Tower design for cable bridges in sea straits
Toon DE VIS Arno JANSSENS
Civil Engineering student, Civil Engineering student,
Ghent University, Belgium Ghent University, Belgium
Toon.DeVis@UGent.be Arno.Janssens@UGent.be
Supervisor: prof. dr. ir. Hans De Backer
Abstract: In this paper, the tower design for various cable
bridges is evaluated. Regarding bridge engineering in sea straits,
additional hydraulic loads have to be taken into account
compared to onshore conditions. Often steel is used in order to
limit the weight of the tower, regarding transport and
construction. It can be concluded that for very large water
depths, floating bridges can be recommended. Hence, the tower
shape often depends on the type of floating devices. Also,
corrosion seems to be an important topic in sea conditions, which
also leads to new anti-corrosion measures. Regarding extreme
weather offshore conditions, specific construction techniques are
developed. In general, bridge engineering in offshore conditions
leads to innovative construction developments, which arise
because specific project-related problems have to be solved.
However, various concepts in literature are only preliminary
studies.
Keywords: Tower, Pylon, Cable Bridge, Sea Strait, Design,
Loads, Construction
I. INTRODUCTION
With respect to the subject ‘cable bridges’, in general a
distinction can be made between cable-stayed – and
suspension bridges. The highest spans can be reached by
the suspension system. This type of bridge is also
characterized by the fact that the bridge deck does not
experience any normal forces resulting from the bridge
system, because of the vertical hangers. On the contrary,
the bridge tower has to resist considerably high moments,
whereas the tower of a cable-stayed bridge often can be
attached to the supporting slab using a hinged connection.
Regarding tower design, the choice of the shape and
material is important for the behavior of the bridge and it
also affects the construction labor and cost. Therefore, an
in-depth study for this construction part is necessary.
Considering cables bridges in sea straits various loads
have to be considered. Compared to onshore conditions,
also hydraulic loads have to be taken into account. Note
that for sea straits the hydraulic and wind loads in general
are lower compared to open sea conditions.
In this paper, first the tower design of cable bridges in
sea straits is discussed in general, followed by the
elaboration of five different cases. The first case, Crossing
of fjords in Norway, is selected in order to highlight
additions in the bridge design in case of floating towers.
This concept can be used in case of very large water
depths. Two specific types of floating bridges will be
discussed. Secondly, The Akashi-Kaikyo bridge, will be
Jannes MEEUSEN Pieterjan PERTZ
Civil Engineering student, Civil Engineering student,
Ghent University, Belgium Ghent University, Belgium
Jannes.Meeusen@UGent.be Pieterjan.Pertz@UGent.be
discussed. This is the longest suspension bridge in the
world. The construction of the towers and their foundations
is explained as well as the special adaptations made for this
record bridge. Also, some maintenance principles are
touched to show this has an influence on the tower design.
In the third case, the proposal of the Tsugaru Strait bridge
is investigated. This is interesting because the bridge is still
in the design process. It is not even sure, it will be build,
but the first steps and decisions in the design become clear.
Seismic interaction between the soil, foundation and pylon
will be analysed in the fourth case, The Messina Strait
Bridge. In this bridge proposal, the discretization of the
structure is conducted and subjected to two earthquakes.
The interaction between the dynamic response of the
structural model of the tower and the modelled soil and
foundation will be discussed. The last case, The Russky
Bridge, is selected to include the formwork system that is
used to construct the pylons. Also, a comparison is made
between the cable-stayed bridge its fan arrangement and a
theoretical arrangement that would result in a lower pylon
height.
II. GENERAL
A. Conceptual design
Towers are defined as vertical steel or concrete structures
projecting above the deck of a bridge, supporting cables
and carrying the forces to which the bridge is subjected to
the ground [1]. Following this definition, towers are only
used for suspension and cable-stayed bridges.
Having noted the above, the design of a tower will be
discussed as two categories: suspension bridges and cable-
stayed bridges. A proper bridge design that considers the
four functions of reliability, serviceability, appearance, and
cost together with an erectable scheme that requires low
maintenance, is the ideal that the design concept should
meet. As towers are the most visible component of a
bridge, they seem to be the target of these design rules. [1]
To start off the design of a tower, a choice must be made
concerning the building material. Two options are mainly
used: steel and concrete (Figure II-1). Steel was the
predominant material for both cable-stayed and suspension
bridges before the 1970’s. Steel towers were rectangular in
elevation with a cross-sectional shape of rectangular,
cruciform, tee or a similar shape easily fabricated in steel.
The cross sections of steel towers are designed as a series
of adjoining cells formed by shop-welding steel plates
together in units from 6 to 12 m long. Bridges with stays
passing over the top of the tower in saddles must be
designed for the concentrated load from the saddles. The
steel cellular towers for a cable-stayed bridge with cables
framing in the towers must be designed for the local forces
from the numerous anchorages of the cables. [1]
Since the 1970s, reinforced concrete has been used in
many forms with rectangular and other compact cross
sections. Concrete towers are usually designed as hollow
shafts to save weight and to reduce the amount of concrete
and reinforcing bars required. [1]
Towers designed in steel will be lighter than towers
designed in concrete, thus giving a potential for savings in
foundation costs. Steel towers will generally be more
flexible and more ductile and can be erected in less time
than concrete towers. Steel towers will require periodic
maintenance painting, although weathering steel can be
used for non-marine environments. [1]
Figure II-1 : Concrete and steel cross-sections
During the conceptual design phase of the bridge,
approximate construction costs of both materials need to be
developed and compared.
For the conceptual design, the height of the cable-stayed
towers above the deck can be assumed to be 20% of the
main span length (Figure II-2). This value is added to the
structural depth of the girder and the clearance to the
foundation for determining the approximate tower height.
[2]
Figure II-2 : Height-to-span ratio cable-stayed bridges
Towers for cable-stayed bridges have a wide variety of
shapes and forms. An overview of the different types is
given in Figure II-3. [1]
Figure II-3 : Possible tower shapes cable-stayed bridges
The simplest tower form is a single shaft. This form is
usually employed for bridges with two-way traffic, to
avoid splitting a one-way traffic flow. In general,
freestanding slender pylons without transverse bracing can
be used for spans up to 500 m. This type is also the best
solution for cable-stayed bridges with cables in a single
plane [3].
The second are two vertical shafts straddling the roadway
with or without cross struts above the roadway form a
simple tower and are used with two planes of cables. The
tower shafts can also be “cranked” or offset above the
roadway. A horizontal strut is used between the tower
shafts, offset to stabilize the towers. This type is usually
applied for longer bridge spans [3].
The two shafts of cable-stayed bridges can also be
inclined inward toward each other to form a modified A-
frame or inclined to bring the shafts tops together to form a
full A-frame. The shafts of the towers for a modified A-
frame can be carried down to the foundations at the same
slope as above the roadway, particularly for sites with low
clearance. However, at high clearance locations, if the
shafts of the towers for a full A-frame or for an inverted Y-
frame are carried down to the foundations at the same slope
as above the roadway, the foundations may become very
wide and costly. Sometimes the lower shafts are inclined
inward under the roadway producing a modified diamond.
[1]
For very high roadways, the inward inclination can form
a full diamond or a double diamond. For very long spans
requiring tall towers, the A-frame can be extended with a body of water and constructed to allow the enclosed area to
single vertical shaft forming an inverted Y shape. This be pumped out [4]. This pumping creates a dry work
form is very effective for very long spans where additional environment for the construction of the foundation to
tower height is required and the inclined legs add stiffness proceed. A cofferdam mainly consists of three components:
and frame action for wind resistance [1]. a sheet wall, a steel bracing and a concrete seal. An
example configuration can be seen in Figure II-5. [1]
Usually towers of suspension bridges follow a more
traditional design using two vertical shafts and two planes
of cables. For conceptual designs, the height of suspension
bridge towers above the deck depend on the sag-to-span
ratio which can vary from about 1:8 to 1:12. A good
preliminary value is about 1:10. The shafts are usually
connected together with several cross bracings along the
height of the tower, or the shafts are connected at the top
with a large single strut. [2]

Figure II-5 : Components cofferdam

Another well-known option is the caisson foundation

(Figure II-6). A caisson foundation is a watertight retaining
structure. It is a prefabricated hollow box or cylinder sunk
Figure II-4 : Concept suspension bridge into the ground to some desired depth and then filled with
concrete, thus forming a foundation. Caisson foundations
are similar in form to pile foundations, but are installed
B. Construction using a different method. It is a form of deep foundation,
The construction of an offshore bridge tower consists of which are constructed above ground level, then sunk to the
two main aspects: the towers structure itself and the required level by excavating or dredging material from
foundations. [1] within the caisson [5]. There are 3 main types of caissons:
open, pneumatic and box caissons.
The tower structure itself can be constructed of structural
steel or reinforced concrete. For structural steel the parts of
the tower are usually fabricated in a shop by welding
together steel plates and rolled shapes to form cells. These
components are then erected by cranes and bolted together
with high-strength bolts. Field welding is not often used, as
it is difficult to control and achieve ductile welds. [1]
Towers constructed of reinforced concrete are usually
cast in forms that can be removed and reused. A tower
crane, connected to the tower, is then used to jump the
forms and raise the materials. This method is called jump
shuttering. Slip forming is an alternative method that also
uses forms. Here they are pulled upwards slowly, while Figure II-6 : Cofferdam construction
placing the reinforcement bars, and concrete being placed
in one continuous operation. Because this method requires The difference between piles and a caisson foundation is
a continuous supply of concrete, it is not recommended for illustrated in Figure II-7. [1]
offshore construction. [1]
Due to the extreme heights of towers in sea straights,
floating cranes rarely have the capacity to reach those
heights. For most tower design tower cranes are used for
both steel and concrete towers. Occasionally, vertical
traveling cranes are used to erect steel towers by pulling
themselves up the face of the tower following the erection
of each new tower component. [1]
Bridge towers are mostly founded on pile foundations.
Steel and reinforced concrete piles can be driven by large
hammers or drilled in case of difficult soils. Driven piles or
cast-in-drilled-shaft piles can be constructed in cofferdams
so as to allow the footing block to be constructed below Figure II-7 : Pile vs. caisson foundation
scour level. A cofferdam is an enclosure built within a
 Also use can be made of jackets, which are steel space
frames consisting out of tubular elements (Figure II-8).
This type of foundation is mostly used for offshore oil and
gas production, but has also already been used in bridge
engineering. The jackets are placed at the seabed by means
of piles driven through the legs and/or piles-sleeves located
at the bottom part of the jacket [6].
Figure II-8 : Jacket foundations
Gravity base structures (GBS, Figure II-9) can be an
option in case large vertical are transferred from the
structure. Because of the relatively large extent of the
foundation, intensive underwater levelling of the soil may
be required. In case of large GBS structures, part of the
casting needs to be done in a floating condition. As a
result, a sheltered deep-water area is needed to complete
the construction. Compared to the other foundation types,
the GBS can be used in larger water depths up to 300 m
[6].
Figure II-9 : Gravity base structure
C. Loads
The tower of a cable bridge carries all forces induced in
the bridge to the ground. These forces arise from different
types of load cases. In this paragraph, a short overview of
all possible loads on a bridge tower will be treated. The
detailed effect of these loads will be discussed for special
cases further on in the report.
The weight of the superstructure, including the self-
weight of the towers, is the first load that comes to mind.
This is a static load that is determined by the weight of the
materials. One must be careful during the construction
phase, as loads here are often distributed differently than
during the service life of the bridge. Also, the loads
resulting from post-tensioning should be taken into
account.
Traffic loads are usually described in the design codes.
These impose forces in the cables and the deck, which are
consequently transferred to the towers. These are gravity
effects, which induce both vertical and horizontal forces on
the towers.
Towers are also subjected to temperature-induced
displacements. Towers can expand and contract
differentially along the tower height from the sun shining
on them from morning until sunset. These effects can cause
deflection and torsional twisting along the height of the
tower as a temperature gradient is likely to be present.
Wind loads are very important when looking at long and
slender structures. Wind induces forces and deflections in
the tower itself. The towers must however also resist all
wind loads on the rest of the superstructure. These loads
are treated as dynamic loads and usually require a wind
tunnel test to understand the behavior.
At locations with high seismic activity, the towers should
be resistant to dynamic inertia loadings resulting from
earthquakes. They excite the vibrational modes of the
tower, which can lead to severe damage.
As the towers stand in water when looking at sea
straights, forces due to waves and current are present.
Scour can also have an influence on sediments and ground
in the surroundings of the tower. Even in the colder months
one must take into account the effect of ice on the
structures.
Finally, one should also check the resistance of the
towers against accidental loads. These are for example ship
collisions to the deck or tower itself, vehicle collisions at
deck level, explosions, etc.
III. CASE 1: CROSSING OF FJORDS IN NORWAY
A. Problem statement
Norway’s coastline is well-known for its fjords, which
are long inlets which can be narrow or wide with steep
sides created by glacial erosion. Most fjords are deeper
than the adjacent sea and can reach water levels up to 1300
m [7].
As a result, in case such a fjord has to be crossed not a
traditional tower and foundation design will be used in
bridge engineering. In order to avoid large towers and
foundations, the concept of floating bridges is introduced.
 handles a three-span suspension bridge, with two of the
B. Types of floating bridges four main towers supported by chained floating pontoons.
[8]
1. Chained floating bridge For this project, the pontoons are made of nine concrete
Concept circular cylindrical cells (105 000 m³ concrete for each
pontoon), forming a cylindrical configuration (Figure
In the concept of a chained floating bridge (Figure III-1), III-2). The pontoon’s dimensions are significantly large; an
pontoons are used to reduce the tower and foundation equivalent diameter of about 78 m, a draft of 175 m and a
height. These pontoons are chained to fixed anchors at the freeboard of 7 m.
sea bottom, inspired by the floating marine structures for
the oil and gas industry [8]. Each bridge element is
supported on two pontoons, which are made of thin walls
and void cells to obtain sufficient buoyancy. Regarding the
construction material, concrete or steel (as a cellular box)
can be used. However, mostly concrete is opted since steel
could lead to corrosion problems and has a poor resistance
against vessel collision. [9]

Figure III-2: Cross section of the pontoons

Figure III-1: Concept of a chained floating suspension bridge
(only half of the structure is shown)
In case a ballast material (e.g. water, sand or a high-
density material like olivine) is needed, the use of a steel
cellular box is also excluded. The use of ballast can be
required to obtain pontoons with a higher Eigen period
than the one of a certain considered wave period, in order
to avoid wave resonance problems. [9]
To guarantee transversal stability, long pontoons are used
and aligned to the transversal bridge direction. In general,
the pontoon’s dimensions are depending on the span length
and the free height between sea level and the deck of the
bridge. This configuration will not to lead to problems of
pitch and roll movements. Note that for safety reasons, the
pontoon design is done assuming that some of the outer
cells of the pontoon can be flooded without endangering
the buoyancy of the structure. [9]
Regarding construction, the pontoons can be
manufactured onshore and then floated to the site.
Simultaneously the anchors for the chains attached to the
pontoons can be installed at the sea bed. [9]
Specific design
The concept of a chained floating bridge is proposed in
the crossing of the Sognefjord, which is part of the planned
so-called “E39 Fixed Link Project”. The Sognefjord is
3700 m wide and 1250 m deep [10]. The conceptual design
The design of the pontoons is done focussing on a
sufficient rotational stiffness to limit the tower inclination
and the force transfer in the tower saddles. Specifically, the
large draft prevents vertical displacement due to waves.
Also, buoyancy requirements are taken into account in
operational and damaged situation. [8],[10],[11]
To resist and absorb ship collision, a circular shell
supported by a ring truss and a system of internal walls is
used on the top 25 m of the pontoon. The void spaces
between the truss walls are filled with light weight
aggregate concrete in-fills to provide enough strength in
case of collision between the truss diagonals. [8],[10],[11]
Also, heavy olivine aggregate (155 000 m³) as ballast
material is used in the 45 m lower parts to ensure sufficient
global stability. The ballast material in combination with
the anchorage system should be designed in a way that the
bridge should be reasonably stationary in the fjord when
exposed to variable loadings from wind and waves. A
detail of the anchored pontoon can be seen in Figure III-3.
[8],[10],[11]
Figure III-3: Concept of the anchored pontoon
 An in-depth study in which ship impact against the order (non-linear) waves are considered as dominant in the
pontoons is simulated, shows that the dynamic response of design. Note that the chains will be anchored to the sea bed
the super-structure is quite significant and builds up over using suction anchors. [8]
time. Hence extra damping should be provided using e.g.
Compared to a traditional suspension bridge, the bridge
mechanical dampers in the cylinders of the pontoons or by
deck and the main cables are also subjected to additional
introducing damping in the in the anchor system. Also
forces resulting from tower deflections and inclinations
mounting impact fenders on the pontoons could be a
transversely as well as global force transfer in longitudinal
measure. [11]
direction. [8]
For the towers, the use of steel is proposed to keep the
weight to a minimum, and thus the pontoon’s dimensions.
2. Multi-span suspension bridge on tensions leg
Reducing the weight of the tower is also beneficial
regarding the transportation and construction at sea. platforms (TLPs)
Another part of the “E39 Fixed Link Project” is the
The towers have four legs in order to acquire a high
Boknafjord crossing. This fjord is 7500 m wide and 600 m
bending resistance in the main two orthogonal directions.
deep, so wider but less deep compared to the previous
The cross section is diamond shaped since a wide leg
handled Sognefjord. For the crossing of this strait, steel
spacing at the bridge deck is needed to limit deformations
tension leg platforms (TLPs) are used (Figure III-5).
the top of the towers, whereas a small leg spacing at the
Remark that the steel tower is A-shaped since there is no
bottom is required to limit the pontoon’s dimensions
need for a small leg spacing at the bottom of the tower,
(Figure III-4).
which was required for the pontoons in the Sognefjord.
The fact that the tower inclines towards the base makes it [10]
possible to install bracings between the tower legs to
increase the torsional and shear capacity of the tower.
[8],[12] As a result, the proposed shape provides enough
stiffness and strength to resist unbalanced forces
originating from the case when each pan is unequally
loaded with traffic [11].
For construction, the towers will be built as a
composition of several sections which can be manufactured
onshore. Floating offshore cranes can be used for the
bottom sections, and cranes mounted on the pontoons for
the upper sections. [8]

Figure III-5: Concept of TLP floating bridge

Figure III-4: Diamond shaped towers
For the anchorage system it is important to limit the
global transverse deflection of the structure and to ensure
that tension is always present in the chains in the
operational phase. For these purposes, wind and second
Using this type of floating device, the motions heave,
pitch and roll do not occur. This is because wave and wind
forces have a more significant influence in the horizontal
plane for a vertical cylinder (shape of the TLP) compared
to motions in the vertical plane. Allowing lateral motions
(surge, sway, yaw) to occur, most of the loads due to waves
and wind can be resisted by the inertia of the structure.
[10], [13]
An in-depth research of Oosterlaak et al. (2012) revealed
that the TLPs only allow small rotations about the
longitudinal axis of the bridge. Also, transverse motions
are reduced to a minimum, compared to the total length of
the bridge. The transverse motions are mainly due to the
excitation of the wind spectrum and partly due to slowly
varying wave drift forces. [13]
Similar to the Sognefjord crossing, it is noticed that
excitation due to non-linear effects of waves and
hydrodynamic forces can result into resonance (the so-
called “ringing” phenomenon). Adding damping to the
system or changing the TLP’s resonance frequency can
avoid this phenomenon. [10]
The stiffness ratio between the main cables of the
suspension bridge and the tethers (which are always
vertical), is important to keep the towers almost completely
vertical for any horizontal position of the TLPs. Of course,
a horizontal displacement will result in a small vertical
displacement, named “surge induced heave”. [10]
The construction of the TLP and the mounted bridge
tower can be done onshore. After transportation of this
assembly, ballast tanks can be filled with sea water to erect
the structure (Figure III-6 and Figure III-7). Afterwards the
TLP and the mounted tower can be towed to the final
Figure III-8: Installation of the tethers for the TLP and tower
position using tugboats, where the system will be attached
to the seabed using tethers (Figure III-8). [13] The tethers are necessarily always in tension, which is
obtained because the TLP is designed in a way that the
total buoyancy is 130 % of the total structural weight. It is
remarked that sufficient buoyancy should be provided
since the combined effect of first order wave response and
the swinging motion of the bridge deck and cable system in
transversal direction could lead to a total loss of axial
tension, which could lead to collapse of the bridge. [13]
The tethers are anchored to the seabed using Concrete
Foundation Templates (CFTs). The CFT consists out of
three skirt compartments with a diameter of 17 m. The
resisting capacity is obtained using skirt friction and
Figure III-6: Transportation of the TLP and tower suction. In addition, the top of these compartments is
closed and has extended outer skirt walls to allow the
placement of ballast material. [10]

Figure III-9: Anchorage for the TLP floating bridge

Figure III-7: Erection of the TLP and tower 3. Comparison pontoon and TLP
The Sognefjord has more extreme water depths and a
rather moderate environmental loading (waves and wind),
whereas the Boknafjord crossing is characterized by
moderate water depths but a more extreme environmental
loading. For both cases, sufficient vertical and rotational
stability is required. For the Boknafjord crossing this is
realised by the TLP-concept itself, because for a vertical
cylinder horizontal motions are lower compared to vertical
motions. In case of the Sognefjord displacements are
limited because of the large draft of the pontoons. For
fjords with intermediate water depths (300 to 800 m), an
anchorage system combining vertical tethers and inclined
stay cables can be of interest. This because in this case the
draft of the pontoon can be reduced, and thus the
construction costs. Of course, this cost reduction should be
compared with the increased cost for additional tethers and
foundation elements. [10]
4. Variant: combination of a floating bridge and a
submerged tunnel
Compared to the solutions in case of the Sognefjord and
Boknafjord, for very large water depths use can be made of
side anchoring. The concept is that two pipelines are
installed across the fjord, such that an artificial seabed is
created (Figure III-10). Floating bridge pontoons or TLPs
can then be side-anchored to these pipelines. In order to
allow ship passage in this case, a submerged tunnel could
be constructed in the mid of the fjord. Note that the concept
of a submerged tunnel is patented but has never been
constructed in full scale. [15]
Figure III-10: Concept of the artificial seabed
In general, the concept of side anchoring is of interest for
large water depths due to technical limits of a direct
connection at the seabed with sloped bathymetry. The
mooring system can be pre-installed and thus serve as a
support during coupling of the complete bridge. [15]
IV. CASE 2: AKASHI-KAIKYO BRIDGE - THE LONGEST
SUSPENSION BRIDGE
A. General
After two ferries sank in 1955 during a severe storm in
the Akashi strait, killing 168 children, the Japanese
government decided to start planning the construction of a
suspension bridge over the sea-strait. Originally a railway-
road bridge was planned, but when the construction started
in May 1988 it was already changed to a road bridge only.
The six lanes were opened about ten years later in April
1989. Figure IV-1 shows a picture of the bridge. [19]
Figure IV-1: Akashi-Kaikyo bridge
Overall, the steel bridge is 3911 m long, divided in three
spans. The central span is 1991 m making it the longest
suspension bridge in world (measured by the length of the
central span). The outer spans are both 960 m long. The
towers reach a height of 298 m above sea level and the
foundations are located at a depth of 60 m below water
surface. The anchor blocks securing the cables at the end of
the bridge weigh 350.000 tons each. The main cable has a
diameter of almost 1 meter and the bridge deck (in the
form of a truss stiffened girder) is supported by vertical
hangers. [19]
B. Design and construction (focus on towers)
1) Main design conditions
The Akashi strait has a width of around 4 km and has a
maximum depth of 110 meters. An important waterway
lies in the strait with a width of 1500 m and currents up to
4,5 m/s can occur. For the wind loads a 10 minutes
averages speed at 10 m above the water level with a return
period of 150 years and with a reference wind speed of 78
m/s is used, resulting in a basic wind speed of 46 m/s.
Since the bridge is situated in an earthquake vulnerable
zone, a design earthquake with an epicenter 150 km away
and a magnitude of 8,5 on the scale of Richter is also taken
into account in the design process. Because of the large
scale of the bridge, the construction methods and
procedures had to be considered in the actual design of the
bridge itself. [19]
2) Foundations
For the foundation of the towers the Laying Down
Caisson Method was used. First the support ground was
excavated by grab bucket dredgers, 60 meters under water.
Then the steel caisson, a cylinder of 80 m diameter and 70
m height is towed in place. The cylinder is double walled
and when towing in place this gap is filled with air to keep
the caisson floating. To sink it, these chambers are flooded
with seawater. Once in place, the central chamber and area
between the walls are poured with a special newly
developed desegregation underwater concrete. After this
operation, a concrete lid is placed on the caisson and the
pier is ready to transmit the 120.000 ton weight of the
bridge from the main tower to the ground. [18][19]
 The shape of a cylinder is chosen because this is a
unidirectional shape and therefore easier to handle in the
strong tidal currents of the strait. This also implies that
scour can occur due to accelerated flow and horse shoe
vortexes at the sand and gravel covered sea bottom. Due to
this scouring, the risk of overturning increases. In order to
prevent this, filter units with cobble stones on top were
placed around the caisson. The final configuration of the
foundation is visible in Figure IV-2. [16][18]

Figure IV-3: Towing of the caisson and construction of the tower

Figure IV-2: Steel caisson foundation
3) Main towers
As mentioned before, a clear width of 1500 m had to be
achieved between the towers due to the important
waterway. Placing the towers more apart is better because
also during construction the safety of the maritime traffic
needs to be ensured. Ultimately a central span width of
1990 meter is designed due to geological and topographical
conditions and also minimum construction costs. For the
main cable, a sag to span ratio of 1:10 is used to restrict the
height of the towers. Finally, a tower height of 298 seemed
to be sufficient, taking into account the minimum air
draught as well. [19]
The material used for the towers is steel, which makes
them more flexible. This is necessary because of the
frequent occurrence of earthquakes. The cruciform cross
section of the shaft ensures that the tower is insensitive to
wind induced oscillation. Because of the height of the
towers and the severe weather conditions in the strait,
Tuned Mass Dampers were also installed inside the shafts.
Each tower has 20 pendulums, each weighing 10 ton,
hanging from a frame. These pendulums counteract the
movement of the tower by swinging the other way. Both
shafts of one tower are connected by diagonals to improve
the stiffness and lateral stability. [18]
For the construction, a self-climbing mobile crane was
used with a lifting capacity of 160 tons. In order to not
exceed this capacity, the tower shafts are divided in 30
layers each of 10 m height and each layer is composed of 3
blocks which are lifted in place, as can be seen in Figure
IV-3. The sections are connected by high tension bolt
joints. This way, the tower consists of honeycomb structure
which makes it light and strong. A cross section can be
found in Figure IV-4. The blocks itself are fabricated by
welding steel plates together, this is done by advanced
robot welding techniques. After the assembly of the block,
both surfaces are polished up to a 0,0125mm ruggedness
using a large scale facing machine. The concrete lid of the
caisson foundation is also grinded before putting the first
block in place. These measures were made to obtain a
maximum inclination of 6 cm at the top of the tower.
Polishing the steel surfaces also improved the metal touch
at the bolted connections. [16][17][19]
During the erection of the tower, also an active tuned
mass damper was used to reduce the wind vibrations on the
free standing main towers estimated in wind tunnel tests.
Later, these devices were also used to excite the structure
in order to carry out some field observation. [19]
On top of the shafts, the cable saddles are placed which
the 100.000-ton weight of the bridge from the cables to the
tower.

Figure IV-4: Tower shaft cross section

C. Maintenance
1) Electro deposit method
The steel caisson of the foundation sunken in the sea
strait is very vulnerable for corrosion. During inspection of
these underwater parts, pitting corrosion of the surface was
already determined. In order to counteract these
observations, the Electro Deposit method is used. This
method applies a current in the sea which results in the
electrolysis of calcium and magnesium ions forming
mainly CaCO3 and Mg(HO)2. These substances deposit on
the steel caisson (the other electrode), forming a protecting
layer against corrosion. [16]
2) Magnetic wheel gondola
For most bridges, normal gondolas are used to repaint the
steel and do some visual control. This was also the case in
the beginning for the Akashi-Kaikyo bridge, but the strong
winds in the strait made these operations inefficient and
dangerous for the workers. Therefore, strong magnetic
wheels were developed so the gondola sticks to the main
tower walls. These wheels are covered in rubber to make
sure the paintwork is not damaged when rolling over it.
The angle of the wheel frame can be adjusted so the
gondola can reach every section of the tower. [16][19]
3) Paintwork
The painting applied on the Akashi-Kaikyo bridge
consists of three layers (total thickness of 250 µm),
visualized in Figure IV-5: a base coat, an undercoat and a
surface coat. The base coat is an inorganic paint richly
enriched with zinc powder. This leads to an excellent anti-
corrosion performance because the zinc ensures chemical
and electrical sacrificial anode action. The undercoat is an
epoxy-resin paint. This type of paint has a good durability
and performance against alkalinity. To protect the structure
extra against weather and chemical action, a fluorine-resin
paint is used as surface coating. [16][19]
Minami Bisan-Seto Bridge revealed that the corrosion rate
for the tidal zone was 0.1 mm/year and for the underwater
zone was 0.04 mm/year. [19]
4) Dry Air Injection System for main cables of
suspension bridge
Re-erection of a main cable is almost impossible,
therefore also corrosion in the cable has to be avoided.
Conventional anti-corrosion methods like zinc
galvanization of the steel wires or wrapping or painting of
the cables to prevent water seepage are not adequate
enough in the high humid and wide range temperature
climate of Japan. A new way to lower the humidity inside
the cable is developed. Dry air injection systems are build
inside the towers, which blow are via an injection pipe
through the different strands, Figure IV-6. By drying the
cables in this way from the inside, the relative humidity
can be lowered to 40%. It is assumed that corrosion can
occur when 60% is exceeded. [16][19]
Figure IV-6: Schematic working of Dry Air Injection System
5) Bridge monitoring system
The natural forces like the strong winds and different
earthquakes are complicated and very large and the
behavior of the bridge is predicted by a 1:100 scale model.
By observing the actual deformations, the design process
can be evaluated and the long-term maintenance work can
utilize this knowledge. The structural safety is also ensured
by this monitoring. In the tower, different velocity- and
displacement gauges, anemometers and accelerometers, are
installed. Even a GPS on top of the tower measures the
seasonal, daily and hourly behavior. [16][19]
During the construction of the bridge, on January 17
1995, the Kobe earthquake already put the bridge to its first
test. The mid-span was stretch almost 1 m, so the original
1990 m became 1991 m. The towers also moved sideways
and up- or downwards. All the deformations due to this
earthquake can be found in Figure IV-7. Fortunately, the
stiffening girder was not yet in place, making the structure
more light and flexible. [19]

Figure IV-5: Layers of paintwork with functions

To prevent corrosion for a long duration and in an
economical manner, only the surface and middle coat are
periodically recoated. It has to be avoided that corrosion
reaches up to the base coat since the latter is more
vulnerable compared to the other coating layers. [19]
Note that this composition of different layers is applied
in the splash – and tidal zone. In the underwater zone the
thick film of epoxy paint can be reduced or even omitted.
As an example, corrosion survey after 28 years on the

Figure IV-7: Deformations due to Kobe-earthquake
V. CASE 3: PROPOSAL FOR TSUGARU STRAIT BRIDGE
COMPOUND BRIDGE 4000 M SUPER-LONG-SPAN
A. General
The islands Honshu and Hokkaido have both a huge
potential for economic development based on processing
and transport. For the moment, the Seikan railway tunnel
connects these Japanese islands, but one expects that its
capacity will soon be exceeded. Therefore, a bridge is
proposed. The Tsugaru strait is a very important
international waterway because it connects China and
Korea with the American continents. Large-scale vessels
and even submarines make use of this channel implying a
minimum vertical clearance of 70 m and also very large
horizontal clearance. High wind speeds, earthquakes, great
water depth, tides and intricate currents make it beneficial
to construct as few piers/towers as possible, which also
directly leads to large-scale spans. Research is done to find
the best location for this bridge over the strait and two
possible options were found. Both are 19 km in width, the
western route has a maximum water depth of 140 m, while
270 m is the extreme water depth of the eastern option. The
proposed bridge can be split up in three bridges. The North
and the South section will be “regular” suspension bridges,
comparable to the Akashi-Kaikyo bridge discussed in the
previous chapter. The center bridge on the other hand will
combine the concepts of a cable stayed bridge and a
suspension bridge. In the following, the focus will lie on
this center bridge with two spans of 4000 m and two spans
of 2000m. Figure V-1 gives a visualization of the proposed
bridge. [21][22]
Figure V-1: Drawing of the proposed Tsugaru bridge
Near the towers, where the concept of cable stayed
bridges is used, the deck will be designed in prestressed
concrete in order to withstand the great axial compression
forces. In the section between the towers, where the
concept of a suspension bridge can be assumed, the deck
will be erected out of two steel box decks. These decks are
stiffened by a truss and both will accommodate two lanes
for cars and one track for a new transportation system. A
cross section of the deck can be found in Figure V-2. The
loads on the suspension section will be carried by three
parallel cables with hangers 50 m apart. [21][22]
Figure V-2: Cross section of the deck
B. Optimization of the design
In the following, the design of the bridge is optimized
using different models and static FEM analysis.
Since this article focusses on the tower design of cable
bridges, the optimization of the cable configuration will
only be discussed briefly. Not mentioning this topic on the
other hand, is also not possible, because it influences the
tower design and it is also a decisive factor in the
horizontal deformation at the top of the towers.
1) Cable configuration
To start, three different models, visualized in Figure V-3,
were investigated. Modal A is a compound bridge that uses
subcables in the transition zone between the cable-stayed
section and the suspension section. Modal B does not make
use of these subcables and modal C is a regular suspension
bridge. The length of the cable-stayed section is in this first
step equal to the height of the tower (400m). The first
deformations are under uniform loading and the second
under partial loading. [22]
 For the multi-piles, the angle has a large influence on the
maximum displacement, especially between 8° and 10° the
displacement drops significant. For the jacket foundation,
almost all results have the same magnitude, so the
inclination has almost no influence. Consequently, the
proposed bridge makes use of the jacket foundation type.
[22]

Table V-1: Influence of sloping degree piles

Figure V-3: Different models and deformation under uniform and

partial loads
As can be seen in Figure V-3 the regular suspension
bridge gives the best results for a uniform load. Under the
partial loading on the other hand, the compound bridges On top of the piles a shell structure of high-strength
give better results towards horizontal deformation of the reinforced concrete is placed. This footing has a height of
tower and vertical deflection in the span center, because a 80 m and is designed to retain great rigidity in combination
cable-stayed configuration makes the tower more rigid. A with as low as possible weight. On top of this pier, the
compound composition and in particular modal A, tower will be constructed. Because of the harsh working
therefore, is the best option. Further investigation was done conditions in the strait, platforms are foreseen on this
towards the optimal length of the side spans and the cable- footing. [21]
stayed section where the total weight of the cables and the
deformations were used to rate the best solution. A side 3) Tower
span of half the length of center span (4000 m), so 2000 m, For the three towers of the center bridge, an A-shaped
appeared to be the best option. For the width of the cable- steel-concrete composite structure is proposed, as can be
stayed part, 400 m showed the same deformations as 800 seen in Figure V-5. Figure V-6 shows the steel cross
m, but the total weight of the cables was lower. [22][23] section in which concrete will be poured. For the upper
2) Foundation and footing section, the use of light-weight concrete would be
beneficial to reduce the self-weight of the tower and center
For the hard-natural conditions occurring in the strait, of gravity. The lower section will be filled with general
normally a caisson foundation is used, like for the Akashi- concrete, this type is stronger and needed to transfer the
Kaikyo bridge. There the maximum depth was only 60 m forces. [22][23]
and this is until now the greatest experimented depth for
this type of foundation. Therefore, the designers think
about the RCFT technology (reinforced concrete filled
steel pipe) in the form of a multi-pile or jacked foundation,
Figure V-4. This type of foundation is common for oil rigs.
An inclination of the piles benefits the deformations and
which sloping degree is optimal, is also investigated. The
results can be found in Table V-1. [21]

Figure V-4: Multi-pile and jacket foundation, influence of inclined

piles
 Figure V-6: Cross section of tower
Research was done to the optimal size of w1 (upper
section) and w2 (lower section) of the steel frame in Figure
V-6. These parameters have a large influence on the
rigidity of the tower and different options were
investigated. Also, D1 and D2 can change the towers
rigidity, but due to structural requirements, these values are
fixed. [22]

Figure V-5: Drawing of the proposed tower

Figure V-7: Effect of tower rigidity

From Figure V-7 it becomes clear that w1 only has
influence on the upper portion. Increasing w1, can lower
the deformation at the top significantly when looking at the
curves with the same w2 value. Although also the cost of
material has to be taken into account. Consequently,
w1=15 m seems a fair choice to avoid overdesigning. W2
on the other hand has a large effect on the deformation of
the whole tower. To reach the allowable limits of
deformations of both tower top and span center, w2 has to
be increased till 25m (with w1=15m). The change in
deflections of the deck depending on the rigidity of the
tower are not included in this article, but can be found in
[22]. Besides the stiffness of the tower, the height is a
major parameter and with the height, the sag-to-span ratio.
To search for the optimal height, four models were
analyzed with the same condition, namely T lies between
0,9Ta and Ta. T and Ta stand for the maximum and the
maximum allowable tensile stress in the main cables
respectively. Ta=1960 N/mm2 was assumed. The deflection
in the span center and the total weight of the cables were
used to compare. Results are found in Figure V-8. [22][23]

Figure VI-1: Layout of the Messina strait bridge

The bridge would consist of two driving lanes, one

Figure V-8: Effect of tower height
The change in deflection can be assumed linearly when
changing the tallness. The total steel weight strongly
decreases from a height of 400 m to 450 m, but less
afterwards. Therefore, increasing the height till 450m is
probably the best solution, looking at cost-efficiency.
emergency lane, one railway and one pedestrian lane in
each direction. According to the designers, the suspension
system would consist of two pairs of steel cables with a
diameter of 1,24 m and a total length, between the anchor
blocks of 5300 m. The two towers, Sicily tower and
Calabria tower, would be H-shaped and have a height of
381 m as can be seen on Figure VI-1. Both towers have
embedded cylindrical foundations with a diameter of 55 m
and 48 m, respectively, and a depth of about 20 m. The
surrounding ground is jet-grouted in order to inhibit
seismic liquefaction in the coarse-grained soil. [25]

C. Thoughts
Optimization can be done by models, but one does have
to keep in mind that also constructability and cost is of
major importance. Since al the results in this case are only
found by static analysis, next steps have to be taken,
dynamic analysis for example. This does not mean that the
results are useless. This analysis certainly gave the
researchers more inside in the behavior of a compound
bridge and was essential in the design process.
VI. CASE 4: MESSINA STRAIT BRIDGE
A. General
The strait of Messina is a narrow section of water that
separates Sicily from the mainland of Italy. Nowadays,
there is still discussion if it is necessary to build a bridge
that would connect Italy to its peninsula Sicily. In 2006,
plans were made to construct a single-span suspension
bridge with an enormous central span of 3300 m. Hence,
this bridge would become the largest suspension bridge in
the world. [24]
Figure VI-2: Side view of the Messina strait bridge
Eventually, the Italian Parliament voted to abandon the
plan due to the doubtful usefulness of the bridge.
B. Design criteria
At first, the free height between the bridge deck and the
water level should always be sufficient to let the largest
vessel classes pass. The narrow sea strait of Messina is
characterized by strong currents and high wind speeds.
From this it becomes clear that predicting the response of
such a large span to these strong wind forces is difficult.
Also, the soil around the foundation of the towers should
be protected from scour and erosion. The Italian
government required that vehicles, trains and pedestrians
could cross the sea strait. These different loads have to be
carefully designed conform the Eurocode. One of the main
challenges for the designers is the fact that this area is
frequently subjected to seismic action.
Two specific design criteria could be picked out and
discussed. The response of the structure to the wind loads
and the seismic response. Relevant to this paper is the
seismic design. A closer look will be held to the interaction
between the soil, foundation and the concrete
superstructure.
C. Seismic design
First, the ground composition should be known. Ground
investigations at the Sicily side resulted in the following
composition:
1. Coastal deposits: mostly sand and gravel with
little or no fine content.
2. Messina gravels: silty sand and gravel, layer
thickness of about 140 m and 200 m.
3. Pezo Conglomerate: soft rock consisting of a
silty-sandy matrix and sandstone.
4. Crystalline bedrock: tectonised granite.
1) Seismic input
Two seismic recordings, Figure VI-3, were used to
perform the seismic analysis. The records of Arcelik
(Turkey) and DHFS (New Zealand) are generated. Each
earthquake is characterized by a maximum acceleration
amax, the Arias intensity IA, its mean period Tm and the
significant duration between 5% and 95% of the Arias
intensity, SD. The seismic loading will be modelled as an
acceleration that is situated at the underside of the
foundation in longitudinal, transversal and vertical
direction. [25]
Figure VI-3: Elastic response spectra for different directions of both
earthquakes assuming a viscous damping of 5%
2) Ground
As mentioned before, the ground’s safety against
liquefaction should be checked. This is done by a
decoupled approach. At this approach, the soil resistance is
determined at laboratory conditions on undisturbed
samples by triaxial cyclic tests. These tests will result in a
value for the undrained cyclic strength of the coastal
deposits. Next, the undrained cyclic strength is used to find
the cyclic resistance ratio. Correcting this ratio using a
correction factor by Castro will lead to a simple shear
value. [25]
Next, the seismic loading will be evaluated by a site
response analysis. The decoupled approach resulted in a
necessity of ground improvement around the upper
foundation. The occurrence of liquefaction is prevented by
extensive jet grouting treatment till a depth of 43 m.
3) Towers
The designers aimed to create a structural model that
coincides with the actual behavior of the tower. In order to
represent the varying diameter of the vertical elements, the
model consists of a number of beams with varying mass
density and bending stiffness. Based on the results of the
ground investigation, a finite difference grid containing the
different layers in the soil can be made. [26]
Figure VI-4: Finite difference grid for the Sicily tower
As can be seen on Figure VI-4, the structural design of
the top of tower includes an elastic spring with a different
stiffness in longitudinal or transversal direction in order to
represent the restraining capacity of a suspension system.
The gravitational load of the structural model is lower than
in reality. Hence, additional vertical forces are added to the
foundation model. [26]
Software such as ADINA can be used to find the
dynamic response of the full three-dimensional structural
model. As an example, the dynamic response of node 18 an
node 20 can be found in Figure VI-5. According to this
curve, the first natural frequency of the structural model is
located around 0,39Hz. This value can be used in order to
compare the displacements of the nodes in case that the
tower is subjected to this first mode of vibration. It is clear
that node 18 and 20 undergo the largest displacements and
are therefore critical points for the development of plastic
hinges at this certain frequency. [26]
 Figure VI-5: Dynamic response of node 18 and 20 subjected to a
frequency sweep
The concrete foundation block was modelled as a linear
elastic material and the cyclic soil behavior was described
using a damping model included in the software. [26] [27]
In order to include the ground improvement using jet
grouting, a homogenization procedure was applied for that
ground volume. This procedure let the designers model the
jet grouted ground as a reinforced soil with uniform soil
characteristics. [26] [27]
The modelled structure could be modelled as a lightly
damped structure corresponding to a viscous damping ratio
of 5%. This damping ratio corresponds to a 10%
probability of exceedance in 100 years or a 3% probability
of exceedance in 100 years depending on the design level.
By including viscous damping in the model, the
displacements of the tower will be more controlled and the
impact damage will be reduced. [26] [27]
Figure VI-6: Damped elastic response spectra in transversal and
4) Discussion longitudinal direction

Some remarks could be made in the way that this tower
is modelled. At first it should be noted that the linear spring
and dashpot approximation poorly represents the behavior
of the system. In reality, the soil and foundation would
interact in a non-linear way. Secondly, the dynamic
response of the foundation of the tower should be included
in the design. It could maybe be better to neglect the
retaining capacity of the suspension system. Eventually,
the designer could include the displacement of the top of
the tower as additional stresses in the suspension cable
The damped elastic response spectra can be found in
Figure VI-6. As mentioned before, the earthquake is
modelled as an acceleration at a depth of 20 m in
transversal and longitudinal direction. [25]
The shaded area in Figure VI-6 indicates the fundamental
periods for the foundation and for the soil. These areas do
not overlap from where one could indicate that the soil-
foundation interaction is well designed. The response of
the soil and the foundation would increase significantly in
case of an overlap and vibration in that area. Hence, failure
of the structure would be inevitable. [25]
In transversal direction, Figure VI-6, the response spectra
of the tower and the anchor block do not differ much from
the free-field response. The difference can be explained by
the fact that the foundation’s mass and stiffness give rise to
an increase in the periods corresponding to the maximum
amplification. The predominant period is further increased
by the anchor block. [25]
The first mode of vibration of the superstructure is
marked in Figure VI-6. It can be noted that at this doesn’t
affect the spectral response of the tower foundation. So
actually is the soil motion resulting from soil-structure
interaction more affected by the behavior of the immersed
foundation element than by the dynamic response of the
superstructure. [25]
A last interesting finding is that the dynamic interaction
between the two shores should be neglected. The
eigenfrequencies of the deck and the cables are much
larger than the eigenfrequency of the tower or the subsoil.
It could be stated that the vibration would damp away
when proceeding along the bridge.
VII. CASE 5: THE RUSSKY BRIDGE
A. General
The Russky bridge is a massive, 4 lanes, cable-stayed
bridge that connects the eastern city of Vladivostok with
Russky Island. The 5000 inhabitants of the island were, till
now, been cut off from the Russian mainland. With a total
length of 1185 m, the bridge beats the Sutong cable-stayed
bridge in China by 16 m. Hence, the bridge can call itself
the world longest cable-stayed bridge. In order to ensure
safe passage for vessels through the Eastern Bosphorus
strait, an under clearance of 70 m is realized. [28]
Figure VII-1: Side view of the Russky bridge
As can be seen on Figure VII-1 the pylons reach an
incredible height of 321 m. This height is necessary to
create the 1104 meter central span. The designers arranged
the fans as a mixture of parallel and harp arrangement to
gain the bridge additional aesthetic value. [29]
The bridge self-anchored system creates horizontal
compression in the girder when the bridge is at rest.
Selecting an anchoring system influences the dimensions
of the bridge deck and pylons. For bridges with a central
span of more than 1000 m, some disadvantages of the
conventional self-anchored cable-stayed bridge become
clear. At first, the dimension and self-weight of the main
girder will increase. Eventually leading to an increase in
horizontal pressure in the girder. Secondly, larger cable
inclinations are required in order to efficiently vertically
support the dead load as well as to maintain reasonable
horizontal pressure in the girder. Hence, significantly
increasing pylon heights are required. [29]
The designers carefully selected the anchoring system
and the cable arrangement such that high rising, aesthetic
pylons could be constructed.
In order to reduce the horizontal pressure in the main
girder, a partial ground-anchored cable-stayed bridge
concept with crossing stay cables could be selected. This
system, Figure VII-2, would reduce the horizontal pressure
in the main girder caused by cables. The necessary amount
of material would be less, resulting in a reduction of the
total cost. [29]
Figure VII-2: Partial ground anchored cable-stayed bridge concept
with crossing stay cables
B. Design
Loads should be carefully determined. Traffic loads will
depend on the number of heavy vehicles and the traffic
intensity. At winter, snow loads will generate an additional
loading. This load can be considered as temporarily as the
bridge will be made accessible for traffic in case of
snowfall. [30]
The breakwaters that are protecting the pylon foundation
should be able to resist storm-induced waves up to 6 meters
high. Wind speeds up to 36 meters per second were
measured during the construction phase. In winter, the
temperature drops below -36°C. Ice jams can create
additional loading to the pylons. The man-made islet will
protect the pylons from this type of loading. During the
summer months, temperatures can rise till 37°C. This
temperature variation generates important thermal loads
which should be included in the design. [30]
1) Pylon foundation
In order to mitigate the risk of erosion and the collapse of
a vessel at the foundation of the pylon, man-made islets
were created. First, 120 piles were conducted from the
water at sea. This operation was ground breaking for
Russian bridge engineering, Figure VII-3. Each pile has a
diameter of 2 m and was sunk 46 m or 77 m deep,
depending on the position of the pylon. Afterwards, 3000
tons of steel and 20000 cubic meters of concrete where
used to erect the grillage for each pylon. Finally, the islet is
rock-filled after the finishing of the enclosing sheeting and
the sides of the peninsula are protected by breakwaters.
[30]

Figure VII-3: Pile driving for the foundation of the pylons
2) Bridge approach
The approach to the bridge is executed by a series of
viaducts. Columns with a height varying from 9 to 30 m
were constructed from the banks, across the man-made
islet to the pylons. In order to mitigate repair costs, the
builders used self-compacting sulfate-resistant Portland
cement to erect the bridge piers. This concrete will protect
the footing against corrosive fluids and prevent rebar
corrosion. [30]
3) Pylon construction
In order to construct the massive 320 m pylons, a self-
climbing formwork solution was applied for the Russky
bridge as can be seen on Figure VII-4.
Figure VII-4: Self-climbing formwork
This solution provides a formwork which protects the
freshly poured concrete from extreme weather conditions
by creating an enclosed temporary working environment.
[31]
One of the main objectives of the Russian building
contractor was to aim for a record-breaking construction
period of just 43 months. As can be seen on Figure VII-4,
the bridge approach and the pylons are erected at the same
time. Conversion work of the formwork is mitigated
through a formwork system that can be adapted to the
tapering and inclined geometry of the pylon itself. [32]
The whole pylon is constructed in 72 climbing cycles of
4,5 m. A rigid separation between the steel-fixing levels
and the shuttering and climbing operations allow the
builders to operate quickly. After each climbing cycle, the
formwork is retracted and cleaned. Followed by the fitting
of climbing shoes and climbing rails to raise and ty the
formwork to the next pouring cycle. This allows the
platform to be raised immediately after completion of the
steel-fixing and the formwork. [32]
VIII. CONCLUSION
In general, there are many different concepts for crossing
the large distance over a sea strait. The most suited bridge
types are cable bridges (suspension or cable-stayed). Each
concept comes with its own ad- and disadvantages. The
towers in particular play a big role in the overall design and
functionality of a cable bridge. They must serve as the rigid
backbone for the structure while being aesthetically
pleasing with the surroundings. The conceptual design
phase is thus of great importance when looking at solutions
in special situations. Choices are made for building
materials, shape of the tower, construction phases,
foundations, etc., which in the end must work together in
harmony to overcome the challenges the engineer is
confronted with. As illustration, multiple cases are
discussed.
Regarding the crossing of fjords, multiple concepts are
developed but not all are yet realised. Considering the “E39
Fixed Link Project”, a chained floating suspension bridge
(using concrete pontoons) will be constructed in the
Sognefjord. On the contrary, a suspension bridge on steel
tensions leg platforms (TLPs) will be realised in the
Boknafjord. Both concepts are a mixture of bridge
engineering and offshore technology used in oil and gas
industry.
For the design of the towers, steel is proposed to
minimise weight in order to facilitate transportation and
construction operations. The fabrication of the tower
happens mainly onshore, whereas offshore only large parts
have to be assembled using cranes.
For both concepts, lateral motions are mainly caused by
wind loading and partly by wave energy. These
deformations are resisted by a combination of the floating
devices’ inertia and the anchorage at the seabed. Due to the
remaining tolerable motions of the floating devices and
thus the towers caused by the hydraulic loading, the main
cable and deck structure experience an additional loading
compared to concepts with an unmovable foundation.
The Akashi-Kaikyo bridge shows that for large
constructions, the design of the project goes hand in hand
with the construction process. The one depends on the
other and vice versa. Also, it becomes clear that several
measures have to be taken to assure a long lifetime of the
bridge. New techniques and materials were developed to
solve occurring problems.
 When one wants to increase the span to a new level, not
only new materials provide solutions, but a whole new
bridge-concept seems necessary. The Tsugaru bridge
proposal shows how simple models and adaptations can
give insight in new ideas. It is a first optimization, but it
can have a large impact on the decisions made to proceed
investigations.
In seismic areas, the soil and foundation interaction
should be carefully modelled in case of an earthquake. A
representative earthquake for that region should be used in
the structural model. In the case of the Russky bridge, the
pylons dynamic response has a neglectable influence on the
spectral response of the tower’s foundation. One should
keep in mind that this conclusion should not be used for
each bridge design but depends on the soil characteristics,
foundation specifications and the type and height of the
pylon. It was remarkable that the dynamic interaction
between the two pylons could be neglected for this large
span.
The last case gave some insights in how pylons can be
constructed in extreme weather conditions. A self-climbing
formwork system creates a safe environment for the
constructors to operate. Damage due to varying weather
conditions is mitigated by the formworks protection. By
separating the steel-fixing level from the shuttering and
climbing operations, pylons can be constructed at higher
rate.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank prof. dr. ir. Hans De
Backer for his guidance regarding the content of this paper.
REFERENCES
[1] Wai-Fah Chen and Lian Duan (2000). Bridge
Engineering Handbook 28 Towers
[2] De Backer H., (2017). Chapter 5: Cable-stayed
bridges
[3] Tranell A., (2017). Cable-stayed bridge connected
to a chained floating bridge – case study. Lulea
University of Technology, Norway.
[4] Wikipedia [Online]. Cofferdam. Available:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cofferdam
[5] The Constructor [Online]. What is a Caisson
Foundation? Available:
https://theconstructor.org/geotechnical/caisson-
types-construction-advantages/503/
[6] Aas-Jakobsen K., et al. (2013). Deep sea
foundations for strait crossings. Aas-Jakobsen AS,
Norway.
[7] Wikipedia. [Online]. Fjord. Available:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fjord
[8] Jakobsen S. E., et al. (2013). Concept development
of a Sognefjord floating bridge crossing. Aas-
Jakobsen AS, Norway.
[9] Opgård B., Allievi, F. (2013). Chained floating
bridge. Multisonsult AS, Degree of Freedom,
Norway.
[10] Larssen R. M., et al. (2013). Deep sea floating
foundations for strait crossings. Aas-Jakobsen AS,
Norway.
[11] Jakobsen B., et al. (2013) Ship impacts on the
floating pontoons supporting a multiple span
suspension bridge. Cowi AS, Norway.
[12] Statens vegwesen, Region vest. (2013).
Sognefjorden feasibility study of floating bridge.
Norway.
[13] Oosterlaak V., et al. (2013). How to cross the
7500 m wide Boknafjord?. TDA AS, Norway.
[14] Almeland I.-B. (2013). TLP technology
experiences in the north sea used as foundations
for a bridge tower.
[15] Søreide T. H., Bjerkås M. (2013). Mooring
concept for deep water crossings. Reinertsen AS,
Trondheim, Norway.
[16] Honshu-Shikoku Bridge Expressway Co., Ltd.,
Japan. (2005). Technology. [http://www.jb-
honshi.co.jp/english/technology/index.html].
Accessed 12 November 2017.
[17] How products are made. (2009). Suspension
Bridge.
[http://www.madehow.com/Volume5/Suspension-
Bridge.html]. Accessed 12 November 2017
[18] Hobbes S.S. (2016). Case Study of Akashi-
Kaikyo, The Longest Suspension Bridge.
[http://www.learncostestimating.com/unit-rates-
estimating/]. Accessed 12 November 2017.
[19] Kusuhara et al. (2013). Development of
anticorrosion system for underwater steel
structures of long-span bridges. Honshu-Shikoku
Bridge Expressway Co., Ltd., Japan.
[20] Wai Tak Yim. 2007. Akashi Bridge. The bridge
engineering 2 conference.
[21] Telford, T. (2005). Current and future trends in
bridge design, construction and maintenance.
London. p67-78.
[22] Krokeborg, J. (2001). Strait Crossings 2001.
Bergen. p87-93.
[23] Wang, H., Wang, J., and H. Wei. 2012. Case
Study on 4000 m-span Cable-stayed Suspension
Bridge. Shenyang. 4p.
[24] Wikipedia. [Online]. Strait of Messina Bridge.
Available:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Messina_B
ridge
[25] Callisto, L., Rampello, S. and G. Viggiani.
(2013). Soil-structure interaction for the seismic
design of the Messina Strait Bridge.
[26] Yan. XU. Shide. HU. (2011). Seismic design of
high-rise towers for cable-stayed bridges under
strong earthquakes.
[27] Wei. H. Wang. Z. Feng. Q. (2011). Seismic
Analysis and Design of Minpu Double-deck Cable-
Stayed Bridge
[28] Wegenwiki. [Online]. Russky Bridge. Available:
https://www.wegenwiki.nl/Russky_Bridge
[29] Shao. X. Hu. J. Deng. L. and Cao. J. (2013).
Conceptual Design of Superspan Patial Ground-
Anchored Cable-Stayed Bridge with Crossing Stay
Cables.
[30] SK Most. (2012). Construction of the Bridge
Crossing to Russky Island over the Eastern
Bosphorus Strait in Vladivostok.
[31] New Civil Engineer. [Online]. Harsco formwork
aids Russky Island brigde build. Available:
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/harsco-
formwork-aids-russky-island-bridge-build
[32] World Highways. [Online]. Self-climbing
formwork solution for bridge pylons. Available:
http://www.worldhighways.com/categories/road-
highway-structures/features/self-climbing-
formwork-solution-for-bridge-pylons/