Cable Stressing Sequence of an Asymmetrical Cable Stayed Bridge

John R B Anderson PrEng BEng (Hons) MSc MSAICE

SMEC South Africa (Pty) Ltd, Cape Town, South Africa

ABSTRACT: This paper describes the cable stressing sequence for an asymmetrically rock anchored cable
stayed pedestrian bridge at Tshelimnyama. The bridge crosses the N3 highway near Durban and was built for
the South African National Roads Agency SOC Ltd (SANRAL). During the construction period various
stressing sequences were analyzed with the aim of limiting the erection engineering effort and the construc-
tion risks. The final solution was found after a number of iterations and used the structures’ self-weight to
partially stress the most critical cables. Importantly this limited the forces on the temporary support cables
and reduced the jacking forces needed to stress the permanent cables.

1 INTRODUCTION manent cables resulting in an overall cost saving to

1.1 Introduction
This paper describes the cable stressing sequence for
an asymmetrically rock anchored cable stayed pe-
destrian bridge at Tshelimnyama on the N3 near
Durban built for the South African National Roads
Agency SOC Ltd (SANRAL). During construction
various stressing sequences were analyzed with the
aim of limiting the erection engineering effort and
risks. After a number of iterations the final solution
used the structure’s self-weight to partially stress the
most critical cables. Importantly this limited the
forces on the temporary support cables and reduced
the required jacking forces needed to stress the per-
the client.
1.2 The bridge
The bridge is a two span structure with a total length
of 89.75 m, a main span length of 55.75 m and a
back span length of 34.0 m. The 3.2 m wide deck is
constructed from reinforced and prestressed concrete
and is supported by 10 sets of stay cables. A 32 m
long inclined, twin legged structural steel tower that
is pinned at its base supports the cables by means of
spade and fork connections.

Figure 1. Bridge elevation and cable annotation.

 Because the tower leans, the structural systems
needs lateral restraint. The end of the bridge deck is
therefore integral with the southern abutment which
is anchored into the rock with twelve rock anchors.
The first pair of cables (C1) on the bridge connects
the tower to the rock anchored abutment. This con-
nection to a rigid point provides much of the stiff-
ness in the structural system and limits the deflection
of the deck due to asymmetrical dead and live loads.
As a result the C1 cable carries far higher loads than
any of the other cables.
1.3 The problem
The method of erecting the tower and the associated
temporary works design was a fundamental part of
the project. In its final state the tower is held in posi-
tion by the balanced forces in the back span and
main span stay cables. However, because the tower
is pinned at its base, it was necessary to temporarily
support it during the installation of the permanent
stay cables.
The challenge became the design of temporary
works because it required the detailed modeling of
the installation and stressing of the permanent stay
cables. In such instances it is considered impractical
for a contractor to take full responsibility for the
temporary works design. This is because he would
have to employ an experienced bridge engineer to
model the complete structural system. In the context
of the South African construction market, and the
low capital value of the project, this is not consid-
ered a practical expectation.
This paper highlights that the most appropriate
temporary works solutions are not always found
when the engineer and contractor are separated by
their contractual roles. To this end the benefits of
collaboration between the designer and the contrac-
tor are documented.
2 ORGINAL STRESSING SEQUENCE
Early on in the design process it was decided to con-
struct the deck section of the bridge on staging. Can-
tilever construction was considered to be impractical
for the proposed structural system. In terms of the
cable stressing sequence the design team’s proposed
method was led by the fact that the C1 cable provid-
ed the necessary stiffness to the structural system
and carried the highest load.
The construction drawings required the C1 cable
be installed first and nominally stressed by the self-
weight of the tower structure and by whatever tem-
porary supports the contractor proposed. As a fixed
length cable the intent was that the C1 cable would
control the top of tower position whilst the remain-
ing cables were installed and stressed.
It was required that the cables adjacent to the
tower be then installed and stressed to 25% of the
design stress. Working outwards from the tower this
process was repeated for each pair of back span and
main span cables. Finally the C1 cable was to be
stressed to 25%.
The intent of this process was to start by remov-
ing the slack from the cables and to get some stiff-
ness into the structural system before the cables
were sequentially stressed to their design forces. By
starting with the cables adjacent to tower more verti-
cal force was initially added to the tower than lateral
force. This helped reduce the movements at the top
of the tower during the stressing sequence.
The next iteration followed the same sequence
now stressing the cables to 90% of their design forc-
es. A final stressing pass to get the forces up to the
target values was allowed to achieve the desired ver-
tical alignment of the deck section.
Although the stressing sequence was considered
logical in the end it was flawed on two accounts.
The first was that stressing sub-contractors prefer to
put as much force as they can into a cable to reduce
the number of stressing operations. This said, gener-
ally cables have to be stressed in at least two opera-
tions to ensure that the correct deck alignment is
achieved.
The contractor’s cable choice of cable and an-
chorage system is also an important variable that can
affect the stressing sequence. In some cases the ca-
bles anchorage assemblies need to be activated by a
minimum force for safety reasons. This force can be
as much as 30% of the cable’s ultimate force.
The second more important flaw was that the
stressing sequence did not account for the temporary
works. During the conceptualization of the structure
it was judged that the bidding contractors would
each have a preferred means of providing temporary
support to the tower. Fully detailing a temporary
works solution was therefore ruled out. However,
the interaction between the temporary works and the
cable stressing sequence was fundamental. This was
identified at the onset of the contractor’s temporary
works design when a set of temporary cables at-
tached to the top of the tower were proposed.
3 TEMPORARY WORKS DESIGN
3.1 General arrangement
The temporary works proposal used two sets of tem-
porary cables to stabilize the tower, by connecting
the top of the tower to fixed points onto either side
of the bridge. The T1 cables consisted of two cables
connecting the top of the tower to the fixed abutment
by means of a temporary steel anchorage assembly.
The T2 cable followed a similar arrangement and
connected the top of the tower to a temporary mi-
cropiled concrete structure at the other end of the
bridge.
 It was important that the force in the temporary
cables could be varied if required. The contractor,
Freyssinet and the design team therefore came up
with a system of connecting the strands to steel con-
nection boxes that then connected to a stress bar
which was fixed into the anchorage assemblies. By
stressing the stress bar the forces in the support sys-
tem were then easily controlled.
A temporary steel support frame was detailed for
the steel anchorage boxes to ensure that the stress
bar was not subject to bending or shear stresses. Re-
fer to figure 2.
Figure 2. Steel anchorage assembly and support frame
3.2 Permanent Cable system
In any stressing sequence the cable supplier’s re-
quirements for stressing the cables are an important
factor. In this case Freyssinet’s H1000 cable system
was used. The cables are made up of 15.7mm galva-
nised and coated mono-strand housed within an
uPVC sheath.
The C1 cables utilised spade and fork connec-
tions. A fixed anchorage was detailed at the top of
the tower and an adjustable fork at the fixed abut-
ment. An important constraint was that a minimum
force was required to safety activate the anchorages
in the assembly.
Figure 3. Jacking assembly on adjustable fork.
The C2 to C10 cables had fixed spade and fork
assemblies that top of the tower and adjustable an-
chorages at the deck anchorages. It was impractical
for the strands to be jacked individually and a jack
that grabbed the whole anchorage assembly was
needed to stress all strands equally. Freyssinet’s
RAB anchorage with a threaded collar was therefore
used.
Figure 4. RAB typeAnchorage assembly.
4 ANALYSIS MODELS
Using temporary cables attached to the top of the
tower meant that as the permanent cables were in-
stalled the forces in the temporary cable changed.
Similarly when the temporary cables were released
the forces in the permanent cables changed. The
temporary works cables where therefore included in
the analysis model to review the stressing sequence.
It was also important to check that the temporary
works were designed with sufficient redundancy to
allow for the event of a temporary support cable
breaking. This was checked with an impact analysis
to calculate the magnified forces in the system due
to a sudden failure of a cable.
When the original stressing sequence was ana-
lyzed with the temporary stays, the maximum force
in T1 reached 578 kN. The main concern became
designing the temporary anchorages to restrain this
force and the construction risks associated with a
cable out scenario.
As mentioned thecable C1 provides much of the
stiffness to the structural system and in the bridge’s
final state its design force is significantly larger than
the other cables. The challenge was that C1 could
not be stressed unless the other cables were already
in place. Without the internal cables there was essen-
tially nothing to restrain the tower and therefore
nothing to jack against.
 A further issue was that the contractor initially stressing operations to limit the bending moments in
wanted to stress the cables to close to 100% of the the deck section.
design load. However, the implication was that after
the installation of cables C2 to C10 the temporary
T1 cable was highly stressed. This sequence also re- 6 CONCLUSIONS
quired that T1 cable had to be re-stressed continu-
ously to keep the top of the tower in the correct posi- This project highlights that, on certain structures, the
tion. The consequence of the tower moving was that temporary works design cannot be divorced from the
the tolerances in the permanent cable lengths could detailed erection engineering. In the case of cable
be exceeded. stayed structures the load effects on the temporary
works change through the erection sequence. As a
result collaboration with the design engineer is es-
5 FINAL SEQUENCE sential to accurately model the behaviour of the
permanent structure and the load effects on the tem-
Although various alternative stressing methods were porary works components. These type of projects
tested for the purposes of this paper the final solu- could be considered by clients to be let rather as de-
tion is explained. sign and construct type projects using the EPC suite
The crux of the final sequence was to stress the of the FIDIC documentation as an example due to
C1 cable to its full force as soon as possible whilst the substantial amount of interaction between the de-
the T1 cable remained in place. To get the full force signer and contractor.
into C1 all of the back-span and main span cables The construction process also highlighted that the
had to be in place. However if they were stressed to constraints of contractor’s proprietary cable system
the design force the result was the increase in force and jacking methods have to be carefully understood
in T1. The answer to the problem came from using when considering the erection methods.
the structure’s dead weight to fully stress C1. The final stressing sequence used worked well in
In summary the final construction sequence first that it reduced the construction risks, simplified the
involved installing the permanent stay cables (C2 to erection engineering and saved significant time. It is
C10) and the stressing them to a nominal force. This considered that using the structure’s dead weight to
required minimal effort and control from the con- stress the cable stays is an effective method, espe-
tractor and was carried out relatively quickly. The cially for pedestrian bridges.
main C1 cable was then installed and stressed to a
force of 800 kN and the temporary T1 cables were
removed. With the C2 to C10 cables installed the
necessary restrain to jack against was present. The
deck staging was then removed. The deck deflected
downwards by up to 80 mm before the C2 to C10
cables were stressed to the design forces bringing
the deck back up to the required alignment.
The initial C1 target force of 800 kN was found
by an iterative process that limited the final force in
the C1 cable after the release of the deck formwork
and the C2 to C10 cable stressing to 1100 kN.
The above sequence greatly reduced the forces in
the temporary cables, thus minimizing the construc-
tion risks. The maximum T1 force was limited to Figure 4. Completed structure
217kN increasing the redundancy in the temporary
works design.
The cable forces and deck displacements where REFERENCES
monitored closely on site during the stressing opera- PTI DC45.1-07. Recommendations for stay cable design, test-
tion to check the structure’s behaviour. The stressing ing and installation, Fifth Edition
sequence analysis proved to be accurate, with addi-
tional stressing required on only four of the cables to
ensure correct the deck displacement. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In review the stressing sequence process required The author acknowledges the client, the South African Nation-
a significant amount of additional analysis and de- al Roads Agency SOC Ltd (SANRAL), for permission to pub-
lish this paper.
sign work. The design actions on the tower and deck
elements had to be checked at each stage of con-
struction. This led to the formwork between C1 and
C2 remaining in place till the completion of the