter One: Introduction and Motivation

1.1 Spatial Arch Bridges

The creation of spatial structures has been a desire of human society since ancient
times. Great works of architecture were built to celebrate prosperity, development, and
achievements in technology. Often times, symbolism inherited in the structure played a key
role in the designs. Modern, architecturally appealing structures continue the theme of an
outstanding design combined with mastered functionality and efficiency.
Spatial structures cover many possible areas and concepts ranging from sculptures
to purely functional buildings; they have been the passion of many architects and structural
designers. On the boundary of art and efficient design lie spatial arch bridges which, in
their configuration, combine arch ribs with a deck connected via a sophisticated system of
hangers. Due to their configuration, spatial arch bridges have a light appearance employing
architectural elegance with structural and material efficiency. In modern urbanistic
developments, spatial bridges fulfill not only the function of a simple, physical connection
between two points, but they also, and mainly, carry an attribute of a landmark or symbol
of a particular event. In recent years, spatial bridges have been built as millennium bridges,
entry gates connecting communities, or monuments celebrating innovation.
The complexity of spatial structures results in marvellous forms linking material
appearance with a unique distribution of geometrical members. Nevertheless, the
combination of spatial elements that employ various structural details leads to certain
challenges in structural analysis and design. Understanding the significance of individual
factors that influence the mechanics and structural behaviour of spatial configurations is a
complex discipline.

-1-
Chapter One: Introduction and Motivation

1.2 Problem Definition

Spatial arch bridges (SABs) can be very complex. Even though, in their
configurations, a simple alignment of an inclined planar arch and straight deck fulfills the
condition of spatiality, more sophisticated systems employing curved decks with multiple
rotated arches exist.
SABs can be characterized as structures where the deck is connected to a spatially-
shaped arch via a system of hangers. In particular configurations, the arch can be replaced
by a spatial shell and the hangers can be either flexible or stiff. The attribute that defines
SABs is the presence of out-of-plane loads in the structural system. Loads applied
vertically on the deck generate out-of-plane loads in the form of shear forces and bending
and/or torsional moments that may occur in all the main structural components of the
system, such as the arch/shell, deck, and hangers. Further, the structural system also
experiences out-of-plane loads as a result of supporting its own weight. Geometric
complexity is further elevated by the configuration of the hangers, which may influence
structural behaviour. Certain patterns of hanger configuration, which result in more
efficient distributions of internal forces, were investigated in network arch bridges by Tveit
(2002). The investigation conducted proved that the configuration of the hangers selected
can play a significant role. Nevertheless, this investigation was not carried out for
configurations of SABs. Even though efficient three-dimensional (3D) antifunicular
(compression only) shapes of arches that resists multidirectional loading or defining the
optimal geometric and stiffness ratios have been studied by several authors (Lachauer &
Kotnik, 2011; Jorquera & Manterola, 2012; Todisco, 2014; Sarmiento-Comesias, 2015),
understanding certain geometric relations is still a challenge and needs to be clarified.
Exposing structures to fluctuating temperatures results in the generation of stresses
that, in some cases, may reach levels as high as the effects from live loads (Sheriff, 1991);
therefore, an increased frequency of temperature change can affect the fatigue life of a
structure. The magnitude of stresses induced from thermal effects is related to several
factors such as the geometry of the structural configuration, material composition,
geographic location, or orientation in respect to the cardinal directions (Dilger, 1983). Most
SABs have complex geometries and are comprised of structural steel alone or steel
combined with reinforced concrete. Structural steel compared to other materials has the

-2-
Chapter One: Introduction and Motivation

highest coefficient of thermal expansion, which results in relatively high thermal strains
that may be magnified by particular geometric or material configurations. Geographic
location and structure orientation greatly affect the stresses generated within a structure. It
is not only the temperature variation between seasons that has an effect on structures; the
diurnal fluctuation may also be important, especially in Canada where significant
differences can occur. In addition, the orientation of a structure, in combination with the
material and geometry, may lead to temperature differences as high as 70°C across one
structure at the same moment (Dilger, 1983). The majority of SABs have been built in
countries where thermal loads do not represent a significant concern, for example Spain,
Italy, the United Kingdom, and Southern China (Sarmiento-Comesias et al., 2013). The
design process generally considers thermal analysis; however, the analyses on existing
SABs or for specific case studies covered only a small range of diurnal temperature
fluctuations relevant to the region where the structures were built, for example the Hulme
Arch Bridge (diagonal arch over straight deck, Manchester, UK) by Hussain & Wilson
(1998) and the Nanning Bridge (two inclined uneven arches over a curved deck, Nanning,
Guangxi, China) by Cheng et al. (2010). Based on the number and depth of studies that
consider the effect of thermal loads on SABs, the significance of temperature fluctuation
has not been described in detail and more rigorous investigation is required to provide a
clear understanding of the effects of thermal loads on SABs.
The material complexity of SABs is not as broad as the group of possible geometric
combinations; nevertheless, due to the configuration of SABs in space, the material
behaviour under multidirectional loading may influence the overall structural response.
While the specific stiffness (axial, bending, or torsional) can be achieved in any material
via a combination of cross-sections and material properties, the overall response of the
structure may differ for different materials. The reason for this difference is the specific
weight of different materials and their responses to applied loads (creep in concrete and
flexural-torsional buckling in steel section).
In modern bridge applications, there is an increasing demand for durable, high
performance materials that resist not only the applied loads but also the weather conditions.
Long winters are typical in the Canadian climate with frequent cycles of freezing and
thawing. For bridges, these temperature fluctuations are often accompanied with de-icing

-3-
Chapter One: Introduction and Motivation

salts that accelerate the process of material deterioration. One alternative to meet the
demand is advanced composite materials (ACMs). ACMs are increasingly used in bridge
applications in the form of reinforcement or strengthening systems; all-composite systems
also exist. The outstanding properties of ACMs, such as high stiffness-to-weight ratio and
chemical and/or thermal stability, make them a promising choice for bridge structures.
However, due to ACMs’ anisotropic characteristics and certain challenges in their
structural profiles (creep related deformations, high stress concentrations at connections, or
their light weight affecting the dynamic response) combined with the effect of out-of-plane
loads, no SABs have been constructed from ACMs as an all-composite structure.
Therefore, ACMs and SABs represent a gap in our current knowledge.
To conclude, SABs represent relatively new architecturally and structurally
appealing forms whose popularity has increased in recent years. Most current research has
covered certain aspects related to the structural behaviour of SABs. Nevertheless, the
geometric complexity combined with multiple possible material selections creates research
gaps that need to be addressed by rigorous investigation.

1.3 Objectives

The primary goals of this work are to broaden our fundamental knowledge of the
structural behaviour of SABs with an inferior deck and to compile the resulting data in
tabular and graphical form so that the data can be used as a guideline. More specific
objectives are provided in chapters four, five, and six, which focus on aspects of a
particular form of a structural response of SABs.

The main objectives are:

• To investigate the significance of geometric variables, including arch rise, deck reach,
angle of arch inclination, and angle of arch rotation, in three different spatial
configurations of SABs, while considering thermal and live loads;

• To examine the effect of variability in bending stiffness of the arch and deck and the
end boundary conditions of the deck on the magnitude of the internal forces in the arch

-4-
Chapter One: Introduction and Motivation

to determine the level of susceptibility of the arch to buckling, in the three spatial
configurations;

• To investigate the effect of material properties, in particular the properties of ACMs,


on the structural behaviour of one spatial configuration, while taking into consideration
effects such as creep, coefficient of thermal expansion, low modulus of elasticity,
additional tensioning of the cables or the ratio of vertical to horizontal bending
stiffness of the deck;

• To establish design criteria for the three spatial configurations studied in the thesis,
while considering the effect of loads, overall geometry, cross-sectional dimensions,
bending stiffness, and end conditions of the deck.

1.4 Scope of Work

Investigations are carried out using finite elements analyses (FEA). Three main
configurations that satisfy the definition of SABs are considered first to depict the
structural behaviour of SABs at a general level; further, the results are applied to more
specific geometries at later stages of the work. The analyses take into account only spatial
bridges with inferior decks, i.e., bridges with their deck suspended below the arch.
The three main configurations of SABs with inferior decks are as follows: (1) a
vertical parabolic arch with a horizontal parabolic deck, (2) a parabolic arch inclined from
the vertical plane with a straight deck, and (3) a vertical arch rotated about the vertical axis
above a straight deck. From these three basic concepts, the most critical configurations are
identified and used for further analyses.
All models are created with structural beam elements whose properties were altered
to investigate particular parameters of interest. Linear and geometrically nonlinear models
are developed to evaluate the structural responses during different stages of the research.
The investigated configurations represent pedestrian bridges. The Canadian
Highway Bridge Design Code provision was followed as a reference to determine the
magnitude of applied loads. Dead loads, live loads, and thermal loads are considered as key
factors. Thermal loads are considered because of the Canadian climate. Wind and
earthquake loads are not included in the scope of the thesis even though these loads may

-5-
Chapter One: Introduction and Motivation

affect the response of the structure significantly: for example, earthquake loads would need
to be considered for a SAB being designed in Vancouver, British Columbia.
As material selection can influence the response in structural configurations, three
different material options are investigated: steel and two types of ACMs in the form of
structural hollow profiles. Material nonlinearity is not considered and material properties
are taken directly from the literature.

1.5 Thesis Layout

This work investigates the structural behaviour of spatial arch bridges. The
complexity of the analyses that describe the structural behaviour increases throughout the
thesis.
Chapter One introduces the topic, defines the research problem, and outlines the
objectives. A literature review is provided in Chapter Two, which is divided into several
sections related to the types of analysis considered in this work. Chapter Three describes
the finite element models and parametric input files that are used in the subsequent
analyses. In this chapter, all alternatives of the models (related to the individual analyses)
are described.
Chapter Four investigates the structural behaviour of the models and clarifies the
significance of the geometric variables (ratios of geometric configurations) that potentially
influence the structural behaviour of SABs under live and thermal loading. Linear FE
models are examined.
The influence of variability in bending stiffness of the arch and deck on distribution
and magnitude of the axial forces and bending moments in the arch, affecting the
susceptibility of the arch to buckling as a function of the end conditions of the deck, is
investigated in Chapter Five.
The dependence of the structural behaviour on material composition is evaluated in
Chapter Six. The use of ACMs in particular SAB configurations is examined. The
significance of relevant material properties, such as the coefficient of thermal expansion
and modulus of elasticity, are investigated in detail. The effect of variability of deck
stiffness, creep, and additional cable tensioning are also considered in this chapter.

-6-
Chapter One: Introduction and Motivation

Chapter Seven proposes design criteria of the three spatial configurations in


question. Based on the newly achieved understanding, several straightforward guidelines
are established. Directions of future work are discussed in this chapter.
A summary and some final remarks are presented in Chapter Eight. This chapter
gathers the main contributions of the thesis and comments on the current state of research
and on the application of the results of this research in industrial projects.
The appendices of this thesis provide the details for individual chapters such as
large tables or charts. The appendices also include a complete parametric input file of the
geometrically nonlinear model that is employed for the analyses. The input file contains all
relevant parameters and commands, and therefore, can be used as a reference for studying
purposes and further analysis.
The work deals with a relatively large number of variables, whose significance is
studied, with increasing complexity, at several levels. The mutual relation of the individual
chapters, with direct focus on particular type of variables, is presented in a simplified form
in the flow-chart shown in Figure 1-1.

-7-
Chapter One: Introduction and Motivation

CHAPTERS: ONE, TWO, and THREE

CHAPTER FOUR
Input for Chapter Four
Geometric variables:
 Arch rise
 Inclination of the arch
 Rotation of the arch
 Deck reach

Critical configurations

Input for Chapter Five

CHAPTER FIVE
Mechanical variables:
 Bending stiffness of the arch
 Bending stiffness of the deck
 Boundary conditions of the deck

Critical configurations

Input for Chapter Six

CHAPTER SIX
Materials variables:
 Advanced Composite Materials
 Creep
 Coefficient of thermal expansion

CHAPTER SEVEN: DESIGN CRITERIA

Figure 1-1: A schematic flow-chart showing the mutual relation of individual chapters

-8-
Chapter Two: Literature Review

Chapter Two: Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

Spatial Arch Bridges (SABs) are structures that can be very complex in terms of
their geometric configuration, material composition, and dependence on site-related
factors. Demand for functional and aesthetically pleasing structures in urban areas drove
the development of such structures. SABs are well accepted from the architectural point of
view. The arch is a highly suitable structural component to support horizontally curved
decks, which are often times a characteristic of modern spatial bridges (Jorquera, 2009).
Architectural and engineering points of view are always present when analyzing and
designing spatial structures. Therefore, both perspectives should always be considered
(Rippmann, 2016).
This chapter provides an overview of the history and general concepts of SABs
followed by a rigorous literature review. Chapters of the thesis may contain additional
information and literature sources directly related to the topic of a particular chapter.

2.2 Definition of Spatial Arch Bridges

SABs constitute a very broad range of possible configurations. In general, SABs


can be defined as structures where the deck is connected to an arch via a system of hangers.
Typically, the hangers are not contained in the plane of the arch. The arch may not be
defined in a plane; it can be curved in space. Further, in certain configurations, the arch can
be replaced by a spatial shell and the hangers can be either flexible or stiff. The
classification of SABs is provided in Section 2.4.2.
The attribute that defines SABs is the presence of out-of-plane loads in the
structural system. Loads applied vertically on the deck and loads resulting from the self-
weight of the structure generate out-of-plane loads in the form of shear forces and bending
and/or torsional moments, which may occur in all three main components of the structural
system, the arch/shell, deck, and hangers. In contrast, bridges with vertical planar arches
that experience out-of-plane loads from certain loading actions, such as lateral wind loads
or eccentrically applied vertical loads that introduce lateral shear forces in the deck or arch,
are not considered SABs (Sarmiento et al., 2013). In SABs, the distribution of the

-9-
Chapter Two: Literature Review

generated internal forces is dependent on the particular configuration of the bridge. Certain
configurations may comprise rigid hangers and a flexible arch, resulting in better utilization
of the axial resistance of the arch. Other configurations may consist of a deck supported by
flexible hangers (cables) connected to a stiff arch resulting in large bending stresses in the
arch. Descriptions of the individual structural systems and their responses to applied loads
are provided in Section 2.5.

2.3 History and Development of Spatial Structures

SABs developed as a structural form from vertical in-plane arches due to the
demand for spatially appealing structures. The desire for such structures has been present in
a variety of forms and purposes (mainly religious) since ancient times (Bunson, 2012). The
complexity of these structures evolved in parallel with the ability of humans to handle
tools, understand the properties of obtainable materials, and apply structural mechanics
(Nicholson, 2000). Self-standing arches in the form of vaults and projected or rotated
arches in the form of domes preceded the development of SABs.
The arch, defined as an “anti-funicular” structure (a structure whose self-weight is
resisted only by pure compression), is opposite to a “funicular” structure whose load is
resisted only by tensile forces. In both anti-funicular and funicular structures, the line of
thrust must be contained within the thickness of the element. In funicular structures (cable
supported), the line of thrust (tension) lies directly on the centre line of the cable as the
cable, due its low bending stiffness, automatically develops a funicular shape. In anti-
funicular structures (arches, domes, etc.), the ideal shape is much more difficult to achieve
without a good understanding of the mechanics of arch action. Therefore, suspension
bridges, in their simplest form of suspended ropes connected with cross members, were
constructed and were more wide-spread much earlier than bridges that used arches as part
of their design (Allen, 2010).
Even though the invention of the “true” arch is attributed to the Etruscans, the first
known evidence of arches comes from Ancient Egypt, from the era of at least the third
dynasty, which is approximately 2600 BC (Perrot, 1883). An example of such an arch, the
“Arch in the Necropolis of Abydos,” is shown in Figure 2-1; this arch was built from a
combination of limestone and mud bricks.

- 10 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

According to the findings from the Abydos excavations (Löbbecke, 2012), the arch
has a key stone in the form of a true voussoir. From this evidence, Egyptians understood
the mechanics of arches.
However, arches were built only in certain cases when constructing more common
corbeled vaults was not practical. Arches were built from mud bricks wedged together and
bonded with mortar (gypsum plaster) and gravel (Nicholson, 2000). Arches were not more
common in Ancient Egypt possibly due to the Egyptians’ lack of understanding of
materials and that arches constructed from weak stones or mud bricks may collapse easily.

Figure 2-1: The Arch in the Necropolis of Abydos (Perrot, 1883)

A typical Egyptian arch is known as a corbeled arch, a structure in which the shape
is achieved with stones placed on top of each other subsequently shifting inwards. The
stability of such a system is achieved from the weight of the stones placed at the ends of the
cantilevered stones, creating the curved opening. Oftentimes, integral supports were
necessary during the construction of corbeled arches (Löbbecke, 2012).
The development and use of true arches on a larger scale was achieved during the
era of the Roman Empire. Ancient Romans adopted the arch concept from the Etruscans
(Gascoigne, 2001) and mastered building structures, which included arches not only in the
form of utilitarian buildings, such as the Pont du Gard aqueduct near Nimes in France, but
also in the form of architectural landmarks, such as arches of triumph; examples of such
structures are shown in Figure 2-2.

- 11 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

a) b)

Figure 2-2: Examples of Roman arches: a) the Arch of Titus in Rome, a triumph arch
(Anthony, 2005) and b) the Pont du Gard Roman aqueduct near Nimes in France, a
utilitarian structure (Beard, 2015)

The Romans, taking many examples from the art and architecture of the Greeks,
advanced the “binder” of construction materials, cement. Ancient Greeks living on the east
coast (close to present-day Turkey) developed a form of cement in approximately 200 BC.
This cement consisted of lime, which binds sand, water, and clay. This invention was
advanced by the Romans who replaced the clay with finely ground volcanic lava from the
region of Pozzuoli resulting in “pozzolanic cement,” which represented the strongest type
of mortar until recently when Portland cements were developed (Gascoigne, 2001). Mixing
pozzolanic cement with small particles of volcanic stones produced concrete, which was
used to bind stones and bricks; many great arches and aqueducts were constructed using
this concrete.
The Romans built many great arch structures and, due to their skill of precisely
fitting individual bricks, only a small amount mortar (the component that deteriorates most
easily) was used. Thus, most of their structures remained intact for centuries. Nevertheless,
the Romans did not have an advanced understanding of the mathematical aspects of the
arch (Boyd, 1978).
A typical Roman arch was semicircular. This shape was selected for symbolic
reasons because the semicircular shape represented unity, perfection, and harmony
(Todisco, 2014). In a semicircular configuration, the line of thrust does not follow exactly

- 12 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

the centre line of the semicircular arch rib. The line of thrust is a conceptual line
representing the position of the resultant compression force resulting from an applied dead
load (Shrive et al., 2000). From the mechanics of masonry arch action, as long as the line
of thrust stays within the arch cross-section, the arch is stable (collapse will not occur).
However, even though the arch remains stable, it will crack if the line of thrust occurs
outside of the kern region.
In Roman arches, the heavy masonry fill placed above the arch stabilized the
structure. Without the fill, the line of thrust, which was not contained within the cross-
section of the semicircular arch, would result in a bending moment that would cause the
arch to collapse. Therefore, the shape of the Roman arches was not a significant problem.
The drawback of the Roman semicircular arches was their relatively short span.
Typically, Roman arch bridges consisted of several small arches, and in some cases, small
arches were constructed in several levels above each other (for example, the Pont du Gard
aqueduct shown in Figure 2-2). Each arch was supported by an intermediate pier. After the
fall of the Roman Empire (476 A.D.), most of the engineering knowledge was forgotten,
and during the medieval times, arch bridges were rarely built; when they were built, the
structures were not as stable and durable compared to Roman structures (Mock, 1949).
In 1676, Robert Hooke provided the first experimental definition of a “true”
(antifunicular) arch: an arch that has a line of thrust contained on the centre line of the
actual arch, thereby allowing the arch to resist applied loads only in the axial direction
(Heyman, 1998). In his experiment, Hooke explained that ideal shape of a true arch takes
the form of a chain hanging freely from its ends: “as hangs the flexible line, so but inverted
will stand the rigid arch.” Although Hooke’s solution was very close to the modern
definition of a true antifunicular arch, the suggested shape could not be described
mathematically at the time. Nevertheless, Hooke proposed a cubic function (y = |ax3|) to
describe the shape. The equation for the curve of a hanging flexible line or catenary was
derived several years later by David Gregory, who expanded Hooke's assertion (Ruddock,
1979). Today’s mathematical description of a true antifunicular arch, which supports its
own weight, is a catenary expressed by a hyperbolic cosine function (y = a*cosh (x/a)). The
catenary can be sufficiently approximated using the much simpler quadratic parabola
(Sheriff, 1991; Todisco, 2014).

- 13 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

Using physical models to achieve optimal geometry was popular among architects
who designed funicular structures. Similar to Hooke’s approach, Antonio Gaudi (Spanish
architect, 1852-1926) created physical models using weights hanging on ropes to determine
the optimal structural shape for the Sagrada Famila, a cathedral in the late Spanish gothic
style. The ropes with attached weights represented an upside-down model of the structure.
In addition, Heinz Isler (Swiss structural engineer, 1926-2009) created physical models in
the design of spatial shells (Larsen, 2003). One of the disadvantages of inverted physical
models is their inability to account for varying thicknesses of the structural components or
any load that is not vertical (Todisco, 2014).
Due to material limitations, masonry and stone arches were able to resist applied
loads only in the plane in which they were constructed. Significant changes came with the
development of reinforced concrete and structural steel in the late 1800s. The works of
Robert Maillart, who is considered to be the pioneer in the field of arch bridges carrying
out-of-plane loads (the first SABs), are known for their elegance and efficiency of material
use (Billington, 1997).
Robert Maillart was a Swiss engineer who used reinforced concrete in his
structures. His arch bridges were called “deck-stiffened arches” and typically comprised
slab arches (an arch rib has the form of a curved two-way slab) supporting the deck above.
In his bridges, the depth of the arch rib would vary as a function of the internal bending
moment in the arch (larger arch sections would be located in zones of high bending
moments). Maillart’s designs emphasized aesthetics. The primary characteristic of his
bridges was that, not only the arch, but all components (i.e. arch, deck, and spandrel walls)
contributed to the structural response of the bridge. An example of a bridge by Maillart that
carries out-of-plane loads is Schwandbach Bridge, shown in Figure 2-3.

- 14 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

Figure 2-3: Schwandbach Bridge, Switzerland 1933 (Chriusha, 2011)

Schwandbach Bridge was constructed in 1933; it is 6m wide and its span is 37m.
The curved deck is supported by the arch, which resists both vertical and lateral loads
transferred from the deck via inclined spandrel walls. The edge of the arch adjacent to the
outer deck edge is straight. The edge of the arch adjacent to the inner deck edge is not
straight. In fact, the shape of the arch in plan-view is designed to be curved to resist the
lateral loads transferred from the deck. This bridge represents the first arch carrying out-of-
plane loads.
The concept of spatial bridges continued to develop in skewed masonry arches,
which were arches whose abutments on either side differ by a certain angle, and therefore,
out-of-plane loads occurred. In such bridges, the line of thrust was still contained within the
arch cross-section (Sarmiento-Comesias et al., 2013). Spatial bridges that are formed with a
structural shell (a “flat” space arch that contained two curvatures) have a different
structural behaviour and differ from spatial bridges supported by an arch rib. However, the
analyses and concepts of shell spatial bridges contributed to understanding bridges that
contain arch ribs. The first shell arch bridge, which was designed by Sergio Musmeci, was
constructed in Potenza, Italy in 1969 (Ingold & Rinke, 2015).
True spatial arch bridges, which comprised a deck and an arch rib, rapidly
developed along with use of structural steel and post-tensioned concrete systems. The
application of such systems strongly relied on the development and use of computer aided

- 15 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

systems such as CAD/CAM (Computer Aided Design/Computer Aided Manufacturing),


which allowed for more accurate analysis and production of SABs. The popularity of these
bridges increased in the late 1980s due to the demand for city landmarks and the
celebration of innovation. Typically, bridges of this decade comprised a straight deck and
an inclined planar arch.
Santiago Calatrava was recognized as the architect who designed most of the
modern SABs (Sarmiento-Comesias et al., 2013). He built his first SAB, the Felipe II or
Bac de Roda bridge, in 1987 in Barcelona, Spain. This bridge had an arch symmetrical in
plan. Calatrava’s first bridge with an arch that was not symmetrical in plan-view was the
Gentil footbridge also constructed in 1987. The typical character of Calatrava’s designs is
an inclined steel arch supporting either a straight or curved deck in plan-view. Examples of
Calatrava’s work are shown in Figure 2-4.

a) b)

Figure 2-4: Examples of work of Santiago Calatrava: a) Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge,
Dallas USA (Karchmer, 2012) and b) La Devesa Bridge, Ripoll, Spain (Plasencia,
2012)

The new concept of a diagonal arch was introduced in the early 1990s. A bridge
with a diagonal arch is an arch rotated in plan (an arch starting at one corner and ending at
the opposite corner) above a straight deck. Examples of this concept are the Hulme Arch
Bridge (single span) in Manchester, UK and the Juscelino Kubitschek Bridge (three-span)
in Brasilia, Brazil (Sarmiento-Comesias et al., 2013).

- 16 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

Between the late 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century, many cities
wanted to construct outstanding structures that represented this time period. Several spatial
bridges adopted the name “millennium-bridge.” These types of bridges truly represented
innovation in design and technology. One unique example is the Gateshead Millennium
Bridge, which is the only movable bascule spatial arch bridge in the world. This bridge,
shown in Figure 2-5, is a pedestrian/bicycle bridge that comprises an inclined arch and
curved deck suspended on flexible hangers (White & Fortune, 2012).

Figure 2-5: The Gateshead Millennium Bridge, Newcastle, UK, opened in 2001 (Perez,
2014)

Recent progress and developments in technology (particularly in design and


structural analysis software) allows for learned concepts to be implemented in real
structures. Examples of more recent spatial bridges include the Te Rewa Rewa bridge in
New Plymouth, New Zealand (2010); Ponte della Musica in Rome, Italy (2011); and
Weinbergbrücke in Rathenow, Germany (2014).

2.4 Geometry of Spatial Arch Bridges

2.4.1 General

The geometry of SABs can be very complex depending on the materials selected
and the purpose of the structure. In certain cases, the geometry of the arch and deck results
from a functional requirement, and the desired structural behaviour must be achieved by

- 17 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

selecting suitable materials and efficient structural details. An example of such a


configuration is the Gateshead Millennium Bridge shown in Figure 2-5. It is a movable
bascule SAB over the River Tyne with a parabolic arch and deck. In this structure, the arch
and deck geometry was designed to allow for ships to pass underneath the bridge when the
bridge is “opened” (Johnson & Curran, 2003). This example demonstrates the level of
complexity of the geometry of SABs, and how the shape and proportion of the selected
geometry correlates with the practicality of the structure.
Despite the large number of possible geometric configurations, it is possible to
categorize SABs. The following sections describe the classification, geometric ratios, and
approaches used to achieve optimal structural shapes of SABs.

2.4.2 Classification of Spatial Arch Bridges

There are many categories of SABs. The geometric complexity of these structures
is due to a variety of factors such as the configuration and the properties of the hangers
(flexible vs. stiff), the number of arch ribs and their position relative to the deck, and the
symmetry of the individual components.

2.4.2.1 Spatial Arch Ribs and Spatial Shells

Generally, SABs can be divided into two categories: (1) a deck supported with arch
rib(s) and (2) a deck supported with shell(s). Shell systems are less common; only a few
structures of this type have been built, for example the Matadero footbridge in Madrid,
Spain and the Bridge of Peace in Tbilisi, Georgia, shown in Figure 2-6.
Even though spatial shell systems have completely different configurations and
structural responses than systems that contain ach ribs, they are still considered to be
spatial configurations (Sarmiento-Comesias et al., 2013). The behaviour of spatial shells
was studied by Strasky & Kalab (2007).

- 18 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

a)

b)

Figure 2-6: Examples of shell spatial bridges: a) Matadero footbridge in Madrid,


Spain (Tamorlan, 2011); and b) Bridge of piece in Tbilisi, Georgia (Kavtaradze, 2009)

2.4.2.2 Symmetry in Plan-view

In the first category of SABs, bridges with arch ribs, two sub-categories can be
defined based on their shape in plan-view. Bridges that are longitudinally not symmetrical
in plan-view are called true SABs, and bridges whose longitudinal shape is symmetrical in
plan-view are called non-true SABs. Both categories experience out-of-plane loads
(Sarmiento-Comesias et al., 2013). Examples of a true and a non-true SAB are shown in
Figure 2-7 and Figure 2-8, respectively. Spatial arches curved both in plan-view and in
elevation are classified as “warped” arches. In such configurations, the curvature of the

- 19 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

arch in plan-view typically follows the curvature of the deck, which can be either below or
above the arch (Manterola et al., 2011).

Figure 2-7: Example of a true SAB: Campo de Volantin footbridge, Bilbao, Spain
(Garcia, 2014)

Figure 2-8: Example of a non-true SAB: Bac de Roda bridge, Barcelona, Spain
(Roletschek, 2015)

2.4.2.3 Mutual Position of Arch and Deck

Further classification considers the mutual position of the arch and the deck.
Bridges that have the deck supported via stiff hangers (columns or walls) to the arch rib

- 20 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

below are called bridges with a superior deck. Bridges with a deck suspended below the
arch either on rigid or flexible hangers are called bridges with an “inferior” deck. Examples
of spatial bridges with superior and inferior decks are shown in Figure 2-9.

a) b)

Figure 2-9: a) a ridge with a superior deck: Endarlatsa bridge, Guipúzcoa, Spain
(Urruzmendi, 2014) and b) a bridge with an inferior deck: Mayfly Bridge, Szolnok,
Hungary (Akela, 2012)

2.4.2.4 Arch Bridges with Imposed Curvature

Depending on the definition of the space where the arch rib is constructed, planar
and non-planar arches are recognized. Both categories experience out-of-plane loads. A
specific case of a non-planar arch is an arch bridge with an imposed curvature (ABWIC).
In such bridges, the centrelines of both of the arch and the deck are forced to be contained
on the surface of the same vertical cylinder. The behaviour of ABWIC was studied by
Sarmiento-Comesias et al. (2012).

2.4.2.5 Multiple, Diagonally Rotated, and Elevated Bridges

The general definition of the shape and the supporting system of a bridge can be
further varied by inclining or twisting the arch rib(s), changing the number of arch ribs or
decks, or changing the relative position of the arch rib(s) and deck(s), which can be either
in the same elevation or at different levels.

- 21 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

An example of a diagonal arch structure is the Hulme Arch Bridge in Manchester,


UK shown in Figure 2-10 (Hussain & Wilson, 1999). In this type of configuration, the arch
rib starts at one side of the deck and ends at the diagonally opposite corner.
In addition, the plan eccentricity of the deck(s) and arch rib(s), the slope of the
members that support the deck and the rigidity of the members, and/or the rotation of the
arch rib(s) in relation to the alignment of the deck can also vary. A detailed geometrical
classification of SABs was done by Sarmiento-Comesias et al. (2013).

Figure 2-10: Example of a diagonal arch bridge: Hulme Arch, Manchester, UK (Peel,
2004)

2.4.3 Geometrical Ratios

In vertical planar arches, geometrical ratios are derived to achieve optimal force
distributions in the arch and deck as a function of the span and the geological conditions at
springings of the arch, which determine the allowable magnitude of lateral thrust resulting
from the arch. Typically, in vertical planar arches, the main geometrical ratio is the arch
rise-to-span ratio. The value of this ratio can vary from 0.10 to 0.50 depending on the
factors mentioned above. However, typically the rise-to-span ratio ranges from 0.17 to 0.22

- 22 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

(Chen et al., 2000), and from 0.12 to 0.30 (Nettleton, 1977), for steel and concrete bridges,
respectively.
Even though the magnitude of the axial thrust in the arch is inversely proportional
to the rise of the arch (an arch with a high rise results in a smaller axial load), higher arch
rises require more material, experience more stresses from wind load, and have a higher
buckling length (Nettleton, 1977). Therefore, selecting a proper geometric ratio can
influence the amount of required material (cost) and the structural response of the system.
In spatial arches, the range of rise-to-span ratio, identified for vertical arches, holds
as well; however, other ratios must be introduced to account for lateral and out-of-plane
loads. Sarmiento-Comesias et al. (2013) suggests considering the following geometrical
ratios for SABs: a) the ratio between the distance from the deck shear centre to the axis
joining the deck abutments and the span of the deck; b) the ratio between the arch depth
and width; this coefficient is required because of the relevance of the out-of-plane
behaviour of the arch; c) the deck and arch rise to span ratios: HA/LA and HD/LD where
“HA” and “HD“ are the depths of the arch and deck, respectively, and “LA” and “LD” are the
spans of the arch and deck, respectively; and d) an appropriate relationship between fA (the
vertical arch rise), and e (the plan eccentricity between the axis of the arch at the springing
points and the axis of the deck at the abutments). In addition, “gA“ and “gD“ (the horizontal
reaches of the arch and the deck, respectively) might be relevant for defining the spatial
shape of the arch thrust line (i.e. the antifunicular shape of the spatial arch). Sarmiento-
Comesias et al. (2013) also indicates mechanical ratios of individual structural components,
placing emphasis on all capacities that can be utilized while being loaded in the structure,
such as the bending stiffness of the arch and deck (EIA/EID) and the bending and torsional
stiffness of the arch and deck (EI/GJ).
The importance and complexity of these ratios increases because the cross-section
of both the arch and the deck can vary along the centre axis of the component to resist the
bending and torsional moments at specific locations within a structural component. The
magnitudes of these ratios are highly dependent on the properties of the individual
structural components and their significance is yet to be studied.
General geometrical ratios for SABs are not available because each SAB is
designed to satisfy particular requirements. Thus, it is difficult to obtain optimal ratios that

- 23 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

apply to all SAB structures. Therefore, applicable geometrical ratios that clarify the
significance of certain geometries represent a gap in the state of knowledge in this field.

2.4.4 Form Finding Approaches

The form of the individual components of SABs can vary based on aesthetics and
practicality. In some cases, aesthetics govern the design, and hence, the structural and
material composition must compensate for the required form. The solution to such an
approach is called a “form finding” approach.

2.4.4.1 Antifunicular Arches

Spatial arches were developed from vertical planar arches, which are antifunicular
systems. In antifunicular systems, the self-weight is resisted only by compression in the
arch (see Section 2.3). The shape of the antifunicular arch is a function of the applied loads
that determine the location of the line of thrust (a conceptual line representing the path of
the compression force only). To resist the applied loads through uniform compression, the
geometric centreline of the arch must match the location of the line of thrust (Shrive et al.,
2000). The same principle holds for spatial arches in three-dimensional (3D) space.
However, in spatial arches, the approach for seeking antifunicular shapes is more complex
because the response of the arch cannot be simply divided into two components as it can be
in planar arches (Sarmiento-Comesias et al., 2012).
Due to the requirements of aesthetics or location restrictions, SABs oftentimes have
curved decks, which do not have a symmetrical shape in plan-view. Therefore, the shape of
the true antifunicular arch rib can be very complex. Further, a curved deck may be
implemented not only due to the desire for an architecturally pleasing shape or an obstacle
but also due to its practicality. In bridges with curved decks, the approach spans
continuously connect the bridge superstructure crossing the obstacle (river, road, rail
tracks) with pathways (bicycle lanes) having an original direction along the obstacle.
Implementing continuous horizontally curved decks avoids using zig-zag shaped staircases
or ramps.

- 24 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

An example of a true antifunicular SAB, non-symmetrical in plan view with a


superior deck is Ripshorst Bridge shown in Figure 2-11. This structure was designed by
Jorg Schlaich and constructed in Oberhausen, Germany in 1997.

Figure 2-11: Example of a true antifunicular SAB with a superior deck: Ripshorst
Pedestrian Bridge, Oberhausen, Germany (SBP, 1997)

The form finding process can be divided into conceptual and detailed design. The
conceptual design of spatial bridges was studied by several authors in recent years, for
example Schlaich & Gabriel (1996), Allen (2009), Muttoni (2011), and Corres (2013).

2.4.4.2 Interactive Parametric Tools

A detailed design is closely related to the development of 3D parametric tools,


which convert a graphical interface into a mathematical form (vector algebra) and provide
a base for linear and nonlinear FEA. Examples of such tools are as follows: Rhinoceros,
Grasshopper, Karamba (Todisco, 2014), and SOFiSTiK (Lachauer & Philippe, 2014). Each
of these software options provides a different level of input which, when combined, allow
for an interactive real-time search of the 3D antifunicular shape of SABs. Rhinoceros is a
software for converting the designed geometry into a mathematical form. It is a 3D
modeling software based on non-uniform rational B-splines (NURBS). NURBS models are
very accurate and, therefore, suitable for any geometry ranging from animation to industrial
forms. In the last decade, this software has become popular in architectural applications

- 25 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

due its compatibility with Grasshopper, software that creates parametric geometries
(Lachauer & Kotnik, 2011). Grasshopper is a parametric tool that is well accepted for its
ease of use combined with intuitive exploring (interaction) while searching for optimized
geometries. Created geometries are stored in the form of a script, which is further
processed with FEA software, for example, Karamba or SOFiSTiK. FEA software is
compatible as a plug-in tool with Grasshopper, and it converts the parametric script into an
FE model where structural elements (mesh) and material properties are assigned. A
subsequent linear or nonlinear FEA is conducted to verify whether or not the proposed
geometry leads to a convergent solution. This procedure is iterative where a parametric
algorithm is typically developed to obtain an efficient solution.
The compositions of such algorithms were studied by several authors, for example
Todisco (2014), who developed an iterative procedure coded into a program called
“SOFIA” (shaping optimal forms with an iterative approach). Although this program could
not account for material nonlinearities, geometrical nonlinearities in the form of large
displacements were included and could provide accurate solutions. Lachauer & Philippe
(2014) proposed algorithms combining graphic statics with force density methods. The
force density method was developed in the late 1970s by Linkwitz & Schek (1971). This
form finding technique was an equilibrium-based method that replaced member stiffness
and lengths of branches with force-over-length ratios to find a solution (via a system of
linear equations) to unknown coordinates of “free” nodes in the geometry that was being
sought. The tool proposed by Lachauer & Philippe (2014) appeared comprehensive for
intuitive exploration of initial shapes; however, it could be limited by the computational
capacity of the computers used to perform the required iterations because the number of
steps required in more complex structures was large. Such limitations could influence real-
time responses while the software evaluated the assumed geometries using the iterative
procedure. Algorithms were programed in a sophisticated scripting language such as
IronPython. The approach proposed by Lachauer & Philippe (2014), was suitable mainly
for structures where self-weight was much larger compared to the magnitude of the live
load (LL). In cases where LL governs the design, the proposed approach could still be used
for the initial design; however, shape reiteration under all combinations of LL (according to
appropriate code provisions) needed to be performed to ensure the safety of the design.

- 26 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

2.4.4.3 Form Finding Methods

The parametric interactive tools described above are usually based on graphical
(graphic statics) or numerical (force density or dynamic relaxation) methods. These
methods are often combined to achieve the optimal shape of the spatial structure.
For a long time, graphic statics was used as the main tool in the design and analysis
of spatial projects. This method was developed in the mid-19th century by Culmann
(1866). The combination of the reciprocal force and form polygon allows analysis of
funicular and antifunicular structures: structures experiencing pure tension or compression,
respectively. This method allows development of the form of the structure based on known
loadings and imposed maximum loadings, or it determines loads from known geometry.
Graphic statics can be described as a combination of vector algebra and descriptive
geometry in plane (Lachauer & Kotnik, 2011). Other notable engineers who used this
method were Ritter (1847-1906), Maillart (1871-1940), and Gustave Eifel (1832-1923).
Graphic statics is a very powerful tool; however, it has limitations, and certain
assumptions must be accepted while using it. Graphic statics ignores the material stiffness
of members, and its deflection solution is derived from the equilibrium of forces. In
addition, all structures are assumed to be statically determinate or kinematic pin-jointed
systems in plane only. Different approaches extending the basic concept of graphic statics
were introduced to overcome these limitations. Lachauer & Kotnik (2011) used graphic
statics with the method of dynamic relaxation for spatial bridge design. Introducing planes
as constraints for the free nodes used to determine spatial funicular polygons for the design
of curved bridges was done by Laffranchi (1999). Laffranchi suggested that the spatial
polygon in space could be balanced by two funiculars.
Based on the concept of the funicular polygon, Block & Ochsendorf (2007)
developed the concept of funicular surface networks with fixed projection. Rippmann
(2016) proposed using Thrust Network Analysis (TNA) for form finding and fabricating
the geometry of funicular shell structures (based on non-reinforced masonry shells). In this
method, geometrical, rather than numerical or analytical interpretations were used. The
TNA method also combined the principles of graphic statics with the force density method.
The form finding iterative method for SABs using the principle of zero moments
(as used for vertical planar arches) was proposed by Jorquera (2009). In his method for

- 27 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

SABs with fixed ends, at arch springings fictitious jacks were used during each iteration to
enhance the zero bending and transversal moments at these locations. The rise of the arch
(the vertical coordinate of the crown) was kept constant to maintain a zero bending moment
at the crown. In this configuration, the spatial arch appeared to be a three-hinged vertical
planar arch in elevation-view and a two-hinged horizontal planar arch in plan-view. The
transversal coordinate of the node at the crown and the vertical and transversal coordinates
of all other nodes (except the nodes at the springing points) could be corrected to find
equilibrium in the form of zero transversal and vertical bending moments, respectively, at
any point. As there was no external load acting on the arch, torsional moments dropped to
zero once the antifunicular shape of the arch (having no bending moments) was found.
Even though the form finding approaches can be complex, improving software
capabilities, and most recently, understanding spatial antifunicular shapes make the
procedure more feasible and reliable.

2.5 Structural Behaviour of Spatial Arch Bridges

2.5.1 General

The structural behaviour, i.e., the response of the structure (deflections or change in
the distribution of internal forces) to applied loads in SABs is not only a function of the
geometry and structural stiffness of the individual members (arch, deck, and hangers), but
also the stiffness of the connections between the hangers and the deck and the arch
(Sarmiento-Comesias et al., 2012).
The complex structural response of SABs, a result of the distinctive geometry, is a
challenge during the analysis and design of these structures. Factors, such as planar and/or
out-of-plane buckling, must address out-of-plane loads. The distribution of thermal stresses
may be influenced by the varying hanger length as a result of the curved arch and curved
deck. Both linear and non-linear analyses are typically required to analyse SABs.
Only a few comprehensive studies have been carried out to clarify the structural
behaviour of SABs. The following sections present the most current state of understanding
of the structural behaviour of SABs. Typical principles for the structural response of SABs
are described and gaps in the research are identified.

- 28 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

2.5.2 Structural Response of Different Configuration of SABs

The structural behaviour of SABs can be quite complex and different from
traditional vertical planar arches. SABs experience out-of-plane loads that introduce
internal axial forces and bending and torsional moments in the arch. These internal forces
cause the arch to behave like a transversally loaded beam rather than an axial loaded arch
rib in some geometric configurations, such as an arch rotated about a vertical axis (Husain
& Wilson, 1999; Johnson & Curran, 2003), or like a cantilever beam in other
configurations, such as an arch inclined from a vertical plane (Sarmiento-Comesias et al.,
2013). The deck typically experiences shear forces and bending about its longitudinal axis
in the vertical direction which, in the case of SABs, is extended to a deck that also resists
bending about the longitudinal axis in a transversal direction accompanied with a torsional
moment (Sarmiento-Comesias, 2015). In certain configurations, torsional and flexural
stiffness can be un-coupled to analyse the contribution of each component separately
(Arena & Lacarbonara, 2009). As a rule-of-thumb, a structural response of a SAB employs
all the mechanical contributions of a selected geometry. In a selected geometry, different
parameters, such as bending and torsional stiffness of the main structural components and
the ratios of the stiffness in vertical and horizontal direction, play a key role (Sarmiento-
Comesias et al., 2013). The significance of these parameters can be analysed considering
either the linear or nonlinear character of the models.

2.5.2.1 Linear Analysis

Jorquera (2007) studied linear behaviour, and he examined the effect of different
inclinations of the planar arch ribs, deck curvatures, and eccentricities on the structural
response of SABs with decks suspended from planar arches (inferior decks). He also
investigated the problem of straight and curved decks and their relations to hanger
eccentricity. Hangers were assumed to have pinned connections, and therefore, they were
able to carry only axial loads. The significance of the location (eccentricity) of the hangers
in relation to the shear centre of the deck was also examined. As a result of his
investigations, Jorquera (2009) developed an iterative algorithm for finding an
antifunicular shape of the arch in SABs with inferior decks.

- 29 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

2.5.2.2 Nonlinear Analysis

Liaghat et al. (2011) presented work done on a pedestrian bridge called “Ponte della
Musica” constructed in Rome in 2011. The bridge was architecturally designed by Buro
Happold Consulting Engineers in association with Powell–Williams Architects. The
structural analyses and designs were carried out by M. P. Petrangeli and Associates. The
structural system comprised two inclined planar arches (by 15° outwards from the deck)
connected to the deck by rigid hangers. As a consequence of the inclined arches, the
torsional stiffness of the bridge was lower than the torsional stiffness in more usual arch
bridge designs featuring vertical arches (Lacarbonara, 2013). Liaghat, the chief engineer of
the project, indicated aspects of nonlinear analysis that considered in-plane and out-of-
plane buckling that occurred on the bridge. The project took 11 years to finish and
incorporated many new advances in engineering and science.
Arena & Lacarbonara (2009) conducted the aeroelastic instability analysis of the
Ponte della Musica. In this work, Arena & Lacarbonara (2009) proposed a 3D parametric
model to examine nonlinear responses to static and dynamic loads. Arch geometry
represented a parameter of the model. Modal shapes of both the deck and the arch were
achieved including out-of-plane bending, shear, and torsion. Strains within the model were
functions of displacement gradients. The proposed model considered nonlinear extensional-
flexural-torsional coupling to evaluate the aeroelastic response to wind loads. The
calculations of the flutter speed and the critical flutter modal shape were conducted
together. Arena & Lacarbonara (2009) used a direct total Lagrangian formulation to derive
the equation of motion by adopting linearly hyperelastic constitutive equations for all
structural members.

2.5.2.3 Arch Bridges with Imposed Curvature

Sarmiento-Comesias et al. (2012) conducted a study to develop a simple analytical


model and linear numerical frame-element models that propose design recommendations
for arch bridges with imposed curvature (ABWIC). In these configurations, the arch rib and
the deck are contained in the same vertical cylinder, and the springings of the arch and the
deck abutments are located on the same line. The arch is inclined from a vertical plane, but
it is not contained in the plane. The main difference between an arch contained on the

- 30 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

surface of a vertical cylinder and a conic section cutting through a vertical cylinder is that
the arch centre line follows the projected shape of the deck in plan-view. The deck is
curved in plan-view, and its shape corresponds to a segment of the cylinder surface
(semicircular shape). Sarmiento-Comesias et al. (2012) proved that simplified models that
assume a planar arch provide results within acceptable tolerances, and therefore, a planar
inclined arch configuration can be used with confidence. A parametric study clarified the
significance of the stiffness of the hangers. Parameters, such as bending in two directions
or torsional stiffness of the arch, deck, and hangers, were examined. A comparison of the
results of the linear and nonlinear analyses showed that a geometrical nonlinear analysis
was not necessary if a sufficiently high bending and torsional stiffness of the hangers was
selected. The conclusions of this study showed that if the connection of the hangers to the
deck was sufficiently rigid and the arch was relatively flexible, the arch rib in an ABWIC
can be considered antifunicular. In a similar style, the description of the structural
behaviour of bridges with a superior deck was done by Sarmiento-Comesias et al. (2011).

2.5.2.4 Laterally Loaded Spatial Arches

Verlain et al. (2001) presented a paper on the geometric nonlinearity of the


Observatory Bridge (“Pont de l'Observatoire”) constructed close to Liege, Belgium in
2002; Santiago Calatrava designed the bridge. The Observatory Bridge is a bowstring
bridge with a curved inferior deck. Flexible hangers connect the vertical planar arch to both
sides of the deck.
The Hulme Arch Bridge in Manchester, UK (a diagonal arch bridge) also
experiences significant bending and torsional moments in the arch and deck. Hussain &
Wilson (1999) conducted a critical analysis of this bridge, and he found that due to the
asymmetric cable arrangement, large out-of-plane bending and torsional moments were
generated. In fact, the moments represented the governing load for which the arch must be
designed. The abutments of the arch had to be enlarged compared to a conventional planar
arch spanning the same distance to resist the moments and internal turning forces. The arch
rib, made of hollow structural steel, was filled with concrete at the crown to resist the
present torsional moment. Moreover, due to the magnitude of the bending and torsional
moments, the arch rib behaved more like a laterally loaded flexural beam than an actual

- 31 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

arch. A description of this behaviour was provided by other authors and the effect of
certain factors was addressed. An example of a multiple diagonal arch bridge is the
Juscelino Kubitschek Bridge. This bridge is comprised of three diagonal arches with
internal abutments that meet to counteract the horizontal thrust of the adjacent arch ribs.
The structural behaviour for a diagonal arch bridge also applies to a multiple diagonal arch
bridge because the hangers (flexible cables) are attached on both sides of the deck, which
results in large bending and torsional moments in both the deck and the arch rib (Bailey,
2007).
Studies carried out by Laffranchi (1997), Jorquera (2007), and Manterola et al.
(2011) proved that if horizontal stiffness of the system in a SAB is utilized, the structural
behaviour of the arch improves; in other words, the bending and torsional moments in the
arch are reduced. Lateral bending and torsional moment analysis was conducted for
Gateshead Millennium Bridge by Johnson & Curran (2003). Staged construction and
dynamic nonlinear analyses were performed to evaluate the structural response of the
bridge.
Zhou et al. (2012) studied an optimization method that focused on the force in the
flexible hangers of diagonal arches. The optimization method considered both the
constrained and unconstrained conditions, and therefore, it was easy to use in the design
process. Zhou et al. employed the optimization method in a case study of the Tong-Tai
Bridge (190m span) in Zhangjiakou City.
Another example of a diagonal spatial arch is the Te-Rewa-Rewa Bridge
constructed close to New Plymouth, New Zealand in 2010. This diagonal arch is unique as
the hangers are stiff ribs attached to one side of the deck rather than the more typical
flexible cables attached to both sides of the deck. Applying stiff hangers utilizes their
torsional and bending stiffness to transfer vertical loads from the deck to the arch rib. The
resulting torsion is resisted by both the stiff hangers and the deck (Mulqueen, 2011).
Some structural details may influence the magnitude of bending moments in the
inclined arch. Applied on the Weinbergbrücke (Weinberg-Bridge, a footbridge designed by
Schlaich Bergerman Partner for Rathenow Park in Germany), the connections of the
flexible hangers to the curved deck are not located on the outer edge girder as in typical
configurations, but rather they connect to short cantilevered radial cross-beams extending

- 32 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

from the deck and pointing towards the centre of the deck’s horizontal curvature. This
configuration results in reduced bending moments in the arch rib. Even though the deck
cross-beams are exposed to bending moments, whose magnitude depends on the length of
the cross-beams, the selected structural detail represents an efficient solution because it is
easier to control moment distribution with relatively short radial cross-beams on the deck
rather than with the long rib of an inclined arch (SBP, 2014).

2.5.2.5 SABs with Superior Deck and Dynamic analysis

In Sarmiento-Comesias’ doctoral thesis, she describes the structural behaviour of


certain groups of SABs and proposes design criteria for bridges made of steel to control
out-of-plane responses. This work focuses on arch bridges with imposed curvature
(ABWIC) and spatial bridges with superior decks. She examined bridges that were
symmetrical and non-symmetrical in plan-view and bridges with flexible and rigid hangers.
Sarmiento-Comesias (2015) studied the significance of different deck boundary conditions
and the effect of thermal loads for selected configurations. She clarified certain geometric
ratios were for ABWIC and dynamic analysis for one configuration of a SAB with a
superior deck to establish criteria for design. Commercial finite element modeling (FEM)
software was used to carry out proposed analyses.
Sarmiento-Comesias (2015) showed that structural behaviour of SABs exposed to
out-of-plane loads was not always clear as the relationships between bending and torsional
stiffness and connection types and the mutual position of the structural components play
significant roles; planar and non-planar inclined arches may experience large bending or
torsional moments depending on these relationships.
Even though the work of Sarmiento-Comesias (2015) covers a broad field of
structural behaviour of SABs accompanied with practical design examples, not all
geometric configurations nor the significance of material contributions to the structural
responses were included.

2.5.3 Elastic Instability of Arches

Elastic instability of the compression members, commonly called “buckling,” is an


issue that must be carefully approached in any structural system exposed to compression

- 33 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

because this phenomenon typically occurs at the elastic stress level (a level below yielding
in steel) and may lead to the collapse of the entire structure (Ghali et al., 2009). Buckling
can be defined as an abrupt change of the initial form of equilibrium. Equations for the
critical buckling load for simple straight members (columns, compression chords in truss
structures, etc.) can be found in structural engineering text books. Elastic instability, or the
loss of stability, is caused by the critical load. This critical load can be defined as either the
maximum load that the structure can withstand without collapsing or the minimum load
that leads to the collapse of the structure. The critical load is related to the state of “stable
equilibrium” in the case of deformable systems. In rigid body systems, this equilibrium
state is called the “stable position of the structure” (Karnowsky, 2012). Buckling modes
(deformed shapes of the components) are typically a function of boundary conditions such
as free, pinned, and fixed ends (Nettleton, 1977). Buckling analysis can be done using two
methods: linear and nonlinear. Eigenvalue buckling analysis uses a linear method, and this
analysis predicts the theoretical buckling strength of an ideal elastic structure. It computes
the structural eigenvalues for the given system loading and constraints. This method is also
known as classical Euler buckling analysis. More accurate nonlinear buckling analysis uses
large deflection, static analysis to predict buckling loads. In principle, at first an arbitrary
load is assumed, and via iterations, the threshold value of the critical load is determined.
The threshold value can be defined as a magnitude which, if increased by a very small load,
results in a very large displacement (Ghali et al., 2009). The use of nonlinear analysis
allows for geometric imperfections, load perturbations, material nonlinearities, and gaps to
be modeled.

2.5.3.1 Development of Elastic Instability Theory

Kirchhoff (1876) was the first person to introduce the mathematical basis for the
stability theory of planar arches. Later, Bryan (1888) conducted the first systematic study
of equilibrium stability. In the beginning of the 20th century, the stability of circular arches
was investigated by Nikolaee (1918). Later, Federhofer (1934) and Timoshenko & Gere
(1961) significantly contributed to the theory of instability of planar arches. The modern
approach to elastic instability of planar arches typically considers the Eulerian sense of
buckling; Euler buckling is derived from the elastic equation of the arch where the key

- 34 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

constituents are the second moment of inertia and the boundary conditions of the loaded
member.

2.5.3.2 Elastic Instability in Planar Arches

A precise analytical solution to critical loads in planar arches can be found only for
the simplest cases, such as a circular arch under uniform pressure normal to the axis of the
arch. An analytical approach to the stability of arbitrarily shaped arches includes
integrating differential equations of the arch and results in a master equation of stability.
Critical loads are then found as roots of these equations. Arbitrarily shaped arches with
non-uniform cross-sections are difficult to analytically analyse because the order of
corresponding differential equation becomes too high.
A comprehensive analytical approach to planar circular and parabolic arches that
considers out-of-plane buckling, different arch boundary conditions, and different arch
cross-sections is provided by Karnowsky (2012). Today, numerical methods are used to
analyse the susceptibility of arches to elastic instability.
In planar arches, two kinds of buckling can occur: in-plane and lateral out-of-plane
buckling (Nettleton, 1977). In-plane buckling is more common because generally arch
bridges have two ribs braced against each other. In the case of the single arch rib, stability
is dependent on the boundary conditions (the stiffness of the connection at the arch
springings) and cross-sectional properties of the arch rib. Buckling length is a function of
the arch boundary conditions. In a two-hinged arch, this length equals half of the arch rib
length. In tied-arch bridges, local buckling between hangers is more likely to occur than
global buckling of the entire arch rib (Hedefine, 1970). Global buckling in arch bridges was
described, for example, by Johnston (1976) and Halpern & Adriaenssens (2014). Tied
arches can be designed with either the rib taking all the moments from dead and live loads
or, if the arch rib is shallow, the moments from live loads are compensated for by a deep tie
(Nettleton, 1977). A magnification factor is typically added to a moment from a governing
dead load to account for the additional moment in the arch from a live load. An additional
live load deflection is produced by an increase in the live load moment, and this increase in
deflection generates an additional increase in the moment. This effect continues in a
decreasing trend (Nettleton, 1977). Typically, the moment magnification factor depends on

- 35 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

the arch rib rise-to-span ratio. A moment magnification factor should not be used in tied-
arch bridges because the arch rib and the tie deflect proportionally. The boundary
conditions of the arch and the level of determinacy influence the necessity of cross-
sectional dimensions and the resulting deflections. An arch rib fixed at both ends requires
approximately 0.80 of arch rib depth in a two-hinge arch to achieve the same bending
moment from live loads. Deflection of a fixed arch rib is typically 0.75 of the deflection in
a two-hinge arch (Nettleton, 1977).

2.5.3.3 Elastic Instability in SABs

In SABs, elastic instability increases due to the out-of-plane loading present in the
structure from the start. In general, the stiffness of the arch rib that is exposed to axial
compression and bending and torsional moments must be increased. This general rule
applies most of all to configurations of SABs where the arch rib diagonally crosses the
deck (see Section 2.4.2.5), which results in high lateral moments. The Hulme Arch Bridge
in Manchester, UK is an example of this type of bridge (Hussain & Wilson, 1999).
However, according to Sarmiento-Comesias et al. (2012), in configurations of ABWIC (see
Section 2.4.2.4) that have high flexural and torsional stiffness of the deck and hangers,
respectively, and low stiffness of the arch, the arch rib experiences low axial compression,
and therefore, the susceptibility to buckling is reduced.
Based on the numerical modeling verified by experimental measurements, the angle
of arch rib inclination can influence the critical buckling load. Gui et al. (2016) investigated
the angle of significance of the arch inclination in the configuration of continuous
composite bridges (CCBs). In inclined arch configurations, the slenderness and buckling
ratios need to include interactions between the in-plane and out-of-plane buckling. Outward
inclined arches are more susceptible to the interaction of in-plane and out-of-plane
buckling and to the interaction between local and global buckling.
Due to compression loads, both in-plane and out-of-plane buckling can occur in
arch ribs. Typically, in-plane buckling is related to a combination of bending moments and
compression loads (Dou et al., 2015; Bradford & Pi, 2014). Out-of-plane buckling results
from a combination of torsion, biaxial bending, and compression loads (Ziemian, 2010).
The interactions are captured with the buckling coefficient method (JRA, 2012).

- 36 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

The linear eigenvalue method was used in a case study investigating the stability of
a 180m long diagonal arch in China (Qiu, 2010). In this structure, a vertical planar arch on
inclined flexible hangers supported a skewed girder deck, which resulted in out-of-plane
loads in the arch rib. In this study, several load combinations were used to derive buckling
coefficients, and critical loads were considered to investigate the main factors influencing
the stability of the structural system. It was found using FE modeling that the main
contribution to arch rib stability was provided by cable stays on both sides. Increasing deck
stiffness could, up to a certain level, improve the stability of the arch (a stiffer deck
experiences lower deflection resulting in a smaller load in the cable stays, which generates
an axial load in the arch). It was confirmed that the boundary conditions of the arch
significantly affect the stability (a fixed arch is more stable). In addition, the rise-to-span
ratio had a relatively large impact on the stability coefficients; a smaller rise resulted in
large axial stresses in the arch. The conducted analyses suggested a higher rise-to-span
ratio (0.37) to achieve better stability in the arch. It was shown that the lateral bending
stiffness of the arch rib had no significant influence on in-plane buckling.
A case study on the Ponte della Musica bridge in Rome, Italy conducted by
Lacarbonara (2013) also included elastic stability analysis. Numerical models, such as the
linear buckling method, used to investigate the ultimate load multiplier in steel arch bridges
could not be used for the Ponte della Musica. Selected analyses accounted for pre-critical
behaviour and stiffness degradation induced by incremental compressive loads. This
assessment was possible with the nonlinear buckling approach based on geometric and
material nonlinearities (Komatsu & Sakimoto, 1977). The nonlinear buckling approach
investigated the buckling limit of steel arches. The buckling limit was described using 3D
analytical model based on elasto-plastic constitutive equations, small-strain finite
kinematics, and specific properties of the arch cross-sections (Lacarbonara, 2013). The
critical load (load multiplier at which the structure undergoes elastic instability at the
divergence bifurcation) was found by applying the vertical load (representing a live load)
with increasing magnitude. The conducted analysis showed that, under an increasing load,
the inclined arches experienced a nonlinear softening characteristic resulting from a
significant reduction in the stiffness of the arches under the developed compression load.

- 37 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

This degradation in stiffness occurred at relatively low values (5 and 6 for the considered
equilibrium paths) of the load multiplier.
Results from the study of the Ponte della Musica bridge concluded that axial
compression in SABs affects the elastic instability of the entire structure and represents
(due to the spatial alignment of the structure) a significant issue that must be treated
accordingly: increasing sectional stiffness, revising boundary conditions, or applying
lateral supports in the form of rigid hangers.

2.5.4 Effects of Thermal Loads

The effects of thermal loading on SABs have been studied on a small scale. For
instance, Cheng et al. (2010) performed thermal analysis on the Nanning Bridge in China
(two unequal inclined arches at different angles support a curved road deck suspended via
cables). He considered temperature changes within a 15°C range, which reflected the local
conditions. The small temperature fluctuations resulted in relatively small stress changes
compared to the effects of dead or live loads. Therefore, even though this case study
provided results of a thermal analysis, given the narrow temperature range, the results did
not fully contribute to a better understanding of the behaviour of SABs under thermal
loading.
Sarmiento-Comesias et al. (2011) also conducted a study on SABs that considered
thermal effects. Conclusions from her work, which focused on a variation of shapes of
superior decks, clarified that deck curvature reduced the axial forces in the deck generated
by thermal loads. Hence, the abutments, resisting lateral deformation, could be fully
restrained. However, as the axial load was reduced, the bending and torsional moments
increased. According to Sarmiento-Comesias et al. (2011), this response was opposite to
the response in conventional vertical arch bridges.
The structural response of SABs to thermal loading is significantly affected by the
geometrical complexity of the system. The magnitude of elongation and contraction of the
structural members due to applied thermal loads is a function of material properties,
temperature gradient, and, most importantly, dimensions of the structure (Ghali et al.,
2009). The force in a member is then dependent on the strain, modulus of elasticity, and the
cross-sectional area of the member. In SABs where the arch supports a suspended deck

- 38 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

using cables of different lengths, thermal loads may be an issue due to the nonlinear
character of the cables. Cables of different lengths elongate and contract at different rates
under assumed thermal loads and, therefore, have different sag, which results in unequal
forces transferred to the arch and deck.
The effects of thermal loading on cables stays, particularly in cable-stayed bridges,
have been studied by several researchers, for example Sherif (1991) and Vairo & Montassar
(2012). According to Sherif (1991), the results of three temperature combinations,
representing a maximum temperature drop of – 40°C, for a flexible deck and stiff pylons,
indicate that the tensile forces in the cables can reach up to 20% of the maximum highway
live load. This magnitude is not concerning when compared to the magnitudes of dead and
live loads. As the temperature applied to the cables does not generate extensive axial forces
in the cables, the normal forces in the deck can be considered negligible as well. The
results of the analysis show that the highest tensile force is generated in the cable closest to
the middle pylon and the lowest force occurs in the cable farthest from the pylon. Further,
the cable behaviour under thermal loading is also affected by the cable length, its own
weight causing sag of the cable, and the location of the cable connection to the deck. Non-
linear analysis is required to determine the sag of the cable and the different connection
locations.
Although thermal loading does not have a significant impact (relatively) on the
behaviour of the cables, it has a greater effect on the behaviour of the deck and the main
pylon. Due to the linear variation of temperature throughout the deck reflecting a scenario
close to reality (assumed to be – 40°C on the bottom surface closer to the water and – 20°C
on the top), the magnitude of the generated moments reach the magnitudes of moments
from live loads (Sherif, 1991). The main pylon, particularly, the bottom of the shaft
(hollow reinforced concrete tower), is significantly affected by thermal loading, and the
magnitude of the moment also reaches levels as high as the moments generated by live
loads. Despite the fact that cable-stayed bridges represent a different structural concept, the
thermal load significantly affects the structure and needs to be taken into account.
Other structural components in addition to the cables undergo longitudinal
deformation due to temperature change. As stated in the critical analysis of the Hulme Arch
Bridge (2009), the diurnal temperature fluctuation affecting the whole structure was a

- 39 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

critical part in the bridge design. The temperature fluctuation determined in the analysis
was as high as 20°C. Temperatures above 0°C, a positive thermal load, reduced the
magnitude of pretension in cables by 12% (in the worst case) resulting in the occurrence of
high bending moments in the deck. This unfavourable behaviour needs to be addressed by
increasing the stiffness of the deck to meet the deflection requirements. Therefore, thermal
loads play a significant role, and they need to be analysed and taken into consideration in
the design.
High temperature differences may occur at the same time on the same structure.
Different temperatures of different parts of the same structure are related to the structural
orientation in relation to the cardinal directions (north-south, east-west). In a north-south
orientation, solar radiation reaches its peak at approximately noon and both sides of the
structure are affected equally. However, in an east-west orientation, the south side of the
structure is exposed to solar radiation at the maximum level, whereas the northern side
remains in the shade. The difference in the temperature is dependent on several variables
such as location and orientation of the structure, geometrical and material properties, and
environmental conditions (Dilger, 1983). In extreme cases, the temperature difference on
the same structure at opposite sides can be as high as 70°C. Dilger (1983) conducted a
parametric study on a composite continuous steel-concrete box girder bridge over the
Muskwa River near Fort Nelson. He found that the stress induced under the worst thermal
combination and for this bridge can reach up to 98 MPa in compression and 42 MPa in
tension for steel and 2.9 MPa for tension in concrete (occurring in continuous structures).
The results of this study indicated that the geographical orientation of the structure played a
significant role and that detailed thermal analyses need to be performed.
To conclude, the Canadian environment experiences high differences in
temperature throughout the year. For example, the temperature in central Alberta can vary
between positive 30°C in summer to negative 45°C in winter, and in addition, temperatures
can suddenly change from positive 10°C to negative 10°C within 24 hours. Therefore, the
effect of the Canadian climate on the complex configurations of SABs needs to be
investigated in detail.

- 40 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

2.6 Materials in Spatial Arch Bridges

2.6.1 General

The material composition of any structure can influence the structure’s response
under applied loads (Ghali et al., 2009). Specific stiffness (bending, axial, or torsional) can
be achieved in any material via a combination of cross-sections and material properties, but
the overall response of a structure may differ for different materials. The reason for this
difference is the varying specific weight of different materials and their responses to
applied loads (creep in concrete or flexural-torsional buckling in steel). In spatial bridge
configurations, the responses of different materials exposed to combined out-of-plane loads
can play a significant role, and therefore, material selection should represent one of the key
design decisions. The sections below describe the materials used in the existing SABs and
discuss the application of certain composite systems.

2.6.2 Material Complexity

Material complexity is much lower than geometric complexity in SABs. Most


SABs are built from structural steel, particularly from closed steel profiles or steel-concrete
composite sections. The shape is typically square, rectangular, or circular. Structural
concrete is also used as a common construction material but mainly for decks in the form
of box girders (Jorquera, 2007). Other types of materials, such as stainless steel [York
Millennium Bridge, UK, Firth, (2002)], stainless steel combined with glass fibres [Sant
Fruitos, Spain, Sarmiento-Comesias et al. (2013)], laminated timber [Leonardo da Vinci
bridge, Norway, Buelow et al., (2010)], or ultra-high performance concrete [shell arch
bridge as research study Strasky, (2008); Terzijski, (2008)], were used only in these
particular cases.

2.6.3 Composite Systems

Composite systems, which are structural configurations of two or more different


materials, such as steel or fibre reinforced polymer tubes filled with concrete, are
commonly used in bridges to achieve optimal performance. Practicality, economics, or
aesthetics can be the deciding factors in regards to selecting specific composite systems.

- 41 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

Composite systems aim to benefit from the key properties of different materials to
resist the demand forces from a variety of load combinations including static, dynamic, and
seismic excitation. Because SABs are exposed to out-of-plane loads, the selected materials
and assumed structural profile must resist multidirectional loading. Certain materials can
withstand the resulting internal forces from out-of-plane loads; however, these materials
may have unsatisfactory performance in terms of seismic resistance or durability against
cycles of freezing and thawing.
This chapter does not list all possible composite materials and describe their
function; rather, it discusses composite systems that have been used or may be used in a
configuration of SABs. The two sections below describe conventional and advanced
composite systems and provide examples related to SABs.

2.6.4 Conventional Composite Systems

Conventional composite systems can be defined as structures where two or more


commonly used materials are combined, and the materials must interact. As mentioned in
Section 2.6.2, the majority of SABs are constructed from structural steel alone. Even
though some bridges comprise two or more materials and are called “composite” bridges,
for instance the Ponte della Musica (Lacarbonara (2013)) where a portion of the inclined
arch ribs above the deck comprise hollow steel sections and the portion below the deck is
made of reinforced concrete, the two materials do not interact. Typically, in composite
systems, all materials in the system contribute to resist internal forces at an assumed cross-
section (Roberts, 1998).
Popular conventional composite systems include steel HSS filled with concrete.
The structural profile provides a stay-in-place form and protects the fill. The system of
HSS filled with concrete was used, for example, in the inclined arches of a continuous span
bridge in Beijing, China (Dou et al., 2015). Due to the bridge’s configuration (15° outward
inclination of the arch ribs), the out-of-plane loads are present, and therefore, the bridge is
classified as a SAB. Even though the critical buckling load (the main target beyond filling
steel tubes with concrete) increased because of the composite system, the total mass of the
arch ribs increased as well, which resulted in lower seismic performance. Similarly, a
rectangular steel profile filled with concrete was applied in the Hulme Arch Bridge in

- 42 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

Manchester, UK where the diagonal arch rib was filled at the crown to resist lateral
bending moments and shear forces (Hussain & Wilson, 1999).
Applying concrete-filled steel circular shapes (tubes) in long span vertical arch
bridges with superior decks can also be combined with tension cables. This innovative
hybrid system (currently under Chinese invention patent) was proposed by Liu (2015).
Incorporated tension cables placed between deck girders, vertical struts supporting the deck
girders, and segments of arch ribs (concrete-filled steel tubes) make the construction more
efficient and, in the final structure, the vertical displacements of the arch rib are reduced.
This configuration is suitable for extra-long span arch bridges with superior decks.
Conventional composite systems function well in many bridge structures and still
represent the optimal solution in some SAB configurations. Nevertheless, properties of
conventional composite systems, such as their high mass and susceptibility to corrosion,
can be disadvantageous in certain environments. Consequently, using advanced composite
systems with lightweight, durable materials is increasing (Uddin, 2013).

2.6.5 Advanced Composites Systems

The application of advanced composites systems, in particular advanced composite


materials (ACMs), in bridges is rapidly increasing (Uddin, 2013). ACMs, also known as
fibre reinforced polymers (FRP), are typically characterized as light, linear-elastic durable
materials with a high stiffness-to-weight ratio. ACMs were originally developed in Japan in
the 1980’s for aeronautical purposes and slowly expanded to civil engineering applications.
Over the last two decades, ACMs were used in thousands of field applications; for
example, they were used to reinforce, strengthen, and retrofit systems or used in fully
composite systems (El-Hacha, 2000).
The material properties of ACMs are a function of the ratios of the combined fibres
to the durable matrix that binds the fibres together. The most common fibres are carbon,
glass, aramid, and basalt. Matrices are typically made of thermoset (vinylester, polyesters,
epoxy, or silicones) or thermoplastic (nylon, polyethylene) synthetic resins. The thermoset
resins are typically used in civil engineering applications (El-Hacha, 2000). The material
properties of ACMs, considering various types of fibres and matrices, were studied by
many researchers. For example, the factors that influence the final properties of the

- 43 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

composite, such as the volumetric fraction of the fibres and the matrix, the cross-sectional
area of the fibres, the method of manufacturing, and the fibre orientation, were studied by
Jones (1975). The significance of the interaction between the fibres and matrix that results
in the final material properties of the ACM was shown by Tsai & Hahn (1980). Neale &
Labossiere (1991) investigated the linear-elastic character of the synthetic fibres up to
failure. The significance of the matrix stiffness and volumetric ratio was studied by Rostasy
(1993).
Extensive research is being conducted to clarify the behaviour of ACMs in
structures, and design guidelines are being created so that they can be added to national and
international standards, which results in the broader use of composite materials in civil
engineering applications.
ACMs can be found in the form of reinforcing bars, tendons, cable stays, flexible
fabrics, rigid strips, and structural profiles. The application of an individual type of ACM
varies depending on the specific purpose. Structural profiles manufactured from ACMs are
typically used in newly constructed bridges and can represent a suitable option for fully
composite SABs.

2.6.5.1 Application of Structural Profiles made of ACM in SABs

Structural profiles made of ACMs in bridge applications are gaining their


popularity not only in deck sections, where the full potential of durable composites can be
utilized in relatively simple fashion, but also in more complex all-composite structures.
However, there are no SABs constructed with ACMs. Since 1982, when the first all-
composite bridge was constructed in China (Potyrala, 2011), our understanding of the
application of ACMs in bridge structures is increasing. Therefore, with additional
knowledge about the behaviour of structures that are built with ACMs, ACMs may
represent a feasible option for SABs.
Even though all-composite road bridges exist, for example in 2002, the first all-
composite short-span road bridge (with a span of 10m) was opened in Europe near
Shrivenham, UK, typically, all-composite systems are more commonly seen in short to
mid-span foot bridges (Potyrala, 2011).

- 44 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

Selecting all-composite systems for a bridge structure is usually driven by a specific


requirement, such as chemical durability for bridges in a marine environment as in the
Fredrikstad Footbridge, Norway, a bascule bridge with a 56m span, which opened in 2006,
or electric non-conductivity for structures in the vicinity of power transmission lines, such
as the Lleida Footbridge, Spain, a tied-arch bridge with a 38m span, which opened in 2001.
A detailed overview of the majority of hybrid and all-composite structures was done by
Potyrala (2011).
The main advantages of ACMs, which make them stand out among other
conventional materials for bridge structures in Canada, are their corrosion resistance and
durability in harsh environmental conditions, such as cycles of freezing and thawing often
accompanied with high levels of de-icing salts.
The general advantages of ACMs in bridge structures and, therefore, also in SABs,
are as follows (Hollaway, 2010):
• Durability
o Resistance to atmospheric degradation, de-icing salts, and chemical
corrosion
o Reduced requirements for maintenance, and increased life span of the
structures
• Ability to form custom shapes
o Suitability for curved shapes (aesthetically appealing)
o Suitability for complex cross-sections (enhancement of stiffness)
• Reduced mass
o Lower transportation costs
o More efficient (faster) installation of lighter sections on site
o Lower demand forces on the substructure
o Lower demand on supporting elements such bearings, cable stays, etc.
o Easier operation in movable bridges
• Advantageous electrical and thermal properties
o Lower demand on expansion joints due to low thermal expansion
(composites including mainly carbon fibres)

- 45 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

o Low electrical conductivity (composites without carbon fibres) allowing


building bridges in the vicinity of transmission power lines, such pedestrian
bridges over electrified railroads

In contrast, the disadvantages of ACMs, which are even more perceptible in SABs
due to their spatial configuration and the presence of out-of-plane loads, are as follows
(Hollawy, 2010):
• Deflections
o Larger initial and creep-related deformations due to a low modulus of
elasticity and relaxation in the matrices
• Susceptibility to vibrations
o The light weight of ACM profiles is an issue because most SABs are
pedestrian bridges where human-induced vibration may excite the structure
to a point that may exceed the level of comfortable walking or even
compromise the stability of the structure

Issues related to particular properties of ACMs in bridge structures need to be


addressed via sophisticated analyses and appropriate design decisions.

2.6.5.2 Technology of Suitable Structural Profiles for SABs made of ACMs

Structural profiles made of ACMs used in bridges can be made using several
manufacturing technologies. The most common fully-automated techniques for producing
profiles for civil engineering structures are pultrusion and filament winding. An advanced
technology called “automated fibre placement” that is typically used to manufacture
components for aircrafts can also be used to create complex curved components of bridges.

2.6.5.2.1 Pultrusion
Pultrusion is a process where several layers of fibres with different orientations are
saturated with polymer resin and pulled out at a certain pace through a currying die,
forming the final shape (Uddin, 2013). The final product typically consists of four layers:
1) randomly-oriented chopped fibres placed on the surface of the composite, 2) continuous
strand mats consisting of continuous randomly-oriented fibres, 3) stitched fabrics with

- 46 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

different angle orientations, and 4) roving layers that contain continuous unidirectional
fibre bundles, which are the main contributor to flexural and axial stiffness of the section
(Dalavos, 1996).
Even though pultrusion can produce a cross-section of almost any shape from
circular or square profiles to more sophisticated honeycomb shapes or “lock-in” profiles
(Knippers & Gabler, 2007), these profiles are straight and are constant in the cross-section
(not varying with length). This character of pultruded profiles may be limiting for use in
SABs where typically curved and, to some extent, profiles of a changing cross-section may
be required.
However, due to the applicability of certain techniques, pultruded profiles can also
be assembled into shapes required by the geometry of SABs configurations. Curved shapes
can be achieved by one of two methods. Pultruded profiles can be bent into large radius
curvatures, and then a material with a higher stiffness, for example carbon fibres, is glued
on the inner radius to secure the curved shape. The other method creates smaller radius
curvatures by gluing short, straight segments together. The critical parts of both options are
their connections and reliability (Zhou & Keller, 2004; Fibreline Design Manual, 2002).
Even though pultruded profiles are typically not manufactured in cross-sections
with large dimensions (the standard maximum is around ~300mm) (Fibreline Design
Manual, 2002), larger cross-sections and, therefore, greater stiffness is possible by
connecting several profiles together typically using glue. This technique was tested in case
studies conducted at Lemay Centre for Composites Technology in St. Louis, Missouri and
installed at the University of Missouri (Tuakta, 2005).

2.6.5.2.2 Filament Winding


Filament winding is a process of winding filaments (rovings or tows) into a
geometric pattern, specifically a geodesic stable pattern (Abdel-Hady, 2005), under tension
over a rotating mandrel; circular or rectangular shapes can be produced. After curing, the
central mandrel is removed from the final product. For straight shapes, the central mandrel
is removed simply by pulling it out of the final product; for curved shapes, the central
mandrel, which is inflatable, is collapsible to allow it to be removed from inside of the
curved, cured profile (Uddin, 2014). Typically, fibres are applied in multiple directions to
address the required properties of the final product, and the cross-section of a wound

- 47 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

profile can vary along its length (Rojas et al., 2014). These two features are highly
advantageous for structural profiles of SABs, where multidirectional resistance and
changing cross-sections of the profile are desired.

2.6.5.2.3 Automated fibre placement


Automated fibre placement (AFP) is based on the principles of manual lay-up
technology. AFP is a computerized technology that produces custom shapes on a large
scale. A robotic arm places prepreg strip tows, fibres saturated with synthetic resin in a
semi-cured state, onto a mold to form a composite layup (Uddin, 2013). The robotic arm
can lay the prepared strips in various directions to achieve the desired mechanical
properties of the final product. This procedure requires sophisticated programing and
coordination of the system. Nevertheless, due to its versatility, almost any shape with
custom properties can be manufactured. In certain cases, AFP technology can be combined
with a moving mandrel, which results in a faster process.
Nonlinear optimization techniques based on artificial neural networks are usually
included in the software package. These techniques are applied to predict the material
quality as a function of process set points (Heider et al., 2003).
Even though this technology has been used for about two decades mainly in
aerospace applications, such as aircraft wings (Sloan, 2008), because of its continued
development and increasing use, it may be used to produce spatially demanding structural
components, such as arch ribs in SABs.

2.6.5.3 Examples and Applications of Suitable ACM Structural Profiles

Pultruded shapes and shapes manufactured via filament winding have gained
popularity in bridge applications, especially in combinations with concrete. The following
examples describe applications of these composite systems in bridge structures.
The main advantages of FRP profiles filled with concrete include a stay-in-place
form, a smaller environmental footprint, easy installation, seismic resistance due to
increased ductility, corrosion resistance, maintenance free, a much longer life cycle, and
blast resistance (Sieble et al., 1996). An FRP profile filled with concrete was developed to
increase the seismic performance of vertical columns in buildings. Vertical columns in

- 48 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

buildings are typically exposed to axial compression and biaxial bending and torsion,
which makes them similar to arch ribs in bridges.
Self-standing concrete-filled FRP arch ribs in SABs have not been constructed to
date; however, the presence of concrete-filled FRP tubes in buried arch bridges is
increasing. The Composite Arch Bridge System, known as “Bridge-In-A-BackpackTM,”
was developed at the University of Maine, US. In addition to the confining effect of fibres
oriented perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis, which results in increased ductility, the
developed composite shell contains internal spiral ribs to utilize shear force transfer. The
FRP profiles that were used in the innovative bridge system were manufactured via
filament winding. Numerous bridges of this kind have been built since 2008, when a pilot
bridge, the Neal Bridge (27ft ~ 8.2m long, 23 arch ribs spaced 2ft ~ 0.6m apart) in
Pittsfield, ME, was built. Due to the high durability, increasing use, fast construction, low
transportation costs, and the low demand of substructure of the FRP tubes filled with
concrete, in December 2012, AASHTO approved and published design guidelines for
concrete-filled FRP tubes for flexural and axial members (Alberski, 2013).
In addition, concrete-filled FRP tubes can be used in bridges with straight
horizontal decks. An example of this type of application is the King Channel Bridge, where
concrete-filled carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP) tubes were applied in the vertical
columns supporting the bent connection and the main girders. In the main girders, flexural
reinforcements in the form of reinforcing steel were placed inside the CFRP tubes as in a
conventional reinforced concrete beams (Roberts, 1998).
In certain cases where increased torsional and bending stiffness is required while
the weight is targeted to be low, a hollow FRP profile can be filled with lighter materials
such polyurethane foams. Such a system has not been applied in bridge structures;
however, it meets code requirements for transmission poles manufactured by Strongwell.
The application of pultruded glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) profiles is
demonstrated in the Lleida Footbridge, Spain. This double-tied arch bridge with a span of
38m and rise of 6.2m is entirely made of hollow GFRP profiles. The only metal
components are angles and bolts that connect individual elements. To achieve the desired
stiffness and a sufficient critical buckling load, both the tension and compression members
comprise two pultruded profiles (300X90X15mm) glued next to each other and covered

- 49 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

with flat plates (180X12mm). Longitudinal arch ribs and ties are braced with diagonal
GFRP members. Even though the entire structure is very light, the dynamic testing that was
conducted proved that the limits imposed on human-induced vibrations were met. A
residual deflection due to a minor slip in the bolted connections remained in the structure
after removing the loads used during the static test (Potyrala, 2011).

2.6.5.4 Connections of Structural Profiles

In general, ACMs are somewhat difficult to connect due to their fibrous structure
and anisotropic character. Nevertheless, connections are one of the key parameters in SAB
configurations as they transfer internal and external forces that result from out-of-plane
loads. Generally, connections can be divided into to two main categories: material and
structural connections.

2.6.5.4.1 Material Connections


The assumed structural profiles identified in Section 2.6.5.2 can be made into the
desired cross-sections with proper mechanical properties. However, due to manufacturing
limitations, the length of the structural profiles is limited, and the prepared parts need to be
assembled together. Connecting ACMs can be done either with glued joints or with bolted
connections; combinations of both types are also used in industrial applications (Potyrala,
2011).

• Glued joints
Glued joints are quickly assembled and are strong; however, they fail in brittle
mode (no warning before failure) and are sensitive to the quality of bond between the
adhesives and actual ACMs (Tuakta, 2005).

Advantages of glued joints:


o Clean connections
o More rigid than traditional bolted connections where slip typically occurs
o Outstanding performance under dynamic loading
o Fluid and weather tight

- 50 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

Disadvantages of glued joints:


o Sensitivity to a number of bonding agents in terms of long term loading in
certain environmental conditions (humidity and/or elevated temperatures
can compromise the structural integrity under sustained loading)
o Brittle failure mode. In general, adhesive bonding can fail in four modes:
adhesive failure, cohesive failure, substrate failure, or in a combination of
the first two
o Difficult to inspect
o High demand on surface preparation
o The load bearing capacity of glued joints is not directly proportional to the
glued area, i.e., at some point of increasing the connection area, the increase
in load bearing capacity stops. This behaviour results from the mechanics of
the fracture that happens at the interface of adjacent layers within the
composite rather than at the surface of the adhesive (the strength of the
bonding agent is larger than strength of the actual composite)

Extensive research is being carried out to overcome the disadvantages of glued


joints (Fibreline Design Manual, 2002). A combination of glued and bolted connections is
typically applied in critical load bearing connections to avoid a brittle failure mode. Despite
certain disadvantages, glued joints are considered the leading connection type for ACMs.
The most common bonding agents are two-compound epoxy or single-compound
polyurethane resins. Fatigue resistance of glued joints was studied, for example, by
Shahverdi et al. (2012).

• Bolted connections
Bolted connections are a mechanical connection type for which the capacity is a
function of the parameters of the bolts (diameter, arrangement, number), the materials
being connected (the direction of the fibres in ACMs in relation to internal forces), and, to
some extent, the tension that develops in the bolts. This type of connection is traditional,
relatively fast (no curing required), and provides a ductile type of assembly.

- 51 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

Advantages of bolted connections:


o No specific surface preparation is necessary
o Easy to inspect
o Disassembly is possible
o Quasi-ductile behaviour

Disadvantages of bolted connections:


o Low strength-to-stress concentrations (no stress distribution via yielding as
in conventional steel connections)
o Normally require special gaskets or sealants to be fluid and weather tight
o Metallic fasteners corrode

Bolted connections are sources of stress concentrations in profiles and in the bolts,
and therefore, it is necessary to ensure that adjacent profiles can withstand the loading to
avoid the bolts coming out of the profile. Typically, bolted connections in ACMs are
similar to those in conventional steel profiles; however, since there is no standard on bolted
connections, each manufacturer provides their own guidelines (Fibreline Design Manual,
2002).

2.6.5.4.2 Structural Connections


A structural connection can be described as the connection between individual
structural components of the bridge. A special type of connection is the joint between the
substructure and superstructure.
The connection between the cables and deck or an arch rib in SABs follows the
principles adopted in conventional steel connections; the connection must allow for the
transfer of direct tension from the cables but must also accommodate relevant rotations
resulting from the spatial configuration and its displacement. During the design process of
the connection, the anisotropic character of ACMs must be taken into account, especially
while developing the connections of the cables to the deck or the arch, because at these
locations the material may be exposed to a combined loading that results from the deck or
the arch and from axial forces in the cables.

- 52 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

Anchoring the cable stay is an important and complex structural detail; typically, in
all-composite bridges, conventional materials are used. An example of such a configuration
is the Aberfeldy footbridge, Scotland. In 2002, this bridge was the longest all-composite
cable-stayed bridge with a span of 113m; it was constructed from GFRP pultruded profiles.
Aramid fibres were used in the cable stays. The cable-to-deck connection was made of
aluminum components, and the cable-to-tower connection comprised galvanized steel
elements (Cadei & Stratford, 2002). Another example of an all-composite cable-stayed
bridge is the foot bridge over a railroad that opened in Kolding, Denmark in 1997.
The connections between the superstructure and substructure in conventional (non-
spatial) all-composite bridges are not a significant concern as an appropriate bearing pad
and the necessary stiffeners at the girder end where mainly shear forces need to be resisted
are used. However in configurations of SABs, the connection between the superstructure
and substructure must resist not only shear forces but also axial forces and bending and
torsional moments. Because no SAB has been constructed from ACMs, there is minimal
evidence demonstrating the applicability and feasibility of the connection between the
superstructure and substructure. Even though the all-composite Lleida Bridge experiences
mainly compression forces, bending moments also develop. Nevertheless, the magnitude of
the developed moments is low, and therefore, it is difficult to evaluate the structural
response of the all-composite arch bridge in relation to the bending moments in the arch
(Sobrino, 2002). Bending moments in an arch in a SAB, particularly at the location of
connection of the arch to its abutment, are considered to be a significant issue. A possible
alternative may be to use a combination of ACM profiles with concrete. Nevertheless, the
structural detail of the connection between a superstructure and substructure for ACMs
represents a gap in the research.

2.6.5.5 ACM Cables

Cables manufactured from ACMs represent another key structural component


whose properties can influence the structural response in complex configurations of SABs.
ACM cables are known for high tensile strength, low weight, and long fatigue life.
Depending on the material composition, the issue related to ACM cables is matrix
relaxation, which causes loss of tension in the cables, which, consequently, results in

- 53 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

increasing deck deflection. Anchoring ACM cables can also be an issue. Due to the
anisotropic character of ACM cables, anchors need to be more sophisticated, and therefore,
cost more, compared to those for steel cables (Wang et al., 2015).
Materials used to manufacture cables depend on the purpose and specific
configuration of the structure. Typically, carbon, glass, and basalt are used to produce
ACM cables; in some cases, fibres are combined within one cable to achieve the desired
properties.
Cables made of carbon fibre have, on one hand, superior properties such as high
strength, chemical stability, and long fatigue life; on the other hand, carbon fibres are the
most expensive option and are very light, which makes them more prone to flow-induced
vibrations that may result in the aeroelastic instability of the structure (Wang & Wu, 2010).
Glass fibres are commonly used in civil engineering applications for their relatively
low cost and high strength. However in ACM cables, glass fibres are the heaviest option,
and their fatigue life is short compared to carbon fibres. In addition, due to their sensitivity
to alkali effects and the high relaxation of the matrix causing large creep, their overall
durability is low.
Basalt fibres are a relatively new alternative in ACMs; however, they are
comparable to glass fibres in terms of their mechanical and physical properties and
reasonable cost. The advantage of basalt fibres is that they have better chemical stability
and overall durability than do glass or aramid fibres (Zoghi, 2013). Nevertheless, their
application in cable stays is limited due to a relatively low modulus of elasticity, which
causes large sag in the cables.
To overcome the disadvantages of carbon and glass fibres in ACM cables and
utilize the advantages of more affordable and heavier basal fibres, hybrid ACM cables,
comprised of basalt and carbon fibres, were proposed by Wang & Wu (2009). The
proposed hybrid system consists of several layers. The outermost layer is created by
combining carbon and basalt strands in a ratio of 1:1, separated with an inner sleeve from
viscoelastic material, which provides internal damping to the cable. This outermost layer
significantly extends fatigue life (Wang et al., 2016), and the viscoelastic material
combined with a heavier basalt fibre core increases the damping characteristics (Wang &
Wu, 2009). The core of the hybrid cable consists only of pure basalt fibres.

- 54 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

ACM cables can play a key role in the long-term performance of bridge structures
in general. In SAB configurations, where flexible hangers are one of the main structural
components transferring out-of-plane loads, the properties of ACM cables, such as low
thermal conductivity and long fatigue life, are highly advantageous.

2.6.5.6 Analysis and Theories Describing the Behaviour of ACMs

ACMs represent an innovative material with superior durability; however, their


performance depends on an understanding of their internal structure and their correct
application in structures. Due to their fibrous character, ACMs can be classified as an
anisotropic material: materials that are not isotropic and where the mechanical and physical
properties vary for symmetry planes. The level of anisotropy is defined as the number of
symmetry planes in which the properties remain constant. To characterize the constitutive
behaviour of fully anisotropic material, 21 independent constants are required. In practical
applications, layered composites are assumed to be orthotropic (a special case of
anisotropy) where only 9 independent constants fulfill the characterization of the material.
Analysis of composite materials can be described using micromechanics (analysis of a
single lamina made of matrix and fibre constituents) and macromechanics (analysis of
several laminae stacked together in various orientations, which form laminate) (Zoghi,
2013).
Structural profiles manufactured using pultrusion or filament winding technology
can be generally characterized as layered (laminated) composites. A description of the
internal forces in laminated composites can be done using plate theories. In general, there
are two groups of plate theories: theories based on an assumption that composite laminates
can be described by an equivalent single layer (ESL) and theories based on a 3D elastic
continuum.
In ESL theories, an appropriate analysis theory should be applied based on the ratio
of wall thickness to the representative dimension of the laminate, whose threshold value is
1/20. Laminated composites with a ratio below 1/20 can be analysed using the classical
lamination theory, and composites with a higher ratio should be analysed using shear
deformation theories (Liewa, 2011). The classical lamination theory (CLT) of shells or
plates (proposed by Kirchhoff & Love (1888) that represents an extension of Euler-

- 55 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

Bernoulli beam theory) assumes that the normals to the midplane remain constant after
deformation and neglects transverse normal stresses. In shear deformation theories
(corresponding to the Timoshenko bending theory) shear deformation is included as the
normals do not remain perpendicular to the midplane after deformation.
The first order shear deformation (FSDT) theory assumes that the shear transversal
strain is constant throughout the entire thickness of the plate (Reissner, 1945). A shear
correction factor is required to correct the strain distribution at the surfaces (the strain at the
surface is zero). The magnitude of this factor depends on the material properties, geometry
and also on the type of applied load (Liewa, 2011).
In higher-order shear deformation theories (HSDT), the transverse shear strain
varies as a function of the coordinates within the plate thickness, with zero strain at the
surface. An improved higher-order theory proposed by Murthy (1981), and similar to the
one proposed by Reissner, uses displacement fields to achieve zero strain at the surfaces.
Both FSDT and HSDT are sufficiently efficient (HSDT are typically more demanding in
terms of computational time) and highly accurate in the analysis of gross deflections,
critical buckling loads, and natural frequencies.
The more complex layerwise theory (considered a type of ESL theories) need to be
applied to describe interlaminar stresses. The layerwise theory and the 3D continuum
theory describe geometric and material discontinuities with a high level of accuracy;
however, the demand on computational time significantly increases (Zhang, 2008).

2.6.5.7 Challenges in Structural Profiles made of ACMs

The material properties of profiles made of ACMs present issues that may influence
the behaviour of a structure. Some areas for concern in ACM structural profiles include
creep, thermal stability under sustained loads, buckling of thin-walled members, and
susceptibility to vibrations. These characteristics must be addressed with accurate analyses
and careful design.
Creep (increasing deformation under sustained load) in structural profiles is a
significant issue. Due to the relaxation of the soft polymer matrix over time (creep in fibres
typically does not occur to a great extent (ISIS Design Manual 8, 2006)), the relative
position between the fibres increases, resulting in higher deformations and loss of internal

- 56 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

stress (stiffness reduction). Creep in ACM structural profiles is a complex phenomenon and
depends on various factors, such as the properties of the fibres and matrices and their
volumetric ratio, type of fabrication, and type and direction of loading.
The theoretical prediction of creep-related material behaviour can be modeled using
the power law developed by Findley (1944). Experimentally, creep behaviour of pultruded
GFRP profiles was studied by Sa et al. (2011). In his work, Sa et al. examined the effects of
flexural and compressive loading where the load magnitude ranged from 20% to 80% of
the maximum strength. The results showed that specimens failed at a level as high as 50%
of the maximum strength. Significant deformations occurred after several hours of loading
not exceeding 30% of the maximum strength. Short and long-term behaviour of wide
flange beams was studied by Bank & Mosallam (1992). The creep testing results showed
different rates of creep deflection during the experiment. During the first 2,000 hrs, the rate
of creep deflection increased, but after more than 2,000 hrs, the rate remained constant.
Creep coefficients for various pultruded profiles made of the most common GFRP
materials at service and elevated temperatures were investigated by Smith (2005).
Conducted studies and experiments proved that several factors play a key role in the
structural behaviour of the selected profiles, and there is still a need to investigate new
alternatives such as hybridization, a combination of different fibre types within an assumed
profile, in structural profiles. The effect of hybridization in improving creep response was
investigated by Barpanda (1998). In recent industrial applications of pultruded profiles in
girder road bridges, carbon and glass fibres have been used in hybrid systems to enhance
flexural stiffness, lower creep, and reduce cost. An example of this type of hybrid
pultruded profile is the double-web, wide flange beam manufactured by Strongwell, where
carbon fibres are placed in the flanges and glass fibres are placed in the webs.
The performance of ACMs at both high and low temperatures typically decreases.
Elevated temperatures cause an accelerated process of matrix relaxation, the composite
material to lose its strength, and higher creep effects. Material selection of the matrix can
play a significant role. The influence of the resin type (polyester and vinylester) on flexural
creep under elevated temperatures (54°C) in GFRP T-shaped sections (with solid and
hollow webs) was investigated by Daniali (1991). Profiles with vinylester resin performed
better than profiles containing polyester resins at elevated temperatures. Even though the

- 57 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of most ACMs is low and applying these materials
in bridges is beneficial (a low demand on the expansion joints), exposure of ACMs to low
temperatures may lead to a loss of stiffness. In environments where temperature
fluctuations are high and frequent, micro-cracks in the matrix that result from different
cycles of expansion and contraction of the individual constitutes may develop. These
micro-cracks then affect stiffness and creep related deformations (Cusson, 2002).
Creep-rupture is related to the creep of ACMs; it is typically observed in
unidirectional reinforcing bars. This phenomenon, sometimes called also “stress-
corrosion,” occurs due to the complex interaction of several factors, such as environmental
exposure, the presence of cracks in fibres and matrices, the type of loading, and fibre-
matrix interface damage. Creep-rupture can be described as a failure of the system after the
system was exposed to sustained loads, whose magnitudes exceed a certain stress limit (a
limit that differs for different materials) within a certain time period. Both the long-term
exposure to low levels of a sustained load and the short-term exposure to high levels of a
sustained load may lead to the collapse of the system. Typically, the structures most
susceptible to creep-rupture are GFRP. CFRP have the highest resistance to creep-rupture.
The limiting values of sustained loads are, for GFRP, ~20% and, for CFRP, ~ 50% of the
maximum strength (ISIS Design Manual 8, 2006). Creep-rupture in GFRP pultruded
profiles was studied by Batra (2009). Creep and creep-rupture are typically influenced by
elevated temperatures, which reduce the load bearing capacity resulting in increased
deflections and a reduced level of sustained load (Dutta, 2000). The significance of creep-
rupture in BFRP was studied by Banibayat (2015). The creep coefficient of BFRP was
determined to be approximately 18% for a 50-year service life and 28% for a 5 year service
life.
Due to the nature of structural ACM profiles (thin-walled members), buckling is
another factor that needs to be addressed in the analysis and design of structures. As in
conventional steel profiles, ACM structural profiles are susceptible to some types of
buckling such as the global buckling of members and flexural-torsional buckling. The
principles of elastic instability (buckling) in SABs are described in Section 2.5.3. The
critical buckling load of ACM profiles needs to be found using a more complex method
compared to conventional steel profiles. The complex method assumes the number of

- 58 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

symmetry planes (the level of anisotropy), which results in a number of buckling loads that
need to be evaluated. In a typical industrial application, an ACM profile is assumed to be
an orthotropic material, and therefore, three buckling loads are evaluated. The lowest
obtained load is then taken as the critical buckling load. Formulas to obtain buckling loads
depend on whether or not shear deformation is included (Zoghi, 2013). Formulas for
calculating the critical buckling load, considering global buckling and flexural-torsional
buckling of AMC profiles, can be found in Zureick & Scott (1997), Zureick & Steffen
(2000), and Bank (2005). Computing local buckling of flanges and webs or walls in open
or closed profiles, respectively, includes moduli of elasticity in two planes. The end
conditions of ACM profiles are defined in the same way as they would be defined for
conventional steel profiles. Analyses of local buckling in axially loaded thin-walled,
closed-section, rectangular beams and open-section I beams are described by Kolar &
Springer (2003). Local buckling analyses of a flange or web in compression are specified
by Bank (2005). Design guidelines for ACMs in transportation structures are presented by
Dalavos (2002).
Failure modes of ACM structural profiles are a function of the type of loading and
the cross-sectional shape of the profile. Closed profiles are governed by global or local
buckling. However, open sections are prone to failure at the connection of the web and
flange where stress concentrations occur. In pultruded profiles, this connection may be rich
in resin (matrix), and therefore, it is the weakest part of the profile. Stress concentrations
are usually treated by specifying an appropriate radius at the connection (Creative
Pultrusion Design manual, 2016). In wide-flange beams, critical locations are typically at
the support where crippling of the web occurs first (Behzad et al., 2010).

2.6.5.8 FE Modeling of ACMs

Predicting the behaviour of ACMs via FEA can be very accurate and, in modern
practice, is often used to analyse composite structures. FEA is a powerful tool whose
accuracy is highly dependent on the computational time available for a specific analysis.
Typically, as a higher level of accuracy is required, more time (cost) must be available.
Formulations of finite elements used in FEA of ACMs are based on analytical theories that
describe the material behaviour; in finite elements, the shape function represents the

- 59 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

relevant theory. As outlined in Section 2.6.5.6, theories describing the material behaviour
of laminated composites can be divided into two main categories: (a) equivalent single
layer (ESL) theories and (b) continuum-based 3D elastic theories. These theories are used
to develop shape functions in particular finite elements. The parameters of individual
elements, such as the number of nodes or number of degrees of freedom (DOF) at each
node, are derived based on the phenomena the specific element is intended to describe. In
general, predicting the material behaviour of ACMs via finite element models can be
separated into several categories such as free vibrations, damping and transient dynamic
response, buckling and post-buckling, geometric nonlinearity and large deformation
analysis, and damage and failure. The complexity of specific finite elements is not
described in this section. Rather, the intention is to present the core theme of FEA in
predicting the behaviour of ACMs. A detailed review of the developments in FEA,
including the specifications of individual elements and particular shape functions, is
provided by Zhang & Yang (2008).
Even though ACMs are assumed to be linear elastic materials, their behaviour in
structural profiles can be nonlinear. For example, pultruded profiles exposed to multiaxial
loading experience nonlinear responses due to the interaction of soft the matrix and
imperfections (voids) within the material structure (Haj-Ali & Kilic, 2002). Nonlinear
material responses can be magnified in structural profiles at material or geometric
discontinuities. Finite element (FE) micromechanical constitutive models have been
developed and implemented in commercial software to predict nonlinear material responses
(Haj-Ali & El-Hajjar, 2003). In practice, coupon testing is used to verify the correctness of
the developed FE models. Particular models can utilize viscous layer crack growth in
composite materials (Haj-Ali et al, 2006).

2.7 Conclusion to Chapter Two

Chapter Two provides a literature review of the topics related to the research in this
thesis and identifies the research gaps in the field of SABs.
The definition and historical development of spatial structures is presented first
with examples that demonstrate the level of understanding of arch construction and
materials used in ancient Egypt and Rome followed by a mathematical description of

- 60 -
Chapter Two: Literature Review

antifunicular arches. Modern trends in spatial structures are outlined at the end of the
historical review. Subsequently, geometric classifications of complex SABs are described
next with detailed descriptions of spatial configurations, geometric ratios, and state-of-the-
art form-finding graphical/computational methods. The principles of planar and spatial
antifunicular arches are discussed and examples are provided.
Then, the structural behaviour of SABs and the response of the system in relation to
its geometric and structural configurations is discussed; this section also comments on the
effect of flexible and rigid hangers on the structural response. Linear and nonlinear
approaches are outlined. The significance of elastic instability and thermal loads in vertical
planar arches and spatial arches are discussed. Case studies of individual configurations,
including dynamic loading, are presented. Subsequently, material influence on the
structural behaviour of SABs is described in terms of conventional and advanced
composite systems. Applications of ACMs in structural profiles suitable for SABs are
described in depth. A review of the current manufacturing processes, connection details,
and the application of ACM cables used in all composite bridges is followed with a
description of analytical theories describing the material behaviour of ACMs. The section
concludes with an outline of the challenges of using ACMs in bridge structures and
numerical methods for predicting material response.
A comprehensive literature review, as summarized above, provides an outline of the
origins of SABs, their development, and most recent applications. Theoretical works and
case studies were presented to show the current state of research and to identify gaps in the
understanding of structural behaviour and analysis of SABs. The key gaps in the research
were identified as follows: 1) the significance of geometric and stiffness ratios in SABs
with an inferior deck; 2) the effect of thermal loads on the structural response of SABs; 3)
the configuration of cables and additional cable tensioning in spatial configurations; 4) the
significance of material properties on the structural behaviour of SABs; 5) the response of
certain geometric configurations to dynamic loading; and 6) the connection of the SAB
superstructure constructed from ACMs with the substructure. This thesis focuses on the
identified gaps in the current state of research.

- 61 -
Chapter Three: Development of Models

Chapter Three: Development of Models

3.1 Introduction

This thesis contributes to our understanding of the structural behaviour of SABs via
finite element analyses (FEA) of various configurations. The development of accurate
finite element (FE) models plays a significant role. Individual analyses employ models of
different complexity. There are linear and nonlinear models. In the nonlinear models,
geometric nonlinearity, involving large displacements but small strains, is taken into
account. Geometric nonlinearity addresses the displacemnts of the arch and deck and the
response of the flexible cables connecting the arch and the deck. The models presented in
this chapter provide background for all the types of analysis considered in the thesis.
Specific details related to the focus of a specific analysis are described in particular
chapters. All models were created assuming basic SI units such as N, m, kg.
The present chapter is divided into six sections: an introduction (Section 3.1), a
description of the software used (Section 3.2); a description of the structural configurations,
differentiating between the linear and nonlinear models (Section 3.3), the methodology for
creating the FE models via parametric input files and evaluating the results (Section 3.4),
and a listing of the mechanical properties of the materials assumed in particular analyses
(Section 3.5).
Appendix A is devoted to providing the details related to this chapter and consists
of three sections: a justification of the finite elements selected for the arch, deck, and cables
in the linear and nonlinear models (Section A.1), a description of the verification and
calibration of the models (Section A.2), and, finally, an example of a complete parametric
input file (Section A.3).

3.2 Software

The analyses conducted and evaluated throughout this thesis have been carried out
with the finite element software Abaqus; research version 6.13. Abaqus is used for both the
modeling and analysis of the mechanical components and assemblies and also for the
visualization of the results.

- 62 -
Chapter Three: Development of Models

Analyses considering static loads were performed in “Abaqus/Standard”; a general-


purpose finite element analyzer that employs traditional implicit integration scheme which
is suitable for both linear and nonlinear analysis. A solver which is more suitable for
dynamic nonlinear analysis is “Abaqus/Explicit”, which employs an explicit integration
scheme to solve highly nonlinear systems with many complex contacts under transient
loads.
The Abaqus software package was provided and sponsored by the University of
Calgary and Compute Canada.

3.3 Structural Configuration of Developed FE Models

The FE models represent pedestrian bridges whose geometric configuration is being


changed in order to investigate the significance of the factors considered in this thesis.
There are two groups of variables (geometric ratios) reflecting the overall dimensions of
the assumed structure: a) the primary variables represented by the ratio of arch rise to span
(f(A)/s) and b) secondary variables represented by: the ratio of deck reach to span (f(D)/s),
the angle of arch inclination from a vertical plane (ω), and the angle of arch rotation about
a vertical axis bisecting the span length (θ). While the magnitudes of the primary and
secondary variables change, the span “s” of the assumed bridges is held constant at 75m.

3.3.1 Character of Models

There are two types of models developed for the analyses carried out in this thesis:
a) linear models and b) nonlinear models. The differentiating aspects between the types of
model are whether or not geometric nonlinearity is taken into account and the character of
cables that connect the arch and deck.

3.3.1.1 Geometric nonlinearity

In the spatial models, it is the geometric nonlinearity, assuming large displacements


and small strains, that can affect the overall response of the structure. Due to the
arrangement of the SABs in question, it is expected that both the arch and the deck undergo
large displacements upon application of load. Nevertheless, in the cables, the developed
strains remain small and, therefore, material nonlinearity does not need to be taken into

- 63 -
Chapter Three: Development of Models

account. A schematic sketch showing the principle of large displacements and small strains
is presented in Figure 3-1. The figure shows a section trough a SAB at its midspan. The
structure consists of a vertical arch and a deck curved in plan. In the initial state, all the
structural members, i.e., the arch, deck, and cables, are undeformed, and the cables are
assumed taut. Upon the application of load, all the structural members deform. Despite the
displacements of the arch and deck being large and the cable developing a sag, the change
in distance between the ends of the cable is relatively small and the cable does not develop
large strains.

Undeformed
shape
A~B

Deformed
shape
Cable sag

Figure 3-1: Principle of geometric nonlinearity taking into account large


displacements and small strains

Geometric nonlinearity is assumed to have a significant effect only in the models


used in Chapter Six where materials with low E are considered. Structures made of
materials with low E are expected to undergo larger deformations than structures made of
materials with large E. Hence, models assuming geometric nonlinearity become

- 64 -
Chapter Three: Development of Models

advantageous in Chapter Six where ACMs with low E are included in the analyses.
Models assuming geometric nonlinearity can predict the response more accurately while
taking into account the second order effects.
In Abaqus, linear equation solution is used in both linear and nonlinear analysis. In the
case of geometric nonlinearity, Abaqus uses the Newton method. In this method, the simulation
is broken into a number of time (load) increments and the approximate equilibrium
configuration is found at the end of each time increment. Using the Newton method, it often
takes Abaqus/Standard several iterations to determine an acceptable solution to each time
increment (Abaqus Analysis User’s Guide, Section 7.1.1).

3.3.1.2 Linear Finite Element Model

In the linear FE models, the spatial deformation of the cable sag is assumed to have
only a minor contribution to the overall structural response and, therefore, it is ignored. In
these models, geometric nonlinearity is not taken into account.
The arch and deck were created with the beam elements described in Section A.1.1,
while the cables were created with truss elements, described in Section A.1.3.
The truss elements can transfer only axial loads and, therefore, the connection
between the cables and the arch or the deck behaves as a simple “hinge” transferring
translations and allowing for rotations in any directions. Even though a rigid link element
could also be used to model the hanger connecting the arch and deck, transferring only
axial loads and allowing rotation about any direction, the selected truss elements are more
advantageous. The truss elements can model the axial elongation of the cables, which
affects the response of the arch and deck.
Due to the character of the truss elements (simple elements with a linear
interpolation function), the overall procedure is simplified and allows for efficient analysis
of a large number of models with a reduced margin of error, avoiding non-convergent
solutions. Linear models are employed in Chapters Four and Five.

3.3.1.3 Nonlinear Finite Element Model

The nonlinear models take the geometric nonlinearity into consideration. It is


assumed that the displacements of the arch and deck as well as the sag in the cables will
affect the overall structural response.

- 65 -
Chapter Three: Development of Models

The arch and the deck are modeled with the same beam elements as in the linear
models. The cables, however, are not modeled with truss elements but with beam elements
with reduced bending stiffness as described in Section A.1.4. In the initial state, the cables
are assumed to be taut; no existing sag is assigned to the cables. Sag in the cables develops
upon application of loads. Therefore, it is the axial stiffness that governs the response of
the cables.
The connection of the beam elements at adjacent nodes transfers not only the axial
loads but also bending moments. Therefore, the connection of the arch or deck to these
cables is approached with more sophisticated connector elements (Section A.1.5).
Even though the accuracy of the nonlinear models is increased, due to the fact that
these models account for the secondary effects, the nonlinear models are more prone to
non-convergent solutions. The definition of nonlinear models is sensitive to parameters
such as: accurate geometry, the local orientation of connections, and the precise definition
the actual nonlinear analysis (represented by the size and number of increments within
individual steps).
The nonlinear models provide a more accurate response because the second order
effects are taken into account. Another advantage of the nonlinear models is their ability to
achieve a more realistic response when additional tensioning of the cables is employed as
described in Section 3.4.1.4.

3.3.1.4 Comparison of Linear and Nonlinear Models

The correctness of the linear and nonlinear models was verified in Appendix A,
Section A.2.Despite a relatively simple arrangement of the linear models, the accuracy of
these models is close to the nonlinear models. A comparison of the distribution of the
forces in the cables connecting the arch and deck in linear and nonlinear models is shown
in Figure 3-2. The material modelled in both models is steel, a material with high E. The
configuration consists of a vertical arch and horizontal deck curved in plan. The
comparison of linear and nonlinear models is shown for the cables because the cables are
the key components. Cables transfer the loads from the deck to the arch and, thus, the
response of the cables should be evaluated carefully.

- 66 -
Chapter Three: Development of Models

Figure 3-2: A comparison of forces in cables in the linear and nonlinear models,
assuming material with high E

From the Figure 3-2 is apparent that difference between the cable forces obtained
from linear and nonlinear models is less than 10%.
A comparison of the cable forces obtained from the linear and nonlinear models
assuming materials with low E, such as ACMs, is shown in Figure 3-3.

Figure 3-3: A comparison of forces in cables in the linear and nonlinear models,
assuming material with low E

- 67 -
Chapter Three: Development of Models

From the Figure 3-3 is apparent that the difference between the force in cables
obtained from the linear and nonlinear models is larger than 10%. Therefore, it can be said
that linear models are sufficiently accurate to be used in configurations assuming materials
with relatively high E, such as steel. However, the accuracy of the linear models drops
when materials with low E, experiencing larger displacements, are employed. Hence,
nonlinear models, taking into account the second order effects, become advantageous in
chapter Six, where ACMs with low E are introduced.

3.3.2 Structural Components

The arch, deck, and cables are the main structural components in all the SAB
configurations modeled. The configurations assume only SABs with an inferior deck.
Attention is given to arrangements with flexible hangers, i.e., cables. An example of a
spatial configuration underlying the concept of the SAB with the inferior deck is provided
in Figure 3-4.

Figure 3-4: Example of a structural configuration representing a concept of SAB with


an inferior deck assumed in the thesis

The arch and the deck comprise hollow structural sections (HSS). A solid section is
assumed for the cables, representing locked coil strands. There are 14 equally spaced (5m
apart) cables along the span in the models. The outer dimensions of the applied HSS

- 68 -
Chapter Three: Development of Models

profiles and the diameter of the cables vary for a particular type of analysis. Details of the
individual analyses are depicted in the particular chapters of this thesis. Material properties
of the HSS profiles and cables are provided in Section 3.5.

3.3.3 Structural Connections and Boundary Conditions

The only structural connection in the models is the connection of the cable end to
the arch or deck. Connections of individual structural sections (structural profiles
connected to each other) within the arch and the deck that are typically done via welding or
splicing in the case of steel profiles and via glued of bolted connections in the case of
advanced composite materials (see Section 2.6.5.4) are assumed to be “ideal”, and their
significance for the structural response is not investigated.
The character of the cable connection to the arch or deck differs between the linear
and nonlinear models. In the simplified linear FE model the truss element representing the
cable can transmit only axial forces and, therefore, it behaves as a “multi-directional” hinge
(Section A.1.3). In the more complex nonlinear model, the connection between the cable
and the arch or the deck is modeled via an assigned connector element with a spatially
oriented connector section (Section A.1.5).
In both types of models, the cable to arch or to deck connection represents a typical
structural detail where a cable end is prevented from translation in any direction and is
allowed to rotate about only the horizontally-oriented axis (relative to the connected
member) as illustrated in Figure 3-5.

- 69 -
Chapter Three: Development of Models

Figure 3-5: Example of cable end to connection to arch or deck

It should be noted that in the spatial configurations, the local orientation of this
connection detail plays an important role. Due to the deformations of the arch and the deck,
the position of the connection detail may change (translate and rotate in space) and, thus,
result in the development of undesired stresses. A definition of the local orientation of the
connections of the cables is the same as the definition of the local orientation of the
boundary conditions of the deck (section 3.4.1.5).
The beam elements used to model the arch and deck are a one-dimensional (1D)
representation of the three-dimensional (3D) segment. In the beam elements that are used
to model the HSS profiles, nodes are located at an element axis which goes through the
centroid of the cross-section of the HSS profile. Therefore, the connection between cables
and the arch or deck occurs at the centroidal axis as shown on Figure 3-6.

- 70 -
Chapter Three: Development of Models

Detail:
Cable-to-Arch Connection

Detail:
Cable-to-Deck Connection

Cut through the structure


at Midspan

Figure 3-6: Detail of cable-to-arch and cable-to-deck connection at centroid axis of


structural elements

The connection of a superstructure (arch and deck) to a substructure is done via the
definition of boundary conditions (BCs); the linear and the nonlinear models have the same
BCs. A procedure for the definition of arch and deck BCs within the FE model is specified
in Section 3.4.1.5. In all assumed configurations, the arch has both ends fixed to the
adjacent substructure. Such a connection is typically done in practice via anchor bolts as
illustrated in Figure 3-7.

- 71 -
Chapter Three: Development of Models

Bolted
connection

Figure 3-7: Example of fixed connection of arch to the substructure

In the FE models, the connection of the deck to the substructure is defined via
“rollers” or “pins” representing particular types of bridge bearings. The significance of the
different BCs of the deck is examined in Chapter Five.

3.3.4 Discretization

As outlined at the beginning of this section, the main difference between the linear
and the nonlinear models is the way the cables are modeled. In both models, the arch and
the deck are modeled with same type of beam elements with the same discretization.
However, the overall discretization differs between the linear and the nonlinear models due
to the different elements used for modeling of cables.

- 72 -
Chapter Three: Development of Models

As verified in Section A.1.1, the optimal length of beam elements for the assumed
structural configuration is 2.5m. Such a dimension results in 30 beam elements for the arch
and deck with the span of 75m.
In the linear model, one truss element is assigned for each cable and therefore there
are 14 truss elements in total. In the nonlinear model, as a result of mesh sensitivity
analysis (Section A.2.3), there are 10 beam elements assigned to each cable providing 140
beam elements in total.
The total number of nodes in the linear model is 122. This number reflects the fact
that the beam and truss elements do not need to be connected via a sophisticated element.
At the connection of a beam and a truss element, both elements share the same node.
The total number of nodes in the nonlinear model is 472 resulting from the 30
beam elements in the arch and deck (60 in total), 140 elements to model the cables, and 28
connector elements connecting the end nodes of the cables with the nodes in the arch and
deck. The larger number of elements results in increase of computational time.

3.3.5 Applied Loads

The loads applied within the models are: permanent load (DL), live load (LL), and
global thermal load (GTL). The magnitude of DL reflects the density of selected materials.
Design loads assumed within the analyses are determined according to the Canadian
Highway Bridge Design Code CHBDC (2014), section 3, Cl. 3.8.9. The magnitude of LL,
assuming pedestrian bridges and taking into consideration 75m long span 2m wide deck is
5000N/m. A description of procedures determining a definition of all assumed loads is
provided in Section 3.4.1.3.
All loads are applied similarly in both the linear and nonlinear models. A local
thermal load (LTL) was employed to achieve additional tensioning of the cables in the
nonlinear models (Section 3.4.1.4). The sequence of applied loads is as follows:
• Undeformed state, no loads applied
• Static loads (DL and LL) and GTL are applied first (simultaneously)
• LTL applied second to generate additional tensioning in the cables (only in
the nonlinear models)

- 73 -
Chapter Three: Development of Models

3.4 Methodology of FE Modeling and Evaluating of Results

The thesis considers a large number of models whose geometric and material
composition change at several levels in order to investigate the sensitivity of the
configurations analyzed to the parameters of interest.
Therefore, a universal parametric input file was developed to generate the required
configurations efficiently. A general scheme of the model was prepared in the graphical
interface of Abaqus v. 6.13 utilizing the finite elements described in Section A.1 and
verified according to Section A.2.
A sophisticated parametric input file was established based on an input file of a
model with the general scheme. The internal structure of the input file was modified in
order to accommodate the required parameters such as overall structural geometry, the
configuration of the cross-sections, material composition, boundary conditions, and loads.
Spread sheet based tools and particular keywords (commands) were combined to develop
the parametric input file.

3.4.1 Pre-processing and Development of Universal Parametric Model

The parameters of interest are:


• Superstructure geometry
• Cross-sectional parameters and material properties definition
• Load definition
• Boundary condition definition

Typically, an input file consisted of a “model data” section defining nodes,


elements, materials, assembly, or initial conditions and a “history data” section defining
analysis type, loading, or output requests. Model and history data were separated by
definition of a step. A step is described in the history data portion of the input file.
Everything appearing before the first step definition is model data, and everything
appearing within and following the first step definition is history data. The step defines the
analysis procedure such as static, dynamic, heat transfer, etc. Only one analysis procedure
was allowed per step and therefore multiple steps may have been required, as per Abaqus
Analysis User’s Manual (2014).

- 74 -
Chapter Three: Development of Models

Creating of FE models directly via a parametric input file is a powerful method


whose main advantage is high efficiency while generating a large number of models.
Nevertheless, this method requires a detailed approach and knowledge of particular
keywords (commands).
Essential parts of the model and history data of the universal parametric input file
developed for the purposes of this thesis are described in the sections below. The entire
parametric input file is provided in the Section A.3.

3.4.1.1 Superstructure Geometry

The spatial geometry of the superstructure was defined via coordinates of nodes in
the arch, deck, and cables. The shape of the curved arch and curved deck was determined
via a combination of trigonometric functions with a parabolic curve in general form
expressed via Equation 3-1. Where f is the rise of the parabola, s is the span of the
parabola, and x is the coordinate along span of the parabola.
4𝑓𝑓
𝑦𝑦 = ∗ (𝑠𝑠 − 𝑥𝑥 ) ∗ 𝑥𝑥
𝑠𝑠 2
Equation 3-1

The geometric variables incorporated in the spread sheet in order to define a


particular shape and position of the arch and deck are specified below.

Arch related variables:


• Span: s
• Arch rise: f (A)
• Arch rise to span ratio: f(A)/s
• Angle of arch inclination from vertical plane: ω
• Angle of rotation about vertical axis at located at midspan: θ

Deck related variables


• Span: s
• Deck reach: f(D) (applicable only in configurations with curved deck)
• Deck reach to span ratio: f(D)/s (applicable only in configurations with curved
deck)

- 75 -
Chapter Three: Development of Models

• Rise of the camber of the deck in vertical direction: f(VC)


• Span of the deck assuming deck camber in vertical direction: s(VC) = s
• Ratio of the rise of the deck camber in vertical direction and the span: f/s(VC)
• Vertical offset of the arch and deck abutments: g(V)
• Horizontal offset of the arch and deck abutments: g(H)

Formulae that include the geometric variables of the arch and deck, following the
equation of a parabola combined with specific trigonometric functions, are specified below.
The X, Y, and Z coordinates correspond to the longitudinal, vertical and transversal
directions, respectively.
Node coordinates of the arch in the longitudinal, vertical and transversal directions
are expressed via Equations 3-2, 3-3, and 3-3, respectively The parameter 𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖(0) represents a
reference coordinate that is increasing linearly from zero to total span 𝑠𝑠 in the longitudinal
direction between the abutments of the arch.

𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠
𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖(𝐴𝐴) = − 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐(𝜃𝜃 ) ∗ � − 𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖(0) �
2 2

Equation 3-2

4𝑓𝑓(𝐴𝐴)
𝑌𝑌𝑖𝑖(𝐴𝐴) = � ∗ �𝑠𝑠 − 𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖(0) � ∗ 𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖(0) � ∗ cos(𝜔𝜔)
𝑠𝑠 2
Equation 3-3

𝑍𝑍𝑖𝑖 (𝐴𝐴)
𝜋𝜋
⎡𝜃𝜃 = 0, 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠(𝜔𝜔) ∗ 𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖 (0) + �𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 �𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖 (0) ∗ ∗ 𝑘𝑘(𝑤𝑤) � ∗ 𝑓𝑓(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴) � ,⎤
⎢ �𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁(𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁) − 1� ∗ 𝐿𝐿(𝐴𝐴)𝑖𝑖 ⎥
= 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 ⎢ ⎥
𝑠𝑠 𝜋𝜋
⎢ � − 𝑋𝑋0 � ∗ sin(𝜃𝜃 ) + �𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 �𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖 (0) ∗ ∗ 𝑘𝑘(𝑤𝑤) � ∗ 𝑓𝑓(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴) � ⎥
⎣ 2 �𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁(𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁) − 1� ∗ 𝐿𝐿(𝐴𝐴)𝑖𝑖 ⎦
Equation 3-4

In the Equation 3-4, there is a condition that takes into consideration the angle 𝜃𝜃,
which is the angle of rotation of the arch about a vertical axis at located at the midspan of

- 76 -
Chapter Three: Development of Models

the arch. When angle 𝜃𝜃 = 0, the equation assumes an arch only inclined from the vertical
plane. Vertical planar arches can be also defined; in such cases 𝑍𝑍𝑖𝑖 (𝐴𝐴) is zero. In the second
part of the condition, i.e., the case when 𝜃𝜃 ≠ 0, the inclination of the arch from the vertical
plane (angle ω) is zero and the arch is rotated only about the vertical axis at midspan.
It should be noted that the coordinate 𝑍𝑍𝑖𝑖 (𝐴𝐴) establishes whether or not the arch is
contained in a plane. The necessity for a nonplanar arch may arise in situations where a
spatial configuration requires an antifunicular arch. Equation 3-4 allows for the definition
of a nonplanar arch via a sinusoidal goniometric function. Arguments of the function, the
𝑘𝑘(𝑤𝑤) (the number of sinusoidal half-waves) and 𝑓𝑓(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴) (the arch reach in the z-direction), can
be varied in a form-finding process. Variables 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁(𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁) and 𝐿𝐿(𝑖𝑖) stand for the number of
nodes in the arch and the projected length of the arch between individual nodes whose z-
direction coordinate is being sought, respectively. To achieve a planar arch, the variable
𝑓𝑓(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴) is set to zero. The shape of a nonplanar antifunicular arch is the result of a complex
form-finding procedure. The details of such a procedure were described in Section 2.4.4.
The coordinates of the deck nodes in the longitudinal, vertical and transversal
directions are expressed via Equations 3-5, 3-6, and 3-7, respectively.
𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖(𝐷𝐷) = 𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖(0)
Equation 3-5

4𝑓𝑓(𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉)
𝑌𝑌𝑖𝑖(𝐷𝐷) = � 2 ∗ �𝑠𝑠 − 𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖(0) � ∗ 𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖(0) � + 𝑔𝑔(𝑉𝑉)
𝑠𝑠
Equation 3-6

4𝑓𝑓(𝐷𝐷)
𝑍𝑍𝑖𝑖(𝐷𝐷) = � ∗ �𝑠𝑠 − 𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖(0) � ∗ 𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖(0) � + 𝑔𝑔(𝐻𝐻)
𝑠𝑠 2
Equation 3-7

The coordinates of the cable nodes in the longitudinal, vertical and transversal
directions are expressed via Equations 3-8, 3-9, and 3-10, respectively. 𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖(𝐶𝐶−0) represents
the location of a cable along a span. In a general configuration, the structure comprises 14
equally spaced cables located 5m apart in vertical planes perpendicular to the longitudinal
line connecting the arch abutments. The parameters 𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖(𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼) and 𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖(𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁) stand for total

- 77 -
Chapter Three: Development of Models

number of nodes within one cable and the node order in the cable, respectively. The
inclination of the cables is a function of the mutual positions of the arch and deck.

𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖 (𝐶𝐶) = 𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖(𝐶𝐶−0)


Equation 3-8

𝑌𝑌𝑖𝑖(𝐴𝐴) − 𝑌𝑌𝑖𝑖 (𝐷𝐷)


𝑌𝑌𝑖𝑖(𝐶𝐶) = 𝑌𝑌𝑖𝑖(𝐷𝐷) + �𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖(𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼) − 1� ∗ � �
𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖(𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁) − 1
Equation 3-9

𝑍𝑍𝑖𝑖(𝐴𝐴) − 𝑍𝑍𝑖𝑖 (𝐷𝐷)


𝑍𝑍𝑖𝑖(𝐶𝐶) = 𝑍𝑍𝑖𝑖(𝐷𝐷) + �𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖(𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼) − 1� ∗ � �
𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖(𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁) − 1
Equation 3-10

It should be noted that in a linear model, the cables are created via truss elements
that have only two nodes and location of these two nodes matches the coordinates of nodes
in arch and deck. Therefore, Equations 3-8, 3-9, and 3-10 are not relevant in the linear
model.

3.4.1.2 Definition of Cross-sectional Parameters and Material Properties

The cross-section of each structural component, i.e., arch, deck and cables, is
defined via an overall dimension, a thickness of the assumed profile, and a location of
section points. Section points are determined in order to read stress at the desired location.
The definition of material properties is directly related to the assumed material. An
example of cross-sectional parameters and material properties for an arch made of steel in
the parametric input file is presented in Figure 3-8.

- 78 -
Chapter Three: Development of Models

*PARAMETER
**ARCH
**arch material properties (STEEL)
E_arch = 2.00E+11
G_arch = 7.70E+10
nu_arch = 0.3
Density_arch = 7800
CTE_arch = 1.20E-05
**arch outside dimensions and wall thickness
r_arch = 0.375
t_arch = 0.025
**Section points arch
SP_01_X1_A = 0.000000
SP_01_X2_A = 0.362500
SP_02_X1_A = 0.000000
SP_02_X2_A = -0.362500
SP_03_X1_A = 0.362500
SP_03_X2_A = 0.000000
SP_04_X1_A = -0.362500
SP_04_X2_A = 0.000000
*Part, name=Part01_Arch
** Section: Section01_Arch Profile: Profile01_Arch
*Beam General Section, elset=_PickedSet131, poisson = <nu_arch>,
density=<Density_arch>, section=PIPE
<r_arch>, <t_arch>
0.,0.,-1.
<E_arch>, <G_arch>, <CTE_arch>
*Section Points
<SP_01_X1_A>, <SP_01_X2_A>, <SP_02_X1_A>, <SP_02_X2_A>, <SP_03_X1_A>,
<SP_03_X2_A>, <SP_04_X1_A>, <SP_04_X2_A>
*End Part

Figure 3-8: Example of a parametric definition of cross-sectional parameters and


material properties of a steel arch

3.4.1.3 Definition of Loads

Load in the parametric input file is applied in two individual steps. Static and
thermal loads are defined in the first step, while the second step is defined to determine
additional tensioning of cables.

3.4.1.3.1 Definition of Static Load


Static load is taken as gravity load and a live load. The gravity load is applied to all
components and the live load is applied as a line load on the deck. The gravity load reflects
specific density of the materials defined in Table 3-1. The magnitude of the live load is
specified in Section 3.3.5.

- 79 -
Chapter Three: Development of Models

An additional weight resulting from a non-structural mass that represents a walking


surface is determined via a line load as well as the live load, i.e., there are two loads
defined as a line load. The magnitude of the additional weight is 972N/m, which is kept
constant in all models. Both the gravity and the live load were defined in the first loading
step. An example of a gravity and live load definition in the parametric input files is
presented in Figure 3-9.

*PARAMETER
**Magnitude of LL
Ped_Load=-5000
Walking_Surf=-972
LL=Ped_Load+Walking_Surf
** LOADS
** Name: GravityLoad Type: Gravity
*Dload
_PickedSet270, GRAV, 9.81, 0., -1., 0.
** Name: Load_02_LL Type: Line load
*Dload
Deck_Segments, PY, <LL>
**

Figure 3-9: Example of parametric definition of gravity and live loads

3.4.1.3.2 Definition Global Thermal Load


A global thermal load (GTL) was defined in the first loading step as a predefined
field. The magnitude of the GTL varied for particular configurations. An example of global
thermal load definition in the parametric script is presented Figure 3-10.

*PARAMETER
**Global_Thermal_Loading
G_Th_L =-50
** LOADS
** PREDEFINED FIELDS
** Name: Predefined Field_Th_Load Type: Temperature
*Temperature
_PickedSet272, <G_Th_L>
**

Figure 3-10: Example of parametric definition of a global thermal load

3.4.1.4 Additional Tensioning of the Cables

Even though other methods exist, for example through definition of an initial stain
in the material, additional tensioning of the cables, applied to the models considered in this

- 80 -
Chapter Three: Development of Models

thesis, is implemented through application of localized thermal load (LTL). It is the


negative thermal load that is applied to the cables that generates additional tensioning in
those cables. Negative thermal load results in a desired contraction of the cables that will
then develop additional tension because the cable lengths are fixed between the arch and
the deck. In practical applications, additional tensioning of the cables would be achieved
with a jack.
Due to the symmetrical arrangement of the models assumed in this thesis, the LTL
is defined to two cables at a time because the lengths of the cables that are located at the
same distance from the vertical centre line of the bridge are identical.
Additional tensioning of cables is employed only in Chapter Six. Chapters Four and
Five do not examine the effect of additional tensioning of cables.
A magnitude of the LTL determines the additional force that is developed in the
cables. There are several ways to determine an “optimal” level of additional cable
tensioning. An analysis that searches for a required deck shape is typically involved. It is
the DL that is being considered when determining the shape of the deck (Nettleton, 1997).
The magnitude of the total force on a cable (including additional cable tensioning) in
practical applications should not exceed 40% of the ultimate strength of the cables under
permanent load condition (Chen et al., 2000).
In this thesis, the magnitude of the –ve LTL (the temperature) that develops the
required additional tensile force in individual cables is determined via Equation 3-11.
Equation 3-11 is based on equation of parabolic curved, captured in Equation 3-1.

𝐶𝐶(𝑖𝑖) 𝐶𝐶(𝑖𝑖)
𝐿𝐿𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇(𝑖𝑖) = 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 + 4𝑚𝑚× �1 − �×
𝑛𝑛 𝑛𝑛

Equation 3-11

Therefore, the parabolic distribution was selected in order to account for the factors
listed above via three different parameters: (1) 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇; the base temperature that is applied to
all cables regardless of their length, (2) 𝑚𝑚; the peak value added to 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 at midspan
(representing a “rise” of the parabolic curve), and (3) 𝑛𝑛; the parameter determining the
increase in curvature of the parabolic distribution. The default magnitude of the parameter

- 81 -
Chapter Three: Development of Models

𝑛𝑛 is 15 which reflects the 75m span of the bridge and the 5 m spacing of the cables in the
reference structural configuration assumed in this thesis.
Values of n below 15 are beneficial because the contribution of both the CF(V) and
CF(H) components of the CF are less and reduce the deck deflection at midspan; therefore,
less additional cable tensioning is required. The parameter 𝐶𝐶(𝑖𝑖) indicates a coordinate of
individual cables. In the reference structural configuration, there are 14 cables organized
symmetrically, hence, “i” ranges from 1 to 7. An example of LTL definition in the
parametric input file that assumes parameters 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 = −200°𝐶𝐶, 𝑚𝑚 = −200°𝐶𝐶, and 𝑛𝑛 = 15 is
presented Figure 3-11.

*PARAMETER
**Cables_Additional_tensioning_temperatures
T_Clbs_01_14 = -249.8
T_Clbs_02_13 = -292.4
T_Clbs_03_12 = -328.0
T_Clbs_04_11 = -356.4
T_Clbs_05_10 = -377.8
T_Clbs_06_09 = -392.0
T_Clbs_07_08 = -399.1
** LOADS
** PREDEFINED FIELDS
** Name: PT01 Type: Temperature
*Temperature
Part03_Cables-1.Set03_Cables01, <T_Clbs_01_14>
** Name: PT02 Type: Temperature
*Temperature
Part03_Cables-1.Set03_Cables02, <T_Clbs_02_13>
** Name: PT03 Type: Temperature
*Temperature
Part03_Cables-1.Set03_Cables03, <T_Clbs_03_12>
** Name: PT04 Type: Temperature
*Temperature
Part03_Cables-1.Set03_Cables04, <T_Clbs_04_11>
** Name: PT05 Type: Temperature
*Temperature
Part03_Cables-1.Set03_Cables05, <T_Clbs_05_10>
** Name: PT06 Type: Temperature
*Temperature
Part03_Cables-1.Set03_Cables06, <T_Clbs_06_09>
** Name: PT07 Type: Temperature
*Temperature
Part03_Cables-1.Set03_Cables07, <T_Clbs_07_08>
**

Figure 3-11: Example of parametric definition of LTL utilized for additional cable
tensioning

- 82 -
Chapter Three: Development of Models

3.4.1.5 Definition of Boundary Conditions

The BCs of the arch and the deck represent conditions that would be present at the
ends of the arch and deck in practice. The end nodes of the arch and deck represent the
springings and abutments of the arch and the deck, respectively. For the arch, both ends
were taken to be fixed. In the deck, not all DOFs were restrained and, therefore, the deck
end nodes were allowed to translate or rotate in certain directions as a function of the
selected configuration of SABs.
In the parametric input file, the availability of a certain DOF in a specific direction
is simply represented via a listing of the DOF. Omission of a specific translation or rotation
means that DOF is allowed. An example is presented on Figure 3-12. In the figure, it is
shown that DOFs 1, 2, 3, and 4 are listed and, therefore, restrained. The DOFs 5 and 6 not
listed and, therefore, free, allowing rotation about the Y and Z axes.

- 83 -
Chapter Three: Development of Models

*PARAMETER
**Orientation_Of_Deck_BC_as_function_of_deck_rise_for_Datum_CSYS
Deck_f_to_s_ratio=0.25
span=75
deck_reach=Deck_f_to_s_ratio*span
X=1
**"Z" coordinated for Datum_CSYS
Z=(4*deck_reach/span**2)*(span-X)*X
** ASSEMBLY
*Assembly, name=Assembly
*Nset, nset=Deck_LHS_node, internal, instance=Part02_Deck-1
1,
*Nset, nset=Deck_RHS_node, internal, instance=Part02_Deck-1
17,
*Nset, nset="_T-Datum csys_01", internal
Deck_LHS_node,
*Transform, nset="_T-Datum csys_01"
<X>,0.,<Z>,0,1,0
*Nset, nset="_T-Datum csys_02", internal
Deck_RHS_node,
*Transform, nset="_T-Datum csys_02"
-<X>,0.,<Z>,0,1,0
*Orientation, name="Datum csys-1"
1.,0.,0., 0., 1., 0.
1, 0.
*End Assembly
**
** BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
** Name: BC-2_DeckBC_LHS Type: Displacement/Rotation
*Boundary
Deck_LHS_node, 1, 1
Deck_LHS_node, 2, 2
Deck_LHS_node, 3, 3
Deck_LHS_node, 4, 4
** Name: BC-2_DeckBC_RHS Type: Displacement/Rotation
*Boundary
Deck_RHS_node, 1, 1
Deck_RHS_node, 2, 2
Deck_RHS_node, 3, 3
Deck_RHS_node, 4, 4
**

Figure 3-12: Example of parametric definition of local direction for deck boundary
condition

- 84 -
Chapter Three: Development of Models

A schematic representation of the general six DOFs (three translational and three
rotational) is shown in Figure 3-13.

Global directions: X, Y, Z
3

Y
X
1
4 3
5
6

2
6 5

Deck
2
4 1

Figure 3-13: A schematic representation of general directions of DOFs shown on a


curved deck

In Chapters Four and Five, the orientation of deck BCs follows the global
orientation as shown in Figure 3-13. However, in Chapter Six, in order to achieve BCs that
are more feasible in industrial applications, the BCs of the deck were altered; a local
orientation is selected. In such case, the direction “1” follows the longitudinal axis of the
deck. Because the local orientation of the deck BCs, in Chapter Six is a function of the
deck shape, in particular the deck reach f(D) in curved decks, the local orientation of the
deck boundary conditions is defined as a parameter. In configurations with a straight deck,
the local orientation follows the global directions. However, in configurations with a
curved deck, the local orientation of the deck BCs parameter plays a key role. An example
of definition of the local orientation of the deck BCs is presented in Figure 3-12.
As outlined in Section A.2, in order to avoid numerical singularities resulting from
under-defined BCs, the deck must have another constraint. This constraint is a “vertical

- 85 -
Chapter Three: Development of Models

roller” located at the mid-span of the deck, constraining translation in the longitudinal
direction (X global direction). All the other translational and rotational DOFs are available.
By constraining the translations only in the longitudinal direction, the FE model becomes
spatially stable, and susceptibility to numerical singularities decreases dramatically. The
significance of variability in the BCs of the deck is studied in Chapter Five.

3.5 Material Properties used in FE Models

The material properties used in the analyses are presented in Table 3-1. The
properties were taken from the Handbook of steel construction for steel, Dalavos (1996) for
advanced composite materials (ACMs), and Wang & Wu (2010) for the cables.
Table 3-1: Material properties of assumed materials
STEEL GFRP CFRP
Material property Arch Arch Arch
Cables Cables Cables
&Deck &Deck &Deck
E [GPa] 200 165 54 80 147 230
G [GPa] 77.00 63.30 3.77 3.77 3.84 3.84
CTE [m/m/°C] 12E -06 12E-06 8E -06 8E-06 2.8E-06 2.8E-06
nu [-] 0.30 0.30 0.27 0.27 0.24 0.24
ρ [kg/m^3] 7,800 7,800 1,982 2,600 1,535 1,600
F(t-max) [MPa] 500 1,630 1,800 1,500 3,250 3,400
Stress Limit [%] N/A 40% 20% 20% 50% 50%
Stress Limit [MPa] 400 652 360 300 1,625 1,700

In the case of ACMs, the intention here was not to develop material models that
would reflect any specific product. The objective was to develop models with generic
material properties that would represent two types of ACMs used for pultruded profiles.
It should be noted that although the properties of pultruded profiles are not strictly
isotropic, isotropic material models listed for the Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer (GFRP)
and Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) were assumed because the main
contribution to member stiffness is provided via longitudinally oriented fibres having
isotropic character.

- 86 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

4.1 Introduction

In Chapter Four the significance of geometric variables on the overall structural


response of the three assumed configurations of SABs is investigated, under changing
global thermal load (GTL) and live load (LL).
The GTL is applied equally over the entire structure at three distinctive levels, and
is considered to be the main load in question. The LL is applied in two load cases to
identify its effect on the bending moment in the arch. In conventional structures, thermal
loads can result in extensive stresses and deformations, and therefore, in the present
chapter, attention is mainly given to this kind of loading.
Linear FE parametric models are employed to perform the proposed analyses
(details on linear parametric models are provided in Section 3.3.1.2).
Chapter Four is divided into five sections. Section 4.2 outlines the main objectives
of this chapter. The specifications of the linear FE models and the methodology are
provided in Section 4.3, with details of the geometry of the three assumed configurations in
relation to the developed FE models. The range of individual variables, magnitudes of
assumed loads, and combinations of the variables are specified.
Section 4.4 focuses on a description and discussion of the results. The results are
discussed taking into account the significance of the individual variables and the type of
structural response in question. Several types of structural responses are evaluated, such as
axial forces, bending moments in the arch, bending moments in the deck, and tensile forces
in the cables. The key understandings obtained from the results are discussed, and details of
the investigation are provided in Appendix B.
Section 4.5 summarizes the main contributions of the present chapter. It focuses on
the trends in the structural response of individual components (the arch, deck, and cables)
taking into account the assumed geometric variables and two types of load (LL and GTL).
Critical configurations are identified, and the effects of the key parameters are discussed.
The obtained understanding of the structural response provides the basis for the subsequent
chapters of this thesis.

- 87 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

4.2 Objectives

The main goal of Chapter Four is to investigate the significance of geometric


variables on structural response in the arch, deck, and cables in the three structural
configurations, while taking into account the effect of GTL and LL. The individual
objectives of this Chapter are:

• To determine if the effect of GTL is a significant issue in the assumed configurations


of SABs compared to the effect of LL;

• To investigate which of the defined geometric variables has the most influence on the
structural response under GTL and LL;

• To identify which combination of primary and secondary variables represents the most
sensitive configuration to provide a base configuration for following chapters; and

• To describe the structural response of the three main configurations under GTL and LL
and to provide a guideline for the analysis and design of configurations that are similar
in nature to those presented in Chapter Four.

4.3 Model Specifications

4.3.1 Characteristics of the Models and Applied Materials

Linear FE models are used to evaluate the structural response of the assumed
configurations. The developed configurations assume steel as the main structural material
of the arch and deck. The cables comprise high tensile strength steel tendons. Specific
material properties are provided in Section 3.5. Additional tensioning of the cables is not
considered.

4.3.2 Reference Configuration

The structural response from the spatial configurations assumed in the present
chapter is being compared to a reference configuration. The reference configuration is a
vertical planar arch supporting a straight deck. The BCs of the arch and deck are the same
as in the spatial configurations. The primary variable (the f(A)/s ratio) of the reference

- 88 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

configuration varies in the same fashion as in the spatial configurations in order to provide
comparable geometries.

4.3.3 Boundary Conditions

The boundary conditions (BCs) of the arch and deck are the same in the three
configurations. A schematic sketch of the assumed BCs is shown in Figure 4-1.

Arch

UR3 UR3
U1 U1

Deck
U1 = Translation
Reference line
UR3 = Rotation

Deck

Figure 4-1: A schematic sketch depicting the boundary conditions of the arch and
deck

The arch is fixed at both ends. BCs of the deck allow for the following: 1) a
longitudinal displacement in the direction parallel to the line (the “reference line”) that
connects the springings of arch and 2) a rotation about the horizontal axis that is

- 89 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

perpendicular to the reference line at the ends of the deck. The BCs in the FE models are
described in Section 3.4.1.5. The reason for the same BCs in all three configurations
(regardless of their geometric uniqueness) is to investigate the influence of the assumed
concept and determine the factors that may result in a more efficient design. The
significance of the various BCs of the deck for the overall structural response of the three
configurations is investigated in Chapter Five. The abutments of the arch and deck lie on
the same reference line, and therefore, there is no vertical or lateral difference between the
starting and ending coordinates of the arch and deck.

4.3.4 Geometry of Spatial Configurations

The structural responses are investigated in the three spatial configurations to cover
most cases of possible out-of-plane loads. The assumed configurations are as follows:
Configuration C01 has a vertical arch supporting a curved deck, Configuration C02 has an
arch inclined from a vertical plane supporting a straight deck, and Configuration C03 has a
vertical arch rotated about its vertical axis at the midspan supporting a straight deck. In all
configurations, the arch is planar, symmetric in plan-view, and its shape follows a parabolic
curve (described by Equation A-16). The shape of the curved deck in Configuration C01 is
also a parabolic curve. The curved deck is contained in a horizontal plane. Structural
arrangements and a visualization of the primary and secondary variables in Configuration
C01, C02, and C03 are presented in Figure 4-2, Figure 4-3, and Figure 4-4, respectively.
The primary and secondary variables relevant to the three assumed configurations
are presented Table 4-1. While the primary and secondary variables change, the assumed
span of 75m remains constant in all conducted analyses.
Table 4-1: Primary and secondary variables of the assumed spatial configurations
Configuration Primary Variable Secondary Variable
C01 f(D)/s: Deck reach over span ratio
f(A)/s: Arch rise
C02 ω: Angle of arch inclination from a vertical plane
over span ratio
C03 θ: Angle of arch rotation about a vertical axis

A range of the primary and secondary variables in the configurations is presented in


Table 4-2.

- 90 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

Table 4-2: Range of primary and secondary variables


Configuration C01 Configuration C02 Configuration C03
Parameter f(A)/s ratio f(A)/s ratio f(A)/s ratio
0.15 0.20 0.25 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.15 0.2 0.25
Span; s = [m] 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Arch Rise;
11.25 15 18.75 11.25 15 18.75 11.25 15 18.75
f(A) = [m]
Deck Shape Curved Straight Straight
0 0 0
Deck Reach; 11.25 11.25 11.25
N/A
f(D) [m] 15 15 15
18.75 18.75 18.75
Angle of 0 0 0
Arch 15 15 15
N/A N/A
Inclination; 30 30 30
ω = [°] 45 45 45
Angle of 0 0 0
Arch 15 15 15
N/A
Rotation; 30 30 30
θ = [°] 45 45 45

- 91 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

β
f(A)
α

s f(D)

f(D)

Figure 4-2: Configuration C01: a graphical representation of the relevant geometric


variables and a 3D perspective view

- 92 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

f(A)
f(A)

Figure 4-3: Configuration C02: a graphical representation of the relevant geometric


variables and a 3D perspective view

- 93 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

f(A)

Figure 4-4: Configuration C03: a graphical representation of the relevant geometric


variables and a 3D perspective view

- 94 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

4.3.5 Cross-sectional Properties

In the models, the structural members, such as the arch and deck, comprise hollow
structural sections (HSS). A solid circular section is assumed for the cables. The specific
parameters of the assumed cross-sections are listed in Table 4-3. In the table, I22 represents
the moment of inertia about a vertical axis and I11 represents the moment of inertia about a
horizontal axis.

Table 4-3: Cross-sectional properties of the arch, deck, and cables


Parameter Arch Deck Cables
Shape

Diameter [m] 0.750 N/A 0.015


Height [m] N/A 0.400 N/A
Width [m] N/A 2.000 N/A
Wall thickness [m] 0.025 0.020 N/A
Cross-sectional Area [m2] 4.59E-02 5.94E-02 1.77E-04
Moment of inertia: I22 [m4] 3.06E-03 5.04E-02 2.49E-09
Moment of inertia: I11 [m4] 3.06E-03 3.70E-03 2.49E-09
Torsional constant [m4] 6.12E-03 1.17E-02 4.97E-09
Weight per unit length [N/m] 3,860 8,990 14

The selected cross-sectional properties remain unchanged in the analyses. These


cross-sectional properties were selected based on case studies of a similar nature (for
example Sarmiento-Comesias et al., 2011).
It should be noted that the idea was not to design a specific structural member. The
intention was to select sections that have reasonable dimensions and allow for the
evaluation of the structural response in question.

4.3.6 Applied Loads

Three types of load are applied to the FE models: DL, LL, and GTL. The magnitude
of the loads was determined according to Section 3.3.5.

- 95 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

The distribution of LL over the deck can significantly influence the distribution and
magnitude of the internal forces in the arch and deck. In vertical planar arches, LL applied
only to one half of the deck results in larger bending moments in the arch (Nettleton, 1977).
In contrast, in particular configurations of SABs, larger internal moments in the arch
resulted from LL applied uniformly over the entire deck (Sarmiento-Comesias, 2011).
Therefore, in the configurations considered here, the LL is applied using two arrangements:
1) LL applied over the entire deck (LL100) and 2) LL applied over one half of the deck
(LL50). LL50 starts at the abutment and ends at the midspan of the deck.
GTL, applied equally to all structural components, is considered to be the main load
because, in conventional structures, this type of load can cause extensive stresses (Dilger,
1983 and Sherif, 1991). Therefore, in spatially complex structures, such as SABs, this
concern also arises. The magnitude of the GTL is a function of the assumed temperature
change. There are three temperature levels considered in this study. The reference level is
0°C. The other two levels represent positive (+ve) and negative (–ve) thermal loads with
magnitudes of -50°C and +50°C, respectively. The magnitude of GTL was selected to
reflect the Canadian climate to examine the effect of possible extreme GTL.
The +ve or –ve GTL applied simultaneously with DL represents two loading cases.
The LL50 or LL100 applied simultaneously with DL represents other two load cases. DL
applied individually also represents one loading case. The DL is always applied to the
structure. In total, there are five loading cases that are being applied and the responses from
these cases compared. The abbreviations of the five load cases are: a) DL, b) +ve GTL,
c) –ve GTL, d) LL50, and e) LL100.

4.3.7 Structural Response

The thirteen outputs investigated are summarized in Table 4-4. From the list, the
key outputs such as the axial force (SF1) and combined moment (SM(COMB)) in the arch,
combined bending moment (SM(COMB)) in the deck, and tensile axial force in the cables
(CF) are discussed in detail in Section 4.4. An evaluation of the remaining outputs is
implemented in the complete result tables, describing the trends in the structural behaviour,
and is provided in Appendix B.3.

- 96 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

Table 4-4 lists single outputs, such as SF1 and CF, and combined outputs, such as
SM(COMB). The approach of the combined outputs was selected to account for the effect of
out-of-plane loads to which the arch and deck are exposed. The combined outputs are shear
force (SF(COMB)), section bending moment (SM(COMB)), and displacement (U(COMB)), and the
combined quantities are calculated using Equation 4-1, Equation 4-2, and Equation 4-3,
respectively.

𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆(𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶) = �𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆22 + 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆32

Equation 4-1

𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆(𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶) = �𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆12 + 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆22


Equation 4-2

𝑈𝑈(𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶) = �𝑈𝑈22 + 𝑈𝑈32

Equation 4-3
Table 4-4: List of structural responses evaluated in Chapter Four
Symbol Description
SF1 Axial force in the direction of the longitudinal axis of the structural
component
SF2 Shear force in the vertical direction
SF3 Shear force in the horizontal transversal direction
SF(COMB) Combined shear force taking into account the effect of both SF2 and SF3
SM1 Section bending moment about the local axis in the horizontal transversal
direction (vertical bending moment)
SM2 Section bending moment about the local axis in the vertical direction
(transversal bending moment)
SM(COMB) Combined bending moment taking into account the effect of both SM1 and
SM2
SM3 Torsional moment
U2 Displacement in the vertical direction
U3 Displacement in the horizontal transversal direction
U(COMB) Combined displacement taking into account the effect of both U2 and U3
CF Axial force in a cable
CF(H) Horizontal component of the cable force
CF(V) Vertical component of the cable force

- 97 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

4.4 Results and Discussion

This section is organized as follows: Section 4.4.1 determines the critical pattern of
the LL distribution that governs the magnitude of the bending moment in the arch. The
critical case of LL is compared to GTL in Section 4.4.2. Furthermore, Section 4.4.2
determines the combination of the primary and secondary variables that results in a
configuration that is the most sensitive to the applied GTL and LL. A geometric variable
(either primary or secondary) that controls the arch behaviour is identified. Section 4.4.3
discusses the mechanism of the structural response and underlines the new achieved
understanding.
In order to avoid confusion, two terms should be clarified. The configuration whose
combination of primary and secondary variables results in the largest change in the
structural response is called the most “significant” configuration. It can be also said that the
configuration is the most “sensitive” to the applied load. However, the most significant (the
most sensitive) configuration does not always correlate with a configuration in which the
maximum magnitude (in the particular type of the structural response) occurs. Hence, the
configurations that are the most significant (most sensitive) and configurations that result in
maximum magnitude are differentiated within the text.
In the text that follows two terms are being used: a) “directly proportional” and b)
“inversely proportional”. These terms were adopted in order to describe the character of the
relationship between the change in geometry and the change in the structural response.
When the term directly proportional is used, for example: “a change in bending moment in
the arch is directly proportional to change in the f(A)/s ratio”, the intention is to express that
an increase in the geometric variable, the f(A)/s, results in an increase in the bending
moment in the arch. When the term inversely proportional is used, for example: “a change
in axial load in the arch is inversely proportional to the f(A)/s ratio”, the intention is to
express that when the geometric variable decreases, the axial load in the arch increases.
These two terms are often use to avoid lengthy repetitive descriptions.

4.4.1 Critical Live Load Distribution

In the three spatial configurations, all possible combinations of primary and


secondary variables were compared to determine the critical pattern of applied LL. Details

- 98 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

of the comparison of the two patterns of applied LL are provided in Appendix B, Table
B-1, Table B-2, and Table B-3 for the C01, C02 and C03, respectively.
The pattern of LL that results in a larger SM(COMB) in the arch is presented in Table
4-5. A comparison of the bending moment distributions for the two LL patterns in the
reference vertical planar arch, C01, C02, and C03 are presented in Figure 4-5, Figure 4-6,
Figure 4-7, and Figure 4-8, respectively.

Table 4-5: Critical patterns of LL distribution in the three spatial configurations


Configuration Critical live load distribution
C01 LL100:
Live load distributed equally over the entire length of the deck
C02 LL50:
Live load distributed only over one half of the deck starting at the deck
abutment and ending at the midspan
C03 LL100:
Live load distributed equally over the entire length of the deck

From Figure 4-5, the reference arch behaves as anticipated; LL50 results in a
significantly larger bending moment in the arch than the bending moment for LL100. The
difference between the bending moments resulting from LL50 and LL100 is ~750% (see
Table B-1), and it occurs in the configuration with f(A)/s = 0.25 (the largest in the range).

Figure 4-5: A comparison of the bending moment distributions in the reference


vertical planar arch f(A)/s = 0.25

- 99 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

In C01, the larger SM(COMB) results from LL100, as shown in Figure 4-6. The
difference between LL50 and L100 is ~15% (see Table B-1) in a combination of f (A)/s =
0.15 and f(D)/s = 0.25; this result is an opposite trend to the reference arch. Therefore, the
difference between moments is inversely proportional to arch rise f(A) and directly
proportional to deck reach f(D).

Figure 4-6: A comparison of the bending moment distributions in the arch of C01
with f(A)/s = 0.15 and f(D)/s = 0.25

A comparison shown in Figure 4-7 indicates that the inclined arch in C02 follows
the same behavioural pattern as the reference arch: LL50 causes a larger SM(COMB) in the
arch. The largest difference in magnitude, ~38% (see Table B-2), due to LL100 and LL50,
occurs in the configuration with f (A)/s = 0.15 and ω = 15°. The trend in sensitivity to the
type of LL pattern is inversely proportional to the arch rise and to the angle of arch
inclination from the vertical plane.
Further, even though the difference between moments is smaller in the combination
with f(A)/s = 0.25 and ω = 45° (~6%), the overall magnitude of SM(COMB) in this
configuration is larger than in the combination with f(A)/s = 0.15 and ω = 15°.

- 100 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

Figure 4-7: A comparison of the bending moment distributions in the arch of C02
with f(A)/s = 0.15 and ω = 15°
From Figure 4-8, SM(COMB) resulting from LL100 is larger than that from LL50 (see
Table B-3). The only exception is the combination with f(A)/s = 0.25 and θ = 15° where
SM(COMB) from LL50 is larger than that from LL100. Nevertheless, the difference in the
combination is only ~1.5% and, therefore, LL100 is the critical case that is used in
subsequent analyses. In C03, the largest difference between LL100 and LL50 is ~6.5%,
which occurs in the combination with f(A)/s = 0.15 and θ = 30°. The smallest difference of
~0.25% is present in the combination with f(A)/s = 0.20 and θ = 15°. Consequently, in C03,
the difference between the bending moments that result from LL100 and LL50 is highly
dependent on a particular combination of f(A) and angle θ, and therefore, this case may
require additional attention during analysis.

Figure 4-8: A comparison of the bending moment distributions in the arch of C03
with f(A)/s = 0.15 and θ = 30°

- 101 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

4.4.2 Comparison of Global Thermal Load with Critical Case of Live Load

The structural response in the critical case of the applied LL is compared with the
structural response in the case with the applied GTL. In particular, the change in the
structural response resulting from the addition of the GTL or the LL to the initial state,
when the structure is exposed only to DL, is compared. DL is the case that is always
applied on the structure.
The comparison is carried out for all three configurations under all the assumed
geometric combinations. Both the positive and negative GTL are included in the
comparison. The geometrical variables that control a structural response are identified for
all components of the structure. The sections below discuss the crucial types of response
such as SF1, SM(COMB), SM3, and CF. Details related to the other types of responses such
as SF(COMB) and U(COMB) are provided in Appendix B.
A comparison of the structural response in all three structural components (arch,
deck and cables) is performed in a tabular form accompanied with charts showing the
distribution of a particular response. Values of the internal forces, provided in the tables,
represent maximum magnitudes achieved in specific load cases.
Each configuration and structural component is assigned a set of two tables. These
two tables show the magnitude of the particular response in question resulting from
application of DL, DL and LL, DL and +ve GTL, and DL and –ve GTL. The first table
from the set lists the magnitudes of the internal forces and the second compares the change
due to the applied loads. The difference between individual cases of LL and GTL is
indicated in percentage (%) to identify the variation in the response due to +ve and –ve
GTL. The last column in the second table states whether or not the applied GTL has a
larger effect than the critical case of LL.
It should be noted that particular values of a change in a specific type of structural
response, presented in the body of text, are taken from the two detailed result tables. Direct
cross-reference to these result tables is provided; these result tables are placed in a relevant
appendix section, due to their large size.

- 102 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

4.4.2.1 Configuration C01

4.4.2.1.1 Expected Behaviour


In C01, the effect of GTL is compared with the effect of LL100. The arch in C01
acts as a curved cantilever beam that resists the out-of-plane load transferred from the deck
via the cables (see Figure 4-2).
The horizontal component of the force in the cable, CF(H), develops the out-of-plane
bending moments in the arch, and the vertical component of the force in the cable, CF(V),
causes the in-plane bending moments and axial forces in the arch.
Even though the deck in C01 takes a curved shape, the deck does not act as an arch
because the BCs of the deck (see Section 4.3.3 for details) does not allow for the
development of an axial thrust in the deck. Therefore, the deck acts rather as a curved beam
(resisting bending) than an arch (resisting compression). The arrangement of the BCs of the
deck ensures that the bending stiffness (EI) of the deck controls the structural response in
the arch. The significance of EI of the deck is studied in Chapter Five.
As a consequence of the structural combination of the arch, deck, and BCs of the
deck, it is expected that the arch will be exposed to large bending moments and relatively
small axial loads compared to the reference arch.

4.4.2.1.2 Axial Force in the Arch


GTL has only a minor effect on axial force (SF1) in the arch compared to LL100.
The largest increase in SF1 due to GTL is only ~3% (see Tables B-4 and B-5). An increase
in the axial force due to LL100 is approximately ten times larger than the increase due to
GTL.
A comparison of the effects of GTL and LL100 in the most sensitive combination
with f(D)/s = 0.25, taking into account the variability in the f(A)/s ratio, is shown in Figure
4-9. The figure shows that, with an increasing f(A)/s ratio, the significance of the applied
GTL decreases. The most variation in the distribution of SF1 occurs at the midspan, and
the least variation occurs at the abutments of the arch. The primary variable (f (A)/s) has a
more significant impact on the SF1 distribution than the secondary variable (f(D)/s). A
change in SF1 due to f(A)/s is ~48% and due to f(D)/s is ~3% (see Table B-60). Therefore,
the primary variable controls SF1 in the arch when GTL is considered.

- 103 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

Figure 4-9: Configuration C01 — Distribution of axial forces in the arch comparing
the critical cases of LL100, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state for three levels
of f(A)/s and the most sensitive ratio, f(D)/s = 0.25

The significance of the changing primary and secondary variables under LL100 is
compared in Figure 4-10. As may be seen, the sensitivity of SF1 in the arch is directly
proportional to f(A)/s and inversely proportional to f(D)/s. The largest increase (~32%)
occurs when f(A)/s = 0.25 and f(D)/s = 0.15. The highest SF1 is exerted on the arch when
f(A)/s = 0.15 and f(D)/s = 0.15. In this configuration, the influence of the cantilevered, curved
deck on the out-of-plane deflection of the arch is the lowest (the highest occurs in
configuration with f(D)/s = 0.25), and therefore, the arch experiences a high SF1 compared
to the other levels of f(D)/s. As f(A) increases, the influence of deck reach f(D) increases, i.e.,
SF1 in the arch drops. Even though the horizontal component of the cable force is the
smallest in the configuration with a large f(A), the flexibility of a tall arch is large, and
therefore, the arch is more prone to out-of-plane displacement, which results in the drop of
SF1 in the arch. The secondary variable, f(D)/s, has a significant influence on the magnitude
and distribution of SF1 in the arch. However, a higher change in SF1 occurs due to the
change in the primary variable, the f(A)/s ratio. Thus, the analysis or design of the arch for
C01 should consider the magnitude of the primary variable first.

- 104 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

Figure 4-10: Configuration C01 — Distribution of axial forces in the arch considering
the effect of LL100 for three levels of f(A)/s (0.15, 0.20, and 0.25) and four levels of
f(D)/s (0.00, 0.15, 0.20, and 0.25)

4.4.2.1.3 Combined Bending Moment in the Arch


The effect of GTL on the magnitude and distribution of SM(COMB) in the arch of
C01 is minor compared to the effect of LL100. The most sensitive combination with the
highest difference (~1.2%) due to –ve GTL is f(A)/s = 0.15 and f(D)/s = 0.15 (see Table B-9).
The significance of GTL on the distribution of SM(COMB) is inversely proportional to both
f(A)/s and f(D)/s. This trend is similar to all assumed combinations of the primary and
secondary variables.
A comparison of the effect of GTL and LL on the distributions of SM(COMB) in the
arch in the combination with the smallest f(D)/s ratio (f(D)/s = 0.15) and three levels of f(A)/s
is presented in Figure 4-11. A distribution of SM(COMB) in the arch that results from LL100
is presented in Figure 4-12.

- 105 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

Figure 4-11: Configuration C01 — Distribution of combined moments in the arch


comparing the critical cases of LL100, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state for
three levels of f(A)/s and the most sensitive ratio, f(D)/s = 0.15

Figure 4-12: Configuration C01 — Distribution of combined bending moments in the


arch considering the effect of LL100 for three levels of f(A)/s (0.15, .020, 0.25) and four
levels of f(D)/s (0.00, 0.15, 0.20, and 0.25)

- 106 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

The following can be concluded from the figures:


• LL100 represents a governing load compared to the effect of GTL.
• For LL100, SM(COMB) increases with an increase in both the primary and secondary
variables; the increase in SM(COMB) due to the primary variable is greater than that due
to the secondary variable.
• The primary variable controls the magnitude and distribution of SM(COMB) in the arch.

4.4.2.1.4 Torsional Moment in the Arch


The effects of GTL and LL100 on the torsional moment (SM3) in the arch are
compared in Figure 4-13. As shown in the figure, LL100 governs the magnitude of SM3.

Figure 4-13: Configuration C01 — Distribution of torsional moments in the arch


comparing the critical cases of LL100, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state for
three levels of f(A)/s and the most sensitive ratio, f(D)/s = 0.25

LL100 results in a maximum change of 39% when f(A)/s = 0.25 and f(D)/s = 0.25,
i.e., the combination with the largest deck reach and arch rise. The change in SM3 for the
same combination of primary and secondary variables due to GTL is only 3% (see Table
B-11). The sensitivity to GTL is directly proportional to both the primary and secondary
variable; in other words, the largest change due to GTL in SM3 occurs in a combination
with a large deck reach and a large arch rise.

- 107 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

The effect of changing geometry on SM3 in the arch under the governing LL100
case is presented in Figure 4-14. In addition to the sensitivity of SM3 to a change in
geometry, the maximum magnitude of SM3 is directly proportional to f(A)/s and f(D)/s; in
other words, the maximum torsion is exerted on the arch when both the deck reach and
arch rise are large (see Table B-10). This behaviour is expected because the magnitude of
the torsional moment is a function of both the deck reach and arch rise. The effect of arch
rise is larger than the effect of deck reach. Therefore, the arch rise should be given the most
attention during the design process to control the torsion in the arch efficiently.

Figure 4-14: Configuration C01 — Distribution of torsional moments in the arch


under LL100 three levels of f(A)/s (0.15, 0.20, 0.25) and for four levels of f(D)/s (0.00,
0.15, 0.20, and 0.25)

4.4.2.1.5 Combined Bending Moment in the Deck


The effect of GTL is negligible, especially compared to the effect of LL100 on the
magnitude and distribution of SM(COMB) in the deck of C01. The change in SM(COMB) due to
GTL is only ~0.5% (see Table B-19).
The most sensitive combination is f (A)/s = 0.15 and f(D)/s = 0.15. The least sensitive
combination is f(A)/s = 0.25 and f(D)/s = 0.25. Therefore, the less rigid a structural system is,
the less sensitive the SM(COMB) in the deck is to changes in GTL. Further, sensitivity to

- 108 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

GTL in the deck is inversely proportional to both f(A)/s and f(D)/s. The distribution for the
most sensitive configuration (f(D)/s = 0.15) that compares the effect of GTL and LL100 is
shown in Figure 4-15.

Figure 4-15: Configuration C01 — Distribution of combined moments in the deck


comparing the critical cases of LL100, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state for
three levels of f(A)/s and the most sensitive ratio, f(D)/s = 0.15

Figure 4-16 shows the distribution of SM(COMB) due to the governing case of
LL100. When considering the effect of LL, the highest difference is apparent at midspan of
the deck. The effect of LL100 is larger than effect of GTL along the entire span. It can be
noted that the f(A)/s represents a more significant parameter.
When taking into account the effect of LL100, the figure confirms that the trend in
distribution and sensitivity to change in the primary and secondary variables due to LL is
the same as due to GTL. The most sensitive configuration consists of f(A)/s = 0.15 and f (D)/s
= 0.15. The highest magnitude of SM(COMB) is exerted on the deck in combination that
comprise of f(A)/s = 0.15 and f(D)/s = 0.25.
It can be said that as higher the SM(COMB) in the deck is, as less sensitive the
structural system is to change in geometry. The effect of f(A)/s and f(D)/s on the SM(COMB) in
the deck under applied LL100 is almost identical.

- 109 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

Figure 4-16: Configuration C01 — Distribution of combined moments in the deck


considering the effect of LL100 for three levels of f(A)/s (0.15, .020, 0.25) and four
levels of f(D)/s (0.00, 0.15, 0.20, and 0.25)

4.4.2.1.6 Tensile Force in the Cables


The effect of LL100 is larger than the effect of GTL on the structural response of
CF. The significance of GTL is inversely proportional to f(A)/s and directly proportional
f(D)/s. The most sensitive combination with a difference of ~3.5% due to –ve GTL is f(A)/s =
0.20 and f(D)/s 0.15. The maximum axial force is exerted on the cables when f(A)/s = 0.15
and f(D)/s = 0.25 (see Table B-22 and Table B-23).
A typical distribution of CF that compares the effect of GTL and LL for the most
sensitive ratio, f(D)/s = 0.15, and three levels of f(A)/s is shown in Figure 4-17. Due to the
symmetry, the figure shows only half of the cables (there are fourteen cables in total).

- 110 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

Figure 4-17: Configuration C01 — Distribution of axial forces in the cables


comparing the critical cases of LL100, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state for
three levels of f(A)/s and the most sensitive ratio, f(D)/s = 0.15

As shown in Figure 4-17, the effect of GTL is significantly less than the effect of
LL100 in the cables along the span. The highest change in force in a cable due to applied
LL100 occurs in the first cable (the cable next to the abutment of the arch) and the effect
gradually decreases toward the fourth cable. At the fifth cable the magnitude of CF starts to
increase under all assumed loads.
The distribution of CFs for the governing case of LL100 is presented in Figure
4-18. As shown in the figure, in all combinations, the magnitude of CF in the first cable is
the highest.

- 111 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

Figure 4-18: Configuration C01 — Distribution of axial forces in the cables under
LL100 for three levels of f(A)/s (0.15, 0.20, and 0.25) and four levels of f(D)/s (0.00, 0.15,
0.20, and 0.25)

There are several factors that cause the large magnitude of CF in the first cable.
First, the actual magnitude of LL is carried by the first cable. In total, there are 14 cables
evenly spaced 5m apart. Therefore, each inner cable (the cables between the first and last
cables) carries a portion of the load from two adjacent deck segments of even length (2.5m
and 2.5m). However, the outer cables (the first and last cable) carry a load from one inner
deck segment with a length of 2.5m and a load from one outer deck segment with a length
of 5m. Hence, the total load carried by the outer cables covers deck segments with a total
projected length of 7.5m.
Second, the actual length of the deck segments causes a large CF in the first cable.
The cables are equally spaced 5m apart. However, the curved shape of the deck, which is
defined by the equation of a parabola, has segments of uneven length.
The cable length is longest in the cables at the midspan. When a load is applied,
these cables undergo the largest elongation, which is a function of the cable length. The

- 112 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

displacement of the arch is also the largest at the midspan. The combined effect of the
largest cable elongation and largest arch displacement causes the deck to descend the most
at the midspan. The large displacement of the deck at the midspan results in a large rotation
of the deck at the abutment; this rotation is resisted by the shorter outer cables. Therefore,
the force in the first and last cable is the largest.
At the midspan, the spatial displacement of the arch and deck is the largest. The
displacement of the arch and deck in the transversal horizontal direction is a function of the
horizontal component of the cable force and arch rise f(A). The arch with the largest f(A) is
the most flexible and is the most prone to transversal horizontal deflection; however, the
arch is exposed to the smallest CF(H). At the midspan, the angle α is the smallest in
configurations with a small arch rise f(A), and therefore, CF(H) is the largest, which results in
a large displacement of the arch and deck. When the arch and the deck experience
displacements in opposite directions, this situation causes the angle α to increase, which
reduces CF in the configurations with a small f (A). In the configurations with a large f (A),
the arch is more flexible than in the configurations with a small f(A); however, the CF(H) is
the smallest in the configurations with a large f(A), which causes the smallest combined
displacement of the arch and deck in opposite directions and, therefore, the smallest
increase in α. This scenario results in a larger cable force than in the configurations with a
small f(A).
The key parameter is the angle α; as the angle, which is function of arch rise f(A) and
deck reach f(D), increases, the force in the cables decreases. Consequently, the distribution
and magnitude of the forces are directly related to the distribution and magnitude of the
internal forces in the arch and deck.

4.4.2.2 Configuration C02

4.4.2.2.1 Expected Behaviour


In C02, the effect of GTL is compared with the effect of LL50. In the unstressed
state, i.e., before DL is taken into consideration, the cables in C02 are contained in the
same plane as the arch (see Figure 4-3). However, the applied loads, DL, LL, and GTL,
cause the deck to deflect. The deflected deck results in a change of the position of the

- 113 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

cables, which in turn causes an increase in CF(H), and therefore, out-of-plane loads develop
and are exerted on the arch.
Further, the arch also experiences in-plane and out-of-plane displacements, and
therefore, the magnitude of the out-of-plane loads may vary as a function of the overall
geometry and the rigidity of the entire system; in other words, the arch with a large rise is
more prone to deflection and, therefore, more susceptible to the out-of-plane loads that
develop.
Since the planes in which the cables and the arch are contained are identical in the
unstressed state, the arch in C02 may be exposed to larger axial loads and smaller bending
moments compared to C01. Nevertheless, the inclination of the arch combined with a
deflection of the deck, which is a function of the BCs of the deck and the EI of the deck,
results in out-of-plane bending moments in the arch.

4.4.2.2.2 Axial Force in the Arch


A comparison of SF1 in the arch of C02 under LL50 and GTL is presented in Table
B-24 and Table B-25. As shown in tables, the effect of GTL on SF1 in the arch is smaller
than the effect of LL50. The largest change in SF1 is ~3% due to GTL and ~24% due to
LL50 using the same combination of primary and secondary variables. The sensitivity of
SF1 in the arch to GTL is inversely proportional to f(A)/s and directly proportional to ω. The
largest increase and the largest magnitude resulting from +ve GTL occurs when f (A)/s =
0.15 and ω = 45°.
The distribution of SF1 under the four assumed loads, three levels of f(A)/s, and the
most sensitive angle of arch inclination ω (45°) is presented in Figure 4-19. The figure
indicates that the change in SF1 is the largest at the midspan and the lowest at the
abutments of the arch. This behaviour holds for all types of applied loads (DL, LL, and
GTL). For GTL, a change in SF1 due to a change in the primary variable is ~51.5%, and
due to the secondary variable, it is only ~0.4% (see Table B-63). The parameter that
controls the magnitude and distribution of SF1 under GTL is the primary variable, f(A)/s.

- 114 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

Figure 4-19: Configuration C02 — Distribution of axial forces in the arch comparing
the critical cases of LL50, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state in the arch under
three levels of f(A)/s and the most sensitive angle of arch inclination, ω = 45°

A distribution of SF1 in the arch under LL, considering three levels of f(A)/s and
four levels of ω, is presented in Figure 4-20. From the figure is apparent that the difference
in SF1 due to a change in the angle ω is uniform along the entire arch length. However, the
increase in SF1 due to a uniform increase of the angle ω (from 15° to 45°) is not uniform.
The increase due to change from ω = 30° to ω = 45° is significantly larger than the increase
due to change from ω = 15° to ω = 30°. The highest SF1 is exerted on the arch when f(A)/s
= 0.15 and ω = 45°. The trend of sensitivity to a change in geometry is inversely
proportional to f(A)/s and directly proportional to ω. The reason for a larger SF1 in the arch
in a configuration with a small f(A)/s and a large angle of arch inclination ω is the
transformation of angle α. Due to the increase in ω, angle α is reduced (α = 90° – ω), and
therefore, a larger CF is generated. The secondary variable controls the magnitude and
distribution of SF1 in the arch in C02.

- 115 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

Figure 4-20: Configuration C02 — Distribution of axial forces in the arch under LL50
for three levels of (A)/s (0.15, 0.20, and 0.25) and four levels of arch inclination ω (0°,
15°, 30°, and 45°)

4.4.2.2.3 Combined Bending Moment in the Arch


In the reference configuration, which has a vertical arch, the effect of LL50 is larger
than the effect of GTL. In contrast, in C02, which has an arch inclination that starts at ω =
30°, the effect of GTL is larger than the effect of LL50. Further, starting at f(A)/s = 0.15 and
ω = 45°, LL50 reduces the magnitude of SM(COMB) in the arch. A larger effect results from
–ve GTL than from +ve GTL. The sensitivity of GTL is inversely proportional to both f(A)/s
and ω. When GTL is applied, the largest change in SM(COMB) is ~25%; this change occurs
when f(A)/s = 0.15 and ω = 15° due to –ve GTL (see Table B-24 and Table B-25).
The distribution of SM(COMB) in the arch that takes into account the most sensitive
combination (where effect of GTL is larger than the effect of LL50, i.e., ω = 30°) and
compares the effect of GTL and LL50 is shown in Figure 4-21. From the figure is apparent
that the effect of the GTL is larger than the effect of the LL50 mainly at midspan. At the
abutments the effect of the GTL is still larger than that of LL50; however, the difference
between GTL and LL50 is small.

- 116 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

Figure 4-21: Configuration C02 — Distribution of combined moments in the arch


comparing the critical cases of LL50, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state under
three levels of f(A)/s and the most sensitive angle or arch inclination, ω = 30°

Figure 4-22: Configuration C02 — Distribution of combined bending moments in the


arch under LL50 for three levels of f(A)/s (0.15, 0.20, and 0.25) and four levels of arch
inclination ω (0°, 15°, 30°, and 45°)

- 117 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

The distribution of SM(COMB) due to LL50, comparing the effect of changing


geometry, is shown in Figure 4-22. The figure indicates that the largest effect of LL50
results from a change of the secondary variable, the angle ω. This effect is most apparent at
the midspan. Therefore, the secondary variable controls the magnitude and distribution of
SM(COMB) in the arch.
The largest magnitude of SM(COMB), resulting from the applied LL50, is exerted on
the arch in combination of f (A)/s = 0.25 and ω = 45°. The trend of SM(COMB) is directly
proportional to both the f(A)/s and to ω.
A larger SM(COMB) in the vicinity of the midspan of the arch is a result of a larger
deflection of the arch at the midspan. The enlarged deflection of the arch increases the
influence of the out-of-plane load that is transferred from the deck via the cables.
When the arch is tilted more from the vertical plane, i.e., ω increases, CF(H) also
increases, which causes an increase in the magnitude of the out-of-plane bending moment.
When LL50 is applied, the significance of a change in f(A)/s is minor (~28%) compared to
the effect of the angle of arch inclination ω (~87%). Therefore, ω controls the magnitude
and distribution of SM(COMB) in the arch.

4.4.2.2.4 Torsional Moment in the Arch


A comparison of the effect of GTL and LL50 on SM3 in the arch is presented in
Figure 4-23. As shown in the figure, GTL has almost no effect on SM3. The difference due
to GTL is less than 1% (see Table B-31). In the same configuration, the effect of LL50 is –
42%. The negative sign indicates that LL50 applied on the deck reduces the magnitude of
SM3 in the arch, which can be utilized in efficient designs of C02.
The effect of changing geometry on SM3 under only LL50 is presented in Figure
4-24. As shown in the figure, the maximum magnitude of SM3 is exerted on the arch when
f(A)/s = 0.25 and ω = 45° (see Table B-30). The table also indicates that the arch inclination
controls the magnitude of SM3.
The sensitivity of SM3 to a change in geometry is directly proportional to both the
primary and secondary variables; in other words, the largest drop in SM3 is achieved in a
combination with a large arch rise and large arch inclination (f(A)/s = 0.25 and ω = 45°).
Therefore, as the dimensions of the bridge increase, the sensitivity of SM3 to a change in
geometry increases.

- 118 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

Figure 4-23: Configuration C02 — Distribution of torsional moments in the arch


comparing the critical cases of LL50, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state for
three levels of f(A)/s and the most sensitive inclination of the arch, ω = 45°

Figure 4-24: Configuration C02 — Distribution of torsional moments in the arch


under LL50 for three levels of f(A)/s (0.15, .020, 0.25) and four levels of arch
inclination (0°, 15°, 30°, 45°)

- 119 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

4.4.2.2.5 Combined Bending Moment in the Deck


The effect of LL50 on SM(COMB) in the deck is larger than the effect of GTL.
However, the difference between GTL and LL50 is only minor, particularly in
configurations with a large angle ω (see Table B-36 and Table B-37). When f(A)/s = 0.15
and ω = 45°, the increase in SM(COMB) is 0.99% and 0.94% due to LL50 and +ve GTL,
respectively. Based on this observation, the effect of +ve GTL is almost identical to the
effect of LL50.
The sensitivity of SM(COMB) under +ve GTL to changing geometry is inversely
proportional to f(A)/s and directly proportional to ω. The most sensitive combination is f (A)/s
= 0.15 and ω = 45°.
The effect of ω represents the governing parameter under both LL50 and GTL. For
LL50, the change in f(A)/s leads to only a minor change in SM(COMB) and, therefore, the
f(A)/s does not present a concern.
The distribution of SM(COMB) in the most sensitive configuration is presented in
Figure 4-25. The figure shows that SM(COMB) reaches almost the same magnitude under all
four types of applied load.

Figure 4-25: Configuration C02 — Distribution of combined moments in the deck


comparing the critical cases of LL50, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state for
f(A)/s = 0.15, ω = 45°

Nevertheless, if only a bending moment in the vertical plane, i.e., a bending


moment that results in vertical displacements of the deck, is taken into consideration, the

- 120 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

difference in the distribution of internal forces is more perceptible as shown in Figure 4-26.
As shown in the figure, even though the difference between the response (resulting from
the application of GTL and LL) is minor, the actual magnitude of the bending moment in
the vertical plane (SM1) is significantly larger due to LL and GTL than the response due to
only DL.

Figure 4-26: Configuration C02 — Distribution of the moments vertical plane in the
deck comparing the critical cases of LL50, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state
for f(A)/s = 0.15, ω = 45°

In a situation when LL100 is applied, the effect of GTL is greater than the effect of
LL100. The distribution of SM1, comparing GTL and LL100, is presented in Figure 4-27.
As shown, the effect of GTL is almost twice as large as the effect resulting from LL100 at
the midspan of the deck.

- 121 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

Figure 4-27: Configuration C02 (f(A)/s = 0.15, ω = 45°) — Distribution of moments


vertical plane in the deck comparing critical case of LL100, +ve and –ve GTL and
unloaded state
The significance of ω on SM1 of the deck (considering f(A)/s = 0.15 and comparing
the GTL with LL100) is demonstrated in Figure 4-28.

Figure 4-28: Configuration C02 — Distribution of vertical moments in the deck


comparing LL100, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state in the arch for four
levels of ω (0°, 15°, 30°, and 45°) and the most sensitive ratio, f(A)/s = 0.15

- 122 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

The Figure 4-28 shows that the effect of –ve GTL is larger than effect of LL100 at
all levels of arch inclination. As ω increases, the significance of GTL increases as well.
Nevertheless, when the LL50 is compared with the GTL as shown on Figure 4-29,
the effect of GTL is close to the effect of LL50 only in a configuration with the highest
arch inclination, i.e. ω = 45°. In the two combinations that have lower arch inclinations (ω
= 30° and 15°), the effect of LL50 is larger than the effect of GTL. The effect of LL50 is
the largest with the smallest arch inclination, ω = 15°. This situation occurs because the
cables contract under –ve GTL. As ω increases, CF(H) also increases, and therefore, a
higher load is exerted on the deck, which results in a larger SM2 and, subsequently, SM1 in
the deck.

Figure 4-29: Configuration C02 — Distribution of vertical moments in the deck


comparing LL50, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state in the arch for four levels
of ω (0°, 15°, 30°, and 45°) and the most sensitive ratio, f(A)/s = 0.15

The described behaviour holds for LL50 and for –ve GTL. However, in the case of
–ve GTL, the contraction in the cables, which is not present in the case of LL50, increases
the tension in the cables and ultimately reduces the magnitude of the load that is supported
by the deck.

- 123 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

When the arch becomes more vertical, the effect of the contracting cables is
combined with the effect of the decreasing magnitude of CF, and therefore, for –ve GTL,
SM1 in the deck is smaller compared to SM1 resulting from LL50.
As shown in Figure 4-30, the moment distribution in the horizontal plane of the
deck, SM2, is almost insensitive to the type of load that is applied to the structure. It should
be noted that the EI of the deck is larger in the horizontal direction (section properties of
the deck are presented in Table 4-3) and, therefore, the EI of the deck influences the
moment distribution. The other factor that results in a significant difference in the moment
distribution in the vertical and horizontal directions is the BCs of the deck. The
significance of the EI and BCs of the deck is studied in Chapter Five.

Figure 4-30: Configuration C02 — Distribution of moments in the horizontal plane of


the deck comparing the critical cases of LL50, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded
state for f(A)/s = 0.15, ω = 45°

4.4.2.2.6 Tensile Force in the Cables


A comparison of the effect of GTL and LL50 on CF in C02 is presented in Table
B-40 and Table B-41. As shown in the tables, in all assumed combinations, the effect of
LL50 is larger than the effect of GTL. The significance of –ve GTL under the changing
geometry is inversely proportional to both f(A)/s and ω. The most sensitive combination is
f(A)/s = 0.15 and ω = 15°. The maximum change in CF due to –ve GTL reaches a
magnitude of ~37%. The effect of LL50 causes an increase in CF by ~85%, which makes
the applied LL50 the governing load case.

- 124 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

The distribution of CF for the most sensitive configuration (ω = 15°) and a


comparison of the effect of GTL and LL50 is presented in Figure 4-31. As shown, the
effect of LL50 is more significant at all levels of f(A)/s, and the significance of –ve GTL is
larger than the +ve GTL only at the first two cables. At the third cable, the significance of
+ve GTL is larger than the significance of –ve GTL.

Figure 4-31: Configuration C02 — Distribution of axial forces in the cables


comparing the critical cases of LL50, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state for
three levels of f(A)/s (0.15, 0.20, 0.25) and the most sensitive arch inclination, ω = 15°

The distribution of CF under the changing geometry, while considering the effect of
the LL50 alone, is shown in Figure 4-32. As shown in the figure, the change in ω has a
higher impact on the magnitude of CF than a change in the ratio f(A)/s. This trend holds for
all cables except the first cable. At location of the first cable, f(A)/s has a higher significance
than ω.
As ω increases, the magnitude of CF also increases because the angle α is reduced.
In general, in configurations with a large angle ω (and a small angle α = 90° – ω), both CF
and CF(H) are large.

- 125 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

Figure 4-32: Configuration C02 — Distribution of axial forces in the cables under
LL50 for three levels of f(A)/s (0.15, 0.20, and 0.25) and four levels of ω (0°, 15°, 30°,
and 45°)

4.4.2.3 Configuration C03

4.4.2.3.1 Expected Behaviour


In C03, the effect of GTL is compared with LL100. C03 has an arch that is rotated
diagonally above a straight deck. The arrangement of the cables, whose inclination varies
along the span, with the largest inclination at the springings of the arch and the smallest at
the midspan, results in a CF(H) that loads each half of the symmetric arch in an opposite
direction (see Figure 4-4). Therefore, it the arch will be exposed to large out-of-plane
bending moments. The magnitude of the out-of-plane bending moments will be directly
proportional to the magnitude of arch rotation, the angle θ.
Due to the arch rotation, the length of the cables along the span change. In the
reference arch, the outer cables (the cables in the vicinity of the springings of the arch) are
the shortest. The length of the cables gradually increases towards the midspan. However, in
C03, the trend of the cable length is different than in the reference arch. The length of the
outer cables increases proportionally with the magnitude of angle θ. In a configuration with
a large angle θ, the outer cables are longer than the cables located in the vicinity of the

- 126 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

midspan. The increased length of the cables, when combined with a small angle α at
location of the outer cables (a small α causes a large CF and CF(H)) affects the structural
response in the arch and deck under GTL.

4.4.2.3.2 Axial Force in the Arch


A comparison of SF1 in arch of C03 under LL100 and GTL is presented in Table
B-42 and Table B-43. The tables show that the effect of LL100 is significantly larger than
the effect of GTL. The significance of GTL under the changing geometry is inversely
proportional to f(A)/s and is directly proportional to the angle θ. The highest magnitude of
SF1 in the arch due to +ve GTL is exerted on the arch when f(A)/s = 0.15 and θ = 45°. This
trend in SF1 is inversely proportional to f(A)/s and directly proportional to θ. The change in
SF1 due to the variability of f(A)/s can be as high as ~40%, whereas the change in SF1 due
to the angle θ is ~3%. Therefore, f(A)/s controls SF1 when GTL is taken into account.
The distribution of SF1 in the arch that compares the effects of LL100 and GTL and
considers the most sensitive configuration with θ = 15° is presented in Figure 4-33.

Figure 4-33: Configuration C03 — Distribution of axial forces in the arch comparing
the critical cases of LL100, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state for three levels
of f(A)/s and the most sensitive angle of arch rotation, θ = 15°

- 127 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

As shown in the Figure 4-33, the effect of LL100 is significantly greater along the
entire length of the arch. Further, because GTL is applied to the whole structure and LL100
is applied only on the deck, the distribution of SF1 is different for the two loads. In the case
of LL100, the difference in the magnitude of SF1 between the arch springings and the
midspan is larger than that in the case of GTL.
The comparison presented in Figure 4-33 shows that LL100 represents a governing
case. The significance of LL100 is inversely proportional to f(A)/s and directly proportional
to θ. The highest difference in magnitude (~64%), due to LL100 being exerted on the arch,
occurs when f(A)/s = 0.15 and θ = 45°. The maximum magnitude of SF1 occurs in the same
configuration. In case of LL100, the angle θ controls the magnitude and distribution of
SF1. The change in SF1 when θ changes is ~24%, whereas the change in SF1 when f(A)/s
changes is ~2.5%. This trend is opposite to the trend under GTL.
A comparison of the effect of changing geometry, for only LL100, is presented in
Figure 4-34.

Figure 4-34: Configuration C03 — Distribution of axial forces in the arch under
LL100 for three levels of f(A)/s (0.15, 0.20, and 0.25) and four levels of arch rotation θ
(0°, 15°, 30°, and 45°)

- 128 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

As shown in the Figure 4-34, the arch rotation has a significant impact on the
magnitude of SF1 in the arch.
In the reference arch, a large SF1 is achieved in an arch with a small f(A)/s ratio and
a small SF1 is exerted on the arch with a high f(A)/s ratio, as expected. Further, in the
reference arch, SF1 is significantly larger in magnitude at the springings of the arch than
the magnitude of SF1 at the midspan.
However, in C03, as θ increases, the difference in SF1 between the springings and
midspan diminishes. In the configuration with maximum arch rotation, i.e., θ = 45°, there is
almost no difference in SF1 between the springings and midspan of the arch. This
behaviour is inversely proportional to f(A)/s; in other words, as f(A)/s increases, the
difference in SF1 between the midspan and springings declines. In the combination with
the smallest f(A)/s, the magnitude of SF1 at the midspan is even larger than at the
springings. Such behaviour is opposite to a conventional vertical planar arch supporting a
straight deck.
From Figure 4-35, comparing the effects of LL and GTL in the critical combination
of arch rotation θ = 45°, the trend of change in the magnitude of SF1 (as it is larger at the
midspan of the arch compared to at the springings of the arch) is a function of the
magnitude of the load applied on the deck. In a case where only GTL or DL is considered,
the magnitude of SF1 in the arch is smaller than in a case that considers only LL100.
The reason for a low magnitude of SF1 at the springings is the inclination of the
cables that transfer the load from the deck to the arch. In configurations with a large θ, the
inclination of the cables from the vertical plane is the largest (the angle α is small) at the
arch springings. Cables with a small angle α experience a large CF(H). Hence, the portion of
the arch rib that is located in the vicinity of the springings is exposed to large lateral forces,
and the centroid axis of the arch tends to displace from its original position significantly.
The displaced axis of the arch results in a transformation of the angle α, and therefore, out-
of-plane bending moments develop in the arch. Thus, the magnitude of SF1 declines at the
springings of the arch. The effect of a large CF(H) decreases in the direction away from the
springings, and therefore, the out-of-plane bending moments are low and SF1 is large at the
midspan. Hence, in a combination with a large angle θ, the difference in SF1 between the
springings and the midspan is small. This behaviour is exaggerated in arches with low rise.

- 129 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

In a combination with f(A)/s = 0.15 and θ = 45°, SF1 is larger at the midspan than at the
springings, which is unusual in an arch-like structure. Therefore, analyses and design of the
arch in C03 should consider this behaviour.

Figure 4-35: Configuration C03 — Distribution of axial forces in the arch comparing
the critical cases of LL100, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state in the arch for
three levels of f(A)/s and the most sensitive angle of arch rotation, θ = 45°

4.4.2.3.3 Combined Bending Moment in the Arch


Comparisons of SM(COMB) in the arch of C03 are presented in Table B-46 and Table
B-47. As is shown, the effect of LL100 is larger than the effect of GTL in all assumed
geometric combinations. In general, the sensitivity of the arch to GTL is inversely
proportional to f(A)/s and directly proportional to θ. The most sensitive combination
consists of f(A)/s = 0.15 and θ = 45° and results in a change of ~13% due to +ve GTL. In
comparison, the LL100 result in a change of ~40% for the same combination.
The increase in SM(COMB) due to +ve GTL in C03 is opposite to the trend in C01
and C02; in most cases for C01 and C02, –ve GTL caused the internal forces to increase.
The distribution of SM(COMB) in the arch, which compares the effect of GTL and
LL100 at three levels of f(A)/s and the most sensitive arch inclination with θ = 45°, is
presented in Figure 4-36. As shown in the figure, the highest magnitude of SM(COMB) is

- 130 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

located at the springings of the arch where a critical difference of ~13% occurs. However,
at the midspan of the arch, the difference between GTL and the reference DL is the largest.

Figure 4-36: Configuration C02 — Distribution of the combined moments in the arch
comparing the critical cases of LL100, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state for
three levels of f(A)/s and the most sensitive angle or arch inclination, θ = 45°

A comparison of the distribution of SM(COMB) that considers only LL100 is


presented in Figure 4-37. From the figure, the angle θ is more significant than the effect of
f(A)/s. The largest difference in SM(COMB) among the individual configurations occurs at the
arch midspan. The most sensitive configuration occurs when f(A)/s = 0.15 and θ = 15°. The
trend is inversely proportional to both f(A)/s and θ. From Figure 4-37, SM(COMB) in the arch
of C03 is significantly larger than a bending moment in the reference arch.

- 131 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

Figure 4-37: Configuration C03 — Distribution of the combined bending moments in


the arch under LL100 for three levels of f(A)/s (0.15, 0.20, and 0.25) and four levels of
arch rotation θ (0°, 15°, 30°, and 45°)

The largest magnitude of SM(COMB) due to LL100 is exerted on the arch when f(A)/s
= 0.15 and θ = 45° and, therefore, as the internal moment increases, the sensitivity to a
change in geometry decreases. It is the large CF(H) that causes a large SM(COMB) in
configurations with a low f(A)/s. In configurations with a large ω, the cables become less
vertical, and hence, CF increases. When a low f(A)/s is combined with a large angle θ, CF(H)
increases even more, which causes an increase in SM(COMB).

4.4.2.3.4 Torsional Moment in the Arch


A comparison of the effects of GTL and LL100 on SM3 in the arch is presented in
Figure 4-38. The figure indicates that GTL has a larger effect than LL100 on SM3.
However, the difference in SM3 due to GTL is minor when compared to the difference in
SM3 due to LL; for GTL, the difference is only ~3% at most (see Table B-49). For the
same combination of primary and secondary variables, the effect of LL100 is –13%. The
presence of LL100 reduces the magnitude of SM3 in the arch.

- 132 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

Figure 4-38: Configuration C03 — Distribution of torsional moments in the arch


comparing the critical cases of LL100, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state for
three levels of f(A)/s and the most sensitive angle of arch rotation, θ = 45°

The effect of changing geometry under only LL100 is presented in Figure 4-39. The
figure shows that the arch rotation has a more significant influence on SM3 than arch rise
(see Table B-66).
The combination with a large arch rotation (θ = 45°) results in the smallest SM3 at
all levels of f(A)/s. The smallest SM3 is exerted on the arch when f(A)/s = 0.15 and θ = 45°.
The magnitude of SM3 increases with an increase in arch rise, as expected. However, the
maximum magnitude of SM3 occurs when f(A)/s = 0.25 and θ = 30°. Therefore, the arch
rise should be low and the arch rotation should be at a moderate level to control the torsion
in the arch.

- 133 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

Figure 4-39: Configuration C03 — Distribution of torsional moments in the arch


under LL100 for three levels of f(A)/s (0.15, 0.20, 0.25) and four levels of arch rotation
(θ = 0°, 15°, 30°, 45°)

4.4.2.3.5 Combined Bending Moment in the Deck


Comparisons of SM(COMB) in the decks are presented in Table B-54 and Table B-55.
Similarly to the arch behaviour, the effect of LL100 in the deck represents the governing
load case. In general, the significance of GTL on the deck is inversely proportional to both
the f(A)/s ratio and the angle of arch rotation θ. The most sensitive combination occurs when
f(A)/s = 0.15 and θ = 15°, which results in a difference of 12% due to –ve GTL. Further, in
a case of LL100, the highest change of the internal forces (48%) occurs in a combination of
f(A)/s = 0.25 and θ = 30°, which is opposite to the results for GTL.
The distribution of SM(COMB), which compares the effect of GTL and LL100 for the
most sensitive combination of arch rotation (θ = 15°), is presented in Figure 4-40. The
figure shows that at midspan the effect of +ve GTL is slightly larger than the effect of
LL100. However, at the abutments of the deck where SM(COMB) reaches its maximum
value, the effect of LL100 is larger than the effect of GTL. This trend happens for all three
levels of the f(A)/s. The +ve GTL applied equally to the entire structure simultaneously
causes an elongation of all components. An elongated arch is more prone to out-of-plane

- 134 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

displacement. The elongation in the cables results in a change in the angle α. The angle α
increases which changes the ratio of CF(H) and CF(V). Therefore, CF is reduced, which
results in larger displacements and moments in the deck. Based on a comparison of the data
provided in Table B-54 and the distribution of internal forces shown in Figure 4-40, it can
be concluded that the effect of the applied GTL can result in a change in the internal forces
as high as that due to LL100. Therefore, the analysis and/or design of the deck in C03 may
require more attention.

Figure 4-40: Configuration C03 — Distribution of the combined moments in the deck
comparing the critical cases of LL100, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state for
three levels of f(A)/s and the most sensitive angle of arch rotation, θ = 15°

The distribution of SM(COMB) under changing geometry for only LL100 is presented
in Figure 4-41. From the figure is apparent that the highest magnitude of SM(COMB) is
exerted on the deck when f(A)/s = 0.15 and θ = 45°; this trend is, therefore, inversely
proportional to f(A)/s and directly proportional to θ. However, the significance of LL100 on
the change in SM(COMB) is opposite to the trend of the maximum magnitude. The
significance of LL100 is directly proportional to f(A)/s and inversely proportional to θ. The
highest change in SM(COMB) due to a change in geometry under LL100 reaches 48% when

- 135 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

f(A)/s = 0.25 and θ = 30°. The sensitivity to a change in the arch rotation is larger than the
sensitivity to a change in arch rise. Hence, the angle θ controls SM(COMB) in the deck of
C03 (see Figure 4-41 and Table B-54).

Figure 4-41: Configuration C03 — Distribution of the combined bending moments in


the deck under LL100 for three levels of f(A)/s (0.15, 0.20, and 0.25) and four levels of
arch rotation θ (0°, 15°, 30°, and 45°)

4.4.2.3.6 Tensile Force in the Cables


In the cables of C03, the overall effect of LL100 is larger than the effect of GTL. A
comparison of CF, resulting from individual cases, is presented in Table B-58 and Table
B-59. The significance of the applied GTL is inversely proportional to both f(A)/s and θ.
The highest difference of 3% occurs when f(A)/s = 0.15 and θ = 15° due to +ve
GTL. The effect of LL100 in the same configuration is 38%, which indicates that the
significance of GTL on the cables is minor.
In C03, the length of the cables is a function of the arch rise f(A), arch rotation θ, and
the shape of the arch. In the reference arch, the longest cables are located at the midspan
and the shortest in the vicinity of the springings. However, in a rotated arch, the length of
the cables in the vicinity of the springings is not necessarily the shortest, and therefore, a
change in structural behaviour occurs, which is a function of the cable length.

- 136 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

The distribution of CF under only LL100 is presented in Figure 4-42. As shown, the
largest CF occurs at the midspan in all assumed combinations. The reference arch
experiences the largest CF at the vicinity of the springings. The maximum magnitude of CF
occurs when f(A)/s = 0.15 and θ = 45°. The trend is inversely proportional to f(A)/s and
directly proportional to θ.
Even though the effects of the primary and secondary variables are similar (the
effect of primary variable is almost the same as the effect of secondary variable), the angle
θ controls the magnitude of CF in C03 (see Table B-66).

Figure 4-42: Configuration C03 — Distribution of tensile forces in the cables


considering the effect of LL100 and taking into account three levels of (A)/s ratio (0.15,
0.20, and 0.25) and four levels of arch rotation θ (0°, 15°, 30°, and 45°)

- 137 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

4.4.3 Principles of the Structural Behaviour in the Assumed Configurations

The structural responses of the arches and decks in the three configurations have
one common aspect: the angle, α, between the horizontal plane of the deck and the cables.
Even though the distribution of the angle α differs in each configuration, the principle
shown in Figure 4-43 is the same for all the three structural arrangements. As shown in the
figure, in a case when the deck reach f(D) remains constant and arch rise f(A) increases, α
also increases.
A change in α results in a change in both CF(H) and CF. CF(V) remains constant for
all configurations because it represents a vertical reaction to the loads exerted on the deck,
and it is independent of a change in geometry of the arch and the inclination of the cables.
It should be noted that CF(V) remains constant in the general case: however, due to the fact
that the SABs in question are indeterminate systems, the actual magnitude of CF(V) may
vary as a function of the relative stiffness of all structural members. Nevertheless, in the
general case it can be assumed that the magnitude of CF(V) does not change significantly
and, therefore, due to a change in α, only CF(H) and CF vary. The type of change in CF(H)
and CF is inversely proportional to α. In other words, as α increases, the magnitudes of
CF(H) and CF decline.
This description covers a general mechanism that applies to a structure in an
undeformed state as presented in Figure 4-43. However, in a spatial configuration that
experiences a deformed state, the distribution of α becomes more complex. Due to the
uneven displacement of the arch and deck along the span, the magnitude of which is also a
function of EI of the arch and deck, α undergoes a transformation. A transformation of α (a
change in magnitude) in a deformed state is uneven along the span, and, therefore it affects
the structural response of the arch and deck in an uneven fashion. Examples of a change in
α along the span in the three spatial configurations are presented in Figure 4-44.
Figure 4-44 shows sections cuts, which are made at the midspan of the bridge
structures, to illustrate where the uneven magnitude of α is the most perceptible. Further,
the inclination of each cable in the deformed state holds a different magnitude, which
results from a different spatial displacement of the arch and deck along span. In addition,
the arch and deck are most sensitive to a displacement at the midspan and the least
sensitive in the vicinity of the abutments. A response of the arch and the deck depends on

- 138 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

the response of the cables, which is a function of cable length. In SABs, the long cables
tend to have a larger elongation and sag compared to short cables. The magnitude of the
cable elongation and sag is a function of the load applied to a cable end. When a load is
applied on the deck, a response in the arch depends on the length of the cables. The long
cables transfer a smaller load compared to short cables because, for long cables, the load is
transformed to reduce the sag of the cables and to lengthen the cables instead of
transferring the load onto the arch. It should be noted that this behaviour of cables can be
modeled using FE models employed in Chapter Six.
In the deformed state, the transformation of α is a function of EI of the arch and
deck and also of a combination of the primary and secondary variables.

f(A)1 < f(A)2 < f(A)3  α1 < α2 < α3  CF1 > CF2 > CF3

CF(H)1 > CF(H)2 > CF(H)3


CF(H)1 α1
CF(V)1 = CF(V)2 = CF(V)3
CF(V)1
CF1

CF(H)2 α2

f(A)3
CF(V)2
CF2
f(A)2

CF(H)3
f(A)1

α3 α3
CF(V)3 α1 α2
CF3

f(D) = Constant

Figure 4-43: Schematic sketch showing the change in cable forces as α changes

- 139 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

a) Configuration C01

b) Configuration C02

c) Configuration C03

Figure 4-44: Distribution of the uneven changes in magnitude of α along the span,
shown on section cuts made at the midspan of the bridge structure in a deformed state
for a) C01, b) C02, and c) C03

- 140 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

Due to the different magnitudes of the deformed arch and deck (a change in α), the
angle γ becomes either “positive” or “negative.” The positive change results in an increase
and the negative change causes a drop in the magnitude of the transformed angle α, α(TRAN).
The positive and negative changes in α then result in a drop or an increase in CF as
indicated in Figure 4-43. The distribution of the cable forces then influences the structural
response in the arch and deck. An example of a positive transformation of α in C02 is
presented in Figure 4-45. The figure compares two cases with the same angle of inclination
ω (ω = 45°) but different f(A)/s ratios.
α1 = α2
Case #01 EI(A)1 = EI(A)2 Case #02 U3(A)2
f(A)/s = 0.15 EI(D)1 = EI(D)2 f(A)/s = 0.25

U3(A)1
U2(A)2

f(A)2
U2(A)1
f(A)1
γ2

γ1

α1 α2

α1(TRAN) U2(D)1 U2(D)2


α2(TRAN)

U3(D)1 U3(D)2

f(A)1 < f(A)2


Cable length 1 < Cable length 2
 U3(A)1 < U3(A)2 & U2(A)1 < U2 (A)2  γ1 > γ2:  α1(TRAN) > α2(TRAN)
U3(D)1 < U3(D)2 & U2(D)1 < U2 (D)2 CF1 < CF2

Figure 4-45: Transformation of angle α and γ resulting in larger cable forces in the
configuration with a larger arch rise f(A) as a function of arch and deck stiffness

- 141 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

Cross-sectional properties of the arch and deck in the two cases presented in Figure
4-45 do not differ. The bending stiffness of the arch EI(A) and deck EI(D) are the same in
both cases. Nevertheless, in Case #02, the larger f(A)/s indicates that the lengths of the arch
and the cables are longer compared to Case #01, and therefore, the response of the deck is
also affected. The deck in Case #02 will experience large deflections, which will also
influence distribution of bending moments.
A relationship between the displacement of the arch and deck influences the
magnitude of the angle α(TRAN). The change in α, presented in Figure 4-45, is denoted by γ,
which is the angle between the cable inclination in an undeformed and a deformed state;
hence, α(TRAN) = α + γ. As shown in the figure, based on a larger displacement of the arch
and deck in Case #02, the magnitude of γ is smaller, which results in a smaller increase of
the angle α(TRAN). Therefore, a drop in CF(H) and CF is smaller compared to Case #01.
A graphical comparison of Case #01 and Case #02 in a 3D view is presented in
Figure 4-46. As shown, both the displacements of the arch and deck are larger in Case #02.
Further, U3 of the deck is larger than U2 of the deck as a result of a larger EI(H) of the deck.
This behaviour confirms that EI of the structural components plays a key role in the
transformation of α, and as a direct consequence it influences the response in the arch and
deck.
The principle of the transformation of α was explained in C02; however, the nature
of the mechanism is the same for the three different configurations of SABs.
It was observed that the EI of the arch and deck, the magnitude of the primary and
secondary variables, and BC of the deck influence the magnitude of the transformed angle
α(TRAN). Hence, a significance of these factors is studied in Chapter Five and Chapter Six in
order to provide a clearer understanding of the structural behaviour of SABs.

- 142 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

Case # 1
f(A)/s = 0.15

Case # 2
f(A)/s = 0.25

Figure 4-46: Comparison of spatial out-of-plane displacement of the arch two cases
with different f(A)/s ratios in configuration C02 resulting transformation of angle α
and γ. Scale factor = 5.0

- 143 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

4.5 Conclusion to Chapter Four

Chapter Four provides a detailed evaluation of the structural behaviour of three


different spatial configurations: C01, C02, and C03. The following sections summarize the
conclusions that can be made about the structural behaviour of the individual
configurations.

4.5.1 Configuration C01

The assumed GTL does not represent a significant concern in C01. The effect of
GTL is less than the effect of the governing LL100 in all structural components. The
increase in the internal forces due to LL100 ranges from ~31% to ~39%, whereas the effect
of GTL ranges between ~0.5% and ~5%. The response in the arch is more sensitive to
changes in the f(A)/s ratio, and the response in the deck is more sensitive to changes in f (D)/s.
The response in the cables is also significantly affected due to changes in f(D)/s.
In the arch, the sensitivity to GTL is inversely proportional to the f(A)/s ratio; that is,
as f(A)/s increases, the sensitivity to the applied GTL decreases. The sensitivity in the deck
is also inversely proportional to the f(D)/s ratio, i.e., with an increase in the f(D)/s ratio, the
sensitivity to the applied GTL decreases.
The maximum magnitude in a structural response (SF1, SM(COMB), CF, etc.) is
insensitive to the type of load. In other words, the effect of geometry is greater than the
effect of different loads (LL is only applied on the deck and GTL is applied to the entire
structure). A combination of the primary and secondary variables that results in the
maximum axial load in the arch under LL results in the maximum axial load when GTL is
applied. The structural response is inversely proportional to f (A)/s and directly proportional
to f(D)/s: therefore, the largest forces are exerted on the arch, deck, and cables when the arch
rise is small (f(A)/s = 0.15) and the deck reach is large (f(D)/s = 0.25).
The overall structural response in C01 is a function of the out-of-plane
displacements of the arch and deck that influence the transformation of angle α between the
horizontal plane of the deck and the inclined cables, which transfer the loads between the
arch and deck. The combination in which the out-of-plane displacements of the arch and
deck are the largest is f(A)/s = 0.15 and f(D)/s = 0.25.

- 144 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

The following can be concluded about the effect of changing geometry:


• In C01, the primary variable (f (A)/s) controls the structural response in the arch. In
general, the magnitude of the internal forces in the arch increases as f(A)/s decreases, as
expected. When f(A)/s changes from 0.25 to 0.15, the following is observed:
o When the deck reach is small (f(D)/s = 0.15) and the arch rise is small (f(A)/s
= 0.15), SM(COMB) in the arch increases by 58%, and SF1 increases by only
17%. When the deck reach is large (f(D)/s = 0.25), the SF1 increases by only
6% and SM(COMB) by 46%. The torsion in the deck decreases when f(A)/s
decreases by 17% on average.
o Therefore, SM(COMB) in the arch represents the key concern and should be
considered first during the design process.
• In the deck, the effect of changing the primary variable from 0.25 to 0.15 mostly
influences the axial load.
o When the deck reach is small (f(D)/s = 0.15) and the arch rise is small (f(A)/s
= 0.15), SF1 in the deck increases by 82%, SM(COMB) increases by 58%, and
CF increases by 59%.
o Compared to the arch, the axial load in the deck is more sensitive to changes
in arch geometry. Therefore, a rigorous analysis should be carried out when
designing the deck in C01.

4.5.2 Configuration C02

The analyses showed that in C02, the assumed GTL can be a significant concern.
The bending moment and displacement of the deck are larger due to GTL than due to
LL50. In the arch, the effect of GTL is almost identical to the effect of LL50.
The overall change in the structural response due to GTL ranges from ~2.5% in SF1
of the arch to ~ 67% in U(COMB) of the deck. The range of response due to LL50 starts at
~25% in SF1 of arch to ~87% in U(COMB) of the arch. The structural response is more
sensitive to a variation in the angle of arch inclination from the vertical plane, ω, rather
than to f(A)/s. The f(A)/s ratio has greater significance only in SF1 in the arch and SM(COMB)
in the deck under GTL. In the cables, f(A)/s greatly influences the magnitude of CF under
both types of assumed load. The greatest load in the cables occurs when there is a large rise

- 145 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

and a large inclination of the arch. The magnitude of load in the cables is also a function of
deck stiffness, which is further investigated in Chapter Five.
Overall, the response in the arch under GTL and LL50 is inversely proportional to
f(A)/s; as f(A)/s increases, the sensitivity to the applied GTL and LL50 decreases. Therefore,
the arch rise should be large to reduce the sensitivity to GTL in C02.
In general, the response in the deck is inversely proportional to both f(A)/s and ω; as
f(A)/s or ω increases, the sensitivity under the applied loads decreases, with the exception of
SM(COMB) in the deck under GTL. In this case, the response is inversely proportional to
f(A)/s but directly proportional to ω. In other words, SM(COMB) in the deck is large when the
arch rise is small and the inclination of the arch is large. In the cables, the trend under GTL
and LL50 is the same and correlates with the trend in the arch: the sensitivity in the cables
is inversely proportional to both f(A)/s and ω.
The maximum magnitudes in the assumed structural responses are insensitive to the
type of load except U(COMB) in the deck. The maximum magnitude of U(COMB) in the deck is
inversely proportional to f(A)/s and directly proportional to ω under GTL and directly
proportional to both f(A)/s and ω under LL50. The response in the arch and deck is inversely
proportional to f(A)/s and directly proportional to ω except SM(COMB) and U(COMB), which
have a maximum magnitude that is directly proportional to both f(A)/s and ω. The maximum
forces in the deck and cables under both types of applied load are inversely proportional to
f(A)/s and directly proportional to ω. The greatest internal forces occur when f(A)/s = 0.15
and ω = 45°, and this combination is the most sensitive to applied loads.
The overall structural response in C02 is a function of the out-of-plane
displacement of the arch and deck. The configuration with the largest out-of-plane
displacement of the entire structure is when f(A)/s = 0.25 and ω = 45°, under LL50.
The following can be concluded about the effect of changing geometry:
• As f(A)/s decreases, only SF1 and CF increase in magnitude; the bending moment and
displacement of the arch decrease.
o At all levels of arch inclination, the trend is similar. When the arch rise is
small (f (A)/s = 0.15), SF1 in the arch increases by ~36% on average and
SM(COMB) drops by only ~9%.

- 146 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

o LL applied on the deck reduces the torsion in the arch. The torsion in the
arch decreases by 40% compared to the effect of DL alone.
• The response in the deck is almost insensitive to a change in f(A)/s.
o SM(COMB) in the deck, at all levels of arch inclination, increases by less than
5%.
o The displacement of the deck is the largest when the arch inclination is the
smallest (ω = 15°). However, the change is only 9% when f(A)/s changes
and, hence, the displacement is not a significant concern.
• The axial forces in the arch and the tensile forces in the cables must be given a high
level of attention while designing a SAB in C02.

4.5.3 Configuration C03

The effect of LL100 is larger than the effect of GTL only on some types of
structural response. In contrast, a change in U(COMB) of the arch and deck is larger due to
the effect of GTL.
In general, the effect of applying GTL results in changes ranging from ~2.5% in CF
to ~57% in U(COMB) in the arch. The effect of applying LL100 causes changes between
~39% in CF to ~63% in SF1 in the arch. In the arch, the f(A)/s ratio has a higher influence
than angle θ and in the deck it is the angle θ that has a higher influence than the f(A)/s ratio.
In the cables, f(A)/s controls the magnitude of CF under GTL, and the angle θ controls the
magnitude of CF under LL100.
The sensitivity of all structural components to the applied GTL and LL100 is
inversely proportional to f(A)/s; in other words, the smaller f(A)/s is, the higher the difference
in the structural response. Nevertheless, the structural responses of the individual
components (arch, deck, and cables) experience different trends in sensitivity. In general,
the sensitivity decreases with an increase in arch rotation. However, C03 is the least
predictable in terms of the structural behaviour compared to the other two spatial
configurations.
The trends of the maximum magnitudes in the structural responses under both GTL
and LL is the same: the structural response is inversely proportional to f(A)/s and directly

- 147 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

proportional to θ. The maximum responses in the arch, deck, and cables occur when there
is a small arch rise and a large arch rotation, f(A)/s = 0.15 and θ = 45°.
The overall structural response in C03 is highly dependent on the magnitudes of the
displacement of the arch and the deck, which affect the transformation of the angles
between the cables and arch and deck. In this configuration, the angle of inclination of each
cable (α) is different, and therefore, it results in a complex response. The configuration
with the largest out-of-plane displacement of the entire structure is with f(A)/s = 0.15 and θ
= 45°.
The following can concluded about the effect of changing geometry:
• In the C03, the effect of changing f(A)/s ratio has a similar effect as in the C02, the
axial load in the arch changes at a greater scale than the bending moment.
o When the arch rotation is small (θ = 15°), SF1 in the arch increases by 45%,
whereas SM(COMB) increases by only 21%.
o When the arch rotation is large (θ = 45°), SF1 in the arch increases by 63%,
and SM(COMB) increases by only 7%.
o The torsion is not significantly affected: at most, the torsion drops by 27%
when the arch rotation is small.
o The cables experience only minor changes. Due to a drop in f(A)/s, CF
increases by 33% when the arch rotation is large.
• In the deck, the most significant change in SM(COMB) occurs when the arch rotation is
small.
o When the arch rotation is small (θ = 15°), SM(COMB) increases by 30%, and
U(COMB) increases by 29%.
o The arch rotation has a significant influence. When the arch rotation is large
(θ = 45°), SM(COMB) increases by only 6%, whereas U(COMB) increases by
47%.
• SF1 in the arch is most influenced by a change in geometry and should be given a high
level of attention during the design process. The effect of arch rotation magnifies the
effect of arch rise.

- 148 -
Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

The critical configurations (combinations of primary and secondary variables)


identified in this chapter are the structural arrangements used for analyses in the following
chapters.

- 149 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

5.1 Introduction

The significance of changing boundary conditions (BCs) of the deck and the
variability in bending stiffness (EI) of the arch and deck on the susceptibility of the arch to
buckling are investigated in this chapter. The distribution and magnitude of internal forces
in the arch is studied, and a critical distribution of a live load (LL) on the deck is
determined. The critical combination of the primary and secondary variables, identified in
Chapter Four, is employed in the present chapter.
The magnitude of the axial force in a compression member plays a key role because
exceeding the member’s critical value may lead to a loss of structural stability, i.e., to
global buckling. Because global buckling represents a state of elastic instability - occurring
at loads lower than the yield stress - this phenomenon is highly important. Current
knowledge in the field of elastic instability in SABs was discussed in Section 2.5.3.
In the selected configurations of SABs considered in this thesis, the arch (carrying
loads either from a straight or a curved deck) is unsupported along its entire length, and
therefore, it is more susceptible to in-plane and out-of-plane buckling compared to
conventional vertical planar arches (carrying loads from a straight deck). In conventional
planar arches, both types of buckling (in- and out-of-plane) may occur as well. However, in
SABs, due to their spatial definition, both types of buckling may occur simultaneously
(Sarmiento-Comesias, 2015).
The susceptibility of the arch to buckling is a function of parameters such as the
overall geometry of the structure, sectional properties (in- and out-of-plane bending
stiffness), the distribution and magnitude of internal forces (particularly axial loads and
bending moments), and BCs of the structural member that is exposed to compression loads.
In SABs, these parameters also include sectional properties and BCs of the deck.
The other aspect that influences the susceptibility of SABs to buckling due to their
spatial definition is the direction of the load exerted on the arch. In the assumed
configurations, loads from the deck are transferred to the arch via cables, which are
organized in a certain alignment. Due to the spatial arrangement of the arch and deck
(which differs for individual configurations) in the assumed SABs, the alignment of the

- 150 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

cables changes when load is applied and thus influences the direction the forces the cables
transfer to the arch. This aspect affects the magnitude and distribution of internal forces in
the arch, and therefore, it needs to be considered while evaluating the susceptibility to
buckling.
The effect of geometrical imperfections (also affecting the susceptibility to
buckling) that may result from manufacturing or assembly deviations (studied for example
by Sarmiento-Comesias (2015)) are not be included in the result evaluation of the present
chapter.
Investigating the susceptibility to buckling does not consider any nonlinear effects,
which may result, for instance, from the imperfections. Hence, linear FE parametric models
are employed to perform the proposed analyses (details on the linear FE parametric models
are provided in Section 3.3.1.2).
In the assumed SABs, the arch is exposed to high axial loads and bending moments,
resulting in a large out-of-plane displacement of the arch, as expected. Therefore, it is
important to find an optimal combination of these parameters because due to their
interaction, the susceptibility of the arch to buckling increases.
In general, the magnitude of the axial load exerted on the arch in SABs (resulting
from a load applied on the deck) is smaller compared to the magnitude of axial loads in
conventional arches because of out-of-plane bending moments in the arch of a SAB;
therefore, SABs may be less susceptible to buckling. However, SABs may buckle at low
axial loads because the out-of-plane bending moments result in second order effects that
enlarge the deflection of the arch, which then affects the susceptibility of the arch to
buckling.
The Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code CHBDC S6-14 in Section 10, Cl.
10.9.4 provides an equation that establishes a proportion of axial and bending resistance of
a straight member exposed to axial compression and bending. However, more particular
approaches to indicate such proportion in curved members exposed to out-of-plane loads
are not indicated. Therefore, an investigation of the proportions of the internal forces such
as axial loads and bending moments in the arch of spatial configurations is required.
This chapter is organized into five sections. The objectives of the present work are
discussed in Section 5.2. The specifications of the proposed FE models, such as variability

- 151 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

in the deck BCs, EI of the arch and deck, and the applied loads, are described in Section
5.3. The results of the analyses are discussed in Section 5.4 and an optimal combination of
the arch and deck profiles with a particular ratio of the EI proposed; the influence of the
assumed BC of the deck is considered, and critical combinations are identified. The
conclusions and a chapter summary are provided in Section 5.5. Relevant details, such as
large tables or detailed charts, are provided in Appendix C.

5.2 Objectives

The main goal of Chapter Five is to investigate the effect of changes in BCs of the
deck and a variability in EI of the arch and deck on the magnitude SF1 and SM(COMB) in the
arch under a critical pattern of LL. The particular objectives are:

• To determine a critical distribution of LL that results in the highest SF1 in the arch in
the three spatial configurations (critical values of primary and secondary variables
were identified in Chapter Four);

• To identify a combination of EI of the arch and deck that results in the smallest and the
largest SF1 and SM(COMB) in the arch for a particular arrangement of BCs of the deck
in the three spatial configurations; and

• To establish ratios of vertical EI(V) and horizontal EI(H) bending stiffness of the arch
and deck that result in the smallest SF1 and SM(COMB) in the arch simultaneously,
representing a combination that is (for the assumed BCs of the deck) the least
susceptible to buckling.

5.3 Model Specification

5.3.1 The Geometry of Models

Geometries of the spatial configurations used in the analyses represent the critical
combinations of the primary and secondary variables, identified in Chapter Four. In these
configurations, the magnitude of SF1 in the arch reaches the highest level. Particular
combinations of the primary and secondary variables are listed in Table 5-1.

- 152 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

Table 5-1: Combinations of primary and secondary variables in individual spatial


configurations
Configuration Description Primary Variable Secondary Variable
C01

A vertical arch
supporting a f(A)/s = 0.15 f(D)/s = 0.15
curved deck

C02

An arch inclined
from a vertical
f(A)/s = 0.15 ω = 45°
plane supporting a
straight deck

C03
A vertical arch
rotated about its
vertical axis at
f(A)/s = 0.15 θ = 45°
midspan
supporting a
straight deck

5.3.2 Bending Stiffness of the Arch and Deck

The bending stiffness of the structural profiles assumed for the arch and deck is
varied, as shown in Table 5-2, to investigate the effect of bending stiffness on the
magnitude and distribution of SF1 and SM(COMB) in the arch. A generalized profile of the
assumed beam elements is used to achieve a constant cross-sectional area, which results in
constant weight per unit length of the arch and deck in the structural profiles. The details of
the generalized profile of beam elements is provided in Section A.1.

- 153 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

Table 5-2: Geometric properties of the assumed structural sections for the arch and
deck
Geometric Stiffness level for the Arch(A) and the Deck(D)
Cables
Property S01A(S01D) S02A(S02D) S03A(S03D) S04A(S04D)
Equivalent
Shape

Diameter [m] N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.050


Height [m] ~0.400 ~2.000 ~0.400 ~2.000 N/A
Width [m] ~0.400 ~0.400 ~2.000 ~2.000 N/A
Cross-sectional 1.18E-01 1.18E-01 1.18E-01 1.18E-01 1.96E-03
Area [m2]
Moment of 3.70E-03 3.70E-02 3.70E-03 3.70E-02 3.07E-07
inertia: I22
[m4]
Moment of 3.70E-03 3.70E-03 3.70E-02 3.70E-02 3.07E-07
inertia: I11
[m4]
Torsional 6.26E-03 1.18E-02 1.18E-02 6.26E-02 6.14E-07
constant [m4]
Weight per 8,990 8,990 8,990 8,990 150
unit length
[N/m]

5.3.3 Boundary Conditions

The BCs of the deck are varied to investigate their influence on the structural
response. The BCs of the arch remain constant throughout the analyses. The arch rib is
fixed at both ends.
In total, there are four types of deck BCs. Definitions of the BCs, which are a
function of allowed (indicated by “1”) or constrained (indicated by “0”) degrees of freedom
(DOF), are summarized in Table 5-3. The integers 1, 2, and 3 represent a longitudinal, a
vertical, and a transversal direction, respectively, within the global coordinate system of the
developed FE models.

- 154 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

Table 5-3: Assumed types of deck boundary conditions


Type Description Config. U1 U2 U3 UR1 UR2 UR3
Roller and one pin at
each end of the deck
C01,
(R_1P): Allows for
BC#01 C02, 1 0 0 0 0 1
translation in direction
C03
1 and rotation about
direction 3
Pinned at both ends
(P_P): Allows only
BC#02 rotation in all three C01 0 0 0 1 1 1
directions (no
translations possible)
Fixed at both ends
BC#03 (F_F): No translations C01 0 0 0 0 0 0
or rotations allowed
Roller and two pins
(R_2P): Allows for
C02,
BC#04 translation in direction 1 0 0 0 1 1
C03
1 and rotation about
direction 2 and 3

Graphical representations of the four types of deck BCs, indicating allowed DOFs,
are presented in Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-2.

- 155 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

UR3 UR3

U1 U1

UR3
a) BC#01: U1

UR3

U1
UR3 UR3

UR2
UR1 UR3
b) BC#02:
UR2

UR3

UR1

c) BC#03:

Figure 5-1: The types of BCs of the deck that apply to C01: a) BC#01: Roller and one
pin, b) BC#02: Two pins, c) BC#03: Fixed both ends.

- 156 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

UR3 UR3
U1 U1

Deck U1 UR3
a) BC#01:

UR3

U1
UR2
b) BC#04: U1 UR3

UR2
UR3

U1

Figure 5-2: The types of BCs of the deck that apply to C02 and C03: a) BC#01: Roller
and one pin, b) BC#04: Roller and two pins.

5.3.4 Loads and Materials

There are two types of assumed loads: a live load (LL) and a dead load (DL). The
LL is applied simultaneously with the DL to create only one load case. As in Chapters Four
and Five, the magnitude of LL reflects the purpose of the bridges in question, i.e.,
pedestrian bridges. The magnitude of LL for pedestrian bridges, determined according to
the CHBDC S6-14, with a span of 75m and a deck width of 2m, is 5000N/m (see details in
Section 3.3.5). There are two types of LL distributions assumed in Chapter Five: LL100
(LL distributed equally over the entire length of the deck) and LL50 (LL distributed
equally only over one half of the deck, starting at a deck abutment and ending at the
midspan). Both types of LL distribution are compared to determine a critical pattern that
results in a larger SF1 in the arch. This comparison of the LL distribution is different from

- 157 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

the comparison conducted in Chapter Four. In Chapter Four, the focus was given only to
the magnitude and distribution of bending moments whereas in the present chapter
attention is given to the axial loads, bending moments, and the displacements of the arch. It
is a common practice to evaluate these three types of responses while addressing
susceptibility to buckling.
The material properties of structural steel, the main material assumed in the entire
structure, are presented in Section 3.5.

5.3.5 Achieving the Objectives of Chapter Five

To address the first objective:


• All combinations of the primary and secondary variables assumed in Chapter Four are
considered here to determine the critical pattern of LL.
• The effects of LL50 and LL100 are compared, and the type of critical LL that causes a
larger SF1 in the arch is identified. Other types of responses such as SM(COMB), U2 and
U3 of the arch are also evaluated.
• A graphical comparison of the distributions of the SF1 is provided.
• The identified type of the critical pattern of the LL is used as a governing load case in
the analyses.

To address the second objective:


• The three spatial configurations with particular combinations of the primary and
secondary variables (identified in Table 5-1) are analyzed, while the critical pattern of
LL is considered.
• In each configuration, the EI of the arch and deck and deck BCs are varied according
to Table 5-2 and Table 5-3, respectively.
• The resulting structural responses are compared, the combinations of EI of the arch
and deck and arrangements of the deck BCs are evaluated, and an optimal combination
is identified for each spatial configuration.
• The magnitude of the bending moments in the arch considers the effect of the in- and
out-of-plane load, and therefore, a combined bending moment SM(COMB), calculated
according to Equation 4-2, is evaluated.

- 158 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

• For the spatial configurations, which are exposed to out-of-plane loads, the magnitude
of SF1 and SM(COMB) may be inversely proportional, i.e., an increasing trend in the
SF1 may result in a decreasing trend in the SM(COMB) and vice versa.

To address the third objective:


• Combinations of assumed structural profiles of the arch and deck with a particular EI
and BCs of the deck, identified in objective # 02, that identify either the lowest SF1 or
SM(COMB), in the arch, are compared and a combination that results in the lowest SF1
and SM(COMB) simultaneously is determined.
• In total, there are four levels of EI of the arch and deck and, thus, there are sixteen
combinations per one type of deck BCs. The magnitude of SF1 and SM(COMB) for all
combinations are ranked. The combination with the smallest magnitude of internal
forces is assigned number 1, and the combination with the largest magnitude is ranked
number 16. The combination of EI of the arch and deck that results in the smallest SF1
and SM(COMB) simultaneously is identified according to the ranking: the combination of
the smallest rankings for both SF1 and SM(COMB) is determined.
• For the combination of EI of the arch and deck that results in the smallest SF1 and
SM(COMB) for a particular type of deck BCs, a ratio of EI(V) and EI(H) of the arch and
deck (considering the assigned ranks) is established.
• A tabular and graphical comparison is provided.

5.4 Results and Discussion

The main findings and conclusions regarding the structural responses in the
individual spatial configurations are described and discussed in this section. Large tables
and complex charts are provided in Appendix C.
It should be noted that particular values of a change in a specific type of structural
response, presented in the body of text, are taken from the two detailed result tables
developed for each combination. Direct cross-reference to these result tables is provided:
these result tables are placed in a relevant appendix section due to their large size.

- 159 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

5.4.1 Determining of a Critical Live Load Distribution

Comparisons of the effects of the two selected patterns of LL distribution (LL100


and LL50) on the magnitude of SF1 in the arch of C01, C02, and C03 are provided in Table
C-1, Table C-2, and Table C-3, respectively. The effects of the two LL patterns on
distributions of SF1, SM(COMB), U2, and U3 in the arches of the three spatial configurations
are shown in Figure 5-3, Figure 5-4, Figure 5-5, and Figure 5-6, respectively. The
following can be concluded from the figures:
• In all three assumed configurations, considering all levels of the geometric variables,
the effect of LL100 is larger than the effect of LL50.
• The combination of the primary and secondary variables that results in the largest SF1
in the arch is also the combination that results in the largest increase in SF1, due to the
applied LL100.
• Sensitivity to a change in the LL distribution is inversely proportional to both the
primary and secondary variables in C01; in other words, in a combination with a large
f(A)/s and f (D)/s, the difference between the effect of LL50 and LL100 is small. In C02
and C03, sensitivity to a change is inversely proportional to the primary variable and
directly proportional to the secondary variable.
• C01 experiences the smallest SF1, and C03 experiences the largest SF1 in the arch (see
Figure 5-3). This observation indicates that C03 is more prone to buckling, considering
large in- and out-of-plane moments (see Figure 5-4). However, the spatial
displacements of the arch in C03 are small compared to C01 (see Figure 5-5 and
Figure 5-6). Hence, while considering the large bending moments (see Figure 5-4)
combined with a large U2 and U3 of the arch in C01, C01 is the most susceptible to
buckling.
• The smallest magnitude of SM(COMB) is exerted on the arch in C02; when combined
with a moderate level of SF1, this finding indicates that C02 is the least susceptible to
out-of-plane buckling.
• C03 is the most sensitive to a change in the LL pattern as a change results in the largest
difference in magnitude of SF1. This characteristic may affect the fatigue life of C03
compared to the other two configurations.

- 160 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

These conclusions are based on a geometry employed in Chapter Four (one type of
deck BCs, and arch and deck stiffness) and, therefore, a more rigorous approach is
necessary to verify these trends while taking into account the effects of EI and BCs of the
deck (see Section 5.4.2 and 5.4.3).

Figure 5-3: A comparison of a distribution of SF1 in the arch in C01, C02, and C03
for LL100 and LL50

Figure 5-4: A comparison of a distribution of SM(COMB) in the arch in C01, C02, and
C03 for LL100 and LL50

- 161 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

Figure 5-5: A comparison of a distribution of U2 in the arch in C01, C02, and C03 for
LL100 and LL50

Figure 5-6: A comparison of a distribution of U3 in the arch in C01, C02, and C03 for
LL100 and LL50

- 162 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

5.4.2 Structural Behaviour under changing Stiffness

C01, C02, and C03 are approached separately to study the structural behaviour of
the individual configurations, taking into account the changing EI of the arch and deck and
BCs of the deck. The effect of a changing EI is evaluated for a particular arrangement of
the BCs of the deck. A ratio of the EI of the arch and deck that results in the lowest
magnitude of SF1 and SM(COMB) identifies the combination that is least susceptible to
buckling; this ratio is established for each configuration and type of BCs. Key findings are
concluded and discussed.

5.4.2.1 Configuration C01

The three types of deck BCs for C01 are defined in Table 5-3. Each type of deck
BCs is evaluated individually; tabular and graphical comparisons are provided in Appendix
C. Structural sketches that represent combinations of EI of the arch and deck, from which
SF1 and SM(COMB) reach their minimal or maximal magnitudes (as concluded in sections
below), are provided in Tables C-10 and C-11, respectively.

5.4.2.1.1 Configuration C01 — Deck Boundary Conditions: BC#01


The effects of a changing EI of the arch and deck for deck BC#01 on SF1 and
SM(COMB) are summarized in Tables C-12 and C-13, respectively. As shown in these tables,
the smallest SF1 and SM(COMB) occur in the same stiffness configuration, S04D and S01A
(a vertically and horizontally stiff deck and a vertically and horizontally flexible arch). The
largest SF1 and SM(COMB) also occur in the same stiffness configuration, S03D and S03A (a
vertically stiff and horizontally flexible arch and deck). A distribution of SF1 and
SM(COMB), capturing the sixteen combinations for EI, is presented in Figure 5-7 and Figure
5-8, respectively.
I can be said that there is a combination of arch and deck EI that causes the same
trend in the distribution and magnitude of SF1 and SM(COMB). Specifically, a combination
of arch and deck EI that results in a small SF1 also results in a small SM(COMB).
A general trend in structural behaviour is that the EI(V) of the deck and EI(H) of the
arch control the magnitude of SF1 and SM(COMB). A large EI(V) of the deck and a large EI(H)
of the arch prevent a large U2 in the deck and a large U3 in the arch, which results in a

- 163 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

small transformation in the angle α. Hence, the CF and CF(H) do not significantly change as
a load is applied; the consistency in CF and CF(H) results in a small change in SF1 and
SM(COMB).
Vertically stiff decks (S02D and S04D) result in a small SF1 and SM(COMB),
whereas vertically flexible decks (S01D and S03D) result in a large SF1 and SM(COMB).
The deck essentially acts as a curved beam rather than a horizontal arch because there is no
horizontal reaction imposed at the abutments to generate axial thrust (U1 is allowed).
The UR1 at the deck abutments is not allowed and, therefore, the deck acts as a
cantilever beam, in which its EI(V) represents a parameter that controls the U2 of the deck.
The magnitude of the deck U2 affects the following: a) the amount of force transferred to
the arch via the cables and b) the magnitude of the transformed angle α – as the deck U2
increases, the α also increases; this mechanism results in a reduction of the CF and CF(H).
The EI(H) of the deck controls U3 of the deck. Decks with a small EI(H) tend to
deflect more with vertical loads applied on the deck; thus, this deflection affects the
transformation of α, the low EI(H) results in a large transformation of α. However, the EI(H)
plays a less significant role than the EI(V) of the deck, i.e., when EI(V) is low, α undergoes a
larger transformation than when EI(H) is low.
In the configuration with arch stiffness S01A and S04A (where the ratio of EI(V) to
EI(H) is the same), the arch tends to equally deflect in the U2 and U3 directions. This
characteristic of the arch deformation does not significantly affect the transformation of α,
and hence, the resulting SF1 and SM(COMB) are smaller compared to other levels of arch
stiffness with an uneven ratio of EI(V) to EI(H).
Selecting a structural profile with the same ratio of EI(V) to EI(H) can be
advantageous and can reduce the susceptibility to buckling for BC#01.

- 164 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

Figure 5-7: Configuration C01: A comparison of the distributions of SF1 in the arch
for LL100 and the 16 combinations of arch and deck stiffness. Deck BC type: BC#01

- 165 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

Figure 5-8: Configuration C01: A comparison of the distributions of SM(COMB) in the


arch for LL100 and the 16 combinations of arch and deck stiffness. Deck BC type:
BC#01

5.4.2.1.2 Configuration C01 — Deck Boundary Conditions: BC#02


Compared to BC#01, BC#02 does not allow translation in the U1 direction; further,
there are no translational DOF allowed in any direction. Hence, the curved deck no longer
acts as a curved beam but rather as a two pinned arches. Rotations about the axes in all
three directions are allowed. Hence, the deck no longer acts as a cantilever when the
vertical displacements are considered. BC#02 influences the use of the CF: the cables
directly transfer the loads from the deck without any contribution of the deck EI as is the

- 166 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

case in BC#01. Thus, the distribution of SF1 and SM(COMB) in the arch changes
significantly compared to BC#01
For BC#02, the effects of a changing EI of the arch and deck on SF1 and SM(COMB)
are summarized in Tables C-14 and C-15, respectively. As shown in the tables, the
minimum SF1 is exerted on the arch in a combination of S04D and S04A (a vertically and
horizontally stiff arch and deck). The minimum SM(COMB) occurs in a combination of S01D
and S04A (a vertically and horizontally flexible deck and a vertically and horizontally stiff
arch). Distributions of SF1 and SM(COMB), which capture the sixteen combinations, are
presented in Figure 5-9 and 5-10, respectively.
In C01, assuming BC#02, the out-of-plane displacement of the arch plays a key
role. Nevertheless, the deck stiffness controls the arch displacement, and therefore, it
governs the distribution and magnitude of SF1 and SM(COMB) in the arch.
The deck with BC#02 behaves as a two-hinged arch exposed to a load in the
direction which is perpendicular to its plane. A reaction force to this type of load is directly
transferred to the arch, because the rotation at the deck ends is released; therefore, the load
applied on the deck directly influences the arch displacement.
A transformation of the angle α is a function of deck displacement and, therefore, a
function of deck stiffness. Decks with the same value of EI(V) to EI(H) (S01D and S04D)
represent the governing cases.
A deck with a low EI(V) and EI(H) (S01D) deflects more with an applied load.
Hence, the arch does not significantly deflect, and the resulting transformation of α is
small. A small change in α leads to a small drop in CF and CF(H), while keeping SF1 and
SM(COMB) large.
When a deck with a large EI(V) and EI(H) (S04D) is employed, the deck does not
significantly deflect. Therefore, the arch, acting as a curved cantilever beam with fixed
ends, deflects more in return to the loads transferred from the deck. Thus, when S04D is
used, the transformation of α is large, CF and CF(H) drop more significantly, and the
resulting SF1 and SM(COMB) are reduced.
Arches with a low EI(H) results in increase of α, and therefore, the drop in SF1 and
SM(COMB) is even more perceptible in arches S02A and S01A. The decks with an uneven
value of EI(V) and EI(H) result in moderate SF1 and SM(COMB) in the arch. The effects of the

- 167 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

deck EI (described above) are the same at all levels of the arch EI. Both SF1 and SM(COMB)
are related proportionally: the arch and deck stiffness that result in a small SF1 also result
in a small SM(COMB).

Figure 5-9: Configuration C01: A comparison of the distributions of SF1 in the arch
for LL100 and the 16 combinations of arch and deck stiffness. Deck BC type: BC#02

- 168 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

Figure 5-10: Configuration C01: A comparison of the distributions of SM(COMB) in the


arch for LL100 and the 16 combinations of arch and deck stiffness. Deck BC type:
BC#02

5.4.2.1.3 Configuration C01 — Deck Boundary Conditions: BC#03


The effects of a changing EI of the arch and deck for the deck BC#03 on SF1 and
SM(COMB) are summarized in Tables C-16 and C-17, respectively. The minimum SF1 is
exerted on the arch in a combination of S04D and S02A. The minimum SM (COMB) is
exerted on the arch in a combination of S04D and S01A. In both cases, the vertically and
horizontally stiff deck (S04) represents the governing case. In addition, in both cases, the
arch is flexible in the horizontal direction. Distributions of SF1 and SM(COMB) capturing the
sixteen combinations are presented in Figure 5-11 and Figure 5-12, respectively.

- 169 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

It can be said that that the governing parameter is the EI(V) of the deck. Because the
deck is fixed at the ends, it behaves essentially as a curved cantilever beam. Hence, the
EI(V) of the deck controls the U2 of the deck, and consequently, the amount of load
transferred to the arch.
Vertically stiff decks (S02D and S04D) result in a small SF1 and SM(COMB). A low
EI(H) in S02D causes uneven U3 and U2 of the deck. Therefore, the transformation of α is
not as significant as in the case with deck S04D. Hence, the vertically stiff but horizontally
flexible arch in S02A combined with the deck in S04D results in a smaller SF1 and
SM(COMB) than for the deck S02D.
Vertically flexible decks (S01D and S03D) are capable of carrying less vertical load
(the U2 is larger than in vertically stiff decks) and, thus, the S01D and S03D decks result in
a large SF1 and SM(COMB) in the arch. This trend is amplified in the arches with a low EI(V),
such as S01A or S03A. The vertically flexible arch in S03A combined with decks S01D or
S03D result in the largest SF1 and SM(COMB). In this combination, the EI(H) of the deck does
not play a significant role. Further, there is no difference between the structural response if
S01D or S03D is employed. Due to a large U2 of the arch and deck in S03D combined
with either S01A or S03A, the angle α undergoes only a minimal transformation.
Therefore, CF and CF(H) are slightly reduced, compared to combinations with stiff decks,
which results in the largest SF1 and SM(COMB).
The significance of a high and a low EI(V) of the deck holds for all levels of arch
stiffness. A vertically and horizontally stiff deck (S04D) represents the optimal deck
stiffness because it results in the smallest SF1 and SM(COMB). To achieve the smallest SF1
and SM(COMB), the arch needs to be vertically stiff but horizontally flexible to allow for a
larger transformation of α, which results in a more significant drop in CF and CF(H); this
drop directly affects the magnitude of SF1 and SM(COMB) in the arch.

- 170 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

Figure 5-11: Configuration C01: A comparison of the distributions of SF1 in the arch
for LL100 and the 16 combinations of arch and deck stiffness. Deck BC type: BC#03

- 171 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

Figure 5-12: Configuration C01: A comparison of the distributions of SM(COMB) in the


arch for LL100 and the 16 combinations of arch and deck stiffness. Deck BC type:
BC#03

5.4.2.2 Configuration C02

The two types of deck BCs in C02, BC#01 and BC#04, are defined in Table 5-3.
Each type of deck BCs is evaluated individually; tabular and graphical comparisons are
provided. Structural sketches that represent a combination of EI of the arch and deck, from
which SF1 and SM(COMB) reach their minimal or maximal magnitude (as concluded in
sections below), are provided in Tables C-22 and C-23, respectively

- 172 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

5.4.2.2.1 Configuration C02 — Deck Boundary Conditions: BC#01


The effects of a changing EI of the arch and deck for the deck BC#01 on SF1 and
SM(COMB) are summarized in Tables C-24 and C-25, respectively. The tables show that the
lowest SF1 is exerted on the arch in a combination of S02D and S02A (a vertically stiff and
horizontally flexible deck and arch). The lowest SM(COMB) is achieved in a combination of
S03D and S01A (a vertically flexible and horizontally stiff deck and a vertically and
horizontally flexible arch). Figure 5-13 and Figure 5-14 compare the distributions of SF1
and SM(COMB), respectively.
A change in the EI of the arch and deck results in an opposite effect on the
magnitude of SF1 and SM(COMB), i.e., a stiffness combination that causes a small SF1
results in a large SM(COMB) and vice versa. However, a low EI(H) of the arch achieves both a
small SF1 and SM(COMB).
The deck EI controls the structural response of the arch; in other words, the effect
of a change in the EI of the deck overcomes the effect of a change of the EI of the arch at
all levels of arch EI. The deck S02D results in the smallest SF1 and the largest SM(COMB)
for all levels of arch stiffness (see Section 4.4.3 for an explanation of this behaviour). The
deck S02D (vertically stiff but horizontally flexible) is more prone to inward deflection U3
(toward the inclined arch). The inward U3 of the deck causes an increase in α and results in
a drop in CF(H) and the actual CF. Therefore, the magnitude of SF1 in the arch is reduced.
The reduced CF(H) can no longer counter-act the CF(V), and therefore, the bending moment
in the arch increases.
The effect of EI of the arch plays a secondary role. When the EI(V) of the arch is
low, the arch U2 is large. The large U2 of the arch results in a small increase in α and the
CF is not significantly reduced. Therefore, the SF1 in the arch is large, and the SM(COMB) is
small. When the EI(H) of the arch is low, the U3 of the arch is large (toward the deck). The
large U3 of the arch causes α to increase, which reduces CF. Therefore, the SF1 in the arch
is small. However, due to the large U3 of the arch, the magnitude of SM(COMB) increases.
The EI(H) of the arch and deck play a key role in the transformation of the angle α,
and consequently, in the distribution and magnitude of SF1 in the arch. Thus, the smallest
SF1 is exerted on the arch when both the arch and the deck have a low EI(H). The profiles
of the arch and deck that have the same ratio of EI(V) and EI(H) (S01A, S01D, S04A, and

- 173 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

S04D) experience approximately the same U2 and U3. Therefore, the magnitude of the
transformation of α remains at a moderate level, which maintains a large SF1 and SM(COMB)
as loads are applied.

Figure 5-13: Configuration C02: A comparison of the distributions of SF1 in the arch
for LL100 and the 16 combinations of arch and deck stiffness. Deck BC type: BC#01

- 174 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

Figure 5-14: Configuration C02: A comparison of the distributions of SM(COMB) in the


arch for LL100 and the 16 combinations of arch and deck stiffness. Deck BC type:
BC#01

5.4.2.2.2 Configuration C02 — Deck Boundary Conditions: BC#04


The deck arrangement BC#04 allows for UR2 at the deck abutments, and therefore,
the deck is more prone to U3 toward the arch. This behaviour influences the magnitude of
CF, and subsequently, the SF1 in the arch. The effects of a changing EI of the arch and
deck for the deck BC#04 on SF1 and SM(COMB) are summarized in Tables C-26 and C-27,
respectively. As shown in the tables, the smallest SF1 occurs in a stiffness combination of
S02D and S02A, and the smallest SM(COMB) occurs in S02D and S01A. Distributions of

- 175 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

SF1 and SM(COMB), which capture the sixteen combinations, are presented in Figure 5-15
and Figure 5-16, respectively.
The trends in the structural behaviour of the configurations for BC#01 and BC#04
are similar. For both BC#01 and BC#04, the EI of the deck controls the response, i.e., at all
levels of arch stiffness, the vertically stiff and horizontally flexible deck (S02D) results in
the smallest SF1. The horizontally stiff and vertically flexible deck (S03D) results in the
largest SF1 at all levels of arch stiffness. The arches with the same ratio of EI(V) and EI(H)
(S01A and S04A) result in an almost identical magnitude and distribution of SF1 in the
arch.
For BC#04, the variability in the deck EI does not significantly influence the
magnitude of SM(COMB). There is almost no change in SM(COMB) due to a change in the EI
of the deck. This behaviour holds for all levels of the EI of the arch. The largest SM(COMB)
occurs in a vertically stiff and horizontally flexible arch (S02A). The smallest SM(COMB) is
achieved in arches S01A and S04A where the EI(V) and EI(H) is kept at the same ratio. This
trend holds for all levels of deck stiffness. A vertically flexible and horizontally stiff arch
(S03A) results in an SM(COMB) of a moderate magnitude.
The EI of the deck controls the magnitude and distribution of SF1, and the EI of the
arch controls the magnitude and distribution of SM(COMB) in the arch.
Due to the released rotation UR2 at the deck abutments, the deck is more prone to
displacement toward the inclined arch with a minor effect of the EI(H). Therefore, the ratio
of EI(V) and EI(H) of the arch controls the transformation of α, and consequently, the
magnitude of CF controls the magnitude of SF1 and SM(COMB) in the arch.
The ratio of arch stiffness EI(V) and EI(H) is crucial. If the ratio of the arch EI(V) and
EI(H) is the same (S01A or S04A), the arch deflects at the same magnitude in the vertical
and horizontal directions. The approximately equal U2 and U3 of the arch cause only a
minor change in the angle α, and therefore, the CF(H) remains high and can counter-act the
CF(V), resulting in a small SM(COMB). If the ratio of the arch EI(V) and EI(H) is not the same
(S02A or S03A), the transformation of α is large. For instance, in the case of S02A, the
arch is horizontally flexible and its U3 is large. The large U3 of the arch results in an
increase of α, and therefore, CF(H) drops. The reduced CF(H) can no longer counter-act the
magnitude of CF(V), and therefore, the magnitude of SM(COMB) increases.

- 176 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

Figure 5-15: Configuration C02: A comparison of the distributions of SF1 in the arch
for LL100 and the 16 combinations of arch and deck stiffness. Deck BC type: BC#04

- 177 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

Figure 5-16: Configuration C02: A comparison of the distributions of SM(COMB) in the


arch for LL100 and the 16 combinations of arch and deck stiffness. Deck BC type:
BC#04

5.4.2.3 Configuration C03

The two types of deck BCs in C03 are BC#01 and BC#04, defined in Table 5-3.
Each type of deck BCs is evaluated individually; tabular and graphical comparisons are
provided. Structural sketches that represent a combination of EI of the arch and deck, from
which the SF1 and SM(COMB) reach their minimal or maximal magnitude (as concluded in
sections below), are provided in Tables C-32 and C-33, respectively.

- 178 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

5.4.2.3.1 Configuration C03 — Deck Boundary Conditions: BC#01


The effects of a changing EI of the arch and deck for deck BC#01 on SF1 and
SM(COMB) are summarized in Tables C-34, and C-35, respectively. The tables indicate that
the smallest SF1 and SM(COMB) occur in a combination of S04D and S03A and S01D and
S04A, respectively. Figure 5-17 and Figure 5-18 depict the distributions of SF1 and
SM(COMB), respectively, in the arch.
In horizontally flexible arches (S01A and S02A), the particular EI of the deck that
results in a small SF1 also results in a small SM(COMB). However, when the EI(H) of the arch
increases, the trend reverses: the particular EI of the deck that results in a small SF1
generates a large SM(COMB) in the arch.
The vertically stiff decks (S02D and S04D) result in a small SF1 and large
SM(COMB) when combined with horizontally flexible arches (S01A and S02A). However,
when the EI(H) of the arch increases (S03A and S04A), the vertically stiff decks are no
longer necessary to achieve a low SF1. The reason for this response is the transformation of
α, which is different for each cable along the span (taking into consideration a symmetry in
plan-view).
In horizontally flexible arches (S01A and S02A), when loads are applied, the arch
experiences a larger U3 compared to S03A and S04A, which in return causes an increase in
α. A larger angle α results in a smaller CF and smaller CF(H), and therefore, a smaller SF1
and SM(COMB) are achieved. Further, decks with a low EI(H) (S01D and S02D) cause an
even larger increase in α.
When a large EI(H) of the arch is employed (S03A and S04A), the transformation of
α is not as high, resulting in a larger CF and CF(H), and therefore, SF1 in the arch increases
(particularly in the vicinity of the abutments where α is very small). Due to a large starting
magnitude of α at the midspan (the cables are almost vertical), the arch and deck
experience the largest U2 and U3 at this location. Hence, the transformation of α is large.
This behaviour decreases CF, and therefore, SF1 in the arch at the midspan drops. Further,
horizontally stiff decks (S03D and S04D) have a small U3. U3 of the arch is significantly
influenced by a “locked” UR2 at the deck abutments in BC#01. The significance of an
allowed UR2 for the deck BC#04 is described in the following section.

- 179 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

Figure 5-17: Configuration C03: A comparison of the distributions of SF1 in the arch
for LL100 and the 16 combinations of arch and deck stiffness. Deck BC type: BC#01

- 180 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

Figure 5-18: Configuration C03: A comparison of the distributions of SM(COMB) in the


arch for LL100 and the 16 combinations of arch and deck stiffness. Deck BC type:
BC#01

5.4.2.3.2 Configuration C03 — Deck Boundary Conditions: BC#04


Deck BC#04 allows for UR2 at the deck abutments, and therefore, the deck is more
prone to the out-of-plane displacement U3. The magnitude of U3 of the deck significantly
influences the transformation of α, which affects the distribution of SF1 and SM(COMB) in
the arch. In C03, the magnitude of α is different for each cable. Hence, the magnitude of
CF(H) and CF in each cable differs. The CF(V) is constant along the entire deck length
because it represents only the reaction to the vertical load exerted on the deck. In the
vicinity of the abutments, α is small; thus, α results in a large CF and CF(H), generating

- 181 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

large out-of-plane bending moments in both the arch and the deck. In the vicinity of the
midspan, α is larger, and therefore, CF(H) is smaller. Nevertheless, due to the allowed UR2
at the deck abutments, even a low CF(H) can initiate U3, which influences the
transformation of α, which in turn affects SF1 and SM(COMB) in the arch.
The effects of a changing EI of the arch and deck for the deck BC#04 on SF1 and
SM(COMB) are summarized in Tables C-36 and C-37, respectively. The smallest SF1 results
from a combination of S04D and S03A, and the smallest SM(COMB) is exerted on the arch in
a combination of S02D and S03A. Distributions of SF1 and SM(COMB) capturing the sixteen
combinations are presented in Figure 5-19 and Figure 5-20, respectively.
The trend in SF1 and SM(COMB) in BC#04 is very similar to the trend in BC#01. For
BC#04, the vertically stiff deck results in a small SF1 and a small SM(COMB) at all levels of
arch stiffness.
For the case with a horizontally stiff arch (S03A and S04A) and S02D, SM(COMB)
increases at the midspan because of the low horizontal stiffness of S02D; this combination
results in a large U3 of the deck. Due to the large U3 of S02D, the capacity of the deck to
carry vertical loads decreases (most perceptible at midspan), and thus, more load is
transferred via the cables to the arch, which results in a large, mainly vertical, bending
moment in the arch.
When a combination of S02D and S03A is employed, a low SM(COMB) for BC#04 is
caused due to the low CF(H) that results from a large transformation of α. A vertically stiff
deck (S02D) does not experience a large U2 (compared to vertically flexible decks).
However, due to the allowed UR2 at the deck abutments and low EI(H), the deck S02D
experiences a large U3 to accommodate CF(H). Consequently, α increases, which results in
a subsequent reduction of CF(H) and a smaller SM(COMB) in the arch. Overall, an
employment of BC#04 represents an advantageous option in C03.

- 182 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

Figure 5-19: Configuration C03: A comparison of the distributions of SF1 in the arch
for LL100 and the 16 combinations of arch and deck stiffness. Deck BC type: BC#04

- 183 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

Figure 5-20: Configuration C03: A comparison of the distributions of SM(COMB) in the


arch for LL100 and the 16 combinations of arch and deck stiffness. Deck BC type:
BC#04

- 184 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

5.4.3 Susceptibility to Buckling

Susceptibility to buckling is based on the structural response described in Section


5.4.2. Each configuration is approached separately to determine the susceptibility to
buckling. Section 10.9.4 in CHBDC S6-14 states that the in- and out-of-plane EI of the
arch should be considered when evaluating a ratio of the axial forces and bending moments
in a compression member. Hence, the structural response of the arch is evaluated in a
similar fashion; in other words, the magnitude and distribution of SF1, SM(COMB), U2, and
U3 are analyzed for all types of assumed deck BCs. Combinations of the arch and deck
profiles, with a ratio of EI(V) and EI(H) that results in the smallest SF1 and SM(COMB) in the
arch are summarized in Table 5-4. The provided ratios of EI(V) and EI(H) represent the
optimal combination for a particular arrangement of the deck BCs. The proposed optimal
combinations are the least susceptible to buckling. The details, on which Table 5-4 is
based, are provided in Table C-38 to C-44. The effects of the selected arrangements of the
deck BCs on the level of susceptibility to buckling are described separately for individual
configurations in sections that follow.

Table 5-4: Proposed optimal mechanical ratios of deck and arch stiffness resulting in
a combination, which is the least susceptible to buckling
Confi- Deck BC Deck Arch Ratio of Deck and Arch
guration Type: Stiffness Stiffness Stiffness
Vertical 10 : 1
BC#01 S04D S01A
Horizontal 10 : 1
Vertical 1 : 10
C01 BC#02 S03D S04A
Horizontal 10 : 10
Vertical 10 : 10
BC#03 S04D S02A
Horizontal 1 : 10
Vertical 10 : 10
BC#01 S02D S04A
Horizontal 1 : 10
C02
Vertical 10 : 10
BC#04 S02D S04A
Horizontal 1 : 10
Vertical 10 : 1
BC#01 S02D S03A
Horizontal 1 : 10
C03
Vertical 1 : 1
BC#04 S03D S03A
Horizontal 10 : 10

- 185 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

5.4.3.1 Configuration C01

The magnitude and distribution of SF1, SM(COMB), U2, and U3 of the arch at
determined ratios of EI(V) and EI(H) of the arch and deck, showing the significance of a
particular type of deck BC, are presented in Figures 5-21, 5-22, 5-23, and 5-24,
respectively. The following can be concluded from the figures:
• For a combination of S04D and S01A, which are identified as optimal for BC#01, the
change in the type of BCs of the deck has a significant impact, as expected.
• The fixed ends of the deck in BC#03 reduce the magnitude of SF1, SM(COMB), U2, and
U3. In contrast, the released rotational DOFs at the deck ends in BC#02 cause an
increase in the structural responses.
• The large EI of the deck in both directions controls the distribution of internal forces in
the arch for all three arrangements of the BCs of the deck. Its effect is most perceptible
for BC#03 because the deck acts as a cantilever beam in this case. For this
combination, the structural response of the deck overcomes the effect of the arch, and
therefore, the stiffness of the arch can be low.
• The stiffness of the deck must be large in both directions to reduce the susceptibility to
buckling in C01.
• A combination of S03D and S04A, which are identified as optimal for BC#02,
indicates that the released rotational DOFs for BC#02 allow a large portion of the load
to be transferred to the arch. Therefore, the EI(V) and EI(H) of the arch must be large
enough to accommodate such loads and prevent large U2 and U3. The EI(V) of the deck
does not influence the distribution of the internal forces in the arch due to the released
rotational DOFs at the deck ends. However, a large EI(H) of the deck can reduce the
internal forces in the arch because the deck acts an arch loaded by CF(H). Hence, the
EI(H) of the deck plays a significant role in BC#02.
• When the EI(V) and EI(H) of the arch is large, the effects of deck BCs are negligible.
• For a combination of S04D and S02A (identified as optimal for BC#03), it is proven
that the effect of deck stiffness controls the arch action in C01.
• In C01, all the combinations of arch EI with stiff decks are less susceptible to buckling
than combinations with flexible decks. The effect of the arch EI cannot overcome the
effect of deck stiffness in BC#03.

- 186 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

• Employing BC#03 can significantly reduce the susceptibility to buckling. BC#02 is the
least suitable arrangement of deck ends in regards to buckling of the arch.

Figure 5-21: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the effects of different deck BCs
on the distribution of SF1 in the arch for the combination of arch and deck stiffness
that results in the smallest SF1 and SM(COMB)

Figure 5-22: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the effects of different deck BCs
on the distribution of SM(COMB) in the arch for the combination of arch and deck
stiffness that results in the smallest SF1 and SM(COMB)

- 187 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

Figure 5-23: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the effects of different deck BCs
on the distribution of U2 in the arch for the combination of arch and deck stiffness
that results in the smallest SF1 and SM(COMB)

Figure 5-24: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the effects of different deck BCs
on the distribution of U3 in the arch for the combination of arch and deck stiffness
that results in the smallest SF1 and SM(COMB)

- 188 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

5.4.3.2 Configuration C02

As shown in Table 5-4, the ratio of the arch and deck stiffness that results in the
smallest SF1 and SM(COMB) in the arch is the same for both BC#01 and BC#04. The effects
of the released UR2 rotation in BC#04 on SF1, SM(COMB), U2, and U3 are presented in
Figures 5-25, 5-26, 5-27, and 5-28, respectively. The following can be concluded from the
figures:
• BC#04 results in a smaller SF1 and SM(COMB) in the arch compared to BC#01.
• The effect of a different type of deck BCs is more perceptible in the distribution of the
SF1 than distribution of the SM(COMB). BC#04 reduces the drop in SF1, localized at
the position of the first cable. The released rotation UR2 for BC#04 results in a more
gradual distribution of SF1 in the arch.
• The deck stiffness controls the magnitude of SF1 in the arch for both arrangements of
deck BCs. A vertically stiff and horizontally flexible deck (S02D) results in the
smallest SF1 at all levels of arch stiffness for both types of deck BCs; this is the
optimal combination of the arch and deck stiffness (Section 5.4.2.2).
• The released UR2 for BC#04 results in a larger U2 of the arch. For BC#04, due to the
low EI(H) of S02D, the deck has greater displacement in the U3 direction than for
BC#01. Thus, for BC#04, the ability of the deck to carry vertical loads decreases and a
larger amount of load is transferred to the arch, resulting in a larger U2 of the arch.
Nevertheless, the U3 of the arch is reduced for BC#04 because the released UR2,
making the deck more prone to U3 deflection, causes α to increase, which in turn
reduces CF and CF(H).
• BC#04 positively reduces the susceptibility to buckling in C02.
• A ratio of S02D and S04A combined with BC#04 is the least susceptible to buckling in
C02.

- 189 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

Figure 5-25: Configuration C02 — A comparison of the effects of different deck BCs
on the distribution of SF1 in the arch for the combination of arch and deck stiffness
that results in the smallest SF1 and SM(COMB)

Figure 5-26: Configuration C02 — A comparison of the effects of different deck BCs
on the distribution of SM(COMB) in the arch for the combination of arch and deck
stiffness that results in the smallest SF1 and SM(COMB)

- 190 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

Figure 5-27: Configuration C02 — A comparison of the effects of different deck BCs
on the distribution of U2 in the arch for the combination of arch and deck stiffness
that results in the smallest SF1 and SM(COMB)

Figure 5-28: Configuration C02 — A comparison of the effects of different deck BCs
on the distribution of U3 in the arch for the combination of arch and deck stiffness
that results in the smallest SF1 and SM(COMB)

- 191 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

5.4.3.3 Configuration C03

In C03, the deck stiffness controls the susceptibility to buckling for the two types of
the deck BCs, as indicated in Table 5-4. In both arrangements, the smallest SF1 and
SM(COMB) occur in the arch S03A (a vertically flexible and horizontally stiff arch). The
effects of the released UR2 for BC#04 on SF1, SM(COMB), U2, and U3 are presented in
Figures 5-29, 5-30, 5-31, and 5-32, respectively. The following is concluded from the
figures:
• For the two cases that are being compared, the effect of the arch and deck profiles
(with a particular ratio of EI(V) and EI(H)) is larger than the effect of the deck BCs.
Further, the effect of the deck BCs is only minor.
• For BC#01, a combination of S02D and S03A is the optimal case. For BC#04, the
released UR2 results in a larger SF1, SM(COMB), and U2 and a smaller U3 of the arch.
The combination of S03D and S03A, the optimal case, experiences a larger change in
terms of the structural response for BC#04 response than for BC#01.
• Due to the released UR2 in BC#04, the deck is more prone to U3 deflection, which
increases α. Consequently, an increase in α causes CF(H) to be low. However, due to
the large U3 of the deck, more load is transferred to the arch. Hence, the susceptibility
to buckling increases in BC#04.
• BC#01 represents a more efficient arrangement when vertically stiff decks are
selected. BC#04 reduces the susceptibility to bucking when vertically flexible decks
are used.
• The magnitude of EI(H) of the arch and deck controls the susceptibility to buckling in
C03.
• BC#01 with vertically stiff decks is the least susceptible to buckling.

- 192 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

Figure 5-29: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the effects of different deck BCs
on the distribution of SF1 in the arch for the combination of arch and deck stiffness
that results in the smallest SF1 and SM(COMB)

Figure 5-30: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the effects of different deck BCs
on the distribution of SM(COMB) in the arch for the combination of arch and deck
stiffness that results in the smallest SF1 and SM(COMB)

- 193 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

Figure 5-31: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the effects of different deck BCs
on the distribution of U2 in the arch for the combination of arch and deck stiffness
that results in the smallest SF1 and SM(COMB)

Figure 5-32: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the effects of different deck BCs
on the distribution of U3 in the arch for the combination of arch and deck stiffness
that results in the smallest SF1 and SM(COMB)

- 194 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

5.5 Conclusion to Chapter Five

The following can be concluded about the general response of each configuration to
a change in EI of the arch and deck as a function of deck BCs.

5.5.1 Configuration C01

The response in C01 with deck BC#01 is controlled by EI(H) of the arch and EI(V) of
the deck. When the arch is horizontally stiff and the deck vertically stiff, the axial forces in
the arch are large and the bending moments in the arch are small. Such a configuration is
the least susceptible to buckling.
When considering the deck with BC#02, the stiffness of the deck governs the
response in the arch. A vertically and horizontally flexible deck results in large axial forces
and bending moments in the arch and, therefore, increases the susceptibility of the arch to
buckling. In contrast, a deck that is vertically and horizontally stiff deforms less and causes
a larger displacement of the arch than the flexible deck. The larger displacements of the
arch cause large bending moments in the arch; nevertheless, the axial loads in the arch are
reduced due to out-of-plane arch displacements. In other words, due to the out of plane
displacements of the inclined arch, the arch is no longer capable of carrying as high axial
loads as a conventional vertical arch. Overall, stiff deck reduces the susceptibility of the
arch to buckling.
Fixed ends of the deck, i.e., BC#03, represent an option that results in a
configuration that is the least susceptible to buckling from all the three deck BCs. When the
deck is vertically and horizontally stiff, most of the load is carried by the deck and the out-
of-plane displacements of the arch are small, which results in small susceptibility to
buckling. Low horizontal stiffness of the arch improves the described behaviour.

5.5.2 Configuration C02

In C02, a combination of the arch and deck stiffness that results in small axial load
in the arch typically results in large bending moment in the arch. It can be said that the
deck stiffness governs the response in the arch regardless of the arch stiffness. The
vertically stiff and horizontally flexible deck results in the smallest SF1 and the largest

- 195 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

SM(COMB) in all levels of arch stiffness when compared to the effect of the other levels of
deck stiffness.
The difference between the responses in the arch resulting from BC#01 and BC#04
in C02 is that for the BC#04 the variability in deck bending stiffness does not influence the
magnitude of SM(COMB). Due to the released to released rotation about vertical axis at the
deck ends, there is almost no change in SM(COMB) due to change in deck stiffness for the
particular arch stiffness. Such behaviour holds for all levels of arch bending stiffness.
When BC#04 is selected, the deck bending stiffness controls the magnitude and
distribution of SF1 in the arch and the arch bending stiffness controls the magnitude and
distribution of SM(COMB) in the arch.
The BC#04 reduces the susceptibility of the arch to buckling because the released
rotation about vertical axis at the deck ends reduces both the axial loads and bending
moments.

5.5.3 Configuration C03

The main difference between C03 and C01 or C02 is that in C03 the arch crosses
over the straight deck and, therefore, the inclination of each cable, from a vertical plane, is
different (symmetry midspan applies). Another difference is that in comparison to C01,
C02, or conventional vertical planar arch, in C03, the cables are the shortest at midspan and
longest at the arch abutments.
The response in the cables is critical; it is a function of both the cable inclination
and cable length. The highest cable forces occur in cables located in the vicinity of arch
abutments because the inclination of these cables, from a vertical plane, is large.
Nevertheless, the large length of these cables, resulting in large elongation, reduces the
effect of high tensile forces in the cables on the response in the arch. Whereas at midspan,
despite the small inclination of the cables from a vertical plane (resulting in relatively
smaller forces in the cables in comparison to the cables with a large inclination from a
vertical plane), the effect of the cables on the response in the arch is large. Also, the arch is
prone to larger displacements at midspan than in vicinity of the abutments. Therefore, in
C03 it is the horizontal stiffness of the arch that controls the response in the arch. Deck
horizontal stiffness can also affect the response in the arch; however, a change in the deck

- 196 -
Chapter Five: The Significance of Boundary Conditions and Bending Stiffness

horizontal stiffness has a smaller impact on the response in the arch than a change in the
arch horizontal stiffness.
The end conditions of the deck can significantly influence the general type of
response described above. The BC#04 increases the susceptibility of the arch to buckling
because the released rotation about vertical axis at the deck ends reduces the effect of
horizontal deck stiffness and the deck is more prone to horizontal displacements.
Displacement of the deck in horizontal direction causes an increase mainly in bending
moments in the arch, which, in C03, represents the critical type of response. The
response of the arch can be improved by selecting BC#01. A combination of BC#01, a
deck of a small horizontal bending stiffness, and an arch with large horizontal stiffness
reduces the susceptibility of the arch to buckling.

The result summary tables, which provide organized data as a function of arch and
deck EI and deck BCs, accompanied with structural sketches (provided in Appendix C),
when combined with the conclusions of this chapter, can be used as a guideline. Chapter
Five establishes a base for the spatial configurations that are studied in Chapter Six.

- 197 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

6.1 Introduction

Any structure exposed to weather conditions undergoes a process of deterioration.


In Canadian climates, the effect of weather conditions is elevated due to the frequent
presence of de-icing salts and cycles of freezing and thawing that accelerate the
deterioration process, particularly in structures such as parking garages and bridges. Hence,
a desire for durable materials, such as advanced composite materials (ACMs), arises.
ACMs are increasingly used in civil engineering applications for their superior
durability and high stiffness and strength to weight ratios. The mechanical properties of
ACMs can be utilized to reinforce and strengthen structures or construct all-composite
assemblies. ACMs also represent an alternative to traditional materials that have been used
in the construction of SABs. Nevertheless, the fibrous character of ACMs accompanied
with our limited understanding of the response of structures exposed to out-of-plane loads
result in a rare occurrence of all-composite SABs. Therefore, several factors in the
structural response of SABs that are entirely constructed from ACMs are now investigated.
The challenges in SABs entirely constructed from ACMs are related primarily to
the material properties of ACMs. Typically, ACMs have a low modulus of elasticity (E)
and are susceptible to creep, which leads to large deformations. Creep-rupture can cause a
collapse of the entire structure. The low weight of ACM may be advantageous in terms of
designing a substructure. However, the low mass of the superstructure may influence the
damping properties and the structure may become more prone to undesired vibrations.
ACMs have a low coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE), which results in small demands
on the deck expansion joints and in small fluctuations of stresses due to the reduced
contraction and expansion of the cables that support the deck. These factors influence the
structural response, and therefore, they need to be addressed via detailed analyses.
In this chapter not all the possible cases are covered, but rather focus is placed on
the key factors identified as an outcome of the literature review (Section 2.6.5) and the
findings in Chapters Four and Five. Therefore, the main focus is investigating the effect of
the following: 1) creep and creep-rupture, 2) CTE, and 3) changing deck stiffness upon
applied LL and GTL.

- 198 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

There are two types of ACMs assumed for the proposed analyses: 1) glass fibre
reinforced polymers (GFRP) and 2) carbon fibre reinforced polymers (CFRP). Both
material types are employed in the form of HSS profiles.
The response of the cables, connecting the arch and deck, directly influences the
structural behaviour of these two components. The nonlinear character of the cables can
skew the accuracy of the results. Hence, a detailed approach, employing the developed
nonlinear FE models, is established to take into account the effect of sag and the additional
tensioning of the cables.
In contrast to Chapters Four and Five, only one configuration is considered here.
The spatial configuration C01B consists of an in-plan curved deck and a parabolic arch
inclined from a vertical plane.
The chapter is divided into the following five sections. The objectives are presented
in Section 6.2. Section 6.3 describes the specifications of the developed models including
the geometrical and material properties in relation to the analysis types. Section 6.4
presents and discusses the achieved results of the specific analyses as follows: Section
6.4.1 describes the effect of susceptibility to creep, creep-rupture, and effect of additional
tensioning of cables; Section 6.4.2 discusses the sensitivity of the assumed structural
configuration to different CTE; and Section 6.4.3 depicts the details related to the
magnitude of deck deflection and the distribution of stresses in the deck while taking into
account the variability in deck stiffness. Section 6.5 underlines the most significant
findings. Details of the analyses, such as large tables or complex charts, are provided in
Appendix D.

6.2 Objectives

The main goal of Chapter Six is to investigate the significance of material influence
on the structural behaviour of a particular spatial configuration. The specific objectives are:

• To determine whether or not the spatial configuration C01B, using GFRP and CFRP in
the structure, is susceptible to creep-rupture due to out-of-plane loads when a
particular deck deflection limit (L/500) is imposed;

- 199 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

• To investigate the significance of creep on the distribution and magnitude of


displacements and stresses in the arch, deck, and cables made of GFRP;

• To determine changes in stress distributions in structural profiles made of GFRP


(employed in the arch and deck) when the EI of the arch is reduced by 50% (compared
to a model configuration investigated in the previous objective). Additional tensioning
of the cables is employed to achieve the imposed deck deflection limit of L/500;

• To determine the level of a stress change in the structural profiles and cables made of
the two types of AMCs, GFRP and CFRP, with a low CTE (compared to steel) when
exposed to –50°C and +50°C, assuming that a principle of constant-bending-stiffness
is employed in the arch and deck and a principle of constant-axial-stiffness is
employed in the cables;

• To determine an optimal ratio of EI(V) and EI(H) of the deck that results in the smallest
deck deflection at the midspan and the smallest stress fluctuation in the deck, assuming
only GFRP within the entire structure, while taking into account three levels of f(D)/s
(0.25, 0.20, and 0.15) and nine different deck cross-sections; and

• To examine the effect that GFRP, CFRP, and steel have on the distribution and
magnitude of stress in two critical deck profiles, while assuming the most sensitive
ratio f(D)/s (0.25) and three levels of applied GTL (0°C, +50°C, and -50°C).

6.3 Model Specifications

The common aspects of the models related to all analysis types are provided in the
sections below. Chapter Six assumes three main analysis types:
• Analysis AN#01: The effect of creep
• Analysis AN#02: The significance of CTE
• Analysis AN#03: The influence of the variability in deck stiffness

- 200 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

6.3.1 Nonlinear Model

Nonlinear FE models (developed according to Section 3.3.1.3) are employed to


account for the nonlinear character of the cables, whose response directly impacts the
behaviour of the arch and deck. In Chapters Four and Five, the cables were modeled with
truss elements to ignore the effect of sag in the cables. This assumption is acceptable for an
analysis that clarifies the overall structural response, while considering a change in
geometry or BCs. However, in terms of investigating the significance of material properties
on the stress distribution, the sag of the cables cannot be ignored because the level of
resulting stresses (in the stress sensitive ACM profiles) can change significantly. It should
be noted that the even though the effect of the cable sag is taken into account, in these
models, the length of the cables was established at the un-deformed state, i.e., the cables
assume no initial sag.

6.3.2 Selection of a Critical Configuration

The structural configuration consists of an in-plan curved deck (identified as critical


in Section 5.4.3.1) and an arch, inclined from a vertical plane by angle ω = 30° (identified
as critical in Section 4.4.2.2). The combined configuration is designated as “C01B.”
C01B is based on the findings presented in the previous chapters and on a stress
analysis that takes into account the three main spatial configurations (C01, C02, and C03)
and the three assumed materials (GFRP, CFRP, and steel). The detailed results from these
analyses are provided in Table D-1 and Table D-2. The magnitude and type of stress
(tensile or compression) exerted on individual structural components in the assumed
configurations is compared. The results show that in C01 and C02, the structural
components experience high stresses more frequently compared to C03. Therefore, it
seems logical to combine the geometry of C01 and C02 into the proposed configuration
C01B.
The ranges of the primary and secondary variables of C01B are presented in . A
graphical representation of C01B (depicting the primary and secondary variables),
including sections cuts through the arch and deck with varying dimensions, is presented in
Figure 6-1.

- 201 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

Table 6-1: Range of primary and secondary variables assumed in Chapter Six
Analysis Geometric variable Value
f(A)/s 0.15
AN#01 & AN#02 f(D)/s 0.25
ω 30°
f(A)/s 0.15
AN#03 f(D)/s 0.15/0.20/0.25
ω 30°

Cable Diam. D: Arch Diam.

H: Deck Height

W: Deck Width

f(A): Arch rise

s: Span
ff(D)
(D);: Deck
Deck reach
Reach

Figure 6-1: Spatial Configuration C01B

6.3.3 Boundary Conditions

The BCs of the arch remain unchanged; in other words, the arch is fixed at both
ends. However, the BCs of the deck are altered to provide a more realistic arrangement.
The characteristics of the deck BCs are classified in Chapter Five as BC#02 (see Table
5-3). The altered deck BCs is designated as BC#02B. At the BC#02B, the rotational DOF
about the longitudinal deck axis (UR1) is not allowed. The local orientation at the deck
abutments is altered to follow the longitudinal axis of the deck, which is a function of the
f(D)/s. A definition of the BC#02B in terms of the DOF is provided in Table 6-2. A
schematic representation of BC#02B is shown in Figure 6-2. The selected deck BC#02B
remains unchanged throughout all analyses in Chapter Six.

- 202 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

Table 6-2: Definition of deck boundary condition BC#02B


Type Description U1 U2 U3 UR1 UR2 UR3
Restricted Pin-connection
(P_P_R)
Allows for rotation about
local direction 2 and 3.
BC#02B 1 1 1 1 0 0
Rotation about the deck
longitudinal axis is not
permitted. No translations are
allowed.

Figure 6-2: Schematic representation of deck boundary conditions BC#02B


(Restricted Pin-connection) in C01B

6.3.4 Cross-sections

Structural profiles are modeled via beam elements with a rectangular cross-section
(C-S), representing closed HSS. The employment of HSS sections assumes the ACMs are
in the form of pultruded profiles (see Section 3.5 for reference). A reason to select a
rectangular box section is the ability to determine the stresses as a function of the
following: a) particular location within the assumed C-S and b) actual magnitude of the
area of the C-S, which changes as the outer dimensions of the HSS are varied. The
selection of rectangular sections also reflects standard structural profiles and, hence, the

- 203 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

magnitude of stresses can be evaluated against particular stress limits that need to be met in
the individual types of ACM.
In the present chapter, all analyses take into account profiles made of the three
assumed materials (see Section 6.3.6), whose overall dimensions change to address the
particular objectives. While the overall dimensions of the assumed structural profiles are
varied, the thickness of the HSS wall remains unchanged throughout all analyses. The
thickness of the HSS wall in the arch and the deck is 25mm and 20mm, respectively,
following the assumed parameters determined in Table 4-3.

6.3.4.1 Principle of a Variation in the Bending and Axial Stiffness

The analyses AN#02 and AN#03 are based on the principle of constant-bending-
stiffness (CBS), described as follows:
• In AN#02, the dimensions of the arch, deck, and cables are based on results of
AN#01C, which considers GFRP structural profiles.
• The EI of the arch and deck (found via AN#01C) is set as a reference to other materials
in AN#02. To achieve the same EI, while taking into account materials with different
E, the outer dimensions of the structural profiles must change.
• The principle of CBS is graphically demonstrated in Figure 6-3.
• Similarly to the principle of CBS applied to profiles assumed for the arch and deck, a
principle of constant-axial-stiffness (CAS) is applied to cables. A cable made of
material with large E will have small A and vice versa.

E(GFRP) < E(STEEL)


I(GFRP) > I(STEEL)
EI(GFRP) = EI(STEEL)

GFRP Profile STEEL Profile


Figure 6-3: Principle of constant-bending-stiffness (CBS)

- 204 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

It should be realized that even though the principle of CBS is considered, the
structural profiles have different axial stiffness. The different axial stiffness of these
profiles is unavoidable because to achieve the constant bending stiffness simultaneously
with the constant axial stiffness is not feasible.

6.3.4.2 Section Points

The significance of the three materials, whose performance is stress sensitive


(creep-rupture in ACM), is investigated and, therefore, the actual magnitude of the stresses
becomes an important factor. In C01B, four locations of section points (SPs) were
determined to capture the stresses within the C-S of the arch and deck. Individual SPs are
defined at the middle of the wall of the HSS profile. The locations of the SPs in the arch
and deck are presented in Figure 6-4.

SP#01: TOP

SP#01: LHS SP#03: RHS

SP#01: TOP
SP#01: BOTTOM

SP#01: LHS SP#03: RHS

SP#01: BOTTOM

Figure 6-4: Locations of section points in the cross-section of arch and deck

6.3.5 Loads

There are three different types of loads exerted on the structure: 1) DL, 2) LL, and
3) GTL. Because the properties of the assumed materials vary, the magnitude of DL varies
as well. As shown in Chapters Four and Five, the LL100 represents the critical pattern, and
hence, the LL100 is selected. The magnitude of the LL is determined in accordance with
Section 3.3.5. The magnitude of GTL covers three levels: –50°C, 0°C, and +50°C. In

- 205 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

Chapter Four, the effects of the LL and GTL were examined separately; in this chapter, the
LL and GTL are applied at the same time to represent a more realistic case to which the
assumed configuration may be exposed. It should be noted that all three types of loads, i.e.,
DL, LL, and GTL are applied simultaneously in the first loading step. When taken into
account, additional tensioning of the cables is applied in a separate second loading step.

6.3.6 Materials

The assumed HSS profiles take into account three material types: 1) GFRP, 2)
CFRP, and 3) structural steel. Structural steel is employed in the models to serve as a
reference material. The mechanical properties of the selected materials are presented in
Section 3.5.
The magnitude of the effective modulus of elasticity (E(EFF)), which is used to take
creep into account, was established according to Smith (2005). In the GFRP pultruded
profiles and cables, due to the effect of creep, the initial modulus of elasticity (E(IN)) drops
to a range of 70% to 90%, as a function of temperature and length of service life. Based on
the assumed temperature range (–50°C to +50°C) and service life of 75 years, it was
determined that the E(EFF) equals 75% of E(IN). The magnitude of E(EFF) for the GFRP
pultruded profiles and cables is presented in Table 6-3.

Table 6-3: E(EFF) for the GFRP profiles and cables


Component E(IN) [GPa] E(EFF) [GPa]
GFRP pultruded profile 54 40.5
GFRP Cable 80 60

- 206 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

6.4 Results and Discussion

6.4.1 Creep Analysis

Creep analysis, AN#01, is subdivided into three sections to investigate the


particular parameters affected by the creep, such as the effect of E, EI, or weight per unit
length (WPUL), which are discussed below.

6.4.1.1 Susceptibility to Creep-rupture

The proposed analysis with focus on the creep related effects taking into account
the susceptibility to creep-rupture is designated “AN#01A”. The factors to consider are as
follows:
• Developed spatial configurations assume one material type to create the entire
structure. GFRP and CFRP are employed; steel is assumed as a reference material.
• EI of the arch is varied to meet the imposed deck deflection limit of L/500 (in
accordance with AASHTO (2009) Section 5 Deflections). The arch diameter is varied
until a satisfactory value of deck U2 is achieved. At this point, the contribution of the
EI of the deck and the cables is only minor and, therefore, the C-S properties of the
deck and cables remain unchanged.
• The stresses achieved in the configurations, assuming GFRP and CFRP, are compared
to the stress limits (listed in Table 3-1), which are imposed to avoid creep-rupture.
• Properties of the assumed C-S in AN#01A are provided in Table D-3.

Results of the AN#01A are presented in Table 6-4. The table shows the diameter of
the arch rib, required to archive imposed deck deflection limit. In order to meet the limit of
L/500, the bending stiffness of the arch needs to be enlarged to such a level where the
stresses that develop do not exceed the stress limits imposed to avoid creep-rupture. The
results show that the structural response of the arch and the EI of the arch control the
vertical deflection of the deck in C01B. Due to the serviceability limit, creep-rupture in
C01B (entirely made of ACM) is not a significant concern. Nevertheless, due to the low E
in the GFRP profiles, the arch diameter needs to be significantly larger than if made from
CFRP or steel.

- 207 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

Table 6-4: Results of analysis AN#01A


Stress [MPa] Creep-
Arch: Deck: Vert. L/500
rup.
Mat. Diam. W*H deck Satisfie
Arch Deck Cables limit
[m] [m] deflection d Y/N
[MPa]
GFRP 4.50 2.0*0.4 L/501 Y 19 13 65 360
CFRP 2.75 2.0*0.4 L/502 Y 47 13 68 1,700
STEEL 2.70 2.0*0.4 L/527 Y 73 24 125 N/A

6.4.1.2 Significance of Weight per Unit Length and Modulus of Elasticity

The proposed analysis investigating the effect of WPUL and E is designated


“AN#01B-I”. In AN#01B-I, the same configurations as in AN#01A are studied in order to
establish the significance of different WPUL of the three materials in question. The
distribution of displacements in the arch and deck are compared and the effect of WPUL
described.
A comparison of the arch EI that results in satisfactory deflection of the deck is
shown in Table 6-5. This table shows that even though the GFRP profile must have the
largest diameter to result in satisfactory deflection of the deck and the WPUL differs
among the three materials, the final EI of the GFRP arch is very similar to those of the
arches made of CFRP and steel. It should be noted that the principle of CBS was not
employed in this analysis.

Table 6-5: EI of the arch resulting in satisfactory deck deflections


Arch EI Vertical Deck
Material E [N/m2] I [m4]
[N*m2] deflection
GFRP 5.40E+10 4.12E-01 2.22E+10 L/501
CFRP 1.47E+11 1.49E-01 2.19E+10 L/502
STEEL 2.00E+11 1.16E-01 2.31E+10 L/527

A comparison of the U2 and U3 of the deck is presented on Figures 6-5 and 6-6,
respectively. These figures consider identical C-S of the deck: W = 2.0m, H = 0.4m in all
materials.

- 208 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

Figure 6-5: U2 of the deck, considering deck: W = 2.0m, H = 0.4m in all materials

Figure 6-6: U3 of the deck, considering deck: W = 2.0m, H = 0.4m in all materials

From the Figure 6-5 it is apparent that despite the same C-S of the deck, the
different E and WPUL, in the three configurations, do not affect the final magnitude or
distribution of U2 significantly. Such behaviour results from the ratio of EI(H) and EI(V) of
the deck (EI(H) being larger than EI(V)) combined with the geometric configuration assumed
for the C01B. In the configuration in question, the deck reach is large (f(D)/s = 0.25) and the
arch rise small (f(A)/s = 0.15). Hence, the CF(H) is large and the EI(H) of the deck is utilized
rather than EI(V) of the deck.

- 209 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

While the effect of low EI(V) in GFRP deck profiles does not influence the U2 of the
deck significantly, the effect of low EI(H) of the GFRP deck on the U3 of this deck is more
evident. EI(V) and U2 of the deck made of the three materials are presented in Table 6-6 and
EI(H) and U3 in Table 6-7.

Table 6-6: EI(V) and U2 of the deck


Material E [N/m2] I [m4] EI(V) [N*m2] U2
GFRP 5.40E+10 3.05E-03 1.64E+08 L/501
CFRP 1.47E+11 3.05E-03 4.48E+08 L/502
STEEL 2.00E+11 3.05E-03 6.09E+08 L/527

Table 6-7: EI(H) and U3 of the deck


Material E [N/m2] I [m4] EI(H) [N*m2] U3
GFRP 5.40E+10 4.08E-02 2.20E+09 L/7,843
CFRP 1.47E+11 4.08E-02 5.99E+09 L/18,475
STEEL 2.00E+11 4.08E-02 8.16E+09 L/79,447

As expected, U3 of the deck is largest in the GFRP deck, the deck with the smallest
EI(H). Hence, it can be concluded that in C01B, the EI of the arch controls U2 of the deck
and EI(H) of the deck controls U3.

The distributions of U2 and U3 of the arch, affecting the deck displacement, are
presented in Figure 6-7 and Figure 6-8, respectively. From these figures it is apparent that
U2 and U3 of the arch are the largest in the CFRP arch, not in the GFRP arch, as may have
been expected. Such behaviour is a result of the interaction between the EI of the arch and
deck.

- 210 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

Figure 6-7: U2 of the arch, considering deck: W = 2.0m, H = 0.4m in all materials

Figure 6-8: U3 of the arch, considering deck: W = 2.0m, H = 0.4m in all materials

As pointed out earlier, the arch is the structural component that governs U2 of the
deck. And in order to achieve the same U2 of the deck, the EI of the arch needs to be the
same regardless of the material used. However, because EI(H) of the CFRP deck is larger
than EI(H) of the GFRP deck, the CFRP deck (carrying the same amount of LL, generating
similar CF(H) as in the case of the GFRP deck) will tend to deflect less in the horizontal
direction, due to a larger deformation of the CFRP arch than the arch made of GFRP. In

- 211 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

other words, because the EI(H) of the CFRP deck is larger than EI(H) of the GFRP deck, the
CFRP arch (with the same stiffness as the GFRP arch) will deflect more to accommodate
the loads transferred via the cables from the horizontally stiff deck.
It can be noted that in the configuration assuming steel, the U2 and U3 of the arch
are smaller than in the configuration assuming CFRP despite the EI(V) and EI(H) of the steel
deck being larger than that of the CFRP deck. The reason for such behaviour is not the
WPUL of the steel deck but the WPUL of the steel arch. The WPUL of the steel arch is
significantly larger than the WPUL of the CFRP and, therefore, the weight of the steel arch
counteracts the CF(H). Hence, the resulting U2 and U3 of the steel arch is smaller in
comparison to the configuration made of CFRP.
The outcome of the large WPUL of the steel arch and deck is compensated by large
stress in the cables as shown in Figure 6-9. The CFRP arch and deck, with low WPUL,
then result in the smallest stress in the cables, except the first cable which exposed to the
largest amount of force as explained in Section 4.4.2.1.6.

Figure 6-9: Stresses in cables (Cable Ø = 50mm in all materials)

The distribution of stresses, at the four designated section points, in the arch and
deck are shown in Figure 6-10 and Figure 6-11, respectively.

- 212 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

a) Stress at SP#01: Top

b) Stress at SP#02: Bottom

c) Stress at SP#03: RHS

d) Stress at SP#04: LHS

Figure 6-10: Distribution of stresses in the arch comparing the effect of GFRP, CFRP,
and steel at four section points

- 213 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

a) Stress at SP#01: Top

b) Stress at SP#02: Bottom

c) Stress at SP#03: RHS

d) Stress at SP#04: LHS

Figure 6-11 Distribution of stresses in the deck comparing the effect of GFRP, CFRP,
and steel at four section points

- 214 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

The figures show that the stresses in the steel arch and deck are the highest due to
the highest WPUL of steel. Also, the difference between the maximum and minimum stress
is the highest in the steel profiles. The profiles made of GFRP and CFRP with low WPUL
have similar magnitude and distribution of stresses, particularly in the deck. However, the
difference between the maximum and minimum stress in the GFRP and CFRP profiles is
much smaller in comparison to the steel profiles. Such an attribute of commonly used
GFRP profiles represents a promising feature for these profiles to be used in spatial
structures. Details of the stress fluctuations in the arch, deck, and cables are provided in
Appendix D, Tables D-4, D-5, and D-6.
The smallest stress fluctuation was identified in the GFRP profiles; the profiles with
the smallest E and moderate WPUL among the three materials. However, the stress
distribution is time dependent in the GFRP profiles and the effect of creep plays a
significant role. Hence, the significance of creep on the stress distribution in the arch and
deck, assuming only GFRP profiles, is studied next.

6.4.1.3 Significance of Creep on the Stress Distribution

The proposed analysis, investigating the effect of E(EFF), is designated “AN#01B-


II”. In this analysis, only GFRP is modeled for the arch and deck because among the three
materials, GFRP is most susceptible to creep. The cables assume all three materials in order
to examine the effect of creep in the cables. Five different models were analyzed. The
designation of the models, assignment of the materials, and level of E(EFF) in the members
and cables are listed in in the Table 6-8.
Table 6-8: Parameters of models in analysis AN#01B-II
Model Material of E(EFF) of arch Material of E(EFF) of cables
designation arch and deck and deck [%] cables [%]
M(REF) GFRP 100 GFRP 100
M001 GFRP 75 GFRP 75
M002 GFRP 75 GFRP 100
M003 GFRP 75 CFRP 100
M004 GFRP 75 STEEL 100

The cross-sectional properties of the arch, deck, and cables were the same as for the
AN#01A, as specified in Section 6.4.1.1. The magnitude and distribution of U2 and U3 of

- 215 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

the arch and deck are compared and checked against the imposed limit of L/500 in order to
verify whether or not the reduced stiffness ( EI(EFF)) in the arch may contribute to a
reduction of vertical deck displacement.
The resulting distributions and magnitudes of U2 and U3 of the deck are presented
in Figure 6-12 and Figure 6-13, respectively.

Figure 6-12: U2 of the deck taking into account creep in the arch and deck and five
levels of axial stiffness of the cables

Figure 6-13: U3 of the deck taking into account creep in the arch and deck and five
levels of axial stiffness of the cables

- 216 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

A comparison of U2 of the deck as a function of cable axial stiffness, taking into


account E(EFF), WPUL, and the ability of cables to creep is provided in Table 6-9.
Table 6-9: Deck vertical displacement as a function of changing parameters of cables
Cable Cable Creep Difference
Material
Model EA(EFF) WPUL U2 Deck in in vert.
of cables
[N*m2] [N/m] Cables displ. [%]
M(REF) GFRP 1.57E+08 38 L/501 No N/A
M001 GFRP 1.18E+08 38 L/365 Yes 27%
M002 GFRP 1.57E+08 38 L/400 No 20%
M003 CFRP 3.24E+08 20 L/491 No 2%
M004 STEEL 3.24E+08 150 L/477 No 5%

From the table is apparent that only the model M(REF) (the model assuming no creep
at all) meets the deflection limit L/500. A combination of Figure 6-12 and Table 6-9
indicates that the effect of creep in the arch and the deck is more significant than the effect
of creep in cables. Model M002 (assuming creep in the arch, deck, and cables) and model
M003 (assuming creep in the arch and deck only) experience increases in deck deflection
U2 by 27% and 20%, respectively.
Table 6-10 provides a comparison of the differences in U2 of the deck, and axial
stiffness, WPUL, and EA of the cables.
Table 6-10: The significance of changes of the cable properties on deck vertical
displacement
Cable Difference Difference Difference
Material
Model EA(EFF) in Deck in EA(EFF) in WPUL Deck U2
of cables
[N*m2] U2 [%] [%] [%]
M(REF) GFRP 1.57E+08 N/A N/A N/A L/501
M001 GFRP 1.18E+08 27% -33% 0% L/365
M002 GFRP 1.57E+08 20% 0% 0% L/400
M003 CFRP 3.24E+08 2% 52% -90% L/491
M004 STEEL 3.24E+08 5% 52% 75% L/477

From the table is apparent the effective axial stiffness of the cable (EA(EFF)) governs
the U2 of the deck. When CFRP (M003) and steel (M004) cables (assuming no creep and
the same EA(EFF) (which is increased by 52% in comparison to the reference GFRP cable in

- 217 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

M001, assuming creep in the cables) are employed, the deck vertical displacement
improves by 25% and 22%, respectively.

The effect of the different WPUL of the cables is present, but very minor. This is
apparent from comparing models M003 and M004 in Table 6-10, which have identical
EA(EFF) of the cables. The large increase in WPUL (by 75%) in the steel cables (M004)
results in a change of the deck deflection by 5% in a comparison to M(REF). The light CFRP
cables, with a 90% drop in WPUL, result in a change in the deck deflection of only by 2%
in comparison to M(REF). Hence, it can be concluded that the effect of light-weight ACM
cables (M003) on the vertical displacement of the deck is very minor and it is not effective
to use high performance CFRP cables. Nevertheless, CFRP cables have much better
response to fatigue loading than steel cables and, therefore, employment of CFRP cables
can be advantageous.
The effects of creep (resulting in a drop in the bending stiffness) in the arch and
changing EA(EFF) of the cables on U2 and U3 of the arch are presented in Figure 6-14 and
Figure 6-15, respectively.

Figure 6-14: U2 of the arch taking into account creep in the arch and deck and five
levels of axial stiffness of the cables

- 218 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

Figure 6-15: U3 of the arch taking into account creep in the arch and deck and five
levels of axial stiffness of the cables

From the figures is apparent that the effect of creep in the arch and deck results in
almost identical U2 and U3 of the arch. The effect of variability in EA(EFF) of the cables
influences the arch displacement insignificantly. The large WPUL of steel cables causes an
increase in both the U2 and the U3 of the arch. The effect of creep in the cables does not
affect the arch displacements.
A comparison of the forces in the cables is presented in Figure 6-16. In models
M003 and M004, where the axial stiffness of cable is high, the stress at the first cable is
larger than in the other models. The large WPUL of the steel cables (M004) causes an
increase of the stresses in the cables, particularly at midspan where the cable length and,
therefore, the total weight of the cables is the largest. It can be concluded that creep in the
arch and deck has only a minor influence on stress changes in the cables.

- 219 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

Figure 6-16: Stress in the cables taking into account creep in the arch and the deck
and five arrangements of cables axial stiffness and susceptibility to creep

6.4.1.4 Effect of Additional Tensioning of Cables

The proposed analysis, AN#01C, focuses on creep related effects and considers the
additional tensioning of cables.
Model M001 from AN#01B-II, which assumes creep with E(EFF) = 75% in all
structural components (arch, deck, and cables), is applied. Properties of M001 are adapted
into model M001B. M001B also assumes E(EFF) = 75% in all structural components. The
materials and C-S properties of the deck and cables remain the same as in M001. However,
the C-S properties of the arch change. The EI(EFF) of the arch (governing the deck vertical
displacement in C01B) is reduced by 50%. The outer diameter of the arch is reduced from
4.5m, in M001, to 3.5m in M001B to achieve a reduction of the arch EI(EFF).
Additional tensioning of the cables is applied in accordance with the principles in
Section 3.4.1.4 to obtain a satisfactory U2 of the deck (L/500). The temperature resulting in
additional tensile force in individual cables is determined via Equation 3-11. Parameters of
Equation 3-11: 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇, 𝑚𝑚, and 𝑛𝑛, are determined in the present section via an iterative analysis
to achieve satisfactory deck deflection and a gradually deflected deck. For convenience,
Equation 3-11 is presented again:

- 220 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

𝐶𝐶(𝑖𝑖) 𝐶𝐶(𝑖𝑖)
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿(𝑖𝑖) = 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 + 4𝑚𝑚× �1 − �×
𝑛𝑛 𝑛𝑛
Equation 3-11

The results from M001B (including the developed distribution of additional tensile
forces in the cables) are compared to the two models addressed in Section 6.4.1.3: M001
and M(REF) assuming E(EFF) = 75% and 100% in all components, respectively. First, a
comparison of the deflected shapes of the deck and the arch are conducted, and then the
magnitude and distribution of the stresses at the four designated SPs is evaluated to
determine whether or not the applied additional tensioning of the cables can result in
stresses that are close to the creep-rupture limit. A comparison of the magnitudes and
distributions of cable forces along the span is also performed to check whether or not the
load in the cables exceeds 40% of the ultimate cable strength, which is the threshold
magnitude typically used in additional cable tensioning (Chen 2000). The resulting
parameters, Tb, m, and n, obtained for Equation 3-11 are listed in Table 11.

Table 6-11: Resulting parameters of Equation 3-10 providing an optimal distribution


of additional tensile forces in the cables
Parameter Value
Tb -200°C
m -66°C
n 15

A comparison of the U2 of the deck, taking into account the EI(EFF) of the arch that
varies in all three models, is provided in Table 6-12.

Table 6-12: The EI of the arch and U2 in the deck achieved from models M(REF),
M001, and M001B
Arch Cable Vertical
Arch EI(EFF) Creep in
Model WPUL EA(EFF) deck
[N*m2] Cables
[N/m] [N*m2] deflection
M(REF) 4.77E+10 6,834 1.57E+08 N L/501
M001 3.58E+10 6,834 1.18E+08 Y L/365
M001B 1.68E+10 5,307 1.18E+08 Y L/504

- 221 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

Comparison of the resulting magnitude and distribution of U2 and U3 of the deck


are presented in Figure 6-17 and Figure 6-18, respectively.

Figure 6-17: U2 of the deck taking into account creep in the structural components
and additional tensioning of cables

Figure 6-18: U3 of the deck taking into account creep in the structural components
and additional tensioning of cables

- 222 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

Displacements U2 and U3 of the arch are compared in Figure 6-19 and Figure 6-20,
respectively.

Figure 6-19: U2 of the arch taking into account creep in the structural components
and additional tensioning of cables

Figure 6-20: U3 of the arch taking into account creep in the structural components
and additional tensioning of cables

- 223 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

The distribution of the stresses in the cables is shown in Figure 6-19.

Figure 6-21: Stress distribution in the cables, taking into account additional
tensioning of the cables and creep in the arch, deck, and cables

The following can be concluded from the tables and figures for AN#01C:
• AN#01C proves that the additional tensioning of cables can be a very efficient way to
meet the deflection limit of the deck while reducing material usage and keeping the
stresses below the imposed limits. The reduction of the arch EI by 50% results in a
material savings of ~22% while meeting the L/500 deflection limit and the creep
rupture limit.
• Due to the employment of additional tensioning of the cables, the distribution of
stresses in the deck is not influenced by creep in the arch. The magnitudes and
distribution of the stresses in the deck of M001B (assuming creep and additional
tensioning of the cables) closely correlates with the distribution of stresses of M(REF)
(assuming no creep and reduced EI of the arch). Therefore, as long as the deflected
shape of the deck meets the required profile (achieved via additional tensioning of the
cables), large stress redistribution in the deck (apparent in M001 where the deck
deflection L/365 is below the imposed limit L/500) can be avoided.

- 224 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

• The distribution and magnitude of stresses in the arch (the main component affecting
the magnitude of deck displacement) is significantly affected by additional cable
tensioning and the effect of creep. Due to the low EI(EFF) of the arch, the arch
experiences larger deflections and increased stresses. Nevertheless, the stresses in the
arch at all four designated SPs are below the creep-rupture limit, and therefore, the
increased stress level is not of concern.
• The stresses in the cables are affected insignificantly by additional tensioning of the
cables because the low EI of the arch, in the arch assuming creep, cannot provide
enough resistance to hold the additional stresses that develop in the cables;
consequently, the arch bends instead of overstressing the cables.

Stress fluctuations at the designated SPs in the C-S of the deck are summarized in
Appendix D, see Tables D-7 and D-8, and Figure D-3. Stress fluctuations in the arch are
shown in and Tables D-9 and D-10, and Figure D-4.
To conclude, the proposed procedure to provide an optimal magnitude and
distribution of the additional tensile forces in the cables proved that additional cable
tensioning can overcome the negative aspects of creep in the GFRP profiles employed in
the deck and yet result in less material use in the arch.

6.4.2 The Significance of Variability in the Coefficient of Thermal Expansion

AN#02 explores the effect of the CTE of the three materials on stress distribution in
the arch, deck, and cables. The analysis assumes the principle of CBS and CAS as depicted
in Section 6.3.4.1. C-S properties of the arch, deck, and cables used in the present analyses
are listed in Appendix D: Table D-11, Table D-12, and Table D-13, respectively.
Dimensions of the structural profiles of the reference model, assuming GFRP, are based on
the results of AN#01C.
WPUL of individual profiles, assuming the three different materials, varies.
Therefore, even though CBS is employed, the structural response is skewed due to the
different WPUL values. This skewing cannot be ignored because the WPUL is
significantly different among the three materials, and it influences the distribution of
stresses in the structural profiles. However, due to the complexity of the process to model

- 225 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

the section with CBS, CAS, and constant WPUL, while considering industry used
structural profiles, the effect of the skewed response is taken into consideration and
discussed appropriately.
The CTE of the ACMs is significantly lower than the CTE of the steel. Therefore,
the objective is to determine whether or not an employment of commonly used GFRP
profiles can be advantageous in C01B. A configuration assuming CFRP is also considered;
however, due to the much higher cost of CFRP profiles, this option is assumed only for
comparison. CFRP in structural profiles is typically present in “hybrid” sections that utilize
the high tensile strength of the CFRP only in particular locations to reduce cost and
maximize efficiency (see Section 2.6.5.7 for state of the art in this field). The application of
hybrid profiles is not within the scope of AN#02.
The resulting stress changes in the individual structural components (arch, deck,
and cables) due to the +ve and –ve GTL are presented in Figure 6-22 and Figure 6-23,
respectively.

+50°C Applied to entire structure

Figure 6-22: Stress change in all three materials due to the application of a +ve
thermal load in the arch, deck, and cables

- 226 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

– 50°C Applied to entire structure

Figure 6-23: Stress change in all three materials due to the application of a –ve
thermal load in the arch, deck, and cables

Ratios of a stress change, due to the applied +ve and –ve GTL, are summarized in
Table 6-13.

Table 6-13: Stress change and ratio of stress change due to +ve and –ve GTL in the
individual structural components for GFRP, CFRP, and steel
Stress change Stress change
Structural Ratio of stress
Material due to due to
Component change
+ve GTL -ve GTL
GFRP -17.2% 12.8% 1.4 : 1
Arch CFRP -6.1% 5.4% 1.2 : 1
STEEL -58.8% 27.2% 2.2 : 1
GFRP -4.3% 4.4% 1:1
Deck CFRP -1.3% 1.3% 1.1 : 1
STEEL -8.3% 7.2% 1.2 : 1
GFRP -0.7% 0.8% 1:1
Cables CFRP -0.4% 0.4% 1:1
STEEL -0.8% 0.9% 1:1

The distributions of the U2 and U3 of the arch are captured in Figure 6-24 and
Figure 6-25, respectively.

- 227 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

Figure 6-24: Distribution U2 of the arch for GFRP, CFRP, and Steel at three levels of
GTL

Figure 6-25: Distribution U3 of the arch for GFRP, CFRP, and Steel at three levels of
GTL

- 228 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

Table 6-14 compares the stress reduction in the arch, deck, and cables upon the
applied GTL. The magnitude of the U2 of the deck at midspan, assuming the three
materials types, is summarized in Table 6-15.
Table 6-14: Stress reduction in individual structural components when GFRP and
CFRP is employed instead of steel in in C01B
Arch Deck Cables
Difference in
+ve -ve +ve -ve +ve -ve
Material due to
GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL
GFRP vs. Steel 41.62% 14.37% 4.06% 2.82% 0.09% 0.11%
CFRP vs. Steel 52.78% 21.79% 7.04% 5.92% 0.47% 0.50%

Table 6-15: Vertical deck displacement at the midspan for GFRP, CFRP, and steel at
three levels of applied GTL
Deck deflection in vertical direction at midspan
Material
0°C +50°C –50°C
GFRP L/393 L/2362 L/210
CFRP L/410 L/665 L/326
STEEL L/408 L/-645 L/194

The distributions of U2 and U3 of the deck are presented in Figure 6-26 and Figure
6-27, respectively.

Figure 6-26: Distribution U2 of the deck for GFRP, CFRP, and Steel at three levels of
GTL

- 229 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

Figure 6-27: Distribution U3 of the deck for GFRP, CFRP, and Steel at three levels of
GTL

The following can be concluded from the tables and figures for AN#01B:
• In the deck, the presence of ACMs (both types) results in a uniform stress fluctuation
along the entire deck length due to +ve and –ve GTL. However, in the steel deck, the
stress significantly varies. Such behaviour is affected by the high CTE in the steel
cables, which affects the response in the deck and the arch.
• In the arch and deck at all SPs, assumed in the cross section, the smallest stress
fluctuation is present in the profiles that assume GFRP, the material with the smallest
E. In contrast, steel, material with the highest E, experiences the highest stress
fluctuation in the deck.
• In the arch, the application of CFRP and steel results in the highest stress fluctuation at
particular SPs as a function of the location of the SP and the applied level of GTL. The
CFRP profiles experience the highest stress fluctuation at 0°C and +ve GTL. The steel
profiles experience the highest stress fluctuation at –ve GTL.
• The arch, acting as the main structural component that carries the loads from the deck
in addition to the weight of cables, is exposed to the highest stress fluctuation and the
highest change in the stress magnitude overall. This trend is common to all assumed

- 230 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

materials. In steel, due to the highest CTE, the change in the stress magnitude is the
largest.
• Even though the +ve and –ve GTL are applied to the entire structure, the structural
response of individual components is not even. The absolute magnitude of the stress
drop due to the +ve GTL is larger than the absolute magnitude of the stress increase
due to –ve GTL. The ratios of a change in the stresses due to +ve and –ve GTL in the
individual structural components were established. In the arch, where the difference in
the stress change due to the applied GTL is the most evident, the ratio of the stress
change due to +ve to –ve GTL is approximately 2:1 (see Table 6-13 for reference).
• The fluctuation of stresses in the deck, assuming ACMs, is low. Nevertheless, the
fluctuation in the U2 of the deck is significant despite the low CTE of the ACMs. In
particular, the deck displacement in a configuration assuming the GFRP, which has a
low CTE, is similar to the deflection resulting from a configuration assuming steel
which has a high CTE. Hence, a high level of attention should be given to the factors
influencing the deflection in GFRP decks, such as 1) the EI of the arch and EA of the
cables, taking into account creep effects, and 2) the accurate definition of additional
cable tensioning as depicted in AN#01C.

For details, see Appendix D; stress fluctuation at designated SPs in the deck at the
three levels of applied GTL is presented in Tables D-14, D-15, and D-16, and Figures D-5
and D-6. Tables D-17, D-18, and D-19, and Figures D-7 and D-8 present the stress
fluctuation in the arch. A stress distribution in the cables along the span is shown in Figure
D-9.
To concluded, the analysis AN#02 clarifies the effect of low CTE in ACM.
However, the present analysis also clarified important factors relevant to the structural
response of C01B, assuming conventional steel.

6.4.3 The Significance of Variability in Deck Stiffness

As identified in Section 6.4.1.2, the magnitude of deck U2 is governed by the EI of


the arch and EA of the cables regardless of the deck EI(V). However, the magnitude of deck
U3, which is a function of the deck EI(H), can significantly affect the U2 of the deck.

- 231 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

Therefore, in the present section, a rigorous approach investigates the significance of a


ratio of EI(V) and EI(H) of the deck, taking into account the effect of material properties,
secondary geometric variable f(D)/s, and GTL.

6.4.3.1 Effect of Variability in Deck Stiffness and Deck Reach

6.4.3.1.1 Displacement of the Deck


Since C01B with GFRP profiles experiences the smallest stress fluctuation in both
the arch and the deck (as identified in AN#02, see Section 6.4.2), AN#03A-I (discussed in
the present section) considers the GFRP profiles as the main structural material.
AN#03A-I refines the results achieved in AN#02, and therefore, the C-S properties
of the arch and cables remain the same as in AN#02 (see Table D-11 and Table D-13).
However, the C-S properties of the deck are varied. Hence, a new set of structural profiles
is defined. Nine different deck profiles are developed to examine the effect of changing
stiffness on the distribution of displacements and stresses in the deck. The circumferences
and thickness of the wall of all nine profiles are kept the same to avoid skewing of the
results due to a different WPUL. Such an arrangement results in the same axial stiffness of
the assumed deck profiles. The dimensions and particular deck stiffness ratio (DSR) of the
developed deck profiles are summarized in Table D-20.
AN#03A examines the effects of different DSRs at three levels of f(D)/s as depicted
in Table D-20. The resulting magnitudes of the U2 at the midspan of the deck is presented
in Figure 6-28.

- 232 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

a) Ratio f(D)/s = 0.25 Deck Stiffness Ratio (EI(H) : EI(V))

b) Ratio f(D)/s = 0.20 Deck Stiffness Ratio (EI(H) : EI(V))

c) Ratio f(D)/s = 0.15 Deck Stiffness Ratio (EI(H) : EI(V))

Figure 6-28: C01B assuming only GFRP; a comparison of the deck displacement in
the vertical direction at three levels of deck reach to span ratio

Due to a change in the f(D)/s, the actual length of the deck changes as well;
therefore, the employment of the “L/value” term finds a more practical application to
provide an accurate comparison. Detailed comparisons of the distributions of U2 and U3 of
the deck are shown in Figures D-10 and D-11, respectively. The distribution of stresses in
the cables is presented in Figure D-12.

- 233 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

Particular DSRs that result in the minimum and maximum U2 of the deck at the
midspan are different for individual f(D)/s ratios. The critical DSRs, specific for the
assumed f(D)/s, are summarized in Table 6-16. A comparison of a change in the U2 of the
deck and stresses in all structural components, taking into account the critical DSRs, is
presented in Table 6-17.

Table 6-16: Critical DSRs that result in the maximum and minimum vertical
displacement of the deck at the midspan at three levels of deck reach
Ratio f(D)/s Status Vertical Displacement of the Deck DSR
Min L/462 15:1
0.25
Max L/375 1:3
Min L/522 15:1
0.20
Max L/495 1:3
Min L/652 1:15
0.15
Max L/645 15:1

Table 6-17: Changes in deflections and stresses at critical DSRs


Difference in: Difference in Stress
Combination
U2 of the deck ARCH CBL 02 CBL07 DECK
f/s(D) = 0.25:
18.8% -0.6% -13.7% 8.1% -29.2%
[(15:1) vs. (1:3)]
f/s(D) = 0.20:
5.2% -0.5% -6.9% 4.1% -8.0%
[(15:1) vs. (1:3)]
f/s(D) = 0.15:
-1.0% -0.2% -8.7% 2.0% 25.1%
[(15:1) vs. (1:15)]

As shown in Table 6-16, a vertically flexible deck experiences a smaller


displacement than a vertically stiff deck, with the exception of the configuration assuming
f(D)/s = 0.15. This unexpected behaviour of C01B with a curved deck is opposite to
conventional bridges with straight decks.
Such behaviour, resulting from a transformation of the out-of-plane loads, is a
function of the EI(V) and EI(H) of the deck, which is affected by the sag in the cables. The
mechanism of the out-of-plane load transformation in configurations that assumes deck
profiles with DSR = 15: 1 and DSR = 1:3 are presented schematically in Figure 6-29 and

- 234 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

Figure 6-30, respectively. In both figures, the same loads and the same combination of the
primary and secondary variables were applied.

Inclination Angle
(Smaller than in DSR = 1:3)

Original Cable Sag

New Cable Sag


(Larger than in DSR = 1:3)

2) Smaller
Vertical Displacement
1) Smaller
Horizontal Displacement

Figure 6-29: Schematic sketch capturing the mechanism of deck displacement in


C01B assuming the deck profile with DSR = 15:1 (vertically flexible and horizontally
stiff deck)

- 235 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

In the configuration assuming the deck with a DSR = 15:1, shown in Figure 6-29,
the vertically flexible but horizontally stiff deck does not deflect inwards as significantly as
the deck with DSR = 1:3. Therefore, the “original” distance between the cable ends does
not enlarge as significantly as in the configuration assuming the deck with a DSR = 1:3.
Hence, the resulting U2 of the deck is smaller for DSR = 15:1.

Inclination Angle
(Larger than in DSR = 15:1)

Original Cable Sag

New Cable Sag


(Smaller than in DSR = 15:1)

2) Larger
Vertical Displacement

1) Larger
Horizontal Displacement

Figure 6-30: Schematic sketch capturing the mechanism of deck displacement in


C01B assuming the deck profile with DSR = 1:3 (vertically stiff and horizontally
flexible deck)

- 236 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

The cable sag in the configuration that assumes a deck with DSR 15:1 is larger than
in the configuration that assumes a deck with DSR 1:3; therefore, the forces in the cables
are smaller in the configuration assuming deck with DSR = 15:1 (see Figure D-12 for
reference). The following can be concluded from the tables and figures for AN#03A-I.
• Both the U2 and U3 of the deck are functions of the EI(V) and EI(H) of the deck and
f(D)/s, as expected. The most significant changes in the U2 and U3, as deck stiffness
varies, are present at f(D)/s = 0.25.
• In configurations with f(D)/s = 0.25, the deck is exposed to the largest CF(H). Therefore,
even the deck with a large EI(H) (DSR = 15:1) experiences a large U3. The increase in
the U3 of the deck influences the magnitude of the U2 of the deck. This trend is
directly proportional to the f(D)/s ratio; in other words, the smallest fluctuation in the
U2 and U3 of the deck, due to variability in deck stiffness, is present in configurations
with f(D)/s = 0.15.
• The DSR that results in the smallest U2 in the deck at the midspan is DSR = 15:1 (a
deck with a high EI(H)). However, a deck with this DSR is exposed to higher stresses
compared to decks with a low EI(H). The deck with DSR = 1:3 experiences a larger U2,
but the shape of the deflected deck is more gradual, and the stresses are significantly
smaller compared to the deck with DSR = 15:1. Hence, the deck with a DSR = 1:3 is
optimal in terms of the distribution of deck stresses and U2.
• The principles of deck displacement in C01B are described as a function of a particular
DSR, ratio f(D)/s, and proportion of sag in cables.
o The curved deck in C01B, where the ratio of the secondary variable (f(D)/s)
does not exceed the ratio of the primary variable (f(A)/s), behaves similarly
to the deck in conventional arch bridges with straight decks.
o When the f(D)/s is higher than f(A)/s, the vertically flexible deck deflects less
than the vertically stiff deck. This behaviour results from the presence of
out-of-plane loads, whose transformation takes into account the magnitude
of cable sag. The transformation is a function of the ratio EI(V) and EI(H) of
the deck.

- 237 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

6.4.3.1.2 Internal Forces in the Deck and Arch


The maximum magnitudes of the SM(COMB) in the arch and deck are compared in
Table 6-18; the negative and positive signs in the table indicate a drop and a rise,
respectively, in the SM(COMB) when a deck with DSR 1:3 is employed. The significant
distribution of the SM(COMB) in the deck is shown in Figure 6-31. The following can be
concluded from the table and figure for AN#03A-II.
• The distribution and magnitude of the SF1 in the arch and deck and the SM(COMB) in
the arch are not significantly influenced by a variation in the deck stiffness. However,
the distribution and magnitude of the SM(COMB) in the deck is affected significantly by
the selection of the deck profile.
• Comparison of the SM(COMB), summarized in Table 6-18, indicates that a change in the
deck profile can result in a change of the bending moment that is twice as high. In the
configuration with f(D)/s = 0.25, the difference between models M001A and M006A is
–104.20%; in other words, the SM(COMB) in the M006A is more than two times smaller
than the SM(COMB) in M001A.
• With a decreasing f (D)/s, the difference in the SM(COMB) drops. The difference between
M001B and M006B, assuming f(D)/s = 0.020, is –27.09%. Further, in the configuration
with the smallest f(D)/s ratio, f(D)/s = 0.15, the difference is +2.59%, which indicates a
change in the structural behaviour as a function of the selected DSR.
• The selection of a deck profile with a particular value of DSR can significantly
influence the magnitude and distribution of the bending moments in the deck. In
general, vertically stiff decks with a DSR not lower than 1:3 experience low bending
moments compared to other levels of DSR.

Appendix D provides details showing the distributions of SM(COMB) in the arch,


considering the deck profiles in models M001 and M006 at three levels of f(D)/s, is shown
in Figures D-14, D-15, and D-16, respectively. A comparison of the maximum magnitude
of the SF1 in the deck and arch is shown in Table D-22.

- 238 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

Table 6-18: The magnitude and differences in change of SM(COMB) in the arch and
deck for M001 and M006
SM(COMB) SM(COMB) Difference Difference
Model DSR [N*m] [N*m] M001 vs. M006 M001 vs. M006
Deck Arch in the Deck in the Arch
M001A 15:1 2.18E+05 6.38E+06
-104.20% -0.44%
M006A 1:3 1.07E+05 6.35E+06
M001B 15:1 1.08E+05 4.68E+06
-27.09% -0.43%
M006B 1:3 8.48E+04 4.66E+06
M001C 15:1 6.56E+04 3.11E+06
2.59% -0.43%
M006C 1:3 6.73E+04 3.10E+06

Figure 6-31: Distribution of SM(COMB) in the deck for M001 and M006 at three levels
of ratio: f(D)/s = 0.25, 0.20, and 0.15

- 239 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

6.4.3.2 Effect of Material Properties and Level of Applied GTL

In AN#03A, it was found that the distribution and magnitude of the bending
moment in the deck is highly dependent on the assumed deck profile with a particular deck
DSR. In the configuration with only GFRP and f (D)/s = 0.25, the difference in the SM(COMB)
between the models M001A and M006A is more than100%.
Therefore, in AN#03B, the significance of the material properties and GTL on a
distribution of the SM(COMB) and stresses in the deck was investigated, while considering
the critical DSR resulting from M001A and M006A. The C-S of the assumed profiles in
M001A and M006A, taking into account the principle of CBS (see Section 6.3.4.1 for
reference), are listed in Table D-23 and Table D-24, respectively.
The resulting magnitude of the stress fluctuations, which shows the effect of the
variability in material composition and applied GTL on the stress fluctuation, is
summarized in Table 6-19.

Table 6-19: Stress fluctuations in the decks assuming deck profiles of M001 and M006
for all three materials and three levels of applied GTL
GTL Model GFRP CFRP STEEL Min in Max in
M001 28.1 51.1 93.0 GFRP STEEL
0°C M006 14.7 28.5 38.3 GFRP STEEL
Difference [%] 91.0% 79.2% 142.9% CFRP STEEL
M001 31.1 53.2 112.4 GFRP STEEL
+50°C M006 13.7 28.0 35.0 GFRP STEEL
Difference [%] 127.7% 89.8% 220.8% CFRP STEEL
M001 25.3 49.3 74.7 GFRP STEEL
-50°C M006 15.6 29.0 44.4 GFRP STEEL
Difference [%] 61.6% 70.0% 68.2% GFRP CFRP

The following can be concluded for AN#03B.


• The trend identified in C01B, assuming GFRP, holds for CFRP and steel as well. The
deck with a DSR = 15:1 experiences significantly larger moments than a deck with a
DSR = 1:3. Overall, the configuration assuming GFRP, CFRP, and steel experiences a
difference in the SM(COMB) at moderate, low, and high levels, respectively.
• The effect of the different CTE at the three levels of GTL changes the distribution and
magnitude of the SM(COMB) along the span as a function of the material, selected deck

- 240 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

profile, and level of applied GTL. Applying the –ve GTL in steel decks with a DSR =
15:1 and with a high CTE causes the magnitude of SM(COMB) to drop to a similar level
as in the GFRP and CFRP decks with a low CTE. This trend is mainly an outcome of
the different WPUL (steel is the heaviest, GFRP is moderate, and CFRP is the
lightest).
• The effects of CTE and different WPUL values on stress in the cables are only minor.
• C01B, taking into account the GFRP profiles with a small E, experiences the smallest
stresses compared to the CFRP and steel profiles. The maximum stress is exerted at the
middle of the outer surface of the deck, i.e., at the LHS section point (see Figure 6-4
for reference).
• The stress fluctuation along the deck span (length) is also the smallest in the GFRP
profiles at all three levels of assumed GTL.
• In C01B, taking into consideration both types of decks with the critical DSR (M001
and M006) and assuming GFRP, the stress fluctuation is the smallest and represents
the advantageous character of commonly used GFRP profiles.

Appendix D provides the details as follows. A summary of the resulting SM(COMB)


in the deck is presented in Table D-25. A comparison of the distribution of the SM(COMB),
taking into account the parameters of M001A and M006A, is shown in Figure D-17. Table
D-26 and Figure D-18 compare the magnitude and distribution of stresses in the cables. A
comparison of the maximum stresses in the deck at temperature of 0°C, +50°C, and –50°C
is presented in Tables D-27, D-28, and D-28, respectively. Figures D-19, D-20, and D-21
compare stress fluctuations at a critical SP of the deck.

- 241 -
Chapter Six: Application of Advanced Composite Materials in SABs

6.5 Conclusion to Chapter Six

The results showed that the idea of constructing SABs entirely from ACMs is
feasible under certain conditions. In cases where serviceability limits are to be met, creep
effects from sustained load appear not to be a significant concern as the section profiles
need to be enlarged to achieve the desired stiffness, which reduces the magnitude of the
stresses.
The procedure employing additional tensioning of the cables showed that as long as
the required deck profile is achieved, stress redistribution due to the creep in the deck does
not represent a significant concern.
The low CTE of ACMs reduces the stress fluctuations due to temperature effects in
the cables and deck of the SAB configurations considered, compared to steel. However, the
spatially inclined arch did appear sensitive to even low levels of temperature variation.
Analysis of varying deck stiffness considering the non-linear effect of the cables
clarified the significance of lateral and vertical deck stiffness for three levels of deck out-
of-plane geometry and three levels of thermal loading. It was found that by selecting a
vertically stiff deck the overall deck deflection increases. However, the maximum stress
can be reduced as well as the stress fluctuation within the deck due to thermal loading. In
the case of a vertically stiff deck, the bending moment in the deck can be reduced by more
than 100%, in a comparison to a vertically flexible deck.

- 242 -
Chapter Seven: Design Criteria and Directions of Future Work

Chapter Seven: Design Criteria and Directions of Future Work

The present chapter proposes design criteria that result in the efficient design of the
three spatial configurations studied in this thesis. Furthermore, directions of future work are
outlined.

7.1 Design Criteria

The proposed design criteria are based on summary tables provided in sections
B.3.1, B.3.2, B.3.3, C.2.1, C.2.5, and C.2.8,. These complex tables and the design criteria,
provided below, are intended to serve as guidelines during analysis and design of SABs
studied in this thesis.

7.1.1 Configuration C01

Loads
• A live load distributed over the entire deck represents the governing load case.
• A thermal load results in an effect smaller than 10% in comparison to the effect of LL,
and therefore, it is not a significant concern.

Arch rise
• Arch rise is the governing variable that controls the response in the arch and deck.
• A low arch rise increases the axial load and reduces the bending moments. Therefore,
the arch rise should be established first and kept low.
• Bending moments in the arch are the governing type of response; the design of the
arch needs to consider these bending moments.
• Inclination of the arch, starting at 30° (C01B), reduces the bending moments in the
arch and introduces large axial loads in the deck.

Deck reach
• As deck reach increases, the bending moment in the arch increases.
• The optimum ratio of arch rise to deck reach is 1:1.
o When the ratio is smaller than 1 (the deck reach is larger than arch rise), the
arch is exposed to larger bending moments. Also, in this combination, the

- 243 -
Chapter Seven: Design Criteria and Directions of Future Work

contribution of deck stiffness to deflection of the deck changes. Vertically


stiff decks deflect more than vertically flexible decks; this finding is
opposite to conventional planar arches with a straight deck. The achieve
smaller stresses in the deck, the deck should be vertically stiff with ratio of
horizontal to vertical stiffness 1:3.

Boundary conditions of the deck


• Boundary conditions of the deck play a significant role in susceptibility of the arch to
buckling and should be established before selecting the stiffness of the deck and arch.
• Fixed ends of the deck result in small loads in the cables and the arch. However, the
abutments of the deck must be designed for large moments.

Ratio of arch and deck bending stiffness


• An optimum ratio of arch and deck bending stiffness, assuming fixed ends of the deck,
is as follows:
o 10:10 in the vertical direction (both the arch and deck must be equally stiff
in the vertical direction); and
o 1:10 in the horizontal direction (the deck stiffness should be significantly
larger in the horizontal direction than the stiffness of the arch).

7.1.2 Configuration C02

Loads
• A live load distributed over one half of the deck represents the governing load case.
• A thermal load can result in an effect that is larger than the effect of live loads,
particularly in the deck.
• The effect of thermal load in the arch can be as high as the effect of live loads.
• The arch rise should be large to reduce the sensitivity to thermal loads.

Arch rise
• A change in the arch rise does not influence the structural response of the arch as
significantly as a change in the arch inclination.

- 244 -
Chapter Seven: Design Criteria and Directions of Future Work

• Reducing the arch rise increases the axial loads and decreases the bending moments in
the arch.

Arch inclination
• Arch inclination represents the governing variable (it needs to be established first).
o When large, the sensitivity to GTL is large and axial loads in the arch
increase less significantly than bending moments.
• Arch inclination should be kept below 30° from the vertical plane to keep the axial
loads and bending moments in the arch low.
• When combined with a curved deck of a small deck reach (C01B), the structural
system becomes more efficient.

Boundary conditions of the deck


• Rotation allowed about the vertical axis at the deck ends reduces the axial loads and
bending moments in the arch and, subsequently, reduces the susceptibility to buckling.
o The bending moment in the arch is less sensitive to a change in the arch
inclination than the axial loads in the arch.

Ratio of arch and deck stiffness


• Bending stiffness of the deck in the horizontal direction controls the arch behaviour.
o When large, the arch is exposed to high axial loads and small bending
moments.
• A combination of a stiff deck and flexible arch results in small axial loads and small
bending moment in the arch.
• When the vertical and horizontal bending stiffness of the arch is the same, the bending
moment in the arch is low.

7.1.3 Configuration C03

Loads
• A live load distributed over the entire deck represents the governing load case.
• A live load governs the magnitude of internal forces.

- 245 -
Chapter Seven: Design Criteria and Directions of Future Work

• A thermal load governs the magnitude of displacements (the displacements resulting


from thermal loads are larger than the displacements resulting from live loads).
o The arch rise should be large and arch rotation small to reduce the
sensitivity to thermal loads.

Arch rise
• A change in the arch rise controls the response in the arch.
o The arch rise should be large to keep the axial loads and bending moments
in the arch low.

Arch rotation
• A change in the arch rotation controls the response in the deck and cables.
• A small arch rise and a large arch rotation result in large axial loads at the midspan of
the arch (the axial load at the midspan of the arch is larger than at the arch springings,
which is opposite to conventional vertical arches). Therefore, this combination should
be avoided.
• Large axial forces are exerted on the arch when the arch rise is low. The rotation of the
arch should be low to reduce the large axial loads.

Boundary conditions of the deck


• Rotation allowed about the vertical axis at the deck ends increases the susceptibility of
the arch to buckling and, therefore, it should be avoided.

Ratio of arch and deck stiffness


• A large horizontal bending stiffness of the arch reduces the susceptibility to buckling.
o Both the axial load and bending moment in the arch are low when the
horizontal stiffness of the arch is large.
• A large horizontal bending stiffness of the deck is required to keep the susceptibility to
buckling low.

- 246 -
Chapter Seven: Design Criteria and Directions of Future Work

7.2 Directions of Future Work

7.2.1 Arrangement of the Cables

In the spatial configurations studied in this thesis, the arrangement of the cables was
kept the same in all analyses: the cables were located 5m apart in a vertical plane.
However, a different arrangement of the cables may result in smaller fluctuation of
stresses. Large stress fluctuations are apparent in C01, in which the first cable is
overstressed.
In a special form of vertical planar arches, called the “network arches,” cables are
inclined in the plane of the arch and some cables may cross other cables more than once. In
these bridges, the efficiency of the arch configuration is increased, resulting in smaller
cross-sections of the arch rib, which in turn leads to a lighter and more attractive
appearance (Tveit, 2002).
Future studies should focus on several different patterns of the cable arrangement to
propose more efficient design criteria and reduce the overstressed elements. The effect of
the angle of cable inclination, crossing of cables, and total number of cables on the
response of the arch and deck should be evaluated.

7.2.2 Additional Tensioning of the Cables

In Chapter Six, the effect of additional tensioning of the cables was introduced on a
small scale to investigate its influence in configurations assuming GFRP profiles and
tendons exposed to creep. Nevertheless, due to the complexity of additional tensioning of
cables in spatial configurations and the objectives of the proposed research, the topic of
additional tensioning of cables was not developed further.
Future studies should focus on developing practical curves that provide parameters
for Equation 3-11, which proposes an optimal level of additional tensioning of cables,
resulting in the desired deck profiles. Developing the proposed curves should consider the
effect of arch and deck bending and axial stiffness, weight per unit length, and required
final shape of the deck.

- 247 -
Chapter Seven: Design Criteria and Directions of Future Work

7.2.3 Response to Dynamic Loading

Most SABs are pedestrian bridges, which may be susceptible to human induced
vibrations. The natural frequency of the structure is the first parameter that should be
checked according to national and international standards (Bachmann, 1997). To meet the
limits imposed by these standards, the first (lowest) natural frequency of the bridge must be
higher than the specified threshold value.
Investigating the natural frequencies and accelerations in complex configurations of
SABs is a sophisticated procedure. The natural frequency is a function of the stiffness and
mass of the structure (Ghali, 2009). In SABs, the stiffness of the entire system is influenced
by its proportions and, therefore, the natural frequencies of these structures may be low.
Structures with low natural frequencies need to be evaluated using a more detailed analysis
to verify whether or not the acceleration of the structure would disturb the comfort of
pedestrian walking (Sarmiento-Comesias, 2015).
Future studies should focus on modal and dynamic analyses that consider the
parameters in this thesis, such as the primary and secondary variables, boundary conditions
of the deck, variability in bending stiffness of the arch and the deck, and material diversity.
The results of the proposed analyses can be used to establish guidelines for analysis and
design that provide information about advantageous distributions of mass and stiffness of
lightweight bridges susceptible to vibrations.
Gusting winds are a different type of dynamic loading, which may result in flow
induced vibrations. The majority of SABs are short or medium span bridges, and therefore,
flow induced vibrations are not a significant concern. Nevertheless, particular arrangements
of cables or slender decks may be prone to gusting winds. Hence, flow induced vibrations
in cables, vortex shedding, and galloping (in presence of ice) may also be possible
directions of future work.

- 248 -
Chapter Eight: Summary and Final Remarks

Chapter Eight: Summary and Final Remarks

This work describes the structural behaviour of SABs. SABs represent state-of-the-
art structures designed to be unique pieces of architecture. These structures are built to
celebrate innovation in technology, prosperity, or important jubilees. Nevertheless, due to
the high demand for aesthetic appearances, SABs are exposed to out-of-plane loads, which
cause challenges during analysis and design.
The geometry of SABs can be very complex. This thesis focuses on SABs with an
inferior deck. The hangers are assumed to be flexible cables. Parametric 3D linear and
nonlinear models are developed and the responses of SABs to the assumed loads are
studied using FEA. Three main configurations are investigated to determine the responses
to a wide spectrum of out-of-plane loads exerted on the arch and the deck. Relevant
variables, such as f(A)/s, f(D)/s, ω, and θ, are considered while examining the effect of
changing EI of the arch and deck, EA of the cables, additional tensioning of the cables, and
material properties of ACMs.
The described structural behaviours represent new knowledge about SABs with an
inferior deck, and this new knowledge directly contributes to the field of structural
engineering and applied science.

The analyses that investigated the effects of changing geometric variables, such as
arch rise, deck reach, arch inclination, and arch rotation, showed that only in C01, the arch
rise (the primary variable) controlled the response in the arch and deck. In C02 and C03,
the arch inclination and arch rotation (the secondary variables), respectively, have a more
significant effect on the structural response of the arch and deck. As anticipated, in all three
configurations, a low arch rise results in large axial loads in the arch. This response is
identical to conventional vertical planar arches. The spatial configurations studied assume
an arch rib unsupported along its entire length, and therefore, high axial loads are an issue.
In these combinations, susceptibility to buckling increases, particularly when high axial
loads are combined with out-of-plane loads exerted on the arch via the inclined cables. An
adequate selection of secondary variables can efficiently control the magnitude of the axial
loads in the arch. In C01, the axial loads in the arch are reduced when the deck reach is

- 249 -
Chapter Eight: Summary and Final Remarks

large. However, to achieve low axial loads in the arch of C02 and C03, the arch inclination
and arch rotation need to be small.
The analyses showed that only C02 behaved similarly to conventional vertical
planar arches in terms of the distribution of LL on the deck, which caused larger bending
moments in the arch. In C02, the LL distributed over a half of the deck represented the
governing load case. In C01 and C03, the LL distributed over the entire deck resulted in
larger bending moments in the arch.
The effects of the identified critical patterns of LL were compared with the effects
from an applied GTL. The analyses showed that in C02, starting at an arch inclination of
30°, the resulting SM(COMB) in the arch, under –ve GTL, reached magnitudes approximately
10% higher than under LL. In the deck of C02, the magnitude of the bending moment
resulting from the applied GTL was not higher than the one resulting from LL. However,
the difference between GTL and LL was only minor. In other words, the effect of GTL is
almost the same as the effect of LL, which meant that the effect of GTL cannot be ignored
in C02. The significance of the applied GTL was most perceptible in a combination with a
low f(A)/s ratio (0.15). In C01 and C03, the significance of GTL was also the most apparent
in combinations with low f(A)/s. However, the effect of GTL on the internal forces in the
arch and deck was smaller than the effect of the governing LL. Due to the large out-of-
plane loads in C01, resulting from the arrangement of the deck, which acted as a curved
cantilever beam supported by cables, the effect of GTL was the smallest. Applied GTL can
result in larger out-of-plane displacement of the arch and deck than applied LL in C03.

Investigating the effects of a changing EI of the arch and deck as a function of the
BCs of the deck on the magnitude and distribution of SF1, SM (COMB), U2, and U3 of the
arch determined the level of susceptibility of the arch to global buckling. Specific ratios of
EI(V) and EI(H) of the arch and deck, resulting either in the smallest SF1 or SM(COMB), were
established for each configuration as a function of the BCs of the deck. These ratios were
presented with structural sketches of the proposed arrangements. It was found that the type
of BCs of the deck significantly affected the susceptibility of the arch to buckling in the
individual configurations.
In C01, for deck arrangement BC#01, EI(V) and EI(H) of the deck need to be large
and EI(V) and EI(H) of the arch need to be small to achieve small SF1 and small SM(COMB) in

- 250 -
Chapter Eight: Summary and Final Remarks

the arch and, thus, reducing the susceptibility to buckling. For deck arrangement BC#02,
EI(V) and EI(H) of the deck need to be large and small, respectively, and both EI(V) and EI(H)
of the arch need to be large to achieve small susceptibility to buckling. For BC#03, the
smallest SF1 and SM(COMB) in the arch result from a combination of large EI(V) and EI(H) in
the deck and a large EI(V) and low EI(H) in the arch.
The following can be concluded about C02: For both BC#01and BC#04, EI(V) of
the deck needs to be large, EI(H) of the deck needs to be small, and both EI(V) and EI(H) of
the arch need to be large so that the susceptibility to buckling is small. Evaluating arch
displacements indicates that BC#04 results in conditions that make the arch in C02 less
susceptible to global buckling. Further, deck stiffness governs the magnitude of SF1 in the
arch for both arrangements of deck BCs. The characteristics of BC#04 also significantly
affect the distribution of SF1 in the arch compared to BC#01. For BC#04, the allowed
rotation UR2 at the deck ends causes the more gradual distribution of SF1 in the arch,
which reduces the susceptibility to local buckling.
The structural behaviour of C03 can be summarized as follows: For BC#01, EI(V)
and EI(H) of the deck need to be large and small, respectively, and EI(V) and EI(H) of the arch
need to be small and large, respectively, to result in a low SF1 and SM(COMB) in the arch.
For BC#04, EI(V) and EI(H) of the arch need to be the same as in BC#01 (the EI(V) and EI(H)
need to be small and large, respectively); however, due to the released rotation UR2, EI(V)
of the deck can be small, and EI(H) of the deck needs to be large to achieve small SF1 and
SM(COMB) in the arch. The released rotation UR2 in BC#04 causes an increase in
susceptibility of the arch to buckling.

This thesis also investigates the effect of material significance, in particular, the
effect of the materials properties of ACMs. The responses of the HSS profiles made of
GFRP and CFRP employed in all-composite assemblies are compared to configurations
made of steel. The principles of CBS and CAS are introduced to compare the effects of the
different mechanical properties of the three main materials. The effect of the material
properties of ACMs is investigated in configuration C01B, which is a hybrid combination
of C01 and C02. The geometric arrangement of C01B comprises a parabolic arch inclined
from a vertical plane and a curved deck with altered boundary conditions BC#02B.

- 251 -
Chapter Eight: Summary and Final Remarks

A detailed approach is used to determine the effect of the nonlinear character of the
cables that experience sag, whose magnitude affects the magnitude of the forces at the ends
of the cables. The effect of additional cable tensioning is described, and the parameters of
the proposed equation, which determine the level of additional tensioning in the individual
cables that influence the final deck profile, are established as a function of the bending
stiffness of the arch.
When evaluating the effect of creep and susceptibility to creep-rupture, creep-
rupture is not a significant concern in C01B if a certain serviceability limit on deck
deflection in U2 is imposed. It was confirmed that the governing element affecting deck
displacement is not the deck but the arch. EI(V) of the deck only minimally contributes to
the deck deflection. The creep in the arch and deck only minorly influences the stress
change in the cables; the stress in the cables reaches similar magnitudes in all assumed
models. Due to the use of additional tensioning of the cables, the distribution of stresses in
the deck is not influenced by creep in the arch. The magnitude and distribution of the
stresses in the deck, in the configuration that experiences creep and is exposed to additional
tensioning of the cables, is very close to the distribution and magnitude of the stresses in
the deck of the configuration where no creep and reduced bending stiffness are present.
Therefore, as long as the deck deflection in C01B meets the required profile and the
magnitude of the required displacement, the large stress redistribution, which results from
the effect of creep and the absence of additional cable tensioning, can be mitigated. Even
though the assumed GFRP profiles experience large deflections and may undergo
significant stress distributions (particularly in the deck due to the effect of creep if no
additional cable tensioning is employed), the overall stress fluctuation is low compared to
the profiles with conventional steel.
The analysis of the effect of CTE on the models with the three different materials
found that for low CTE, the models with ACMs resulted in smaller changes in the stresses
under GTL compared to steel, as expected. In addition to this trend, the stress fluctuations
in particular structural components were the smallest when GFRP profiles with the smallest
modulus of elasticity were employed. Nevertheless, the effect of low CTE did not influence
all structural components the same; the cables were affected the least and the arch the most.
Applying the three materials causes the same trend: the effect of +ve GTL resulted in a

- 252 -
Chapter Eight: Summary and Final Remarks

larger stress change than the effect of –ve GTL. The ratio of change due to +ve and –ve
GTL was ~2.2:1 for steel and 1.2:1 for CFRP. The fluctuation of stresses in the deck
assuming ACMs was low under GTL; however, the fluctuation in the vertical displacement
of the deck was significant despite the low CTE of ACMs.
Evaluating the effect of varying deck stiffness found that the most significant
changes in U2 and U3 of the deck occurred when the deck reach was large (f(D)/s = 0.25).
When f(D)/s = 0.25, the deck was exposed to the largest forces transferred from the cables
(resulting from a small angle α). The variability in deck stiffness had only a minor effect on
the stresses in the arch and the cables. Based on the analysis of the effect of varying deck
stiffness, two critical ratios, DSR = 15:1 (a vertically flexible and horizontally stiff deck)
and DSR = 1:3 (a vertically stiff and horizontally flexible deck), were established. The
responses in the configurations that employ the selected DSR ratios show that in C01B the
vertically flexible deck (DSR = 15:1) deflects less than the vertically stiff deck (DSR =
1:3). This trend is opposite to conventional arch bridges with straight decks, and it results
from the proportions of the assumed deck profiles, where EI(H) of the deck plays a
significant role when combined with the nonlinear response of the cables. In the deck with
DSR = 15:1, the displacements are small; however, the stresses are large compared to the
deck with DSR = 1:3. The effect of varying deck bending stiffness is most apparent in the
distribution and magnitude of the combined bending moments (SM(COMB)) in the deck; the
magnitude of SM(COMB) can be reduced to half when the deck with DSR = 1:3 is employed.
This trend holds for all three assumed materials regardless of the level of applied GTL.

This work also proposes design guidelines for the three configurations and
establishes several straightforward rules. These rules take into consideration the
geometrical proportions of the arch and deck, ratios of bending stiffness, and the end
conditions of the deck. Researching the effect of additional variables, such as arrangement
of cables, additional tensioning of cables, and mass and stiffness distribution, affecting the
structural response to dynamic loads that may contribute to the presented design guidelines
is a potential direction of future work.

To conclude, this thesis establishes geometric ratios of primary and secondary


variables and identifies the effect of varying bending stiffness of the arch and deck and the

- 253 -
Chapter Eight: Summary and Final Remarks

end conditions of the deck on the susceptibility of the arch to buckling. The properties of
ACMs in the assumed structural profiles were considered, and the significance of creep,
thermal load, and additional tensioning of cables was investigated. Optimal ratios of deck
stiffness that result in a reduction of deck displacement and bending moments in the deck
were established in relation to the shape of the deck profile and to the type of material used.
Design guidelines were proposed and directions of future work were discussed.

The results of this research can be used as guidelines and criteria. However, due to
the high complexity of SABs, the proposed guidelines and criteria were not intended to
cover all the particular details but rather to cover a wide spectrum of cases that can be
considered in the preliminary stage of the design. The efficient establishment of the overall
geometric ratios, the end boundary conditions, and the ratios of bending and axial stiffness
can accelerate the design process and result in cost saving decisions.

- 254 -
Reference

Reference

AASHTO. (2009). AASHTO, LRFD Guide Specifications for Pedestrian Bridges,


Attachment A – 2009 Agenda Item - T-5 (WAI 31), Section 5 Deflections.
AASHTO: The American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials.
Abaqus Analysis User’s Guide. (2014). Retrieved from Abaqus version 6.13; Chapter 27.:
http://dsk.ippt.pan.pl/docs/abaqus/v6.13/books/usb/default.htm
Abaqus Analysis User’s Guide Vol. I. (2010). Retrieved from Abaqus Analysis; User's
manual Vol I-Analysis, Section 1.3.1 Defining Model in Abaqus:
http://abaqusdoc.ucalgary.ca/pdf_books/ANALYSIS_1.pdf
Abaqus Analysis User’s Guide Vol. II. (2010). Retrieved from Abaqus Analysis; User's
manual Vol II-Analysis,:
http://abaqusdoc.ucalgary.ca/pdf_books/ANALYSIS_2.pdf
Abdel-Hady, F. (2005, May). Filament Winding of Revolution Structures. Journal of
Reinforced Plastics and Composites, Vol. 24(Issue 8), 855-868.
Akela. (2012, October 4). Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved April 8, 2017, from
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Szolnok_Tiszavir%C3%A1g-
h%C3%ADd_02.JPG
Alberski, T. C. (2013). New bridgm material design options. 19th Statewide Conference on
Local Bridge. Syracuse, NY.
Allen, E. (2010). Form and forces: designing efficient, expressive structures. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Anthony. (2005, April 29). Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved April 8, 2017, from
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=990318
Arefa, A. J. (2001). Vibration characteristics of a fiber-reinforced polymer bridge
superstructure. Composite Structures, Vol. 52(Issue 3-4), pp. 467–474.
Arena, A., & Lacarbonara, W. (2009). Static and Aeroelastic Limit States of Ponte della
Musica via a Fully Nonlinear Continuum Model. 19th Congresso dell’Associazione
Italiana di Meccanica Teorica e Applicata. Ancona, Italy.
Bachmann, H. (1997). Vibration Problems in Structures: Practical Guidelines. Birkäuser
Verlag.

- 255 -
Reference

Bailey, C. (2007). A Critical Analysis Of The Design And Construction Of The Juscelino
Kubitschek Bridge. University of Bath, Department of Architecture & Civil
Engineering, Bath, United Kingdom.
Banibayat, P. (2015). Creep Rupture Performance of Basalt Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
Bars. Journal of Aerospace Engineering, Vol. 28(Issue 3), pp. 4014074: 1-9.
Bank, L. C. (2005). Fiber-reinforced polymer composites. In W. F. Chen, & E. M. Lui
(Eds.), Handbook of Structural Engineering (pp. 16-1– 16-8). Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Pres.
Bank, L., & Mosallam, A. (1992). Creep and failure of a fullsize fibre reinforced plastic
pultruded frame. Composites Engineering, Vol. 2(Issue 3), pp. 213–227.
Barpanda, D. (1998). Effect of hybridization on the creep and stress relaxation
characteristics of pultruded composites. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and
Composites, Vol. 17(Issue 3), pp. 234-249.
Batra, S. (2009). Creep Rupture and Life Prediction of Polymer Composites. Department of
Chemical Engineering. Morgantown, West Virginia: University of West Virginia;
Thesis Master of Science.
Beard. (2015). Innovation Excellence. Retrieved April 8, 2017, from
http://innovationexcellence.com/blog/2016/08/07/spqr-innovation/
Behzad, M. D., Vassilopoulos, A. P., & Keller, T. (2010). Shear Buckling of GFRP Beam
Webs. The 5th International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering,
(pp. 91-94). Beijing, China.
Billington, D. P. (1997). Robert Maillart : builder, designer, and artist. Cambridge
University Press.
Block, P., & Ochsendorf, J. (2007). Thrust Network Analysis: A new methodology for
three-dimensional equilibrium. Journal of the International, Vol. 48( Issue 3), pp.
167–173.
Boyd, T. D. (1978). The Arch and the Vault in Greek Architecture (Online). American
Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 82, pp. 83-100.
Bradford, M. A., & Pi, Y. L. (2014). Geometric nonlinearity and long-term behavior of
crown-pinned CFST arches. Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 141(Issue 8),
pp. 04014190: 1-11.

- 256 -
Reference

Brown, D. J. (2006). Three Thousand Years of Defying Nature. Library Journal, Vol. 131.
Bryan, G. (1888). On the stability of elastic systems (Vol. 6). Cambridge: Proceedings of
the Cambridge Philosophical Society (mathematical and physical sciences).
Buelow, P., Falk, A., & Turrin, M. (2010). Optimization of structural form using a genetic
algorithm to search associative parametric geometry. ICSA 2010 - 1st International
Conference on Structures & Architecture. Vol. 3, pp. 195-203. Guimaraes, Portugal:
Proceedings of the International Conference on Structures and Architecture (ICSA).
Bunson, M. (2012). Encyclopedia of ancient Egypt. Facts On File.
Cadei, J., & Stratford, T. (2002). The Design, Construction and In-service Performance of
the all-composite Aberfeldy Footbridge. Retrieved from Edinburgh Research
Explorer: http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/files/4125311/c2002_1.pdf
Canadian Climate Normals. (2010). 1981-2010 Climate Normals & Averages. Retrieved
from Canadian Climate Normals:
http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html
CHBDC-S6-14. (2014). Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. Canadian Standard
Association.
Chen, & Wai-Fah. (2000). Bridge engineering handbook. CRC Press.
Cheng, K., Ketchum, M., & Drouillard, F. (2010). Nanning butterfly tied arch bridge over
the Yong River in China. Structural Engineering International, Vol. 20(Issue 3), pp.
308-311.
Chriusha, H. (2011, April 10). Schwandbach Bridge. Retrieved April 8, 2017, from
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schwandbachbruecke_04_11.jpg
CISC-Handbook. (2014). Handbook of Steel Construction – 10th Edittion. Canadian
Istitute of Steel Construction .
Corres-Peiretti, H. (2013). Sound engineering through conceptual design according to the
fib Model Code 2010. Structural Concrete, Vol. 14(Issue 2), pp. 89-98.
Culmann, K. (1866). Die graphische Statik. Zurich: Meyer & Zeller.
Cusson, R., & Yunping, X. (2002). The Behavior Of Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
Reinforcement In Low Temperature Environmental Climates. Department of Civil,
Environmental & Architectural Engineering. Boulder, Colorado, USA: University
Of Colorado.

- 257 -
Reference

Dalavos, J. (2002). Step-by-Step Engineering Design Equations for Fiber-reinforced


Plastic Beams for Transportation Structures. Contract West Virginia Department of
Transportation. Morgantown, West Virginia, USA: West Virginia University,
Contract No: RP#147.
Dalavos, J. (2002B). Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composites for Construction—State-of-
the-Art Review. Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. 6(Issue 2), pp. 73-87.
Dalavos, J. (1996). Analysis and design of pultruded FRP shapes under bending.
Composites Part B: Engineering; Structural Composites in Infrastructures, Vol.
27(Issue 3-4), 295-305.
Daniali, S. (1991). Short-term and long-term behavior of two types of reinforced plastic
beams. 46th Annual Conference, Composites Institute. Proceeding, 13-A-1-5.
Davies, G. J. (1988). Numerical Analysis Of Cables In The Offshore Environment. Faculty
of Engineering&Built Environment; Dept. of Mechanical Engineering. Cape Town,
South Africa: University of Cape Town. Masters Thesis.
Desai, Y. M. (2011). Finite Element Method with Applications in Engineering. Pearson
India Pub.
Desai, Y. M., & Eldho, T. L. (2011). Finite Element Method with Applications in
Engineering. Pearson India.
Design Manual Creative Pultrusion. (2016). Retrieved from Design Manual of Standard
and Custom Fiber Reinforced Polymer Structural Profiles:
http://www.creativepultrusions.com/index.cfm/products-solutions/fiberglass-
standard-structural-profiles/pultexc2ae-pultrusion-design-manual/
Dilger, W. (1983). Temperature stress is Composite Box Girder Bridges. Proceeding of
ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, (pp. 1460-1478).
Dou, C., Guo, Y., Zhao, S., & Pi, Y. (2015). Experimental investigation into flexural-
torsional ultimate resistance of steel circular arches. Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 141(Issue 10), pp. 04015006: 1-12.
Duttaa, P. K. (2000). Creep rupture of a GFRP composite at elevated temperatures.
Computers and Structures, Vol. 76(Issue 1-3), pp. 153-161.

- 258 -
Reference

El-Hacha, R. (2000). Prestressed CFRP Sheets for Strengthening Concrete Beams at Room
and Low Temperatures. Doctoral Thesis, Queen’s University, Department of Civil
Engineering, Kingston, Ontario.
Farreyre, A. (2005). Timber trussed arch for long span. Chalmers University of
Technology; Masters Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering;
Division of Structural Engineering, Göteborg, Sweden 2005.
Federhofer, K. (1934). Uber die Eigenschwingungen und Knicklasten des Bogens. Wien.
Fiberline-Composites. (2002). Design Manual. Retrieved from
https://fiberline.com/sites/default/files/media/online-tools/190107_dm_uk.pdf
Findley, W. (1944). Creep Characteristics of Plastics. Symposium on Plastics, (pp. 118-
134). American Society for Testing and Materials.
Findley, W., & Worley, W. (1951). The Elevated Temperature Creep and Fatigue
Properties of a Polyester Glass Fabric Laminate. Society of Plastic Engineers, Vol.
5(Issue 4), pp. 9-17.
Firth, I. P. (2002). New materials for modern footbridges. (pp. 174–186). Paris, France:
Footbridge 2002.
Garcia, M. (2014, August 15). Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved April 8, 2017, from
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Puente_Zubizuri_y_Torres_Izosaki_-
_Bilbao_(14784276449).jpg
Gascoigne, B. (2001). HistoryWorld, History of Architecture [Online]. Retrieved from
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?groupid=1523&Histor
yID=ab27&gtrack=pthc
Ghali, A., Neville, A., & Brown, T. G. (2009). Structural Analysis: A Unified Classical and
Matrix Approach. Spon Press.
Gui, C., Lei, J., & Yoda, T. (2016, June). Effects of Inclination Angle on Buckling of
Continuous Composite Bridges with Inclined Parabolic Arch Ribs. International
Journal of Steel Structures, Vol. 16(Issue 2), pp 361–372.
Haj-Ali, R., & Kilic, H. (2002). Nonlinear behavior of pultruded FRP composites.
Composites Part B: Engineering, Vol. 33(Issue 3), pp. 173–191.

- 259 -
Reference

Haj-Ali, R., & Muliana, A. (2003). A micromechanical constitutive framework for the
nonlinear viscoelastic behavior of pultruded composite materials. Interna-tional
Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 40(Issue 5), 1037–1057.
Haj-Ali, R., El-Hajjar, R., & Muliana, A. (2006). Cohesive fracture modeling of crack
growth in thick-section composites. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 73(Issue
15), pp. 2192 - 2209.
Halpern, A., & Adriaenssens, S. (2015). Nonlinear elastic in-plane buckling of shallow
truss arches. Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 20(Issue 10), pp. 04014117: 1-11.
Hedefine, A. (1970). Design of the Fremont Bridge. Portland: Preprint 1210, ASCE
Meeting.
Heider, D., Piovoso, M. J., & Gillespie, J. (2003, August). A neural network model-based
open-loop optimization for the automated thermoplastic composite tow-placement
system. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, Vol. 34(Issue 8),
pp. 791–799.
Heyman, J. (1996). The Stone Skeleton. International Journal of Solids and Structures,
Vol. 2, pp. 249-279.
Heyman, J. (1998). Structural Analysis: A Historical Approach. Cambridge University
Press.
Hollaway, L. C. (2010). A review of the present and future utilisation of FRP composites in
the civil infrastructure with reference to their important in-service properties.
Elsevier: Construction and Building Materials. Special Issue on Fracture, Acoustic
Emission and NDE in Concrete (KIFA-5), Vol. 24(Issue 12), pp. 2419–2445.
Hussain, N., & Wilson, I. (1999). The Hulme Arch Bridge, Manchester. Institution of Civil
Engineering Journal, 2-13.
Ingold, L., & Rinke, M. (2015). Sergio Musmeci's Search For New Forms Of Concrete
Structures. Fifth International Construction History Congress, Chicago. Vol. 2, pp.
339-346. 5ICCH Proceedings.
ISIS_Canada. (2006). ISIS Canada Educational Module No. 8: Durability of FRP
Composites for construction, Section 7. Department of Civil Engineering, Queen's
University.

- 260 -
Reference

Johnson, J., & Curran, P. (2003). Gateshead Millenium Bridge –an eye-opener for
engineering. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Civil Engineering,
Vol. 156 (Issue 3), pp. 16–24.
Johnston, B. G. (1976). Guide to stability design criteria for metal structures. New Jersey,
USA: Wiley, Hoboken, .
Jones, R. M. (1975). Mechanics of composite materials. McGraw-Hill, N.Y.
Jorquera, J., & Manterola, J. (2012). An iterative form-finding method for antifunicular
shapes in spatial arch bridges. Computers & structures, Vol. 108, pp. 42-60.
Jorquera, J. (2009). Structural Behaviour of Spatial Arch Bridges. Proceedings of the
International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures (IASS) Symposium 2009,
Vol. 2, pp. 2447-2457. Valencia, Italy.
Jorquera, J. (2007). Study of the Structural Behaviour of Spatial Arch. Madrid: Technical
University of Madrid, Doctoral Thesis.
JRA. (2012). Specification for Highway Bridges, part 2 Steel Bridges. Japan Road
Association.
Karchmer. (2014, January 4). CBS Dalla Fort Worth. Retrieved April 8, 2017, from
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/01/10/lights-to-shine-on-downtown-dallas-bridge-for-
1st-time/calatrava-3/
Karnowski, I. (2012). Theory of Arched structures: Strenght, Stability, Vibrations.
Springer.
Kavtaradze. (2009). Pintrest. Retrieved April 8, 2017, from
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/537406168007322238/
Kirchhoff, G. R. (1876). Vorlesungen über mathematische Physik, Mechanic. Leipzig.
Knippers, J., & Gabler, M. (2007). New design concepts for advanced composite bridges –
The Friedberg Bridge in Germany. IABSE Repor 92:332–333.
Kolding-Bridge. (1997). Fibre-reinforced polymer composite bridges in Europe. Retrieved
from Kolding Bridge, Denmark:
https://www.fose1.plymouth.ac.uk/sme/composites/bridges.htm#kolding
Kollár, L., & Springer, G. S. (2003). Mechanics of Composite Structures. Cambridge,
U.K.: Cambridge, University Press.

- 261 -
Reference

Komatsu S, & Sakimoto, T. (1977). Ultimate load carrying capacity of steel arches.
Journal of Structural engoneering: Div-ASCE, Vol. 103(Issue 12), 2323–2336.
Lacarbonara, W. (2013). Nonlinear Structural Mechanics, Theory, Dynamical Phenomena
and Modeling. Springer New York Heidelberg.
Lachauer, L., & Kotnik, T. (2011). Curved Bridge Design. Computational Design
Modelling, pp. 145-152.
Lachauer, L., & Philippe, B. (2014). Interactive equilibrium modelling. International
Journal of Space Structures, Vol. 29, pp. 25-37.
Laffranchi, M. (1999). Zur Konzeption gekrummter Brucken. ETH Zurich, Doctoral Thesis.
Laffranchi, M., & Marti, P. (1997). Robert’s Maillart’s concrete arch bridges. Journal of
Structural Engineering, Vol. 123(Issue 10), pp. 1280-1286.
Larsen, O. P. (2003). Conceptual structural design : bridging the gap between architects
and engineers. Thomas Telford.
Liaghat, D., Powell-Williams, K., & Capasso, M. (2011). Ponte Della Musica: An Urban
Bridge in Rome. 4th International Conference Footbridge 2011. Vol. 2, pp. pp.
168-182. Wroclaw, Poland: Footbridge 2011.
Liewa, K. (2011). A review of meshless methods for laminated and functionally graded
plates and shells. Composite Structures, Vol. 93(Issue 8), pp. 2031–2041.
Linkwit, K., & Schek, J. (1971). Einige Bemerkungen zur Berechnung. Archive of Applied
Mechanics, Vol. 40(Issue 3), pp. 145-158.
Liu, Y. (2015). Long-span deck-type CFST arch bridge combined with diagonal cable. 6th
International Conference on Arch Bridges.
Löbbecke, R. (2012). Corbelled Domes. Manchester, United Kingdom: Walther König.
Lucas-FEM-Software. (2002). Lucas. Retrieved from Engineering analysis and design
software; Bridge design and engineering:
http://www.lusas.com/case/bridge/gateshead.html
Manterola, J., Gil, M. A., & Munoz-Rojaz, J. (2011). Spatial Arch Bridges Over the
Galindo and Bidasoa Rivers. Structural Engineering International, Vol. 21(Issue 1),
pp. 114-121.
Mock, E. B. (1972, c1949.). The Architecture of bridges. Museum of Modern Art.

- 262 -
Reference

Mulqueen, P. C. (2011). Creating the Te Rewa Rewa Bridge, New Zealand. Wellington,
New Zealand: Structural Engineering International.
Murthy, M. (1981). An improved transverse shear deformation theory for laminated
antisotropic plates. NASA Technical Paper 1903.
Muttoni, A. (2011). The art of structures (1st ed.). Routledge, EPFL Press.
Neale, K., & Labossiere, P. (1991). State-Of-The Art Report on Retrofitting and
Strengthening By Continuous Fibre in Canada. 3rd International Symposium on
Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures. Vol. 1, pp. 25-40.
Sapporo, Japan: Proceedings.
Nettleton, D. A. (1977). Arch bridges, Structural Engineering Series No. 2. U.S. Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
Nicholson, P. T. (2000). Ancient Egyptian materials and technology. Cambridge University
Press.
Nikolaee, E. (1918). On stability of equilibrium of compressed and twisted columns.
Petrograd: Mathematics Polytechnic Institute.
Partner, S. B. (1997). Schlaich Bergenman Partner. Retrieved April 8, 2017, from
http://www.sbp.de/en/project/ripshorst-pedestrian-bridge/
Peel, M. (2004, June 10). Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved April 8, 2017, from
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hulme_Arch_Bridge_2.jpg
Perez, C. (2014). Gateshead Millenium Bridge. Retrieved April 8, 2017, from
http://claudiaperezr.pbworks.com/w/page/71048572/Gateshead%20Millenium%20
Bridge
Perrot, G. (1883). A History of Art In Ancient Egypt. London, United Kingdom: Champman
and Hall, Limited.
Plasencia. (2012). Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved April 8, 2017, from
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/Calatrava/WWWSITE/SLIDES2/049-2C.GIF
Potyrała, P. B. (2011). Use of Fibre Reinforced Polymer Composites in Bridge
Construction: State of the Art in Hybrid and All-Composite Structures. Master
Thesis, Polytechnic University of Catalonia, Department of Construction
Engineering, Barcelona, Spain.

- 263 -
Reference

Qiu, W.-L. (2010). Stability Analysis of Special-Shape Arch Bridge. Tamkang Journal of
Science and Engineering, Vol. 13(Issue 4), pp. 365-373.
Reissner, E. (1945). The effect of transverse shear deformation on the bending of elastic
plates. Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 20(Issue 24), pp. 69-77.
Rippmann, M. (2016). Funicular Shell Design. Zurich: ETH Zurich, Doctoral Thesis.
Roberts, J. E. (1998). Application of composites in California bridges; Quality control
specifications and testing program. U.S. Department of Commerce. Tuscon,
Arizona: NIST Workshop on Standards Development for the Use of Fiber
Reinforced Polymers for the Rehabilitation of Concrete and Masonry Structures
Proceedings.
Rojas, E., Chapelle, D., Perreux, D., & Delobelle, B. T. (2014). Unified approach of
filament winding applied to complex shape mandrels. Composite Structures, Vol.
116, pp. 805-813.
Roletschek. (2015, October 28). Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved April 8, 2017, from
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:15-10-28-Pont_Bac_de_Roda_Barcelona-
RalfR-WMA_3106.jpg
Rostasy, F. (1993). FRP Tensile Elements for Prestressed Concrete - State of the Art,
Potentials and Limits. In N. A., & D. C.W. (Ed.), International Symposium on
Fiber-Reinforced-PIastic Reinforcement for Concrete Structures (pp. 347-366).
Detroit, Michigan, USA: ACI Publication SP 138-22.
Ruddock, T. (1979). Arch bridges and their builders, 1735-1835. Cambridge University
Press.
Sa, M. F., Gomes, A. M., Correia, J. R., & Silvestre, N. (2011). Creep behavior of
pultruded GFRP elements – Part 1: Literature review and experimental study.
Composite Structures, Vol. 93(Issue 3), pp. 2450–2459.
Sarmineto-Comesias, M. (2015). Structural Behaviour and Design Criteria of Spatial Arch
Bridges. Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Doctoral Thesis.
Sarmiento-Comesias, M., Ruiz-Teran, A. M., & Aparicio, A. C. (2013). State-of-the-art of
spatial arch bridges. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Bridge
Engineering, Vol.166(Issue 3), pp. 163-176.

- 264 -
Reference

Sarmiento-Comesias, M., Ruiz-Teran, A. M., & Aparicio, A. C. (2012, July). Structural


Behavior of Inferior-Deck Spatial Arch Bridges with Imposed Curvature. Journal
of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 17(Issue 4), 682 - 690.
Sarmiento-Comesıas, M., Ruiz-Teran, A., & Aparicio, A. (2011). Superior deck spatial
arch bridges. International Symposium on Bridge and Structural Engineering,
Taller, Longer,Lighter, London, UK (pp. 1-8). Proceedings of the 35th IABSE–
IASS.
SBP. (1997). Schlaich-Bergerman-Partner: Ripshorst Pedestrian Bridge. Retrieved from
http://www.sbp.de/en/project/ripshorst-pedestrian-bridge/
SBP. (2015). Schlaich-Bergerman-Partner: Weinber Bridge, Federal Garden Show 2015
Havel Region. Retrieved from http://www.sbp.de/en/project/weinbergbruecke-
federal-garden-show-2015-havel-region/
Schlaich, J., & Gabriel, K. (1996). On the conceptual design of structures: an. International
symposium on “conceptual design of structures”, (pp. 15-25). Stuttgart, Germany.
Shahverdi, M., Vassilopoulos, A. P., & Keller, T. (2012). A total fatigue life model for the
prediction of the R-ratio effects on fatigue crack growth of adhesively-bonded
pultruded GFRP DCB joints. Composites. Part A, Applied science and
manufacturing, Vol. 43(Issue 10), pp. 1783-1790.
Sherif, A. G. (repr.n.d., c1991). Analysis and construction of multispan cable-stayed
bridges (MSc. Thesis). University of Calgary.
Shrive, N. G., Reda, M. M., & Huizer, A. (2000). Simple design proceudres for mansory
arches. 12th International Brick/Block Masonry Conference, Vol.III, pp. pp. 1687-
1696. Madrid.
Sieble, F., Burgueno, R., Abdalah, M., & Nuismer, R. (1996). Development of Advacne
Composite Carbon Shell Systems for Concrete Columns in Seismic Zones.
University of California, San Diego, Division of Structural Engineering. Elserviers
Science Ltd., Paper No. 1375.
Sloan, J. (2008). ATL and AFP: Defining the megatrends in composite aerostructures.
Retrieved from CW CompositesWorld:
http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/atl-and-afp-defining-the-megatrends-in-
composite-aerostructures

- 265 -
Reference

Smith, K. J. (2005). Compression creep of a pultruded E-glass/polyester composite at


elevated service temperatures. School of Civil and Environmental Engineering.
Georgia Institute of Technology; Master Thesis.
Sobrino, J. A. (2002). Towards Advanced Composite Material Footbridges. Structural
Engineering International, Vol. 12(Issue 2), pp. 84-86.
Steigen, R. O. (2001). Modeling and analyzing a suspension bridge in light of deterioration
of the main cable wires. Faculty of Science and Technology. University of
Stavanger, Sweden. Master Thesis.
Strasky, J., & Kalab, P. (2007). Model test of the prestressed concrete membrane.
Conference on Shell and Spatial Structures, Structural Architecture – Towards the
Future Looking to the Past (pp. pp. 1–8). Venice, Italy: Proceeding of IASS 2007.
Strazsky, J. (2008). Bridges utilizing high-strength concrete. Proceedings of the 30th
Conference of Slovenian Structural Engineers, Vol. 3, pp. 1-18. Bled.
Strongwell. (2015). Power poles. Retrieved from Strongwell Products:
http://www.strongwell.com/products/power-poles/
Tamorlan, J. (2011, June 18). Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved April 8, 2017, from
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Puente-Arganzuela-
Madrid_R%C3%ADo.JPG
Terzijski, I. (2008). Optimization of UHPC for the model of a pedestrian bridge. Ultra
High Performance Concrete (UHPC) (pp. 707–716). Kassel, Germany:
Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Ultra High Performance
Concrete.
Timoshenko, S., & Gere, J. M. (1961). Theory of elastic stability. New York : McGraw-
Hill.
Todisco, L. (2014). An integreated approach to conceptual design of arch bridges with
curved deck. Madrid, Spain: Technical University Madrid, Masters Thesis.
Tsai, S., & Hahn, H. (1980). Introduction to Composite Materials. Westport, Connecticut:
Technomic Publishing Company.
Tuakta, C. (2005). Use Of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composite In Bridge Structures.
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.

- 266 -
Reference

Tveit, P. (2002). Optimal design of network arches. IABSE Symposium in Melbourne 2002,
Vol. 3, pp. 13-25.
Uddin, N. (2013). Developments in Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP): Composites for Civil
Engineering. Woodhead Publishing.
Uddin, S. M. (2014, January). The effect of filament winding mosaic pattern on the stress
state of filament wound composite flywheel disk. Composite Structures, Vol. 107,
pp. 260–275.
University of Maine. (2016). Composite Arch Bridge System – Bridge-in-a-backpack.
Retrieved from Advanced Structures & Composites Center:
https://composites.umaine.edu/research/bridge-in-a-backpack/
Urruzmendi. (2014). Pintrest. Retrieved April 8, 2017, from
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/331999803750585685/
Vairo, G., & Montassar, S. (2012). Mechanical Modelling of Stays under Thermal Loads.
In Mechanics, Models and Methods in Civil Engineering (pp. 481-498). Springer
Berlin Heidelberg.
Verlain, D., Hardy, D., & Schmit, C. (2001). Bowstring bridge with curved deck.
Proceedings of the 3rd International Arch Bridge Conference, ARCH’01, Vol. 2,
pp. 715–722. Paris, France.
Wang, X., & Wu, Z. (2009, August). Dynamic behavior of thousand-meter scale cable-
stayed bridge with hybrid FRP cables. Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 12, pp.
935-943.
Wang, X., Xu, P., Wu, Z., & Shi, J. (2016). Fatigue Behavior of Basalt Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer Tendons for Prestressing Applications. Journal of Composites for
Construction, Vol. 20(Issue 3), 04015079: 1-11.
Wang, X., Xu, P., Wu, Z., & Shi, J. (2015, Dec). A Novel Anchor Method for Multitendon
FRP Cable: Manufacturing and Experimental Study Manufacturing and
Experimental Study. Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. 19(Issue 6),
04015010: 1-11.
Wang, X., & Wu, Z. (2010). Vibration control of different FRP cables in long-span cable-
stayed bridge under indirect excitations. Journal of Earthquake and Tsunami, Vol.
5(Issue 2), pp. 167-188.

- 267 -
Reference

White, D., & Fortune, J. (2012). Using systems thinking to evaluate a major project: The
case of the Gateshead Millennium Bridge. Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, pp. 205 - 228.
Yashinsky. (2014, February 28). Blogger. Retrieved April 8, 2017, from
http://www.bridgeofweek.com/2014/02/contra-costa-county-california-
bridges_25.html
Zhang, Y. (2008). Recent developments in finite element analysis for laminated composite
plates. Composite Structures, Vol. 88(Issue 1), pp. 147–157.
Zhou, A., & Keller, T. (2004, July). Joining techniques for fiber reinforced polymer
composite bridge deck systems. Composite Structures, Vol. 69(Issue 3), pp. 336–
345.
Zhou, P., Zhng, Z., & Yu, Y. (2012). Optimization Method of Hanger Forces in
Reasonable Finished State of Diagonal-span Arch Bridge. International Journal of
Advancements in Computing Technology(IJACT), Vol. 4(Issue 11), pp. 294-303.
Ziemian, R. D. (2010). Guide to stability design criteria for metal structures (6th ed.). John
Wiley and Sons, New York.
Zoghi, M. (2013). The International Handbook of FRP Composites in Civil Engineering.
CRC Press.
Zureick, A., & Scott, D. (1997). Short-Term Behavior of Fiber-Reinforced Polymeric
Slender members Under Axial Compression. ASCE Journal of Composites for
Construction, Vol. 1(Issue 4), pp. 140-149.
Zureick, A., & Steffen, R. (2000). Behavior and Design of Concentrically Loaded
Pultruded Angle Struts. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 126(Issue 3),
pp. 406-416.

- 268 -
APPENDIX A: DETAILS TO CHAPTER THREE
A. Appendix A:

- 269 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

A.1. Selection of Finite Elements

The selection of a proper finite element and mesh is a key step. The requirement is
that the selected finite element is able (through its response) to reflect correctly the effect
of the applied loads in the assumed configuration. The response of an element to applied
loads is influenced by five aspects: 1) the element family; beam, shell, continuum elements,
etc.; 2) available degrees of freedom (DOF); calculated translations and rotations directly
related to the element family; 3) the number of nodes and interpolation function (the
displacements and rotations are calculated at the nodes and interpolated via specific
functions along the element); 4) formulation; Lagrangian formulation – element deforms
with the material (typical for structural problems), or Eulerian formulation – elements are
fixed in space and material flows through them; (typical for fluid mechanics problems);
and 5) integration type; typical is Gaussian quadrature for most elements, Abaqus 6.13
reference manual (2014).
One of the significant aspects is the interpolation function; sometimes also called
the shape or approximating function. The selection of an appropriate interpolation function
and, therefore, a selection of an appropriate finite element depends on the required level of
accuracy. Typically, polynomial or trigonometric functions are used for most of finite
elements in order to describe the behaviour of the field variable within the element, Desai
(2011). Use of large numbers of lower order elements can provide as satisfactory an answer
as fewer higher order elements.
The elements selected for the analyses in this thesis are structural elements;
particularly, truss and beam elements. Structural finite elements are commonly used in
industrial practice as well as in research case studies. Several examples are described in the
following paragraph.
The investigation of long span truss arches done by Farreyre (2005) utilize truss
elements for diagonal members and beam elements for top and bottom chords in spatial
roofs. Critical buckling loads in bridges with inclined parabolic arch ribs were examined by
Gui (2016). Arches and hangers were modeled via beam elements and truss elements,
respectively. A structural response of the Gateshead Millennium Bridge was evaluated with
two-node bar (truss) elements in hangers and with engineering thick beam elements
(elements accounting for shear deformation) in an arch and a deck as per a research case

- 270 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

study, (Lucas, 2002). An investigation of a structural response of a diagonal arch employed


spatial beam elements for the deck girders and the arch rib. Hangers were modeled via
flexible cable elements (Qiu, 2010).
Specifications of the structural finite elements that are used for analyses conducted
in this thesis are described next.

A.1.1. Finite Elements for Arch and Deck

Arch and a deck in both the linear and the nonlinear models are modeled with B32
beam elements.
Both the arch and the deck are components that are exposed to axial and shear
forces as well as bending and torsional moments. Therefore, the selected finite element
must respond to such loads. From the library of structural elements, Abaqus v. 6.13 offers a
large group of suitable beam elements with specific attributes appropriate for planar and
spatial problems.
In order to model a spatial configuration resisting the out-of-plane loads, a three-
dimensional B32 beam element was selected for both the arch and the deck. This three
node (two integration points) beam element is shear flexible (Timoshenko definition) and
has a quadratic shape function providing relatively simple but accurate interpolation within
the length of the element. Timoshenko beams can be subjected to large axial strains. The
axial strains due to torsion are assumed to be small. In a combined axial-torsion loading
case, the torsional shear strains are calculated accurately only when the axial strain is not
large. Abaqus assumes that the transverse shear behavior of Timoshenko beams is linear
elastic with a fixed modulus and, thus, independent of the response of the beam section to
axial stretch and bending, Abaqus Analysis User’s Guide (2014), Section 29.3.3.
At each node, each beam element has 6 degrees of freedom (DOF) that allow for
obtaining translations and rotations in all three directions (X, Y, Z). Each node can transfer
shear and axial forces and moments.
The versatility of beam elements in spatial structures is represented by the
availability of various cross-sections that may be assigned to the beam element. Cross-
sections for beam elements that are available in Abaqus v. 6.13 can be solid or thin-walled.

- 271 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

If thin-walled cross-sections are used, then they can be open or closed. Specific properties
of beam cross-section can be defined via:
• Selecting of a particular shape of the cross-section from provided Abaqus library
whose dimensions are to be defined. In the Abaqus library there are standard open and
closed sections such as I-beams, T-beams, circular or rectangular hollow structural
shapes, but also hexagonal shapes or L-shapes.
• Entering of specific geometric quantities such as area, moments of inertia, and
torsional constant into a general beam cross-section. A general beam cross-section
distributes the geometric quantities in a solid section. The advantage of a general beam
section is that the individual geometric quantities can be defined separately. Such a
property can be beneficial in the definition of cable-like components having high axial
but low bending stiffness (definition of flexible, cable-like components is described in
Section A.1.4)
• The meshed cross-section where an arbitrary shape can be created (drawn) and specific
two-dimensional (2D) elements (warping elements) are used to calculate the geometric
quantities numerically. An employment of the meshed cross-section can beneficial
particularly in modeling of complex cross-sections (inclined internal stiffeners, curved
surfaces, or combination of multiple materials) when it is difficult to obtain geometric
quantities otherwise. Nevertheless, in the warping elements there is only one DOF; the
out-of-plane warping displacement. Therefore, the meshed beam cross-section is not
suitable for thermal analysis as per Abaqus Analysis User’s Guide (2014), Section
10.6.1. In order to take the advantage of the versatility of the meshed cross-section and
overcome its disability to model thermal loads certain semi-procedure exists. The
geometric quantities of complex cross-section are acquired from the meshed cross-
section and then entered into the general beam cross-section whose available degrees
of freedom take into account the coefficient of thermal expansion that is necessary for
thermal analysis.

A definition of section points (the assumed points within the assumed section at
which output variables such as the axial stresses or strains are collected) is allowed for all
beam cross-sections described above.

- 272 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

Since the nonlinear material behaviour is not considered during the assumed
analyses, the numerical integration of section properties is set to default, i.e., to
“integration before analysis”. In this option Abaqus precomputes the beam cross-section
quantities and performs all section computations during the analysis in terms of the
precomputed values. This method combines the functions of beam section and material
descriptions (stress strain material relation is not required), Abaqus Analysis User’s Guide
(2014), Section 29.3.5.

A.1.2. Finite Elements for Hangers

In the FE models, two types of hanger are employed. The sections below specify
hanger for the linear and nonlinear model.

A.1.3. Hangers for the Linear Model

Hangers in the linear model are created with the T3D2 truss element. Only one
element is used to connect the arch and deck. T3D2 truss element is a two node element
applicable in 3D space with linear interpolation function. In general, truss elements are
long slender members that can transmit only axial load. No moments or forces
perpendicular to the centreline are supported.
An application of the truss elements as cables in structural applications represents a
certain simplification because the truss elements cannot account for deformation of flexible
cables under self-weight; the sag. Nevertheless, truss elements are simple elements (with
low demand on computational time) and can provide reasonably accurate results valuable
in preliminary analyses where neither a detailed definition nor a response of a deflected
cable is required. In certain cases, the application of truss elements in cable-like
configurations is recommended. For example, the 3-node truss element available in
Abaqus/Standard is often useful for modeling of curved reinforcing cables in structures
such as prestressed tendons in reinforced concrete or long slender pipelines used in the off-
shore industry.
Modeling of the flexible cable-like members with multiple truss elements in space
is possible. However, the procedure is sensitive to the alignment of the elements, requires
numerous sub-steps, and may be less versatile in spatial configurations. Details of a

- 273 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

procedure describing how to model cables with multiple truss elements are provided in, for
example, Davies (1988).

Figure A-1: Selection of the “tension-only” material behaviour assigned to the truss
elements utilized for modeling of hangers in the linear models.

In order to improve the cable-like behaviour modeled with truss elements, the truss
elements are defined as “tension-only” members. Such members cannot transfer
compression forces. Abaqus v. 6.13 offers the “tension-only” option as a property of linear
elastic material. An example of assignment of “tension-only” property is shown in Figure
A-1. The tension-only attribute of cables modeled with truss elements is advantageous in

- 274 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

thermal analyses where the compression axial stress (generated under positive thermal
loads) is omitted, Abaqus Analysis User’s Guide (2014), Section 29.2.1.

A.1.4. Hangers for the Nonlinear Model

The hangers for the nonlinear model are created with B32 beam elements with a
particular definition of bending stiffness. The particular definition of bending stiffness is
related to the basic concept of flexible cables. In general, the purpose of structural cables is
to resist tension forces and, therefore, the cables must have high axial stiffness. However,
the bending stiffness of the cables in an unstressed state is low.
Abaqus v. 6.13 does not offer any cable elements, and therefore, other alternatives
were sought. The approach presented by Davies (1988), described in Section A.1.3 above,
suggests modeling cables via a system of truss elements. This option, however, is not the
most suitable for the spatial configurations in this thesis. Another different approach was
proposed by Todisco (2014) who used structural elements connected with hinges that allow
for rotation at assumed points to achieve cable-like behaviour.
Nevertheless, in this work, the modeling of flexible cables is performed with
structural beam elements that have a bending stiffness reduced to 1% of its original value.
This approach was suggested and applied by several authors, for example, Davies (1988)
and Steiner (2011). Even though the specified threshold value of 1% represents an
optimum, the magnitude of the actual moment of inertia influences the convergence level
of the solution. When the magnitude of the bending stiffness of the cable is high, the
analysis reaches a convergent solution at a faster rate. In addition, the large difference
between axial and bending stiffness may lead to ill-conditioning (Davies, 1988).

- 275 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

Figure A-2: Definition of geometric quantities in a generalized profile of a beam


element cross-section

The proposed method of reduced bending stiffness utilizes the advantage of the
generalized beam profile (Section A.1.1) where the geometric quantities can be defined
directly with arbitrary magnitudes. In order achieve a cable-like behaviour via beam
elements, the axial stiffness “EA” is kept as per the original material. However, the
bending stiffness “EI” must be reduced. The modulus of elasticity, E, remains unchanged
because, as a material constant, it is used to calculate the other geometric quantities.
Nevertheless, the second moment of area (moment of inertia), I, can be reduced in both
directions to achieve the required low bending stiffness of the cables. A definition of the
particular moment of inertia is shown in Figure A-2 above. A verification of the suitability
of the beam elements with reduced bending stiffness to model flexible cables is provided in
Section A.2.2.

A.1.5. Finite Elements for Connections

A sophisticated type of finite element is required to connect the cables to the arch
and deck only in the nonlinear models. In the linear model, an application of the specific
connection elements is not necessary because the truss elements used to model the cables

- 276 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

can only transfer axial loads, and therefore, any connection of truss elements with other
elements behaves as a joint free to rotate in any direction.
The finite elements used in the nonlinear model to connect the cables to the arch
and deck are connector elements CONN3D2. The connector elements are applied at both
ends of the cable. CONN3D2 is a two-node element applicable in 3D space. In Abaqus v.
6.13, a connector element is modeled as a connector wire (zero length is also applicable) to
which a connector section is assigned. A connector section determines the attributes of the
modeled connection.
A universal joint (U-joint), which combines universal and joint connector sections,
is selected to achieve an accurate and convergent solution in the nonlinear models. The
joint connector section transfers all translational DOFs, and the universal connector section
allows for two rotational DOFs. The two allowed rotational DOF are “UR1,” which allows
for a rotation at an element end about a horizontal axis that is perpendicular to the
longitudinal direction of the element, and “UR3,” which allows for a rotation at an element
end about a vertical axis that is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the element.
The third rotational DOF, “UR2” (rotation about its own longitudinal axis), is constrained
to ensure stability (avoid singularities) of the systems. The definition of a fixed UR2 also
reduces the numerical size of the problem.
A local orientation of a connector section becomes imperative in spatial
configurations of SABs where the cables are connected to a curved arch or deck. Due to
sag and the spatial displacements of the cables, misleading bending and torsional moments
can occur in the modeled cables. These bending or torsional moments in the cables are not
correct and, therefore, undesirable. A correct local orientation of the connector section
must be defined to avoid a deviation in the cable response. A definition of the local
orientation of the connector sections as a function of the shape of the arch and deck is
provided in Section 3.4.1. A graphical representation of a universal and a joint connector
section presenting specified degrees of freedom is shown in Figure A-3.

- 277 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

Adopted from Abaqus Analysis User’s Guide, Section 31.1.5 (2014).


Figure A-3: A graphical interpretation of a connector section “U-joint” used to model
the connection of the cables to the arch and deck

A connection of two nodes at an identical location (a connector element of zero


length) is possible given that the two nodes belong to different parts. Placing a connector
element at a conjunction of two components of the same part that meet at the same node is
not possible (two nodes must be present). An assignment of a connector element and its
section is in Abaqus v. 6.13 can be done in a part module or an assembly module.

A.2. Verification and Calibration

Certain steps need to be carried out to ensure correctness and accuracy of the results
obtained from an FE model. Typically, a comparison of the results obtained from an
analytical model (AM) and an FE model is conducted. Further, the AM can only reach a
certain level of complexity. Developing an AM that is too complex would lead to loss of
efficiency, and the AM itself could be vitiated due to an error.
Calibrating models involves a mesh sensitivity analysis and a selection of the most
suitable elements from possible options. In general, a mesh sensitivity analysis investigates
the influence of a finite mesh on the response of the model. Typically, an acceptable level
of a refined mesh is the level at which the difference between two subsequent sets of results
(the model with original and refined mesh) does not exceed 10%. An optimal mesh quality,
in models using structural elements, is determined by a procedure that increases the number
of elements.

- 278 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

A.2.1. Verification of Selected Structural Elements for Arch and Deck

The response of the entire structure depends on the response of the individual
elements. Therefore, a verification of the particular elements is considered first. Elements
that are selected for modeling the spatial configurations of SABs assumed in this thesis
must provide a correct response to applied axial and shear forces, bending and torsional
moments, and thermal loads. The simple cases provided below demonstrate the suitability
of the selected elements.
For three different beam elements, the results obtained from the reference AM are
compared with results from the FE models to demonstrate the suitability of the B32 beam
element that was selected for the arch and deck. All compared beam elements are spatial
beams with a Timoshenko definition (shear flexible). The specific elements are as follows:
• B31: two-node beam element with a linear interpolation function
• B32: three-node beam element with a quadratic interpolation function
• B33: two-node beam element with a cubic interpolation function

The structural configuration that was used to compare the three types of beam
elements consists of a 10m long steel cantilever beam, which had a downward force of
100kN and a torsional moment of 10kN*m applied at the free end. The assumed beam
section is an HSS steel profile that is 2.0m wide and 0.4m high with a wall thickness of
0.025m (deck section assumed to verify the entire structure). Details of the cross-sectional
properties are provided in Table A-4. The material properties of steel are taken from
Section 3.5. The assumed configuration is exposed to shear force and bending and torsional
moments. A schema of such configuration is shown in Figure A-4 below.

- 279 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

L = 10m
A = 5.94E-02m2
F = 100kN
T = 100kN*m

Figure A-4: A spatial configuration assumed to verify beam elements that resist the
combined shear forces and bending and torsional moments

Results of a mesh sensitivity analysis comparing a magnitude of lateral


displacements in all three assumed beam elements are shown in Figure A-5. As shown in
the figure, B31 achieves consistent results after having assigned seven elements. This
number, i.e., 7 elements necessary with B31 element type, compared to the other elements,
is too high, and therefore, B31 is rejected from further consideration.
The responses of B32 and B33 are very similar in nature and, in fact, B33 achieves
consistent results in terms of displacements even with a coarse mesh. Nevertheless, the
application of B33 in the spatial configuration results in non-convergent solutions because
B33 does not have a fully nonlinear formulation, which is necessary to represent the
geometric nonlinearity introduced by the cables within structural configurations (Abaqus
Documentation, 2014).

- 280 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

Mesh sensitivity: Comparison of finitite elements:


B31/B32/B33
4.90E-02

4.80E-02

4.70E-02
Displacement [m]

4.60E-02 B31

4.50E-02 B32
B33
4.40E-02
AM
4.30E-02

4.20E-02
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
No of elements

Figure A-5: A comparison of the displacements of a free end cantilever beam

Therefore, for the FE analyses assumed in this thesis, the spatially stable beam
element B32 with a quadratic interpolation function was selected. The difference between
the results of the AM model and FE model with B32 elements is 4.13%. Hence, an
application of B32 is acceptable. Further, the assumed AM does not take into consideration
a shear deformation, and therefore, the results of the FE model represent a higher
magnitude of final displacement.
The mesh sensitivity analysis indicating an adequate number of elements is shown
in Figure A-6. As shown in the figure, the optimum accuracy is reached with four beam
elements over the 10m long cantilever beam. Hence, the length of one element is
established to be 2.5m. This length is, therefore, implemented into the arch and deck in the
linear and nonlinear models of the entire structure as presented in Section A.2.7.

- 281 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

Mesh sensitivity analysis: Beam element B32


4.323985E-02
4.323980E-02
4.323975E-02
4.323970E-02
Displacement [m]

4.323965E-02
4.323960E-02
AM
4.323955E-02
B32
4.323950E-02
4.323945E-02
4.323940E-02
4.323935E-02
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
No of elements

Figure A-6: A comparison of number of elements required to achieve a consistent


level of displacement

The capability of B32 to carry thermal and axial loads was verified via a
comparison with the AM, which took into account a 10m long beam (with the same
parameters as used for the case shown in Figure A-4) that is fixed at both ends. This
configuration is presented in Figure A-7. A principle of the compatibility of displacements
is described in Equation A-1, Equation A-2, and Equation A-3. 𝛿𝛿𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 is the displacement due
to thermal load, 𝛿𝛿𝐴𝐴 is the displacement due to axial load, 𝐴𝐴 is the cross-sectional area, 𝐸𝐸 is
the modulus of elasticity, ∆𝑇𝑇 is the difference in applied temperature, 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 is the
coefficient of thermal expansion, and 𝐹𝐹 is the axial load resulting from the applied
temperature. A positive thermal load of +100°C was applied, and the reactions at the beam
ends in the horizontal direction were compared. Both the AM and FE models had the same
horizontal reaction with a magnitude of 7,128kN at each end causing a compression stress
of 120MPa.

𝛿𝛿𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 = 𝛿𝛿𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉
Equation A-1

- 282 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

𝐹𝐹×𝐿𝐿
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶×𝐿𝐿×∆𝑇𝑇 =
𝐴𝐴×𝐸𝐸
Equation A-2

𝐹𝐹 = 𝐴𝐴×𝐸𝐸×∆𝑇𝑇×𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
Equation A-3

L = 10m
A = 5.94E-02m2
ΔT = 100°C

Figure A-7: A configuration assumed to verify beam elements that resist thermal
loads

A.2.2. Verification of Flexible Cables Modeled with Beam Elements

As described in Section A.1.4, flexible hangers (cables) are modeled with B32
beam elements with a reduced bending stiffness. During the verification process of the
proposed approach, the following parameters were considered:
• Element type and number of elements
• Level of convergence
• Boundary conditions
• Vertical and horizontal reactions
• Cable sag (magnitude and shape of deformation)
• Ability to carry tensile stress
• Ability to carry negative and positive thermal loads
• Ability not to produce any compressive stress under positive thermal loads

- 283 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

A.2.3. Mesh Sensitivity Analysis of the Suspended Cable

The suitability of B32 is presented in Section A.2.2. The results of a mesh


sensitivity analysis, which considers a 10m long steel cable with a diameter of 50mm that
is exposed only to a gravity load, are presented in Figure A-8. There is no additional
tension applied to the cable. In the unstressed state, the cable is straight with no initial sag.

5.650E-02

5.648E-02

5.646E-02
Displacement [m]

5.644E-02

5.642E-02

5.640E-02 B32

5.638E-02

5.636E-02

5.634E-02
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
No of elements

Figure A-8: Mesh sensitivity analysis of B32 indicating the suitable number of
elements for flexible cables

From Figure A-8, it can be seen that a consistent level of displacement at the middle
of the cable length is achieved with 10 elements. This value is, therefore, implemented into
the FE models of the entire structure. The determined number of beam elements is assigned
to each cable in the bridge configuration regardless of the cable length. A constant number
of elements in each cable (1) maintains the simplicity of the model, while developing the
parametric input file and a spreadsheet-based tool that provides the coordinates of
individual nodes applicable to an arbitrary configuration, (2) maintains a constant number
of nodes (elements) in all models, and (3) allows for the same curvature of each cable.
The element type and boundary conditions are directly related to the level of
convergence. An analysis of boundary conditions indicated that number of rotational
degrees of freedom needs to be reduced from six to four to achieve a convergent solution in
the assumed configuration. A critical degree of freedom is a rotation about the longitudinal

- 284 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

axis of the element. The relevant number of degrees of freedom at the connection of the
cable to the arch or deck in the assembled structure is controlled by a selected connector
element section as described in Section A.1.5.
In general, the convergence level is sensitive to the size and number of assumed
increments within loading steps. It was found that the optimum number of increments was
1,000, and the initial increment size was 0.01 as shown in Figure A-9. Further, in certain
spatial configurations, the number of increments was significantly increased to achieve a
convergent solution (sensitive to the local orientation of the connector elements).

Figure A-9: An example of a setting of the incremental steps for the nonlinear analysis

- 285 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

A.2.4. Magnitude of Cable Displacement

The verification of cable deformation after a load is applied assumes a 10m long,
weightless, steel cable with a diameter of 50mm, which is loaded with concentrated force at
the midspan. The magnitude of the force that reflects the total weight of the steel cable is
1502N. The configuration of the AM is schematically presented in Figure A-10.

Adopted from Ghali (2009); Chapter 23.3.

Figure A-10: Configuration of a weightless cable loaded by a concentrated force at its


midspan assumed to verify the cable modeled with beam elements with reduced
bending stiffness

A geometric nonlinear analysis that considers large displacements, but small strains,
needs to be introduced to account for the effect of the deformed shape of the cable, which
influences the magnitude of the tensile force in the cable. In geometrically nonlinear
problems, the magnitude of the suspended cable displacement is a function of the tension
applied to the cable. Therefore, determining the internal forces must consider equilibrium
about points on the deformed shape, which is unlike linear analysis where the equilibrium
of forces assumes an undeformed initial state (Ghali, 2009).
In Abaqus, a linear equation solution is used in the linear and nonlinear analyses. In
the nonlinear analysis, Abaqus/Standard uses the Newton method or a variant of it, such as
the Riks method. The Riks method is used to solve a set of linear equations at each
iteration. Sparse solver, which applies the linear equation solution to a “multifront”
technique, is suitable for a physical model that is made from several parts or branches

- 286 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

connected together such as configurations of SABs where the arch, deck, and set of cables
are the only structural components. However, an iterative linear equation solver in
Abaqus/Standard is more suitable for single “blocky” (solid) three dimensional structures,
as per Chapter 6.1.4 and 6.1.5 (Abaqus Documentation, 2014).
An iterative procedure utilizing Equation A-4 and Equation A-5 is used to find
displacements and reaction forces of the assumed configuration shown in Figure A-10. 𝑁𝑁 is
the total tensile force in the cable, ∆𝑁𝑁 is the increment in tensile force due to the applied
vertical load 𝑄𝑄, 𝑄𝑄 is the applied vertical load (representing the entire mass of the assumed
cable) at point B, E is the modulus of elasticity, A is the cross-sectional area of the assumed
cable, 𝛿𝛿(𝐶𝐶) is the cable elongation due to developed tensile force, b is the cable length, and
D is the vertical displacement due to the applied vertical load.

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 2𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑏𝑏 2 𝑏𝑏
𝑁𝑁 = 𝑁𝑁 (0) + ∆𝑁𝑁 = 𝑁𝑁 (0) + 𝐿𝐿
×𝛿𝛿(𝐶𝐶) = 𝑁𝑁 (0) + � 𝑏𝑏
� ���2 � + 𝐷𝐷 2 − 2 �

Equation A-4

2𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
𝑄𝑄 =
2
��𝑏𝑏 � + 𝐷𝐷 2
2
Equation A-5

The proposed nonlinear iterative procedure assumes the vertical displacement D


and then calculates the tensile force N. The out of balance load 𝑄𝑄𝐵𝐵 is calculated next
according to Equation A-5.

Table A-1: A comparison of the analytical and FE models for nonlinear cable
behaviour
Parameter AM FE Difference
Displacement; D [m] 0.078 0.077 1.13%
Vertical reaction [N] 751.446 751.500 0.01%
Horizontal reaction [N] 48,041.808 47,489.400 1.15%

- 287 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

The solution is found via a spreadsheet-based tool after several iterations when the
assumed displacement D provides an out of balance load 𝑄𝑄𝐵𝐵 equal to the applied vertical
load 𝑄𝑄. A comparison indicating a close match of obtained results from the analytical and
FE models is shown in Table A-1. The close match indicates that beam elements with
reduced bending stiffness represent the behaviour of flexible cables well.

A.2.5. Deformed Shape of the Cable

The shape of a cable deformed under its own weight is another important parameter
of the verification. Cables resisting only gravity loads (self-weight) deform in the shape of
a catenary. A catenary can be described by the hyperbolic cosine function as shown in
Equation A-6 where y is the vertical coordinate, x is the horizontal coordinate, and 𝑎𝑎 is the
ratio of 𝑇𝑇0 /𝑊𝑊0 in which 𝑊𝑊0 is the linear density (the weight of a cable per unit length along
cable’s longitudinal axis), and 𝑇𝑇0 is the horizontal component of the tensile force, which is
constant at any point on the curve; the ratio 𝑎𝑎 is, therefore, constant for a given
configuration.
In practical applications, a second degree parabolic curve represented by Equation
A-7 (same notations as per Equation A-6 apply) is typically used instead of the catenary
curve because both curves have similarly deformed shapes, and the definition of a
parabolic curve is much simpler.
𝑥𝑥
𝑦𝑦 = 𝑎𝑎 ∗ 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐ℎ
𝑎𝑎
Equation A-6

𝑥𝑥 2
𝑦𝑦 = 𝑎𝑎 ∗
2𝑎𝑎
Equation A-7

The difference between the two curves becomes more apparent in cables with larger
sag (Sherif, 1991). However, in cables with a small sag, as assumed for the configurations
of SABs in this thesis, the difference is minor. A comparison of both curves is presented in
Figure A-11; as shown in this figure, the maximum difference is less than 5%, and
therefore, the utilization of the parabolic equation to model funicular and antifunicular

- 288 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

shapes of suspended cables and erected arches, respectively, is considered acceptable for
purposes of this thesis.

Location along span [m]

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
1.20 2.00%

1.00
Displacement [m]

1.50%

Difference [%]
0.80

0.60 1.00%

0.40
0.50%
0.20

0.00 0.00%

Difference CATENARY PARABOLA

Figure A-11: A comparison of the deformed shapes of the cables using the parabola
and catenary equations

Displacements of individual nodes obtained from the FE model is plotted against


the parabolic curve as shown in Figure A-12. The low level of difference (no more than
1%) that is apparent on the secondary axis indicates a close correlation of both curves
concluding that B32 with reduced bending stiffness is suitable for modeling flexible cables.

- 289 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

Location along span [m]

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.000E+00 0.000%
-1.000E-02 -0.150%
Displacement [m]

Difference [%]
-2.000E-02 -0.300%
-3.000E-02 -0.450%
-4.000E-02 -0.600%
-5.000E-02 -0.750%
-6.000E-02 -0.900%
Difference Equation of parabola FE Model

Figure A-12: A comparison of the deformed shape of a cable modeled using B32
elements with reduced bending stiffness and AM using a parabolic curve

A.2.6. Capability to Carry Thermal Loads

Cables that are modeled using B32 with reduced bending stiffness must be able to
carry thermal loads to correctly respond to temperature variation and not to generate any
compressive stresses.

RV
TR

L θ
RH

q f ds
dy

T0 dx

Figure A-13: Cable deformed under self-weight: related symbols

- 290 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

A configuration, shown in Figure A-13, is exposed to a temperature change of ΔT =


+/-100°C to verify the response to thermal loads. The configuration assumes a steel cable,
50mm in diameter, spanning a distance of L = 10m with a sag f = 2m.
In the configuration, the sag increases, and the tensile force in the cable decreases
as a result of the thermal expansion that occurs after a positive thermal load is applied. The
increased physical length of the cable affects the angle at the connection of the cable to its
support and, therefore, the magnitude of the tensile force in the cable. Applying a negative
thermal load has the opposite effect: the cable sag decreases, and the tension force
increases.
The relations for AM are expressed by the equations below and are adapted from
Ghali (2009). The length of the parabolic curve 𝐿𝐿𝐶𝐶 is obtained using Equation A-8 where 𝐿𝐿
is the straight distance between cable ends and 𝑓𝑓 is the cable sag.

1 2 2
𝐿𝐿2 4𝑓𝑓 + �𝐿𝐿2 + 16𝑓𝑓 2
𝐿𝐿𝐶𝐶 = �𝐿𝐿 + 16𝑓𝑓 + ×𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 � �
2 8𝑓𝑓 𝐿𝐿

Equation A-8

Equation A-9 describes the linear thermal deformation where 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 is the coefficient
of thermal expansion, and ∆𝑇𝑇 is the temperature difference.
𝛿𝛿𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 = 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶×𝐿𝐿𝐶𝐶 ×∆𝑇𝑇
Equation A-9

The vertical and horizontal reactions at the cable anchors are computed with
Equation A-10 and Equation A-11, respectively, where 𝑞𝑞𝐶𝐶 is the weight of the cable per
unit length.
𝑅𝑅𝑉𝑉 = 𝑞𝑞𝐶𝐶 ×𝐿𝐿𝐶𝐶 /2
Equation A-10

𝑞𝑞𝐶𝐶 ×𝐿𝐿2
𝑅𝑅𝐻𝐻 =
8𝑓𝑓
Equation A-11

- 291 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

The magnitude of the reaction force in the tangential direction at the cable anchors
is obtained using Equation A-12.

𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅 = �𝑅𝑅𝐻𝐻2 + 𝑅𝑅𝑉𝑉2

Equation A-12

The tensile force at an arbitrary point on the cable is expressed with Equation A-13
where 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 and 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 represent differential increments in the vertical and horizontal directions,
respectively. The magnitude of 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 is a function of the assumed curve; Equation A-6 and
Equation A-7 express catenary and parabola curves, respectively.

2
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
𝑇𝑇𝐶𝐶 = 𝑅𝑅𝐻𝐻 �� � +1
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
Equation A-13

The horizontal and vertical components of the tensile force in a cable are expressed
with Equation A-14 and Equation A-15.

𝑇𝑇𝐻𝐻 = 𝑅𝑅𝐻𝐻
(𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑡𝑡 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐)
Equation A-14

𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
𝑇𝑇𝑉𝑉 = 𝑅𝑅𝐻𝐻 × � �
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
Equation A-15

A comparison of the AM and FE models is summarized in Table A-2. A graphical


representation of the displacement and tensile force distribution under three levels of
thermal loads is shown in Figure A-14 and Figure A-15, respectively.
As shown in Table A-2, the FE model is close to the reference values obtained
using AM. As expected, applying a positive thermal load causes the sag to increase and the
tensile forces to decrease. The highest difference, 12.55%, occurs in the horizontal reaction
due to ΔT = –100°C. The reason for such a high difference is that at ΔT = 0.00°C the AM
does not assume any deformation of the cable whereas the FE model does. In other words,

- 292 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

for the FE model, the displacement at the centre is less than the given sag of 2m (the
distributed cable weight “pushes” all segments of the cable downwards resulting in an
uplift of the node at the centre of the curve). Even though the difference exceeds the
threshold value of 10%, the results obtained from the FE models are acceptable.
Table A-2: A comparison of the AM and FE models for suspended cables under
thermal loads
Level of thermal
Reaction AM Model FE Model Difference
load
ΔT = -100°C 824.01 825.25 0.15%
RV [N] ΔT = 0.00°C 825.01 825.22 0.03%
ΔT = +100°C 826.00 825.21 -0.10%
ΔT = -100°C 945.88 1081.58 12.55%
RH [N] ΔT = 0.00°C 939.02 993.30 5.46%
ΔT = +100°C 932.30 920.09 -1.33%
ΔT = -100°C 1254.47 1360.46 7.79%
TR [N] ΔT = 0.00°C 1249.95 1291.37 3.21%
ΔT = +100°C 1245.57 1235.93 -0.78%
ΔT = -100°C 1.985 1.827 -8.70%
Displacement
ΔT = 0.00°C 2.000 1.969 -1.56%
at centre [m]
ΔT = +100°C 2.014 2.106 4.33%

Location along span [m]

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
0.000

-0.500
Displacement [m]

-1.000

-1.500

-2.000

-2.500
ΔT = -100°C ΔT = 0.00°C ΔT = +100°C

Figure A-14: A comparison of the displacements of a cable, modeled using B32


elements, exposed to three levels of thermal load

- 293 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

The displacements of the nodes in a cable under the assumed thermal loads are
shown in Figure A-14. As shown in the figure, the developed FE models using B32 can
correctly represent flexible cables because, under the applied negative or positive thermal
load, the vertical displacements fluctuate as anticipated.
From Figure A-15, the tensile force distribution under the assumed thermal loads
also correctly reflects the expected behaviour. The tensile force is reduced under positive
thermal loads and is increased under negative thermal loads. Further, the magnitude of the
tensile force at the centre, shown in Figure A-15, matches the magnitude of the horizontal
reaction presented in Table A-2, which also confirms the correctness of the developed
model. In addition, no compressive forces are generated upon applying positive thermal
loads. This finding confirms that modeling flexible cables using B32 with reduced bending
stiffness provides correct results.

Location along span [m]

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1,400

1,300
Tensile Force [N]

1,200

1,100

1,000

900

800

ΔT = -100°C ΔT = 0.00°C ΔT = +100°C

Figure A-15: A comparison of the distributions of the tensile force in a cable,


modeled using B32, exposed to three levels of thermal load

- 294 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

A.2.7. Verification of the Entire Structure

As described in Sections A.2.1 and A.2.2, the individual components of the


structure, the arch, deck, and cables, modeled with assumed finite elements, can correctly
respond to the applied static and thermal loads. Therefore, a final verification step of the
developed FE models is a verification of the entire structure.
The verification of the entire structure needs to take into account several factors
such as the complexity of possible spatial configurations of SABs, the reliability of the
analytical model (AM), and the response of the individual structural components modeled
with the selected finite elements. Since the geometry of SABs can be very complex and
developing an accurate AM, which reflects complex configurations, can be vitiated due an
error, a verification of the entire structure consists of a vertical planar arch with a straight
deck. In this configuration, a reliable AM can validate the response of the FE model that
comprises finite elements already established for the static and thermal loads.
The assumed configuration is a pedestrian bridge with an arch span and rise of 75m
and 15m, respectively. The deck is suspended on vertical cables from the arch. The cables
are not additionally tensioned. This configuration is graphically presented in Figure A-16.

- 295 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

f(A)

Figure A-16: A configuration used to verify the entire structure

An applied LL is determined according to CHBDC (2014), and it is equally


distributed along the span. The magnitude of the thermal load is assumed arbitrarily to
impose extreme conditions. The arch is fixed at both ends (hinge-less arch). The deck rests
on horizontal rollers located at each end of the deck allowing for movement in a
longitudinal direction and a rotation about the transversal axis. The centre of the deck is
secured with a vertical roller that allows for vertical displacement. This constraint is
imposed to avoid a singularity. The parameters of the assumed configuration are listed in
Table A-3.

- 296 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

Table A-3: Parameters of the assumed configuration used to verify the entire
structure
Parameter Magnitude
Span; s [m] 75
Arch rise; f(A) [m] 15
Rise to span ratio; f(A)/s [ - ] 0.20
Live load applied on deck [N/m] 5000
Level of thermal load [°C] -50/0/+50
Number of cables [ - ] 14
BCs of the arch Fixed at both ends
Horizontal rollers at both ends, vertical
BCs of the deck
roller at midspan

Equation A-16 describes the shape of the arch using a parabolic curve where 𝑓𝑓(𝐴𝐴) is
the arch rise, 𝑠𝑠 is the span of the arch, and 𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖 (0) is the horizontal coordinate along the span.
4𝑓𝑓(𝐴𝐴)
𝑦𝑦 = ∗ �𝑠𝑠 − 𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖 (0) � ∗ 𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖 (0)
𝑠𝑠 2
Equation A-16

Cross-sectional properties of the individual structural components used in the


verification analysis are listed in Table A-4.
The verification of the entire structure compares global displacements and reaction
forces at the arch abutments.
The displacements of interests are as follows: (1) the vertical displacement at the
arch crown at the midspan, U2A.CR. and (2) the vertical displacement of the deck at the
midspan, U2D.MS.. A combined effect of an axial shortening is employed to calculate
U2A.CR.. The axial thrust described in Equation A-17 where 𝛿𝛿𝐴𝐴 is the axial shortening, 𝑁𝑁𝐴𝐴 is
the axial thrust in the arch obtained using Equation A-18, 𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴 is the length of the parabolic
arch obtained via Equation A-8, and 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 is the cross-sectional area of the arch. The length
of the parabolic arch 𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴 is taken into consideration while obtaining the deformation due to
the applied thermal loads obtained via Equation A-9.

- 297 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

Table A-4: Cross-sectional properties of the main structural components


Parameter Arch Deck Cables
Shape

Diameter [m] 0.750 N/A 0.050


Height [m] N/A 0.400 N/A
Width [m] N/A 2.000 N/A
Wall thickness [m] 0.020 0.025 N/A
Cross-sectional Area [m2] 4.59E-02 5.94E-02 1.96E-03
Moment of inertia: I22 [m4] 3.06E-03 5.04E-02 3.07E-09
Moment of inertia: I11 [m4] 3.06E-03 3.70E-03 3.07E-09
Torsional constant: J [m4] 6.12E-03 1.17E-02 6.14E-09
Weight per unit length [N/m] 3,860 8,990 150

𝑁𝑁𝐴𝐴 ×𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴
𝛿𝛿𝐴𝐴 =
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ×𝐸𝐸
Equation A-17

In the Equation A-18, 𝑅𝑅𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 refers to a horizontal reaction at the arch abutment. The
terms 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 and 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 represent differential increments in the vertical and horizontal direction,
respectively. The magnitude of 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 is a function of the parabolic shape of the arch rib
expressed in Equation A-16. The horizontal reaction at the arch abutment 𝑅𝑅𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 is obtained
using Equation A-21.

2
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
𝑁𝑁𝐴𝐴 = 𝑅𝑅𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 �� � + 1
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
Equation A-18

The total displacement of the deck at the midspan results in the arch displacement
(described below), cable elongation (Equation A-9 and Equation A-17), and the
displacement of the deck due to the self-weight of the deck and the live load applied on the
deck.

- 298 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

The procedure that combines axial shortening due to axial thrust and the applied
thermal load covers following steps. First, the axial thrust, which is obtained from Equation
A-18, is applied at the arch ends to calculate the axial shortening 𝛿𝛿𝐴𝐴 . The reduced length of
the arch is then used to find the first new (smaller) arch rise. The difference between the
original and the first new arch rise represents the vertical arch drop at the arch crown. In
the second step, the reduced arch length (due to the axial load) is set as the starting
parameter to calculate the axial deformation due to the applied thermal load 𝛿𝛿𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 . Based on
the character of the thermal load (positive or negative), the length of the arch changes
(increases in the case of a positive thermal load and decreases in the case of a negative
thermal load). The length of the arch after applying the thermal load is then used to obtain
the second new rise of the arch. The difference between the first and the second new arch
rise represents the arch deflection at the crown of the arch due to the applied thermal load.
A summation of the vertical arch displacement due to the axial and thermal loads provides
the total vertical arch displacement at the crown.
The reaction forces at the arch abutments are calculated using the equations
specified below. There are several methods to calculate the reaction forces in the fixed ends
of the arch such as graphic methods and methods using sophisticated software programs to
perform the required integration. Nevertheless, for the purpose of verifying the entire
structure, the method of elastic centroid that utilizes spreadsheets was adapted from Shrive
(2000). The moment at the elastic centroid is calculated according to Equation A-19
where 𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝 is the moment effect at a general point P on the arch profile due to the loading
between abutment A and the point P, 𝐸𝐸 is the modulus of elasticity of the material assumed
for the arch, 𝐼𝐼 is the second moment of area of the arch cross-section.
𝑠𝑠 1
∫0 𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
𝑀𝑀 = 𝑠𝑠 1
∫0 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
Equation A-19

The vertical reaction 𝑅𝑅𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 at the arch abutment A is obtained using Equation A-20
where 𝑥𝑥 corresponds to the coordinate along the span.

- 299 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

1
∫ 𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
𝑅𝑅𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 =
1
∫ 𝑥𝑥 2 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
Equation A-20

Equation A-21 is used to calculate the horizontal reaction 𝑅𝑅𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 at the arch abutment
A taking into consideration the axial shortening due to the axial thrust in the arch. The
parameter 𝑦𝑦 corresponds to the vertical coordinate of the arch as a function of 𝑥𝑥.
𝑠𝑠 1
∫0 𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
𝑅𝑅𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 = 𝑠𝑠
1 𝐿𝐿
∫0 �𝑦𝑦2 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑� + 𝐸𝐸𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
𝐴𝐴

Equation A-21

The moment effect 𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝 at a general point P is obtained via Equation A-22 where 𝑞𝑞𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿
is the uniformly distributed live load, 𝑊𝑊𝑠𝑠 is the weight of an individual arch segment, and 𝑛𝑛
is the number of assumed segments into which the arch was divided. The difference
between 𝑥𝑥𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 and 𝑥𝑥𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 is the distance between the centroid of the entire arch and
the centroid of an individual segment.
∆𝑥𝑥 2 𝑛𝑛
𝑞𝑞𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 �(𝑛𝑛 − 1) ∆𝑥𝑥 + 2 �
𝑀𝑀𝑃𝑃 = + �[(𝑊𝑊𝑠𝑠 )(𝑥𝑥𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 − 𝑥𝑥𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 )]
2
𝑖𝑖=1

Equation A-22

The moment at any point on the arch due to the applied load can be obtained via
Equation A-23.
𝑀𝑀(𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 ) = 𝑀𝑀 + 𝑅𝑅𝑉𝑉 𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 − 𝑅𝑅𝐻𝐻 𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖 − 𝑀𝑀𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
Equation A-23

The reaction forces were calculated using spreadsheets to conduct the required
numerical integration (presented in the equations).
A comparison of the developed AM to the FE model at three levels of assumed
thermal loads plus gravity and a live load is summarized in Table A-5. The most accurate
match is achieved in the vertical reactions, and the least accurate match in the reaction
moments. The reason for the large difference in the reaction moments is the number of

- 300 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

segments into which the arch is divided. Further, the displacements in the FE models are
generally larger than the ones obtained from AM because the finite elements applied in the
FE model consider not only axial deformation but also shear deformation.
From Table A-5, the developed FE model closely correlates with a reliable AM.
Therefore, the assumed settings of individual finite elements that represent the entire
structure provide correct results, and the developed FE model can be used under specific
alterations to investigate the spatial configurations in this thesis.

Table A-5: Summary of verification of entire structure


ΔT = -50°C AM FE Difference
Arch Vert. Displ. at crown [m] -1.17E-01 -1.26E-01 6.78%
Deck Vert. Displ. at midspan [m] -7.68E-03 -8.21E-03 6.40%
RV [N] 694,134 694,102 0.00%
RH [N] -870,480 -910,665 4.41%
M(A) [N*m] 49,487 55,321 10.55%
ΔT = 0°C AM FE Difference
Arch Vert. Displ. at crown [m] -8.91E-03 -9.33E-03 4.46%
Deck Vert. Displ. at midspan [m] -4.04E-03 -4.27E-03 5.28%
RV [N] 694,214 694,195 0.00%
RH [N] -867,441 -908,991 4.57%
M(A) [N*m] 49,835 56,035 11.06%
ΔT = +50°C AM FE Difference
Arch Vert. Displ. at crown [m] 9.94E-02 9.51E-02 -4.46%
Deck Vert. Displ. at midspan [m] -1.30E-02 -1.39E-02 6.44%
RV [N] 694,293 694,305 0.00%
RH [N] -864,432 905,874 4.57%
M(A) [N*m] 50,183 58,698 14.51%

- 301 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

A.3. Parametric Input File

This section provides a complete input file as an example of such file that has been
employed in the nonlinear analysis. The input file presented below serves as a reference for
studying purposes, and when copied to Abaqus, it can be used for actual analysis.
Parameters in the input file define the configuration C01B (see Chapter Six for details) that
takes into consideration steel as the main structural component and GTL at level of –50°C.
It should be noted that the input file presented below is a combination of two steps.
In the first step, cross-sectional dimensions and node coordinates are generated via
developed spread-sheet tools. In the second step, the generated data are inserted from the
spread-sheet into the input file whose structure contains the commands and parameters.

The geometric parameters of the assumed structure defined within the input file are:
• f(A)/s = 0.15
• f(D)/s = 0.25
• ω = 30°
• Diameter of the arch profile = 1.5m
• Wall thickness of the arch profile = 0.025m
• Dimensions of the deck cross-section: Height = 0.4m. Width = 2.0m
• Wall thickness of the deck profile = 0.020m
• Cable diameter = 0.050m

Parametric input file:


*Heading
** Job name: Job_M001_S_C01B_fA015_fD025_omg30_-50I.inp
** Generated by: Abaqus/CAE 6.13-3
*Preprint, echo=NO, model=NO, history=NO, contact=NO
**
**All units basic SI
*PARAMETER
**
**Magnitude of LL; “1” or “0” indicates “on” or “off” in LL case
selection
MLTP_LL_050=1
MLTP_LL_100=0
Ped_Load=-5000
Walking_Surf=-972
LL_050=(Ped_Load+Walking_Surf)*MLTP_LL_050
LL_100=(Ped_Load+Walking_Surf)*MLTP_LL_100

- 302 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

**
**Orientation_Of_Deck_BC_as_function_of_deck_rise_for_Datum_CSYS [-]
Deck_f_to_s_ratio=0.25
**Span, the distance between abutments of the arch [m]
span=75
deck_rise=Deck_f_to_s_ratio*span
X=1
**"Z" coordinated for Datum_CSYS
Z=(4*deck_rise/span**2)*(span-X)*X
**
**Global_Thermal_Loading [°C]
G_Th_L =-50
**Cables: Temperature of develop Additional tensioning in cables [°C]
** Use Equation 3-33 to determine the “temperature profile”
T_Clbs_01_14 = 0
T_Clbs_02_13 = 0
T_Clbs_03_12 = 0
T_Clbs_04_11 = 0
T_Clbs_05_10 = 0
T_Clbs_06_09 = 0
T_Clbs_07_08 = 0
**DECK
**deck material properties STEEL
E_deck = 2.00E+11
G_deck = 7.70E+10
nu_deck = 0.3
Density_deck = 7800
CTE_deck = 1.20E-05
**deck outside dimensions and wall thickness
a = 2.000
b = 0.400
t1 = 0.020
t2 = 0.020
t3 = 0.020
t4 = 0.020
**Section points deck
SP_01_X1_D = 0.000000
SP_01_X2_D = 0.190000
SP_02_X1_D = 0.000000
SP_02_X2_D = -0.190000
SP_03_X1_D = 0.990000
SP_03_X2_D = 0.000000
SP_04_X1_D = -0.990000
SP_04_X2_D = 0.000000
**ARCH
**arch material properties STEEL
E_arch = 2.00E+11
G_arch = 7.70E+10
nu_arch = 0.3
Density_arch = 7800
CTE_arch = 1.20E-05
**arch outside dimensions and wall thickness
r_arch = 0.750
t_arch = 0.025
**Section points arch
SP_01_X1_A = 0.000000
SP_01_X2_A = 0.737500

- 303 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

SP_02_X1_A = 0.000000
SP_02_X2_A = -0.737500
SP_03_X1_A = 0.737500
SP_03_X2_A = 0.000000
SP_04_X1_A = -0.737500
SP_04_X2_A = 0.000000
**CABLES
**cable material properties STEEL (from tab Cable Prop_Copied)
E_cable = 1.65E+11
G_cable = 6.33E+08
nu_cable = 0.3
Density_cable = 7800
CTE_cable = 1.20E-05
**cable sectional properties STEEL (from tab Cable Prop_Copied)
Cable_CS_Area = 1.963E-03
Cable_I11 = 3.07E-09
Cable_I12 = 0
Cable_I22 = 3.07E-09
Cable_J = 6.14E-09
**Section points cable
SP_01_X1_C = 0.000000
SP_01_X2_C = 0.016000
SP_02_X1_C = 0.000000
SP_02_X2_C = -0.016000
SP_03_X1_C = 0.016000
SP_03_X2_C = 0.000000
SP_04_X1_C = -0.016000
SP_04_X2_C = 0.000000
**
** PARTS
**
*Part, name=Part01_Arch
*Node
1 , 0 , 0 , 0
2 , 5 , 2.424871131 , -1.212435565
3 , 10 , 4.5033321 , -2.25166605
4 , 15 , 6.235382907 , -3.117691454
5 , 20 , 7.621023553 , -3.810511777
6 , 25 , 8.660254038 , -4.330127019
7 , 30 , 9.353074361 , -4.67653718
8 , 35 , 9.699484522 , -4.849742261
9 , 40 , 9.699484522 , -4.849742261
10 , 45 , 9.353074361 , -4.67653718
11 , 50 , 8.660254038 , -4.330127019
12 , 55 , 7.621023553 , -3.810511777
13 , 60 , 6.235382907 , -3.117691454
14 , 65 , 4.5033321 , -2.25166605
15 , 70 , 2.424871131 , -1.212435565
16 , 75 , 0 , 0
17 , 2.5 , 1.255736835 , -0.627868418
18 , 7.5 , 3.507402885 , -1.753701443
19 , 12.5 , 5.412658774 , -2.706329387
20 , 17.5 , 6.9715045 , -3.48575225
21 , 22.5 , 8.183940066 , -4.091970033
22 , 27.5 , 9.04996547 , -4.524982735
23 , 32.5 , 9.569580712 , -4.784790356
24 , 37.5 , 9.742785793 , -4.871392896

- 304 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

25 , 42.5 , 9.569580712 , -4.784790356


26 , 47.5 , 9.04996547 , -4.524982735
27 , 52.5 , 8.183940066 , -4.091970033
28 , 57.5 , 6.9715045 , -3.48575225
29 , 62.5 , 5.412658774 , -2.706329387
30 , 67.5 , 3.507402885 , -1.753701443
31 , 72.5 , 1.255736835 , -0.627868418
32 , 1.25 , 0.638693735 , -0.319346868
33 , 3.75 , 1.851129301 , -0.92556465
34 , 6.25 , 2.976962326 , -1.488481163
35 , 8.75 , 4.01619281 , -2.008096405
36 , 11.25 , 4.968820754 , -2.484410377
37 , 13.75 , 5.834846158 , -2.917423079
38 , 16.25 , 6.614269021 , -3.307134511
39 , 18.75 , 7.307089344 , -3.653544672
40 , 21.25 , 7.913307127 , -3.956653564
41 , 23.75 , 8.432922369 , -4.216461185
42 , 26.25 , 8.865935071 , -4.432967536
43 , 28.75 , 9.212345233 , -4.606172616
44 , 31.25 , 9.472152854 , -4.736076427
45 , 33.75 , 9.645357935 , -4.822678967
46 , 36.25 , 9.731960475 , -4.865980238
47 , 38.75 , 9.731960475 , -4.865980238
48 , 41.25 , 9.645357935 , -4.822678967
49 , 43.75 , 9.472152854 , -4.736076427
50 , 46.25 , 9.212345233 , -4.606172616
51 , 48.75 , 8.865935071 , -4.432967536
52 , 51.25 , 8.432922369 , -4.216461185
53 , 53.75 , 7.913307127 , -3.956653564
54 , 56.25 , 7.307089344 , -3.653544672
55 , 58.75 , 6.614269021 , -3.307134511
56 , 61.25 , 5.834846158 , -2.917423079
57 , 63.75 , 4.968820754 , -2.484410377
58 , 66.25 , 4.01619281 , -2.008096405
59 , 68.75 , 2.976962326 , -1.488481163
60 , 71.25 , 1.851129301 , -0.92556465
61 , 73.75 , 0.638693735 , -0.319346868
*Element, type=B32
1, 1, 32, 17
2, 17, 33, 2
3, 2, 34, 18
4, 18, 35, 3
5, 3, 36, 19
6, 19, 37, 4
7, 4, 38, 20
8, 20, 39, 5
9, 5, 40, 21
10, 21, 41, 6
11, 6, 42, 22
12, 22, 43, 7
13, 7, 44, 23
14, 23, 45, 8
15, 8, 46, 24
16, 24, 47, 9
17, 9, 48, 25
18, 25, 49, 10
19, 10, 50, 26

- 305 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

20, 26, 51, 11


21, 11, 52, 27
22, 27, 53, 12
23, 12, 54, 28
24, 28, 55, 13
25, 13, 56, 29
26, 29, 57, 14
27, 14, 58, 30
28, 30, 59, 15
29, 15, 60, 31
30, 31, 61, 16
*Nset, nset=_PickedSet131, internal, generate
1, 61, 1
*Elset, elset=_PickedSet131, internal, generate
1, 30, 1
*Nset, nset=Set01_Arch, generate
1, 61, 1
*Elset, elset=Set01_Arch, generate
1, 30, 1
** Section: Section01_Arch Profile: Profile01_Arch
*Beam General Section, elset=_PickedSet131, poisson = <nu_arch>,
density=<Density_arch>, section=PIPE
<r_arch>, <t_arch>
0.,0.,-1.
<E_arch>, <G_arch>, <CTE_arch>
*Section Points
<SP_01_X1_A>, <SP_01_X2_A>, <SP_02_X1_A>, <SP_02_X2_A>, <SP_03_X1_A>,
<SP_03_X2_A>, <SP_04_X1_A>, <SP_04_X2_A>
*End Part
**
*Part, name=Part02_Deck
*Node
1 , 0.1 , 0 , 0
2 , 5 , 0 , 4.666666667
3 , 10 , 0 , 8.666666667
4 , 15 , 0 , 12
5 , 20 , 0 , 14.66666667
6 , 25 , 0 , 16.66666667
7 , 30 , 0 , 18
8 , 35 , 0 , 18.66666667
9 , 37.5 , 0 , 18.75
10 , 40 , 0 , 18.66666667
11 , 45 , 0 , 18
12 , 50 , 0 , 16.66666667
13 , 55 , 0 , 14.66666667
14 , 60 , 0 , 12
15 , 65 , 0 , 8.666666667
16 , 70 , 0 , 4.666666667
17 , 74.9 , 0 , 0
18 , 2.5 , 0 , 2.416666667
19 , 7.5 , 0 , 6.75
20 , 12.5 , 0 , 10.41666667
21 , 17.5 , 0 , 13.41666667
22 , 22.5 , 0 , 15.75
23 , 27.5 , 0 , 17.41666667
24 , 32.5 , 0 , 18.41666667
25 , 42.5 , 0 , 18.41666667

- 306 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

26 , 47.5 , 0 , 17.41666667
27 , 52.5 , 0 , 15.75
28 , 57.5 , 0 , 13.41666667
29 , 62.5 , 0 , 10.41666667
30 , 67.5 , 0 , 6.75
31 , 72.5 , 0 , 2.416666667
32 , 1.25 , 0 , 1.229166667
33 , 3.75 , 0 , 3.5625
34 , 6.25 , 0 , 5.729166667
35 , 8.75 , 0 , 7.729166667
36 , 11.25 , 0 , 9.5625
37 , 13.75 , 0 , 11.22916667
38 , 16.25 , 0 , 12.72916667
39 , 18.75 , 0 , 14.0625
40 , 21.25 , 0 , 15.22916667
41 , 23.75 , 0 , 16.22916667
42 , 26.25 , 0 , 17.0625
43 , 28.75 , 0 , 17.72916667
44 , 31.25 , 0 , 18.22916667
45 , 33.75 , 0 , 18.5625
46 , 36.25 , 0 , 18.72916667
47 , 38.75 , 0 , 18.72916667
48 , 41.25 , 0 , 18.5625
49 , 43.75 , 0 , 18.22916667
50 , 46.25 , 0 , 17.72916667
51 , 48.75 , 0 , 17.0625
52 , 51.25 , 0 , 16.22916667
53 , 53.75 , 0 , 15.22916667
54 , 56.25 , 0 , 14.0625
55 , 58.75 , 0 , 12.72916667
56 , 61.25 , 0 , 11.22916667
57 , 63.75 , 0 , 9.5625
58 , 66.25 , 0 , 7.729166667
59 , 68.75 , 0 , 5.729166667
60 , 71.25 , 0 , 3.5625
61 , 73.75 , 0 , 1.229166667
*Element, type=B32
1, 1, 32, 18
2, 18, 33, 2
3, 2, 34, 19
4, 19, 35, 3
5, 3, 36, 20
6, 20, 37, 4
7, 4, 38, 21
8, 21, 39, 5
9, 5, 40, 22
10, 22, 41, 6
11, 6, 42, 23
12, 23, 43, 7
13, 7, 44, 24
14, 24, 45, 8
15, 8, 46, 9
16, 9, 47, 10
17, 10, 48, 25
18, 25, 49, 11
19, 11, 50, 26
20, 26, 51, 12

- 307 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

21, 12, 52, 27


22, 27, 53, 13
23, 13, 54, 28
24, 28, 55, 14
25, 14, 56, 29
26, 29, 57, 15
27, 15, 58, 30
28, 30, 59, 16
29, 16, 60, 31
30, 31, 61, 17
*Nset, nset=_PickedSet128, internal, generate
1, 61, 1
*Elset, elset=_PickedSet128, internal, generate
1, 30, 1
*Nset, nset=Set02_Deck, generate
1, 61, 1
*Elset, elset=Set02_Deck, generate
1, 30, 1
** Section: Section02_Deck Profile: Profile02_Deck
*Beam General Section, elset=_PickedSet128, poisson=<nu_deck>,
density=<Density_deck>, section=BOX
<a>, <b>, <t1>, <t2>, <t3>, <t4>
0.,0.,-1.
<E_deck>, <G_deck>, <CTE_deck>
*Section Points
<SP_01_X1_D>, <SP_01_X2_D>, <SP_02_X1_D>, <SP_02_X2_D>, <SP_03_X1_D>,
<SP_03_X2_D>, <SP_04_X1_D>, <SP_04_X2_D>
*End Part
**
*Part, name=Part03_Cables
*Node
1 , 65 , 4.5033321 , -2.25166605
2 , 65 , 0 , 8.666666667
3 , 55 , 7.621023553 , -3.810511777
4 , 55 , 0 , 14.66666667
5 , 45 , 9.353074361 , -4.67653718
6 , 45 , 0 , 18
7 , 35 , 9.699484522 , -4.849742261
8 , 35 , 0 , 18.66666667
9 , 25 , 8.660254038 , -4.330127019
10 , 25 , 0 , 16.66666667
11 , 15 , 6.235382907 , -3.117691454
12 , 15 , 0 , 12
13 , 5 , 2.424871131 , -1.212435565
14 , 5 , 0 , 4.666666667
15 , 10 , 4.5033321 , -2.25166605
16 , 10 , 0 , 8.666666667
17 , 20 , 7.621023553 , -3.810511777
18 , 20 , 0 , 14.66666667
19 , 30 , 9.353074361 , -4.67653718
20 , 30 , 0 , 18
21 , 40 , 9.699484522 , -4.849742261
22 , 40 , 0 , 18.66666667
23 , 50 , 8.660254038 , -4.330127019
24 , 50 , 0 , 16.66666667
25 , 60 , 6.235382907 , -3.117691454
26 , 60 , 0 , 12

- 308 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

27 , 70 , 2.424871131 , -1.212435565
28 , 70 , 0 , 4.666666667
29 , 65 , 4.05299889 , -1.159832778
30 , 65 , 3.60266568 , -0.067999507
31 , 65 , 3.15233247 , 1.023833765
32 , 65 , 2.70199926 , 2.115667037
33 , 65 , 2.25166605 , 3.207500308
34 , 65 , 1.80133284 , 4.29933358
35 , 65 , 1.35099963 , 5.391166852
36 , 65 , 0.90066642 , 6.483000123
37 , 65 , 0.45033321 , 7.574833395
38 , 55 , 6.858921198 , -1.962793932
39 , 55 , 6.096818843 , -0.115076088
40 , 55 , 5.334716487 , 1.732641756
41 , 55 , 4.572614132 , 3.580359601
42 , 55 , 3.810511777 , 5.428077445
43 , 55 , 3.048409421 , 7.275795289
44 , 55 , 2.286307066 , 9.123513134
45 , 55 , 1.524204711 , 10.97123098
46 , 55 , 0.762102355 , 12.81894882
47 , 45 , 8.417766925 , -2.408883462
48 , 45 , 7.482459489 , -0.141229744
49 , 45 , 6.547152053 , 2.126423974
50 , 45 , 5.611844617 , 4.394077692
51 , 45 , 4.67653718 , 6.66173141
52 , 45 , 3.741229744 , 8.929385128
53 , 45 , 2.805922308 , 11.19703885
54 , 45 , 1.870614872 , 13.46469256
55 , 45 , 0.935307436 , 15.73234628
56 , 35 , 8.72953607 , -2.498101368
57 , 35 , 7.759587618 , -0.146460476
58 , 35 , 6.789639166 , 2.205180417
59 , 35 , 5.819690713 , 4.55682131
60 , 35 , 4.849742261 , 6.908462203
61 , 35 , 3.879793809 , 9.260103096
62 , 35 , 2.909845357 , 11.61174399
63 , 35 , 1.939896904 , 13.96338488
64 , 35 , 0.969948452 , 16.31502577
65 , 25 , 7.794228634 , -2.23044765
66 , 25 , 6.92820323 , -0.130768282
67 , 25 , 6.062177826 , 1.968911087
68 , 25 , 5.196152423 , 4.068590455
69 , 25 , 4.330127019 , 6.168269824
70 , 25 , 3.464101615 , 8.267949192
71 , 25 , 2.598076211 , 10.36762856
72 , 25 , 1.732050808 , 12.46730793
73 , 25 , 0.866025404 , 14.5669873
74 , 15 , 5.611844617 , -1.605922308
75 , 15 , 4.988306326 , -0.094153163
76 , 15 , 4.364768035 , 1.417615982
77 , 15 , 3.741229744 , 2.929385128
78 , 15 , 3.117691454 , 4.441154273
79 , 15 , 2.494153163 , 5.952923419
80 , 15 , 1.870614872 , 7.464692564
81 , 15 , 1.247076581 , 8.976461709
82 , 15 , 0.623538291 , 10.48823085
83 , 5 , 2.182384018 , -0.624525342

- 309 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

84 , 5 , 1.939896904 , -0.036615119
85 , 5 , 1.697409791 , 0.551295104
86 , 5 , 1.454922678 , 1.139205327
87 , 5 , 1.212435565 , 1.727115551
88 , 5 , 0.969948452 , 2.315025774
89 , 5 , 0.727461339 , 2.902935997
90 , 5 , 0.484974226 , 3.49084622
91 , 5 , 0.242487113 , 4.078756443
92 , 10 , 4.05299889 , -1.159832778
93 , 10 , 3.60266568 , -0.067999507
94 , 10 , 3.15233247 , 1.023833765
95 , 10 , 2.70199926 , 2.115667037
96 , 10 , 2.25166605 , 3.207500308
97 , 10 , 1.80133284 , 4.29933358
98 , 10 , 1.35099963 , 5.391166852
99 , 10 , 0.90066642 , 6.483000123
100 , 10 , 0.45033321 , 7.574833395
101 , 20 , 6.858921198 , -1.962793932
102 , 20 , 6.096818843 , -0.115076088
103 , 20 , 5.334716487 , 1.732641756
104 , 20 , 4.572614132 , 3.580359601
105 , 20 , 3.810511777 , 5.428077445
106 , 20 , 3.048409421 , 7.275795289
107 , 20 , 2.286307066 , 9.123513134
108 , 20 , 1.524204711 , 10.97123098
109 , 20 , 0.762102355 , 12.81894882
110 , 30 , 8.417766925 , -2.408883462
111 , 30 , 7.482459489 , -0.141229744
112 , 30 , 6.547152053 , 2.126423974
113 , 30 , 5.611844617 , 4.394077692
114 , 30 , 4.67653718 , 6.66173141
115 , 30 , 3.741229744 , 8.929385128
116 , 30 , 2.805922308 , 11.19703885
117 , 30 , 1.870614872 , 13.46469256
118 , 30 , 0.935307436 , 15.73234628
119 , 40 , 8.72953607 , -2.498101368
120 , 40 , 7.759587618 , -0.146460476
121 , 40 , 6.789639166 , 2.205180417
122 , 40 , 5.819690713 , 4.55682131
123 , 40 , 4.849742261 , 6.908462203
124 , 40 , 3.879793809 , 9.260103096
125 , 40 , 2.909845357 , 11.61174399
126 , 40 , 1.939896904 , 13.96338488
127 , 40 , 0.969948452 , 16.31502577
128 , 50 , 7.794228634 , -2.23044765
129 , 50 , 6.92820323 , -0.130768282
130 , 50 , 6.062177826 , 1.968911087
131 , 50 , 5.196152423 , 4.068590455
132 , 50 , 4.330127019 , 6.168269824
133 , 50 , 3.464101615 , 8.267949192
134 , 50 , 2.598076211 , 10.36762856
135 , 50 , 1.732050808 , 12.46730793
136 , 50 , 0.866025404 , 14.5669873
137 , 60 , 5.611844617 , -1.605922308
138 , 60 , 4.988306326 , -0.094153163
139 , 60 , 4.364768035 , 1.417615982
140 , 60 , 3.741229744 , 2.929385128

- 310 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

141 , 60 , 3.117691454 , 4.441154273


142 , 60 , 2.494153163 , 5.952923419
143 , 60 , 1.870614872 , 7.464692564
144 , 60 , 1.247076581 , 8.976461709
145 , 60 , 0.623538291 , 10.48823085
146 , 70 , 2.182384018 , -0.624525342
147 , 70 , 1.939896904 , -0.036615119
148 , 70 , 1.697409791 , 0.551295104
149 , 70 , 1.454922678 , 1.139205327
150 , 70 , 1.212435565 , 1.727115551
151 , 70 , 0.969948452 , 2.315025774
152 , 70 , 0.727461339 , 2.902935997
153 , 70 , 0.484974226 , 3.49084622
154 , 70 , 0.242487113 , 4.078756443
155 , 65 , 4.278165495 , -1.705749414
156 , 65 , 3.827832285 , -0.613916142
157 , 65 , 3.377499075 , 0.477917129
158 , 65 , 2.927165865 , 1.569750401
159 , 65 , 2.476832655 , 2.661583673
160 , 65 , 2.026499445 , 3.753416944
161 , 65 , 1.576166235 , 4.845250216
162 , 65 , 1.125833025 , 5.937083488
163 , 65 , 0.675499815 , 7.028916759
164 , 65 , 0.225166605 , 8.120750031
165 , 55 , 7.239972376 , -2.886652854
166 , 55 , 6.47787002 , -1.03893501
167 , 55 , 5.715767665 , 0.808782834
168 , 55 , 4.95366531 , 2.656500679
169 , 55 , 4.191562954 , 4.504218523
170 , 55 , 3.429460599 , 6.351936367
171 , 55 , 2.667358244 , 8.199654212
172 , 55 , 1.905255888 , 10.04737206
173 , 55 , 1.143153533 , 11.8950899
174 , 55 , 0.381051178 , 13.74280774
175 , 45 , 8.885420643 , -3.542710321
176 , 45 , 7.950113207 , -1.275056603
177 , 45 , 7.014805771 , 0.992597115
178 , 45 , 6.079498335 , 3.260250833
179 , 45 , 5.144190898 , 5.527904551
180 , 45 , 4.208883462 , 7.795558269
181 , 45 , 3.273576026 , 10.06321199
182 , 45 , 2.33826859 , 12.3308657
183 , 45 , 1.402961154 , 14.59851942
184 , 45 , 0.467653718 , 16.86617314
185 , 35 , 9.214510296 , -3.673921815
186 , 35 , 8.244561844 , -1.322280922
187 , 35 , 7.274613392 , 1.029359971
188 , 35 , 6.30466494 , 3.381000864
189 , 35 , 5.334716487 , 5.732641756
190 , 35 , 4.364768035 , 8.084282649
191 , 35 , 3.394819583 , 10.43592354
192 , 35 , 2.424871131 , 12.78756443
193 , 35 , 1.454922678 , 15.13920533
194 , 35 , 0.484974226 , 17.49084622
195 , 25 , 8.227241336 , -3.280287335
196 , 25 , 7.361215932 , -1.180607966
197 , 25 , 6.495190528 , 0.919071402

- 311 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

198 , 25 , 5.629165125 , 3.018750771


199 , 25 , 4.763139721 , 5.11843014
200 , 25 , 3.897114317 , 7.218109508
201 , 25 , 3.031088913 , 9.317788877
202 , 25 , 2.165063509 , 11.41746825
203 , 25 , 1.299038106 , 13.51714761
204 , 25 , 0.433012702 , 15.61682698
205 , 15 , 5.923613762 , -2.361806881
206 , 15 , 5.300075471 , -0.850037736
207 , 15 , 4.67653718 , 0.66173141
208 , 15 , 4.05299889 , 2.173500555
209 , 15 , 3.429460599 , 3.685269701
210 , 15 , 2.805922308 , 5.197038846
211 , 15 , 2.182384018 , 6.708807991
212 , 15 , 1.558845727 , 8.220577137
213 , 15 , 0.935307436 , 9.732346282
214 , 15 , 0.311769145 , 11.24411543
215 , 5 , 2.303627574 , -0.918480454
216 , 5 , 2.061140461 , -0.330570231
217 , 5 , 1.818653348 , 0.257339993
218 , 5 , 1.576166235 , 0.845250216
219 , 5 , 1.333679122 , 1.433160439
220 , 5 , 1.091192009 , 2.021070662
221 , 5 , 0.848704896 , 2.608980885
222 , 5 , 0.606217783 , 3.196891109
223 , 5 , 0.36373067 , 3.784801332
224 , 5 , 0.121243557 , 4.372711555
225 , 10 , 4.278165495 , -1.705749414
226 , 10 , 3.827832285 , -0.613916142
227 , 10 , 3.377499075 , 0.477917129
228 , 10 , 2.927165865 , 1.569750401
229 , 10 , 2.476832655 , 2.661583673
230 , 10 , 2.026499445 , 3.753416944
231 , 10 , 1.576166235 , 4.845250216
232 , 10 , 1.125833025 , 5.937083488
233 , 10 , 0.675499815 , 7.028916759
234 , 10 , 0.225166605 , 8.120750031
235 , 20 , 7.239972376 , -2.886652854
236 , 20 , 6.47787002 , -1.03893501
237 , 20 , 5.715767665 , 0.808782834
238 , 20 , 4.95366531 , 2.656500679
239 , 20 , 4.191562954 , 4.504218523
240 , 20 , 3.429460599 , 6.351936367
241 , 20 , 2.667358244 , 8.199654212
242 , 20 , 1.905255888 , 10.04737206
243 , 20 , 1.143153533 , 11.8950899
244 , 20 , 0.381051178 , 13.74280774
245 , 30 , 8.885420643 , -3.542710321
246 , 30 , 7.950113207 , -1.275056603
247 , 30 , 7.014805771 , 0.992597115
248 , 30 , 6.079498335 , 3.260250833
249 , 30 , 5.144190898 , 5.527904551
250 , 30 , 4.208883462 , 7.795558269
251 , 30 , 3.273576026 , 10.06321199
252 , 30 , 2.33826859 , 12.3308657
253 , 30 , 1.402961154 , 14.59851942
254 , 30 , 0.467653718 , 16.86617314

- 312 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

255 , 40 , 9.214510296 , -3.673921815


256 , 40 , 8.244561844 , -1.322280922
257 , 40 , 7.274613392 , 1.029359971
258 , 40 , 6.30466494 , 3.381000864
259 , 40 , 5.334716487 , 5.732641756
260 , 40 , 4.364768035 , 8.084282649
261 , 40 , 3.394819583 , 10.43592354
262 , 40 , 2.424871131 , 12.78756443
263 , 40 , 1.454922678 , 15.13920533
264 , 40 , 0.484974226 , 17.49084622
265 , 50 , 8.227241336 , -3.280287335
266 , 50 , 7.361215932 , -1.180607966
267 , 50 , 6.495190528 , 0.919071402
268 , 50 , 5.629165125 , 3.018750771
269 , 50 , 4.763139721 , 5.11843014
270 , 50 , 3.897114317 , 7.218109508
271 , 50 , 3.031088913 , 9.317788877
272 , 50 , 2.165063509 , 11.41746825
273 , 50 , 1.299038106 , 13.51714761
274 , 50 , 0.433012702 , 15.61682698
275 , 60 , 5.923613762 , -2.361806881
276 , 60 , 5.300075471 , -0.850037736
277 , 60 , 4.67653718 , 0.66173141
278 , 60 , 4.05299889 , 2.173500555
279 , 60 , 3.429460599 , 3.685269701
280 , 60 , 2.805922308 , 5.197038846
281 , 60 , 2.182384018 , 6.708807991
282 , 60 , 1.558845727 , 8.220577137
283 , 60 , 0.935307436 , 9.732346282
284 , 60 , 0.311769145 , 11.24411543
285 , 70 , 2.303627574 , -0.918480454
286 , 70 , 2.061140461 , -0.330570231
287 , 70 , 1.818653348 , 0.257339993
288 , 70 , 1.576166235 , 0.845250216
289 , 70 , 1.333679122 , 1.433160439
290 , 70 , 1.091192009 , 2.021070662
291 , 70 , 0.848704896 , 2.608980885
292 , 70 , 0.606217783 , 3.196891109
293 , 70 , 0.36373067 , 3.784801332
294 , 70 , 0.121243557 , 4.372711555
*Element, type=B32
1, 1, 155, 29
2, 29, 156, 30
3, 30, 157, 31
4, 31, 158, 32
5, 32, 159, 33
6, 33, 160, 34
7, 34, 161, 35
8, 35, 162, 36
9, 36, 163, 37
10, 37, 164, 2
11, 3, 165, 38
12, 38, 166, 39
13, 39, 167, 40
14, 40, 168, 41
15, 41, 169, 42
16, 42, 170, 43

- 313 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

17, 43, 171, 44


18, 44, 172, 45
19, 45, 173, 46
20, 46, 174, 4
21, 5, 175, 47
22, 47, 176, 48
23, 48, 177, 49
24, 49, 178, 50
25, 50, 179, 51
26, 51, 180, 52
27, 52, 181, 53
28, 53, 182, 54
29, 54, 183, 55
30, 55, 184, 6
31, 7, 185, 56
32, 56, 186, 57
33, 57, 187, 58
34, 58, 188, 59
35, 59, 189, 60
36, 60, 190, 61
37, 61, 191, 62
38, 62, 192, 63
39, 63, 193, 64
40, 64, 194, 8
41, 9, 195, 65
42, 65, 196, 66
43, 66, 197, 67
44, 67, 198, 68
45, 68, 199, 69
46, 69, 200, 70
47, 70, 201, 71
48, 71, 202, 72
49, 72, 203, 73
50, 73, 204, 10
51, 11, 205, 74
52, 74, 206, 75
53, 75, 207, 76
54, 76, 208, 77
55, 77, 209, 78
56, 78, 210, 79
57, 79, 211, 80
58, 80, 212, 81
59, 81, 213, 82
60, 82, 214, 12
61, 13, 215, 83
62, 83, 216, 84
63, 84, 217, 85
64, 85, 218, 86
65, 86, 219, 87
66, 87, 220, 88
67, 88, 221, 89
68, 89, 222, 90
69, 90, 223, 91
70, 91, 224, 14
71, 15, 225, 92
72, 92, 226, 93
73, 93, 227, 94

- 314 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

74, 94, 228, 95


75, 95, 229, 96
76, 96, 230, 97
77, 97, 231, 98
78, 98, 232, 99
79, 99, 233, 100
80, 100, 234, 16
81, 17, 235, 101
82, 101, 236, 102
83, 102, 237, 103
84, 103, 238, 104
85, 104, 239, 105
86, 105, 240, 106
87, 106, 241, 107
88, 107, 242, 108
89, 108, 243, 109
90, 109, 244, 18
91, 19, 245, 110
92, 110, 246, 111
93, 111, 247, 112
94, 112, 248, 113
95, 113, 249, 114
96, 114, 250, 115
97, 115, 251, 116
98, 116, 252, 117
99, 117, 253, 118
100, 118, 254, 20
101, 21, 255, 119
102, 119, 256, 120
103, 120, 257, 121
104, 121, 258, 122
105, 122, 259, 123
106, 123, 260, 124
107, 124, 261, 125
108, 125, 262, 126
109, 126, 263, 127
110, 127, 264, 22
111, 23, 265, 128
112, 128, 266, 129
113, 129, 267, 130
114, 130, 268, 131
115, 131, 269, 132
116, 132, 270, 133
117, 133, 271, 134
118, 134, 272, 135
119, 135, 273, 136
120, 136, 274, 24
121, 25, 275, 137
122, 137, 276, 138
123, 138, 277, 139
124, 139, 278, 140
125, 140, 279, 141
126, 141, 280, 142
127, 142, 281, 143
128, 143, 282, 144
129, 144, 283, 145
130, 145, 284, 26

- 315 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

131, 27, 285, 146


132, 146, 286, 147
133, 147, 287, 148
134, 148, 288, 149
135, 149, 289, 150
136, 150, 290, 151
137, 151, 291, 152
138, 152, 292, 153
139, 153, 293, 154
140, 154, 294, 28
*Nset, nset=Set03_Cables, generate
1, 294, 1
*Elset, elset=Set03_Cables, generate
1, 140, 1
*Nset, nset=_PickedSet98, internal, generate
1, 294, 1
*Elset, elset=_PickedSet98, internal, generate
1, 140, 1
*Nset, nset=Set03_Cables01
13, 14, 27, 28, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 146,
147, 148
149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222,
223, 224
285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294
*Elset, elset=Set03_Cables01
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 131, 132, 133, 134,
135, 136
137, 138, 139, 140
*Nset, nset=Set03_Cables02
1, 2, 15, 16, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 92,
93, 94
95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162,
163, 164
225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234
*Elset, elset=Set03_Cables02
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76
77, 78, 79, 80
*Nset, nset=Set03_Cables03
11, 12, 25, 26, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 137,
138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212,
213, 214
275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284
*Elset, elset=Set03_Cables03
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 121, 122, 123, 124,
125, 126
127, 128, 129, 130
*Nset, nset=Set03_Cables04
3, 4, 17, 18, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 101,
102, 103
104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172,
173, 174
235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244
*Elset, elset=Set03_Cables04
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86
87, 88, 89, 90
*Nset, nset=Set03_Cables05

- 316 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

9, 10, 23, 24, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 128,
129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202,
203, 204
265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274
*Elset, elset=Set03_Cables05
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 111, 112, 113, 114,
115, 116
117, 118, 119, 120
*Nset, nset=Set03_Cables06
5, 6, 19, 20, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 110,
111, 112
113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182,
183, 184
245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254
*Elset, elset=Set03_Cables06
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 91, 92, 93, 94,
95, 96
97, 98, 99, 100
*Nset, nset=Set03_Cables07
7, 8, 21, 22, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 119,
120, 121
122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192,
193, 194
255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264
*Elset, elset=Set03_Cables07
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 101, 102, 103, 104,
105, 106
107, 108, 109, 110
** Section: Section03_Cables Profile: Profile03_Cables
*Beam General Section, elset=_PickedSet98, poisson = <nu_cable>,
density=<Density_cable>, section=GENERAL
<Cable_CS_Area>, <Cable_I11>, <Cable_I12>, <Cable_I22>, <Cable_J>
0.,0.,-1.
<E_cable>, <G_cable>, <CTE_cable>
*Section Points
<SP_01_X1_C>, <SP_01_X2_C>, <SP_02_X1_C>, <SP_02_X2_C>, <SP_03_X1_C>,
<SP_03_X2_C>, <SP_04_X1_C>, <SP_04_X2_C>
*End Part
**
**
** ASSEMBLY
**
*Assembly, name=Assembly
**
*Instance, name=Part01_Arch-1, part=Part01_Arch
*End Instance
**
*Instance, name=Part02_Deck-1, part=Part02_Deck
*End Instance
**
*Instance, name=Part03_Cables-1, part=Part03_Cables
*End Instance
**
*Element, type=CONN3D2
1, Part03_Cables-1.28, Part02_Deck-1.16
2, Part03_Cables-1.27, Part01_Arch-1.15

- 317 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

3, Part03_Cables-1.2, Part02_Deck-1.15
4, Part03_Cables-1.1, Part01_Arch-1.14
5, Part03_Cables-1.26, Part02_Deck-1.14
6, Part03_Cables-1.25, Part01_Arch-1.13
7, Part03_Cables-1.4, Part02_Deck-1.13
8, Part03_Cables-1.3, Part01_Arch-1.12
9, Part03_Cables-1.24, Part02_Deck-1.12
10, Part03_Cables-1.23, Part01_Arch-1.11
11, Part03_Cables-1.6, Part02_Deck-1.11
12, Part03_Cables-1.5, Part01_Arch-1.10
13, Part03_Cables-1.22, Part02_Deck-1.10
14, Part03_Cables-1.21, Part01_Arch-1.9
15, Part03_Cables-1.8, Part02_Deck-1.8
16, Part03_Cables-1.7, Part01_Arch-1.8
17, Part03_Cables-1.20, Part02_Deck-1.7
18, Part03_Cables-1.19, Part01_Arch-1.7
19, Part03_Cables-1.10, Part02_Deck-1.6
20, Part03_Cables-1.9, Part01_Arch-1.6
21, Part03_Cables-1.18, Part02_Deck-1.5
22, Part03_Cables-1.17, Part01_Arch-1.5
23, Part03_Cables-1.12, Part02_Deck-1.4
24, Part03_Cables-1.11, Part01_Arch-1.4
25, Part03_Cables-1.16, Part02_Deck-1.3
26, Part03_Cables-1.15, Part01_Arch-1.3
27, Part03_Cables-1.14, Part02_Deck-1.2
28, Part03_Cables-1.13, Part01_Arch-1.2
*Connector Section, elset=_PickedSet262
Join, Revolute
"Datum csys-1",
*Nset, nset=Wire-1-Set-1, instance=Part03_Cables-1, generate
1, 28, 1
*Nset, nset=Wire-1-Set-1, instance=Part02_Deck-1
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
*Nset, nset=Wire-1-Set-1, instance=Part01_Arch-1, generate
2, 15, 1
*Elset, elset=Wire-1-Set-1, generate
1, 28, 1
*Elset, elset=_PickedSet262, internal, generate
1, 28, 1
*Nset, nset=_PickedSet263, internal, instance=Part01_Arch-1
1, 16
*Nset, nset=_PickedSet264, internal, instance=Part02_Deck-1
1, 17
*Nset, nset=_PickedSet265, internal, instance=Part02_Deck-1
9,
*Nset, nset=_PickedSet270, internal, instance=Part01_Arch-1, generate
1, 61, 1
*Nset, nset=_PickedSet270, internal, instance=Part02_Deck-1, generate
1, 61, 1
*Nset, nset=_PickedSet270, internal, instance=Part03_Cables-1, generate
1, 294, 1
*Elset, elset=_PickedSet270, internal, instance=Part01_Arch-1, generate
1, 30, 1
*Elset, elset=_PickedSet270, internal, instance=Part02_Deck-1, generate
1, 30, 1
*Elset, elset=_PickedSet270, internal, instance=Part03_Cables-1, generate
1, 140, 1

- 318 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

*Nset, nset=_PickedSet272, internal, instance=Part01_Arch-1, generate


1, 61, 1
*Nset, nset=_PickedSet272, internal, instance=Part02_Deck-1, generate
1, 61, 1
*Nset, nset=_PickedSet272, internal, instance=Part03_Cables-1, generate
1, 294, 1
*Elset, elset=_PickedSet272, internal, instance=Part01_Arch-1, generate
1, 30, 1
*Elset, elset=_PickedSet272, internal, instance=Part02_Deck-1, generate
1, 30, 1
*Elset, elset=_PickedSet272, internal, instance=Part03_Cables-1, generate
1, 140, 1
*Nset, nset=Deck_Segments, internal, instance=Part02_Deck-1, generate
1, 61, 1
*Elset, elset=Deck_Segments, internal, instance=Part02_Deck-1, generate
1, 30, 1
*Nset, nset=Deck_LHS_node, internal, instance=Part02_Deck-1
1,
*Nset, nset=Deck_RHS_node, internal, instance=Part02_Deck-1
17,
*Nset, nset="_T-Datum csys_mh01", internal
Deck_LHS_node,
*Transform, nset="_T-Datum csys_mh01"
<X>,0.,<Z>,0,1,0
*Nset, nset="_T-Datum csys_mh02", internal
Deck_RHS_node,
*Transform, nset="_T-Datum csys_mh02"
-<X>,0.,<Z>,0,1,0
*Orientation, name="Datum csys-1"
1., 0., 0., 0., 1.,
0.
1, 0.
*End Assembly
**
** MATERIALS
**
*Material, name=Steel
*Density
7800.,
*Elastic
2e+11, 0.3
*Expansion
1.2e-05,
**
** BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
**
** Name: BC-1_Arch_Fixed Type: Displacement/Rotation
*Boundary
_PickedSet263, 1, 1
_PickedSet263, 2, 2
_PickedSet263, 3, 3
_PickedSet263, 4, 4
_PickedSet263, 5, 5
_PickedSet263, 6, 6
** Name: BC-2_DeckBC_LHS Type: Displacement/Rotation
*Boundary
Deck_LHS_node, 1, 1

- 319 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

Deck_LHS_node, 2, 2
Deck_LHS_node, 3, 3
Deck_LHS_node, 4, 4
** Name: BC-2_DeckBC_RHS Type: Displacement/Rotation
*Boundary
Deck_RHS_node, 1, 1
Deck_RHS_node, 2, 2
Deck_RHS_node, 3, 3
Deck_RHS_node, 4, 4
** Name: BC-3_DeckVertRoller Type: Displacement/Rotation
*Boundary
_PickedSet265, 1, 1
**
** PREDEFINED FIELDS
**
** Name: Predefined Field_Th_Load Type: Temperature
*Initial Conditions, type=TEMPERATURE
_PickedSet272, 0.
** ----------------------------------------------------------------
**
** STEP: LoadingStep
**
*Step, name=LoadingStep, nlgeom=YES, inc=1000
*Static
1., 1000., 0.01, 1000.
**
** LOADS
**
** Name: GravityLoad Type: Gravity
*Dload
_PickedSet270, GRAV, 9.81, 0., -1., 0.
** Name: Load_02_LL_LL050 Type: Line load
*Dload
Deck_Segments, PY, <LL_050>
** Name: Load_02_LL_LL100 Type: Line load
*Dload
Deck_Segments, PY, <LL_100>
**
** PREDEFINED FIELDS
**
** Name: Predefined Field_Th_Load Type: Temperature
*Temperature
_PickedSet272, <G_Th_L>
**
** OUTPUT REQUESTS
*Restart, write, frequency=0
**
** FIELD OUTPUT: F-Output-1
**
*Output, field
*Node Output
RF, RM, U, UR
*Element Output, directions=YES
E, MISES, S, SF
**
** HISTORY OUTPUT: H-Output-1
*Output, history, variable=PRESELECT

- 320 -
Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

*End Step
** ----------------------------------------------------------------
** STEP: PostTensionStep
**
*Step, name=PostTensionStep, nlgeom=YES, inc=1000
*Static
1., 1000., 0.01, 1000.
**
** PREDEFINED FIELDS
**
** Name: PT01 Type: Temperature
*Temperature
Part03_Cables-1.Set03_Cables01, <T_Clbs_01_14>
** Name: PT02 Type: Temperature
*Temperature
Part03_Cables-1.Set03_Cables02, <T_Clbs_02_13>
** Name: PT03 Type: Temperature
*Temperature
Part03_Cables-1.Set03_Cables03, <T_Clbs_03_12>
** Name: PT04 Type: Temperature
*Temperature
Part03_Cables-1.Set03_Cables04, <T_Clbs_04_11>
** Name: PT05 Type: Temperature
*Temperature
Part03_Cables-1.Set03_Cables05, <T_Clbs_05_10>
** Name: PT06 Type: Temperature
*Temperature
Part03_Cables-1.Set03_Cables06, <T_Clbs_06_09>
** Name: PT07 Type: Temperature
*Temperature
Part03_Cables-1.Set03_Cables07, <T_Clbs_07_08>
**
** OUTPUT REQUESTS
**
*Restart, write, frequency=0
**
** FIELD OUTPUT: F-Output-1
**
*Output, field
*Node Output
RF, RM, U, UR
*Element Output, directions=YES
E, MISES, S, SF
**
** HISTORY OUTPUT: H-Output-1
**
*Output, history, variable=PRESELECT
*End Step

- 321 -
APPENDIX B: DETAILS TO CHAPTER FOUR
B. Appendix B:

- 322 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

B.1. Determination of Critical LL Distribution

Table B-1: Configuration C01 — A comparison of SM(COMB) in the arch due to two
different patterns of distribution of LL over the deck
Geom. SM(COMB) SM(COMB) SM(COMB) L100
Difference
f(A)/s Variable LL100 LL50 >
[%]
f(D)/s [N*m] [N*m] SM(COMB) L50?
0.00 7.47E+04 4.68E+05 -526.65% NO
0.15 7.35E+06 6.31E+06 14.19% YES
0.15
0.20 9.05E+06 7.71E+06 14.82% YES
0.25 1.04E+07 8.83E+06 15.23% YES
0.00 5.45E+04 4.21E+05 -673.00% NO
0.15 6.24E+06 5.37E+06 13.98% YES
0.20
0.20 7.91E+06 6.76E+06 14.55% YES
0.25 9.36E+06 7.96E+06 14.93% YES
0.00 4.65E+04 3.95E+05 -747.92% NO
0.15 5.57E+06 4.79E+06 14.00% YES
0.25
0.20 7.15E+06 6.12E+06 14.49% YES
0.25 8.58E+06 7.31E+06 14.82% YES

Table B-2: Configuration C02 — A comparison of SM(COMB) in arch due to two


different patterns of distribution of LL over the deck
Geom. SM(COMB) SM(COMB) SM(COMB) L100
Difference
f(A)/s Variable LL100 LL50 >
[%]
ω [N*m] [N*m] SM(COMB) L50?
0° 7.47E+04 4.68E+05 -526.65% NO
15° 5.02E+05 6.92E+05 -37.97% NO
0.15
30° 8.82E+05 1.02E+06 -16.01% NO
45° 1.11E+06 1.26E+06 -12.99% NO
0° 5.45E+04 4.21E+05 -673.00% NO
15° 5.56E+05 7.04E+05 -26.68% NO
0.20
30° 9.77E+05 1.08E+06 -10.87% NO
45° 1.21E+06 1.31E+06 -9.05% NO
0° 4.65E+04 3.95E+05 -747.92% NO
15° 6.29E+05 7.47E+05 -18.87% NO
0.25
30° 1.10E+06 1.18E+06 -7.49% NO
45° 1.33E+06 1.42E+06 -6.35% NO

- 323 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

Table B-3: Configuration C03 — A comparison of SM(COMB) in arch due to two


different patterns of distribution of LL over the deck
Geom. SM(COMB) SM(COMB) SM(COMB) L100
Difference
f(A)/s Variable LL100 LL50 >
[%]
θ [N*m] [N*m] SM(COMB) L50?
0° 7.47E+04 4.68E+05 -526.65% NO
15° 1.17E+06 1.15E+06 2.22% YES
0.15
30° 1.42E+06 1.32E+06 6.67% YES
45° 1.45E+06 1.36E+06 6.52% YES
0° 5.45E+04 4.21E+05 -673.00% NO
15° 1.06E+06 1.06E+06 0.23% YES
0.20
30° 1.34E+06 1.27E+06 4.91% YES
45° 1.43E+06 1.35E+06 5.20% YES
0° 4.65E+04 3.95E+05 -747.92% NO
15° 9.70E+05 9.84E+05 -1.36% NO
0.25
30° 1.25E+06 1.21E+06 3.53% YES
45° 1.35E+06 1.30E+06 4.05% YES

- 324 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

B.2. Comparison of Global Thermal Load with Critical Case of Live Load

B.2.1. Configuration C01 — Arch: Axial Force

Table B-4: Configuration C01 — A comparison of SF1 in the arch


Geom. SF1 SF1
SF1 SF1
f(A)/s Variable –ve GTL +ve GTL
DL [N] LL100 [N]
f(D)/s [N] [N]
0.00 9.05E+05 1.33E+06 8.67E+05 9.31E+05
0.15 8.09E+05 1.17E+06 7.73E+05 8.33E+05
0.15
0.20 7.64E+05 1.09E+06 7.28E+05 7.87E+05
0.25 7.22E+05 1.02E+06 6.88E+05 7.45E+05
0.00 7.50E+05 1.10E+06 7.35E+05 7.60E+05
0.15 7.34E+05 1.07E+06 7.17E+05 7.45E+05
0.20
0.20 7.13E+05 1.04E+06 6.96E+05 7.24E+05
0.25 6.89E+05 9.96E+05 6.73E+05 7.00E+05
0.00 6.67E+05 9.72E+05 6.61E+05 6.71E+05
0.15 6.83E+05 9.99E+05 6.75E+05 6.89E+05
0.25
0.20 6.78E+05 9.89E+05 6.69E+05 6.83E+05
0.25 6.66E+05 9.70E+05 6.57E+05 6.72E+05

Table B-5: Configuration — A comparison of the differences between SF1 in the arch
Geom. GTL
Diff. Diff. –ve Diff. +ve
f(A)/s Variable >
LL vs. DL GTL vs. DL GTL vs. DL
f(D)/s LL?
0.00 31.97% -4.45% 2.76% NO
0.15 30.75% -4.65% 2.88% NO
0.15
0.20 30.11% -4.81% 2.97% NO
0.25 29.44% -4.98% 3.07% NO
0.00 31.70% -2.08% 1.34% NO
0.15 31.43% -2.30% 1.48% NO
0.20
0.20 31.14% -2.39% 1.53% NO
0.25 30.78% -2.47% 1.58% NO
0.00 31.39% -0.94% 0.61% NO
0.15 31.57% -1.18% 0.77% NO
0.25
0.20 31.48% -1.27% 0.83% NO
0.25 31.30% -1.33% 0.87% NO

- 325 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

B.2.2. Configuration C01 — Arch: Combined Shear Force

Table B-6: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the of SF(COMB) in the arch


Geom. SF(COMB) SF(COMB)
SF(COMB) SF(COMB)
f(A)/s Variable –ve GTL +ve GTL
DL [N] LL100 [N]
f(D)/s [N] [N]
0.00 2.67E+04 4.26E+04 7.25E+04 4.27E+04
0.15 5.01E+05 8.33E+05 5.18E+05 4.90E+05
0.15
0.20 6.30E+05 1.05E+06 6.42E+05 6.22E+05
0.25 7.22E+05 1.20E+06 7.31E+05 7.16E+05
0.00 2.28E+04 3.76E+04 5.17E+04 3.09E+04
0.15 3.64E+05 6.06E+05 3.77E+05 3.56E+05
0.20
0.20 4.80E+05 7.97E+05 4.89E+05 4.73E+05
0.25 5.73E+05 9.52E+05 5.80E+05 5.68E+05
0.00 2.31E+04 3.79E+04 3.98E+04 2.46E+04
0.15 2.82E+05 4.69E+05 2.92E+05 2.76E+05
0.25
0.20 3.81E+05 6.32E+05 3.88E+05 3.76E+05
0.25 4.65E+05 7.73E+05 4.71E+05 4.62E+05

Table B-7: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the differences between SF(COMB)


in the arch
Geom. GTL
Diff. Diff. –ve Diff. +ve
f(A)/s Variable >
LL vs. DL GTL vs. DL GTL vs. DL
f(D)/s LL?
0.00 37.24% 63.14% 37.41% YES
0.15 39.88% 3.38% -2.29% NO
0.15
0.20 39.87% 1.92% -1.27% NO
0.25 39.86% 1.20% -0.78% NO
0.00 39.43% 55.90% 26.25% YES
0.15 39.85% 3.42% -2.32% NO
0.20
0.20 39.85% 2.00% -1.33% NO
0.25 39.84% 1.26% -0.83% NO
0.00 39.16% 42.12% 6.22% YES
0.15 39.80% 3.21% -2.18% NO
0.25
0.20 39.81% 1.91% -1.28% NO
0.25 39.82% 1.23% -0.81% NO

- 326 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

Figure B-1: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the distributions of SF(COMB) in the


arch comparing critical case of LL, +ve and –ve GTL and unloaded state for three
levels of f(A)/s and most sensitive ratio, f(D)/s = 0.15

- 327 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

Figure B-2: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the distributions of SF(COMB) in the


arch considering the effect of LL100

- 328 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

B.2.3. Configuration C01 — Arch: Combined Bending Moment

Table B-8: Configuration C01 — A comparison of SM(COMB) in the arch


Geom. SM(COMB) –ve SM(COMB) +ve
SM(COMB) SM(COMB)
f(A)/s Variable GTL GTL
DL [N*m] LL100 [N*m]
f(D)/s [N*m] [N*m]
0.00 5.01E+04 7.47E+04 4.39E+05 2.17E+05
0.15 4.42E+06 7.35E+06 4.47E+06 4.40E+06
0.15
0.20 5.44E+06 9.05E+06 5.47E+06 5.43E+06
0.25 6.26E+06 1.04E+07 6.28E+06 6.26E+06
0.00 3.73E+04 5.45E+04 3.02E+05 1.54E+05
0.15 3.75E+06 6.24E+06 3.79E+06 3.74E+06
0.20
0.20 4.76E+06 7.91E+06 4.78E+06 4.75E+06
0.25 5.63E+06 9.36E+06 5.64E+06 5.62E+06
0.00 3.29E+04 4.65E+04 2.27E+05 1.10E+05
0.15 3.35E+06 5.57E+06 3.38E+06 3.34E+06
0.25
0.20 4.30E+06 7.15E+06 4.32E+06 4.30E+06
0.25 5.17E+06 8.58E+06 5.18E+06 5.16E+06

Table B-9: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the differences in SM(COMB) in the


arch
Geom. GTL
Diff. LL vs. Diff. –ve Diff. +ve
f(A)/s Variable >
DL GTL vs. DL GTL vs. DL
f(D)/s LL?
0.00 32.98% 88.60% 76.87% YES
0.15 39.87% 1.13% -0.50% NO
0.15
0.20 39.86% 0.57% -0.22% NO
0.25 39.85% 0.27% -0.07% NO
0.00 31.53% 87.65% 75.72% YES
0.15 39.85% 0.91% -0.42% NO
0.20
0.20 39.85% 0.49% -0.22% NO
0.25 39.84% 0.25% -0.10% NO
0.00 29.20% 85.51% 69.92% YES
0.15 39.83% 0.70% -0.33% NO
0.25
0.20 39.83% 0.39% -0.18% NO
0.25 39.83% 0.21% -0.09% NO

- 329 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

B.2.4. Configuration C01 — Arch: Torsional Moment

Table B-10: Configuration C01 — A comparison of SM3 in the arch


Geom. SM3 SM3
SM3 SM3
f(A)/s Variable –ve GTL +ve GTL
DL [N] LL100 [N]
f(D)/s [N] [N]
0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
0.15 2.96E+05 4.92E+05 2.87E+05 3.02E+05
0.15
0.20 3.39E+05 5.63E+05 3.31E+05 3.44E+05
0.25 3.81E+05 6.33E+05 3.74E+05 3.85E+05
0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
0.15 3.32E+05 5.52E+05 3.24E+05 3.37E+05
0.20
0.20 3.88E+05 6.44E+05 3.80E+05 3.93E+05
0.25 4.38E+05 7.28E+05 4.31E+05 4.43E+05
0.00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
0.15 3.48E+05 5.77E+05 3.41E+05 3.52E+05
0.25
0.20 4.12E+05 6.85E+05 4.06E+05 4.17E+05
0.25 4.70E+05 7.80E+05 4.63E+05 4.74E+05

Table B-11: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the differences between SM3 in


the arch
Geom. GTL
Diff. Diff. –ve Diff. +ve
f(A)/s Variable >
LL vs. DL GTL vs. DL GTL vs. DL
f(D)/s LL?
0.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A
0.15 39.82% -3.22% 2.04% NO
0.15
0.20 39.83% -2.35% 1.51% NO
0.25 39.83% -1.88% 1.22% NO
0.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A
0.15 39.80% -2.44% 1.56% NO
0.20
0.20 39.81% -2.03% 1.31% NO
0.25 39.81% -1.67% 1.08% NO
0.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A
0.15 39.77% -1.95% 1.31% NO
0.25
0.20 39.79% -1.63% 1.06% NO
0.25 39.79% -1.36% 0.89% NO

- 330 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

B.2.5. Configuration C01 — Arch: Combined Displacements

Table B-12: Configuration C01 — A comparison of U(COMB) in the arch


Geom. U(COMB) U(COMB)
U(COMB) U(COMB)
f(A)/s Variable –ve GTL +ve GTL
DL [m] LL100 [m]
f(D)/s [m] [m]
0.00 1.05E-02 1.57E-02 9.75E-02 4.74E-02
0.15 1.06E+00 1.76E+00 1.03E+00 1.08E+00
0.15
0.20 1.22E+00 2.02E+00 1.19E+00 1.24E+00
0.25 1.36E+00 2.25E+00 1.33E+00 1.38E+00
0.00 6.18E-03 9.50E-03 7.60E-02 4.04E-02
0.15 1.11E+00 1.84E+00 1.09E+00 1.13E+00
0.20
0.20 1.31E+00 2.18E+00 1.29E+00 1.33E+00
0.25 1.49E+00 2.47E+00 1.47E+00 1.50E+00
0.00 4.09E-03 6.41E-03 6.44E-02 3.65E-02
0.15 1.20E+00 1.99E+00 1.18E+00 1.21E+00
0.25
0.20 1.44E+00 2.39E+00 1.42E+00 1.45E+00
0.25 1.65E+00 2.74E+00 1.63E+00 1.67E+00

Table B-13: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the differences between U(COMB)


in the arch
Geom. GTL
Diff. LL vs. Diff. –ve Diff. +ve
f(A)/s Variable >
DL GTL vs. DL GTL vs. DL
f(D)/s LL?
0.00 33.08% 89.20% 77.80% YES
0.15 39.82% -2.75% 2.13% NO
0.15
0.20 39.82% -2.29% 1.76% NO
0.25 39.82% -1.88% 1.45% NO
0.00 34.94% 91.87% 84.71% YES
0.15 39.81% -2.09% 1.57% NO
0.20
0.20 39.81% -1.79% 1.32% NO
0.25 39.81% -1.49% 1.10% NO
0.00 36.16% 93.65% 88.78% YES
0.15 39.79% -1.63% 1.20% NO
0.25
0.20 39.79% -1.42% 1.02% NO
0.25 39.80% -1.20% 0.86% NO

- 331 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

Figure B-3: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the distributions of U(COMB) in the


arch comparing critical case of LL, +ve and –ve GTL and unloaded state in the arch
for three levels of f(A)/s and the most sensitive ratio, f(D)/s = 0.15

- 332 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

Figure B-4: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the distributions of U(COMB) in the


arch considering the effect of LL

- 333 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

B.2.6. Configuration C01 — Deck: Axial Force

Table B-14: Configuration C01 — A comparison of SF1 in the deck


Geom. SF1 SF1
SF1 SF1
f(A)/s Variable –ve GTL +ve GTL
DL [N] LL100 [N]
f(D)/s [N] [N]
0.00 2.57E-25 4.50E-25 6.51E-07 4.12E-07
0.15 2.51E+05 4.17E+05 2.54E+05 2.48E+05
0.15
0.20 3.91E+05 6.51E+05 3.94E+05 3.89E+05
0.25 5.13E+05 8.53E+05 5.15E+05 5.12E+05
0.00 2.53E-25 3.76E-25 6.51E-07 4.12E-07
0.15 1.79E+05 2.99E+05 1.82E+05 1.78E+05
0.20
0.20 2.92E+05 4.86E+05 2.94E+05 2.91E+05
0.25 4.00E+05 6.66E+05 4.02E+05 3.99E+05
0.00 2.67E-25 4.71E-25 6.51E-07 4.12E-07
0.15 1.38E+05 2.30E+05 1.39E+05 1.37E+05
0.25
0.20 2.29E+05 3.81E+05 2.31E+05 2.28E+05
0.25 3.21E+05 5.35E+05 3.23E+05 3.21E+05

Table B-15: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the differences between SF1 in the
deck
Geom. GTL
Diff. Diff. –ve Diff. +ve
f(A)/s Variable >
LL vs. DL GTL vs. DL GTL vs. DL
f(D)/s LL?
0.00 42.86% 100.00% 100.00% YES
0.15 39.89% 1.29% -0.88% NO
0.15
0.20 39.88% 0.66% -0.44% NO
0.25 39.87% 0.32% -0.21% NO
0.00 32.87% 100.00% 100.00% YES
0.15 39.90% 1.24% -0.84% NO
0.20
0.20 39.89% 0.70% -0.47% NO
0.25 39.87% 0.39% -0.26% NO
0.00 43.31% 100.00% 100.00% YES
0.15 39.91% 1.09% -0.74% NO
0.25
0.20 39.89% 0.66% -0.44% NO
0.25 39.88% 0.40% -0.27% NO

- 334 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

Figure B-5: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the distributions of SF1 in the


deck comparing critical case of LL, +ve and –ve GTL and unloaded state for three
levels of f(A)/s and most sensitive ratio, f(D)/s = 0.15

- 335 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

Figure B-6: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the distributions of SF1 in the


deck considering the effect of LL100

- 336 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

B.2.7. Configuration C01 — Deck: Combined Shear Force

Table B-16: Configuration C01 — A comparison of SF(COMB) in the deck


Geom. SF(COMB) SF(COMB)
SF(COMB) SF(COMB)
f(A)/s Variable –ve GTL +ve GTL
DL [N] LL100 [N]
f(D)/s [N] [N]
0.00 2.47E+04 4.08E+04 4.62E+04 3.40E+04
0.15 4.20E+05 6.98E+05 4.26E+05 4.15E+05
0.15
0.20 4.93E+05 8.20E+05 4.97E+05 4.91E+05
0.25 5.23E+05 8.69E+05 5.25E+05 5.22E+05
0.00 2.37E+04 3.90E+04 3.63E+04 3.14E+04
0.15 3.08E+05 5.12E+05 3.13E+05 3.04E+05
0.20
0.20 3.77E+05 6.27E+05 3.80E+05 3.75E+05
0.25 4.15E+05 6.90E+05 4.17E+05 4.14E+05
0.00 2.41E+04 3.94E+04 3.05E+04 3.02E+04
0.15 2.41E+05 4.01E+05 2.45E+05 2.38E+05
0.25
0.20 3.01E+05 5.01E+05 3.04E+05 2.99E+05
0.25 3.39E+05 5.64E+05 3.41E+05 3.38E+05

Table B-17: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the differences between SF(COMB)


in the deck
Geom. GTL
Diff. Diff. –ve Diff. +ve
f(A)/s Variable >
LL vs. DL GTL vs. DL GTL vs. DL
f(D)/s LL?
0.00 39.56% 46.57% 27.49% YES
0.15 39.90% 1.60% -1.09% NO
0.15
0.20 39.88% 0.76% -0.51% NO
0.25 39.87% 0.35% -0.23% NO
0.00 39.11% 34.63% 24.35% NO
0.15 39.92% 1.72% -1.17% NO
0.20
0.20 39.89% 0.89% -0.60% NO
0.25 39.88% 0.47% -0.31% NO
0.00 38.90% 21.17% 20.44% NO
0.15 39.95% 1.68% -1.15% NO
0.25
0.20 39.91% 0.91% -0.62% NO
0.25 39.89% 0.51% -0.34% NO

- 337 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

Figure B-7: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the distributions of SF(COMB) in the


deck comparing critical case of LL, +ve and –ve GTL and unloaded state for three
levels of f(A)/s and most sensitive ratio, f(D)/s = 0.15

- 338 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

Figure B-8: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the distributions of SF(COMB) in the


deck considering the effect of LL100

- 339 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

B.2.8. Configuration C01 — Deck: Combined Bending Moment

Table B-18: Configuration C01 — A comparison of SM(COMB) in the deck


Geom. SM(COMB) –ve SM(COMB) +ve
SM(COMB) SM(COMB)
f(A)/s Variable GTL GTL
DL [N*m] LL100 [N*m]
f(D)/s [N*m] [N*m]
0.00 4.46E+04 7.29E+04 1.86E+05 7.93E+04
0.15 3.65E+06 6.07E+06 3.62E+06 3.66E+06
0.15
0.20 4.50E+06 7.49E+06 4.48E+06 4.52E+06
0.25 5.23E+06 8.69E+06 5.20E+06 5.25E+06
0.00 4.30E+04 6.92E+04 1.44E+05 7.13E+04
0.15 2.84E+06 4.72E+06 2.82E+06 2.85E+06
0.20
0.20 3.59E+06 5.97E+06 3.57E+06 3.60E+06
0.25 4.27E+06 7.10E+06 4.26E+06 4.28E+06
0.00 4.95E+04 7.70E+04 1.20E+05 6.90E+04
0.15 2.31E+06 3.84E+06 2.30E+06 2.31E+06
0.25
0.20 2.95E+06 4.90E+06 2.94E+06 2.96E+06
0.25 3.56E+06 5.92E+06 3.55E+06 3.57E+06

Table B-19: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the differences in SM(COMB) in the


deck
Geom. GTL
Diff. LL vs. Diff. –ve Diff. +ve
f(A)/s Variable >
DL GTL vs. DL GTL vs. DL
f(D)/s LL?
0.00 38.79% 76.05% 43.74% YES
0.15 39.87% -0.69% 0.45% NO
0.15
0.20 39.86% -0.60% 0.40% NO
0.25 39.85% -0.51% 0.34% NO
0.00 37.85% 70.13% 39.67% YES
0.15 39.86% -0.54% 0.36% NO
0.20
0.20 39.86% -0.46% 0.31% NO
0.25 39.85% -0.38% 0.25% NO
0.00 35.68% 58.72% 28.17% YES
0.15 39.86% -0.45% 0.30% NO
0.25
0.20 39.86% -0.37% 0.25% NO
0.25 39.85% -0.29% 0.20% NO

- 340 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

B.2.9. Configuration C01 — Deck: Combined Displacement

Table B-20: Configuration C01 — A comparison of U(COMB) in the deck


Geom. U(COMB) U(COMB)
U(COMB) U(COMB)
f(A)/s Variable –ve GTL +ve GTL
DL [m] LL100 [m]
f(D)/s [m] [m]
0.00 2.49E-02 3.96E-02 1.03E-01 2.71E-02
0.15 1.10E+00 1.84E+00 1.15E+00 1.07E+00
0.15
0.20 1.69E+00 2.82E+00 1.73E+00 1.67E+00
0.25 2.37E+00 3.94E+00 2.40E+00 2.34E+00
0.00 2.54E-02 4.14E-02 8.37E-02 1.34E-02
0.15 8.65E-01 1.44E+00 9.07E-01 8.38E-01
0.20
0.20 1.36E+00 2.26E+00 1.39E+00 1.33E+00
0.25 1.93E+00 3.21E+00 1.96E+00 1.91E+00
0.00 2.81E-02 4.64E-02 7.45E-02 4.01E-03
0.15 7.46E-01 1.24E+00 7.82E-01 7.23E-01
0.25
0.20 1.19E+00 1.97E+00 1.22E+00 1.17E+00
0.25 1.70E+00 2.83E+00 1.73E+00 1.68E+00

Table B-21: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the differences between U(COMB) in


the deck
Geom. GTL
Diff. LL vs. Diff. –ve Diff. +ve
f(A)/s Variable >
DL GTL vs. DL GTL vs. DL
f(D)/s LL?
0.00 37.13% 75.81% 8.18% YES
0.15 39.90% 4.23% -3.03% NO
0.15
0.20 39.87% 2.38% -1.65% NO
0.25 39.86% 1.49% -1.02% NO
0.00 38.60% 69.61% -89.64% YES
0.15 39.90% 4.57% -3.30% NO
0.20
0.20 39.87% 2.58% -1.80% NO
0.25 39.86% 1.63% -1.11% NO
0.00 39.47% 62.24% -601.09% YES
0.15 39.90% 4.52% -3.26% NO
0.25
0.20 39.86% 2.57% -1.79% NO
0.25 39.85% 1.62% -1.11% NO

- 341 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

Figure B-9: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the distributions of U(COMB) in the


deck comparing critical case of LL, +ve and –ve GTL and unloaded state for three
levels of f(A)/s and most sensitive ratio, f(D)/s = 0.15

- 342 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

Figure B-10: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the distributions of U(COMB) in


the deck considering the effect of LL100

- 343 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

B.2.10. Configuration C01 — Cables

Table B-22: Configuration C01 — A comparison of CF in cables


Geom.
CF CF CF CF
f(A)/s Variable
DL [N] LL100 [N] -ve GTL [N] +ve GTL [N]
f(D)/s
0.00 4.85E+04 8.00E+04 7.85E+04 4.67E+04
0.15 3.37E+05 5.61E+05 3.50E+05 3.29E+05
0.15
0.20 4.02E+05 6.69E+05 4.10E+05 3.97E+05
0.25 4.36E+05 7.25E+05 4.41E+05 4.32E+05
0.00 4.61E+04 7.64E+04 6.56E+04 4.65E+04
0.15 2.56E+05 4.27E+05 2.66E+05 2.50E+05
0.20
0.20 3.20E+05 5.32E+05 3.27E+05 3.15E+05
0.25 3.61E+05 6.00E+05 3.66E+05 3.58E+05
0.00 4.55E+04 7.53E+04 5.86E+04 4.65E+04
0.15 2.12E+05 3.52E+05 2.19E+05 2.06E+05
0.25
0.20 2.70E+05 4.49E+05 2.75E+05 2.66E+05
0.25 3.11E+05 5.18E+05 3.16E+05 3.09E+05

Table B-23: Configuration C01 — A comparison of the differences between CF in


cables
Geom. GTL
Diff. Diff. –ve Diff. +ve
f(A)/s Variable >
LL vs. DL GTL vs. DL GTL vs. DL
f(D)/s LL?
0.00 39.37% 38.20% -3.80% NO
0.15 39.91% 3.56% -2.52% NO
0.15
0.20 39.89% 2.00% -1.38% NO
0.25 39.87% 1.24% -0.84% NO
0.00 39.67% 29.73% 0.82% NO
0.15 39.91% 3.71% -2.64% NO
0.20
0.20 39.89% 2.12% -1.47% NO
0.25 39.87% 1.33% -0.91% NO
0.00 39.55% 22.23% 1.96% NO
0.15 39.92% 3.56% -2.52% NO
0.25
0.20 39.89% 2.07% -1.43% NO
0.25 39.87% 1.31% -0.89% NO

- 344 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

B.2.11. Configuration C02 — Arch: Axial Force

Table B-24: Configuration C02 — A comparison of SF1 in the arch


Geom. SF1 SF1
SF1 SF1
f(A)/s Variable –ve GTL +ve GTL
DL [N] LL100 [N]
ω [N] [N*m]
0° 9.05E+05 1.15E+06 8.67E+05 9.31E+05
15° 9.18E+05 1.17E+06 8.79E+05 9.44E+05
0.15
30° 9.65E+05 1.25E+06 9.24E+05 9.93E+05
45° 1.08E+06 1.43E+06 1.03E+06 1.11E+06
0° 7.50E+05 9.62E+05 7.35E+05 7.60E+05
15° 7.60E+05 9.79E+05 7.45E+05 7.71E+05
0.20
30° 7.99E+05 1.04E+06 7.83E+05 8.10E+05
45° 8.94E+05 1.17E+06 8.74E+05 9.07E+05
0° 6.67E+05 8.61E+05 6.61E+05 6.71E+05
15° 6.76E+05 8.76E+05 6.70E+05 6.80E+05
0.25
30° 7.10E+05 9.27E+05 7.03E+05 7.14E+05
45° 7.93E+05 1.03E+06 7.84E+05 7.98E+05

Table B-25: Configuration C02 — A comparison of the differences between SF1 in the
arch
Geom. GTL
Diff. Diff. –ve Diff. +ve
f(A)/s Variable >
LL vs. DL GTL vs. DL GTL vs. DL
ω LL?
0° 21.27% -4.45% 2.76% NO
15° 21.60% -4.46% 2.77% NO
0.15
30° 22.70% -4.49% 2.78% NO
45° 24.32% -4.57% 2.83% NO
0° 22.06% -2.08% 1.34% NO
15° 22.37% -2.09% 1.34% NO
0.20
30° 23.18% -2.11% 1.36% NO
45° 23.84% -2.21% 1.42% NO
0° 22.56% -0.94% 0.61% NO
15° 22.85% -0.94% 0.62% NO
0.25
30° 23.42% -0.97% 0.64% NO
45° 23.26% -1.09% 0.71% NO

- 345 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

B.2.12. Configuration C02 — Arch: Combined Shear Force

Table B-26: Configuration C02 — A comparison of SF(COMB) in the arch


Geom. SF(COMB) SF(COMB)
SF(COMB) SF(COMB)
f(A)/s Variable –ve GTL +ve GTL
DL [N] LL100 [N]
ω [N] [N]
0° 2.67E+04 9.53E+04 7.25E+04 4.27E+04
15° 4.26E+04 1.04E+05 8.21E+04 5.55E+04
0.15
30° 7.10E+04 1.25E+05 1.06E+05 8.03E+04
45° 1.03E+05 1.52E+05 1.42E+05 1.04E+05
0° 2.28E+04 8.19E+04 5.17E+04 3.09E+04
15° 4.03E+04 9.10E+04 6.29E+04 4.84E+04
0.20
30° 7.29E+04 1.11E+05 8.82E+04 7.81E+04
45° 1.03E+05 1.35E+05 1.20E+05 1.05E+05
0° 2.31E+04 7.18E+04 3.98E+04 2.46E+04
15° 4.02E+04 8.14E+04 5.33E+04 4.52E+04
0.25
30° 7.62E+04 1.01E+05 8.03E+04 7.88E+04
45° 1.07E+05 1.24E+05 1.10E+05 1.09E+05

Table B-27: Configuration C02 — A comparison of the differences between SF(COMB)


in the arch
Geom. GTL
Diff. Diff. –ve Diff. +ve
f(A)/s Variable >
LL vs. DL GTL vs. DL GTL vs. DL
ω LL?
0° 71.95% 63.14% 37.41% NO
15° 59.14% 48.09% 23.24% NO
0.15
30° 43.27% 33.24% 11.51% NO
45° 32.22% 27.20% 0.49% NO
0° 72.17% 55.90% 26.25% NO
15° 55.69% 35.97% 16.73% NO
0.20
30° 34.29% 17.36% 6.62% NO
45° 24.01% 14.44% 2.55% NO
0° 67.90% 42.12% 6.22% NO
15° 50.55% 24.54% 11.01% NO
0.25
30° 24.74% 5.13% 3.35% NO
45° 13.11% 2.87% 1.36% NO

- 346 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

Figure B-11: Configuration C02 — A comparison of the distributions of SF(COMB) in


the arch comparing critical case of LL, +ve and –ve GTL and unloaded state for three
levels of f(A)/s and most sensitive angle of arch inclination, ω = 15°

- 347 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

Figure B-12: Configuration C02 — Distribution of SF(COMB) in the arch considering


the effect of LL50

- 348 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

B.2.13. Configuration C02 — Arch: Combined Bending Moment

Table B-28: Configuration C02 — A comparison of SM(COMB) in the arch


Geom. SM(COMB) –ve SM(COMB) +ve
SM(COMB) SM(COMB)
f(A)/s Variable GTL GTL
DL [N*m] LL50 [N*m]
ω [N*m] [N*m]
0° 5.01E+04 4.68E+05 4.39E+05 2.17E+05
15° 5.12E+05 6.92E+05 6.81E+05 5.51E+05
0.15
30° 9.88E+05 1.02E+06 1.10E+06 1.00E+06
45° 1.40E+06 1.26E+06 1.51E+06 1.40E+06
0° 3.73E+04 4.21E+05 3.02E+05 1.54E+05
15° 5.73E+05 7.04E+05 6.51E+05 5.91E+05
0.20
30° 1.11E+06 1.08E+06 1.16E+06 1.11E+06
45° 1.57E+06 1.31E+06 1.62E+06 1.56E+06
0° 3.29E+04 3.95E+05 2.27E+05 1.10E+05
15° 6.50E+05 7.47E+05 6.90E+05 6.58E+05
0.25
30° 1.25E+06 1.18E+06 1.28E+06 1.26E+06
45° 1.78E+06 1.42E+06 1.80E+06 1.77E+06

Table B-29: Configuration C02 — A comparison of the differences in SM(COMB) in the


arch
Geom. GTL
Diff. Diff. –ve Diff. +ve
f(A)/s Variable >
LL vs. DL GTL vs. DL GTL vs. DL
ω LL?
0° 89.30% 88.60% 76.87% NO
15° 25.98% 24.80% 7.11% NO
0.15
30° 3.48% 10.40% 1.47% YES
45° -11.42% 7.45% -0.17% YES
0° 91.14% 87.65% 75.72% NO
15° 18.62% 12.03% 3.06% NO
0.20
30° -2.14% 4.39% 0.56% YES
45° -19.14% 3.11% -0.13% YES
0° 91.65% 85.51% 69.92% NO
15° 13.06% 5.84% 1.20% NO
0.25
30° -6.07% 1.99% 0.19% YES
45° -25.24% 1.40% -0.10% YES

- 349 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

B.2.14. Configuration C02 — Arch: Torsional Moment

Table B-30: Configuration C02 — A comparison of SM3 in the arch


Geom. SM3 SM3
SM3 SM3
f(A)/s Variable –ve GTL +ve GTL
DL [N] LL100 [N]
ω [N] [N]
0° 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
15° 4.96E+04 4.79E+04 4.96E+04 4.96E+04
0.15
30° 9.59E+04 8.29E+04 9.59E+04 9.59E+04
45° 1.36E+05 9.57E+04 1.36E+05 1.36E+05
0° 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
15° 6.66E+04 6.43E+04 6.66E+04 6.66E+04
0.20
30° 1.29E+05 1.11E+05 1.29E+05 1.29E+05
45° 1.82E+05 1.28E+05 1.82E+05 1.82E+05
0° 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
15° 8.35E+04 8.06E+04 8.35E+04 8.35E+04
0.25
30° 1.61E+05 1.40E+05 1.61E+05 1.61E+05
45° 2.28E+05 1.61E+05 2.28E+05 2.28E+05

Table B-31: Configuration C02 — A comparison of the differences between SM3 in


the arch
Geom. GTL
Diff. Diff. –ve Diff. +ve
f(A)/s Variable >
LL vs. DL GTL vs. DL GTL vs. DL
f(D)/s LL?
0.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A
0.15 -3.58% 0.02% -0.01% YES
0.15
0.20 -15.58% 0.01% -0.01% YES
0.25 -41.73% 0.01% -0.01% YES
0.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A
0.15 -3.57% 0.01% -0.01% YES
0.20
0.20 -15.59% 0.01% -0.01% YES
0.25 -41.92% 0.01% -0.01% YES
0.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A
0.15 -3.56% 0.01% 0.00% YES
0.25
0.20 -15.55% 0.01% 0.00% YES
0.25 -41.75% 0.01% 0.00% YES

- 350 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

B.2.15. Configuration C02 — Arch: Combined Displacement

Table B-32: Configuration C02 — A comparison of U(COMB) in the arch


Geom. U(COMB) U(COMB)
U(COMB) U(COMB) LL50
f(A)/s Variable –ve GTL +ve GTL
DL [m] [m]
ω [m] [m]
0° 1.05E-02 4.42E-02 9.75E-02 4.74E-02
15° 1.72E-01 1.41E+00 1.97E-01 1.78E-01
0.15
30° 3.31E-01 1.62E+00 3.45E-01 3.34E-01
45° 4.68E-01 1.80E+00 4.78E-01 4.71E-01
0° 6.18E-03 4.11E-02 7.60E-02 4.04E-02
15° 2.14E-01 1.47E+00 2.27E-01 2.18E-01
0.20
30° 4.14E-01 1.74E+00 4.21E-01 4.16E-01
45° 5.86E-01 1.98E+00 5.90E-01 5.87E-01
0° 4.09E-03 4.05E-02 6.44E-02 3.65E-02
15° 2.76E-01 1.59E+00 2.84E-01 2.79E-01
0.25
30° 5.34E-01 1.91E+00 5.38E-01 5.35E-01
45° 7.55E-01 2.20E+00 7.58E-01 7.56E-01

Table B-33: Configuration C02 — A comparison of the differences between U(COMB) in


the arch
Geom. GTL
Diff. LL vs. Diff. –ve Diff. +ve
f(A)/s Variable >
DL GTL vs. DL GTL vs. DL
ω LL?
0° 76.17% 89.20% 77.80% YES
15° 87.81% 12.85% 3.44% NO
0.15
30° 79.54% 3.93% 0.96% NO
45° 74.06% 1.94% 0.50% NO
0° 84.98% 91.87% 84.71% YES
15° 85.46% 5.67% 1.70% NO
0.20
30° 76.23% 1.58% 0.47% NO
45° 70.42% 0.76% 0.25% NO
0° 89.89% 93.65% 88.78% YES
15° 82.62% 2.58% 0.85% NO
0.25
30° 72.06% 0.70% 0.24% NO
45° 65.64% 0.33% 0.13% NO

- 351 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

Figure B-13: Configuration C02 — A comparison of the distributions of U(COMB) in


the arch considering the effect of LL50

- 352 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

B.2.16. Configuration C02 — Deck: Combined Shear Force

Table B-34: Configuration C02 — A comparison of SF(COMB) in the deck


Geom. SF(COMB) SF(COMB)
SF(COMB) SF(COMB)
f(A)/s Variable –ve GTL +ve GTL
DL [N] LL50 [N]
ω [N] [N]
0° 2.47E+04 5.68E+04 4.62E+04 3.40E+04
15° 8.91E+04 1.36E+05 1.02E+05 8.78E+04
0.15
30° 1.88E+05 2.51E+05 2.04E+05 1.80E+05
45° 3.28E+05 3.56E+05 3.48E+05 3.16E+05
0° 2.37E+04 5.59E+04 3.63E+04 3.14E+04
15° 8.78E+04 1.32E+05 9.58E+04 8.76E+04
0.20
30° 1.86E+05 2.46E+05 1.95E+05 1.81E+05
45° 3.24E+05 3.48E+05 3.36E+05 3.16E+05
0° 2.41E+04 5.59E+04 3.05E+04 3.02E+04
15° 8.73E+04 1.29E+05 9.22E+04 8.75E+04
0.25
30° 1.84E+05 2.42E+05 1.91E+05 1.81E+05
45° 3.20E+05 3.43E+05 3.28E+05 3.15E+05

Table B-35: Configuration C02 — A comparison of the differences between SF(COMB)


in the deck
Geom. GTL
Diff. Diff. –ve Diff. +ve
f(A)/s Variable >
LL vs. DL GTL vs. DL GTL vs. DL
ω LL?
0° 56.59% 46.57% 27.49% NO
15° 34.42% 13.01% -1.49% NO
0.15
30° 25.19% 7.64% -4.33% NO
45° 7.65% 5.69% -4.06% NO
0° 57.50% 34.63% 24.35% NO
15° 33.51% 8.37% -0.24% NO
0.20
30° 24.51% 4.92% -2.66% NO
45° 6.99% 3.61% -2.50% NO
0° 56.98% 21.17% 20.44% NO
15° 32.52% 5.38% 0.31% NO
0.25
30° 23.97% 3.39% -1.68% NO
45° 6.51% 2.44% -1.64% NO

- 353 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

Figure B-14: Configuration C02 — A comparison of the distributions of SF(COMB) in


the deck considering the effect of LL50

- 354 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

B.2.17. Configuration C02 — Deck: Combined Bending Moment

Table B-36: Configuration C02 — A comparison of SM(COMB) in the deck


Geom. SM(COMB) –ve SM(COMB) +ve
SM(COMB) SM(COMB)
f(A)/s Variable GTL GTL
DL [N*m] LL100 [N*m]
ω [N*m] [N*m]
0° 4.46E+04 2.55E+05 1.86E+05 7.93E+04
15° 1.12E+06 1.54E+06 1.11E+06 1.13E+06
0.15
30° 2.41E+06 2.97E+06 2.38E+06 2.42E+06
45° 4.13E+06 4.17E+06 4.07E+06 4.17E+06
0° 4.30E+04 2.62E+05 1.44E+05 7.13E+04
15° 1.12E+06 1.54E+06 1.11E+06 1.13E+06
0.20
30° 2.41E+06 2.96E+06 2.38E+06 2.42E+06
45° 4.13E+06 4.16E+06 4.08E+06 4.16E+06
0° 4.95E+04 2.73E+05 1.20E+05 6.90E+04
15° 1.12E+06 1.54E+06 1.11E+06 1.12E+06
0.25
30° 2.40E+06 2.95E+06 2.39E+06 2.41E+06
45° 4.12E+06 4.15E+06 4.08E+06 4.14E+06

Table B-37: Configuration C02 — A comparison of the differences in SM(COMB) in the


deck
Geom. GTL
Diff. Diff. –ve Diff. +ve
f(A)/s Variable >
LL vs. DL GTL vs. DL GTL vs. DL
ω LL?
0° 82.47% 76.05% 43.74% NO
15° 27.40% -0.91% 0.60% NO
0.15
30° 18.90% -1.08% 0.71% NO
45° 0.99% -1.45% 0.94% NO
0° 83.58% 70.13% 39.67% NO
15° 27.24% -0.73% 0.48% NO
0.20
30° 18.72% -0.85% 0.56% NO
45° 0.85% -1.14% 0.74% NO
0° 81.86% 58.72% 28.17% NO
15° 27.09% -0.61% 0.40% NO
0.25
30° 18.56% -0.71% 0.47% NO
45° 0.71% -0.94% 0.62% NO

- 355 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

B.2.18. Configuration C02 — Deck: Combined Displacement

Table B-38: Configuration C02 — A comparison of U(COMB) in the deck


Geom. U(COMB) U(COMB)
U(COMB) U(COMB) LL50
f(A)/s Variable –ve GTL +ve GTL
DL [m] [m]
ω [m] [m]
0° 2.49E-02 6.18E-02 1.03E-01 2.71E-02
15° 3.72E-02 7.26E-02 1.13E-01 3.01E-02
0.15
30° 6.91E-02 1.00E-01 1.48E-01 4.37E-02
45° 1.33E-01 1.35E-01 2.26E-01 8.53E-02
0° 2.54E-02 6.43E-02 8.37E-02 1.34E-02
15° 3.78E-02 7.49E-02 9.41E-02 2.17E-02
0.20
30° 7.03E-02 1.02E-01 1.28E-01 4.50E-02
45° 1.35E-01 1.35E-01 2.04E-01 9.66E-02
0° 2.81E-02 6.91E-02 7.45E-02 4.01E-03
15° 4.03E-02 7.98E-02 8.50E-02 2.05E-02
0.25
30° 7.34E-02 1.07E-01 1.20E-01 4.99E-02
45° 1.41E-01 1.39E-01 1.95E-01 1.08E-01

Table B-39: Configuration C02 — A comparison of the differences between U(COMB) in


the deck
Geom. GTL
Diff. LL vs. Diff. –ve Diff. +ve
f(A)/s Variable >
DL GTL vs. DL GTL vs. DL
ω LL?
0° 59.72% 75.81% 8.18% YES
15° 48.84% 67.23% -23.54% YES
0.15
30° 30.98% 53.36% -58.30% YES
45° 1.98% 41.27% -55.49% YES
0° 60.40% 69.61% -89.64% YES
15° 49.58% 59.87% -73.74% YES
0.20
30° 31.13% 45.31% -56.19% YES
45° -0.13% 33.81% -39.82% YES
0° 59.33% 62.24% -601.09% YES
15° 49.49% 52.58% -96.94% YES
0.25
30° 31.34% 38.59% -47.14% YES
45° -1.15% 28.10% -29.98% YES

- 356 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

Figure B-15: Configuration C02 — A comparison of the distributions of U(COMB) in


the deck comparing critical case of LL, +ve and –ve GTL and unloaded state for three
levels of f(A)/s and most sensitive arch inclination, ω = 15°

- 357 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

Figure B-16: Configuration C02 — A comparison of the distribution of U(COMB) in the


deck considering the effect of LL50

- 358 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

B.2.19. Configuration C02 — Cables

Table B-40: Configuration C02 — A comparison of CF in cables


Geom.
CF CF CF CF
f(A)/s Variable
DL [N] LL50 [N] -ve GTL [N] +ve GTL [N]
ω
0° 4.85E+04 7.53E+04 7.85E+04 4.67E+04
15° 5.20E+04 3.52E+05 8.28E+04 4.82E+04
0.15
30° 6.39E+04 4.49E+05 9.72E+04 5.30E+04
45° 9.04E+04 5.18E+05 1.28E+05 6.55E+04
0° 4.61E+04 9.76E+04 6.56E+04 4.65E+04
15° 4.92E+04 1.02E+05 6.92E+04 4.79E+04
0.20
30° 5.98E+04 1.16E+05 8.12E+04 5.28E+04
45° 8.31E+04 1.35E+05 1.07E+05 6.73E+04
0° 4.55E+04 9.31E+04 5.86E+04 4.65E+04
15° 4.76E+04 9.74E+04 6.17E+04 4.79E+04
0.25
30° 5.74E+04 1.09E+05 7.24E+04 5.27E+04
45° 7.86E+04 1.27E+05 9.50E+04 6.77E+04

Table B-41: Configuration C02 — A comparison of the differences between CF in


cables
Geom. GTL
Diff. LL vs. Diff. –ve Diff. +ve
f(A)/s Variable >
DL GTL vs. DL GTL vs. DL
ω LL?
0° 35.61% 38.20% -3.80% YES
15° 85.23% 37.19% -7.87% NO
0.15
30° 85.75% 34.20% -20.57% NO
45° 82.55% 29.21% -37.94% NO
0° 52.80% 29.73% 0.82% NO
15° 52.00% 28.87% -2.66% NO
0.20
30° 48.24% 26.33% -13.41% NO
45° 38.52% 22.16% -23.42% NO
0° 51.05% 22.23% 1.96% NO
15° 51.11% 22.83% 0.55% NO
0.25
30° 47.45% 20.70% -8.94% NO
45° 37.95% 17.24% -16.13% NO

- 359 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

B.2.20. Configuration C03 — Arch: Axial Force

Table B-42: Configuration C03 — A comparison of SF1 in the arch


Geom. SF1 SF1
SF1 SF1
f(A)/s Variable –ve GTL +ve GTL
DL [N] LL100 [N]
θ [N] [N]
0° 9.05E+05 1.33E+06 8.67E+05 9.31E+05
15° 9.02E+05 1.40E+06 8.59E+05 9.31E+05
0.15
30° 9.05E+05 1.70E+06 8.61E+05 9.33E+05
45° 9.05E+05 2.49E+06 8.60E+05 9.34E+05
0° 7.50E+05 1.10E+06 7.35E+05 7.60E+05
15° 7.30E+05 1.12E+06 7.10E+05 7.44E+05
0.20
30° 7.26E+05 1.32E+06 7.04E+05 7.40E+05
45° 7.23E+05 1.89E+06 7.00E+05 7.38E+05
0° 6.67E+05 9.72E+05 6.61E+05 6.71E+05
15° 6.40E+05 9.68E+05 6.30E+05 6.48E+05
0.25
30° 6.31E+05 1.11E+06 6.19E+05 6.39E+05
45° 6.26E+05 1.53E+06 6.13E+05 6.34E+05

Table B-43: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the differences between SF1 in the
arch
Geom. GTL
Diff. Diff. –ve Diff. +ve
f(A)/s Variable >
LL vs. DL GTL vs. DL GTL vs. DL
θ LL?
0° 31.97% -4.45% 2.76% NO
15° 35.52% -5.01% 3.12% NO
0.15
30° 46.64% -5.08% 3.02% NO
45° 63.69% -5.28% 3.03% NO
0° 31.70% -2.08% 1.34% NO
15° 34.68% -2.91% 1.87% NO
0.20
30° 44.91% -3.16% 1.92% NO
45° 61.68% -3.39% 1.95% NO
0° 31.39% -0.94% 0.61% NO
15° 33.83% -1.67% 1.16% NO
0.25
30° 42.98% -2.00% 1.26% NO
45° 58.97% -2.23% 1.29% NO

- 360 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

B.2.21. Configuration C03 — Arch: Combined Shear Force

Table B-44: Configuration C03 — A comparison of SF(COMB) in the arch


Geom. SF(COMB) SF(COMB)
SF(COMB) SF(COMB)
f(A)/s Variable –ve GTL +ve GTL
DL [N] LL100 [N]
θ [N] [N]
0° 2.67E+04 4.26E+04 7.25E+04 4.27E+04
15° 1.01E+05 1.71E+05 8.99E+04 1.12E+05
0.15
30° 1.22E+05 2.13E+05 1.06E+05 1.35E+05
45° 1.29E+05 2.29E+05 1.12E+05 1.42E+05
0° 2.28E+04 3.76E+04 5.17E+04 3.09E+04
15° 8.39E+04 1.44E+05 7.79E+04 9.18E+04
0.20
30° 1.03E+05 1.87E+05 9.37E+04 1.11E+05
45° 1.11E+05 2.12E+05 1.00E+05 1.19E+05
0° 2.31E+04 3.79E+04 3.98E+04 2.46E+04
15° 6.98E+04 1.23E+05 6.69E+04 7.51E+04
0.25
30° 8.70E+04 1.64E+05 8.12E+04 9.25E+04
45° 9.40E+04 1.93E+05 8.77E+04 9.97E+04

Table B-45: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the differences between SF(COMB)


in the arch
Geom. GTL
Diff. Diff. –ve Diff. +ve
f(A)/s Variable >
LL vs. DL GTL vs. DL GTL vs. DL
θ LL?
0° 37.24% 63.14% 37.41% YES
15° 40.74% -12.68% 9.78% NO
0.15
30° 42.88% -14.69% 9.66% NO
45° 43.71% -14.79% 9.32% NO
0° 39.43% 55.90% 26.25% YES
15° 41.87% -7.65% 8.64% NO
0.20
30° 45.03% -9.80% 7.47% NO
45° 47.94% -9.99% 7.13% NO
0° 39.16% 42.12% 6.22% YES
15° 43.12% -4.32% 7.06% NO
0.25
30° 46.87% -7.18% 5.93% NO
45° 51.20% -7.27% 5.73% NO

- 361 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

Figure B-17: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the distributions of SF(COMB) in


the arch comparing critical case of LL, +ve and –ve GTL and unloaded state for three
levels of f(A)/s and most sensitive angle of arch inclination, θ = 15°

- 362 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

Figure B-18: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the distributions of SF(COMB) in


the arch considering the effect of LL100

- 363 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

B.2.22. Configuration C03 — Arch: Combined Bending Moment

Table B-46: Configuration C03 — A comparison of SM(COMB) in the arch


Geom. SM(COMB) –ve SM(COMB) +ve
SM(COMB) SM(COMB)
f(A)/s Variable GTL GTL
DL [N*m] LL100 [N*m]
θ [N*m] [N*m]
0° 5.01E+04 7.47E+04 4.39E+05 2.17E+05
15° 7.01E+05 1.17E+06 6.98E+05 7.70E+05
0.15
30° 8.29E+05 1.42E+06 7.41E+05 9.52E+05
45° 8.65E+05 1.45E+06 7.48E+05 1.00E+06
0° 3.73E+04 5.45E+04 3.02E+05 1.54E+05
15° 6.30E+05 1.06E+06 6.38E+05 6.86E+05
0.20
30° 7.74E+05 1.34E+06 7.29E+05 8.52E+05
45° 8.26E+05 1.43E+06 7.61E+05 9.12E+05
0° 3.29E+04 4.65E+04 2.27E+05 1.10E+05
15° 5.72E+05 9.70E+05 5.87E+05 6.10E+05
0.25
30° 7.24E+05 1.25E+06 6.97E+05 7.73E+05
45° 7.80E+05 1.35E+06 7.43E+05 8.39E+05

Table B-47: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the differences between SM(COMB)


in the arch
Geom. GTL
Diff. LL vs. Diff. –ve Diff. +ve
f(A)/s Variable >
DL GTL vs. DL GTL vs. DL
θ LL?
0° 32.98% 88.60% 76.87% YES
15° 40.27% -0.39% 8.98% NO
0.15
30° 41.61% -11.87% 12.97% NO
45° 40.46% -15.54% 13.57% NO
0° 31.53% 87.65% 75.72% YES
15° 40.57% 1.25% 8.20% NO
0.20
30° 42.23% -6.20% 9.23% NO
45° 42.14% -8.54% 9.50% NO
0° 29.20% 85.51% 69.92% YES
15° 41.04% 2.60% 6.17% NO
0.25
30° 42.17% -3.78% 6.33% NO
45° 42.43% -5.02% 7.09% NO

- 364 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

B.2.23. Configuration C02 — Arch: Torsional Moment

Table B-48: Configuration C03 — A comparison of SM3 in the arch


Geom. SM3 SM3
SM3 SM3
f(A)/s Variable –ve GTL +ve GTL
DL [N] LL100 [N]
θ [N] [N]
0° 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
15° 6.04E+04 9.36E+04 6.28E+04 5.86E+04
0.15
30° 7.87E+04 1.01E+05 8.10E+04 7.73E+04
45° 8.29E+04 7.31E+04 8.51E+04 8.15E+04
0° 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
15° 6.57E+04 1.02E+05 6.78E+04 6.44E+04
0.20
30° 9.20E+04 1.18E+05 9.43E+04 9.08E+04
45° 1.02E+05 8.97E+04 1.04E+05 1.00E+05
0° 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
15° 6.83E+04 1.06E+05 7.01E+04 6.73E+04
0.25
30° 1.00E+05 1.28E+05 1.02E+05 9.90E+04
45° 1.14E+05 1.01E+05 1.16E+05 1.13E+05

Table B-49: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the differences between SM3 in


the arch
Geom. GTL
Diff. Diff. –ve Diff. +ve
f(A)/s Variable >
LL vs. DL GTL vs. DL GTL vs. DL
θ LL?
0° N/A N/A N/A N/A
15° 35.49% 3.91% -3.02% NO
0.15
30° 21.80% 2.89% -1.80% NO
45° -13.36% 2.63% -1.65% YES
0° N/A N/A N/A N/A
15° 35.37% 3.12% -2.00% NO
0.20
30° 21.72% 2.45% -1.37% NO
45° -13.31% 2.18% -1.29% YES
0° N/A N/A N/A N/A
15° 35.44% 2.55% -1.51% NO
0.25
30° 21.90% 1.98% -1.22% NO
45° -12.78% 1.79% -1.01% YES

- 365 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

B.2.24. Configuration C03 — Arch: Combined Displacement

Table B-50: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the U(COMB) in the arch


Geom. U(COMB) U(COMB)
U(COMB) U(COMB)
f(A)/s Variable –ve GTL +ve GTL
DL [m] LL100 [m]
θ [m] [m]
0° 1.05E-02 1.57E-02 9.75E-02 4.74E-02
15° 7.58E-02 1.24E-01 1.18E-01 7.94E-02
0.15
30° 7.82E-02 1.29E-01 1.39E-01 8.41E-02
45° 6.38E-02 1.47E-01 1.52E-01 7.14E-02
0° 6.18E-03 9.50E-03 7.60E-02 4.04E-02
15° 7.36E-02 1.18E-01 9.94E-02 7.61E-02
0.20
30° 8.11E-02 1.26E-01 1.12E-01 8.41E-02
45° 6.58E-02 1.07E-01 1.21E-01 7.09E-02
0° 4.09E-03 6.41E-03 6.44E-02 3.65E-02
15° 7.46E-02 1.18E-01 9.34E-02 7.61E-02
0.25
30° 8.56E-02 1.25E-01 1.06E-01 8.65E-02
45° 7.08E-02 9.96E-02 1.04E-01 7.33E-02

Table B-51: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the differences between U(COMB) in


the arch
Geom. GTL
Diff. LL vs. Diff. –ve Diff. +ve
f(A)/s Variable >
DL GTL vs. DL GTL vs. DL
f(D)/s LL?
0° 33.08% 89.20% 77.80% YES
15° 38.89% 35.86% 4.50% NO
0.15
30° 39.38% 43.87% 7.09% YES
45° 56.52% 58.09% 10.67% YES
0° 34.94% 91.87% 84.71% YES
15° 37.65% 25.97% 3.28% NO
0.20
30° 35.57% 27.55% 3.67% NO
45° 38.30% 45.74% 7.20% YES
0° 36.16% 93.65% 88.78% YES
15° 36.60% 20.16% 1.98% NO
0.25
30° 31.52% 19.46% 1.08% NO
45° 28.94% 31.87% 3.42% YES

- 366 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

Figure B-19: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the distributions of U2 in the


arch comparing critical case of LL, +ve and –ve GTL and unloaded state for three
levels of f(A)/s and most sensitive angle of arch rotation, θ = 45°

- 367 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

Figure B-20: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the distributions of U3 in the


arch comparing critical case of LL, +ve and –ve GTL and unloaded state for three
levels of f(A)/s and most sensitive angle of arch rotation, θ = 45°

- 368 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

Figure B-21: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the distributions of U2 in the


arch considering the effect of LL100

- 369 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

Figure B-22: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the distributions of U3 in the


arch considering the effect of LL100

- 370 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

B.2.25. Configuration C03 — Deck: Combined Shear Force

Table B-52: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the SF(COMB) in the deck


Geom. SF(COMB) SF(COMB)
SF(COMB) SF(COMB)
f(A)/s Variable –ve GTL +ve GTL
DL [N] LL50 [N]
θ [N] [N]
0° 2.47E+04 4.08E+04 4.62E+04 3.40E+04
15° 1.03E+05 1.71E+05 1.10E+05 1.00E+05
0.15
30° 1.18E+05 2.02E+05 1.25E+05 1.16E+05
45° 1.24E+05 2.17E+05 1.32E+05 1.22E+05
0° 2.37E+04 3.90E+04 3.63E+04 3.14E+04
15° 9.40E+04 1.56E+05 9.89E+04 9.26E+04
0.20
30° 1.12E+05 1.90E+05 1.17E+05 1.10E+05
45° 1.20E+05 2.06E+05 1.25E+05 1.18E+05
0° 2.41E+04 3.94E+04 3.05E+04 3.02E+04
15° 8.75E+04 1.45E+05 9.08E+04 8.68E+04
0.25
30° 1.07E+05 1.78E+05 1.10E+05 1.06E+05
45° 1.15E+05 1.95E+05 1.20E+05 1.14E+05

Table B-53: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the differences between SF(COMB)


in the deck
Geom. GTL
Diff. Diff. –ve Diff. +ve
f(A)/s Variable >
LL vs. DL GTL vs. DL GTL vs. DL
θ LL?
0° 39.56% 46.57% 27.49% YES
15° 39.99% 6.32% -2.61% NO
0.15
30° 41.44% 5.22% -2.07% NO
45° 42.75% 5.46% -2.08% NO
0° 39.11% 34.63% 24.35% NO
15° 39.83% 4.91% -1.52% NO
0.20
30° 40.93% 4.26% -1.48% NO
45° 41.98% 4.48% -1.50% NO
0° 38.90% 21.17% 20.44% NO
15° 39.47% 3.58% -0.85% NO
0.25
30° 39.91% 3.09% -1.27% NO
45° 40.76% 3.53% -1.13% NO

- 371 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

Figure B-23: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the distributions of SF(COMB) in


the deck considering the effect of LL100

- 372 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

B.2.26. Configuration C03 — Deck: Combined Bending Moment

Table B-54: Configuration C03 — A comparison of SM(COMB) in the deck


Geom. SM(COMB) SM(COMB) +ve
SM(COMB) SM(COMB)
f(A)/s Variable –ve GTL GTL
DL [N*m] LL100 [N*m]
θ [N*m] [N*m]
0° 4.46E+04 7.29E+04 1.86E+05 7.93E+04
15° 5.60E+05 9.66E+05 6.37E+05 5.21E+05
0.15
30° 6.24E+05 1.12E+06 6.55E+05 6.06E+05
45° 7.28E+05 1.19E+06 7.70E+05 7.07E+05
0° 4.30E+04 6.92E+04 1.44E+05 7.13E+04
15° 4.89E+05 8.47E+05 5.48E+05 4.63E+05
0.20
30° 5.52E+05 1.06E+06 5.99E+05 5.41E+05
45° 6.64E+05 1.19E+06 6.86E+05 6.50E+05
0° 4.95E+04 7.70E+04 1.20E+05 6.90E+04
15° 4.24E+05 7.42E+05 4.72E+05 4.08E+05
0.25
30° 5.05E+05 9.80E+05 5.41E+05 5.03E+05
45° 6.19E+05 1.13E+06 6.34E+05 6.09E+05

Table B-55: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the differences in SM(COMB) in the


deck
Geom. GTL
Diff. LL vs. Diff. –ve Diff. +ve
f(A)/s Variable >
DL GTL vs. DL GTL vs. DL
θ LL?
0° 38.79% 76.05% 43.74% YES
15° 42.03% 12.13% -7.59% NO
0.15
30° 44.36% 4.81% -2.96% NO
45° 38.98% 5.56% -2.95% NO
0° 37.85% 70.13% 39.67% YES
15° 42.33% 10.80% -5.50% NO
0.20
30° 48.08% 7.75% -2.16% NO
45° 44.03% 3.25% -2.13% NO
0° 35.68% 58.72% 28.17% YES
15° 42.81% 10.06% -4.14% NO
0.25
30° 48.47% 6.66% -0.35% NO
45° 45.15% 2.29% -1.66% NO

- 373 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

B.2.27. Configuration C03 — Deck: Combined Displacement

Table B-56: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the U(COMB) in the deck


Geom. U(COMB) U(COMB)
U(COMB) U(COMB)
f(A)/s Variable –ve GTL +ve GTL
DL [m] LL100 [m]
θ [m] [m]
0° 2.49E-02 3.96E-02 1.03E-01 2.71E-02
15° 6.46E-02 1.07E-01 1.25E-01 3.79E-02
0.15
30° 1.13E-01 1.84E-01 1.68E-01 8.16E-02
45° 1.43E-01 2.50E-01 1.99E-01 1.10E-01
0° 2.54E-02 4.14E-02 8.37E-02 1.34E-02
15° 5.47E-02 8.91E-02 1.00E-01 3.44E-02
0.20
30° 9.70E-02 1.51E-01 1.37E-01 7.40E-02
45° 1.26E-01 1.99E-01 1.67E-01 1.02E-01
0° 2.81E-02 4.64E-02 7.45E-02 4.01E-03
15° 5.11E-02 8.27E-02 8.84E-02 3.43E-02
0.25
30° 8.91E-02 1.33E-01 1.21E-01 7.07E-02
45° 1.16E-01 1.70E-01 1.49E-01 9.72E-02

Table B-57: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the differences between U(COMB) in


the deck
Geom. GTL
Diff. LL vs. Diff. –ve Diff. +ve
f(A)/s Variable >
DL GTL vs. DL GTL vs. DL
θ LL?
0° 37.13% 75.81% 8.18% YES
15° 39.41% 48.39% -70.49% YES
0.15
30° 38.78% 32.94% -38.16% NO
45° 43.00% 28.37% -30.13% NO
0° 38.60% 69.61% -89.64% YES
15° 38.63% 45.58% -58.85% YES
0.20
30° 35.59% 29.41% -31.01% NO
45° 36.76% 24.61% -23.89% NO
0° 39.47% 62.24% -601.09% YES
15° 38.23% 42.21% -49.12% YES
0.25
30° 33.13% 26.41% -26.04% NO
45° 31.43% 21.68% -19.82% NO

- 374 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

Figure B-24: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the distributions of U(COMB) in


the deck comparing critical case of LL, +ve and –ve GTL and unloaded state for three
levels of f(A)/s and most sensitive angle of arch rotation, θ = 15°

- 375 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

Figure B-25: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the distributions of U2 of the


deck comparing critical case of LL, +ve and –ve GTL and unloaded state taking into
account the most sensitive configuration: f(A)/s = 0.15 and θ = 15°

- 376 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

Figure B-26: Configuration C03 — A comparison of the distributions of U2 in the


deck considering the effect of LL100

- 377 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

B.2.28. Configuration C03 — Cables

Table B-58: Configuration C03 — A comparison of CF in cables


Geom.
CF CF CF CF
f(A)/s Variable
DL [N] LL100 [N] -ve GTL [N] +ve GTL [N]
θ
0° 4.85E+04 8.00E+04 7.85E+04 4.67E+04
15° 5.82E+04 9.49E+04 5.59E+04 5.98E+04
0.15
30° 7.27E+04 1.19E+05 7.05E+04 7.44E+04
45° 9.32E+04 1.49E+05 9.11E+04 9.48E+04
0° 4.61E+04 7.64E+04 6.56E+04 4.65E+04
15° 5.48E+04 8.96E+04 5.32E+04 5.61E+04
0.20
30° 6.53E+04 1.05E+05 6.37E+04 6.65E+04
45° 7.96E+04 1.25E+05 7.82E+04 8.07E+04
0° 4.55E+04 7.53E+04 5.86E+04 4.65E+04
15° 5.29E+04 8.66E+04 5.16E+04 5.39E+04
0.25
30° 6.16E+04 9.78E+04 6.03E+04 6.24E+04
45° 7.24E+04 1.12E+05 7.14E+04 7.32E+04

Table B-59: Configuration C03 — Comparison of differences in CF in cables


Geom. GTL
Diff. LL vs. Diff. –ve Diff. +ve
f(A)/s Variable >
DL GTL vs. DL GTL vs. DL
θ LL?
0° 39.37% 38.20% -3.80% NO
15° 38.64% -4.12% 2.65% NO
0.15
30° 39.09% -3.19% 2.22% NO
45° 37.44% -2.35% 1.72% NO
0° 39.67% 29.73% 0.82% NO
15° 38.80% -2.97% 2.20% NO
0.20
30° 37.90% -2.53% 1.87% NO
45° 36.31% -1.75% 1.40% NO
0° 39.55% 22.23% 1.96% NO
15° 38.90% -2.44% 1.82% NO
0.25
30° 37.09% -2.04% 1.42% NO
45° 35.25% -1.32% 1.14% NO

- 378 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

B.3. Summary Tables of the Structural Response

B.3.1. Configuration C01

Side Elevation Front Elevation

Plan-View

Figure B-27: Configuration C01— A graphical representation of the spatial out-of-


plane displacement of the arch and deck considering the most sensitive configuration
(f(A)/s = 0.15, f(D)/s = 0.25). Scale factor 1.0

- 379 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

Table B-60: Configuration C01 — The significance of GTL and LL identifying the
importance of primary and secondary variable

Type of Load

increase [%]

Increase due
GTL > LL?
Component

Maximum

significant
secondary

Variable
Effect of

Effect of
primary
variable

variable
Output

More
to
GTL 3.07% +ve GTL 48.61% 3.03% f(A)/s
SF1 N
LL100 31.57% N/A 2.16% 2.08% f(A)/s
GTL 3.42% -ve GTL 1.17% 43.20% f(D)/s
SF(COMB) N
LL100 39.88% N/A 0.08% 0.03% f(A)/s
GTL 1.13% -ve GTL 19.47% 49.56% f(D)/s
Arch

SM(COMB) N
LL100 39.87% N/A 0.05% 0.03% f(A)/s
GTL 2.04% +ve GTL 0.05% -3.80% f(A)/s
SM3 N
LL100 39.79% N/A 0.05% 0.00% f(A)/s
GTL 2.13% +ve GTL 26.29% 17.37% f(A)/s
U(COMB) N
LL100 39.82% N/A 0.03% 0.01% f(A)/s
GTL 1.29% -ve GTL 3.88% 48.84% f(D)/s
SF1 N
LL100 39.91% N/A 0.03% 0.04% f(D)/s
GTL 1.72% -ve GTL 6.98% 52.50% f(D)/s
SF(COMB) N
LL100 39.95% N/A 0.05% 0.06% f(D)/s
Deck

GTL 0.45% +ve GTL 20.00% 11.11% f(A)/s


SM(COMB) N
LL100 39.87% N/A 0.03% 0.04% f(D)/s
GTL 4.57% -ve GTL 7.44% 43.74% f(D)/s
U(COMB) N
LL100 39.90% N/A 0.01% 0.08% f(D)/s
GTL 3.71% -ve GTL 4.04% 43.82% f(D)/s
Cables

SF1 N
LL100 39.92% N/A 0.01% 0.05% f(D)/s

- 380 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

Table B-61: Configuration C01 — The trend of sensitivity of the structure to GTL
and LL

Least
Component
Most Sensitive

Type of
Sensitive
Output

Load
Configuration Trend
Configuration
f(A)/s f(D)/s f(A)/s f(D)/s
Inversely proportional to
GTL 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.15 f(A)/s and directly
proportional to f(D)/s
SF1
Directly proportional to
LL100 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.25 f(A)/s and inversely
proportional to f(D)/s
Directly proportional to
GTL 0.2 0.15 0.15 0.25 f(A)/s and inversely
proportional to f(D)/s
SF(COMB)
Inversely proportional to
LL100 0.15 0.15 0.25 0.15 f(A)/s and directly
proportional to f(D)/s
Arch

Inversely proportional to
GTL 0.15 0.15 0.25 0.25
both the f(A)/s and f(D)/s
SM(COMB)
Inversely proportional to
LL100 0.15 0.15 0.25 0.25
both the f(A)/s and f(D)/s
Directly Proportional to
GTL 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.15
both the f(A)/s and to f(D)/s
SM3
Directly Proportional to
LL100 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.15
both the f(A)/s and to f(D)/s
Inversely proportional to
GTL 0.15 0.15 0.25 0.25
both the f(A)/s and f(D)/s
U(COMB) Inversely proportional to
LL100 0.15 0.15 0.25 0.15 f(A)/s and directly
proportional to f(D)/s

Inversely proportional to
GTL 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.25 f(A)/s and directly
proportional to f(D)/s
Deck

SF1
Directly proportional to
LL100 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.25 f(A)/s and inversely
proportional to f(D)/s

- 381 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

Least

Component
Most Sensitive
Sensitive

Type of
Output

Load
Configuration Trend
Configuration
f(A)/s f(D)/s f(A)/s f(D)/s
Directly proportional to
GTL 0.2 0.15 0.15 0.25 f(A)/s and inversely
proportional to f(D)/s
SF(COMB)
Directly proportional to
LL100 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.25 f(A)/s and inversely
proportional to f(D)/s
Inversely proportional to
GTL 0.15 0.15 0.25 0.25
both the f(A)/s and f(D)/s
SM(COMB)
Inversely proportional to
LL100 0.15 0.15 0.25 0.25
both the f(A)/s and f(D)/s
Directly proportional to
GTL 0.2 0.15 0.15 0.25 f(A)/s and inversely
U(COMB) proportional to f(D)/s
Inversely proportional to
LL100 0.2 0.15 0.25 0.25
both the f(A)/s and f(D)/s
Directly proportional to
GTL 0.2 0.15 0.15 0.25 f(A)/s and inversely
proportional to f(D)/s
Cables

SF1
Inversely proportional to
LL100 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.15 f(A)/s and directly
proportional to f(D)/s

- 382 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

Table B-62: Configuration C01 — The trend of structural response showing the
maximum magnitude under GTL and LL

Configuration Configuration
Component

Type of
with largest with smallest
Output

Load
magnitude magnitude Trend

f(A)/s f(D)/s f(A)/s f(D)/s


Inversely proportional to
GTL 0.15 0.15 0.25 0.25
both the f(A)/s and f(D)/s
SF1
Inversely proportional to
LL100 0.15 0.15 0.25 0.25
both the f(A)/s and f(D)/s
Inversely proportional to
GTL 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.15 f(A)/s and directly
proportional to f(D)/s
SF(COMB)
Inversely proportional to
LL100 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.15 f(A)/s and directly
proportional to f(D)/s
Inversely proportional to
GTL 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.15 f(A)/s and directly
Arch

proportional to f(D)/s
SM(COMB)
Inversely proportional to
LL100 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.15 f(A)/s and directly
proportional to f(D)/s
Directly proportional to
GTL 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.15
both the f(A)/s and to f(D)/s
SM3
Directly proportional to
LL100 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.15
both the f(A)/s and to f(D)/s
Directly Proportional to
GTL 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.15
both the f(A)/s and to f(D)/s
U(COMB)
Directly Proportional to
LL100 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.15
both the f(A)/s and to f(D)/s
Inversely proportional to
GTL 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.15 f(A)/s and directly
proportional to f(D)/s
Deck

SF1
Inversely proportional to
LL100 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.15 f(A)/s and directly
proportional to f(D)/s

- 383 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

Configuration Configuration

Component
with largest with smallest

Type of
Output

Load
magnitude magnitude Trend

f(A)/s f(D)/s f(A)/s f(D)/s


Inversely proportional to
GTL 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.15 f(A)/s and directly
proportional to f(D)/s
SF(COMB)
Inversely proportional to
LL100 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.15 f(A)/s and directly
proportional to f(D)/s
Inversely proportional to
GTL 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.15 f(A)/s and directly
proportional to f(D)/s
SM(COMB)
Inversely proportional to
LL100 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.15 f(A)/s and directly
proportional to f(D)/s
Inversely proportional to
GTL 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.15 f(A)/s and directly
proportional to f(D)/s
U(COMB)
Inversely proportional to
LL100 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.15 f(A)/s and directly
proportional to f(D)/s
Inversely proportional to
GTL 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.15 f(A)/s and directly
proportional to f(D)/s
Cables

SF1
Inversely proportional to
LL100 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.15 f(A)/s and directly
proportional to f(D)/s

- 384 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

B.3.2. Configuration C02

Side Elevation Front Elevation

Plan-View

Figure B-28: Configuration C02— A graphical representation of the spatial out-of-


plane displacement of the arch and deck considering the most sensitive configuration
(f(A)/s = 0.25, ω = 45°). Scale factor = 5

- 385 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

Table B-63: Configuration C02 — The significance of GTL and LL identifying the
importance of primary and secondary variable

Type of Load

increase [%]

Increase due
GTL > LL?
Component

Maximum

significant
secondary

Variable
Effect of

Effect of
primary
variable

variable
Output

More
to
GTL 2.83% +ve GTL 51.62% 0.36% f(A)/s
SF1 N
LL50 24.32% N/A 3.44% 4.85% ω
GTL 48.09% -ve GTL 25.20% 30.88% ω
SF(COMB) N
LL50 59.14% N/A 5.83% 26.83% ω
GTL 24.80% -ve GTL 51.49% 58.06% ω
Arch

SM(COMB) N
LL50 25.98% N/A 28.33% 86.61% ω
GTL 0.02% -ve GTL 40.17% 5.40% f(A)/s
SM3 N
LL50 -41.92% N/A -0.07% -168.8% ω
GTL 12.85% -ve GTL 55.88% 69.42% ω
U(COMB) N
LL50 87.81% N/A 2.68% 9.42% ω
GTL 13.01% -ve GTL 35.66% 41.28% ω
SF(COMB) N
LL50 34.42% N/A 2.64% 26.82% ω
GTL 0.94% +ve GTL 20.00% 15.49% f(A)/s
Deck

SM(COMB) Y
LL50 27.40% N/A 0.58% 31.02% ω
GTL 67.23% -ve GTL 10.95% 20.63% ω
U(COMB) Y
LL50 49.58% N/A 1.49% 36.57% ω
GTL 37.19% -ve GTL 22.37% 8.04% f(A)/s
Cables

SF1 N
LL50 85.75% N/A 38.99% 0.61% f+/s

- 386 -
Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

Table B-64: Configuration C02 — The trend of sensitivity of the structure to GTL
and LL

Least
Component
Most Sensitive

Type of
Sensitive
Output

Load
Configuration Trend
Configuration
f(A)/s ω [°] f(A)/s