0 views

Uploaded by Paul Ciprian Tegla

- 1-s2.0-S0263823198000469-main
- Stability Analysis of Single and Double Steel Girders During Cons
- 1-s2.0-S0263822313006594-main
- ansys
- Williams 2007
- 5310_2001_Hull
- 1-s2.0-S0143974X14000066-main
- Finite Element Modeling Strategies for Sandwich Composite Laminates Under
- 02012000 2[1]
- Buckling Analysis of Anisogrid Composite Lattice Conical Shells
- CE304 Stability
- Laterally supported aluminum flexural members with symmetric cross sections
- 9)6.5 Distillation ColumnXsxCSXCSSA
- New Design Method for Cold-Formed Purlins
- SFD-OlderCodes
- Girder Twist
- SN001a (NCCI - Critical Axial Load for Torsional and Flexural Torsional Buckling Modes)
- column1.pdf
- ASD 89 The sheet is designed for calculating the Unity Ratio of a member subjecting to Moment and Axial load.
- Establishing a New Simple Formula for Buckling Length Factor K of Rigid Frames Columns

You are on page 1of 495

by

Martin Hudecek

A THESIS

CALGARY, ALBERTA

MAY, 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.

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

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

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

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

....................................................................................................................................... - 154 -

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

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

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 -

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 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-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 -

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

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

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 -

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 -

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-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 -

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

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

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-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 -

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

xv

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

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

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 -

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

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-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 -

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

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

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 -

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-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 2-2: 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 -

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

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

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

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

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

......................................................................................................................................... - 89 -

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

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

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 -

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 -

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 -

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 -

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 -

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 -

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 -

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 -

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

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 -

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 -

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 -

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-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 -

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 -

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 -

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 -

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

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

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 -

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 -

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

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 -

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 -

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

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

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

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 -

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

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 -

displacement of the arch and deck considering the most sensitive configuration (f(A)/s =

0.25, ω = 45°). Scale factor = 5 ..................................................................................... - 385 -

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

Leonardo da Vinci

xli

Chapter One: Introduction and Motivation

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

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.

• 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;

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.

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.

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

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

CHAPTER FOUR

Input for Chapter Four

Geometric variables:

Arch rise

Inclination of the arch

Rotation of the arch

Deck reach

Critical configurations

CHAPTER FIVE

Mechanical variables:

Bending stiffness of the arch

Bending stiffness of the deck

Boundary conditions of the deck

Critical configurations

CHAPTER SIX

Materials variables:

Advanced Composite Materials

Creep

Coefficient of thermal expansion

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

-8-

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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)

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).

2.4.1 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

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.

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.

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)

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

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)

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)

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).

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

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)

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.

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.

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

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).

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

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.

2.5.1 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

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.

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

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.

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

2.6.1 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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

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

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

addressed via sophisticated analyses and appropriate design decisions.

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).

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.

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.

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).

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.

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).

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

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)

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

o No specific surface preparation is necessary

o Easy to inspect

o Disassembly is possible

o Quasi-ductile behaviour

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).

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.

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.

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).

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).

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).

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

displacements and small strains

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

at Midspan

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

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.

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

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.

• Superstructure geometry

• Cross-sectional parameters and material properties definition

• Load definition

• Boundary condition definition

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

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.

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

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

• 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

• 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

• 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.

Equation 3-8

𝑌𝑌𝑖𝑖(𝐶𝐶) = 𝑌𝑌𝑖𝑖(𝐷𝐷) + �𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖(𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼) − 1� ∗ � �

𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖(𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁) − 1

Equation 3-9

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.

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

material properties of a steel arch

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.

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

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>

**

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>

**

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

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

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

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.

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

4.1 Introduction

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

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Table 4-2.

- 90 -

Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

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)

variables and a 3D perspective view

- 92 -

Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

f(A)

f(A)

variables and a 3D perspective view

- 93 -

Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

f(A)

variables and a 3D perspective view

- 94 -

Chapter Four: Significance of Geometry

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.

Parameter Arch Deck Cables

Shape

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

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.

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.

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.

Equation 4-1

Equation 4-2

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

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

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)

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

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

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

• 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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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

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)

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

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.

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.

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°)

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

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°

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

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.

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

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°

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

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.

comparing the critical cases of LL50, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded state for

f(A)/s = 0.15, ω = 45°

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

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.

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.

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.

the deck comparing the critical cases of LL50, +ve and –ve GTL, and the unloaded

state for f(A)/s = 0.15, ω = 45°

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

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.

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°)

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.

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°

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°

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

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).

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

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

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°)

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).

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°)

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).

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

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 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

α2(TRAN)

U3(D)1 U3(D)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

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.

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

• 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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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]

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

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.

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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

arch for LL100 and the 16 combinations of arch and deck stiffness. Deck BC type:

BC#01

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

arch for LL100 and the 16 combinations of arch and deck stiffness. Deck BC type:

BC#02

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

arch for LL100 and the 16 combinations of arch and deck stiffness. Deck BC type:

BC#03

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

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

arch for LL100 and the 16 combinations of arch and deck stiffness. Deck BC type:

BC#01

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

arch for LL100 and the 16 combinations of arch and deck stiffness. Deck BC type:

BC#04

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

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

arch for LL100 and the 16 combinations of arch and deck stiffness. Deck BC type:

BC#01

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

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

5.4.2. 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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

6.1 Introduction

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

displacements and stresses in the arch, deck, and cables 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).

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

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.

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°

H: Deck Height

W: Deck Width

s: Span

ff(D)

(D);: Deck

Deck reach

Reach

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

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.

(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.

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.

I(GFRP) > I(STEEL)

EI(GFRP) = EI(STEEL)

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.

(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: TOP

SP#01: BOTTOM

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.

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

particular parameters affected by the creep, such as the effect of E, EI, or weight per unit

length (WPUL), which are discussed below.

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

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

“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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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)]

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)

(Larger than in DSR = 1:3)

2) Smaller

Vertical Displacement

1) Smaller

Horizontal Displacement

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)

(Smaller than in DSR = 15:1)

2) Larger

Vertical Displacement

1) Larger

Horizontal Displacement

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

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.

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

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 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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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 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.

• 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).

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.

• 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.

• 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.

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

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.

• Rotation allowed about the vertical axis at the deck ends increases the susceptibility of

the arch to buckling and, therefore, it should be avoided.

• 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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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>rack=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

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

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

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

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.

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.

In the FE models, two types of hanger are employed. The sections below specify

hanger for the linear and nonlinear 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.

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

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 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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

-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%

Figure A-11: A comparison of the deformed shapes of the cables using the parabola

and catenary equations

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

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

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

- 290 -

Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

+/-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.

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

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%

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

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.

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

modeled using B32, exposed to three levels of thermal load

- 294 -

Appendix A: Details to Chapter Three

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)

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

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

Parameter Arch Deck Cables

Shape

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.

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

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

*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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

arch considering the effect of LL100

- 328 -

Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

arch considering the effect of LL

- 333 -

Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

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

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

deck considering the effect of LL100

- 336 -

Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

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

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

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

deck considering the effect of LL100

- 339 -

Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

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

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

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

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

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

the deck considering the effect of LL100

- 343 -

Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

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

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

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

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

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

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

the effect of LL50

- 348 -

Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

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

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

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

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

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

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

the arch considering the effect of LL50

- 352 -

Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

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

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

the deck considering the effect of LL50

- 354 -

Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

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

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

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

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

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

deck considering the effect of LL50

- 358 -

Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

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

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

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

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

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

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

the arch considering the effect of LL100

- 363 -

Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

arch considering the effect of LL100

- 369 -

Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

arch considering the effect of LL100

- 370 -

Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

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

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

the deck considering the effect of LL100

- 372 -

Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

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

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

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

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

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

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

deck considering the effect of LL100

- 377 -

Appendix B: Details to Chapter Four

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

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

Plan-View

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

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

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

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

Plan-View

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