Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2717–2728

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

A mathematical model for a combined cable system of bridges

T.G. Konstantakopoulos, G.T. Michaltsos ∗
Laboratory of Metal Structures, Department of Civil Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, 9 Iroon Polytechniou Str. 157 80, Zografou Campus, Athens, Greece

article info abstract

Article history: In this study, a mathematical model is proposed to investigate the dynamic behaviour of a combined cable
Received 31 August 2009 system of bridges under moving loads. The bridge typology is based on both cable-stayed and suspension
Received in revised form systems, which are frequently combined to guarantee an improved structural behaviour. The theoretical
8 April 2010
formulations based on a continuum approach, which has been widely used in the literature to analyse
Accepted 28 April 2010
Available online 4 June 2010
long span bridges. The problem of the allotment of loads in the two kinds of cable systems is confronted
through the use of the relations, recently presented, connecting the tensions of the stayed cables to the
Keywords:
deformations of the deck. Illustrated examples are presented and useful diagrams are given.
Combined cable systems © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Dynamics of bridges
Moving loads

1. Introduction
Over the last 100 years, many researchers have studied the
dynamic response of railway bridges under the influence of moving
loads and later that of highway bridges.
During the past decades, cable bridges have received great at-
tention because of their ability to bridge long spans with reduced
erection costs and an improved utilisation of the materials. As
a consequence, several applications have been proposed in the
framework of both suspension and stayed cable bridge types.
There are two main types of cable bridges: the suspension
bridges and the cable-stayed bridges. The latter are, nowadays, of
great interest mainly as an alternative and a more economic solu-
tion than the one of suspension bridges. Both types are character-
ized by their special shape and aesthetic. Long span bridges, based
on cable-stayed or suspension bridge systems, have been used in
different frameworks. The use of the cable system types is strictly
connected to structural, economic and practical reasons. The com-
bination of the two systems (of suspended and cable-stayed ones)
appears to be able to provide notable advantages in the long span
bridges, and to guarantee stable and safe erection processes due
to the suspension cable system, while, simultaneously, a reduced
deformability of the girder is expected due to the reinforcement
effect of the additional stay cables.
The study of the dynamic behaviour of cable bridges and their
substructures reveals several nonlinear behaviours, concurrently
under normal design loads, due to the individual nonlinearity of
the above substructures such as pylons, stay cables and bridge deck
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: michalts@central.ntua.gr (G.T. Michaltsos).
0141-0296/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.04.042
and their interactions. The nonlinearities are the geometric ones
that arise, mainly, from the large displacements of cables and the
structural ones that are caused by the strong axial and lateral forces
acting on the bridge deck and pylons. There have been many publi-
cations, dealing with the dynamic behaviour of cable bridges, that
have brought about serious results. From the previous studies, we
must refer to the classic monograph of Troitsky [1] and to the ones
of Nazmy and Abdel-Chaffar [2], and Chatterjee and others [3],
dealing with the lateral and torsional dynamic behaviour, Bruno
and Colotti [4] proposing a fan-shaped bridge scheme as an ana-
lytical model and studying the eigenfrequencies. Finally, we must
mention the works of Achkrive and Preumont [5], that deal with
the active vibration control of cable-stayed bridges, Khalil [6] who
studies some special characteristics of cable-stayed bridges and at-
tempts to solve the associated problems, Bosdogianni and Olivari
[7] who study the oscillations of a bridge under the combined ef-
fect of wind and rain, and, finally, Bryja and Sniady [8] who study
the vibrations of highway suspension bridges, Michaltsos [9] who
presented a new mathematical model for the study of c-s-bridges.
From recent publications, we must refer to the studies of Ge
and Tanaka [10] who examine the aeroelastic stability of cable-
stayed bridges, using F.E.M., of Tang and others [11] who study the
stability of steel cable-stayed bridges, Bouaanani [12] who stud-
ies the modal sensitivity of suspended cables with localized dam-
age, Plaut [13] who studies the torsional oscillations of the original
Tacoma Bridge because of snap loads, Pourzeynali and Datta [14]
who study the flutter instability of a suspension bridge using the
pole-placement technique, Plaut and Davis [15] who study the
suddenly appearing lateral and torsional oscillations of section
models of suspension bridges, Ding et al. [16] who deal with time
domain buffeting analysis of suspension bridges subjected to tur-
bulent wind with effective attack angle, while there are numerous
2718 T.G. Konstantakopoulos, G.T. Michaltsos / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2717–2728
Fig. 1. Bridge with combined system.
publications dealing with the analysis of cable bridges through the
use of F.E.M.
On the other hand, there is a long literature on moving loads
and bridge–vehicle interaction. This problem has been analysed
by means of both analytical and numerical methods in which the
vehicles have been modeled as a single or a multi-axial system.
(Yang et al. [17], Michaltsos [18], Michaltsos et al. [19] Au et al. [20]
Huang and Wang, [21]).
For the suspension bridges the dynamic interaction vehicle–
bridge has been discussed, mainly, for traffic loads of single or
multi-span systems (Bryja and Sniady [8] Chatterjee et al., [22]).
For the combined cable system the existing literature is rather
poor, although this system was known many years ago and applied
few times. Authors presented a mathematical model, similar to the
present one, in the conference of Eurosteel 2008 [23].
In the present study, a mathematical model is proposed for the
combined cable system of bridges. This method can be applied for
a static analysis also, while it can be easily extended in the study of
the lateral–torsional dynamic behaviour of a bridge with combined
system.
The bridge typology is based on both cable-stayed and suspen-
sion systems, which are frequently combined to guarantee an im-
proved structural behaviour. The theoretical formulation is based
on a continuum approach which has been widely used in the liter-
ature to analyse long span bridges.
The problem of the allotment of loads in the two kinds of
cable systems is treated through the use of the relations, recently
presented, connecting the tensions of the stayed cables to the
deformations of the deck.
Illustrated examples are presented, while the influence of each
one cable system and of other characteristic parameters of the
bridge on the eigenfrequencies change is studied. The bridge’s
deformations under the action of moving loads are also studied.
Finally useful diagrams are given.
2. Assumptions
Let us consider now a bridge of combined cables’ system which
the structural model is shown in Fig. 1, while the following accep-
tances are valid:
2.1 The suspension system is not affected by the horizontal dis-
placements of the top of the pylons, because the suspension
cables move rolling on special, practically frictionless, bear-
ings (or saddles).
2.2 We suppose that hangers and stayers are so closely placed
each-other, that their influence may be replaced by suitably
determined distributed (not equally) loads.
2.3 Because of 2.2 and accepting that hangers have negligible
elongation, caused by dead and service loads, we can suppose
that the deformations w(x) of the deck are equal to the
deformations of the suspended cable (see Fig. 1).
2.4 The deck of the bridge, during its vibration, is simply sup-
ported on the pylons, without any other connection with
them. So, the deck of the bridge, can be considered as a three-
span continuous beam subjected to the effect of the tensions
of hangers and stayers.
2.5 It is assumed that, under the dead loads, there is no configura-
tion of the deck or of the pylons, while the cables are stressed
by axial forces Pig , that can be calculated through a static anal-
ysis.
2.6 For the case of the dynamic behaviour, it is valid that: Pi =
Pig + Pid , where Pig = constant (as in previous Section 2.5), is
the force that is get by the static analysis and Pid = P̄i · f (t )
is a time depended, and so changed, dynamic portion of the
force Pi . Because it is valid that the service loads p are smaller
than the dead loads g (p < g ), the following inequality be-
tween dynamic and dead stresses will be also valid Pid < Pig .
Thus Pid may be positive or negative but ever under the condi-
tion |Pid | ≤ Pig . Assumption 2.6 is, indeed, not necessary. It is
used here in order for us to avoid a repetition of the solution
process in the case of not stressed cables.
2.7 As is known, the behaviour of the stayers upon an axial force
is nonlinear, due to its own weight action. For a dynamic anal-
ysis, we consider that the initial tension σg of the stayers cor-
responds to the starting equilibrium configuration under the
own load g and so, we can adopt the tangent modulus of elas-
ticity and not the one that is given by the Dischinger formula:
Ẽ = E
.
2 2
E γ `o
1+
12σo3
2.8 The stayers’ cross-sections change along the bridge length ac-
cording to a known each time law. For this study we accept,
without restriction of the method’s generality, the following
law [4]: A(x) = σ ·cos ϕ , where g is the uniformly distributed
g
g
own load, σg is the initial tension of the stays curtain, due to
the above g. It is σg = σα · g /(g + p), where σα is the allowable
stress of the cables and p the design live load.
2.9 We ignore the influence of the bridge deck roughness,
because its contribution on the vibration of the bridge is neg-
ligible for bridges with long span, like the suspended and
cable-stayed bridges.
2.10 A 2D analysis is considered while the influence of axial forces
of the pylons is neglected.
 T.G. Konstantakopoulos, G.T. Michaltsos / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2717–2728 2719

Fig. 3. Deformation of a cable.

Fig. 2. Equilibrium of an infinitesimal part of suspended cable.

3. Analysis

Let us consider now that under the action of the loads (dead
and service loads), the configuration of the deck, for a given instant
t = to , is the unknown function
w = w(x). (1)
Fig. 4. Geometry of a suspended cable.

3.1. The loads of hangers and stayers SH dw dz

1dx = · dx − · · dx
Ec Fc cos3 ϕ dx dx
3.1.1. The stayed system or finally, because of Eq. (4), we get:
The configuration of the deck, according to Eq. (1), strains the Z ` 
stayers. Ec Fc
It is proved [24–27], that for a very dense distribution of the
SH = · z 00 w(x)dx

Lc

cable-stayers at a distance dc , their influence can be replaced by the Z L
0
. (9)
dx
distributed load qc (x), given for a fan-system (like the one of Fig. 1)

where Lc =


0 cos ϕ
3
by using the expression, Eq. (2a) in Box I (analogous expressions are
valid for a harp or a parallel system [26]). The coefficient Lc , for the cable of Fig. 4, is given by the formula:
8f 2
 
3 S1 S2
3.1.2. The suspended system Lc = ` · 1+ + · tan2 γo + + . (10)
We consider an infinitesimal part dx of the suspended cable that ` 2 2 cos2 γ1 cos2 γ2
is loaded by the tensions of the very closely placed hangers (see (Although Eq. (10) corresponds to a distributed load, the coefficient
Fig. 2). Lc depends on the change of cos φ which slightly differs from the
These tensions can be expressed by the distributed load p(x). If cos φ of the cable of the unloaded bridge, because the produced, by
the form of the suspended cable is given by the equation: any load, deformation w is w  z).
From Eq. (5), we find the load of the hangers:
4f
z ( x) = · x(` − x) (3) L
`2
Z
Ec Fc
qs (x) = p(x) = ·z 002
w(x)dx = constant. (11)
the equilibrium of the horizontal forces gives (Fig. 2): Lc 0
SH = constant. (4)
From the equilibrium of the vertical forces we get: 3.2. The equation of motion
p(x) = −SH · z . 00
(5) Neglecting the longitudinal deformations, the damping of the
On the other hand, the suspended cables are deformed but, because system, and under the acceptances of Section 2, the differential
their anchorage at places A1 and A2 are unshakeable, the vertical equation of the forced flexural vibrations of a bridge with com-
projection of their deformation must be zero. In other words: bined cable system is given by the following relation:
Z L EJy w 0000 (x, t ) + c ẇ(x, t ) − Jb ẅ 00 (x, t ) + mẅ(x, t )
1dx = 0 (6)
0
= p1 (x, t ) + p2 (x, t ) (12)
where L is the total length of the bridge (Fig. 1). where p1 (x, t ) contains all forces developed due to the passage of
Neglecting the influence of a possible temperature change 1t, the mass-loads (comprehensively depicted in Fig. 5) and p2 (x, t )
we have: are the forces due to the influence of stayers and hangers on the
S · ds bridge deck.
1ds = (7)
Ec Fc cos ϕ 3.2.1. The mass-load passage influence
where Ec and Fc are the modulus of elasticity and the cross-section The forces caused by the passage of a concentrated mass-load,
area respectively of the suspended cable, and ϕ from Figs. 3 and 4. are the following:
From Fig. 3, the following relations are valid: a. The external gravitational load:
ds2 = dx2 + dz 2 P = Mg .

(13a)
.
(ds + 1ds)2 = (dx + 1dx)2 + (dz + 1dz )2 b. The vertical inertia force, being equal to:
Or finally: AV = −M ẅ(a, t ). (13b)
ds dz c. The centripetal force that is given by the relation:
1dx = 1ds · − 1dz · . (8)
dx dx υ2 d2 w
We have that dx/ds = cos φ , 1dz = dw , and thus Eq. (8) gives; FK = −M · = −M · ṡ2 · = −M · ṡ2 · w 00 (a, t ). (13c)
R dx2
2720 T.G. Konstantakopoulos, G.T. Michaltsos / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2717–2728

qj (wj , xj ) for stayers at the left side of a pylon

 
qc (w, x) = qi (wi , xi ) for stayers at the right side of a pylon




A · Ec A(xj )(`j − xj ) h21 · Ec A(xj )

I2r − I2`


qj wj , xj =  3/2 · wj


3 /2
· + (2a)
h21 + (`j − xj )2 1 + I1r + I1` h21 + (`j − xj )2



A · Ec A(xi )xi h21 · Ec A(xi )

I2` − I2r

qi (wi , xi ) =  3/2 · wi

· +

3/2


1 + I1r + I1`
 
h21 + x2i h21 + x2i
where
" 2 3 # 
H3
 
ho ho
A= · 2−3 +



6EIp H H 




A(x) = The distributed cross-section area of stayers along the deck in m2 /m, given by:



g


A(x) = , g : is the uniformly distributed self weight of the deck (2b)
σg cos ϕ(x) 
g 
σg : is the initial tensile stress of the stays’ curtain given by σg = σα



g +p




σα : is the allowed stress of cables and




p : is the design live load
and
α2 α2
A(xj )(`j − xj )2 h21 Ec A(xj )(`j − xj )
Z Z 
I1` = AEc 3/2 dxj , I2` = 3/2 wj dxj 

h21 + (`j − xj )2 h21 + (`j − xj )2
 
α1 α1




α4 α4

A( )
xi x2i h21 Ec A (xi )xi
Z Z 
I1r = AEc dxi , I2r =  wi dxi . (2c)
 3/2
  2 3/2
α3 h21 + x2i α3 h21 + xi 



and α1 to α2 is the space within the stayers of the left side of the left pylon are cited




α3 to α4 is the space within the stayers of the right side of the left pylon are cited (see Fig. 1)

Box I.

Fig. 5. Forces acting on the mass M. Fig. 6. The distributed moving load-mass.

d. The Coriolis forces [18,27], that can be written as follows: bridge vehicle (like the one of a railway coach) to the span `i is very
small (has values from 1/50 to 1/200), we can consider the loading
∂ w 2
situation shown in Fig. 6. Therefore, one may find that [28]:
FC = −2M · ṡ · = −2M · ṡ · ẇ0 (a, t ). (13d)
∂ x∂ t λ  
X Pi
e. The projection FAH of the horizontal inertia force AH on the Pi δ(x − ai ) = `im1x→0 δ(x − ai )1x
vertical axis: i=1
1x
FAH = −M · s̈ · w 0 (a, t ). (13e) a
Z
= p(x)δ(x − ai )dx = p(ai ) = mυ g (15)
f. The moment due to the rotatory inertia of the moving mass-load: 0

My = JM ẅ 0 (a, t ) (13f) where λ is the number of the loads per one meter length of bridge
deck.
where JM is the rotatory inertia of the mass M of the load. As well as:
Thus, for the case of a concentrated mass-load moving with con- λ
stant speed (υ = ṡ = constant), the term p1 (x, t ) will be:
X
mi δ 0 (x − ai ) = −m0 (ai ) = [Jυ (ai )ẅ 0 (ai )]0
p1 (x, t ) = [Mg − M (ẅ + υ w + 2υ ẇ )]δ(x − a)
2 00 0
i=1

+ JM ẅ 0 δ(x − a) (14) = −Jυ ẅ 00 (ai ). (16)

where δ is the Dirac symbolic unit function. In Eqs. (15) and (16), mυ is the mass per unit length of the dis-
Taking into account that we have a long-span bridge, and thus tributed moving load, and Jυ is the corresponding rotatory inertia
the ratio d/`i of the maximum wheelbase ‘‘d’’, of a moving on the of the above distributed moving load.
 T.G. Konstantakopoulos, G.T. Michaltsos / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2717–2728 2721

or
EJy X 0000 + qc (x) + qs (x)
c
Ṫ + T̈
=−m = ω2 .
mX T
That it is split up to the following two equations:
1

X 0000 + [qc (x) + qs (x)] − λ4 X = 0 

EJy

 

c 
T̈ + Ṫ + ω T = 0
2
. (25)
m 
mω 2



where λ4 =



EJy
In order for us to apply the Galerkin method, we set:
Fig. 7. The tensions of a cable.
X (x) = c1 Ψ1 (x) + c2 Ψ2 (x) + · · · + cn Ψn (x) (26)
Substituting expressions (15) and (16) into Eq. (14) we get: where ci are unknown coefficients, which will be determined, and
 Ψi (x) are functions of x arbitrarily chosen, that satisfy the boundary
p1 (x, t ) = mυ g − mυ (ẅ + υ 2 w 00 + 2υ ẇ 0 ) − Jυ ẅ 0  conditions, of the static system of bridge-deck.
for x ≤ a . (17) As such functions we choose the shape functions of the corre-
p1 (x, t ) = 0 for x > a sponding static system of beam-deck (a continuous beam or a set

of three single-span beams) that has the same characteristics with
the bridge-deck without cables.
3.2.2. The stayers’ and hangers’ influence
Introducing Eq. (26) into (25)(a), multiplying the out coming
In order for us to determine the influence of stayers and hangers successively by Ψ1 , Ψ2 , . . . , Ψn and integrating the results from 0
on the bridge deck, we have to take into account firstly the vertical to L, we obtain the following homogeneous, linear system, without
components of the tensions of the above cables and secondly the
second member of n equations, wit unknowns c1 , c2 , . . . , cn :
effect of the horizontal components of the above tensions of the
stayed cables (Fig. 7). Thus: c1 (Ai1 − λ4 Bi1 ) + c2 (Ai2 − λ4 Bi2 ) + · · · + cn (Ain − λ4 Bin )
p2 (x, t ) = qC (w, x, t ) + qS (w, x, t ) + qCH (w, x, t ). (18) = 0, with i = 1, 2, . . . , n (27)
This last term of the above equation is caused by the horizontal where
component of stayers tensions and it is given by the following Z L
1
 
Ψj0000 + qc (Ψj ) + qs (Ψj ) Ψi dx


expression [28]: Aij = 

EJy

Z ` 0 0
Z L . (28)
qCH (w, x) = − qHi (λ, t )dλ · w 0 (x) − [qHi (x, t ) · e]0 (19) Ψi Ψj dx

Bij =


x
0
where e is the eccentricity of the point at which acts the horizontal In order for the above system to have nontrivial solutions, the
component of the tension of the cable, and determinant of its coefficients must be zero:
xi Γij  = 0 with i, j = 1, 2, . . . , n and
  
qHi = qC tan ϕi = qC · . (20)
H . (29)
Γij = Aij − λ4 Bij
Using the Leibnitz rule of differentiating integrals, from Eq. (19)
we get: From Eq. (29), we determine the values of λ and from Eq. (25)(c)
the spectrum of the flexural eigenfrequencies ωi . From the first
qCH (w, x, t ) = qH (w, x, t )w 0 (x, t ) − w 00 (x, t )
(n − 1) equations of the system (27), we can find:
Z `
Γ12 · · · Γ1(j−1) Γ11 Γ1(j+1) · · · Γ1n
  
× qHi (λ, t )dλ − q0H (w, x, t ) · e. (21)

Γ22 · · · Γ2(j−1) Γ21 Γ2(j+1) · · · Γ2n
  

x  

· · ·  
Thus Eq. (12) takes the following final form:   

Γ(n−1)2 · · · Γ(n−1)(j−1) Γ(n−1)1 Γ(n−1)(j+1) · · · Γ(n−1)n 

cj  
EJy w 0000 (x, t ) + c ẇ(x, t ) − Jb ẅ 00 (x, t ) + mẅ(x, t )
 
=

Γij 
 
c1

= mυ g − mυ [ẅ(x, t ) + υ 2 w00 (x, t ) + 2υ ẇ0 (x, t )]


with i = 1, 2, . . . , (n − 1) j = 1, 2, . . . , n
 
− Jυ ẅ00 (x, t ) − qc − qs + qH w 0 (x, t )

 

 
.

R` (22) n 
cj
 
− w00 (x, t ) qH (λ, t )dλ − q0H · e
X 
and therefore: Xn (x) = c1 Ψ1 + · Ψj
 

x  
c1
 
x  j=2
with: qH (w, x, t ) = qC (w, x, t ) tan ϕi = qC (w, x, t ) ·



h1 (30 a,b)
3.3. The free vibrating bridge where Xn (x) are the shape functions of the bridge with combined
cable system.
Neglecting for instant the influence of the horizontal compo-
nents of the stayers and, also, the influence of the rotatory inertia 3.4. The forced vibrating bridge
of the deck, Eq. (22) for a free vibrating bridge takes the following
form: Neglecting, as very small, the effect of the rotational inertia of
EJy w 0000 (x, t ) + c ẇ(x, t ) + mẅ(x, t ) = −qc − qs . (23) the beam-deck, a series solution of Eq. (22) of the following form
is sought:
We are searching for a solution of separate variables under the X
form: w(x, t ) = Xn (x) · Φn (t ) (31)
w(x, t ) = X (x) · T (t ). (24) n

Because of Eqs. (24) and (23) becomes: where Φn (t ), are unknown functions of the time, which will be
EJy X 0000
T + cX Ṫ + mX T̈ = −Tqc (x) − Tqs (x) determined, and Xn (x) are functions of x, arbitrarily chosen, that
2722 T.G. Konstantakopoulos, G.T. Michaltsos / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2717–2728

satisfy the boundary condition. As such functions, one can choose beam-deck under a moving distributed load p = constant, with-
the shape functions of the corresponding continuous beam (that out mass, and with constant velocity, as follows [30,28]:
has the same characteristics with the bridge-deck but without ca- p
Φ̄n (t ) =

bles), given by the Appendix. Introducing Eq. (31) into Eq. (22) we RL 
mωon Xn2 dx


get: 0


Z t


X X X
× X̄n (υ t ) sin ωon (t − τ )dτ . (36)
Xn0000 Φn + c Xn Φ̇n + m Xn Φ̈n

EJy
0
 

α

n n n  Z 

! 
where X̄n (α) = Xn (x)dx

 

X X X  
Xn Φ̈n + υ 2
Xn Φn − 2υ
00
Xn Φ̇n 
0 
= mυ g − mυ 

 0
n n n Introducing Eq. (36) into the right side member of Eq. (34) we


! ! 

X X 
 get, according to the Duhamel integral, the following solution:
Xn Φn − qs Xn Φn

− qc 

1
 
Φn (t ) =

n n 
 
. (32)
RL
mω̄n

Xn2 dx
! 

X X 0 
Xn Φn · Xn0 Φn

+ qH 
 Z t

F̄n (τ ) · e−β(t −τ ) · sin ω̄n (t − τ )dτ  .

n n


 × (37)

X Z ` X
! 

 0


Xn (λ)Φn dλ c

Xn Φn
00
 q
− qH
 
where β = and ω̄n = ωon
2 − β2

 

x

n n 2m



We note that F̄ (t ) is given by Eq. (35) with Φ̄n (t ) instead of
" !# 

d x X 
Xn Φn

−e qc Φn (t ).



dx h1 n

We know that for the free motion of the bridge-deck (without 3.4.1. Estimation of the terms’ effect—A simplest solution
cables) the following relation is valid: The above in Section 3.4 method of solving is very painful. Gen-
erally, there are not easy ways to solve nonlinear differential equa-
EJy Xn0000 − mωon
2
Xn = 0 (33) tions like the (34) one.
where ωon are the eigenfrequencies of the free vibrating system Through a more detailed consideration of each one of the terms
without cables. of the right side member of Eq. (34), we see that for long-span
Taking into account Eq. (33), multiplying Eq. (32) with Xn , inte- bridges, the terms of Coriolis and centripetal forces are negligible
grating the outcome from 0 to L and because of the orthogonality for small values of the ratio mυ /m [18]. This, also, happens for the
condition, we get the following equation: member that expresses the influence of the load-mass inertia for
ratios mυ /m < 0.3 [19].
c 1 On the other hand, the first two terms of the horizontal compo-
Φ̈n (t ) + Φ̇n + ωon
2
Φn (t ) = RL · Fn (t ) (34) nents of the cables’ forces are also negligible, compared with the
m m Xn2 dx
0 third one (because the eccentricity ‘‘e’’ is ever significantly greater
where Pn (t ) is given by the following equation: than the change of the deformation w 0 (x)).
Instead of Eq. (34), which in its complete form is useful for the
Z υ·t Z υ·t 
study and estimation of the influence of each one of the included
Fn (t ) = mυ g Xn dx − mυ Φ̈n Xn2 dx 
terms, we prefer the following equation where the above men-


0 0 

Z υ·t X 
 tioned terms are neglected, in order to achieve a simplest solution
− mυ υ 2
Xρ00 Xn Φρ dx

of the problem:




0 ρ


υ·t
 ( Z 
c 1

υ·t
!
L
Φ̇n + ω Xn (x)dx 

Φ̈n + on Φn
2
Z Z 
= mυ g
X X 
+ 2mυ υ

Xρ0 Xn Φρ dx − Xρ Φρ Xn dx 
RL 
qc

m Xn2 dx


 m 0
0


0 ρ 0 ρ

 


 Z L Z L 

qc (w)Xn (x)dx − qs (w)Xn (x)dx
!
.
L

− (38)
Z X 

Xρ Φρ

− qs Xn dx
. (35) 0 0 

0 ρ Z L   ) 

 d x 
qc (w) Xn (x)dx
 
−e
! !  
Z L  

dx h1
X X 
Xρ Φρ Xρ0 Φρ
 
+ qH Xn dx 
 0

0 ρ ρ




 The above, after some manipulations gives the system:
Z L( X `
!Z " !# )
c


Φ̈i + Φ̇i + ωoi2 Φi + Ai1 Φ1 + Ai2 Φ2 + · · · + Aii Φi + · · ·
X
Xρ00 Φρ Xρ (λ)Φρ dλ

− qH


m


0 ρ x ρ


+ Ain Φn = Bi , (i = 1 to n)

Z L( " !#) 
 (39)
d x X 

Xn dx − e qc Xρ Φρ Xn dx where



0 dx h1 ρ "Z 
L Z L
1
qc (Xj )Xi dx + qs (Xj )Xi dx 

Aij = RL 
Clearly, a closed-form solution of Eq. (34) is not possible. How- m Xi2 dx 0 0


0

ever, one can obtain approximate solutions based on previous rel-


Z L   # 

evant works such as the one of [29]. d x
+e · qc (Xj ) Xi dx . (40 a,b)
A first approximate solution of Eq. (34) is obtained by neglecting 0 dx h1 

the terms caused by the load-mass, and cables’ system. An excel-

υ·t
Z 

lent selection for approximate function of Φn (t ) may as well be the mυ g 

Bi = Xj dx with j = 1 to n


RL 
modal amplitudes corresponding to the dynamic response of the m Xi2 dx 0
0
 T.G. Konstantakopoulos, G.T. Michaltsos / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2717–2728 2723

Table 1

h1 IP /IB m 600 800 1.000 1.200

Ib 0.20 1 2.50 5
FC 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.20 0.30 0.40
ω
ω1 1.2637 1.3270 1.3869 1.1759 1.2275 1.2766 1.1399 1.1830 1.2244 1.1379 1.1745 1.2098
1 ω2 2.4454 2.4929 2.5395 2.2791 2.3175 2.3552 2.2039 2.2358 2.2673 2.1877 2.2146 2.2412
ω3 5.9576 5.9683 5.9790 5.4916 5.5001 5.5087 5.2081 5.2152 5.2231 5.0302 5.0362 5.0423
ω1 1.2638 1.3271 1.3870 1.1762 1.2277 1.2769 1.1405 1.1837 1.2250 1.1390 1.1756 1.2108
75 2 ω2 2.4458 2.4933 2.5398 2.2805 2.3188 2.3565 2.2068 2.2387 2.2700 2.1925 2.2194 2.2460
ω3 5.9580 5.9686 5.9792 5.4925 5.5011 5.5097 5.2101 5.2172 5.2243 5.0338 5.0398 5.0458
ω1 1.2639 1.3272 1.3871 1.1765 1.2280 1.2772 1.1413 1.1843 1.2256 1.1402 1.1766 1.2119
3 ω2 2.4461 2.4936 2.5401 2.2819 2.3202 2.3576 2.2097 2.2414 2.2728 2.1974 2.2242 2.2507
ω3 5.9582 5.9688 5.9795 5.4935 5.5021 5.5107 5.2122 5.2193 5.2264 5.0373 5.0433 5.0494

ω1 1.4296 1.5215 1.6073 1.3202 1.3957 1.4667 1.2688 1.3326 1.3930 1.2551 1.3097 1.3617
1 ω2 2.6858 2.7578 2.8278 2.4924 2.5508 2.6078 2.3979 2.4468 2.4946 2.3668 2.4083 2.4490
ω3 6.3594 6.3761 6.3931 5.8579 5.8714 5.8850 5.5504 5.5617 5.5730 5.3548 5.3640 5.3736
ω1 1.4297 1.5216 1.6074 1.3204 1.3960 1.4669 1.2694 1.3332 1.3935 1.2561 1.3107 1.3626
100 2 ω2 2.6861 2.7581 2.8281 2.4936 2.5520 2.6091 2.4006 2.4494 2.4972 2.3713 2.4127 2.4534
ω3 6.3596 6.3764 6.3933 5.8588 5.8723 5.8859 5.5524 5.5636 5.5749 5.3578 5.3673 5.3769
ω1 1.4298 1.5217 1.6075 1.3207 1.3962 1.4672 1.2700 1.3337 1.3939 1.2571 1.3116 1.3635
3 ω2 2.6864 2.7584 2.8284 2.4949 2.5532 2.6103 2.4033 2.4520 2.4997 2.3760 2.4171 2.4577
ω3 6.3598 6.3768 6.3935 5.8597 5.8732 5.8868 5.5543 5.5655 5.5768 5.3611 5.3706 5.3802

ω1 1.5621 1.6819 1.7921 1.4347 1.5338 1.6257 1.3706 1.4549 1.5336 1.3473 1.4199 1.4884
1 ω2 2.8499 2.9478 3.0423 2.6366 2.7162 2.7935 2.5282 2.5950 2.6601 2.4863 2.5433 2.5990
ω3 6.5609 6.5846 6.6087 6.0409 6.0601 6.0795 5.7211 5.7370 5.7531 5.5157 5.5292 5.5429
ω1 1.5622 1.6821 1.7922 1.4349 1.5340 1.6259 1.3712 1.4554 1.5341 1.3482 1.4208 1.4891
125 2 ω2 2.8502 2.9481 3.0425 2.6377 2.7173 2.7946 2.5306 2.5974 2.6624 2.4905 2.5474 2.6030
ω3 6.5611 6.5847 6.6089 6.0418 6.0609 6.0803 5.7229 5.7388 5.7549 5.5188 5.5323 5.5459
ω1 1.5623 1.6822 1.7923 1.4351 1.5342 1.6261 1.3717 1.4558 1.5345 1.3491 1.4216 1.4899
3 ω2 2.8506 2.9484 3.0428 2.6389 2.7185 2.7957 2.5331 2.5998 2.6647 2.4947 2.5515 2.6070
ω3 6.5614 6.5851 6.6091 6.0427 6.0618 6.0811 5.7246 5.7405 5.7567 5.5219 5.5354 5.5491

We note that one must study the following three periods: where Ni (s) and Mi (s) are polynomials with respect to s, with Mi (s)
1st 0 ≤ t ≤ L1 /υ the load enters and moves in the first span. of equal or higher order than Ni (s). Heaviside’s rule can thus be
2nd L1 /υ ≤ t ≤ (L1 + L2 )/υ the load enters and moves in the applied, leading finally to the following expression for the time
second span. function Φi (t ):
3rd (L1 + L2 )/υ ≤ t ≤ (L1 + L2 + L3 )/υ the load enters and
Ni (s) Ni (sρ )esρ t
k
moves in the third span. X
In order for the solution of the above system to apply Laplace’s Φi (t ) = L−1 ϕi (s) = L−1 = (46)
Mi (s) ρ=1
Mi0 (sρ )
transformation we put:
where sρ are the k roots (ρ = 1 to k) of polynomial Mi (s).
LΦi (t ) = ϕi (s)


Z υ·t . (41)
L Xj (x)dx = bj (s) 3.4.2. The case of a concentrated load
0 The effect of a concentrated load (of any magnitude) on a long
We consider that at t = 0, the bridge is at rest, and thus the span bridge like the one studied in the present paper is practically
initial conditions are: negligible. Nevertheless, this case is of significant interest for the
w(x, 0) = ẇ(x, 0) = 0. (42) study of the bridge’s behaviour.
For a concentrated load of mass M, the term p1 (x, t ) of Eq. (12),
From the first of Eq. (41) we get:
is given by Eq. (14). Following a process similar to the one in
LΦ̈i (t ) = s2 ϕi (s)

Sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2, we get:
. (43)
LΦ̇i (t ) = sϕi (s) c 1

Eq. (39), because of (41) and (43) become: Φ̈n + Φ̇n + ωon
2
Φn = RL 

m m Xn2 dx


0

(A11 + s2 + 2β + ωo12
)ϕ1 + A12 ϕ2 + A13 ϕ3 + · · · + A1n ϕn
 
= b1  ( 


A21 ϕ1 + (A22 + s2 + 2β + ωo2 2
)ϕ2 + A23 ϕ3 + · · · + A2n ϕn

= b2  RL RL 

× Mg · Xn (υ t ) − qc (w)Xn (x)dx − qs (w)Xn (x)dx . (47)
A31 ϕ1 + A32 ϕ2 + (A33 + s + 2β + ωo3
2 2
)ϕ3 + · · · + A3n ϕn = b3 0 0

··· 
 

 Z L ) 
An1 ϕ1 + An2 ϕ2 + An3 ϕ3 + · · · + (Ann + s2 + 2β + ωon 2
)ϕn
   
= bn d x 
qc (w) Xn (x)dx

−e 

(44) dx h1

0

with β from Eq. (37). The above concludes to the system of Eq. (39) where Aij is given
The solution of the above system gives the unknown ϕi under by the first of Eq. (40) and Bj by the following equation:
the form:
mυ g
Ni (s) Bj = · Xj (υ t ). (48)
ϕi (s) = (45) RL
Xj2 dx
Mi (s) m 0
2724 T.G. Konstantakopoulos, G.T. Michaltsos / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2717–2728

Fig. 8. The first six shape functions of a bridge with data given in Section 4.2.

Finally, the right hand side members of Eq. (44) become:
bj = LXj (υ t ).
4. Numerical results and discussion
In this section, a numerical investigation based on the equations
obtained in the previous paragraphs has been developed. The
individual and coupling effects of the mechanical and geometrical
parameters are discussed in detail. The main goal of the presented
examples is to show the influence of each one cable system and of
other characteristic parameters of the bridge and the study of the
eigenfrequencies change.
4.1. The eigenfrequencies change
Let us consider a three-span bridge, with combined cable sys-
tems, made from homogeneous and isotropic material, having
modulus of elasticity E = 2.1·106 dN/cm2 (for the bridge-deck and
the pylons), and Ec = 2.0 · 106 dN/cm2 (for cables with parallel-
wire strand) shear modulus G = 0.8·106 dN/cm2 and the following
characteristics:
Deck’s characteristics:
`1 = `3 = 200 m, `2 = 1000 m,
while Ib , m, vary according to Table 1.
Pylons’ characteristics:
H = h1 + ho , ho = 60 m, and h1 , Ip ,
vary according to Table 1.
Cables’ characteristics:
γo = 0, f = 0.9 · h1 , σα = 8000 dN/cm2 , and Fc
varies according to Table 1.
Stayers’ span: α1 = 0, α2 = `1 , α3 = 0,
α4 = `2 /3, α5 = 2`2 /3, α 6 = `2 ,
(49) α7 = 0, α8 = `3 .
Combination of the above data gives the three first eigenfre-
quencies ω1 , ω2 , and ω3 , of the bridge which are shown in Table 1.
We see that the most considerable effect is the one of the pa-
rameter h1 . This effect amounts from 27% to 35% for ω1 , 23% to 29%
for ω2 , and 19% to 21% for ω3 . The effect of the cross-section area of
the suspension system amounts from 7% to 12% for ω1 , 2% to 6% for
ω2 , while it is negligible for ω3 . The effect of the deck’s moment of
inertia amounts from 8% to 14% for ω1 , 9% to 13% for ω2 , and 15% to
18% for ω3 . Finally the effect of the change of the pylons’ moment
of inertia is practically negligible.
Let us see now the influence of the c-s-system on the eigenfre-
quencies. For the case of a bridge with `1 = `3 = 200 m, `2 =
1000 m, h1 = 100 m Ib = 2.5 m4 , Fc = 0.2 m2 and Ip /Ib = 2,
we have for the complete system (Table 1): ω1 = 1.2694, ω2 =
2.4006, ω3 = 5.5524. Solving the same bridge with only the sus-
pension system of cables (i.e. neglecting the 1st and 3rd terms in
Eq. (40a)) we get: ω1 = 0.8632, ω2 = 1.9685, ω3 = 4.8306. It is
obvious that there is a serious influence of c-s-system on the eigen-
frequencies.
4.2. Determination of the shape functions
Applying the equations obtained in the previous paragraphs
one can get the shape functions of a bridge with combined cable
systems. In Fig. 8 the six first shape functions of a bridge with
combined cable system having the following data are shown: L1 =
200 m, L2 = 1.000 m, L3 = 200 m, α1 = 0, α2 = 200 m, α3 = 0,
 T.G. Konstantakopoulos, G.T. Michaltsos / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2717–2728 2725

Fig. 9. The deformations of the middle of the three spans of the studied bridge under the action of a continuous moving load.

Fig. 10. The deformations of the middle of the three spans of the studied bridge under the action of a moving concentrated load-mass.

(a) Complete. (b) Only suspension system.

(c) Only c-s-system.

Fig. 11. Contribution of each cable system to the bridge’s capacity. The 1st case, `1 = `3 = 80 m, `2 = 500 m, h1 = 60 m.

α4 = 333 m, α5 = 667 m, α6 = 1000 m, α7 = 0, α8 = 200 m, smaller deformations than the ones produced by a distributed
h1 = 100 m, f = 0.90 × h1 . moving load of significantly smaller magnitude.

4.3. Moving loads 4.4. The contribution of each one system

In this section the applicability of the mathematical model un-
der such a complicated and difficult loading case is exposed.
Let us consider a three span bridge with combined cable system
having the following data: L1 = 200 m, L2 = 1.000 m, L3 = 200 m,
α1 = 0, α2 = 200 m, α3 = 0, α4 = 333 m, α5 = 667 m,
α6 = 1000 m, α7 = 0, α8 = 200 m, h1 = 100 m, f = 0.90 × h1 ,
I = 0.30 m4 , m = 600 kg, and Fc = 0.20 m2 .
The bridge is crossed by a continuous load of magnitude mυ g =
4000 dN/m, moving with speed υ = 30 m/s. The deformations of
the middle of each span in relation to time are given in Fig. 9.
Supposing now, that on the above considered bridge a concen-
trated load of magnitude Mg = 80 000 dN moves with speed
υ = 30 m/s, we get Fig. 10 that shows the deformations of the
middle of each span of the bridge in relation to time t.
Figs. 9 and 10 verify that, in long span bridges, a stand-alone
concentrated moving load of whatever magnitude produces
A very interesting question is how each one system contributes
to the bridge’s capacity.
In order for us to determine the contribution of each one of the
cables’ system to the whole capacity of the bridge, we choose three
bridges with the following characteristics:
1st `1 = `3 = 80 m, `2 = 500 m, h1 = 60 m.
2nd `1 = `3 = 100 m, `2 = 700 m, h1 = 75 m.
3rd `1 = `3 = 200 m, `2 = 1000 m, h1 = 100 m
and the same Ib = 2.5 m4 , Fc = 0.2 m2 , mυ = 400 kg/m, and
υ = 30 m/s.
The cable-stayed system has the characteristics described in
Section 4.1.
The following Figs. 11–14 show the deformations of the middle
of the second span in connection to time t.
In plots of Fig. 11 the first case is shown. We see that both the
suspension system alone and the c-s-system alone, produce small
2726 T.G. Konstantakopoulos, G.T. Michaltsos / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2717–2728

(a) Complete. (b) Only suspension system.

(c) Only c-s-system.

Fig. 12. Contribution of each cable system to the bridge’s capacity. The second case, `1 = `3 = 100 m, `2 = 700 m, h1 = 75 m.

(a) Complete. (b) Only suspension system.

(c) Only c-s-system.

Fig. 13. Contribution of each cable system to the bridge’s capacity. The third case, `1 = `3 = 200 m, `2 = 1000 m, h1 = 100 m.

deformations and thus they are estimated able to undertake the

moving loadings.
The produced deformations with the c-s-system are double.
In plots of Fig. 12 the second case is shown. We see that the
suspension system alone and the c-s-system alone are able to
undertake the moving loads (with criterion the deformation w of
the middle of the bridge).
The produced deformations with the c-s-system are also
double, but they are still acceptable for such a length of the bridge. The complete system
In plots of Fig. 13 the third case is shown. We see that the
Fig. 14. `1 = `3 = 200 m, `2 = 1000 m, h1 = 60 m.
suspension system alone is able to undertake the moving loads.
The produced deformations by using the c-s-system alone, are
In the above plots, the predominant contribution of the suspen-
very great and thus unacceptable.
sion system concerning the bridge’s strength is clear.
In plot of Fig. 14 the influence of the pylon height h1 on the
ability of the complete system is shown. We see that the produced 5. Conclusions
deformations are eight times greater than the ones of the 1st case
(Fig. 13), which was expected because small values of sags f lead An investigation on the dynamic behaviour of bridges with
to very high stress in the cables and in the deck. combined cable systems, subjected to moving loads has been
 T.G. Konstantakopoulos, G.T. Michaltsos / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2717–2728 2727

 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
 sin λ`1 cos λ`1 sinh λ`1 cosh λ`1
 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
 0 −1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 cos λ`1 − sin λ`1 cosh λ`1 sinh λ`1
 
−1 0 −1 0 0 0 0 0 
− sin λ`1 − cos λ`1 sinh λ`1 cosh λ`1 0 1 0 −1 0 0 0 0
 

 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0  = 0.


 0 0 0 0 sin λ`2 cos λ`2 sinh λ`2 cosh λ`2 0 0 0 0  (Ap(1))
 0 0 0 0 cos λ`2 − sin λ`2 cosh λ`2 sinh λ`2 −1 0 −1 0 
− sin λ`2 − cos λ`2 sinh λ`2 cosh λ`2
 
 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 −1 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

sin λ`3 cos λ`3 sinh λ`3 cosh λ`3 
 
 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 − sin λ`3 − cos λ`3 sinh λ`3 cosh λ`3


Box II.

1 1 
Wn (x1 ) = · sin λn x1 − · sinh λn x1 for 0 ≤ x1 ≤ `1 
sin λ ` sinh λn `1

 n 1


 
d


Wn (x2 ) = − cot λn `2 + sin λn x2 + cos λn x2


sin λn `2




  
d


+ coth λn `2 − sinh λn x2 − cosh λn x2 for 0 ≤ x2 ≤ `2

sinh λn `2 . (Ap (2 a,b,c))

Wn (x3 ) = −d · cot λn `3 · sin λn x3 + d · cos λn x3




+ d · coth λn `3 · sinh λn x3 − d · cosh λn x3 for 0 ≤ x3 ≤ `3





where 

sin λn `2 − sinh λn `2




d= 
sin λn `2 sinh λn `2 (coth λn `2 + coth λn `3 − cot λn `2 − cot λn `3 )

Box III.

developed. The most important conclusions of this study can be The shape functions of a three-span continuous beam are given
summarized as follows: by the equations Ap (2 a,b,c) in Box III.

1. A relatively simple and efficient mathematical model is pre- References

sented for the preliminary design of long-span bridges with
combined cable systems. The whole procedure may be easily
extended to the lateral–torsional vibrations of a bridge with
combined cable systems.
2. The most considerable effect on the change of the eigenfrequen-
cies of the bridge, is the one produced by the height h1 , amount-
ing to an average of 30% for the first, 25% for the second and 20%
for the third eigenfrequency. The effect of the cross-section area
of the cables of the suspension system and the one of the deck’s
moment of inertia is less amounting to an average of ∼10% for
both cases. The change of the deck’s moment of inertia affects
mainly the higher eigenfrequencies. There are secondary pa-
rameters affecting the eigenfrequencies less than 5%.
3. The existence of the c-s-system affects strongly the eigenfre-
quencies (it increases these), producing differences of ∼45% for
the first, ∼20% for the second and ∼15% for the third eigenfre-
quency.
4. The study of the contribution of each one system of cables
shows that the suspension one undertakes, almost, the total of
the loads, for whatever length of bridge.
5. The combined cable systems are an interesting one from theo-
retical point of view. Practically, this system, for spans longer
than the ones of 900 m, does not offer any serious benefit, re-
garding the bridges’ deformation, given that the suspension sys-
tem alone can undertake the moving loads. Contrarily, it offers
significant benefit regarding the bridge’s eigenfrequencies.
6. The effect of a combined cable system on the lateral–torsional
vibrations must be studied. The authors intend to study this
subject in the near future.
Appendix
The eigenfrequencies of a three-span continuous beam are
given by the equation Ap(1) in Box II.
[1] Troitsky MC. Cable-stayed bridges. London: Crosby Lockwood Staples; 1977.
[2] Nazmy AS, Abdel-Chaffar AM. Non-linear earthquake response analysis of long
span cable-stayed bridges. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1990;19:45–62.
[3] Chatterjee PK, Datta TK, Surana CS. Vibration of cable-stayed bridges under
moving vehicles. J Struct Eng Int 1994;2:116–21.
[4] Bruno D, Colotti V. Vibration analysis of cable-stayed bridges. J Struct Eng Int
1994;1:23–8.
[5] Achkire Y, Preumont A. Active tendon control of cable-stayed bridges. Earthq
Eng Struct Dyn 1996;25(6):585–97.
[6] Khalil MS. Nonlinear analysis of cable-stayed bridges at ultimate load level.
Can J Civ Eng 1996;23(5):1111–7.
[7] Bosdogianni A, Olivari D. Wind-induced and rain-induced oscillations of cable-
stayed bridges. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 1997;64(2–3):171–85.
[8] Bryja D, Sniady P. Stochastic non-linear vibrations of highway suspension
bridge under inertial sprung moving load. J Sound Vibration 1998;24:507–19.
[9] Michaltsos GT. A simplified model for the dynamic analysis of cable-stayed
bridges. Facta Univ 2001;3:185–204.
[10] Ge YJ, Tanaka H. Aerodynamic stability of long-span bridges under erection.
J Struct Eng-ASCE 2000;126(12):1404–12.
[11] Tang CC, Shu HS, Wang YC. Stability analysis of steel cable-stayed bridges.
Struct Eng Mech 2001;11(1):35–48.
[12] Bouaanani N. Numerical investigation of the modal sensitivity of suspended
cables with localized damage. J Sound Vibration 2006;292(3):1015–30.
[13] Plaut RH. Snap loads and torsional oscillations of the original Tacoma narrows
bridge. J Sound Vibration 2008;309(3):613–36.
[14] Pourzeynali S, Datta TK. Control of suspension bridge flutter instability using
pole-placement technique. J Sound Vibration 2005;282(1):89–109.
[15] Plaut RH, Davis FM. Sudden lateral asymmetry and torsional oscillations
of section models of suspension bridges. J Sound Vibration 2007;307(3):
894–905.
[16] Ding Q, Lee PKK, Lo SH. Time domain buffeting analysis of suspension bridges
subjected to turbulent wind with effective attack angle. J Sound Vibration
2000;233(2):311–27.
[17] Yang YB, Liao SS, Lin BH. Impact formulas for vehicles moving over simple and
continuous beams. J Struct Eng 1995;121(11):1644–50.
[18] Michaltsos GT. The influence of centripetal and coriolis forces on the dynamic
response of light bridges under moving vehicles. J Sound Vibration 2001;
247(2):261–77.
[19] Michaltsos GT, Sophianopoulos D, Kounadis AN. The effect of a moving mass
and other parameters on the dynamic response of a simply supported beam.
J Sound Vibration 1996;191(3):357–62.
[20] Au FTK, Wang JJ, Cheung YK. Impact study of cable-stayed railway bridges with
random rail irregularities. Eng Struct 2001;24(5):529–41.
2728 T.G. Konstantakopoulos, G.T. Michaltsos / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 2717–2728
[21] Huang D, Wang TL. Impact analysis of cable stayed bridges. Comput Struct
1992;43(5):897–908.
[22] Chatterjee PK, Datta TK, Surana CS. Vibration of continuous bridges under
moving vehicles. J Sound Vibration 1993;195(2):302–12.
[23] Konstantakopoulos TG, Michaltsos GT. A mathematical model for combined
cable systems. In: Proceedings of eurosteel 2008. p. 1731–6.
[24] Michaltsos GT, Ermopoulos JC, Konstantakopoulos TG. Preliminary design of
cable-stayed bridges for vertical static loads. J Struct Eng Mech 2003;15(6):
1–15.
[25] Konstantakopoulos TG. Static and dynamic problems in C-S-bidges. Ph.D.
thesis. Athens; 2004 [in Greek].
[26] Michaltsos GT. Dynamic problems of steel bridges. Ed. Symeon. Athens; 2005
[in Greek].
[27] Petalas JM, Konstantakopoulos TG. The effect of the horizontal components of
the cable forces on the static analysis of cable-stayed bridges. In: Proceedings
of the 5th national conference on metal structures. 2005. p. 164–71.
[28] Michaltsos GT, Sophianopoulos DS. The dynamic effect of distributed loads and
other parameters on the behaviour of light railway bridges. In: Proceedings of
EYRODYN 2002. p. 1101–6.
[29] Kounadis AN. Convergence, uniqueness and error estimate of an approximate
method for solving non-linear initial-value problems. Sci Pap NTUA 1987;
11(1):13–20.
[30] Michaltsos GT, Kounadis AN. The effect of centripetal and coriolis forces on the
dynamic response of light (steel) bridges under moving loads. J Vib Control
2001;7(3):185–204.