Analysis and Design of Suspension Bridge

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/322738712
Analysis and Design of Suspension Bridge
Book · May 2012
CITATIONS READS
0 5,255
2 authors:
Alaa Hussein Al-Zuhairi Ahmed Al-Fakhar

University of Baghdad Smart Engineering LLC
37 PUBLICATIONS 18 CITATIONS 1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Steel Space Frame View project
Bond-Slip Behavior of Steel Bars Embedded in Concrete View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Alaa Hussein Al-Zuhairi on 30 January 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Ministry of Higher Education
University of Baghdad
College of Engineering
Civil Engineering Department
Analysis and Design of

Suspension Bridge
A Study
Submitted to the Civil Engineering Department of the
University of Baghdad in Partial Fulfillment for the
Requirements of the Degree of B.Sc.
By
Ahmed Adham Abdullah
Supervised By
Dr. Ala’a H. Al – Zuhairi
2012
2012
=›Ívá◊^=·∏á◊^=!^=›ãf
=—ÿ~=G=—ÿ~=ÏÖ◊^=’fÜ=›ä_f=`áœd=F
=’fÜ=Á=`áœ^=G=—ÿ√=·€=‚_ãfl¯^
=›�ÿ√=G=›ÿ–◊_f=›�ÿ√=ÏÖ◊^=G=fiá”¯^
E=›ÿƒÈ=%=_€=‚_ãfl¯^
›Í¿ƒ◊^=!^=“Éí=====================
Acknowledgment
First of all, Father, Thank You, I am an Engineer; that is because of you.
I would like to like to express my sincere thanks, appreciation and deepest

gratitude to my supervisor (Dr. Ala’a Hussein Al-Zuhairi) for his help, support and
guidance in the preparation for this study.
Much thanks for my father, Dr. Ala’a and Dr. Salah Ruheima Al-Zaidi, to them the
favor returned in making me a civil engineer during my four years of study.
All the respect and love to my department and my university, I will always be
proud that I studied in it and spent many beautiful days inside it campus.
Ahmed Al-Fakhar
May, 2012
I
Dedication
To Iraq..
To my Family..
Father, Mother, Gaith and
Zahraa.
To my Grandfather..
Abdullah Al-Fakhar
II
Abstract
In this project, the structural analysis of suspension bridge is conducted

using the computer program named as (CSi Bridge). The analysis is based on
adopting AASHTO and Iraqi specifications standard for loading in bridges.
The 14th – July suspension bridge built in Baghdad in 1963 was taken as a case
study. The actual data (Bridge geometry in material properties) was input to the
program with standard loading mentioned above. The results indicate that the max
tensile stress in the main cable was 0.36 F u. The maximum compressive stress in
the tower was 0.51 F y , while the maximum normal and shear stresses in the plate
of the main girder were 0.8 F y and 0.33 F u respectively.
III
II
III
Table of Contents
No. Title Page
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 What is a suspension bridge 2
1.2 Importance and advantage 2
1.3 Drawbacks 3
1.4 Components of suspension bridge 3
1.5 Loads 5
Chapter 2 Historical aspects of suspension bridge development
2.1 Early Precursor 7
2.2 First Suspension Bridges 8
2.3 From Past to Present 8
2.4 Development of Cables and Anchorages 8
2.5 Lists of Longest spans of Suspension Bridges 21
2.6 14th of July Suspension Bridge – Baghdad, Iraq 23
Chapter 3 Analysis of suspension bridge
3.1 Bridge Loading. 26
3.1.1 Dead load 26
3.1.2 Live Load 26
3.1.2.1 AASHTO loading 26
3.1.2.2 British Standard (BS5400 Part 2) 28
3.2 Cable static analysis 30
3.2.1 Equation of the cable 31
3.2.2 Horizontal Thrust on the Cable & Second Equation (Force-related) 32
3.2.3 Maximum tension in the cable 34
3.2.4 Length of the cable 37
3.2.5 The effect on the cable due to change in temperature 40
3.2.6 Analysis problem 42
3.2.7 Catenary 42
3.3 Fabrication and types of cables 43
3.3.1 1Basic Types of Cables 44
3.4 Deck – Stiffening girder 45
3.4.1 Flexural stiffness in the vertical direction 46
3.4.2 Torsional stiffness 47
3.4.3 Supporting Condition 48
3.5 Towers – Cable Anchors 52
3.5.1 Guide pulley support for suspension cable 52
3.5.2 Roller support for suspension cable 52
Chapter 4 Case Study – 14th of July Using Computer Program (CSi Bridge)
4.1 Analysis Program – CSi Bridge. 54
4.2 Geometry of the Bridge 55
4.3 Steel types used 56
IV
4.4 Structural properties of the components of suspension bridge 57
4.5 Loading Cases 59
4.6 Analysis Results 61
4.6.1 Cable analysis 61
4.6.2 Tower analysis 66
4.6.3 Deck Analysis 69
Chapter 5 Conclusion and Recommendation
5.1 Conclusion 76
5.2 Recommendation 77
List of Figures
No. Title Page
A diagram of one of the earliest known suspension bridges in the
2.1 7
world, built in 1430, at Chushul, south of Lhasa in Tibet
2.2 Jacob’s bridge, Pennsylvania 9
2.3 Finley’s river over Merrimack river in Massachusetts 9
Eyebar chains were very effective structural elements because
2.4 10
each link could be constructed of multiple parallel eye bars
2.5 Eyebar fail 11
2.6 the Union Bridge Tweed River 12
2.7 Telford’s Bridge 12
2.8 the British Telford and his Eyebar chain bridge 13
2.9 Wire-cable Bridge of Joseph Chaley 15
2.10 Wire-cable of Charles Ellet 15
This picture represents the actual system as was used by john
Roebling and by his son Washington Roebling in the Brooklyn
2.11 Bridge, 30 after it was first developed. Up on the top one can see 16
the traveller attached to the haul rope carrying a loop of wire to the
top of the tower
This picture presents a cut away of the cable of the golden gate
2.12 bridge, showing it was fabricated using Roebling method. (27,572 17
wires)
2.13 A wire-cable problem in suspension bridge in Angers, France 18
This an original drawings of john anchorage design it uses a series
2.14 of massive rod iron eyebar chains one for each strand of the main 19
cable
2.15 Strands attached to a strand shoe 20
2.16 Strand shoe attached to the anchor chain 20
2.17 Akashi Kaikyo Bridge, Japan 23
2.18 14th July Bridge, A view from Tigris River 24
V
3.1 AASHTO truck loading 27
3.2 Geometry of suspension bridge 30
3.3 Cable geometry 31
3.4 Horizontal thrust on cable 32
3.5 Forces on cable 32
3.6 Cable equilibrium 33
3.7 Cable supported at different levels 35
3.8 Cable supported at the same level 37
3.9 ds, dy, dx 38
3.10 Difference between catenary and parabola 42
3.11 Seven-wire strand 44
Comparison between the dead load moment in a 3 span continuous
3.12 45
girder and in the girder of cable stayed bridge
3.13 Distribution of the concentrated force by the deck 46
A system with two cable planes and a deck without torsional
3.14 47
rigidity
3.15 A system with two cable planes as well as a torsionally stiff deck 48
3.16 Supporting condition of a three span suspension bridge 49
Inclination of the short hangers at midspan to transfer a
3.17 49
longitudinal force from the deck to the main cable
Cable supported bridge with the deck supported vertically on the
3.18 end piers only, but laterally at the pylons as well as on the end 51
piers
Pylon of the Storebælt East Bridge without a cross beam below the
3.19 51
deck
Connection between the deck and the pylon through vertical
3.20 52
sliding bearings for transmission of lateral forces
4.1 General view 55
4.2 Deck cross section 57
4.3 Girder cross section 58
4.4 Floor beam and stringer cross sections 58
4.5 Tower cross section 59
4.6 Positive moment loading 60
4.7 Negative moment loading 60
4.8 General distribution loading 60
4.9 Maximum shear loading 61
4.10 Cable axial force diagram 61
4.11 Cable embedment in deck 64
4.12 Axial force 66
4.13 Moment in tower 66
4.14 Shear in tower 66
4.15 Positive moment about horizontal axis 69
4.16 Sections adequacy for positive moment 69
VI
4.17 Negative moment about horizontal axis 71
4.18 Sections adequacy for negative moment 71
4.19 Shear force 73
4.20 20 Sections adequacy for shear 73
List of Tables
No. Title Page
2.1 the world longest spans of suspension bridges 22
3.1 Equivalent loading for trucks 28
3.2 Comparison between cable steel and structural steel 44
4.1 Bridge geometry 55
4.2 Girders, stringer, floor beams and towers 56
4.3 Cables and Suspenders 56
4.4 Concrete material: deck surface 56
4.5 Deck floor beams, stringers and surface thickness 57
4.6 Main cable 59
4.7 Suspenders 59
4.8 Element Forces – Frames (Main Cable) 62
4.9 Element Forces – Frames (Tower) 67
VII
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 What is a suspension bridge.
1.2 Importance and advantage.
1.3 Drawbacks.
1.4 Components of suspension bridge.
1.5 Loads.
1.1 What is a suspension bridge?
It is a type of bridges in which a continuous deck (the load-bearing portion)

is hung below the suspension cables on vertical suspenders that connect the deck
with the main cable. The cables are connected to towers at either end of the
bridge, and are balanced by anchors. The suspension bridge must be anchored at
each end of the bridge, since any load applied to the bridge is transformed into
tension in the main cables in which they transform that load to the main towers.
1.2 Importance and advantage

• Because of the suspension bridge design that has one long span spread
along the stream of the water flow , without any additional pillars in the
flow, it provides :
a) Free ships transportation.
b) Does not cause corrosion to the bed of the river.
• Capable of spanning long distance. While other types of bridges require
intermediate supports, a suspension bridge can cover long distances using
only the strength of its cables.
• Less material may be required than other bridge types, even at spans they
can achieve.
• Except for the installation of the initial temporary cables, little or no access
from below is required during construction, allowing the waterway to
remain open while the bridge is built above.
• May be better to withstand earthquake movements than heavier and more
rigid bridges.
2
1.3 Drawbacks:
Suspension bridges are highly vulnerable to wind, and have been

known to collapse or fail due to seemingly minor wind gusts. They must
be carefully engineered and braced to minimize the risk of failure. This
high level of technical engineering, combined with the difficulty of
building over a long span, tends to make suspension bridge construction
more costly than that of other bridge designs.
1.4 Components of the suspension bridge
a) The superstructure part of the suspension bridge consists of:
1. Deck: which is a stiff structural part hung by suspenders

composed either of plate girders or truss structure. This
arrangement allows the deck to be level or arc upward for
additional clearance. This part is often constructed without
falsework.
2. Cables: The suspension bridge includes two main cables, which are
stretched over the span to be bridged. The cables is flexible throughout,
therefore it cannot resist any moment and can adopt any shape under the
load.
The main suspension cable in older bridges was often made from chain or
linked bars, but modern bridge cables are made from multiple strands of
wire. Assuming a negligible weight as compared to the weight of deck
and vehicles being supported, the main cable of the suspension bridge
3
will form a parabola.
3. Main towers; which supports the main cables, since all the force
on the pillars is vertically downwards and they are also stabilized
by the main cables, the pillars can be made quite slender.
Another function for the main tower, it works as a support to the
deck also.
In some circumstances the towers may sit on a bluff or canyon
edge where the road may proceed directly to the main span,
otherwise the bridge will usually have two smaller spans, running
between either pair of pillars and the highway, which may be
supported by suspender cables or may use a truss bridge to make
this connection. In latter case there will be a very little arc in the
outboard main cables.
b) Substructure part:
1. Cable anchors:
The anchor block, on the other hand, resists the tensile pull from
the main cable primarily through its mass.
The tensile pull or force from the main cable is balanced, or
equilibrated (put into a state of equilibrium) by the gravitational
pull on the mass of the anchor and the resulting frictional force
between the anchorage and the foundation on which it sits. In
most suspension bridges, the anchorage is a reinforced concrete
block.
2. Concrete piers.
4
1.5 Loads:
Three kinds of forces operate on any bridge: the dead load, the live load, and the
dynamic load.
1. Dead load: refers to the weight of the bridge itself. Like any other structure, a
bridge has a tendency to collapse simply because of the gravitational forces acting
on the materials of which the bridge is made.
2. Live load: refers to traffic that moves across the bridge as well as normal
environmental factors such as changes in temperature, precipitation, and winds.
3. Dynamic load: refers to environmental factors that go beyond normal weather

conditions, factors such as sudden gusts of wind and earthquakes. All three factors
must be taken into consideration when building a bridge.
The relatively low deck stiffness compared to other (non-suspension) types of

bridges makes it more difficult to carry heavy rail traffic where high concentrated
LL occur.
Loads calculation considerations will follow the AASHTO, BS 5400, and the Iraqi
code.
5
CHAPTER TWO
Historical Aspects of Suspension Bridge
Development
2.1 Early Precursor.
2.2 First Suspension Bridges.
2.3 From Past to Present.
2.4 Development of Cables and Anchorages.
2.5 Lists of Longest spans of Suspension Bridges.
2.6 14th of July Suspension Bridge – Baghdad, Iraq.

Chapter 2 Historical aspects of suspension bridges development
CHAPTER 2
HISTORICAL ASPECTS OF SUSPENSION BRIDGES
DEVELOPMENT
2.1 Early precursor
The Tibetan saint and bridge-builder Thangtong Gyalpo

originated the use of iron chains in his version of early suspension
bridges. In 1433, Gyalpo built eight bridges in eastern Bhutan. The
only surviving chain-linked bridge of Gyalpo's was the Thangtong
Gyalpo Bridge in Duksum enroute to Trashi Yangtse, which was
finally washed away in 2004. Gyalpo's iron chain bridges did not
include a suspended deck bridge which is the standard on all modern
suspension bridges today. Instead, both the railing and the walking
layer of Gyalpo's bridges used wires. Before the use of iron chains it
is thought that Gyalpo used ropes from twisted willows or yak skins.
“Figure 2.1 - A diagram of one of the earliest known suspension bridges in the world, built in
1430, at Chushul, south of Lhasa in Tibet”
7
2.2 First Suspension Bridges:
The first design for a bridge resembling the modern suspension bridge
is attributed to Fausto Veranzio, whose 1595 book “Machinae Novae”
included drawings both for a timber and rope suspension bridge, and a hybrid
suspension and cable-stayed bridge using iron chains.
2.3 From Past to Present:
For the last two centuries the suspension bridge has been the most
effective means of building across vast distances. Throughout the history of
suspension bridge development intensive engineering efforts have been at
overcoming two persistent challenges that in general terms related to the
structure system of the suspension bridge:
1. Constructing the main cables and the anchorages.

2. Controlling the suspension bridges susceptibility to vibrations caused by wind
Some efforts to address these challenges have been quite successful but many
have not, indeed as we study the early years of suspension bridge
development we see at least as many failures as successes, one can wonder
why engineers were persisted with suspension bridges at all, after these so
many failures it would have been an entirely reasonable to just give up and try
something else, the answer is that suspension bridges represent extraordinary
potential for greatness. Because of the structural efficiency of that cable the
world longest span has been for a suspension bridge for over 150 years of the
past 200 years.
2.4 Development of Cables and Anchorages:
The history of modern suspension bridge begins started from America

with the very unlucky pioneer in 1801 an American named James Finley built
the first suspension bridge capable of carrying vehicular traffic – Jacob’s
8
creek bridge in western Pennsylvania . Finley was a justice of a peace not an

engineer and there is no evidence that he had any technical training at all.
“Figure 2.2 - Jacob’s bridge, Pennsylvania”
All Finley suspension bridges use cables made of conventional iron chains,
the bridges were apparently quite successful at least for a while. Several of
them have been collapsed. The only suspension bridge Finley built and still
survived for this day is a bridge over Merrimack river in Massachusetts with
many components have been replaced since that time.
“Figure 2.3 - Finley’s river over Merrimack river in Massachusetts”
9
Finley has lacked the expertise and experience to design enduring

structures. And the concept of a chain suspension bridge quickly spread to
Britain. Their engineers with more tradition of empirical design set about the
task of making the idea work. The royal navy did many of experiments to
determine if they could replace the rope rigging in their ships with newly
designed iron chains. These experiments produce an invention called the
(eyebar chain) which turned out to be far superior to traditional chains made
of individually O ring shapes of iron chains. It is like the chain of the bicycle.
“Figure 2.4 - Eyebar chains were very effective structural elements because each link could be
constructed of multiple parallel eye bars”
10
This system was structurally redundant; if one individual eyebar failed,

the chain itself would not necessarily fail. And it was the characteristic that
inspired British engineers to begin experiments with the eyebar chains as a
structural element in suspension bridges.
“Figure 2.5 - Eyebar fail”
In 1817 a royal navy officer Samuel brown developed and patented a

system of eyebar chains incorporated that system into the very first
British suspension bridge capable of carrying vehicular traffic, the
Union Bridge Tweed River in New Waterford.
With 430 foot span used six eyebar chains three on each side, stacked one on
the top of the other with the suspenders connected at the links which join the
pins together. This arrangement worked so well that it established the general
pattern for British suspension bridge development for the next 50 years,
incredibly the Union bridge still stands and still caries vehicular traffic today.
11
“Figure 2.6 - the Union Bridge Tweed River”
In 1818 a Scottish engineer named Thomas Telford was employed to

build a bridge across the Menai strait in northwestern wales, in response
Telford created the world longest span and enduring a monument to British
empirical engineering the Menai bridge 579 foot span suspended from two
massive limestone towers the main cables in this bridge are 16 rod iron
eyebar chains each composed of over 900 individual eyebars
“Figure 2.7 – Telford’s Bridge”
12
Telford was a typical British engineer of this era. He disdained math

and scientific theory but Telford was also a strong believer in
experimentation, he conducted extensive laboratory tests on chains that would
be used in his Menai Bridge. And he designed structures that chains would
never exceed one third of their ultimate strength.
“Figure 2.8 - , the British Telford and his Eyebar chain bridge”
Meanwhile, across the channel the French was trying to catch up. During the
late eighteen then early nineteen centuries as American and British were
developing that first generations of suspension bridges, the French were quite
slow to adopt new structural technologies, the turmoil of the recent French
revolution had disrupted industrial development and driven many engineers
out of the country.
Recognizing the need to catch up, in 1794 the French government founded
(Ecole polytechnique), in among of the first generation of graduates was
Cloud Navier. in the early 1820s Navier traveled to U.S. to study American
development in suspension bridge design, in 1823 he presented the world’s
first theoretical treatment of suspension bridge design. It stimulated
tremendous interests in this new structural configuration throughout France.
13
In1820s French engineer began experimenting with the use of (wire cables)
rather than eyebar chains in suspension bridge. In 1823 a Swiss engineer
Guillaume-Henri Dufor constructed the world’s first permanent wire-cable
suspension bridge, in Dufor system, the cables were composed of hundreds of
parallel wires each about one eighth inch in diameter bundled together.
Now in theory, wire cables are far superior to eyebar chains because of the
manufacturing process; the iron steel in a wire is actually a lot stronger than a
thicker bar. And wire cables have significantly greater redundancy than
eyebar chains because there are so many parallel elements, one or two or even
a ten that would have to break would not compromise the strength of the
cable.
In practice the effectiveness of a wire cable depends entirely on two aspects

of its construction:
1. The wires need to be arranged such that all carry approximately the
same tension
2. The ends of the cable have to be suitably anchored at their ends.
By 1820s, French engineers had become the world leaders in science-based

design, they were in fact the masters of theory, the British exemplified by
Thomas Tulford disdained theory and took ride in practical empirical
approach to design, this immense gap between the two approaches was
manifested in the development of suspension bridges, theoretically adopt
French engineers advocated the theoretically superior wire cable
configuration, while practically minded British engineers held to their robust
time tested iron chains system, the stage was set for an epic contest.
Now in France based on Dufor’s success and Navie newly developed design
theories of suspension bridge, there was an explosion of a wire cable
construction. between 1823 – 1850 over 500 wire-cable suspension bridge
built.
14
In 1834 a French engineer named joseph Chaley built a wire cable bridge at
Fribourg, Switzerland surpassed Tulford Menai bridge as the world’s longest,
it was nearly 900 feet in length.
In 1849, an American named Charles Ellet, educated in a French system

surpassed Chaley’s record with 1010 foot wire cable span in West Virginia.
“Figure 2.9 - Wire-cable Bridge of Joseph Chaley”
“Figure 2.10 – Wire-cable of Charles Ellet”
15
At this point, the battle of the cable appeared to have turned decisively in
favor of wire cables.
The early French bridges were all built by fabricating the cables on the
ground and then installing them on the bridge, a very difficult process could
compromise the strength of the cable by stretching some of the individual
strands to tightly while leaving other slacked.
But in 1844 the American bridge pioneer John Roebling devised a far
superior system for fabricating cables in place on the bridge. He won a
contract to build his very first bridge, and in this project he developed and
perfected his system for fabricating wire cables. Made of a one long
individual cable goes between the two anchorages back and forth along the
gap by means of a traveller, the traveller moves on a temporary constructing
cable (haul rope). And repeats this process hundreds of times to create a
bundle of wires called (strand).
“Figure 2.11 - This picture represents the actual system as was used by john Roebling and by his son
Washington Roebling in the Brooklyn Bridge, 30 after it was first developed. Up on the top one can
see the traveller attached to the haul rope carrying a loop of wire to the top of the tower”
16
In the Brooklyn bridge, each strand has 278 individual wires and 19
strands are then bundled together in a pattern to form one single main cable.
John Roebling patented this system in1847 and it has been used with only
minor modifications, on every major suspension bridge since then.
“Figure 2.12 - This picture presents a cut away of the cable of the golden gate bridge, showing
it was fabricated using Roebling method. (27,572 wires)”
In 1850 a wire-cable suspension bridge in Angers, France, collapsed when one of its
main cables torn away from its anchor.
The configuration of the anchorage system of this bridge was the same as had been
used on most French bridges built since 1831. In this system the end of the cables
were spread to multiple strands like Roebling system, and then anchored inside a shaft
in the bedrock and sealed with lime mortar for protection.
The post collapse investigations showed that the mortar sealant that was supposed to
protect the strands from the elements had cracked over time allowing water to
17
penetrate into the anchorage and covering the wires of the cables. Corrosion reduced
the strength of these individual wires until, ultimately, the cable failed.
“Figure 2.13 - a wire-cable problem in suspension bridge in Angers, France”
18
And immediate inspections of all other bridges showed the same problem was
occurring at most of them many have been rebuilt.
This disaster ended the carriers of entire generation of French suspension

bridge designers it also effectively stopped suspension bridge development in
France for the next twenty years, meanwhile in the U.S. john Roebling had
developed a fundamentally different anchorage system and it was already
used at first bridges in the united states.
“Figure 2.14 - This an original drawings of john anchorage design it uses a series of massive
rod iron eyebar chains one for each strand of the main cable”
These chains are anchored to the bottom of a deep pit which is then filled
with an enough stone masonry to counter balance the large tension force of
the strand cable.
19
The upper most link of each anchor chain is then attached to a strand shoe;
each shoe holds all the wires belonging to one strand of the main cable.
“Figure 2.15 – Strands attached to a strand shoe”
“Figure 2.16 Strand shoe attached to the anchor chain”
20
John Roebling system succeeded when the French system failed because its
underground elements are robust corrosion resistant eyebar chains rather than
the fragile wire strands that were underground in the French system.
The system that emerged from this fifty years development process was
actually hybrid of the two competing alternatives. As a result of Roebling
ingenuity; leadership in the field of suspension bridges design passed from
France to the United States, that leadership came with the Roebling’s
magnificent Brooklyn Bridge.
2.5 list of the longest spans of suspension bridges:
The world's longest suspension bridges are listed according to the length of
their main span (i.e. the length of suspended roadway between the bridge's
towers).
The length of main span is the most common method of comparing the sizes
of suspension bridges, often correlating with the height of the towers and the
engineering complexity involved in designing and constructing the bridge.
Suspension bridges have the longest spans of any type of bridge. Cable-stayed
bridges, the next longest design, are practical for spans up to around 1 km.
Therefore the 15 longest bridges on this list are suspension bridges that are
currently the 15 longest spans of all types of vehicular bridges.
21
Table 2.1 the world longest spans of suspension bridges
# NAME country Span m year

1 Akashi Kaikyō Bridge Japan 1,991 1998
2 Xihoumen Bridge China 1,650 2009
3 Great Belt Bridge Denmark 1,624 1998
4 Runyang Bridge China 1,490 2005
5 Humber Bridge England 1,410 1981
6 Jiangyin Bridge China 1,385 1999
7 Tsing Ma Bridge Hong Kong 1,377 1997
8 Verrazano-Narrows Bridge NY. U.S. 1,298 1964
9 Golden Gate Bridge C.A. U.S. 1,280 1937
10 Yangluo Bridge China 1,280 2007
11 Högakustenbron (High Coast Bridge) Sweden 1,210 1997
12 Mackinac Bridge U.S. 1,158 1957
13 Huangpu Bridge China 1,108 2008
14 Minami Bisan-Seto Bridge Japan 1,100 1989
Fatih Sultan Mehmet (2nd Bosporus
15 Turkey 1,090 1988
Bridge)
16 Balinghe Bridge China 1,088 2009
17 Boğaziçi (First Bosporus Bridge) Turkey 1,074 1973
18 George Washington Bridge U.S. 1,067 1931
19 Third Kurushima-Kaikyo Bridge Japan 1,030 1999
20 Second Kurushima-Kaikyo Bridge Japan 1,020 1999
Note that world’s longest suspension bridges are externally anchored type;
longest self-anchored suspension bridge is 118th on the list of the world’s
longest spans.
Akashi Kaikyō Bridge is the world’s longest bridge since 1998 up to day. A
Suspension bridge in its Preliminary work expected to break this
22
record; Sunda Strait Bridge, Indonesia, This project has been approved by the
Indonesian government. If completed, it will not only be the world's longest
suspension bridge (26 km), but will also have a main span of about 3,000 m
(9,800 ft), roughly fifty percent longer than the current record.
“Figure 2.17 - Akashi Kaikyo Bridge, Japan”
2.6 14th of July suspension bridge – Baghdad, Iraq
Self-anchored suspension bridge across the Tigris River designed by

Steinman, Boynton and London in New York, U.S.A. implemented by
Belgian company.
It is the first suspension bridge in Iraq and Middle East joining (Karradat-
Mariam) with (Zowiya/Karrada), it is one of the unique bridges built. Opened
in 1964.
23
The bridge acquired its value when official government buildings constructed
beside it like Al-Khuld Hall, ministry of transportation, and the Olympic
swimming pool.
It exposed to massive destruction in 1991, and it was built again with Iraqi
efforts and opened again in 1995.
“Figure 2.18 – 14th July Bridge, A view from Tigris River”
24
CHAPTER THREE
Analysis of Suspension Bridge
3.1 Bridge Loading.
3.2 Cable static analysis.
3.3 Fabrication and types of cables.
3.4 Deck – Stiffening girder.
3.5 Towers – Cable Anchors.

Chapter 3 Analysis of Suspension Bridge
CHAPTER 3
ANALYSIS OF SUSPENSION BRIDGE
3.1 Bridge Loading:
When building a bridge, engineers need to consider the load types the
bridge will encounter over a long period of time. These factors determine
what material should be used to build the bridge as well as the type of
structure that will best withstand the loads.
Types of Loading:
3.1.1 Dead load:
The dead load of a bridge is the bridge itself and all the parts and materials
that are used in the construction of the bridge. This includes the foundation,
beams, cement, cables, surfacing, guard rail, hand rail, power poles, and water
lines.
It is necessary to make a preliminary estimation for the dead load and perform
the design based on the estimated value.
The weight of the structure can then be calculated and then compared with the
previously estimated weight. It might be necessary to make more cycles of
design on new D.L.
3.1.2 Live Load:
3.1.2.1 AASHTO loading:
a) Truck loading:
Consist of H-10, H-15, H-20, H-25, HS-15, HS-20, and HS-25.
• H-10 and H-15 are used for the design of lightly loaded state roads.
• H-20 and HS-20 used for national and interstate highway system.
26
“Figure 3.1 – AASHTO truck loading”

b) Uniform Loading:
The design of live load consists of basic H-trucks preceded and
followed by train of trucks weighing three quarter as much as the
basic truck.
27
Note: for the HS truck only one truck is to be used per span. For longer spans
the equivalent loading produces greater stresses than the single truck.
Equivalent Uniform Lane loading:
• Composed of Uniform Distributed Load (UDL) as (KN/m) of lane
width 10 ft. (3.05 m) and Knife Edge Load (KEL).
• Only one concentrated load is used in a simply supported span or for a
positive moment in continuous spans.
• Two concentrated loads are used for negative moment.
• The uniformly distributed load can be divided into segments, when
applied to continuous spans.
Table 3.1 - Equivalent loading for trucks

UDL KEL (KN)
Truck
(KN/m) Moment shear
HS20 9.3 80 116
H20 9.3 80 116
HS15 7.0 60 87
H15 7.0 60 87
3.1.2.2 British Standard (BS5400 Part 2):

Two types of loading must be considered:
1. HA – loading:
The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges says that Type HA
loading is the normal design loading for Great Britain and adequately
covers the effects of all permitted normal vehicles other than those
used for abnormal loads. Normal vehicles are governed by the Road
Vehicles (Authorized Weight) Regulations 1998, referred to as the
AW Vehicles and cover vehicles up to 44 ton gross vehicle weight.
28
Loads from these AW vehicles are represented by a uniformly
distributed load (UDL) and a Knife Edge Load (KEL) combined.
• UDL: the uniformly distributed load (UDL) shall be taken as 30 KN
per linear meter of national lane for loaded length up to 30m.
And for loaded length in excess of 30 m it shall be derived from the
equation:
1
𝑊 = 151 × ( )0.475
𝐿
but not less than 9 KN/m
where:
L: loaded length in (m).
W: load per meter of lane in KN.
• Nominal KEL:
The KEL per national lane shall be taken as 120 KN/Lane. Placed on
position to obtain higher moment or shear needed.
2. HB – loading:
the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges says that Type HB loading
requirements derive from the nature of exceptional industrial loads
(e.g. electrical transformers, generators, pressure vessels, etc.) likely
to use the roads in the area.
The vehicle load is represented by a four axle vehicle with four
wheels equally spaced on each axle. The load on each axle is defined
by a number of units which is dependent on the class of road.
Motorways and trunk roads require 45 units, Principal roads require
37.5 units and other public roads require 30 units. One unit of HB is
equal to 10kN per axle.
29
3.2 Cable Static Analysis:
Suspension bridge consists of two cables, which are stretched over the
span to be bridged. Each cable, passing over two towers, anchored by
backstays to a firm foundation, as shown in the figure.
“Figure 3.2 – Geometry of suspension bridge”
As the cables is flexible throughout, therefore it cannot resist any moment and
can adopt any shape under the loads; that’s why the bending moment at every
point of the cable is taken as zero.
The roadway is suspended from the cables by means of “Hangers” or

“Suspenders”. Since the hangers are large in number, therefore the load
transmitted by hangers, is taken as uniformly distributed load.
The central sag or dip of the cable generally varies from 1/10 to 1/15 of the
span.
30
3.2.1 Equation of the cable:

By geometry:
“Figure 3.3 – Cable geometry”
Consider cable (ACB) as shown in figure (3.3) supported at A and B. let C be

the lowest point of the cable as shown in the figure.
Let:
l = span of the cable
Yc = Central dip of the cable
The shape of the cable when the load is uniformly distributed is parabola.
The equation of the parabola is:
𝑌 = 𝑘𝑋 2
𝑙
When 𝑋 = , 𝑌 = 𝑌𝑐
2
Substituting these values of X and Y in the equation yields:

4𝑌𝐶
𝑘=
𝑙2
Now sub. Value of (K) in the eq.:
4𝑌𝐶 2
𝑌= 𝑋
𝑙2
This is the required eq. for Y at any X from A to B.
31
3.2.2Horizontal Thrust on the Cable & Second Equation (Force-related):
“Figure 3.4 – Horizontal thrust on cable”
Consider a cable (ACB) as shown in figure (3.4) supported at A and B and

carrying a uniformly distributed load as shown in the figure.
Let C be the lowest point of the cable. A little consideration will show, that as
a result of loading, the two supports at A and B will tend to come nearer to
each other. Since these two supports are in equilibrium, therefore an outward
force must act, on both the supports to keep them in balance. As the cables is
supporting vertical load only, therefore the horizontal thrust at A must be
equal to the horizontal thrust at B.
“Figure 3.5 – Forces on cable”

1. Horizontal pull (T o ).
2. Downward load (wx).
3. Tension in the cable at D (T).
32
We find that the magnitude W of the total load carried by the portion of the
cable extending from C to the point D of coordinates x and y is W = wx
Since all forces of this portion is in equilibrium,
𝑇 = �𝑇𝑜 2 + 𝑊 2
𝑤𝑑
𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜃 =
𝑇𝑜
“Figure 3.6 – Cable equilibrium”
Moreover, the distance from D to the line of action of the resultant W is equal
to half the horizontal distance from C to D. Taking the summing moments
about D equals zero then one can obtain:
𝑑
� 𝑀𝐷 = 0 𝑤𝑑 − 𝑇𝑜 𝑑 = 0
2
𝑤𝑑 2
𝑇𝑜 =
2𝑑
To find the value of the horizontal tension 𝑇𝑜 , applying any boundary
condition, such as, at X = 𝑙 / 2, Y = Y C Therefore:
𝑙 2
𝑤� � 𝑤𝑙 2
𝑇𝑜 = 2 =
2𝑌𝑐 8𝑌𝑐
To is the horizontal thrust on the cable.
Consequently, equations above are used to know the value of the

tension force and its direction at any point on the cable at X distance from the
origin C.
33
On the other hand:
� 𝐹𝑥 = 0 𝑇 sin 𝜃 = 𝑇𝑜
the horizontal thrust is constant on all points of the cable.

𝑤𝑋 2
Since 𝑇𝑜 is a constant quantity, therefore the above equation 𝑇𝑜 = is that of a
2𝑌
parabola. It is thus obvious, that the cable hangs in the form of a parabola.
𝑤𝑑 2
𝑌=
2𝑇𝑜
Difference between two equations of the cable:

1. First eq. is related to a geometric shape, not related to forces and used only for
analysis.
2. Second eq. is a force related, one can calculate the length of each hanger at
specific equal distances (X) which is used at the design stage.
3.2.3 Maximum tension in the cable:
a. When supported at the same level.

b. When supported at different level.
To prove that the maximum tension occurs at the supports of the cable:
𝑇 = �𝑇𝑜 2 + 𝑊 2
𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = �𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡 2 + (𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡 × 𝑋𝑚𝑎𝑥 )2
𝑙
So T max occurs at the X max which is (support of the cable).
2
34
a) Maximum tension when cable supported at the same level:
Since T max is at the supports A and B. So the tension at the supports will be:
2
2 𝑤𝑙 2 𝑤𝑙 2 𝑤𝑙 𝑙2
𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = �𝑅 2 + 𝑇𝑜 = �� + � � = ��1 + �
2 8𝑌𝐶 2 16𝑌𝐶 2
Note:
If the cable is subjected to point loads, with or without uniformly
distributed load, then the magnitude of tension in the cable will be
different at two supports. In such case, first of all find out the two
vertical reactions V A and V B considering the cable as a simply
supported beam of length 𝑙.
b) Maximum tension when cable supported at different levels:
Main purpose here is to find the coordinates of the lowest point.
“Figure 3.7 – Cable supported at different levels”
In order to locate position of the lowest point if the cable C, let us imagine the
portion CB of the cable to be extended to CB 1 such that the new support B 1 is
at the same level as that of A.
35
Similarly, imagine the portion AC of the cable to be cut short to A 1 C such
that the new support A 1 is at the same level as that of B. from the geometry of
the figure, we find that the cable ACB 1 has a span of 2𝑙1 and a central dip of
YC.
From figure (3.7), now in the cable ACB 1 the horizontal thrust,
𝑤𝑙 2 𝑤(2𝑙1 )2
𝑇𝑜 = =
8𝑌𝐶 8(𝑌𝐶 + 𝑑)
Similarly in the cable A 1 CB the horizontal thrust,
𝑤𝑙 2 𝑤(2𝑙2 )2
𝑇𝑜 = =
8𝑌𝐶 8𝑌𝐶
Since the two horizontal thrusts are equal, therefore equating the both
equations,
𝑤(2𝑙1 )2 𝑤(2𝑙2 )2
=
8(𝑌𝐶 + 𝑑) 8𝑌𝐶
𝑙1 2 𝑙2 2
=
𝑌𝐶 + 𝑑 𝑌𝐶
𝑙1 𝑌𝐶 + 𝑑
= � ≫≫≫ 1
𝑙2 𝑌𝐶
𝑙1 + 𝑙2 = 𝑙 ≫≫≫ 2
From 1 and 2, it is possible to find 𝑙1 and 𝑙2 .

36
𝑤𝑑 2 𝑤𝑙2 2 𝑤𝑙1 2
𝑇𝑜 = = =
2𝑌 2𝑌𝐶 2(𝑌𝑐 + 𝑑)
𝑅𝐴 = 𝑤𝑙1
𝑅𝐵 = 𝑤𝑙2
𝑇𝐴 = �𝑅𝐴 2 + 𝑇𝑜 2
𝑇𝐵 = �𝑅𝐵 2 + 𝑇𝑜 2
Since the value of R A (the support carrying more of the load) is more than R B therefore
the maximum tension in the cable will be at A.
3.2.4 Length of the cable:

It means the actual length of the cable required between the two supports A and B,
when it is loaded with a uniformly distributed load, and hangs in the form of a
parabola. Here we shall discuss the following two cases:
a. When supported at the same levels
b. When supported at different levels
a) Length of cables when supported at the same level:
“Figure 3.8 – Cable supported at the same level”
37
Equation of the cable:
𝑤𝑋 2
𝑌=
2𝑇𝑜
Differentiating this equation with respect to X,
𝑑𝑑 2𝑤𝑑 𝑤𝑑
= =
𝑑𝑑 2𝑇𝑜 𝑇𝑜
Now consider a small length 𝑑𝑑 of the cable as shown in figure (3.9):

***REPAIRED***
𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑
𝑑𝑑 = �𝑑𝑑 2 + 𝑑𝑑 2
𝑑𝑑 2 𝑑𝑑
= 𝑑𝑑 ��1 + �
𝑑𝑑
“Figure 3.9”
𝑑𝑦
Substituting the value of
𝑑𝑥
𝑤𝑑 2
𝑑𝑑 = 𝑑𝑑 �1 + � �
𝑇𝑜
Now expanding the term inside the square root, by binomial theorem,
1/2
𝑤𝑑 2 𝑤 2𝑑2 𝑤 2𝑑2
�1 + � � = �1 + = �1 + �
𝑇𝑜 𝑇𝑜 2 𝑇𝑜 2
1 𝑤 2𝑑2
= 1+ × +⋯
2 𝑇𝑜 2
𝑤2𝑥2
(Neglecting the higher powers of )
𝑇𝑜 2
1 𝑤 2𝑑2
∴ 𝑑𝑑 = 𝑑𝑑 �1 + × �
2 𝑇𝑜 2
𝑙
Now integrating the above equation between the limits 𝑑 = 0 and 𝑑 =
2
38
𝑙
2 1 𝑤 2𝑑2
𝑑 = � �1 + × � 𝑑𝑑
0 2 𝑇𝑜 2
𝑙 𝑤 2 𝑙2
= + ∙
2 2𝑇𝑜 2 24
𝑙 𝑤 2 𝑙3
= +
2 48𝑇𝑜 2
A little consideration will show that since the limits of integration where from
0 to 𝑙/2 (taking C as origin) therefore the above equation gives the length of
half of the cable.
∴ Total length of the cable,

𝑙 𝑤 2 𝑙3
𝐿= +
2 48𝑇𝑜 2
𝑤𝑙 2
Now substituting the value of 𝑇𝑜 = in the above equation,
8𝑌𝑐
𝑤 2 𝑙3 1
𝐿=𝑙+ × 2
24 𝑤𝑙 2
� �
8𝑌𝑐
8𝑌𝑐 2
=𝑙+
3𝑙
b) Length of the cable, when supported at different levels
From figure (3.7):
• Length of the cable ACB 1
8(𝑌𝑐 + 𝑑)2
𝐿1 = 2𝑙1 +
3 × 2𝑙1
8(𝑌𝑐 + 𝑑)2
= 2𝑙1 +
6𝑙1
• Length of the cable A 1 CB
39
8(𝑌𝑐 )2
𝐿2 = 2𝑙2 +
3 × 2𝑙2
8(𝑌𝑐 )2
= 2𝑙2 +
6𝑙2
Now the actual length of the cable ACB,
𝐿1 + 𝐿2 1 8(𝑌𝑐 + 𝑑)2 8𝑌𝑐 2

𝐿= = �2𝑙1 + + 2𝑙2 + �
2 2 6𝑙1 6𝑙2
2(𝑌𝑐 + 𝑑)2 2𝑌𝑐 2

=𝑙+ +
3𝑙1 3𝑙2
3.2.5 The effect on the cable due to change in temperature:

We know that the length of the cable must increase with the rise in
temperature. Since the two supports of the cable cannot move under any
displacement, therefore the downward movement of the point will increase
the central dip Y c of the cable.
Length of the cable:
8𝑌𝑐 2
𝐿= 𝑙+
3𝑙
Differentiating the above equation with respect to Y c
𝑑𝐿 16𝑌𝑐
=
𝑑𝑌𝑐 3𝑙
16𝑌𝑐
𝑑𝐿 = 𝑑𝑌𝑐
3𝑙
3𝑙
𝑑𝑌𝑐 = 𝑑𝐿 … 𝑖
16𝑌𝑐
40
As a result of rise in the temperature, increase in length of the cable,
8𝑌𝑐 2
𝑑𝐿 = 𝐿 𝛼 𝑡 = �𝑙 + � 𝛼𝑡
3𝑙
Where 𝛼 = coefficient of linear expansion for the cable material.
∝𝑡8𝑌𝑐 2
(Neglecting as compared to 𝐿 𝛼 𝑡)
3𝑙
=𝑙𝛼𝑡
Substituting this value of 𝑑𝐿 in equation i
3𝑙 3𝑙2
𝑑𝑌𝑐 = ×𝑙𝛼𝑡 = 𝛼𝑡
16𝑌𝑐 16𝑌𝑐
We know that the horizontal thrust,

𝑤𝑙 2
𝑇𝑜 =
8𝑌𝑐
1
∴ 𝑇𝑜 ∝
𝑌𝑐
𝑑𝑇𝑜 𝑑𝑌𝑐
=−
𝑇𝑜 𝑌𝑐
We also know that the stress in the cable:
𝑓 ∝ 𝑇𝑜
𝑑𝑓 𝑑𝑇𝑜 𝑑𝑌𝑐
= =−
𝑓 𝑇𝑜 𝑌𝑐
𝑑𝑇𝑜 3𝑙 2
=− 𝛼𝑡
𝑇𝑜 16𝑌𝑐 2
Minus sign indicates that when the temperature rises:

1. The central dip increases.
2. Horizontal thrust decreases.
41
3.2.7 Accuracy:
1. Since the weight of the cables is small compared to the weight of the road way
so the shape of the of the suspension bridge cables is always parabolic.
2. Mathematically, the difference between the function of the parabola (X2) and
the function of the catenary cosh(X) is very little and can be neglected.
“Figure 3.10 – Difference between catenary and parabola”
42
3.3 Types and Fabrication of cables:
The basic element for all cables to be found in modern cable supported
bridges is the steel wire characterized by a considerably larger tensile strength
than that of ordinary structural steel.
In most cases, the steel wire is of cylindrical shape with a diameter between 3
and 7 mm. Typically, a wire with a diameter of (5–5.5) mm is used in the
main cables of suspension bridges whereas wires with diameters up to 7mm
are used for parallel wire strands in cable stayed bridges.
The steel material for the wires is manufactured by the Siemens–Martin
process or as electro steel, with a chemical composition characterized by a
higher carbon content than allowed for structural steel.
Table below shows a comparison between different properties of cable steel
and structural steel.
In the chemical composition, the high carbon content of cable steel, about
four times that of structural steel, is of special significance:
1. It appears that the strength of the cable steel is approximately four times
that of mild structural steel and twice that of high-strength structural
steel.
2. This increased strength is, however, paid for by a noticeable decrease of
the ductility as the strain at breaking is only about one-fifth of that
found for structural steel.
3. This high content of carbon makes the cable steel unsuited for welding.
43
“Table 3.2 – Comparison between cable steel and structural steel”
3.3.1 Basic Types of Cables

Although the single wire forms the basic element for cables, several
wires are often shop-assembled to form pre-fabricated strands, subsequently
used at the site as basic elements for the construction of the final cable.
The simplest strand to be found within cable supported bridges is the seven-
wire strand as used extensively in tendons for pre-stressed concrete. For
cables, the strand is normally made from seven 5mmwires giving the strand a
nominal diameter of 15mm.
“Figure 3.11 – Seven-wire strand”
The most common seven-wire strands comprise wires with tensile strengths
between 1770 and 1860 MPa. The seven-wire strand consists of a single
straight core wire surrounded by a single layer of six wires, all with the same
direction of helix.
44
3.4 Deck – Stiffening Girder:
The deck is the structural element subjected to the major part of the
external load on a cable supported bridge. This is because the total traffic load
is applied directly to the deck, and in most cases both the dead load and the
wind area are larger for the deck than for the cable system.
Immediately the deck must be able to transfer the load locally whereas it will
receive assistance from the cable system in the global transmission of the
(vertical) load to the supporting points at the main piers.
Immediately the deck must be able to transfer the load locally whereas it will
receive strong decisive assistance from the cable system in the global
transmission of the (vertical) load to the supporting points at the main piers.
This feature is illustrated in Figure below showing at the top a typical dead
load moment diagram for a continuous three span girder bridge, and at the
bottom a possible dead load moment diagram for a three-span cable stayed
bridge. It is seen that, even in the case of only four cable supported points in
the main span the dead load moments are substantially reduced.
“Figure 3.12”
45
3.4.1 Flexural stiffness in the vertical direction:
The participation of the deck in the transfer of vertical loads depends on

the general arrangement of the total structural system. In principle, the action
of the deck can be divided into:
1. To carry the load locally between cable anchor points.

2. To distribute concentrated forces.
3. To assist the cable system in carrying the load globally.
As the deck is subjected directly to the traffic load and its own weight, but
only supported by the cable system at the cable anchor points, the deck must
as a minimum be able to span between these points.
The deck’s ability to distribute concentrated forces (Action 2) will be utilized
primarily in bridges with a large number of cable supported points as found in
suspension bridges cable system.
Distributing a concentrated force between a number of cables, as indicated in
Figure will reduce the maximum design force in the cables and give a more
even curvature of the bridge deck at the concentrated force.
“Figure 3.13”
46
3.4.2 Torsional stiffness
The eccentricity of the traffic load is totally dependent on the:

1. The cable system of the suspension bridge.
2. Torsional stiffness of the deck: a torsional stiffness of the deck is not
essential but it might lead to a favorable distribution of forces between
the two cable planes.
The following two figures will demonstrates the relation in torsional
stiffness between cable system and deck.
“Figure 3.14 - A system with two cable planes and a deck without torsional rigidity”
In System above, the eccentric force P can be distributed to the two cable
planes according to the lever arm principle, and in that case no torsional
moments will be induced in the deck.
47
“Figure 3.15 - A system with two cable planes as well as a torsionally stiff deck”
In System above the torsional moment Pe is taken partly by the deck and partly
by the cable system. As indicated, this reduces the difference between the two forces
acting on the cable systems (compared to System before). Therefore, the torsional
stiffness of the deck results in a more even force distribution between the two cable
systems, and in a reduction of the twist angle.
3.4.3 Supporting Condition:
The interaction between the deck, the cable system and the pylons in
the transmission of vertical and horizontal loads is decisively influenced by
the choice of the supporting conditions for the deck.
In the conventional three-span suspension bridge the deck often consists of
three individual girders with simple supports at the pylons and the end piers
(anchor blocks), as indicated in the figure below.
48
“Figure 3.16”
Generally, the end pier supports will be longitudinally fixed whereas all other
supports are made longitudinally movable, so that all expansion will take
place in the two joints at the pylons.
The supporting conditions shown in Figure are especially favorable for the
deformations under temperature change as the largest longitudinal
displacements of the deck will occur in the regions with the longest hangers.
The change of inclination of the hangers will therefore be modest.
In the dead load condition the bearings under the deck will be subjected to
small forces as almost all dead load is carried by the cable system.
With movable bearings at both ends, the deck of the main span will be
supported longitudinally only by the cable system. Therefore, in conventional
suspension bridges with vertical hangers throughout the main span a
longitudinal displacement of the deck is required to ensure the transmission of
a longitudinal force by inclination of the shorter hangers, as illustrated below:
“Figure 3.17 - Inclination of the short hangers at midspan to transfer a longitudinal force from
the deck to the main cable”
49
In bridges with moderate longitudinal forces, e.g. braking forces on road
bridges, the required longitudinal displacement will be small, On the other
hand, in bridges with large longitudinal forces a further restraint of the main
span deck might be desirable. Such a restraint could be accomplished in the
following ways:
1. By applying a fixed support at one of the pylons.

2. By connecting the deck and the main cable through a central clamp at
midspan.
3. By installing shock absorbers at the pylons, allowing slow thermal
movements but excluding movements from short-term loading such as
braking forces.
A continuous deck can be applied in an earth anchored suspension bridge.

Here the main advantage to be gained is that the large angular changes
occurring at the pylons under certain traffic load conditions will be
eliminated. This might be of special importance in bridges carrying a train
load.
On the other hand, a suspension bridge with a continuous deck will have large
negative moments induced in the deck at the supports on the pylons. This
might result in stresses of such a magnitude that high tensile steels will be
required for the deck sections near the pylons.
In suspension bridges and cable stayed bridges with multi-cable systems
where the deck is almost continuously supported by the cable system from
one end to the other, it might be possible to omit the vertical supports of the
deck at the pylons, as shown in Figure (3.18).
50
“Figure 3.18 - Cable supported bridge with the deck supported vertically on the end piers only,
but laterally at the pylons as well as on the end piers”
This will lead to a noticeable reduction of the bending moments in the deck at
the pylons.
For a major suspension bridge the system illustrated in Figure above was used
for the first time in the Storebælt East Bridge. Here the lack of vertical deck
support at the pylons is dearly indicated by omitting the traditional cross
beam between the pylon legs beneath the deck.
“Figure 3.19 - Pylon of the Storebælt East Bridge without a cross beam below the deck”
51
In the lateral direction it will often be required to have bearings both at
the end piers and at the pylons, as indicated on the plan of last Figure. This is
due to the fact that the cable system in many cases does not render a very
efficient lateral support to the deck.
The lateral support of the deck at the-pylons can be accomplished by applying
vertical sliding bearings between the deck and the inner faces of the pylon
legs.
“Figure 3.20 - Connection between the deck and the pylon through vertical sliding bearings for
transmission of lateral forces”
3.5 Tower – Cable anchors

The suspension bridge is supported on two towers on both of its sides. The cable, after
passing over the supporting tower, is anchored down into a huge mass of concrete.
The following two arrangements of passing the cable over the supporting towers are
important from the subject point of view:
3.5.1 Guide pulley support for suspension cable:
• Tension equal on both sides of the cable.
• Moment occurs on tower
3.5.2 Roller support for suspension cable:
• Horizontal force equal on both side of cable.
• No moment occurs – moment released.
52
CHAPTER FOUR
Case Study – 14th of July Suspension Bridge Using
Computer Program (CSi Bridge)
4.1 Analysis Program – CSi Bridge.
4.2 Geometry of the Bridge.
4.3 Steel types used.
4.4 Structural properties of the components of suspension

bridge.
4.5 Loading Cases.
4.6 Analysis Results.

Chapter 4 Case Study
CHAPTER 4
CASE STUDY - 14TH JULY
In this chapter, general analysis is performed to the (14th July) suspension bridge as a case
study with different loadings to study the behavior of the bridge under these loadings.
I would like to note that I have made some modifications in different parts of the
suspension bridge to make the analysis process easier.
4.1 Analysis Program – CSiBridge
CSiBridge program is a modeling, analysis and design program for bridge structures that
have been integrated into CSiBridge to perform the maximum benefit from the
computerized engineering tools. This program is a development version of SAP2000.
The program has a facility in which the geometrical properties of the suspension bridge
can be entered directly.
The bridge model is generated directly saving in time and effort, In contrary to other
programs like STAAD Pro which took a lot of time and effort to construct the main parts
of the bridge.
54
4.2 Geometry of the Bridge:

The 14th of July suspension bridge has the geometrical properties shown in table (4.1).
Table 4.1 – Bridge geometry

Total span (m) 336
Center span length (m) 168
Side span length (m) 84
Tower height (m) 25
Length of the tower over deck (m) 23.308
Deck width (m) 15.9
Carriage way width (m) 14
Number of lanes 4
Cable sag at center span (m) 4
Number of suspenders in each side 45
Suspender spacing (m) 7
Length of the cable (m) 380.7
The simple shape of the bridge is shown in figure (4.1).
“Figure 4.1 – general view”
55
4.3 Steel types used:
1. Girders, stringer, floor beams and towers have the properties shown in table (4-2).
Table 4-2
Weight per unit volume KN/m3 76.8
Modulus of elasticity( E) KN/m2 2 x 108
Poisson’s ratio U 0.28
Shear modulus (G) KN/m2 11.7 x 108
Yield stress (F y ) MPa 355
Effective yield stress (F ye ) MPa 213
Tensile stress (F u ) MPa 510
Effective tensile stress( F ue ) MPa 306
2. St-37 Cables and Suspenders:
Table 4-3
Weight per unit volume KN/m3 59.94
Modulus of elasticity (E) KN/m2 1.655 x 108
Poisson’s ratio (U) 0.28
Tensile stress (F u ) MPa 1700
Effective tensile stress( F ue ) MPa 1020
3. Concrete material: deck surface
Table 4-4
Fc’ MPa 25
Weight per unit volume KN/m3 25
56
4.4 Structural properties of the components of suspension bridge:

The floor beam system of the deck is detailed in figure (4.2) and summarized in table
(4.5).
“Figure 4.2 – Deck cross section”
Table 4-5 Deck floor beams, stringers and surface thickness

Number of floor beams 49
Number of stringers 7
Spacing between stringers (m) 2.15
Concrete surface thickness (mm) 20
57
Cross sections:
The geometrical and mechanical properties of the bridge components were entered in
dialog input boxes of the program as shown in figures (4.3) , (4.4) and (4.5).
All dimensions in (KN and m).
1. Girder:
“Figure 4.3 – Girder cross section”

2. Floor Beam – Stringer:
“Figure 4.4 - Floor beam and stringer cross sections”

58
3. Tower
“Figure 4.5 – Tower cross section”
The properties of the main cable and suspenders were shown in tables (4.6) and
(4.7) respectively.
Table 4-6 Main Cable Properties

Diameter 34 cm
Cable area 907.92cm2
Table 4-7 Suspender Properties

Diameter 76 mm
Suspender area 45.8 cm2
4.5 Loading Cases:
Bridge is subjected to different loading cases to measure a certain parameters in each case
1. Dead load:
a. Steel Frames and Cables.
b. Concrete of the deck and asphalt layer.
c. Accessories like hand rail, Guard rail and light poles.
59
2. Positive moment:
Truck HS-20 KEL
UDL: 9.3 KN/m UDL

KEL: 80 KN
“Figure 4.6 - Positive moment loading”
3. Negative moment:
Truck HS-20
UDL: 9.3 KN/m
KEL: 80 KN
“Figure 4.7 - Negative moment loading”
4. General Distribution:
UDL: 10.1827 KN/m
KEL: 120.13 KN
“Figure 4.8 - General distribution loading”
60
5. Maximum Shear:
UDL: 9.3 KN/m
KEL: 116 KN
“Figure 4.9 Maximum shear loading”
The ASD method suggested by AISC manual were adopted in analysis of the whole
bridge.
1.6 Result of analysis:
1.6.1 Cable analysis:
The result of analysis under the effect of (general distribution) loading case was
summarized in figure (4.10) and table (4.8).
“Figure 4.10 – Cable axial force diagram”
Table (4-8) indicates the element forces of cable from mid span to the anchorage.
61
TABLE 4-8 : Element Forces - Frames

Frame Station P
Text m KN
168 0 21308.123
168 3.5006 21308.475
168 7.0012 21308.828
175 0 21634.828
175 3.50539 21635.886
175 7.01079 21636.944
182 0 22181.474
182 3.51496 22183.237
182 7.02992 22185
189 0 22810.781
189 3.52926 22813.249
189 7.05853 22815.717
196 0 23424.843
196 3.54824 23428.016
196 7.09649 23431.19
203 0 23980.631
203 3.57183 23984.51
203 7.14366 23988.388
210 0 24472.782
210 3.59992 24477.365
210 7.19985 24481.949
217 0 24912.913
217 3.63243 24918.202
217 7.26486 24923.491
224 0 25317.457
224 3.66922 25323.45
224 7.33845 25329.444
231 0 25698.737
231 3.71018 25705.436
231 7.42037 25712.135
238 0 26079.753
238 3.75517 26087.157
238 7.51034 26094.561
245 0 26420.935
245 3.80404 26429.045
245 7.60808 26437.154
250 0 27537.847
250 3.96419 27527.718
250 7.92838 27517.588
62
257 0 27061.503
257 3.89082 27052.255
257 7.78163 27043.006
264 0 26605.882
264 3.82289 26597.514
264 7.64577 26589.146
271 0 26186.181
271 3.7607 26178.694
271 7.5214 26171.207
278 0 25787.802
278 3.70455 25781.196
278 7.4091 25774.589
285 0 25389.085
285 3.65471 25383.359
285 7.30942 25377.634
292 0 24932.629
292 3.61144 24927.785
292 7.22289 24922.94
299 0 24269.001
299 3.57499 24265.037
299 7.14997 24261.073
306 0 22978.632
306 3.54555 22975.549
306 7.0911 22972.466
313 0 19814.939
313 3.52331 19812.737
313 7.04663 19810.535
320 0 11276.25
320 3.50841 11274.929
320 7.01682 11273.607
327 0 2070.379
327 3.50094 2069.939
327 7.00187 2069.498
Results:
1. Maximum cable tension = 27537.847 KN
2. Horizontal tension = 21308.123 KN
63
3. It is observed that the last three cable segments (327, 320, and 313) have low
tension forces due to the fact that the cable is embedded in the deck girder (self-
anchored) as shown in figure (4-11).
“Figure 4.11 - cable embedment in deck”
A sample of the program output of the problem can be seen in the following computer
sheet.
64
4.6.2 Tower analysis:
Loading case: General Distribution.
The axial force distribution in the tower can be shown in figure (4.12) and
summarized in table (4.9)
“Figure 4.12 – Axial force”
Neither bending moment nor shear force found in the tower as shown in figure
(4.13) and (4.14)
“Figure 4.13 – Moment in tower”
66
“Figure 4.14 – Shear in tower”

TABLE 4-9 : Element Forces - Frames
Frame Station P V2 V3 T M2 M3
Text m KN KN KN KN-m KN-m KN-m
338 0 -23911.549 0 0 0 0 0
338 11.654 -23676.656 0 0 0 0 0
338 23.308 -23441.764 0 0 0 0 0
• Max axial force = 23441.8 KN
From these figures and tables, the following can be concluded:
1. The max axial force in the tower is recorded to be 23441.8 KN.
2. Sudden change in axial force occurred near the deck supporting, the
extra force comes from the deck which is not carried by the cable
system.
3. Bending moment, shear force and torques are vanished because the
main cable sits on a saddle, which is supported on rollers.
67
4.6.3 Deck Analysis:
1. Positive moment :
Loading case : POSITIVE MOMENT
“Figure 4.15 – Positive moment about horizontal axis”
• Max positive moment = 401.2 KN.m
• Max negative moment = 456.2 KN.m
“Figure 4.16 – Sections adequacy for positive moment”
69
1. Negative moment:
Loading case : NEGATIVE MOMENT
“Figure 4.17 – Negative moment about horizontal axis”
• Max positive moment = 379.8 KN.m
• Max negative moment = 508 KN.m
“Figure 4.18 – Sections adequacy for negative moment”

71
1. Shear:
Loading case : MAX SHEAR
“Figure 4.19 – Shear force”
• Max shear force = 554.6
“Figure 4.20 Sections adequacy for shear”
73
Table 4-10 Analysis Summary for Critical Sections

Critical Axial Bending Shear
Axial Comp.
Frame Tension Moment Force
(KN)
Number (KN) (KN.m) (KN)
Main Cable 250 27538 None -43 29.1
Suspender 777.4 None None None
Tower 338 None 23442 None None
Main Girder
Positive 167 - - 43795 -
Negative 252 - - 41876 -
Shear 86 - - - 2401
Table 4-11 Stresses State in Members

As a
Critical
Bridge Critical Allowable Stress Ratio of Status
Frame Magnitude
Component Force Capacity (MPa) Yield Check
Number
Stress
Axial
Main Cable Tension 250 27538 77171 302.6 0.178F u O.K.
(KN)
Axial
Tower Comp. 338 23442 45551 89 0.25F y O.K.
(KN)
Positive
Girder Moment 167 43795 54485 148 0.42F y O.K.
(KN.m)
Negative
Girder Moment 252 41876 54485 176 0.5F y O.K.
(KN.m)
Shear
Girder 86 2401 7260 26.96 0.08F y O.K.
(KN)
75
CSiBridge Steel Design Project
Job Number
Engineer
AISC360-05/IBC2006 STEEL SECTION CHECK (Summary for Combo and Station)

Units : KN, m, C
Frame : 250 X Mid: 87.500 Combo: general distributDesign Type: Brace

Length: 7.928 Y Mid: -7.950 Shape: Main Cable Frame Type: Special Moment Frame
Loc : 0.000 Z Mid: 21.447 Class: Compact Princpl Rot: 0.000 degrees
Provision: ASD Analysis: Direct Analysis

D/C Limit=0.950 2nd Order: General 2nd Order Reduction: Tau-b Fixed
AlphaPr/Py=0.285 AlphaPr/Pe=2.585 Tau_b=1.000 EA factor=0.800 EI factor=0.800
OmegaB=1.670 OmegaC=1.670 OmegaTY=1.670 OmegaTF=2.000

OmegaV=1.670 OmegaV-RI=1.500 OmegaVT=1.670
A=0.091 I33=6.560E-04 r33=0.085 S33=0.004 Av3=0.068

J=0.001 I22=6.560E-04 r22=0.085 S22=0.004 Av2=0.068
E=165500000.0 fy=1700000.000 Ry=1.000 z33=0.007
RLLF=1.000 Fu=1700000.000 z22=0.007
HSS Welding: ERW Reduce HSS Thickness? No
STRESS CHECK FORCES & MOMENTS (Combo general distribution)

Location Pr Mr33 Mr22 Vr2 Vr3 Tr
0.000 27537.847 33.441 -82.853 15.675 -10.488 -1.978
PMM DEMAND/CAPACITY RATIO (H1.2,H1-1a)

D/C Ratio: 0.369 = 0.357 + 0.004 + 0.011
= (Pr/Pc) + (8/9)(Mr33/Mc33) + (8/9)(Mr22/Mc22)
AXIAL FORCE & BIAXIAL MOMENT DESIGN (H1.2,H1-1a)

Factor L K1 K2 B1 B2 Cm
Major Bending 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Minor Bending 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Lltb Kltb Cb
LTB 1.000 1.000 4.045
Pr Pnc/Omega Pnt/Omega
Force Capacity Capacity
Axial 27537.847 8951.525 77170.553
Mr Mn/Omega Mn/Omega
Moment Capacity No LTB
Major Moment 33.441 6668.342 6668.342
Minor Moment -82.853 6668.342
Tr Tn Tn/Omega
Moment Capacity Capacity
Torsion -1.978 7917.699 4741.137
SHEAR CHECK
Vr Vn/Omega Stress Status
Force Capacity Ratio Check
Major Shear 15.675 27725.947 0.001 OK
Minor Shear 10.488 27725.947 0.000 OK
BRACE MAXIMUM AXIAL LOADS

P P
Comp Tens
Axial 27537.847 N/C
CSiBridge v15.0.0 - File:C:\Users\Kavak\Desktop\tower rollered - support rollered - Copy\14th July-load patterns fully completed
May 8, 2012 7:39
Job Number
Engineer

Units : KN, m, C
Frame : 338 X Mid: 84.000 Combo: general distributDesign Type: Column

Length: 23.308 Y Mid: -7.950 Shape: Tower Frame Type: Special Moment Frame
Loc : 23.308 Z Mid: 11.654 Class: Slender Princpl Rot: 0.000 degrees


A=0.262 I33=0.118 r33=0.670 S33=0.140 Av3=0.134

J=0.176 I22=0.118 r22=0.670 S22=0.140 Av2=0.134
E=200000000.0 fy=355000.000 Ry=1.000 z33=0.161
RLLF=1.000 Fu=510000.000 z22=0.161
STRESS CHECK FORCES & MOMENTS (Combo general distribution)

23.308 -23441.764 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
PMM DEMAND/CAPACITY RATIO (H1.3b,H1-2)

D/C Ratio: 0.515 = 0.515 + 0.000 + 0.000
= (Pr/Pc) + (Mr33/Mc33)^2 + (Mr22/Mc22)
AXIAL FORCE & BIAXIAL MOMENT DESIGN (H1.3b,H1-2)

Major Bending 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Minor Bending 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Lltb Kltb Cb
LTB 1.000 2.204 1.000
Axial -23441.764 45551.421 55779.641
Major Moment 0.000 27212.116 27212.116
Minor Moment 0.000 27212.116
Tr Tn Tn/Omega
Torsion 0.000 45778.126 27412.051
SHEAR CHECK
Major Shear 0.000 15917.605 0.000 OK
Minor Shear 0.000 15917.605 0.000 OK
May 8, 2012 7:41
Job Number
Engineer

Units : KN, m, C
Frame : 167 X Mid: 3.500 Combo: positive moment Design Type: Beam
Length: 7.000 Y Mid: -7.950 Shape: Girder Frame Type: Special Moment Frame
Loc : 0.000 Z Mid: 0.000 Class: Non-Compact Princpl Rot: 0.000 degrees


A=0.292 I33=0.282 r33=0.983 S33=0.238 Av3=0.188

J=0.083 I22=0.036 r22=0.349 S22=0.076 Av2=0.114
E=200000000.0 fy=355000.000 Ry=1.000 z33=0.269
RLLF=1.000 Fu=510000.000 z22=0.092
STRESS CHECK FORCES & MOMENTS (Combo positive moment)

0.000 -8831.295 43794.977 1.087 31.010 0.518 19.899
PMM DEMAND/CAPACITY RATIO (H1.3a,H1-1b)

D/C Ratio: 0.894 = 0.090 + 0.804 + 0.000
= (1/2)(Pr/Pc) + (Mr33/Mc33) + (Mr22/Mc22)
AXIAL FORCE & BIAXIAL MOMENT DESIGN (H1.3a,H1-1b)

Major Bending 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Minor Bending 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.429
Lltb Kltb Cb
LTB 1.000 1.000 1.005
Axial -8831.295 48806.513 62065.054
Major Moment 43794.977 54485.147 54485.147
Minor Moment 1.087 10746.321
Tr Tn Tn/Omega
Torsion 19.899 46071.283 27587.594
SHEAR CHECK
Major Shear 31.010 7260.142 0.004 OK
Minor Shear 0.518 22141.796 2.340E-05 OK
CONNECTION SHEAR FORCES FOR BEAMS

VMajor VMajor
Left Right
Major (V2) 31.010 187.998
May 8, 2012 5:55
Job Number
Engineer

Units : KN, m, C
Frame : 252 X Mid: 87.500 Combo: negative moment Design Type: Beam
Length: 7.000 Y Mid: 7.950 Shape: Girder Frame Type: Special Moment Frame


A=0.292 I33=0.282 r33=0.983 S33=0.238 Av3=0.188

J=0.083 I22=0.036 r22=0.349 S22=0.076 Av2=0.114
E=200000000.0 fy=355000.000 Ry=1.000 z33=0.269
RLLF=1.000 Fu=510000.000 z22=0.092
STRESS CHECK FORCES & MOMENTS (Combo negative moment)

0.000 -13363.231 -41875.841 53.791 -658.647 15.484 -235.270
PMM DEMAND/CAPACITY RATIO (H1-1a)

D/C Ratio: 0.961 = 0.274 + 0.683 + 0.004
= (Pr/Pc) + (8/9)(Mr33/Mc33) + (8/9)(Mr22/Mc22)
AXIAL FORCE & BIAXIAL MOMENT DESIGN (H1-1a)

Major Bending 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Minor Bending 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.206
Lltb Kltb Cb
LTB 1.000 1.000 1.043
Axial -13363.231 48806.513 62065.054
Major Moment -41875.841 54485.147 54485.147
Minor Moment 53.791 10746.321
Tr Tn Tn/Omega
Torsion -235.270 46071.283 27587.594
SHEAR CHECK
Major Shear 658.647 7260.142 0.091 OK
Minor Shear 15.484 22141.796 0.001 OK

VMajor VMajor
Left Right
Major (V2) 658.647 501.660
May 8, 2012 6:31
Job Number
Engineer

Units : KN, m, C
Frame : 86 X Mid: -80.500 Combo: max shear Design Type: Beam

Length: 7.000 Y Mid: 7.950 Shape: Girder Frame Type: Special Moment Frame


A=0.292 I33=0.282 r33=0.983 S33=0.238 Av3=0.188

J=0.083 I22=0.036 r22=0.349 S22=0.076 Av2=0.114
E=200000000.0 fy=355000.000 Ry=1.000 z33=0.269
RLLF=1.000 Fu=510000.000 z22=0.092
STRESS CHECK FORCES & MOMENTS (Combo max shear)

0.000 -12435.015 -41507.634 -55.818 -2401.254 -15.832 -446.397
PMM DEMAND/CAPACITY RATIO (H1-1a)

D/C Ratio: 0.937 = 0.255 + 0.677 + 0.005
= (Pr/Pc) + (8/9)(Mr33/Mc33) + (8/9)(Mr22/Mc22)
AXIAL FORCE & BIAXIAL MOMENT DESIGN (H1-1a)

Major Bending 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Minor Bending 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.206
Lltb Kltb Cb
LTB 1.000 1.000 1.189
Axial -12435.015 48806.513 62065.054
Major Moment -41507.634 54485.147 54485.147
Minor Moment -55.818 10746.321
Tr Tn Tn/Omega
Torsion -446.397 46071.283 27587.594
SHEAR CHECK
Major Shear 2401.254 7260.142 0.331 OK
Minor Shear 15.832 22141.796 0.001 OK

VMajor VMajor
Left Right
Major (V2) 2401.254 2244.267
May 8, 2012 6:36
`
CHAPTER FIVE
Conclusion
And
Recommendation
5.1 Conclusion.
5.2 Recommendation For Future Studies.

5.1 Conclusion
Reviewing the results of the case study (14th – July) suspension bridge the
following points can be concluded:
1. The structural analysis of the 14th – July suspension bridge using (CSi
Bridge) may be extended to analyze other suspension bridges.
2. Design of suspension bridge can be performed using the same computer
program that used through the project.
3. The result of analysis which is based in adopting the Iraqi and AASHTO
specification standards for bridge loading indicates the following:
a. Main Cable:
almost tensile force is dominated on the section of the cable with maximum value
of (27538 KN) at the support on the tower. Accordingly, the maximum average
tensile stress is (302.6 MPa) which represents (0.178 F u ). This finding indicates
that the cable is in the safe side.
b. Towers:
The two towers of the bridge were subjected to a pure compression force. The
maximum compression force was (23442 KN). The compression stress is (89 MPa)
which represents (0.25 F y ) which is in the limit of the specification (0.5Fy).
c. Main Girder:
The analysis showed that the maximum normal stresses in the box girder of the
bridge were as follows:
1. For Positive moment , stress = 148 MPa , which is (0.42Fy) at middle span
which is within the limit of the specification (0.6Fy).
2. For negative moment, stress = 176 MPa, which is (0.5Fy) near the support
which is within the limit of the specification (0.6Fy).
3. For Shear, stress = 26.96 MPa, which is (0.08 Fy) near the support. Which is
within the limit of the specification (0.4Fy).
77
5.2 Recommendation for future studies:
The following suggestions are recommended for future studies that

concern the suspension bridge problem:
1. Wind load can be taken into consideration through the analysis and
design of the suspension bridge.
2. Seismic analysis can be applied to the suspension bridge structure and
foundation.
3. Study and design of the cable – Anchor Blocks that support the main
cable of the suspension bridge.
78
References
1. Ali Laftah Abbas,
“Linear and Non Linear Coupled Dynamic Response of Suspension Bridges”,
A thesis for the degree of master of science in civil engineering,
Civil Engineering Department, University of Baghdad, July 2000.
2. Niels J. Gimsing, Christos T. Georgakis,

“Cable Supported Bridges, Concept and Design”,
John Wiley and Sons, Third edition, 2012.
3. Dr. Khalid Shakir,

Bridge Engineering Ph.D. lectures,
Civil Engineering Department, University of Baghdad, 2001.
4. Colonel Stephen Ressler, Ph.D.,

Lecture 8, Lecture 15,
U.S. Military Academy at West Point.
5. R.S. Khurmi,
“Theory of Structures”,
S.Chand and Company Ltd., 2010.
6. “Suspension Bridge”,
Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, 2011.
7. R.C. Hibbler,
“Engineering Mechanics – Statics”,
Pearson Education, 11th Edition, 2007.
8. J. L. Meriam, L. G. Kraige,
“Engineering Mechanics – Statics”,
John Wiley and Sons, Sixth edition, 2007.
79
Appendix A – Original Brochure of the building Company of 14th of July Suspension
Bridge
80
Appendix B – Section Properties of 14th of July Suspension Bridge.
Axial Area I major I minor J Torsional

Sec No.
(cm2) (cm4) (cm4) (cm4) Radius (cm)
1 1678.92 17579803 17579803 7475691 66.73
2 1848.12 19996067 2589434 8229085 66.73
3 2038.92 22519449 2634097 9078656 66.73
4 2367.04 27244837 2763217 10539669 66.73
Girder
5 2197.84 24755235 2638629 9786275 66.73

6 2028.64 22338971 2514041 9032882 66.73
7 1859.44 19849369 2389454 8279489 66.73
8 1690.27 17433105 2204866 7526096 66.73
9 1859.44 19849369 2389454 8279489 66.73
10 1764.04 18587678 2367122 7854703 66.73
11 2937.12 10009153 11245372 19761029 82.0
12 2113.1 7447427 7947472 12125100 75.75
13 2305.1 6766356 7925440 12180445 72.69
Tower
14 21197.1 5585284 7903453 12235790 70.0

15 2552.11 7001025 8255329 12235790 67.0
16 2607.12 8416765 8607204 10678764 64.0
17 1363.2 14611588 4095390 9625751 84.0
Floor
18 423.4 2010818 20359 893 1.45
Beam
Main
19 680.74 3690000 3690000
Cable
Suspenders 45.8
81
View publication stats

Analysis and Design of Suspension Bridge

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis and Design of Suspension Bridge

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Analysis and Design of Suspension Bridge

Book · May 2012

Alaa Hussein Al-Zuhairi Ahmed Al-Fakhar

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Steel Space Frame View project

Bond-Slip Behavior of Steel Bars Embedded in Concrete View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Civil Engineering Department

Analysis and Design of

First of all, Father, Thank You, I am an Engineer; that is because of you.

I would like to like to express my sincere thanks, appreciation and deepest

In this project, the structural analysis of suspension bridge is conducted

1.1 What is a suspension bridge.

1.2 Importance and advantage.

1.4 Components of suspension bridge.

It is a type of bridges in which a continuous deck (the load-bearing portion)

1.2 Importance and advantage

Suspension bridges are highly vulnerable to wind, and have been

1.4 Components of the suspension bridge

a) The superstructure part of the suspension bridge consists of:

1. Deck: which is a stiff structural part hung by suspenders

3. Dynamic load: refers to environmental factors that go beyond normal weather

The relatively low deck stiffness compared to other (non-suspension) types of

2.1 Early Precursor.

2.2 First Suspension Bridges.

2.3 From Past to Present.

2.4 Development of Cables and Anchorages.

2.5 Lists of Longest spans of Suspension Bridges.

2.6 14th of July Suspension Bridge – Baghdad, Iraq.

2.1 Early precursor

The Tibetan saint and bridge-builder Thangtong Gyalpo

2.2 First Suspension Bridges:

2.3 From Past to Present:

1. Constructing the main cables and the anchorages.

2.4 Development of Cables and Anchorages:

The history of modern suspension bridge begins started from America

creek bridge in western Pennsylvania . Finley was a justice of a peace not an

“Figure 2.2 - Jacob’s bridge, Pennsylvania”

“Figure 2.3 - Finley’s river over Merrimack river in Massachusetts”

Finley has lacked the expertise and experience to design enduring

This system was structurally redundant; if one individual eyebar failed,

“Figure 2.5 - Eyebar fail”

In 1817 a royal navy officer Samuel brown developed and patented a

“Figure 2.6 - the Union Bridge Tweed River”

In 1818 a Scottish engineer named Thomas Telford was employed to

“Figure 2.7 – Telford’s Bridge”

Telford was a typical British engineer of this era. He disdained math

In practice the effectiveness of a wire cable depends entirely on two aspects

By 1820s, French engineers had become the world leaders in science-based

In 1849, an American named Charles Ellet, educated in a French system

“Figure 2.9 - Wire-cable Bridge of Joseph Chaley”

“Figure 2.10 – Wire-cable of Charles Ellet”

“Figure 2.13 - a wire-cable problem in suspension bridge in Angers, France”

This disaster ended the carriers of entire generation of French suspension

“Figure 2.15 – Strands attached to a strand shoe”

“Figure 2.16 Strand shoe attached to the anchor chain”

2.5 list of the longest spans of suspension bridges:

Table 2.1 the world longest spans of suspension bridges

# NAME country Span m year

“Figure 2.17 - Akashi Kaikyo Bridge, Japan”

2.6 14th of July suspension bridge – Baghdad, Iraq

Self-anchored suspension bridge across the Tigris River designed by

“Figure 2.18 – 14th July Bridge, A view from Tigris River”