【国外研修報告】
Static Characteristics and Aerodynamic Stability of Proposed Hybrid Stressribbon Bridges
Takeshi Yoshimura ^{1} and Niels J. Gimsing ^{2}
提案するハイブリッド吊床版橋の静力学特性と耐風安定性
吉村 健 ^{1} ，N.J. ギムスィング ^{2}
Summary: Two kinds of hybrid stressribbon bridges for pedestrian use, the ‘stressribbon suspension’ and the ‘stressribbon cablestayed suspension’ bridges, were preliminarydesigned. The girder of these bridges is composed of edge beams of steel or prestressed concrete; and an open grating deck plate, cross beams and lateral bracings of steel. Numerical analyses and wind tunnel 2D model studies were conducted to examine the static characteristics and the aerodynamic stability of these structures. It was found that the horizontal component of tensile force in the cables can be reduced up to onefourteenth of a conventional concrete stressribbon bridge, that the maximum deflection of the girder is controlled nearly below the allowable value, that the stresses in the cables and the edge beams are below the allowable value and that the critical flutter speed is expected to be high enough. The application of the proposals for hybrid structures to vehicle bridges was also discussed and there is feasibility that the proposal could be applicable to vehicle bridges.
Keywords:
hybrid bridge in structure and material;
stressribbon bridge;
suspension bridge;
cablestayed bridge; static characteristics; aerodynamic stability; critical flutter speed.
1. Introduction The authors have investigated the aerodynamic properties of two kinds of hybrid stressribbon pedestrian bridge with a very light steel girder or a light steelconcrete girder. The preliminary design, including the static and aerodynamic characteristics, 
Then, the ‘stressribbon suspension bridge’ shown in Fig. 1 was proposed to increase the sag of 70 % of the cables, which leads to a further reduction in Hw [3,4]. Finally, the ‘stressribbon cablestayed suspension bridge’ shown in Fig. 2 was proposed [5]. 

and the prospects of applying hybrid structures to 
2. 
Proposal for hybrid stressribbon bridges 
vehicle bridges are described in this paper. In this 
2.1 
Outline of two kinds of hybrid structure 
section, the outline of the developing process is reported. Firstly, it was shown how a small change of the girder edge shape for a conventional concrete stressribbon bridge could increase the aerodynamic stability: the heavy triangular fairing of concrete for the Jinya (Jinyanomori) Bridge was replaced with a much lighter halfcircular fairing of steel [1]. Secondly, a much lighter fullsteel stressribbon, which has a similar configuration, shown in Fig. 1(b), was proposed for a decrease of the extremely large tensile force in the cables, Hw [2]. This structure is composed of inner cables, a pair of circular pipes forming edge beams, an open grating deck plate, cross beams and lateral bracings. Its preliminary design suggested that the deck weight, w, could be reduced to oneeighth of the 
In the ‘stressribbon suspension’ bridge, the upper cables that are positioned above the deck are supported by low concrete towers and connected to the girder through vertical hangers. The light steel stressribbon girder presented in section 1 is applied except for the portion close to the abutments where the prestressed concrete girder is used. As described in the succeeding section, the structure without the concrete girder i.e. the one with the fullsteel girder was found to be the most aerodynamically stable. Therefore, either the full steel girder of Fig. 2(c) or the hybrid girder with prestressed concrete edge beams, Fig. 2(d), is applied to the ‘stressribbon cablestayed suspension’ bridge. In this alternative structure, the vertical hangers close to the abutments are replaced by staycables and the tower height is increased from 4.5 m to 10 m for a further 
Jinya Bridge.
increase in the upper cable sag ratio, f/L, from 0.07 to
Fig. 1 Earlier proposed stressribbon suspension bridge. prestressed concrete girder, (c).
Elevation, (a); crosssections of fullsteel girder, (b); and
Fig. 2 Elevation of stressribbon cablestayed suspension bridge (a); corresponding stressribbon suspension bridge, (b); fullsteel girder, (c); and hybrid girder in material with prestressed concrete edge beams, (d).
0.1. The dimensions and main physical properties for
this structure are listed in Table 1. Also the properties
for Jinya Bridge, the steel stressribbon bridge and the stressribbon suspension bridge are listed in the table. The stressribbon suspension bridge in Fig. 1(a) is in the following referred to as the ‘earlier proposed hybrid’ bridge.
2.2 Preliminary design
It has been shown in the study of the ‘steel stressribbon’ and ‘earlier proposed hybrid’ bridges that one of the most important subjects in their design was the control of the large deflections under live load. Therefore, the effects of the crosssectional area of the upper, lower and stay cables, A _{U} , A _{L} and A _{S} , on the maximum deflection of the girder, y _{m}_{a}_{x} , were examined at the early preliminary design stage of the ‘stressribbon cablestayed suspension’ bridge. Fig. 3(a) and 3(b) show the results of y _{m}_{a}_{x} for the structure with the ‘steel edge beams’ subjected to uniform live load in the entire span and to asymmetrical live load over half the span length, and Fig. 4(a) and (b) for the
structure with the ‘concrete edge beams’, respectively. In these figures the abscissa denotes the nondimensional crosssectional area of the cables,
A _{U} /A _{O}_{U} , A _{L} /A _{O}_{L} and A _{S} /A _{O}_{S} , where A _{O}_{J} _{(}_{J}_{=}_{U}_{,} _{L}_{,} _{S}_{)} is the optimum value applied to the proposal for each cable. As expected y _{m}_{a}_{x} depends almost entirely on A _{U} . Based on these results, A _{U} was determined in the following manner:
1. A _{U} is so determined as to keep y _{m}_{a}_{x} nearly below
the allowable value of 205 mm. Regarding the determination of A _{L} and A _{S} , the following
manner was applied:
2. Both the upper and lower cables can be subjected to uniform dead load, w _{U} and w _{L} . The ratio of w _{U} /w _{L} is 7:3. The staycables are subjected to that with the same value of w _{U} .
3. A _{L} was determined so that all the segments can be
suspended only by the lower cables during the erection of the girder. The optimum values of A _{U} and A _{L} for the bridge with the steel and concrete edge beams are listed in Table 1.
Fig. 3 Maximum deflection for stressribbon cablestayed suspension bridge with ‘steel edge beams’ subjected to uniform live load in the entire span, (a); and that subjected to asymmetrical live load over half the span length, (b).
60
40
20
^{0}
(b)
Fig. 4 Maximum deflection for stressribbon cablestayed suspension bridge with ‘concrete edge beams’ subjected to uniform live load in the entire span, (a); and that subjected to asymmetrical live load over half the span length, (b).
A pair of central clamps is installed at the 
3. 
Static characteristics 
midspan so as to decrease Y _{m}_{a}_{x} under asymmetrical live 
3.1. 
‘Cablestayed suspension’ and ‘suspension’ 
load over half the span length. The vertical distance between the upper cable and the edge beam, d, is taken to be zero and the cable is connected to the beam rigidly. The steel or prestressed concrete edge beams are connected to the abutments rigidly so as to play the same role in suspending live load as pure stressribbon bridges. 
stressribbon bridges with steel edge beams Fig. 5 shows the deflection of the ‘fullsteel stressribbon cablestayed suspension’ bridge together with the ‘fullsteel stressribbon suspension’ structure subjected to uniform live load in the entire span (a), and to asymmetrical live load over half the span length (b). It should be noted that the girder suspended by 

The corresponding ‘stressribbon suspension’ bridge, Fig. 2(b), which has the same dimensions and physical properties as the ‘stressribbon cablestayed suspension’ bridge, was also examined in this study. It was found in the analysis that Hw for the ‘cablestayed suspension’ structure with steel and concrete edge beams can be reduced to about oneeleventh and oneseventh of the Jinya Bridge (see Table 1) and that Hw for the ‘suspension’ structure with steel and concrete edge beams to about onefourteenth and oneeighth of the Jinya, respectively. 
staycables, or, the ‘cablestayed girder’ hardly deflect and therefore, that the ends of the ‘suspension girder’ seem to be fixed to the ‘cablestayed girder’ at the connections between these two different suspension systems. Fig. 6(a) and 6(b) respectively show the bending moment and the normal force diagrams for the ‘cablestayed suspension’ structure, and Fig. 7(a) and 7(b) those for the ‘suspension’ structure under full and asymmetric loads. The similar characteristics can be seen between the diagrams for the ‘suspension girder’ of the cablestayed suspension structure and those for 
Table 1 Dimensions and main physical properties for four types of bridge.
Concrete 
Steel Stress 
StressRibbon Suspension Proposed Earlier 
StressRibbon CableStayed Suspension & ( StressRibbon Suspension ) 

Structural Type 
StressRibbon 
Ribbon 

L 
(m ) 
123 
123 
123 
123 

0.07 (Upper) 
0.1 (Upper) 

f/L 
0.0333 
0.0333 
0.0333 (Lower) 
0.02 (lower) 

(kN/m ) 
23.1 
2.45 
2.77 (Steel) 
Steel edge beams 
Concrete edge beams 

w 
9.88 (Concrete) 
1.53 
2.61 

p 
(kN/m ) 
1.47 
1.47 
1.47 
1.76 

B 
(m ) 
3.3 
2.4 
2.4 
2.4 

B 
_{E} 
(m ) 
1.5 
1.5 
1.5 
1.8 

Girder 
(cm ^{2} ) 
7296 
79 
114 (Steel) 
50 
602 

A 
3706 (Concrete) 

(cm ^{4}^{)} 
390000 
4386 
4380 (Steel) 
1600 
16100 

I 
768000 (Concrete) 

1025 (Upper) 
360 
(Upper) 
414 (Upper) 1475 

H 
_{W} (kN ) 
10700 
1131 
1465 
995 

Cable 
440 (Lower) 
635 
(Lower) 
1061 (Lower) 

A _{C} (cm ^{2} ) 
106.4 
106.4 
19.42 
(Upper) 
26.4 (Upper) 
19.4 
(Upper) 

(Inner) 
(Inner) 
13.82 
(Lower) 
27.6 (Lower) 
41.6 
(Lower) 

E 
_{C} (kN/cm ^{2} ) 
19600 
19600 
19600 
13700 
Fig. 5 Comparison between deflection for fullsteel ‘stressribbon cablestayed suspension’ bridge and for fullsteel ‘stressribbon suspension’ bridge subjected to uniform live load in entire span, (a); and that subjected to asymmetrical live load over half span length, (b).
the ‘whole girder’ of the suspension structure. In the stress analysis, it was found that the maximum combined stress in the edge beam due to bending moment and normal force is far below the allowable stress, σ _{a} , of 14 kN/cm ^{2} . As mentioned above, the central clamp is installed at the midspan keeping the cabletogirder distance, d, to be zero. The central clamp and d effects on the static characteristics under asymmetrical live load were also examined in the analysis where d was taken to be 0 or 40 cm. It was found that Y _{m}_{a}_{x} for the ‘suspension’ structure with d = 40 cm without the central clamp decreases to 1/2.3 in the case where d = 0 with the clamp and that Y _{m}_{a}_{x} for the ‘cablestayed suspension’ structure with d = 40 cm without the clamp decreases to 1/1.6 in the case where d = 0 with the clamp. Fig. 8(a) and 8(b) respectively show the bending moment diagrams for the ‘cablestayed suspension’ and
‘suspension’ structures with d = 40 cm with and without the central clamp. The central clamp induces very large bending moment in the girder at the midspan. The rotation of the clamp due to the horizontal movement of the cable towards the loaded span causes such locally large bending moment [6]. Fig. 9 summarizes the effects of the central clamp and d on y _{m}_{a}_{x} and M _{m}_{a}_{x} for the ‘cablestayed suspension’ and ‘suspension’ structures. In the figure the black circle denotes the proposed design. It can be seen that the clamp with d = 0 cm is quite effective for a decrease in both y _{m}_{a}_{x} and M _{m}_{a}_{x} and that the clamp with d = 40 cm is not necessarily effective for a decrease in M _{m}_{a}_{x} .
3.2. Comparison between characteristics for two types of bridges with concrete edge beams and those with steel beams The characteristics for two types of structure with
m)･
(kN
M
Cable
Cable
(a)
Cable
Cable
(b)
Fig. 6 Bending moment diagram, (a), and normal force diagram, (b), for stressribbon ‘cablestayed suspension’ bridge with steel edge beams under full and asymmetric loads.
Fig. 7 Bending moment diagram, (a), and normal force diagram, (b), for stressribbon ‘suspension’ bridge with steel edge beams under full and asymmetric loads.
Cable 
Cable 

Stayed 
Suspension 
Stayed 
Suspension 
Fig. 8 Bending moment diagrams for stressribbon ‘cablestayed suspension’ bridge, (a), and those for stressribbon ‘suspension’ bridge, (b), with cabletogirder distance, d, of 40 cm with and without central clamp (steel edge beams).
the ‘concrete edge beams’ were also examined in the same manner presented in section 3.1. The results are summarized in Fig. 10. Significant differences between Fig. 10 and Fig. 9 cannot be seen. It was found that the maximum combined stress in the edge beam due to bending moment, normal force and
prestressing force for the ‘cablestayed suspension’ bridge is below σ _{a} . While the maximum combined stress for the ‘suspension’ bridge, which is induced at the fixed end at the abutment, is above _{σ} _{a} , and therefore, a partial increase in the crosssectional area of the beam is necessary.
Fig. 9 Effects of central clamp and cabletogirder distance on maximum deflection, (a), and maximum bending moment, (b), for two kinds of bridge with ‘steel edge beams’.
4. Aerodynamic Characteristics and Static Loads
4.1 Flutter characteristics of earlier proposed stressribbon suspension bridge Fig. 11 shows the sample results of the wind tunnel model test for the ‘earlier proposed stressribbon suspension’ bridge. The crosssectional shapes of 2D models examined are the concrete girder and the opengrating steel girder with and without a rubber plate, Fig. 1(b) and 1(c). It was assumed that the symmetric 1 ^{s}^{t} mode in torsion and the symmetric 2 ^{n}^{d} mode in vertical bending shown in Fig. 12 are coupled.
The equivalent mass and the equivalent mass moment of inertia of the whole structure, the structural damping of δ = 0.02 as well as the frequency ratio of torsion to vertical bending, f _{T} /f _{B} , of 1.44 were simulated in the test. It was found that no flutter occurs for the steel deck without a rubber plate at the wind angles of attack, _{α}_{,} of 3, 0 and +3 deg. While, coupled bendingtorsion flutter occurs at the reduced critical flutter speed, V _{F}_{r} = V _{F} /(f _{T} B), of about 7 at these wind angles where B is the girder width. This reduced value corresponds to about 25 m/s for the fullscale bridge, far below the design speed. Therefore, the structure in Fig. 1(a) is the most
Fig. 12 Lower modes and frequencies of natural vibration for earlier developed stressribbon suspension bridge.
Vertical Bending
_{T}_{o}_{r}_{t}_{i}_{o}_{n}
Fig. 14 Lower modes and frequencies of natural vibration for stressribbon cablestayed suspension bridge with ‘steel edge girder’, (a), and those with ‘concrete edge girder’, (b).
Vertical Bending
_{T}_{o}_{r}_{t}_{i}_{o}_{n}
Sym. 1st 
Asym. 1st 
Sym. 2nd 
Asym. 2nd 
Sym. 1st 
Asym. 1st 
f = 0.71 
f = 079 
f = 1.03 
f = 1.04 
f = 1.10 
f = 1.31 
Fig. 15 Lower modes and frequencies of natural vibration for stressribbon suspension bridge with concrete edge girder.
aerodynamically stable only in the case where the ‘partial concrete’ girder is not used. The flutter characteristics of this ‘improved fullsteel’ structure are discussed below.
4.2
bridges
tunnel model test
results for the ‘stressribbon cablestayed suspension’ bridge with the concrete edge beams. It was assumed
Flutter
Fig. 13
characteristics
of
improved
hybrid
shows the 2D wind
that the symmetric 1 ^{s}^{t} mode in torsion and the symmetric 1 ^{s}^{t} mode in vertical bending shown in Fig. 14(b) are coupled. It is seen in Fig. 13 that V _{F}_{r} for this bridge is high enough: above 20 that corresponds to above 50 m/s for the fullscale bridge. Although the flutter characteristics of the ‘stressribbon suspension’ bridge in Fig. 2(b) have not yet been examined, it is expected that almost the same results in Fig. 13 may be obtained. Because there are no significant differences between the natural vibration
characteristics in the coupled modes for the ‘suspension’ structure shown in Fig. 15 and those for the ‘cablestayed suspension’ structure in Fig. 14.
4.3 Static wind loads
Static wind resistant design of the hybrid bridge is much less important. Because the open grating steel deck plate provides much smaller C _{L} and C _{M} than the conventional concrete stressribbon bridge girder with a semirectangular crosssection. Also C _{D} for the circular or semicircular edge beam of steel or concrete is much smaller as supercritical Re (Reynolds number) flow is formed on the beam in the fullscale bridge.
5. Application of Hybrid structures to Roadway
Bridges Application of the proposal to roadway bridges, that is the final goal of this study, is discussed in this section. As suggested in a previous paper [4], there are no significant differences between both the reduced mass and the reduced mass moment of inertia of steel suspension bridges for vehicle use and those for pedestrian use. This fact suggests that the vehicle bridge may be obtained by enlarging the pedestrian bridge in Fig. 2, for example, four times. The structural damping for these two can be assumed to be same. Therefore, if the vehicle bridge has nearly the same frequency ratio, Fig. 13 may be applicable to the vehicle bridge. The difference of Re effects on the response for these two is not significant as both are exposed to the flow in the range of super critical Re. If both have nearly the same Frude number, then V _{F} for
the vehicle bridge is about twice of the pedestrian bridge. Based on this consideration, there is feasibility that the proposal could be applicable to vehicle bridges.
6. Concluding Remarks
A preliminary design was made for the proposed ‘stressribbon cablestayed suspension’ and the ‘stressribbon suspension’ bridges for pedestrian use. The girder has either steel or prestressed concrete edge beam. Numerical analyses and wind tunnel 2D model studies were conducted, and it was found that the horizontal component of tensile force in the cables can be reduced up to onefourteenth of the conventional concrete stressribbon bridge, that the maximum deflection of the girder is controlled nearly below the allowable value, that the stresses in the cables and the edge beams are below the allowable value and that the critical flutter speed is expected to high enough. The application of the proposals for hybrid structures to
vehicle bridges was also discussed and there is feasibility that the proposal could be applicable to vehicle bridges.
References
1. Yoshimura, T. et al., Halfcircular and halfelliptic
edge modifications for increasing aerodynamic stability of stressribbon pedestrian bridges, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., Vol. 6971 (1997)
861870.
2. Mizuta, Y. et al., Proposal of a steel stressribbon pedestrian bridge and its mechanical characteristics, J. Structural Eng., JSCE, Vol. 43A (1997) 11911196.
3. Yoshimura, T. et al., Steel and hybrid stressribbon pedestrian bridges, Proc. IABSE Symp. Kobe Japan, Vol. 79 (1998) 329334.
4. Yoshimura, T. et al., Proposal of a hybrid stress ribbon pedestrian bridge for its application to roadway bridges, Proc. FIB Symp., Prague Czech Republic, Vol. 2 (1999) 697703.
5. Yoshimura, T. et al, Aerodynamic stability of proposed hybrid stressribbon bridges, Proc. 1st Int. Symp. Wind and structures, Cheju Korea, (2000) 153162.
6. Gimsing, N.J., Cable supported bridges, 2 ^{n}^{d} edition, John Wiley & Sons, 1998.
【 付記 】 著者の一人は，下記のとおり共著者の指導のもと で国外研修を行った．本文はその報告であり，受入 先のデンマーク工科大学にも提出できるよう英文 で取りまとめた．最後に，今回の研修を行うにあた り，本学の関係者諸氏に大変お世話になったことを 記し，厚くお礼申し上げる次第である．
記
1. 指導教授: Prof. Niels J. Gimsing
1. 研修先 : Dept. of Structures and Materials, Technical Univ. of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark
1. 研修期間: 2000 年 7 月 14 日~9 月 16 日
Much more than documents.
Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.
Cancel anytime.